Lords Sitting of 7 December 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  EMBASSY OFFICIAL AND FATAL ACCIDENT
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the recent case of a driver from the Yugoslav Embassy who killed a man, claimed diplomatic immunity and got it; and whether full reciprocity is granted in Yugoslavia to every person employed by the British Embassy regardless of grade or category.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the evidence given at the coroner's inquest into this unfortunate accident showed that the man in question fell from his motor-cycle while swerving to avoid a motor car driven by one of the chauffeurs at the Yugoslav Embassy. The car did not in fact touch him or his machine and a verdict of "accidental death" was returned. In view of these facts, I regret that the noble Lord should have framed the first part of his Question in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper. The name of the driver of the car is included in the list of persons officially regarded as entitled to claim diplomatic immunity, which is maintained in the Foreign Office under the Statute of Anne, but immunity was not, in fact, claimed by or on behalf of the driver at any time. On the instructions of the Yugoslav Ambassador, who gave every assistance in the investigation of the case, the driver, accompanied by an interpreter, attended the inquest but he was not called upon to give evidence.
  As regards the second part of the noble Lord's Question, in Yugoslavia the immunity of the diplomatic staff of Her
  1176
  Majesty's Embassy at Belgrade is recognised, but no immunity is conceded to members of the non-diplomatic staff or to servants. The Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Bill, which will shortly come before your Lordships' House will, if enacted, make it possible for personal diplomatic immunity to be withdrawn from members of the staff of foreign diplomatic missions in London to the extent that it is not conceded to the staffs of Her Majesty's diplomatic missions abroad.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am very much relieved by the Answer of the noble Marquess. I would add that I am still glad that I asked the Question, which was based on reports freely current in the Press. I hope that the Answer will now dissipate what might have been an extremely unfortunate misunderstanding.

BUXTON MEMORIAL DRINKING FOUNTAIN PROPOSAL
2.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not think it is necessary for me to delay the House for more than a few minutes in explaining the purpose and intention of this Motion. Noble Lords will recall that during the passage through Parliament of the Parliament Square (Improvements) Act, 1949, the late Lord Simon moved an Amendment, which was accepted by this House, which laid down that if the Buxton Memorial Fountain was to be erected anywhere other than in Parliament Square an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament would be required. As your Lordships are aware, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works has now proposed, subject to the approval of Parliament, to erect this fountain at the southern end of the Victoria Tower Gardens. That is the whole purpose of this Motion and, as I feel that many noble Lords will recall the discussion which took place in 1949, I would formally beg to move the Motion.
Moved, That the Buxton Memorial Drinking Fountain Proposal, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd of November last, be approved.—(The Earl of Monster.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Motion—indeed, I suppose it is inevitable—but having taken part in the discussion in 1949 I should just like to say a few words. In the first place, I think it essential that Mr. Buxton and the others who worked with him for the abolition of the slave trade should have a memorial, if anybody should, for the noble work which they did. But having said that, I personally very much regret that this particular memorial has to be put up. I have never heard anybody say that there was anything whatever to be said for it from the æsthetic point of view, and I cannot think that anybody could tolerate it for a moment. The late Mr. George Moore used to say what a good thing it would be if, when we had statues to commemorate famous men, we pulled them down to commemorate equally famous men. A plaque would be erected to commemorate so-and-so, and would be pulled down to commemorate someone else. I think there is a great deal to be said for that as a general proposition.
In this case, is it too late to hope that, although this memorial must be erected, the Royal Fine Art Commission might be asked whether anything can be done to make the statue appear less horrible æsthetically? I should be grateful if something could be done to avoid this blot—for I can only call it a blot—on the London landscape. The late Lord Simon was interested in it because, from the historical point of view, he used to call attention to the fact that Mr. Gladstone, on his way back to the House of Commons, would stop at the fountain, where it then was, to have a drink of water. He would never have stopped in the Victoria Tower Gardens to have a drink of water. Therefore, it seems to me that the matter should be considered from that point of view. I am not opposing the Motion in any way but, speaking purely personally, I should like to ask whether anything can be done by the Royal Fine Art Commission, or some such body, to render the fountain less disagreeable than it used to be.
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I find it rather surprising that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, should lay down so confidently that this Memorial Fountain is ugly. He must have some standard of judgment unknown to me,
1178
and I should not have suspected him of it, as he has hanging upon the walls of his House many pictures which he and I think very lovely, but which previous generations would have castigated in the very terms which he has been using about this Memorial Fountain. Perhaps he will impart it to me, for I have given many years of careful study to the arts and have never found an infallible and unchangeable standard of æsthetic value that is independent of time and fashion.
I was recently reading in a Trollope novel a passage in which the author takes it for granted that anybody buying a Queen Anne house would at once, owing to the fact that it was such a debased ugly and uncomfortable style, have to alter it into "good modern Victorian." During my lifetime I have watched what I may call the date of appreciation advance to cover many previously despised styles and periods, such as Regency and Gothic revival. The noble Earl, Lord Rosse, has a Gothic saloon at Birr Castle which about ten or fifteen years ago was considered the lowest possible taste, but which is now considered one of the most beautiful rooms in Ireland. The National Trust have acquired the immense Victorian-Norman castle at Penrhyn; and even the Albert Memorial and St. Pancras station, which, like the noble and learned Earl, I was brought up to consider to be hideous, have come into favour; and I have no doubt that it will not be long before this fountain of 1865, which is already admired by Mr. John Betjeman, will look different even in the eyes of the noble and learned Earl, if he lives long enough to see it.
What is the alternative—to build a memorial of our own, in these modern times which, to me, have all the appearance of a period of bad taste? Is the noble Earl so confident of our ability to produce a beautiful object? Has he looked round and found proof that we can do so? It seems to me that, whatever memorial we put up in place of this monument, it would probably be considered monstrous before twenty years have passed. Surely, then, if there are no rules, and we are in an atmosphere of doubt and difficulty, it is better to retain what was put up by those who wished to commemorate with an enduring monument the abolition of slavery. Personally,

1179
I congratulate the courage of the Minister of Works and the wisdom of his decision.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the work of Samuel Sanders Teulon, who was the architect of the fountain which is being discussed to-day, has suffered much through changing ideas of taste. As a matter of fact, he was, I think, one of the most original of the Victorian architects, and it seems to me sad that so many of his works have perished, such as the churches of St. Thomas, Agartown, a great church just north of St. Pancras; St. Andrew, Stamford Street, beyond Blackfriars Bridge, which was completely destroyed in the war; and St. Stephen's, Haverstock Hill, which, with its massive and unusual tower, as many of your Lordships may know, survives. I welcome the opportunity to show some belated respect to his memory by the re-erection of this fountain, which he designed in collaboration with Mr. Charles Buxton. I do not agree that it could be described as ugly—appallingly ugly, I think the noble and learned Earl called it. The adjectives that I would apply to it would be "gay, elegant, fanciful and unforbidding"—a great contrast to much of the State sculpture. If it is re-erected where proposed, it will be a foil to Blomfield's obelisks on Lambeth Bridge and a delightful terminal feature at the end of the street that leads from St. John's Church, Westminster. I think it is a brilliant idea to place it where shown on the model which many of your Lordships may have seen, and I welcome the proposal that it should be re-erected exactly as it was, including the bright coloured tiles on the roof which were such a feature of the old fountain.
2.48 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, partly to indicate that this is not just a Party question, I should like to support the noble and learned Earl who spoke from the Front Bench on my left. The noble Viscount behind me asked why we should replace this monument by something contemporary of our day. My reply to that is, "Why indeed should we?" After all, the fountain is not contemporary of the day of Buxton himself who, with Wilberforce, did his great work in the
1180
reign of George III. Why, then, should he be commemorated by a monument typical of the architecture of 1865?
It is argued that because of his great work he must have a monument near the Houses of Parliament. That point is set out strongly by the Antislavery Society whose ideals we all applaud. But there is already a monument to this gentleman quite near the Houses of Parliament in the North Aisle of Westminster Abbey, where he and Wilberforce have life-sized, and possibly more than life-sized, statues of themselves, with their work set out in the rather elaborate periods of that time. I trust that it will go on record that some of us admirers of Buxton do not favour putting this pink rococo wedding cake down in the quiet, peaceful green and grey of Victoria Tower Gardens.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is quite apparent, from the brief debate which your Lordships have had upon the Motion which stands in my name, that noble Lords in all parts of the House are of the opinion that this monument should be re-erected to record the great work of Mr. Buxton and others associated with him in the early part of the last century. I have no desire whatever to enter into the quarrel, if I may use the word, between the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, except to say this to the noble and learned Earl: that I doubt whether, with all the skill and devotion of the permanent officials of the Ministry of Works, my right honourable friend, or indeed the Royal Fine Art Commission could make this ugly, hideous erection more beautiful or attractive than it already is. Much could be said for employing a sledge hammer to obliterate this monument once and for all from the eyes and the sight of the younger generation, but I am not proposing that to your Lordships to-day. What I am proposing is the Motion in my name, which asks the House to approve that this monument, however it might be described, should be re-erected in the Victoria Tower Gardens for the benefit of all the people of the British Isles.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS, 1955
2.52 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to move that the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 2nd of November last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships are well aware, the law regarding the speed limits of motor vehicles is extremely complicated. No one would deny that it contains some anomalies. The object of the Regulations for which I ask your Lordships' approval to-clay is to remove one anomaly. We are dealing here with dual-purpose vehicles of the shooting-brake type and the four-wheel-drive Land Rover type. The history of the speed limits applicable to this type of vehicle is tortuous and anomalous, and I will not attempt to weary your Lordships by a recital of it. The position at the moment is that, by decisions of the courts in 1952, these vehicles are subject to a 30 m.p.h. speed limit while carrying goods, but are free of limit when not carrying goods. This is anomalous and makes enforcement very difficult.
By these Regulations these vehicles become free of all vehicle speed limits whether or not they are carrying goods. We have had to draw up a definition of "dual-purpose vehicle" which would include all the recognised shooting-brake type of vehicles, as well as the Land Rover type. The definition lays down that the vehicle must have a permanent roof; windows, fixed or folding; transverse seats; that at least one-third of the distance between the steering wheel and the back of the floor should be occupied by seats; that it is of not more than two tons unladen weight; and (by reference back to the Road Traffic Act 1934) is to carry not more than seven passengers, excluding the driver. In addition, we bring in the Land Rover type, which has not a permanent roof, by including vehicles with a four-wheel drive. We are satisfied that these definitions will embrace all recognised types of genuine passenger car adaptable for carrying goods. They have been discussed with the various interests concerned. We do not pretend that these Regulations remove all the anomalies in the speed limit law, but the removal of one of them is a step in
1182
the right direction. The Regulations were approved in another place without debate, and the Special Orders Committee have given the opinion that they can be passed by your Lordships' House without special attention. Accordingly I ask your Lordships to approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 2nd November last be approved.—[Lord Hawke.]
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord had to call to his aid the fact that the Special Orders Committee thought these Regulations could be approved without having special attention drawn to them, and that they passed through another place without debate. Your Lordships will very likely have the most pleasant recollection that on one of the two memorable occasions when this subject was discussed during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill through your Lordships' House, your Lordships supported me in the Division Lobby against the Government and put this provision into the Road Traffic Bill. Unhappily, that Bill was lost, and the new Bill that was introduced into another place not long ago did not contain this provision. So the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, comes to your Lordships' House this afternoon asking your Lordships to approve, by regulation, of something which your Lordships determined at that time should be put in the Statute.
Let me say straight away that I think the Government have made rather a better job of this Regulation than I did of the Amendment that I persuaded your Lordships to pass in this House. I thought perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would move up one or two places: I could see the glint of battle in his eye, for he and I had the most wordy, though pleasant, argument about this matter across the Floor of the House. As the noble Lord has said, this matter is one of the most difficult things to determine. The limit relates to a vehicle which can be used for two purposes: one, the purpose of a motor car and, two, the purpose of a goods-carrying vehicle. I always sympathise with the Government when they try to get a clear-cut definition that will clear up all the anomalies, and there have been many. As the noble Lord will

