Lords Sitting of 17 December 1964

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle

LORD SORENSEN
Reginald William Sorensen, Esquire, having been created Baron Sorensen, of Leyton in the County of Essex, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD LEATHERLAND
Charles Edward Leatherland, Esquire, O.B.E., having been created Baron Leatherland, of Dunton in the County of Essex, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD BLYTON
William Reid Blyton, Esquire, having been created Baron Blyton, of South Shields in the County of Durham, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

"PIRATE" BROADCASTING STATIONS
3.5 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to stop unauthorised broadcasting stations from operating in international waters, off the coasts of the United Kingdom.]
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are trying to reach agreement with other European countries on measures to put an end to this practice.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he could tell the House what steps other
532
countries have taken to stop unauthorised broadcasting in waters just outside their own territorial waters? Have such actions been successful; and, if so, could the noble Lord tell us why Her Majesty's Government have not taken similar action?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the question, I am informed that the Dutch have taken action. With regard to the latter part of the question, we consider that it is far better that this matter should be dealt with by international agreement, because you do not solve the problem by one nation taking unilateral action. You still get the interference.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: White thanking (he no6te Lord for that further reply, may I ask whether, if all nations took individual action quickly, the trouble would not then cease? And could that not be done at the same time as international discussion is taking place?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the question, which is hypothetical, would be, "Yes." The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is that at this very moment—that is to say, between December 16 and December 19—the Council of European Deputy Ministers are considering this very problem, and we hope that unanimity will be reached.

WATER SUPPLIES IN NORTH-WEST ENGLAND
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration has been given to the building of a dam across the Solway where the railway bridge was originally built, with a view to providing, quickly and cheaply, an adequate water supply for Manchester and the North-West of England, as well as enabling a shorter road route to be built between Carlisle and the industrial area in the South-West of Scotland.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): Yes, my Lords. A preliminary investigation of these proposals, and of the similar Morecambe Bay Barrage, has been made as a basis for considering whether expenditure on further technical studies of the feasibility of one or both of these barrage schemes would be justified.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that it is a matter of real urgency that examination of this Solway scheme should take place because of the urgent need of water for Manchester? Is he not also aware that it is quite an easy matter, requiring not much technical study, to take the water from the Solway into Hawes Water, which is only 30 miles away? And is he not further aware that already communications with Scotland are to be improved—so why not combine both the provision of roads and the supply of water over such a barrage by urging the matter along at the greatest possible speed?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, we are aware of the great importance of the need for water for the North-West, particularly Manchester, but I would remind the noble Lord that this is an immense project. The preliminary consideration which has been given to this project will, I hope, eventually lead to a scheme which is more feasible, but we must have accurate preliminaries.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: But is the noble Lord aware that this scheme is not at all like the Morecambe Barrage scheme? I have photographs here of the old railway bridge that ran across only a mile and a quarter, and that shows that many of the technical difficulties which might need to be considered properly for the Morecambe Barrage scheme really do not apply to this scheme. It really is not a very large and difficult project, as so much technical information is already available.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, the two schemes must be considered together. It is necessary to have in mind the return on investment from each scheme because of the competing claims which will be made on the nation's capital investment
534
resources over the coming years. The main benefits of both barrages are the supply of water to the North-West, and they must therefore be thought of as competing projects.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any such barrage scheme is being considered for the River Dee?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I understand there is; a meeting has already been held between officials of the Government Departments concerned and the Cheshire and Flint County Councils, together with the Dee and Clwyd River Board.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will consider the Solway and Morecambe barrages as matters not just of local or regional significance but of great national importance? I use the word "national" because there is a vast territory on the West of Northern England and Scotland that is comparatively sparsely populated and underdeveloped and there is tremendous potential there for the nation as a whole. Is he aware that development of such transport schemes as these would not only greatly facilitate agricultural and industrial development but also maintain a more even distribution of population?
LORD RHODES: Yes, my Lords, I can give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that all these matters are being very seriously considered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the preliminary investigation is primarily concerned with the feasibility of each of the projects, or with the priority to be given to one or the other? What I think we should like to know is this. Supposing that both the projects are found to be feasible and a priority is determined, will the mere fact that a priority is determined not rule out the second project for good and all? Can the noble Lord answer that question and also say what the approach is to be in this connection? Can he give any indication of the funds allocated for the preliminary investigation and how it is to be carried out? Is he aware that there has been a suggestion that an Institute should be set up at least for the Solway project,

535
and has that been brought to his attention? And, further, can he inform the House of the attitude of the Government to it?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, that supplementary contains rather a lot of questions, but I will do my best. The Solway Firth Scheme is under joint examination by the Scottish Development Group and the North-West Study Group, which is an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the Department of Economic Affairs. The North-West Study Group is also examining the Morecambe Bay scheme. May I say that the preliminary investigations on both these schemes are absolutely necessary before it can be decided whether the Government should go on to a feasibility examination? After the preliminary investigations there is a very costly procedure—namely, the full feasibility study.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, since I remember getting my fingers rather burned over the question of Manchester water, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us any information about Manchester Corporation's present intentions, and how they are proposing to meet the urgent needs of Manchester and the region for more water?
LORD RHODES: No, my Lords. Although I live close to that great city, I am not in their confidence.

"VETERAN" VEHICLES IN MOTOR RALLIES
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will exempt "veteran" and "vintage" vehicles from the new regulations governing motor rallies.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, if rallies of these vehicles are competitions or trials involving the use of motor vehicles on the public highway, they fall to be regulated under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. We do not consider that there is any difference in principle between competitions or trials involving historic
536
vehicles and those involving others. Both could be a hazard and a nuisance to other road users and local residents.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the main concern of the clubs is that Clause 5 of Appendix I of the Chesham Report forbids the use of the same road twice in one day? Due to the very complex character of some of these cars, it might not be possible always to use a different road when coming back to the same point.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords. But if the noble Lord looks at the recommendation he will see that it allows exemptions on Class I and trunk roads for return journeys within the regulations themselves, even if vehicles are returning from a competition. In most of these rallies, say, for instance, the London to Brighton Run, the vehicles go down under competition rules and will be regulated. When Brighton is reached the competition is over and they come back free and easy and will, therefore, be outside the regulations. If it were a competition on return, they might have to be re-routed, but the regulations will allow for exemptions.

