Lords Sitting of 1 August 1957

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before five of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  4.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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—

  (1) whether it is their intention, as stated in Press reports relating to the meeting of "Chincom" in Paris, to withhold from British manufacturers the details of quotas fixed for the export to China of goods on the quantitative control list;

  (2) if so, whether they are satisfied that it is desirable thus to deprive British manufacturers of information intimately connected with their export business; and

  (3) whether the information is communicated to the United States Government through its representative on "Chincom", even though the United States does no export trade with China.]

  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, as soon as the quota for any item on the quantitative control list is fixed (and I hope that for nearly all the items this will be very shortly), Her Majesty's Government will then be able to inform United Kingdom firms whether or not they will receive a licence to export the item to China. In accordance with the "Cocom" procedures, which apply to all member countries, the actual amounts of the quotas are confidential for security reasons. I can assure the noble Viscount that the interests of United Kingdom exporters have been carefully safeguarded during the discussions in the China Committee on the quotas, and I do not think that United Kingdom firms will find the result
  512
  unreasonable when it comes to issuing licences for these goods.
  In the third part of his question, the noble Viscount appears to misunderstand the functions of the Consultative Group and its committees. The work of the Group is primarily strategic and not commercial. Naturally, economic and commercial factors play their part, but the main business of the Committee is to determine which goods are of sufficient strategic importance to merit control and to secure an agreed application of these controls. There is every reason why we should work together with the United States and the other member countries in this field. The United States Government, as a member of the Consultative Group, is informed by its representative of the recommendations made by the China Committee. But no information concerning actual firms is supplied by member countries to the Committee. Information about particular exports is supplied by all member countries on a confidential basis.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive Answer, and I should like to ask him whether the picture he has just painted does not reveal blotches which are inimical to British traders, in that many of the irritations and delays caused by the quantitative controls are those which obtained under the end-use procedure. May I also ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the words of wisdom which fell from the lips of President Eisenhower in his Press Conference on June 5, when he said:
  "I am personally of the school that believes that trade in the long run cannot be stopped. You are going to have either just authorised trade or you are going to have clandestine trade"
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I entirely agree with those remarks. If the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, I think he is making rather heavy weather over what are, in fact, only twenty-five items, which, as I think he was told yesterday, are the only items on this particular list and about which this Question is asked.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect to the noble Earl, I would say that what really matters is not the number of articles but the principle upon which this strategic level is fixed.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if there is to be no further answer, I must say that, while I have always been very careful to safeguard our strategic interests, we have now been recognising the Chinese Government de jure for nearly ten years and it seems to me that some special effort might be made. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will say that they will make every effort to get rid of the position which exists now, and, having recognised the Chinese Government de jure. for so long, may be able to get a removal of the present handicaps to trade. Twenty-five items may not be so important in themselves, but they may represent a much larger deterrent to our future trade than the actual number of items would seem to indicate.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, do not, think I can entirely agree with that statement. I cannot believe that this small number of items can have that enormous effect on the expansion of trade with China. We released 270 items when we paralleled trade with China with that of other Communist countries.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, from what the noble Earl has said, it appears that the interest of the chairman of this Committee is purely strategic, whereas our interest is commercial. Is it not a great disadvantage to our methods to be working a system where permission to trade is granted by a Committee of which the chairman's policy is a complete embargo?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if I may say so, that is the whole point of the Committee.

  THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE
  4.57 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: 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 they are yet in a position to make a statement about the future of the Imperial Institute.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I am replying on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who is unable to
  514
  be here at this hour this afternoon. As your Lordships are aware, the Institute is to move from its present building to allow the expansion of the Imperial College. The Government under-took to secure a new site and to provide a building with equivalent floor space to house the Institute. Legislation will be needed to enable the Trustees to vacate the present building, acquire a new site and build upon it. The Government have every hope that it will be possible to introduce this legislation early next Session.
  A suitable site at the south end of the Holland Part Estate has been found, and negotiations for a building lease are at an advanced stage. The lease will be held in the first place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, and the Bill will transfer all interests in the land from him to the Trustees. The Bill will also provide for the cost of the new building to be borne on the Vote of my noble friend's Department. As a result of these changes the Institute will be better able to carry on its activities.
  Two of the Trustees who are not Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Brand and Sir Alfred Chester Beatty, have intimated to my noble friend their desire to relinquish their responsibilities in favour of younger men. I am happy to say that Lord Lloyd and Sir Alan Burns have accepted my noble friend's invitation to take the place of the retiring Trustees, to whom I should like to ex press my noble friend's gratitude for the interest which they have shown in the Institute. The third independent Trustee is Lord Soulbury, who was appointed by my noble friend's predecessor to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Lord Bessborough. As your Lordships know, the Institute sustained a heavy loss in the death of the Chairman of the governing body, Viscount Hudson. I am glad to say that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has accepted my noble friend's invitation to succeed him.
  Subject to the necessary legislation, it is the intention of the Trustees, with the help and advice of the governing body, to press ahead with the planning and erection of the new building. Discussions among all the interested parties are going on to ensure the best use of the available accommodation at South Kensington in the intervening period.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive and, as I think, satisfactory Answer to my Question.
  LORD OGMORE: While thanking the noble Earl for that statement, I should like to ask one or two questions and also to make a comment. First of all, it seems to me to be the fact that three supporters of the Government have now been put on this rather important Committee.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: This is a Starred Question.
  LORD OGMORE: I said I would make a comment. One is entitled to make a comment: but I will put it in question form if the noble Earl wants it that way. It has generally been allowed on this side, on a long statement, to make a comment. Is it not unusual for the Government to put three of their supporters on a non-Party body of this kind, and no supporter from this side, and no independent Member of this House or another place upon it? Secondly, will there be a stoppage or interference with the work of the Institute while this new building is being erected? Thirdly, what is the cost of the new building estimated to be, and, fourthly, will the Government reconsider its policy and not pull down the handsome building, which is comparatively new, in Imperial Institute Road, which now houses the Imperial Institute? I am referring to the building the architect of which was Collcutt.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the fact that three Government supporters have been appointed to these posts. I do not think I can agree with that. Sir Alan Burns, so far as I know, is neither one of our supporters nor one of the noble Lord's. In fact, so far as I am aware he is independent.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I was referring to the three noble Lords. Sir Alan Burns is, of course, a very distinguished colonial civil servant, and we have no objection to him. And we have no objections to the noble Lords, except that we think that there might have been one from this side in addition or in substitution.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: What we did was to take what we thought were the best names and the best people to choose in the circumstances.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That makes it much worse.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: That is a matter of opinion.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: At any rate, it gives us a very good handle for the future.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, on the question of whether there will be stoppages, I would say that inevitably there will be inconvenience to those who at present occupy that building. A large part is in fact occupied by London University. But the various bodies concerned are working out among themselves the best way to carry on with the changes that are taking place.
  I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer on the cost. As I said in my reply, the plans are still in process of being drawn up, and it is premature to give any figures. In relation to the building, I think that that is a subject which has been debated a great deal in your Lordships' House, and a decision was taken. There was, however, if I may put it in that way, a reprieve for that Collcutt tower, and on that investigations are still going on as to whether, in the development scheme for the Imperial College of Science and Technology, it will be possible to leave the tower as a free-standing campanile at a reasonable cost.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Earl kindly arrange to print in the OFFICIAL REPORT of to-day, as an appendage to his answer, the names of the governing body of the Imperial Institute in its reconstituted form, so that we might examine the position?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly, my Lords. I will see that the names are published. I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. Two of the names are those of trustees, who have a very different function from that of the governing body.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question, because

  517
  I am not quite clear? Is there going to be a total cessation of work of the Institute pending the transfer? Because if there is, in my view it would be a very serious matter indeed.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I quite agree. It certainly is not the intent; on that there should be a cessation. Rather will you have the three bodies who are at present operating in the building collaborating together to find the best way of getting on with the work amongst them. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be most unfortunate if anything happened to prevent the excellent activities of the Institute from continuing.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I direct a question to the noble Earl who leads the House, and who is Lord President of the Council? It was his predecessor who took this decision. In the view of many noble Lords on all sides of the House it was a wrong decision, and one which will act to the detriment of that part of London and much of London life if this Institute building is pulled down. Would the noble Earl look into the whole question and see whether the time has come to reverse the decision of his predecessor?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): No, my Lords.
  Following are the names of Trustees and Board of Governors referred to:

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE
  TRUSTEES
  The Lord President of the Council.
  The First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury.
  The President of the Board of Trade.
  The Minister of Education.
  The Rt. Hon. Viscount Soulbury, G.C.M.G., C.G.V.O., O.B.E., M.C.
  Lord Lloyd, M.B.E.
  Sir Alan Burns, G.C.M.G.
  Board of Governors
  The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dundee (Chairman).
  Sir Griffith Williams, K.B.E., C.B. (Vice Chairman).
  The following Governments of the Commonwealth appoint members:—

  Canada.

  Australia.

  New Zealand.

  South Africa.

  India.

  Pakistan.

  Ceylon.

  Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

  They have usually been represented by the High Commissioners or their deputies.
  Governors appointed by the Minister of Education:—

  Mr. V. G. Matthews, O.B.E.

  Mr. R. Beloe, M.A.

  Sir Robert Russell, C.S.I. C.I.E.

  Mr. M. T. Mbu.

  Mr. H. L. Bullock

  Mr. G. H. Gordon.

  Miss Mary C. Glasgow, C.B.E.

  Sir Ronald Gould.

  Mr. F. S. Joelson.

  Co-opted Members:

  Sir Donald Anderson.

  Sir Gavin de Beer, F.R.S., M.A.

  Mrs. I. M. Spry.

  NASH TERRACES AROUND REGENT'S PARK
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: 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 if they will deny the disquieting rumour that it is proposed to demolish the Nash terraces around Regent's Park.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the rumour about the proposed demolition of the Nash terraces, to which the noble Lord refers, is clearly based on ignorance of the Regent's Park problem. The Committee under my noble friend Lord Gorell which considered the future of the twenty-three Regent's Park terraces recommended that two should be demolished, and contemplated that others might be. The terraces which they considered should at all costs be restored and preserved numbered seven or eight. The cost of preserving even this number would run into millions of pounds. The Board of Crown Estate Commissioners, since their appointment last December, have been considering this major problem but have not yet reached decisions on the future of the terraces when the leases fall in during the nineteen-sixties.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Arising out of it, may I ask him if he will give an assurance that no demolitions, if any are contemplated, will be started without the public first being informed of what is intended?
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords. The Crown Estates Commissioners have assured me that no major changes will be effected in any of the Nash terraces without the public being given full information well in advance.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived. Bill read 3a, and passed.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

  WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  5.15 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Appropriation,

  Whitstable Harbour,

  Liverpool Corporation.

  House adjourned during pleasure. House resumed.
  House resumed