1183
recollect, in the past they put the police of this country into an impossible position. The law was interpreted in different ways. It meant that the good citizens of this country in some counties paid thousands and thousands of pounds in fines for exceeding the speed limit for a goods-carrying vehicle—which is 30 m.p.h.—when driving a dual-purpose vehicle and not carrying goods. And yet in another county where the chief constable regarded a dual-purpose vehicle as a motor car, they were let off "scot-free." I congratulate the Government. I think they have done a good job of work here, but have they not really gone back and caused even more anomalies than the old Act contained?
I want the noble Lord to tell your Lordships quite plainly and, through your Lordships' House, the thousands of owners of dual-purpose vehicles in this country, just where they stand. The noble Lord quite rightly said that these Regulations went through another place without debate. He should have told your Lordships that it was at half-past eleven at night, which perhaps accounts for that fact. I do not suppose many of your Lordships have armed yourselves with a copy of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has. In the First Schedule to that Act we have a definition of passenger-carrying vehicles, that is to say, vehicles
"constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects."
The noble Lord, by this Regulation, seeks to include the words
"but including dual-purpose vehicles,"
so by this Regulation he at once establishes the fact that the dual-purpose vehicle is in future a private motor car, a passenger-carrying private motor car. Then the Schedule continues with the definition of "goods vehicles," that is to say, vehicles
"constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description."
The noble Lord now seeks to add:
"but excluding dual-purpose vehicles."
I construe that to mean that at the present time a dual-purpose vehicle can be used as a passenger vehicle and for carrying burden or goods of any description, whether it is in the course of trade or business, whether it is for the purpose of the
1184
owner of the vehicle, whether it is the doctor's little black bag, or the tradesman's samples—in fact, it can be used as a goods vehicle but it is subject only to the speed limit restriction which is applicable to a motor car.
I am certain in my own mind that the noble Lord does not really mean that. I feel certain that alongside this Regulation he should have tabled another Regulation, or will have to admit that he proposes to do so at some distant date, to the effect that when this dual-purpose vehicle is carrying goods for hire or reward or in the course of a trade or business, it will be subject to the same speed limit regulations as a goods-carrying vehicle. I accept that under the existing Regulations of 1951 the doctor, the veterinary surgeon and the district nurse, can all carry their instruments in one of these utility vehicles and not be subject to prosecution because they are travelling at over 30 m.p.h. in a vehicle which is carrying goods in the course of their trade or business.
I ask what is the position of the police in the meantime. Are they to issue a summons in regard to people who are carrying goods for hire or reward in dual-purpose vehicles? The noble Lord seeks to say, in a definition of a "goods vehicles":
"that is to say, vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, but excluding dual-purpose vehicles."
I think I am only doing my duty in asking the noble Lord to elucidate this point, for the sake of the 70,000-odd owners of these vehicles in this country who, until the noble Lord brings further Regulations before your Lordships, will now want to know where they stand in the eyes of the law. Apart from that matter, I commend this definition; I think it is excellent. I have no complaint whatsoever about it. I think it is a better definition of a utility vehicle than I submitted to your Lordships during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill. But, in my view, for some reason or another, only half the job has been done, and the poor, unfortunate owner of one of these vehicles is now in a vacuum—he does not know, for the purpose of speed limit regulations, whether he is driving a goods vehicle or a private motor car. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Would the noble Lord clarify my mind on this subject? Would he tell us what licence the driver will be driving under when he is driving a dual-purpose vehicle for hire or reward?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a great compliment to ask me the question; perhaps the noble Marquess should ask the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. But I think it is a carrier's licence. Any vehicle carrying goods for hire or reward has to have a carrier's licence which, ipso facto, brings the vehicle under the speed limit regulations for a goods-carrying vehicle. But the Regulation which the noble Lord wishes your Lordships to pass, says that a goods vehicle shall be determined as one which is used
"for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, but excluding a dual purpose vehicle."
I can only think that what this Regulation means is that immediately your Lordships agree to the Regulation, a dual-purpose vehicle will not need a carrier's licence; that you can carry goods for hire or reward, you can do what you like with it, and it is a passenger vehicle. I do not think the Government mean that. I want to know what they do mean.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Thank you very much. That is exactly the point I wanted the noble Lord to clarify.
3.7 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I will try to clarify this matter, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is well aware, the law is not too easy in these matters. In the last twenty-five years, by High Court judgments, the law that Parliament thought was the existing law proved not to be so. If I can explain it in this way it may be made clear. At present any light goods vehicle, including a dual-purpose vehicle, has a double speed limit, by High Court judgment. When it is empty t has no speed limit; when it is full it has a 30 m.p.h. limit. This Regulation abolishes that limit for this new category of dual-purpose vehicles, but it does not affect the C licence vehicles at all—that is, the other goods vehicles. A Bill is passing through another place at the moment which seeks to restore the original position of the light goods vehicle as being subject to 30 m.p.h., but it will not impose that
1186
30 m.p.h. on the dual-purpose vehicles. So, as I understand it, a dual-purpose vehicle carrying goods for the owner, and not for hire or reward, not for the purpose of a business or profession, will have no speed limit at all. On the other hand, if the owner is operating it as a vehicle normally C licensed, I understand that he will have to have a C licence and he will then come under the C licence regulations, in regard to which, as I said before, there remains a gap at the moment. The High Court judgment of 1952 in regard to C licences still stands. The dual-purpose vehicle has the dual position: empty, free; full, 30 m.p.h. As I understand it, that will apply to the dual-purpose vehicle if the owner's trade, or whatever it is, compels him to take out a C licence.
3.9 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not know whether under the Rules of Order I have to ask your Lordships' permission to speak again, and whether I have a right of reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. But what the noble Lord has just said is precisely what I thought.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): If the noble Lord is asking me about the Rules of Order, I must assure him that he cannot speak again unless he gets the leave of the House to do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Well, I thought I had the leave of the House from the fact that I heard no dissenting voices. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has confirmed what I thought. I quite agree that anybody who carries goods for hire or reward in any vehicle must have a carrier's licence. What this Regulation really seeks to do is to keep that unaltered but to make the individual immune from any prosecution under the speed limit laws of this country until the Bill just mentioned by the noble Lord and now passing through another place becomes the law of this country.
LORD HAWKE: I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord aright. If Mr. X is using one of these vehicles for a purpose for which he requires a C licence and is carrying goods, running fully laden, he is subject to the thirty miles limit and can be prosecuted. It is only if the vehicle is empty that he is clear of the limit.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive me, that is not what this Regulation says. If your Lordships will turn the Regulation over you will see the explanatory note. The noble Lord says that in future the definition of goods vehicles shall be vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description. The noble Lord now adds to that
"but excluding dual purpose vehicles."
So that in future no dual purpose vehicle can be classified as a goods carrying vehicle; it is a private motor car, and private cars do not need a C licence. Therefore any goods can now be carried, for any purpose whatsoever, in a private motor car. You could always do that; you could carry what you liked in your own private motor car. As the dual purpose vehicle is a private motor car, the law as regards commercial vehicles cannot obtain until Her Majesty's Government—either by the Road Traffic Bill which is passing through another place or by additional regulation—bring into that definition a dual purpose vehicle which is carrying goods for hire or reward. I believe that the public who own these vehicles had better know the fact and chief constables in the country had better be fully aware that until the new Regulation and/or the Act is brought forward they remain in the same unfortunate dilemma in which they were in 1946. I am not trying to be awkward but I want Her Majesty's Government to tell the country where it stands.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify one point? Until the noble Lord, by leave of the House, made a second speech, I understood that a dual purpose vehicle was governed by the ordinary dual purpose law: as a privately owned vehicle, used for your own purpose, or if you wished to carry goods for hire or reward, as a vehicle needing a C licence. But part of the time you may be carrying your own pig in your dual-purpose vehicle and part of the time carrying the noble Lord's pig in that same vehicle. When you are carrying your own pig you are using it as a dual-purpose goods vehicle for your own purposes, but when you are carrying the noble Lord's pig you become a common carrier and, therefore, subject to a C licence. What is the position if I own one of these vehicles
1188
and get a C licence to enable me to carry other people's goods for hire or reward? The noble Lord in charge shakes his head. I gather that the noble Lord is right and that you can do whatever you like with a dual purpose vehicle and override the general C licence.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I intervene? I believe that the noble Lord has got on the wrong trail. With a C licence you can carry only your own goods.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Then the position seems much more obscure and I simply do not understand it. I had thought that a dual-purpose vehicle was something used for two purposes, like the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Minister of Materials—that is, he is a general worker. What is the position? It seems to me to be completely nonsensical. If I may not carry my own goods without having a C licence, where does the dual-purpose come in? I am completely barred from any dual-purpose right because I am doing what I should have thought was the elementary object of a dual-purpose vehicle, either to carry myself on my own joy ride or to carry my goods on my lawful occasion. Most noble Lords own these vehicles and I certainly had no idea that I was under so many potential condemnations.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord is allowed to speak only once in a debate. The House quite properly allowed him to speak again, but there are certain limitations, and perhaps some noble friend of his on the Opposition Front Bench could deputise for him on this occasion.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): A dual-purpose vehicle is one for carrying goods and passengers. That is its dual purpose. I understand that all the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is doing is to remove from the speed limit certain dual-purpose vehicles which are defined in the orders. If the noble Lord wishes to carry other people's goods as well as his own, then of course he needs a B licence.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am not going to speak again, but that