FUTURE OF RAILWAY MUSEUMS
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of public concern they have any statement to make on the future of the Railway Museums at Clapham, York and Swindon.]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, my right honourable friend is considering a formal Scheme dealing with the future of the historical transport relics, which was submitted by the British Railways Board for his approval. Although the Scheme does not enter into any administrative detail on the future of the Transport Museums, it lays a duty on the Railways Board to preserve the relics, subject to the provisions of the Scheme.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but would he not agree that

537
the time has now come to transfer from the British Transport Board to the Ministry of Education responsibility for keeping these relics, as they are national relics and much better cared for by a Minister not concerned with the everyday problems of our transport?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it is a matter of opinion. After all, the Railways Board are responsible for transport, and the Scheme allows for the collecting together of relics from all forms of transport—road, rail and inland waterways. Moreover, it is an historical museum of their industry. There are many industries where firms that have been connected with that industry over a long period of years quite proudly maintain a museum of the development of their industry. This is a question of the development of transport, and we think it quite proper for the transport organisations to have to maintain the history of their own industry.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, while I agree, perhaps some public concern might be allayed if there were a permanent board of trustees which would have, in addition to the Railways Board, the responsibility of looking after these relics.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, trustees can be a liability as well as an asset. I have had some funds in which they have been involved. But interest in this museum is now increasing, with publicity. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving this opportunity for more publicity, because I think that the curator and the staff are doing a first-class job and have arranged a first-class exhibition. The more publicity we get, and the more the museum is used by the public and by educational institutions, the nearer we shall come to making it viable.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would use his influence on his right honourable friend in another place to stop calling these objects "relics". I think that it would be for the better interest of the public to regard these as past achievements and not as relics.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that term is often applied to this House.

SIMON DE MONTFORT PARLIAMENT ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS
3.19 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice: whether any Statement is to be made by Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the seven-hundredth anniversary of the Simon de Montfort Parliament.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): Yes, my Lords. It is proposed that on Wednesday, January 20, the House should meet at 11.30 a.m. and that, after Prayers and a Statement by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the Sitting should be adjourned during pleasure. I understand that similar arrangements have been made in another place. Your Lordships will then proceed to the Royal Gallery to await the arrival of Mr. Speaker and Members of another place. There will be more extensive celebrations later in the year.

PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Taylor will be making a statement on prescription charges at a suitable moment after 3.30 o'clock.
CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
GLASGOW CORPORATION CON- SOLIDATION (WATER, TRANS- PORT AND MARKETS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. BILL
3.21 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I missed my cue late yesterday evening, and I am grateful for the support of my colleagues behind me in not allowing me to miss it again on this occasion. I did not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was going to say anything on Third Reading. We had a lengthy and, I think, useful Committee stage, but there are a few things that I should like to say.
First of all, I think that we managed to get through this Bill very amicably, in spite of some highly controversial aspects of it. That is only to be expected in your Lordships' House, on whichever sides the two main Parties are sitting, and I am very glad of it. At the same time, if I may be permitted to say so, we on this side did carry out the instructions of my noble Leader Lord Carrington, to which I referred at the beginning of my Second Reading speech. We have criticised the Bill, but we did so constructively, and at the same time thought of the interests of the country as a whole. I think that I can say truthfully that all of us on this side of the House are as glad as noble Lords opposite are that it is going to pass this side of Christmas. There is no reason, of course, why we, or anybody else, should behave in a less Christian manner during the whole of the year, but perhaps at this season there is a special reason why we should behave in a more Christian manner than we usually do. Therefore, if the anxiety of many people,
540
that they may be turned into the street before Christmas, has been allayed, then we on this side are indeed very happy.
At the same time, we have considered the interests of certain special groups, minority groups, of the community, who, we feel, are adversely affected by this temporary measure and who, we feel, should be protected because they are not, perhaps, receiving their full due of consideration. There are two instances of this. One is that of the agricultural tied cottages. We discussed this question very thoroughly, and noble Lords on this side feel that we have substantially the better of the argument, when tested in any logical and analytical sense. We shall come back to this point at a later date, when major legislation is brought before your Lordships' House. We hope that, before that happens, the Party opposite will have considered this matter much more deeply than they evidently have done so far, because when it came to the final thought, they fell back on an argument which was purely political and nothing else. Therefore we hope that when this subject comes up before the House again, possibly during the summer months, we shall hear from the Government more substantial arguments and better reasoned arguments, because we shall have to go over this ground again and perhaps take a firmer stand than we have done on this occasion.
The second matter which caused us much concern on this side of the House was that of furnished lettings. We appreciate as well as anybody that there is a problem here in London and in some of the bigger cities. We ourselves had undertaken, on receiving the report of the Milner Holland Committee, to deal with this problem in those places where it needed attention. But we contend that it is quite unnecessary, in a temporary measure—indeed, it will be unnecessary in permanent legislation—to cover all furnished lettings, irrespective of their nature.
In this respect, we drew special attention to the problem of short lettings, particularly of holiday lettings at seaside resorts and short winter lettings. I think that I must be allowed to say more about this matter, because in our discussions yesterday, on Committee stage, I warned noble Lords opposite that if

541
they were unable to give any sort of undertaking on this matter I should reserve the right to raise it on Report stage. I did not do so, because I was not too sure of the procedure, when a Committee had been completed without any Amendments having been made and when the Report was received and went through without comment. That is why I raise the matter now on Third Reading, because I feel that we have not done full justice to the subject.
We have, indeed, the most extraordinary situation. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, gave us to believe that these summer lettings would not be included in the Bill, because of the two words "in residence" contained in Clause 1. words which had been inserted into the clause by a Conservative Amendment moved in another place, but for a different reason. His opinion, which is based on the best advice available from the Departments for which he is responsible, was contradicted by no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I did not contradict it. What I said was that I was not sure that the word "residence" would really cure this problem: and I explained why, for other reasons, it did not matter.
LORD HASTINGS: I should not like to put words into the noble and learned Lord's mouth. But he certainly said he was not sure, and that rather led one to believe that these lettings could not be taken to be excluded from the Bill and, therefore, would actually be included in the Bill, and that summer lettings would be affected by the temporary measure. That has never been denied. The noble Lord opposite is shaking his head; but they will be affected by this temporary measure. I cannot recall that anything has been said in your Lordships' House to show that they will not be affected. If the noble Lord shakes his head and says that they will not be affected, and if, in giving his opinion at the beginning of his Second Reading Speech he intended to indicate that the Government did not wish the summer lettings to be affected—and I believe that to be the case—why were the Government not able to accept
542
the Amendment put forward by us, or produce one of their own, confined purely to summer lettings or to short lettings of a month or less? Why have they refused to take any action on this matter? The fears of the people concerned are very real, and they are likely to increase, rather than decrease, during the six months ahead.
I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to say quite clearly whether it is the intention of the Government that furnished lettings of this sort should be included, not only in this Bill but in the major legislation which is to follow; because that is what the people concerned really want to know. We have not only instant government, but government by Statement, and we do not want that to be extended into government by misstatement. I hope the noble Lord will give us further assurances on this matter, because there has been confusion in another place, and even more so in your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that it does not matter, and I am bound to admit that it is not often that a lawyer says that. But I shall leave the legal side of it to my noble and learned friend behind me, if he chooses to come into this discussion. I think we should be told quite clearly why it does not matter, because noble Lords opposite have usually just fallen back on the argument: "Forgive us, please. We have been in a bit of a hurry. It is only a temporary measure. Therefore, it does not matter." But it is important for this particular class of person. It matters to them for this coming spring and summer; to them it is a matter of life and death. They must have some assurances for the future. I have given the noble Lord in charge of the Bill here his chance during the Committee stage, and he has not taken it; and neither did the Lord Chancellor. But I hope that they will be able to give the necessary assurances to us before we pass this Bill.
Having said that, I would thank the noble Lord for his courtesy and for the care he has taken in replying to Amendments. I would merely add, in conclusion, that so far as we are concerned, this Bill may be necessary in its basic principle, which we have readily accepted, but it has many unnecessary features about it. It has been

543
ill-thought-out; it has been too hastily produced; and we hope that the Government will do much better in their major legislation.
3.35 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in a semi-serious spirit for his good wishes to the Government, and in a serious spirit for the way he and his noble friends treated this Bill. I think that all through the discussions they had in mind the main purpose of the Bill, which is, of course, a temporary measure; it goes on for only a year. It is intended, not so much as a means of sending people to prison, but as a means of deterring them from oppressing their fellow citizens, and is directed, not to the whole body of landlords, but to the few landlords—and we have had some well-known ones in London—who have behaved very badly during a housing shortage. Having that in mind, I must say that all the criticism and comments we have had are perfectly fair. I did not always agree with them, of course; that is too much to expect; but I felt that noble Lords opposite were doing their job as an Opposition—they will say as a temporary Opposition; but that is the nature of democratic government. After all, one should be able to say that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not expect me to accept all his self-congratulation—congratulation to his Party, I mean—or all the comments he made about the balance of argument one way or the other. We say these things and, to put it mildly, we do not always expect the other side to agree.
To turn to the two particular points he made, I agree with the noble Lord that tied cottages had a pretty good run yesterday. In fact, there seemed to be at times a tendency to forget what is the real point of this Bill. It is simply a Bill to prevent people in certain cases from trying what is commonly called self-help; that is to say, turning out without undue violence instead of having recourse to the courts, where in the circumstances we think they ought to go. That is the only object of the Bill. It does not raise any general question about rent or housing; it does not raise any general question about tied cottages at the moment; and, of course, it has been
544
introduced because we are taking time—and I hope noble Lords opposite, who have been saying that this Bill was hasty, although I do not think it was, will not grudge us the time to consider the major measure—to consider what to do in a much bigger measure that we stand committed to. And obviously I cannot say anything about that.
To turn now to the letting of seaside places in the summer, I think that the question of summer lettings does beg the question a little. The main point (and I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it quite clear) is whether these are lettings at all. I suggested, first of all, on the Second Reading of the Bill and, secondly, at least once in Committee—and I am afraid it was a good many times—that they were not lettings at all; that they were licences, like students' accommodation in "digs" and other cases that we had in mind. I must say I do not agree with the noble Lord that the discussion yesterday was really ineffective or inefficient. I felt on this point that he was not doing himself full justice. I thought he put the whole of his, if I may say so, slightly indifferent case very well indeed, and I should like to congratulate him on this. I do not think in what he said to-day he could have added, or did in fact add, to what he said yesterday. If the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is going to add something, I will gladly give way at once.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I will speak later.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I do not know that there is very much more to answer about tied cottages. However, I should like to make one thing perfectly clear. It is not my job (and I should not esteem myself capable of it) to argue with Lord Chancellors about the law—any of them. I would merely point out that even Lord Chancellors have been known to disagree with one another; judges have been known to disagree with one another, and members of the Bar make a living out of disagreeing with one another, though in the latter case they are not necessarily their own opinions. There are always two sides to a case, and a large number of circumstances affecting it. This particular case of summer lettings is rather like that.