1189
is not the point. With the permission of the Minister and the leave of the House I will ask a question. I do not want to carry anyone else's goods but I do want to carry my own goods. In order to do so (and, of course, dual-purpose vehicles were designed for the purpose of carrying myself and a fellow passenger or goods) do I need a C licence?
LORD HAWKE: Yes, the noble Earl will need a C licence if he is engaged in carrying goods for trade purposes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But not with a dual-purpose vehicle.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Apparently this is a triple-purpose vehicle.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would it not be better to adjourn the passing of this Regulation until the House is clearer in its mind as to what is being done? I have heard this discussion and I must confess that I could not approve of the Regulation with complete certainty as to the position. We do not object to what we believe to be the principle of the Regulation, but there seems to be a considerable element of doubt, and if we could consider the matter within the course of the next day or two in the light of a clearer explanation, that would be much more satisfactory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was not here at the beginning of this important discussion but I believe I understand what has happened. I am not in a position to give an authoritative ruling, and in view of the fact that there still seems considerable bewilderment in the House it would perhaps be better if we looked at this matter further. I do not mean to suggest that Her Majesty's Government propose to alter the attitude which they have taken up, but we will look at it so that noble Lords may have a fuller explanation. My difficulty is that if we delay, then Parliamentary time is taken up. It would perhaps be fair that the House should have some further explanation, as there are, on both sides of the House, noble Lords who seem to be not completely clear as to the exact effect of the Regulation. We will make that absolutely clear. With the agreement of noble Lords we shall return and give an explanation, when I hope it may be possible formally to pass the Regulation. I therefore move that the debate on the Regulation be adjourned.
Moved, that the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

DRAFT INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION ORDER, 1955
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK rose to move that the Draft International Finance Corporation Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on November 23 last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Order is made under the International Finance Corporation Act, 1955, and in particular under Section 3 (1) of that Act. The Articles of Agreement were before Parliament when this Act was approved. This Corporation has a standing entirely of its own; it is an affiliate of the International Bank, which I think most people agree is one of the most successful of international organisations which have been set up in recent times.
The International Bank is composed of fifty-eight different members, each of which is an independent sovereign State. The initial subscription to the Bank is public money, and so will be the initial subscription to the International Finance Corporation if and when it comes into operation. It was on account of its close association with the International Bank, which was brought into being by the Bretton Woods Agreement, that in deciding on its status the members drew up Articles of Agreement on very similar lines to those which already exist for the Bank. I think this is desirable, partly because the Articles of the Bank have worked quite well during the last ten years and also because it avoids confusion if an affiliate working closely with the Bank is constructed on very much the same lines. Indeed, on some occasions the staffs of these two organisations may overlap.
As the Special Orders Committee have pointed out, the Order in Council is drafted on very similar lines to that which followed the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1945, and indeed we have deliberately followed that precedent very closely. This has already existed for ten years and so far as we know has given rise to no difficulties. The Special Orders Committee have said that some of the Sections appear

1191
to them to be obscure. I would say straight away that some of the provisions of the Agreement which are reproduced in the Schedule are unusual in the context of our own practice. But I think there are here two considerations which should be borne in mind. First, this is a Corporation which may operate in the countries of all or any of its fifty-eight potential members, and not only is the Agreement designed to free the Corporation from existing restrictions but it endeavours to anticipate what future restrictions may be. Secondly, this Order will also have effect throughout the colonial territories. I am advised that if any attempt were made to translate these provisions into terms exclusively familiar to English law and practice it might lead to ambiguities and confusion in some parts of those territories where other systems are operated. In any case there are some advantages in having a standard code which is recognised throughout all the areas in which the Corporation may operate.
I will now deal with the specific points which have been raised by the Special Orders Committee. I should like first to refer to Section 3. The Special Orders Committee says that this is obscure. It relates to the status of the Corporation in regard to legal actions. I think that possibly the only sentence here which is likely to be obscure is the middle one, which says:
"No action shall be brought by members or persons acting for or deriving claims from members."
"Members" here, of course, means member Governments. It is felt undesirable that sovereign countries should sue the Corporation in a court of law, or that there should be actions at law between sovereign countries and the Corporation itself. The view is taken that any disagreements which arise should be settled by other means than resort to law. In particular, Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement lays down two procedures which can be used for resolving any disputes. It may also be noted in the last sentence of Section 3 that, unlike some international organisations, this organisation is not to be free from seizure, attachment or execution except in so far as such seizure may arise under an interlocutory order. Execution can be secured in cases of final order. Section 6 is drawn in pretty wide terms, but I think it must be
1192
remembered that the Corporation may operate in a large number of different countries in which conditions, political and otherwise, may differ a great deal.
I should like also to draw attention to the first few words of Section 6. It emphasises that the operation of the Section is entirely controlled by the first sentence
"to the extent necessary to carry out the operations."
Therefore the last part of the words, which are drawn fairly wide, are entirely subordinate to these first requirements. I think it may be worth emphasising at this point that the Corporation is purely a finance organisation; it will not of itself carry out any works at all. Works, presumably; will be done by contractors who will presumably contract with the promoting company, which in turn will be financed by the Corporation. So there is no question here of getting round any local restrictions about building licences or planning control or anything of that kind, because the operating company itself will not have the advantage of Section 6. The people who will be carrying out work will not have the freedom given to the Corporation under Section 6.
Section 9 (b) lays down that taxes will not be levied on the salaries and emoluments of employees of the Corporation except in so far as they are local citizens or local nationals. That means that any citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies employed in this country, or indeed any of the colonial territories, would pay the appropriate rates of income tax under the same conditions as he does at present. If however he were employed in, for instance, the United States of America, he would be free of United States taxes, but he would not be free by virtue of this section from payment of United Kingdom taxes. It is perhaps worth noting that quite a number of international organisations grant a much wider exemption from taxation than is here envisaged.
The next section referred to in the Report is Section 9 (c) (ii). This is to meet a situation which I confess is exceedingly unlikely to happen in this country. It envisages the possibility of a tax being placed on obligations or securities issued by the Corporation simply because they are issued in a certain place or in a certain currency. This would not affect us, since in the ordinary course we tax residents of this island because they are

1193
residents and not because of the place or the currency in which any security is issued. Suppose a security were issued in London to an American citizen, we should not for that reason take a "rake-off." In fact we do not raise taxes of that character at all. The next point arises with regard to Section 9 (d) (ii). Here the same general position applies. Securities guaranteed by the Corporation are not subject to tax simply because the Corporation happen to have an office in a certain country.
The only other point which is referred to by the Committee relates to Section 4, in which it says that this section purports to limit the legislative power of Parliament. This, of course, is not so, because nothing would limit the legislative power of Parliament. If Parliament were to legislate in this country contrary to the terms of these Articles of Agreement, then we should be prevented from carrying out the terms of the Agreement into which we desire to enter and the Act which Parliament passed in July would be frustrated. And if in the future we ever legislated contrary to this provision, or indeed any other provision, then the Government would be in breach of an international agreement. But, as I have said, there is no restriction on what Parliament can do. I think it is important to remember that this Corporation deals in the first instance with public money, and secondly, that the directors are in fact representatives of sovereign Governments; and the general conditions laid clown here are what are considered the minimum essential for a Corporation which has to operate almost by definition in many of the under-developed countries in the world. It must ensure for itself reasonable freedom of action in those circumstances. I hope that this explanation will satisfy your Lordships that this is a reasonable way in which to meet our obligations under the Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corportion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft International Finance Corporation Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd of November last, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must confess that had I known that there was quite so much of importance in this Order as
1194
to require such a long and detailed explanation as that which the noble Earl has so courteously given, I should have taken pains to study the Order more closely before the House met to-day. But I am a little anxious as to whether or net your Lordships' House have any jurisdiction in the matter. Although the Order deals generally with diplomatic privileges between nations on matters contained in the Act, the question arises of how far the Treasury are to relieve certain items from taxation. I take it that this Order is being introduced into both Houses simultaneously and is being introduced in another place to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it is to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In dealing with such a mixture of finance sod diplomatic immunities and privileges I think it is important that any Order should be introduced in another place first, otherwise some of my colleagues might be criticised for what they have to say about it. But if the Order has been introduced in both Houses simultaneously, we do not desire to raise any further question upon it. I am sure the noble Earl has observed during the last few days the notice which the Press has taken of the general question of diplomatic immunities, especially those affecting customs and taxation. I think the Special Orders Committee have done right in drawing the attention of the House to particular sections, In case we have any more major legislation on diplomatic immunities later on, I shall take care to study the noble Earl's speech and consider more deeply what is involved in this Order, as well as in the general question of diplomatic immunities.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl to elucidate one point. He referred to taxation: is that a reference to income tax or to estate duty, or to both?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, first, the reference to taxation would not relieve of estate duty anybody who is resident in this country. All that it provides is that if an employee of a corporation other than a local national is employed in this country, he will not be subject to United Kingdom income tax. It is exceedingly

1195
improbable that any will be employed in this country, and I do not think there is any need to be particularly concerned about it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Earl also referred to the exemption of securities, as well as employees, from taxation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Only in so far as tax has been levied at the point of issue. It is not something we do in this country and it is unlikely that we shall ever do it. But supposing that a loan was raised in Ruritania (I use that deliberately as a mythical place), we feel that it would be wrong for the Government of Ruritania to levy a tax on what is really public funds from another country solely because they were going to be invested in Ruritania. I do not think that this point would affect us in this country in any way.
In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, first of all, the terms of the agreement have been before the House since July and anyone who was concerned could have looked at them and seen exactly what is involved. Secondly, the immunities here are pretty narrowly drawn. In particular, I would refer the noble Viscount to the immunity in regard to suing and being sued under Section 8, which says:
"All Governors, Directors, Alternates, officers and employees of the Corporation:
(i) shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity …"
I think the noble Viscount will agree that that is much narrower than the provision in a number of other diplomatic immunities measures which have come before the House in recent times. I do not think that the reliefs from taxation given here are of importance from the Treasury point of view. The noble Viscount will notice that provision is also made to restrict the subsequent disposal of anything purchased in this country free of customs duty. Anything bought in this country and sold subsequently becomes liable for custom duty. We have made inquiries about this point, and so far as we can see all the Corporation would need would be a few pieces of office furniture which they would probably buy locally. So
1196
that there is little question of taxation. In regard to another place, if they turn this Order down, they turn it down. They are perfectly free to do so. The fact that we may have passed it does not prevent them from turning it down if they want to do so. For the reasons I have stated, I hope that the House will agree to the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER, 1955
3.38 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Order does not differ in any important respect from that which your Lordships approved about this time last year. Such minor changes as there are have been agreed between the trade associations, trade unions and employers' associations concerned, and have given rise to no point of controversy. Accordingly, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved That the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd of November last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
3.39 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to recommend that the control and safe custody of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons should be transferred to the United Nations; and to move for Papers. The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, the Motion before the House this afternoon might seem a little Utopian in character to many of your Lordships—perhaps it does a little to myself—but it is a solution which I have not seen previously discussed and which I think merits some consideration. At the end of the Japanese war I had an opportunity of visiting Hiroshima, the first place on which the anger of an atomic bomb descended, and there was a city of 100.000

1197
people razed to the ground. There was standing on the outskirts one concrete building which happened to be a hospital, and in that were still patients suffering from the radioactivity of a year before. Many of us have seen films and pictures of atomic explosions at a distance, but I can assure your Lordships that if you were to see these ruins, it would be a sight which you would never forget. Since that date eleven years have passed and nothing has happened except the making of "bigger and better bangs," and more of them, for the destruction of mankind.
At the time those bombs were dropped on Japan, the war against Japan had already been won. The naval blockade had cut off supplies of raw materials to Japan, a thing always liable to happen to an island Power. But what those two bombs did was to stop the war like a wave of the hand. At that time we were just about to mount the invasion of Japan itself. I remember Admiral Nimitz saying to me how fearful he was of the casualties that were going to arise from that operation, because I feel sure that the Japanese would have fought under their Emperor to the last man, if it had not been for those two bombs, and I think the invasion might have cost millions of lives. The two points I should like to make are that the possession of the bomb is undoubtedly proved by facts to be a deterrent to war and secondly, that the threat of the use of the bomb might save millions of lives.
In the predicament we are in to-day it seems to me that there are three possible solutions. The first solution is what we are doing now—that is to say, nothing. It is probably the easiest, the most dangerous and the most expensive solution. I am sure your Lordships will remember the two or three days before the declaration of the last war. To-day the heads of States will have to make a most terrible decision; they will have to decide whether to launch the attack so as to try to cripple the enemy before he can retaliate, or to take a risk and hold on, to stop the world from destruction. That is the first solution, and that is the frightful decision which heads of Governments to-day will have to take if tension increases. The second solution is one for which efforts are being made now: that is to say, to abolish the bomb and at the
1198
same time limit conventional armaments. If you abolish the bomb, you do away with the deterrent to war; but how do you impose a penalty if somebody is dishonest enough to keep a few bombs back? That has been one of the stumbling blocks, the other being the great difficulty of limiting conventional weapons. Again, your Lordships will remember that between the wars we tried to do that—for example, by fixing a maximum tonnage for warships. There were several countries who entirely disregarded that limitation—the Germans were one—and they were undetected.
I come now to the third solution, which is the one I am proposing to-day. I should like to elaborate it into the plan, the operation and the inspection. First of all, the plan—and, of course, safe custody is of maximum importance. First, you destroy all the atomic bombs in the world except about (shall I say?) 300 or 400, and these you divide into three or four parts and stow them in what I have termed inaccessible places. By an inaccessible place I mean somewhere where, when you have stowed them away, you cannot get them out again for at leas) a month. First, such a place must be far from the sea, so that there cannot be a naval raid to capture it; secondly, it must be far from any aircraft landing grounds, so that an aircraft cannot whisk one away in the night; and thirdly, the bombs must be in underground storage, so as to be free from conventional bombing. I can think of three or four places like that in the world to-day. I would quote three: half way up Mount Everest, the Sahara Desert and Basutoland. Each of those places meets the requirements. Those places would be under international guard supplied by the Security Council. I believe that that plan for safe custody is what in the Navy we should call foolproof.
I come now to operations. I would define aggression in two ways: first, minor aggression, in which I would include the alteration of the status quo by force; and secondly, major aggression, which is the mobilisation of a great Power. In the first case the aggrieved Power would have authority to resist with all the forces at their command, until the Security Council came to some decision. If the Security Council's advice was not followed, then consideration would be given to taking out an atom bomb. In

1199
the second case, that of major aggression, the mobilisation of a great Power, immediate action would be taken under the Security Council to mobilise the whole 300 or 400 atomic bombs. With that scheme of operating the bomb, it would be necessary to keep conventional forces, first, to maintain law and order, and secondly, to cover the gap between the time when the bomb could be brought into action and the outbreak of war. So we should want our conventional forces—we might be able to reduce them—and we should keep N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact until experience had been gained under those conditions. The third thing required for operations would be an international air force to operate the bombs if they were so ordered by the United Nations.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Would there be a power of veto in the Security Council?
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: I was just about to say that. In relation to both these points, and these points alone, the decision would have to be by a two-thirds majority and the power to veto would have to go—and I myself think that two-thirds of the world is sane.
Now I come to control and inspection. This, of course, has been a difficulty in the past, but in this case all that would be required would be a small body of Service officers and scientists. They would have to be in each country, and they would have power to go anywhere, at any time, without notice. It must be remembered that they would be looking only for atomic bombs and not bothering about conventional weapons. The difference between this and the other schemes is that if a nation is "bowled out" hiding some bombs, a most terrible penalty will fall on that nation, because there are the 300 or 400 atomic bombs stowed away ready to be used if any nation is dishonest. So control and inspection, to my mind, is greatly simplified on those lines.
I should now like to say what I think are the advantages of these proposals. First of all, for the first time in history the United Nations would have a powerful force behind it to enforce its decisions; and surely any body which wants to keep law and order must have a force behind it. Secondly, I think the fear and
1200
tension in the world would be either removed or greatly reduced if we could get away from this horrible idea of the possibility of an atomic Pearl Harbour—and this plan would definitely remove that frightful fear. Thirdly, the difficulties of the control and inspection of conventional weapons would disappear, since inspection would be limited to atomic bombs. Fourthly, no further development of atomic bombs would be necessary, and no further expense would be incurred—and I suppose the countries of the world are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on that. No further development would be necessary, and all our atomic manpower, brainpower and material could go into peaceable energy. Next, there would be no further objection, to my mind, to any country joining the United Nations. There should be no further restrictions necessary on trade in strategic materials. This arrangement, I should imagine, would lead to the withdrawal of troops from Germany, and German rearmament would become of less importance.
Those are very great prizes because, in addition—I have not liked to say so—I imagine that National Service could be reduced to twelve months or six months. The question of agreement between the Powers, which, of course, is the whole stumbling block in most matters. I do not think arises at this moment, because you have first to ask: "Is it a practical sort of plan? If it is, shall we try for agreement? If it is not, the best thing to do is to consign it to the waste paper basket." I am afraid I have not this afternoon tabulated the difficulties and disadvantages, because I have always found that, in the first place, the author thinks that his own plan is the most wonderful thing in the world; and, in the second place, there are always many who will find out all the disadvantages and difficulties for you, and it saves you a lot of work. I beg to move for Papers.
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken on a question which is filling the hearts and thoughts of people all over the world. We in this country have taken a decision in the last few days not to stop making the thermo-nuclear bomb, and have refused to undertake not to have more explosions.

1201
The general thought of the common peoples of the world has been greatly moved by the evidence lately published in Japan that the explosions which have recently taken place, coming on top of those which occurred some years ago during the first trials, are to-day filling the rain over Japan with material dangerous to the health of the people. Unless some halt can be called to this kind of thing, the extent to which this current menace to health can go is almost unbelievable.
We have listened to one of those short speeches which we have grown to expect from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, to many of which I used to listen both in private in my room, and also in meetings of the Chiefs of Staff. We have had the great advantage of listening to what I might call the primary force of the noble and gallant Lord on the present situation. In the circumstances in which the world finds itself to-day it must be all to the good that anybody having experience either of planning or of carrying out effective war orders, who is giving thought to how war can be avoided and how co-operation can be brought about amongst the nations of the world, should give his views. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that in the course of my researches in the matter I shall not cease to take into account the advice that he has been giving to the House to-day as a first shot. He is perfectly right in thinking that the short and potent speech which he has made this afternoon is likely to meet with a great many criticisms. He is right, too, in having avoided a lot of the arduous work that would have fallen upon him had he tried to anticipate all the different angles from which criticism might have arisen.
I shall not attempt this afternoon to follow all the little lines of thought that I have been developing during the course of the noble Lord's speech, wondering how he would get over them. I should like to see leaders and ex-leaders of the Services get together in a little forum, to see what objections can be raised and then, if possible, how they can be knocked down, or how the plan can be amended to meet the view of both sides of the forum. At any rate, that would enable us to have some skilled technical advice in the direction of peace in these matters, which would be more encouraging than the somewhat melancholy statements
1202
which we have had in the last two or three years from high places in an international organisation, and which always seemed to me to make it quite certain that war, even on the atomic basis, was going to occur.
One or two of the main points that the noble and gallant Lord has raised this afternoon give me a little anxiety. He was good enough to "stick his neck out" (as we used to say) in mentioning possible sites where, if the countries could be made to agree, he would deposit his minimum quantity of atomic bombs, so that they would be safe. It is not an easy thing to take immediate action against an aggressor if you have first to go and burrow in actual rock or near-rock halfway up the highest mountain in the world, and I am not quite sure how that idea would appeal to those who feel that they might, as a last resort, have to adopt this weapon. The noble and gallant Lord also thinks it necessary that these atomic bombs should be deposited in a place where they would not be liable to effective bombing by conventional bombers. I should hardly think that Basutoland, or even the Sahara, was a place in which one could effectively count upon that. At any rate, that is a technical point which is worthy of examination.
The other point which seemed to be one of difficulty is this. Have we not learned from the utterances which have been made, both from N.A.T.O. Headquarters and from Washington, and from the dotting of the "i's" and the crossing of the "t's" in this country, that atomic weapons now are not merely confined to bombs? When we talk about the: difficulties of conventional disarmament, is it not a fact that in the normal plans going on to-day there are numerous things like small atomic rockets or artillery shells, some of quite small calibre, which are being prepared and with which forces are being equipped with the idea that they are going to be used in conventional warfare? If the idea is to allow the manufacture of atomic weapons of that kind and to abolish only the atomic bomb or the thermo-nuclear bomb, I think that would require far more inspection than seems to be envisaged by the noble and gallant Lord, when he claims that many of the present difficulties in the way of agreement between nations could be overcome by inspection.
The suggestion that on this matter it might be possible to abolish the veto on