545
I think the substantial point here is: should one try to make separate provision for some of these cases, or are the provisions in the Bill sufficient having regard to its temporary purpose? We have not attempted to define different categories of letting of premises. We have defined the persons involved, and so on. We have not tried to make a distinction, for the purposes of this Bill, between letting and licence. We have not tried to alter or clarify the law in any way about that. All I can say to your Lordships is that, in a Bill of this character, I think we are right. If we tried to add too much to it we might be aiming at a theoretical perfection and find ourselves bogged down in a confusion of language. I rather think that the old caravan, Scherzo, that trotted out its ancient form yesterday—the ancient pantechnicon that could hardly move without falling to bits—was a pretty good instance of the kind of trouble you get into if you put too many definitions where there is already a large body of law that has been interpreted for various purposes and at various times. Therefore I would suggest that we were quite right in refusing to accept Amendments.
May I end by saying to the noble Lord that I am very sorry—if I may use a most un-Parliamentary phrase—that he "missed the bus" yesterday. I was not trying to "pull a fast one" in any way, and I am sure that he knows that I was not. If I had known that it was intended to raise this point, and if we could have done anything to help, I would have done so, subject only to one thing—and I repeat this: that we did have a pretty full discussion on this yesterday, and I thought that, on the whole, we discussed it well, as we discussed other things well.
I hope that I have not taken up too much time, and I would just add one final comment, concerning tied cottages. We were accused of ending up with a purely political argument. I would say, with respect to noble Lords opposite, that I hope they will not come to regard carrying out electoral pledges as a form of political argument. It is the duty of honest people, in the political business of this country, and when they go to the electors before an Election, to tell them what they mean to do; and, when they get back to power, to do it, so far as they can. They ought not even to be teased for that. Noble Lords opposite may say it was a
546
wrong thing to promise. That is quite another argument. But to say it is a political argument or, as somebody called it yesterday, doctrinaire Socialism if we carry out an electoral promise, seems to me to be quite the wrong way of attacking the question. The merits of the proposals are what matter.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to add a little to what has been said on this subject, and also one word in passing upon the observations about Party politics to which the noble Lord referred. It does not seem to me in the least inconsistent with doctrinaire Socialism that the Party opposite should seek to carry out one of the pledges that apparently they gave at the Election. But it still may be doctrinaire Socialism.
I am anxious about one part of the Bill. So far as the main purpose is concerned there has been no controversy. It is obviously right, if there is to be a Bill reintroducing some form of rent control, that people should be prevented from taking steps prematurely before we see that legislation; and here it is intended to avoid the object of its operation. But as has been said, the Bill also touches tied agricultural cottages, and the cottages occupied by licence by agricultural workers. I think I can summarise the argument for including such licensees. I believe it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who said how difficult this question was, and how many cases there have been as to whether or not the man concerned was an agricultural tenant or an agricultural licensee. It will depend in each case on the particular circumstances and facts. The argument was that to avoid all that, to avoid all the controversy which may arise in the county courts if we do not include what I call agricultural licenses, we should include the lot. I hope I have summarised it correctly, because I think it is relevant to bear that in mind.
LORD MITCHISON: Not quite.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think I have summarised it sufficiently for the point I was seeking to make with regard to what have been commonly called seaside lettings. The noble Lord, when he was moving the Second Reading of this Bill, was, I thought, quite positive. I do not think there is any question here of

547
a disagreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself on a question of law, for I share the view expressed by him on the particular point on which he dissented from the noble Lord. But the noble Lord was quite positive in his statements when he said, if I may quote his words:
"There seems to have been some misunderstanding about types of occupation which have been thought to be included for the purposes of this Bill as furnished lettings. University students, for instance, in 'digs', will usually be licensees, not tenants. Summer lettings at the seaside will not be within the Bill, because the occupiers, though they may be in occupation, will not be in residence…."—[Official Report, Vol. 262 (No. 21), col. 284, December 14, 1964.]
I think I have read enough to state quite accurately the grounds the noble Lord put forward for his assertion, as Minister in charge of the Bill, that this Bill would not bite on that kind of occupation. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came to reply he said—and I agree with him—that he was not quite certain that the word "residence" would do the trick in taking out of the scope of the Bill what are referred to as summer lettings. There I agree with him. But the point remains—and I will come on to deal with this—was it the object of the Government to keep this kind of letting outside or to include it within the scope of the measure?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for giving way—and perhaps I should congratulate him on his new title. What happened about this was that I gave one reason and my noble and learned friend gave another for coming to the same conclusion. I should like the noble and learned Lord, if he would be so good, to indicate in what respect the two conclusions differ. It is perfectly true that the grounds upon which we arrived at them were different. I should be most grateful if he would make quite clear what the difference was between the two conclusions. May I say one thing before I sit down? I repeat that I am always wrong if I try to argue law with Lord Chancellors, present or past.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am not seeking here to indulge in an argument on law at all. The noble
548
Lord put forward two reasons why he thought that lettings of this kind were outside the scope of the Bill, and one of the reasons he put forward was the one which the noble and learned Lord Lord Chancellor, as I gather approved. and with which he agreed. I will come to that in a moment. I am leaving the question of the interpretation of the word "residence."
Before the noble Lord interrupted me I was on the point as to what was the Government's real intention here. Is it the Government's intention merely to keep within the scope of the Bill the short seasonal summer lettings (or maybe winter lettings) of furnished premises, or is it their intention that they should not come within the scope of the Bill? As I gather from reading the speeches, it is their intention that they should not come within the scope of the Bill, and both noble Lords think, for the reasons expressed by the Lord Chancellor, that in fact that kind of occupation is outside the scope of the Bill.
I must say I find some difficulty about that. It is just as difficult to tell whether an occupation of seaside premises is on a licence or is under a tenancy as it is with regard to an agricultural tenant. It turns always on the facts. A lodger, of course, is a licensee, but you may well have a tenant living in a house with a landlord living on the premises; the landlord in possession of the common portion of the premises and the tenant being a tenant of one room. It is very difficult often to decide whether it is a tenancy or a licence. It was for that reason that the argument was put forward that in relation to agricultural occupants we cannot distinguish between the two.
Now let us see what is the position under this Bill with regard to a seaside letting. First of all, what I may call the landlord or, it may be, the licensor, will be in some doubt as to whether he is within the scope of this Bill or not. Where it is a short let and the tenants or occupants decide to stay on, he may realise that they will attain their objective if he has to go to the county court. He may try to exercise the rights that he would have if he were indeed a licensor. But he may be wrong, and then he gets into all the pains and penalties imposed by this Bill. On the other hand, if he does go to the county court and says, "I am a landlord: I

549
have to come here for an order for possession because these people will not leave" the county court judge then has to go into a very difficult question of whether he is a landlord or a licensee, because the county court judge will have to decide whether or not this Bill (when it becomes an Act) will apply to him. I must say that I do not think that that is very satisfactory.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that usually these occupants will be licensees. I personally am not prepared to go so far as that. A great many of them may be, but I am quite sure that a great many of them will not be. There will be many occasions and many instances where premises are taken—it is just as easy to rent furnished premises as it is to rent unfurnished premises; you can rent furnished premises for the matter of a week, a fortnight or a month—and it will be a tenancy, and the Bill will apply. So I am not happy about the answer. I do not think there are any statistics on this, because there cannot be, to say that usually they will be licensees and not tenants. I do not think that that will be the case.
This doubt that is left in this Bill as it stands now can be removed by considering an Amendment, if indeed it is the Government's intention, as I understand it to be, that this Bill should not bite on that kind of occupation. I should have thought that it would not have created any difficulty at all here if the Government had put down an Amendment just to say that a tenancy of furnished rooms for a fixed term not exceeding, say, a month, would not come within the scope of this Bill.
Suggestions have been made to noble Lords opposite in the course of these debates to put down an Amendment; they have all the resources available to them to consider it; but it has not been put down and it has not been considered. I do not know whether it is too late for the Government to move an Amendment of that kind now. We, I think, cannot. But I am saying, with the greatest regret, that I think we are left in a very unfortunate position under this Bill with regard to the seaside lettings. As I say, in each case, so far as I can see, where there is an occupa-
550
tion after the agreed period there will be very difficult problems for the licensee or landlord, as the case may be, and for the county court judge, and I think that could all have been avoided if Her Majesty's Government had been more ready to accept the suggestions put forward by my noble friends.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount, before he sits down, whether he is aware that no such Amendment was put down, and that the form of Amendment he is suggesting was never put forward until this moment?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am very surprised to hear that. When this point was raised Her Majesty's Government did consider whether or not it was possible. The point about seaside lettings was raised in your Lordships' House, I should have thought, more than once; and certainly it was raised in another place. I should have thought that, if Her Majesty's Government were seeking to meet the point, that would have been one of the first things they would consider, with their advisers.
3.55 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether a very simple, plain and blunt man may explain the difficulty that confronts him. I really wish to understand what is the Government's contention about this, but I am, frankly, baffled. I have not before intervened on this Bill, largely because I accepted two statements. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, in the passage in his speech on Second Reading which has been partially quoted, but of which I shall quote just a little bit more, was expressing with complete accuracy the belief of the Government and their intentions. I admit now, as everybody admits, that he got his law wrong, because, with everybody else, I agreed with the correction made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, may I say that I did not make a correction? I said that I was not sure, but, for reasons which I explained, it did not matter whether that was so or not. I was not sure: I did not correct.
LORD CONESFORD: I shall be delighted to support the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and assure him that his law was quite correct, but I shall quote a little more of his statement so that nobody can say that I was misrepresenting him in any way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, said—it was partially quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, but I should like to quote just a few more words—was this:
"Summer lettings at the seaside will not be within the Bill, because the occupiers, though they may be in occupation, will not be in residence … ".
So much was quoted by my noble friend just now. But let me quote the rest of the sentence:
"… and the reference to residents has been included since the Second Reading of the Bill in the definition of occupier, in Clause 1 (2), so as to avoid any misunderstanding."—[Official Report, Vol. 262 (No. 21), col. 284, December 14, 1964.]
That was the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison. I should have thought that a more categorical statement of what was the intention of the Government could scarcely have been made. It was a categorical and clear statement that he thought the Bill now did what those on this side, desire—namely, that it excluded summer lettings at the seaside.
Now let me turn to what the Lord Chancellor said. It will be found in column 339 of Monday's debate:
"As to the seaside accommodation, I would frankly say, with all respect to the advice which my noble friend Lord Mitchison has received, that I am not sure that the word 'residence' will really cure the problem. The position I think is this. The ordinary seaside accommodation is rooms or lodgings, and of course the Bill does not touch them at all, because the Bill relates only to tenancies. But I quite agree that there might be a man who lets his flat for the summer holiday and goes away himself because he lives by the seaside; and if it is a self-contained flat it is a tenancy and, of course, the Act will apply."
So the House will see that there is a categorical statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, that, to avoid all misunderstanding, something has been put in the definition which has the effect of excluding these summer lettings at the seaside, while the Lord Chancellor is carefully explaining that the intention so accurately stated by his noble friend was not, in fact, achieved by the Bill as it stood then and as it stands now.
552
I should have thought, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, is quite capable of stating accurately what he intends, that he accurately described what the Government's intention was in his speech. I accept what he said as an accurate statement of the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I also support with all the weight I can on legal grounds the statement of the law of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But the combination of those two statements is that the Government's intention has not been achieved under the Bill as it now stands. This seems to me to be an important fact, even though the Bill is only temporary.
We are, of course, perfectly accustomed to the Government's not knowing what they are doing, but it is a novelty when they do not even know what they want to do. That is a new advance in our proceedings. The point I want to make is a perfectly simple one. Do the Government still have the intention that the Bill, which will shortly be an Act, shall have the meaning given to it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison. on Second Reading, or do they not? And if they wish it to have the effect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, said it had, is it really to be said that the Government, with all the resources of the Parliamentary draftsmen and all the technical aid which is at their disposal, are unable to draft an Amendment which will make their own Bill carry out the intention that they themselves proclaim?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may clear up this little difficulty, any difficulty has arisen simply and solely by the use of the ambiguous word "lettings" by noble Lords of the Opposition. Nobody would blame a layman for using the word "lettings", but seeing the evident ambiguity here I was a little surprised that the word was continued to be used by the noble Lord who has just spoken, who is himself a distinguished lawyer. This has caused all the trouble. In law it is either a tenancy or a licence. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in telling which is which, except in the field of tied cottages, which for particular reasons have on occasion caused a good deal of difficulty. If by seaside lettings—and my noble friend Lord Mitchison was using the term in that sense—one is talking about ordinary seaside lodgings or rooms, these of course are not tenancies, they are