1203
this one great issue is intriguing. I should dearly like to see some alteration of the present veto method in the United Nations Organisation. Whether the noble and gallant Lord will ever see in his lifetime, or I in mine (he is younger than I am so I had better say "in his lifetime"), any fundamental amendment in the United Nations Organisation with regard to the veto, I am a little doubtful. I have been so obsessed with the great damage done to the universality of the work and scope of the United Nations by the manner in which the veto has been used up to date that I feel that some attempt to change that position ought to be made. I should very much like to see that happen. Whilst I very much doubt whether one would get the nations in their present frame of mind to agree upon that matter, at least the general principle deserves examination.
I do not propose to say anything further this afternoon about the speech of the noble and gallant Lord. I commend him for the courage with which he brings forward such a scheme this afternoon. It is not always the courage of going into a live battle which is the greatest; often it is the courage which is required to run the risk of some people ridiculing both the speaker and the proposition. I admire the noble and gallant Lord for his courage. Of course, he was never lacking in that. I remember that, when he was Controller of the Navy, he was never lacking in courage in what he told the First Lord of the Admiralty in those days; so I expect him always to come and be frank, as he has been to-day, about his true views. However, I felt when he was speaking this afternoon that it was absolutely essential for us to make all these efforts to try to get agreement upon these international and material problems.
When he speaks about atomic weapons as a deterrent to war, however, I am not quite so sure. As long as there is any organisation in the world which will oppress other people, will rob them of their freedom and will prevent them from practising their true religious freedom, as well as their political freedom, I do not think there will ever be peace. I say it again and again—I have said it many times in your Lordships' House: man will be free; and he will fight till he is free. Therefore, we have to get behind
1204
that spirit and see how freedom can be brought about. I am bound to say that the more I look at it the more I feel that a good many of the thinkers who are writing and speaking to-day might go back a little more to the ancients.
Thinking about what I was going to say this afternoon. I went back to my early studies of Pope's Essay on Man. It gave me once again a little picture of the kind of problem that besets man, particularly to-day. Right through his Essay on Man, Pope was posing the problem of what man's view was of God, whether he should dare to scan God or whether he should dare to criticise God. Already in his lifetime, hundreds of years ago, he was observing the growth of the belief of man in what science could do for him: he was thinking ahead of many of us. I wrote down a few lines. I want to preface them by a passage from Pope that we all know well:
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
That, obviously, is a message that the noble and gallant Lord should take with him wherever he goes. There is hope if somebody is working to get a solution. Pope also says:
"Go, wondrous creature! Mount where science guides.
Go measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides.
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run Correct old Time, and regulate the sun.
Go teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule, Then, drop into thyself and be a fool."
If only I could get that message over to some of the people who are playing about with this idea that the growth of science is making man the creator of power over his fellow-men, we might come to effect a solution of the whole problem. What we need is a change of heart; and although many of us do our best here and there on the political platform, in our legislative assemblies and in our international organisations, to preach the general gospel of disarmament, we have not yet perhaps been either big enough or willing enough to face ridicule to preach that need of a change of heart and how it is to be accomplished.
4.7 p.m.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down ended his speech, as befits this great and moving subject, on a high note. That, indeed, is the note on which the noble and

1205
gallant Admiral of the Fleet introduced this topic to your Lordships' notice. The noble and gallant Lord admitted that his proposal was Utopian. Unfortunately, as is brought home to us by the recent statements of the Russian leaders and the harsh conditions of the world we live in, we must be realistic and we must be long-suffering. We cannot jump to solutions. The noble and gallant Lord helped us to re-live, in imagination, the horrors of Hiroshima which he himself had witnessed; but he said, with undoubted truth, that the dropping of an atomic bomb on that occasion shortened the war and saved (I think he added) millions of lives. The noble Lord also, I believe, agrees that the possession of the atomic bomb in recent years by the United States has been a deterrent to the recurrence of such miseries as those which he described. It so happens that virtually all the atomic weapons in the Western world which he is seeking to control or neutralise are American in manufacture. The gallant Admiral comes here therefore this afternoon and makes a proposal addressed virtually, in its practical application, to the United States alone, that they should hand over the weapon that has saved us from destruction during the last few years. I permit myself to wonder what impression he thinks that may make upon the American psychology. I wonder what the gallant Admiral would feel, being such a devoted servant of the Senior Service, if the Americans were proposing to abolish the British Fleet.
In this matter we must be realistic; we must look at the exact and precise meaning of this Motion, and its effect upon our Allies. That is not to detract at all from the sincerity and nobility of the motive which actuated the noble and gallant Lord. The first effect of this Motion, if it were carried out, would not relate to atomic and nuclear weapons at all; it would have a profound and decisive impact upon our capacity to resist aggression by conventional means. The situation brought home to us in the Statement of Defence this year is one which is within the knowledge of your Lordships—namely, that over the whole field the Russians could deploy divisions, their own and satellite divisions, to the number of 400. Against those 400 divisions we could muster, let us say, 40. Therefore we have to rely upon some
1206
compensating advantage; and it is for that reason that Her Majesty's Government have stated, quite categorically, that the use of nuclear weapons is the only means by which this massive preponderance of Russia can be countered.
With the aid of nuclear weapons—and the distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction was correctly drawn by the noble Viscount who has just spoken—and with the German contribution, we can hope to defend the Continent instead of contemplating again the grim process of liberation. If we do not use the full weight of our nuclear power, Europe could hardly be protected from invasion and occupation, with all that that implies, both for Europe and the United Kingdom. So we have decided—and it has been announced and established—that the use of nuclear weapons is the whole basis of our defence planning. Without these nuclear weapons we should be at a considerable disadvantage. It is therefore the duty of any Government which seeks to discharge its primary obligation, not heedlessly to throw away the means of our defence. That, my Lords, I feel is the effect of this Motion upon conventional methods of defence.
But when we come to the larger issue, though the noble and gallant Lord drew no distinction at all between tactical nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction we find that this Motion goes back in essence to the Baruch proposals of 1946. Once, Sir Winston Churchill described Lease Lend as the most unsordid act in history. The Baruch proposals could very well be bracketed with that great international gesture. Here was the United States of America, the sole possessor of the atomic bomb—enjoying a complete monopoly—proposing to outlaw atomic war, to place all atomic activities under a supranational United Nations, with the power to impose penalties, as the noble Lord wishes, on any nation abusing its duty towards its neighbours. The plan stipulated that the veto should not apply. That is exactly what the noble and gallant Lord is proposing this afternoon. Well, Russia refused to accept that proposal and insisted on the retention of the veto. She also refused to allow inspection except, normally, in declared plants, and the recommendations of the inspectorate were not to have compulsory force.

1207
It is therefore fair to remind the noble and gallant Admiral that the proposals which he has brought before your Lordships this afternoon have been categorically rejected by Russia. Russia will not give up the veto; Russia will not agree to the kind of inspectorate that is necessary. It follows that, for proposals of the noble and gallant Admiral to have any validity at all, they would have to receive the concurrence of Russia. But she has already rejected them. For us to agree to them, assuming that Russia signified her belated assent, would mean that we should have to trust Russia. The fundamental question upon which we have to make up our minds is: should we or should we not trust Russia? It is quite clear that since 1946 great developments in this field have taken place. Stocks of nuclear weapons have been accumulated: they are not detectable by inspection, because they are so widespread, and I am informed, on the highest authority, that it is impossible to discover them.
Since the Baruch plan was propounded Russia has made great strides. She has presumably reached an equality, in some respects, with the West; and she may outpace us. Whether she has or whether she has not, she is now semi-officially suggesting that all tests should be abolished. In the light of what has transpired, I should look most carefully at a proposal of that kind coming at this stage from Russia. What stage she has reached in the hydrogen bomb, and precisely what the tests disclose, we do not know; but we do know that in 1953 she completely bypassed the United States, reducing the costs (so I read, on the authority of scientists) from thousands of dollars per ounce to dollars per pound. That is the position of the Power with whom we sought to reach an agreement—and failed.
In the circumstances, what would seem to be the more practicable course for Britain would be, I feel, to improve our own resources. There is no other course that any responsible Government could possibly adopt Yesterday, in another place, Sir Anthony Eden said that the Government would at all times welcome an arrangement contributing to world security, but that they were not prepared to accept agreements which would put the United Kingdom in a position of decisive inferiority to other great Powers
1208
not justified by the state of our scientific knowledge and resources. We have not yet tested our hydrogen bomb, but I invite your Lordships to say, in response to this Motion, that the cautious, wise and statesmanlike pronouncement of the Prime Minister yesterday is a more constructive approach to this problem than that recommended by the noble and gallant Lord.
If we are to improve our position we must improve our technology; we must increase the number of our technologists and their training facilities. Last year we had a debate on that matter, and we saw how far behind we lag in this field, The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, pointed out that in Russia 40,000 engineering graduates were turned out in 1952, and 54,000 in 1953, almost twice as many as in the United States. Over and above this they have 1½ million or more of what we should call technical colleges, as opposed to the 50,000 of which we boast here. They have 300,000 people at technological institutions. There is the real crux of the matter: that we are lagging behind. Mr. Aldrich, the United lagging Ambassador, said last week that both America and ourselves were lagging behind and that there was a compelling obligation upon us to redress this inequality. This is particularly incumbent on us in the light of the explosion, eight days ago, of Russia's latest hydrogen bomb. Other countries in the Western Alliance must look to their own position. France, for instance, has only 13,000 scientific workers engaged in research—a quarter of our number.
Last year Her Majesty's Government announced that we in Britain were to redress this discrepancy, but only yesterday Sir Winston Churchill said—and I think note must be taken of his very impressive words—that in technological education Britain has allowed herself to fall behind. We are, he said, already surpassed by Russia on a scale which is almost alarming. In the last ten years the Soviet higher technical education for mechanical engineering has been developed both in numbers and in quality, to an extent which far exceeds anything we have achieved. This, he emphasised, is a matter which needs the immediate attention of the Government. The setting up and bringing into full and active life of large technical schools is one of the most urgent of the practical steps