553
licences. There is no exclusive occupation, and anybody who goes to take rooms at the seaside is taking premises to which this Bill does not apply at all, because this Bill, as it says, applies only to tenancies.
Of course, you can have a tenancy at the seaside as you can anywhere else, and, as I made plain in what I said, if you go and take a self-contained flat for six months, of course the fact that it is at the seaside does not stop it from being a tenancy and the Act applies. What is the effect of that? I do not think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, gave us the benefit of his opinion on the Second Reading, so perhaps I may be forgiven if I explain that this is an Act to stop landlords from using force. They and policemen and warders are, I think, the only people who by occupation have a legal right to use force, landlords being entitled to force tenants out if they use no more force than is reasonably necessary. No other occupation is privileged, if it cannot get its own way, to use force in that way, and if I say that is the landlord's right your Lordships will bear in mind, I am sure, that they have that privilege only if they live in England or Wales, and that in Scotland, where also people have seaside accommodation, they have had no such privilege since 1955. What will happen if there is a tenancy at the seaside, as in towns, in England or Wales, is that landlords will be in exactly the same position as they have always been in in Scotland—namely, they will not be able to throw a tenant out but will have to go to the courts, and if wishing that to be the law is to be a doctrinaire Socialist, then I can only say that I am very glad that I am a doctrinaire Socialist.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES
4.7 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, a Statement has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health on the subject of the abolition of prescription
554
charges. I will read it to your Lordships, in his own words:
"I wish to make a Statement about the Government's intentions regarding National Health Service charges. First, prescription charges. These comprise the ordinary 2s. charge for prescriptions and charges for elastic hosiery, which are payable both by the patients of general practitioners and by hospital out-patients, together with the charges payable by hospital out-patients for certain appliances. With effect from February 1 next, we propose to abolish all these charges, which since 1952 have created a financial barrier between the patient and the treatment he needs. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are starting at once the necessary consultations with the professions on amendment of their terms of service, with a view to making regulations for this purpose when the House reassembles after the Christmas Recess. Until February 1 the existing charges will continue to be payable.
"There will remain the charges for dental treatment and appliances and those for spectacles. It is our aim to abolish these charges also, in due course, by means of legislation which will revoke the statutory powers authorising the levy both of these charges and of prescription charges. It will not be possible to introduce such legislation during the current Session."
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. May I say at once that we recognise that prescription charges have imposed upon certain people some difficulties, though not, I feel, insuperable difficulties. I am thinking of such persons as those on National Assistance or disabled pensioners, and the chronically sick and aged who are in need of what I believe is called maintenance drug therapy.
Although the proposals outlined in the Statement will solve these problems, they appear, to us at any rate, to be a somewhat crude and somewhat indiscriminate way of dealing with a fairly limited problem. May I also point out to the noble Lord, although I am quite certain he does not need me to tell him, the vital need to continue the policy of the late

555
Government of spending every available penny on the urgent requirement to improve hospitals, to extend hospital accommodation and the medical services generally, which equally affects every man, woman and child in the country. Will he give an assurance to the House that the somewhat eye-catching measures which he has announced to-day will not be at the expense of these other, and equally important, improvements in our medical services? May I also ask him whether he can give the House any indication of the total cost to the Exchequer of abolishing all the prescription charges, both in this Session and, as I understand from the Statement, in the future?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, to answer the noble Marquess's last question first, I would say that the estimated cost of abolishing the prescription charges and charges for certain appliances for hospital outpatients, which will be carried out, we hope, on February 1, will be £25 million per annum. The second list of charges to be abolished to which I referred were charges for dental treatment and appliances and those for spectacles, which it would not be possible to deal with during the coming Session. Those we estimate to cost something under £20 million per annum. So the answer is, £25 million for the first, and £20 million for the second, the second not to apply immediately.
The noble Marquess asked for an assurance that there would be no curtailment in the efforts to improve hospitals. I gave that assurance only a few days ago, in answer to another Question, and I will willingly repeat it now. I could not agree with him that this is an eyecatching measure; nor could I agree with him that it is a fairly limited problem, although I concede that it is a difficult problem if one is thinking of it purely from the technical point of view. I feel that we are approaching it in probably the best way as a matter of general principle and general humanity.
I could not agree with him, for example, that it is easy to isolate those people in need of maintenance therapy and abolish charges for those people only. So many people now require continuing therapy over a number of years and are greatly benefited by this—I have
556
in mind many psychiatric patients—that to single these out for exception would make it most difficult. Therefore, speaking purely medically, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government have on balance done, and will be doing, the right thing.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the £25 million that he has mentioned, he has now included the elastic stockings of which he spoke? Because previously we were given the amount of £25 million as the cost of abolishing prescription charges only. Have the stockings now been included, or are they an extra?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to answer the noble Lady. The stockings are included in the £25 million, as also are surgical boots and shoes, abdominal supports and wigs when they are issued through the hospitals, as indeed they can only be issued, from the point of view of the National Health Service.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since these proposals were first put forward by Her Majesty's Government it has become more clear that it is the view of most of the doctors, and I believe also of the British Medical Association, that while they favour the abolition of prescription charges in principle, this will lead to a vast increase in the calls on the ordinary general medical practitioner, and they expect that more and more of a desperately busy doctor's time will be taken up with trivial cases, to the detriment of patients who are seriously ill? Is the noble Lord aware that, in the main, and for those reasons, doctors strongly oppose the introduction of these proposals at the present time?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am aware of some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton says, but not of others. It is true that the British Medical Association, having steadily maintained their opposition to prescription charges over all the years until this year, reversed their decision by, I think a two-thirds majority at their Annual Conference. But I would point out, respectfully, that that Annual Conference is not necessarily representative of the majority of medical opinion. We have no way of knowing for certain what the

557
majority of the doctors think. It is, however, fair to say that many doctors are anxious about whether this may lead to extra work for them, and in so far as people have been prevented from seeking their doctor's aid because of fear or an inability to pay the necessary fee, it may lead to a slight increase. I do not myself think the increase will be of any substantial size at all, and I hope that by other measures, which are now being discussed between the doctors and the Ministry in the Working Party, the conditions of general practice may be improved, so that the real needs of the patient may be met, despite any inevitable small increase in calls for the general practitioner.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that this is a typical example of the Government getting their priorities quite wrong? Surely it is more important for spectacles to be dealt with first and prescription charges later? There is a good deal more hardship being caused to people who wear spectacles and who need a replacement than to the vast majority of wage earners who can well afford the prescription charges.
LORD TAYLOR: No, my Lords, I could not agree at all with the noble Lord. In my experience, most of the hardship occurs amongst old people who need repeated and multiple prescriptions. If an old person requires three drugs at once, is on an old age pension and has to pay six shillings when he goes to the doctor, this places a substantial burden on his small income, and I am glad that we are dealing with prescription charges first. Moreover, these drugs for old people have to be received and taken often and repeatedly, and are essential, whereas spectacles can wait a little.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is it not the case with the old person that he or she needs spectacles the whole time as well as drugs?
LORD TAYLOR: Yes, indeed. But having got some spectacles, one can get along for a little while without the same degree of urgency that there is in the case of drugs.

DISARMAMENT AND THE ECONOMY
4.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL rose to call attention to the need for progress in Disarmament and consideration of the economic and industrial effects; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at this season of the year, when the spirit of peace pervades the land, I feel it is an appropriate time to discuss disarmament. May I, in the first place, welcome to our debates the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who will be making his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to-day? I am sure that we all wish him well on his appointment as Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament.
It seems that throughout history people have struggled in vain to persuade nations to sublimate their warlike tendencies. On the other hand, there have been those who believe that war should be regarded as a cathartic and therefore not wholly evil. To-day, the situation has radically altered. Disarmament is essential, not only as a method of avoiding war, but for securing human survival itself. A significant aspect of modern warfare—and on this occasion, when we have present noble Lords who have served so well in our Forces in the past, I find it rather strange that they should not mention this fact—is that it rejects every code governing its conduct, for it is now waged against helpless, unprotected civilian populations. Indeed, President Johnson said this year that the Soviet Union and the United States of America have already produced enough explosive force to equal 10 tons of T.N.T. for every man, woman and child on the face of the earth. It seems, therefore, that the invention of nuclear weapons has created an entirely new historical situation. It is well-nigh impossible to-day for any nation to wage war to destroy an enemy without itself being destroyed in the process.
While this development is fraught with terrible dangers, it also contains considerable hope, if there is an early enough realisation that war as a political expedient is finished for all time. I think—and I believe that there are many like me—there is a universal desire for total disarmament. Indeed, the official policy of both the United States and the Soviet

559
Union is general and complete disarmament. This policy was supported by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers very recently. As a result, we looked with great expectations to the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee when it began its work in Geneva. Unhappily, now that the Report on this year's work is out, it seems that mutual fears and suspicions have paralysed the will of the participating nations, if one is to judge by their failure to achieve results. This year's discussions ranged over the size of the nuclear deterrent and the increasingly pressing problem of preventing the production of nuclear weapons. So little progress was made that even the year-old Test Ban Treaty was not widened to include underground tests. In fact, even while discussions were going on, the great Powers were making underground tests regularly.
This deadlock is a matter of profound concern to the whole world. The eight neutral, non-aligned countries, impatient of this delay, circulated a memorandum expressing regret at the failure to make progress. Nevertheless, it appears to me, having discussed this with many experts in this field and with many representatives of other countries, that they are satisfied, provided that this exhaustive dialogue between East and West, which presumably they regard in the nature of a safety valve, continues. My Lords, this complacent attitude is fraught with danger; for the most pressing international need is the early conclusion of a non-dissemination agreement or an agreement setting up nuclear-free zones.
The non-aligned countries at the Organisation for African Unity meeting in July called for an agreement by which the non-nuclear Powers would renounce manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons. Of course we welcome this attitude, as every peace-loving person must do. But resolutions cannot halt the march of events. While the present non-nuclear Powers disavow their interest, the fact is that the nuclear bomb is fast becoming a status symbol which exercises a fascination for the pocket dictator. Meanwhile, the installation of inter-continental missile sites continues, and according to the American delegate at Geneva this year the United States will have by 1965 750 per cent. more strategic
560
missiles than when the current Disarmament Conference began in 1962.
Can we be complacent over this? It seems to me, and I believe, to many others (for I am not so immodest as to stand here and express in a dogmatic fashion views which have not, I think, full support in many quarters), that the abortive discussions at Geneva would have been averted if they had proceeded along different lines. Surely the creation of a permanent peace-keeping force, together with supra-national, judicial, legislative and executive powers, should precede, or take place simultaneously with, the other discussions. Nations should be made to feel that they are already provided with an adequate umbrella before they are invited to discard their raincoats. And if we read the Report of the Committee very carefully we see that the nervousness, the apprehension, of so many representatives in Geneva arises from their fear of what may happen if they disarm too soon.
Therefore, I suggest that the chronological approach has been wrong. We must provide some kind of supranational power (later it will be called, I hope, World Government), if we are to give these nations complete assurance. The preservation of law and order is the first duty of any national Government. Similarly, it should be the first task of a supra-national authority.
The question is, of course: can we achieve an effective permanent peacekeeping force without a complete revision of the United Nations? I say "permanent" force, because we all know that there have been embryo forces which have been set up for ad hoc reasons; but what I am asking for is a permanent peace-keeping force. What I am asking the House—and I hope that others who will take part in the debate will perhaps address themselves to this point—is whether the United Nations, in its present form, is the institution which can establish this force. While the individual members of the United Nations are imbued, I am sure, with a high moral purpose, its deliberations are conducted in an atmosphere of international mistrust. It seems to me that to permit China, with a population of nearly 500