1209
which we should urge upon the Government. Such a statement, coming from one who until very recently was responsible for the Government, reveals a state of affairs for which it is not so immediately important to blame any Government in particular as it is to set about rectifying.
Another positive step which we ought to take is to improve our relationship with the United States. I saw yesterday in The Times newspaper that under the McCarran Act at least six months is required for a foreign scientist to prepare his visit to the United States, and that at least one hundred foreign scientists have been seriously delayed or altogether prevented from going to the United States to discuss these problems. Two of them are British: Professor Dirac, a British Nobel physicist, and Dr. Fremlin, who is said to have applied for a visa since the spring of 1953. That is one illustration of how the West is failing to stand solid in this great hydrogen and nuclear contest. Further, there is an atomic submarine, the "Nautilus," which has been invented in the United States. Because of the impossibility, under existing United States legislation, of giving us information it will take us two years more than it otherwise would to get such a submarine; and if there were war in the meantime we might be suffocated.
The riposte which we should make to the recent declarations by the two Russian leaders in India is to achieve greater solidarity in the West. At the time of the Quebec Agreements we laid down quite clearly the principle that our salvation depended upon the closest co-operation and interchange of information and ideas. I believe, therefore, that instead of going forward with a vague and generalised proposal which has no practical chance of acceptance, and which, even if it were accepted, would depend upon the good will and a change of heart of Russia, we should go forward on practical lines such as those which have been followed throughout by Her Majesty's Government. In other words, I think it is our duty, while neglecting no opportunity to achieve a satisfactory and watertight agreement on disarmament, to see that in the meantime we keep our powder dry, improve our technical knowledge and bring about a greater unity of feeling and of action, and
1210
a more complete interchange of information in this vital matter between the United States and ourselves. The opportunity for that is now presented by the very welcome announcement that the Prime Minister is to go to the United States. That is an occasion on which we should all rejoice and from which we have the highest expectations.
4.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I return to the Motion on the Order Paper and remind your Lordships of its exact terms? It asks Herr Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to recommend that both the control and the safe custody, not merely of atomic or nuclear bombs but of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons (which covers, presumably, the whole range of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons) should be transferred to the United Nations It is certainly no part of my design this afternoon in any way to ridicule what the noble and gallant Lord said in the speech which he made, to your Lordships in expounding his Motion. His experience, supported by what he himself has seen, is such that anything that he may say to your Lordships on a subject such as this must command both our interest and our respect. But, at the same time, in analysing the scheme which he has laid before the House, one must, in the end, apply the test of whether it is a practical proposition in the condition of affairs which exists to-day.
When the noble and gallant Lord was speaking I was not entirely clear on how he meant this operation to be carried out—whether, the United Nations having taken charge of all these weapons, if a situation arose in which they were to be released, wholly or partly, they were to be handed out by the United Nations for use by the country which had suffered aggression; or whether such weapons were to be used only by the International Air Force to which the noble and gallant Lord referred at the end of his speech. Judged by general considerations, and after discussion of the question, that makes little difference. Much of the ground, and a great deal of what I should otherwise have said, has been covered by the two speeches since made by the noble Viscount opposite and by the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha.

1211
In considering any scheme of this kind we inevitably have to face its parochial aspect in the sense that we have to take into account the interest, the preservation and the security of this country. It is perfectly true, and has been generally recognised and declared, that the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government is in its latest form to a large extent based upon the fact that the United States and ourselves are in a position to control and, as a last resort, to use these weapons—whether they be in the shape of atomic artillery or bombs, or anything else—as the ultimate deterrent. No one would lightly incur the responsibility of employing weapons with that power of destruction, and, of course, the scheme which the noble and gallant Lord puts forward has the attraction, I imagine, for all Governments, that it would lift off the shoulders of individual Governments much of the responsibility for taking the appalling decision which, as he quite rightly pointed out, might in certain circumstances rest upon them, because it puts the control of these missiles in international hands.
But the situation that Her Majesty's Government in this country have to confront is that in respect of what we have come to call "conventional" weapons, the balance is very heavily against us, and that the balance is preserved on some basis, at least—in the end, it might be that the preservation of peace depended upon it—by the fact that the predominance of one side in conventional weapons is redressed by our possession of nuclear weapons. Can we, taking into account the whole state of the world to-day and watching all the developments which are proceeding, really contemplate, however much we might desire to do it in the general interests of humanity at large, a situation in which at this moment we are to hand over to others what we regard as essential for our own security and preservation? I think that that really is the gist of the whole problem as we have to see it.
And hand over to whom? It is said that we are to hand over to the United Nations. The United Nations is a body representative of a very large number of countries. With whom is the direction, control and supervision of these weapons to rest? With the General Assembly? We have seen the General Assembly to
1212
some extent divide itself on various occasions into different and not always harmonious blocs of nations. The General Assembly, itself, can, after all, only call upon—it cannot go further than that—member States to take certain courses. There are no sanctions that it can apply to them if they do not comply. To the Security Council? The noble and gallant Lord saw the very substantial obstacle which was in his way when he came up against the position of the veto in the operations of the Security Council, and in order to circumnavigate that obstacle he said that the way to deal with it was to remove the veto and to rely upon a two-thirds majority of the countries represented.
But how can you remove the veto? It may be that a good many people would share the view expressed by the noble Viscount opposite that it would be a good thing if the veto were not there. But it is there, and in discussing what is practicable in the circumstances which the noble and gallant Lord is contemplating we have to face a situation either that the veto is there or that there is a reasonable chance in the close future of getting it removed, even if it were only to be removed for this one particular purpose, which I understood was his suggestion. I do not know what prospects the noble and gallant Lord, in his own mind, would attach to the possibility that if that proposition were put before the Security Council it would be unanimously adopted, or whether he is not really satisfied in his mind that any proposal of this kind must inevitably founder upon the veto itself before it can achieve anything satisfactory.
The noble and gallant Lord has made some suggestions as to where these bombs should be stored. I do not propose to enter into the geographical details, because, as I say, I am afraid that the whole scheme is impracticable on the general basis of our outlook upon our own defence problems. He pointed out that if such a scheme could be adopted and commended itself to the nations of the world, there were very great prizes to be obtained in taking such a course. There may be very great prizes, but the question is how much do you have to sacrifice in order even to compete for the prize? The view of Her Majesty's Government is that any scheme of this kind would undermine the whole fabric upon which we have at the present time built our defensive plan.

1213
The noble and gallant Lord spoke of inspection as though that, again, were an easy proposition to carry out. He said that you would need only a group of Service officers contributed by different countries, and the only condition to be made about their efforts would be that they would be free to go anywhere at any time without notice. We have been trying now for some years to arrive at agreement on a system of inspection and control of weapons in the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations and in the Sub-committee on Disarmament which has been deliberating for very many months. Here, again, I cannot help thinking that if the proposal were put to any body of which the Russians and those associated with them were members, it would not be likely to find a very eager reception, because one of the main difficulties we have always had arises from the unwillingness of those countries to give any wide area of inspection such as would afford the means to carry out the only effective method of keeping a vigilant eye upon what was going to be done.
Without some very close and very effective form of inspection, even if you had come to some agreement of this kind on this basis, how would you ever know if a country was putting into this pool the whole of the resources of nuclear weapons at its disposal? The only way you could do it would be by some far more general, widespread and close system of inspection than you are ever likely to get agreement upon. In the absence of that inspection, there is always the risk—and what a risk it would be!—of some country not observing the terms of the agreement, and keeping back some stock, small or large, of nuclear weapons. Indeed, if she were the only country in free possession of the nuclear weapon, it would not need to be a very large stock to enable her to strike what might be an annihilating blow.
For those reasons, in the first place—and there are, I am afraid, others with which I will not weary the House—however attractive, at first glance, the noble and gallant Lord's proposal may be, there are, at any rate at present, in the view of Her Majesty's Government insurmountable obstacles, some of which I have ventured to detail to your Lordships,
1214
others of which have already been referred to by noble Lords who have spoken, which take it outside the field of practical politics at this stage. That does not mean that Her Majesty's Government are prepared lightly to abandon the situation with a shrug and say that there is no more to be done. The noble and gallant Lord gave three possible solutions. The first, he said, was "to do nothing, as we are doing now." I would not accept that as an accurate statement of the position, because, although the measure of success hitherto has been disappointingly small we have gone on, and we shall continue to go on, working with all determination to produce what in our view is the only hopeful and realistic solution of the problem of disarmament—that is, an accord between the nations concerned. We should not lightly abandon that position. Along that line, and I am afraid not upon the line sketched in the noble and gallant Lord's proposal, must develop the future of a problem which in the present state of the world is inevitably very much in the minds and in the hearts of the Governments Lind peoples of every country.
4.42 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords who have spoken and all your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened. May I make one comment on the noble Marquess's speech. I did not mean to imply that we were doing nothing: I meant that no progress had been made except to build bigger and better bombs. With all that, I personally know how much the Governments have done in trying to get agreement with somebody else. It is a very difficult thing to do. I was a little disappointed that the noble Marquess should imply that, because a country, a long time ago, said "Never" it would not change its mind. That has been done in the past. In spite of the fact that the Russians refused to abolish the veto in 1946, I should not like to rule out that possibility in changed conditions—because conditions do change.
I am afraid that I have not seen the Baruch Plan which the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, mentioned, but I am pleased to know that "great minds think alike." I do not know whether the noble

1215
Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, realises that the reason for having three separate sites for these bombs is that every one of them would have to be captured at the same time; and to my mind few operations could be more difficult. If we took only one, we should still have twice the number of bombs against us. I think it would be an impracticable operation for any country to capture three sites at the same time, and of course that would be essential. I will not say anything more, except to mention one thing which impressed me. I remember Sir Winston Churchill once saying to me, shaking his finger at me, "Admiral, difficulties are there to be overcome and not for the purpose of frustration." I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NOISE FROM AMERICAN AERODROMES
4.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make representations through diplomatic or other appropriate channels to the American military authorities now stationed in this country in order to mitigate the hardship and distress suffered through noise and disturbance by those who live in areas adjacent to aerodromes occupied by the United States Air Force; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long in speaking to the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I confess that I do so with a certain amount of diffidence, but in my view it contains a subject of important public interest. I think that the best way in which I can bring this matter to the notice of your Lordships is to give a brief statement of the facts which have prompted me to bring this matter before the House.
The case that I cite in support of my Motion centres upon the Royal Air Force Station occupied by the United States Air Force at Upper Heyford, in Oxfordshire. There, I should tell your Lordships, were stationed for a long time six-engined jet bombers, some of the noisiest aircraft one could imagine. These have now been
1216
replaced by even noisier aircraft, by tenengined jet bombers. I have not had personal experience of these latest machines, but I have been informed by people who live in the neighbourhood that the noise from these aircraft is indescribable. It is not so much on that aspect of the matter that I wish to comment, because the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was kind enough to reply fully and comprehensively to a Motion on this subject a short time ago and I do not want him to have to repeat all he said on that occasion. However, the disturbance became so great that the local authority immediately concerned, a parish council, made representations to the commander of the United States Air Force at the station. That was done last May. The letter stating their case, which included a protest from the vicar, who said that it was almost impossible to carry on church services because of the noise, was addressed by the clerk to the parish council to the commanding officer, The council did not receive a reply, but a few weeks after they received a reply from a wing commander of the Royal Air Force, who was, I think, the liaison officer, who wished to make an appointment to see them. The meeting was held, but it was abortive. The wing commander who, as one would expect him to be, was courteous and entirely sympathetic, admitted that he could do nothing about it.
As a result, there was a meeting of the three parish councils concerned—the councils of Ardley, Upper Heyford and Lower Heyford—when the matter was fully discussed. I should tell your Lordships that I am basing my information upon a letter I have before me from the chairman of the Ardley Parish Council, who is also a county councillor for the Heyford division of Oxfordshire, and copies of the minutes. The distressing feature is that it was stated at this meeting that the commanding officer of the United States Air Force base at Upper Heyford said publicly in the village of Heyford, on August 27, 1955, that he received his orders from Washington, and that he could do nothing about the excessive noise. Just previous to this, on July 29, the Upper Heyford Parish Council had invited the commanding officer of this United States Air Force base to their next meeting to discuss the possibility of reducing the noise; and they received no reply. It was then that the statement to

1217
which I have just referred was made. As your Lordships can imagine, in a country district in the north of Oxfordshire the statement was received with consternation; the local Press was very "live" about it, and there appeared a number of letters which I do not intend to quote to your Lordships because they were couched in language which I should not bring into this mailer.
I think perhaps the best thing I can do now is not to rely upon my own words but to quote from a letter which I received from a responsible individual—as a matter of fact, he is a retired Admiral of Her Majesty's Navy. He writes to me in these terms:
"All this disturbance, which thinking people think can be largely avoided with a little forethought on the part of the senior United States authorities ordering these flights, has engendered feelings of bitter and burning resentment in the local population against the Americans generally. This is a most serious matter, as it will inevitably spread and will lead to a deterioration of Anglo-U.S. relations, an unspeakable calamity."
With that view I absolutely concur. That is my sole reason for bringing this matter to your Lordships' notice this afternoon, and for inviting the Government to say to whom proper representations from local authorities can be sent, and how they can be received, so that the citizens of this country can at least be satisfied that something is being done to see that their interests are safeguarded. I am not going to suggest for one moment that there is any abdication of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to protect the citizens of Britain in Britain; but I think your Lordships will agree that in this country we rest on the principle that the citizen has a right to have his complaints heard, and to have justice done. And, of course, not only should justice be done, but it should be apparent that justice is done.
I am not going to say that this trouble is typical of other places throughout this country. I have evidence that in other parts of the country the relations between the responsible officers of the United States Air Force and the local citizens are of the best, and have been brought to that state by the sympathetic understanding of those United States officers of the feelings of British subjects. As I say, I have evidence that convinces me that this is not typical of the whole country, but even so, in fairness and in truth, I must
1218
state that since this Motion appeared on the Order Paper I have had letters from other parts of the country which would tempt me to say that in those parts, too, all is not as we in this House and all responsible people in this country should desire it.
That is the simple case I have to put. I cannot—and I know the noble Lord who is going to reply would not expect me to do so—absolve the Government from an overriding responsibility. The noble Lord speaks for the Minister of Defence, and it may be that he is the appropriate person to approach—I do not know, and I want the noble Lord to tell me; and if not the Minister of Defence, then the Secretary of State for Air. Surely, there must be somebody responsible to Parliament for the Service flying of another nation in this country. In order that I shall not be guilty of exaggerating this matter in die slightest degree, that is all I shall say. I think it is a case that should be looked into. This is perhaps just a side issue, but a number of cases I have given to him, the noble Lord has been good enough to investigate personally. Perhaps he would be kind enough to investigate this case to see whether something can be done to prevent the natural resentment which is being felt at the present time by the local population. In doing that, I hope he will not—as I feel sure he will not—ignore what I consider the overriding consideration: that the citizens of this country should know that through their accredited representatives on the local authorities—the parish councils, rural district councils and county councils—proper representations can be made with confidence to a Government Department which will do something to protect their interests. With those words, I beg to move for Papers.
4.59 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Local Protection Committee (as it is called) for people living close to an aerodrome. I am perturbed at some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, although at the end of his speech I think he put right some of the things which he had said and which I thought were dangerous, by saying that this was not the general situation in the country. At the same time, I think he did say that there were

1219
other cases of the same nature throughout the country. My experience, and that of my committee, is exactly the opposite from that which the noble Lord has brought before your Lordships this afternoon.
Immediately the present commanding officer came to the particular aerodrome I have in mind—and this is typical of what was happening before he came—he got into touch with the local mayor and myself and gave us luncheon. He told us that everything he could possibly do to obviate the noise and the loss of amenities of the neighbourhood would be done by him so far as he could. He showed us rather an amusing film which depicted the situation of the public around aerodromes in the United States, and exactly the same sort of thing was going on there—a man who had bought property found it was worth nothing; the housewife and her children were worried by the noise and could not sleep at night, and all the things were happening about which we are complaining to-day. He said, "You see that in my country where we have these aerodromes the same thing obtains as here."
It is curious that only on December 5 I got a letter from the colonel in command of this aerodrome. I thought he had quite forgotten the complaint I had made to him about the buses running past the aerodrome being filled with his men, with the consequence that the local inhabitants could never get on buses at the most material times for them, which were shopping time, market day and Saturday afternoons. I will quote part of this letter to show the spirit of this officer. He says:
"… regarding the overcrowding on civilian buses on the Greenham to Newbury run. We have gone into this problem at some length, and although it is still unresolved, the attached copy from our R.A.F. liaison officer will show you the action that has been taken up to this time. I sincerely hope that we will be able to reach a satisfactory solution to this problem."
Nothing could be better than that. This officer, whom I am now beginning to know quite well, possesses all the qualities which the noble Lord opposite would like the officer he has mentioned to have. I felt that I had to get up to-day and say a word about this, because I should hate him to read in the Press to-morrow what is, to a certain extent, an indictment of the U.S.A. aerodrome commanders and
1220
think that it applied to him. I wanted to be certain that I could send him Hansard, to show him that I had done my best to disabuse the noble Lord's mind of anything that has happened so far as this officer is concerned. As regards noise, the officer told me that every effort has been made to silence planes, as we have been told in your Lordships' House over and over again, but that so far it does not seem that there has been much success with these big planes, particularly the jets.
There is one other point I wish to make. We who live in one of these areas are not only suffering as regards noise but, I might almost say, are suffering also the complete ruin of the value of our property, and I feel that the Government should take all that into consideration. I do not think it is an unfair request to make that this matter should receive further consideration, and that some compensation should be made to thousands of people. I do not believe that the compensation required would be anything very great, taking into consideration the enormous amount of money that is spent.
There is one other matter with which I should like my noble friend who is to reply, to deal. It is rumoured around me and, I believe, in the Press, that certain building schemes are about to be initiated to accommodate American officers and their wives. There are numbers of householders around the particular aerodrome of which I am speaking who would gladly sell, and it seems to me quite ridiculous that an expensive building scheme should be embarked upon when these officers can go into any number of houses within a few hundred yards of the fence round the aerodrome. I hope the noble Lord will make a note of that and see whether there is any truth in it, because it seems ridiculous that such an idea should be in the minds of anybody. I hope that the noble Lord who opened this debate will realise from what I have said that his experience is completely opposite to my experience, that of my committee and those who live near this aerodrome.
5.7 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said and also my noble friend who moved the Motion. I have a somewhat different tale to tell from that of Lord Teviot. My tale may be exceptional—indeed, I hope

1221
it is. I am helped by the fact that his experience with commanding officers of United States Air Force stations has been so friendly and so conducive to results. As noble Lords will know, we in East Anglia have a considerable number of American air stations within our borders. I want to mention a matter which has arisen in regard to one station, and I wish to make two points. A few days ago I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about sending him a letter relative to Shepherds' Grove, which is an American station between Bury St. Edmunds and Diss—I do not suppose I am giving away any secrets by locating the station. I did not send the noble Lord the letter, because I thought it better, in view of this Motion on the Order Paper, to refer to it here. I agree with Lord Teviot's hope that the commanding officer of the station to which he referred in his speech will receive a copy of Hansard, but I wonder, further, whether it might not be advisable to circulate Hansard relative to this debate to all American stations, so that they may know what we in Britain are thinking at this moment. I throw out the suggestion that it might be advisable so that the commanding officers can see what some of us are thinking.
Having received a letter from Sheptherds' Grove, it was fortunate that I happened to be staying last week-end within easy reach of that particular station. I took the opportunity of going to see exactly what the position was, at least on the perimeter of the station, because I did not go on the station. I met my correspondent. This young man farms his own farm, which he purchased about four years ago, I think before the Americans were at this particular station. Like other farmers, he is just on the borders of a fairly large station. Unfortunately for him, the end of the runway where the machines come to tune up is within a very short distance of his house. In his letter to me he says that, on some days, no fewer than a hundred planes tune up on this particular spot. While I was, as I say, passing the station again on the Sunday, I noticed that two American planes were tuning up close to this man's house. They were so close that, if I had been in my youth and using a catapult, I have no doubt that from his garden I could have hit the machines in question. So it can
1222
be seen that they are fairly close. The noise, as your Lordships know, is particularly deafening and distractive. Representations have been made in regard to this particular noise to the commanding officer of the station and, rather as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggested a moment ago, this man has also suggested that the American forces should purchase his house in order that he might build a house further away from the aerodrome on other land which he owns.
That matter was referred to the liaison officer for the Royal Air Force. Apparently, it is quite impossible and out of the question, because of the cost, for them to purchase houses which are affected on the outskirts of either American or other aerodromes. In the course of my visit, I went to the other side of the aerodrome and had a talk with another farmer within about a hundred yards of where there were a large number of American planes tuning up. I asked him if he was the owner or the tenant of the farm. He said "Unfortunately, I am the owner. If I had been the tenant, I should not be here." That is a serious position, because I can quite understand that, through the presence of noise such as we get from these aerodromes at the present time, a good deal of land outside the confines of the station might not become tenanted At any rate, we stood in his living room and If said: "What sort of reaction do you have to the noise which comes from these planes just across the road?" He said "The exhausts blew a hole in my fence and it looked as though a field of wheat would be fired." I mentioned that to the commanding officer and (I say this as bearing out what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said) he immediately arranged that the machines should be turned round. That particular matter was put right.
Then the fanner said: "If these machines were tuning up now, you and I, standing in this room, would not hear in the least what the other was saying." If that is happening frequently through the day, it is distractive and, if possible, should be put right. Surely the British Air Ministry and the American authorities can get together in some way so that this noise can be abated. I will come in a moment to the question of screens and other appliances, because I am hoping that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us that research is

1223
advancing and that arrangements are being made so that noise may be cured and the troubles from which we suffer at the moment may not arise in the future. In regard to this letter which I have, this lad suggested to a senior officer, who was apparently sent down to see him by the commanding officer, in reply to one of his letters: "Well, surely screens could be provided which would minimise this noise." The reply he received was that they were far too expensive. I was given to understand that in this particular aerodrome there was a proposition on foot not only to lengthen the runways but to divert a main road which runs alongside one end of the aerodrome. I should not imagine that the cost of providing screens in order that British nationals may be protected in their property from undue noise and the cost of diverting a road and rebuilding it and extending runways are at all comparable. If something can be done in regard to extending runways and diverting a road, surely some sort of screen can be provided or some sort of arrangement made whereby the noise can be minimised.
There is something else which I think is serious. I hope that the opinion which was expressed in this particular matter was a personal one expressed by the officer concerned, and that it is not held generally throughout the American Forces in this country. In the course of discussion on the question of the noise, the officer said to my correspondent—it is not in the letter but he told me this personally—"You know, you are expendable." I have no particular knowledge of what certain words as expressed by Americans mean. I am not quite certain what he was talking about when he used the word "expendable."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: "Liquidatable."
LORD WISE: "Liquidatable"—I knew it! So I asked the young man: "What do you understand he meant by using the word 'expendable'?" He replied "Well, he clearly told me 'It does not matter what happens to you as long as we can keep out the Russians.'" Your Lordships see the seriousness so far as British nationals are concerned when an expression of that sort is used. I am wondering what noble Lords, standing upon their property in their own confines, would
1224
think of an officer of another nationality if similar words were used to them. I hope that that attitude does not prevail because, if it does, we have not only a source of irritation but a source of great risk and annoyance.
I hope that the outcome of this Motion, although not many noble Lords are taking part, will be that there will be established the best co-operation possible between ourselves and the American Forces in this country. It will be a great day when they can leave these shores, and peace will, I hope, then be in the offing. But whilst they are here they must remember the rights of the British people. They must remember that we are not satisfied that our families should suffer this nuisance from their great machines, which create great noise—and a noise that is likely to increase unless steps are taken in the future. We have no wish to fall out with them. We have been allies and friends; but we have been allies and friends with other nations as well. I hope, therefore, that full cooperation can be established, and that in future debates of this sort will not have to take place in your Lordships' House.
5.21 p.m.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to this debate. I think we must bear in mind that, whatever is said on this subject, it is impossible at present to reduce the noise made by jet aircraft. Efforts have been made and experiments have been carried out. I can only hope that some of them will eventually prove to be successful. At present they have not turned out to be successful. We had great hopes when the turbo-prop came out that we should have a silent aeroplane, but it proved not to have the power for fighters or for heavy bombers.
I have listened with great interest to your Lordships, and in a way I am sorry to see that the blame for this nuisance is, to a certain extent, being put on United States aerodromes. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the numerous aerodromes in this country, some of which are under the direct control of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, where the noise of experimental aircraft daily is probably far greater than the noise made by the United States aerodromes. Your Lordships will know that during the war we used to have—I think

1225
we still have in the Royal Air Force—low-flying areas over which aircraft could carry out experiments at low altitude. There is the possibility that they can now be put to use for carrying out experiments—that is to say, when it is necessary to put the machines through the sound barrier, an occasion when considerable noise is made. Unless it is absolutely operationally necessary, I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government be asked to put forward to the Air Ministry and other people responsible the suggestion that a great deal of the experimental work which is at present being carried out beyond the sound barrier could be carried out over certain areas on the coast. As your Lordships know, at the present speed at which an aeroplane can fly it is only a matter of a few minutes before it reaches the coast from an aerodrome in the middle of England. I realise that certain fuel tests have to be carried out within the vicinity of an aerodrome, but other tests could undoubtedly be carried out further away, in these specified areas.
I have listened with great interest because I know that numerous county councils, borough councils and rural district councils all over the country have been putting in complaints about this matter. I know of one in the Midlands who have, I think, put in a complaint three or four times and have received no satisfaction, and so far as I can see they are not likely to receive any satisfaction Until we can alter this present mode of flight I am afraid we must realise that we have to put up with the noise. I hope that your Lordships will remember that it is not only the United States aircraft which make a noise; it is also those of our own people.
5.25 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the last time that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised this question he was particularly concerned with the noise made by the Royal Air Force. He has told us that since then he has received some letters from various people. Now he has concentrated the debate this afternoon on the noise made by the United States Air Force. But whoever makes the noise it is equally unpleasant. I am particularly glad that he did not—I do not suppose it would even have entered
1226
his head—try to stir up any ill-feeling this evening towards the United States Air Force in this country. When we believe that our individual liberties are infringed by foreigners, it is easy to work up rather more ill-feeling than if exactly the same thing is done by our own people. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord did not do that to-day. I was also pleased that my noble friend Lord Teviot, who has had to leave, bore out and gave witness to the courtesy and the help that he has had from the United States Air Force. I will look into the other two points that he made.
We should be grateful that the United States Air Force are stationed here in this country, helping to strengthen the Western Allies and N.A.T.O. and ensuring the ability of the West to strike back if attacked. If these aircraft and their crews are to be kept at a constant stale of readiness, and that is the significance of the United States' contribution, there must be constant exercises to keep them at the highest pitch of efficiency. In this nuclear age, about which we have talked earlier to-day, that is becoming even more important than hitherto. A force which could fight only after a matter of weeks would be of little use in any future war. The United States formations in bases in this country are here on a 90-day rotation, and during this short time, apart from keeping themselves efficient, the crews have to familiarise themselves with the conditions which operate in Europe. This means that there is a very great deal of flying, and I do not wish in any way to minimise the inconvenience, the sacrifices of amenity and the disturbance which are caused to those who live in the neighbourhood of these airfields. Indeed, they will have the sympathy of all your Lordships and of the Government. But sympathy is not really of much value.
On the last occasion on which we debated this subject, I made a full statement about the whole problem of noise, the difficulties which are encountered and the means which we are seeking to overcome them. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, I do not think it is necessary for me to cover this ground again, and it seems to me that I have two functions this afternoon: first, to justify the need for this disturbance, which I think I already have done; and secondly, to show that the United States authorities are well aware of the problem and are

1227
doing everything in their power to reduce the disturbance to a reasonable level. Certainly it is not true that commanders of United States bases are insensitive to local public opinion—really nothing could be further from the truth than that. United States authorities have shown themselves to be very much aware of the public relations problem and they are tackling the difficulties with the sort of energy which one expects from them.
I have seen one of their Air Force regulations which was dated the end of June this year, in which it is made perfectly clear how seriously they regard flight disturbance. The order is headed
"Reducing Flight Disturbances that Cause Adverse Public Reactions."
It goes on to say that the purpose of the order is that this regulation should outline
"the practices established to minimise the disturbances of flight operations that cause adverse public reaction."
It furnishes the commanders of all flying units with general guidance for dealing with local problems. Succeeding headings are "Importance of good community relations," "Protection of civilian communities," "Check list of protective measures," "Keeping pilots informed," and others. Certainly, speaking on behalf of the Air Ministry, I can say that in the last six or seven years, on the many occasions when noise and disturbance have been discussed with the Americans, no reasonable suggestion has ever been refused; and many times the United States authorities have themselves suggested or devised means of reducing the nuisance. They have shown themselves willing to adopt any measure which was not inconsistent with their operational tasks. Such things as traffic patterns have been altered to avoid centres of population; flying at night and at week-ends has been cut to the barest minimum; running up of engines on the ground has been reduced; and, to take one example, at Manston a large concrete baffle has been built owing to the difficulty of curing the noise by any other means. In some cases the Commanding-General has agreed that, although operationally desirable, some practices should be given up because of the disturbance to the civil population.
Let me give your Lordships an example of this. Operationally, it is desirable that heavy bombers which visit
1228
this country—and it is mostly heavy bombers that come here—should practise instrument landings at diversionary airfields, and this entails these huge and very noisy aircraft landing at airfields using a very flat approach path. As a result of complaints at Manston and elsewhere, this practice has been given up, though it is militarily desirable that it should have continued. In addition, the United States Air Force have taken all possible steps to improve their relations with local authorities in this country. Visits to bases and other functions have been arranged, in the hope that greater tolerance on both sides will result; and I pay a most sincere tribute to the way in which this problem has been tackled by them. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, raised the question of an airfield in Norfolk. I had not heard of this until the noble Lord raised the matter and he will not expect me to carry in my head details of every case and every airfield. I will certainly look into the matter and let the noble Lord know whether anything can be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to let me know beforehand that he was going to raise the question of the airfield at Upper Heyford and I will at once assure him that I will look into it again to see whether anything can be done. The United States authorities will, I know, most gladly co-operate. The noble Lord said that the parish councils concerned twice wrote to the station commander, in neither case receiving an answer, and that the same commander had made statements to the effect that he took his orders only from Washington, and could do nothing about the noise. I am told by the American headquarters that the station commander has no record of having received such letters, nor any recollection of having been asked to meet the parish councils on July 27. The station commander has said that he would at all times be very glad—as would all American commanders—to see deputations from responsible authorities. I have a slightly different version of the remarks which he is alleged to have made about taking orders from Washington. I understand that it was an occasion on which some aircraft arrived from America while the station commander was present at a local flower show. He was then asked whether he could do anything

1229
about the noise and replied that the rotation of bomber squadrons was arranged in Washington—meaning, I understand, that the aircraft were outside and he had to receive them.
If there is any doubt I should like to make it clear that although, within agreed limits, the United States Air Force themselves arrange their own programmes of rotational visits, it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, both to Parliament and to the country, to ensure that the citizens of this country are not unduly and unnecessarily disturbed. The arrangement is that the Air Ministry accept responsibility for complaints arising from United States Air Force activities and discusses them informally and in a friendly spirit with the American Service authorities. It is an arrangement that works well and I am convinced that there is no need for further and more formal machinery, and certainly no need for diplomatic representation to the United States Government. There can be no doubt that the noise, nuisance and disturbance caused by these airfields and by the aircraft impose great hardship, but I am convinced that the United States authorities are genuinely seeking to do their best to cause as little inconvenience as possible.
5.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, as usual the House must feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the courtesy of his reply which we always expect and over winch we are never disappointed, and also for the trouble he has taken to go into facts which I thought it only right to give him.
1230
I showed the noble Lord the letter from which I quoted. These stories never diminish by repetition. I will have the matter looked into, but I thought it was my duty to bring this case forward because this is the Parliament of the British people and they have a right to have their grievances voiced in Parliament. The tone and tenor of the noble Lord's reply can do nothing but good, and I look for some diminution of the trouble. I will not enter into discussion of the very good suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but it was one which I commend to Her Majesty's Government. I do not see why a limited number of people should have perforce to experience this dreadful hardship when the bulk of the population get off scot-free. I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It is encouraging in that, so long as the noble Lord has anything to do with this problem, nobody need be afraid of approaching him, because on this occasion, as in the past, he has given it every consideration. I am sure that, though the noble Lord has been unable to mitigate the noise, those who are suffering will be deeply grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
The House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before six o'clock.