561
million to be "black-balled" by members of the United Nations is a striking indication of a collective impotence. How is it possible for a satisfactory solution of some of our world problems to emerge while this powerful nation is prevented from making a contribution to our international consultations?
As the Minister for Disarmament may be able to tell us more about the proposed multilateral force he will no doubt be able to elaborate on the Prime Minister's speech in the other place yesterday—a speech which I heard, and which I am quite sure the noble Lord knows much more about than I do. Therefore, I wish to make only one brief comment on that aspect of what I hope will be disarmament, or indirect disarmament.
It is, of course, in the context of the appalling losses suffered by the Soviet Union at the hands of Germany that she views a possible Nato multilateral force. Attempts to dispel these fears—and they have been made from many quarters—were met by the shrewd Russian comment of Mr. Zorin. It was inconceivable, he said, that Western Germany should have agreed to pay 40 per cent. of the cost of the multilateral force if the trigger-finger was to be American, and if all West Germany would be able to do was to hold its ringer on the safety catch. I believe that that comment should evoke sympathy from all previous victims of German aggression.
Now I come to what will happen, and I am optimistic enough to believe that I shall still be alive when it does happen, when disarmament becomes a reality. Of course, there are formidable vested interests which will unite to oppose disarmament on the grounds that it will be accompanied by economic depression and unemployment. My Lords, beating swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks is not easy, when one considers that the military forces of the world number 20 million and are served by 30 million more engaged in producing goods and services. Let us envisage what could be done in the world by all those scientists and technicians who now devote their lives to destruction. Our own defence expenditure is £300 million a year, which is equivalent to half of the short-fall in our balance of payments.
We have had experiences of reallocating our services and our manpower. Our
562
experiences after the Second World War provide a useful guide, because we found then that problems similar to those which may be raised by disarmament were no different from those resulting from any major reallocation of resources. It should not be forgotten that the gap in living standards between the developed and the undeveloped countries is widening, with all the ominous consequences. Out defence expenditure is about ten times as big as our overseas aid last year, and a very small part of our savings on disarmament would provide a very big increase, proportionately, in our foreign aid. Moreover, an increase in aid both in money and in technicians, with the general easing of tension, should lead to an expansion of world trade and international investment. Even the most developed countries are finding the cost of scientific research beyond their resources, and cooperation is becoming a practical necessity. I am not blind to the fact that a possible economic disturbance will be the impact of disarmament on raw material producing countries, and the disposal of stockpiles must call for international planning. Disarmament must, of course, cause a great deal of disturbance which will need the careful, planned approach of every country. There are risks of industrial recession, but I believe that by this planning they may be avoided.
My Lords, this is a big subject and I have endeavoured to touch briefly on only certain aspects of it, so that my noble friend the Minister for Disarmament may have plenty of time to enlarge on any points he wants to raise. I wish to say this, finally. We should bear in mind that short-term risks weigh light against the long-term economic advantages of disarmament, and a victory in the field of disarmament is more lasting than a victory in war, and more profitable. I beg to move for Papers.
4.34 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this subject to us this afternoon, and, more especially, for the way in which she has taken us over the course. I would agree with her straight away that this is an opportune moment for your Lordships' voice, the noble voice of reason, to be heard on this important subject. I think, as the noble Baroness herself said, that

563
this is also an opportune moment because this debate will, in a moment, serve as a launching pad for our new colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whom I am very glad to welcome for a short time on the Benches opposite. I shall try not to stand too long between your Lordships and the new, but peaceful, British missile opposite.
I do not propose to follow the noble Baroness down all the avenues along which she has so gracefully taken us. But I should like to say straight away that I agree with a good deal, although not all, of what she has said. I particularly agree with the unpartisan tones in which she has opened this discussion. This is almost too serious a matter for purely Party polemics. It is certainly too serious a matter—and I hope I shall not be accused of making a Party point here—for the sort of treatment which the present Prime Minister gave it earlier this year, when he said that the Tories had never taken disarmament seriously. In any event, I feel it is quite unnecessary for us to create a Party dispute on this matter, since I believe that between the Parties and within the country as a whole, or over a large spread of opinion, there is a fairly wide consensus of opinion on disarmament.
I feel that most people are at one in believing with the present, and, indeed, with the past, Government, if I have the present Government's views on this matter right, that our goal must remain general and complete disarmament, but that such disarmament should not be onesided; that it must be multilateral. I suspect that we all respect the pure Pacifist position, the position which was put so nobly in the 1660 original manifesto of the Society of Friends to Charles 11, in these words:
"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fighting with outward weapons, for any end, under any pretence whatever; this is our testimony to the whole world."
We respect that spirit when we find it, for example, in the unilateralists to-day. Unfortunately, we often find much else besides.
But, my Lords, I repeat that I think most of us in your Lordships' House are multilateralists in this matter. We believe that disarmament must be balanced in all its stages, so as to confer the minimum advantage on one party at the expense
564
of the other as the process goes on, if it goes on; that it must wherever necessary be subject to really adequate verification; and that when completed it must be buttressed by a really adequate enforcing authority. I am sure, therefore, that most of your Lordships agree that that sort of disarmament is a good thing. I am certain that most of us also agree that in the world in which we live this good and desirable end is fiendishly difficult to achieve, and that, until we achieve it, we, in the West as a whole, must keep our guard up and our powder and our alliances dry.
But I think that we are also broadly agreed on one other matter, and that is that we live, all of us, in an exceptionally dangerous world. I believe that the danger can be overstated. I do not myself believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Snow, appears to believe, or appeared to believe, I think, a couple of years ago, in the virtual certainty of atomic war.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): My Lords, may I make a point of personal explanation? What I actually said was that if nuclear bombs proliferate, of which at that time I was afraid and, indeed, I am still afraid, then some of them would go off. In fact, I qualified the remark by saying that this did not necessarily mean nuclear war.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. In any event, whatever we feel about that, given the hazards of the world to-day, given the need to build into it all the stability and all the confidence which we possibly can, I, for one, accept, and the last Government accepted, the need to do all within our power, failing general and complete disarmament or some real approach towards it, to advance the cause of disarmament and the cause of peace by whatever more partial measures we can possibly get agreement on. It is in that spirit that I should like to make a few comments and offer a few suggestions to the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
The first concerns our machinery for handling these matters within the Government here. The Prime Minister has

565
appointed one of his great and gallant band of Ministers of State to deal exclusively with disarmament. Now whether that is a better scheme than having, as the last Government had, a Minister of State dealing largely, but not exclusively, with disarmament, I do not really know. I think it is a moot point. All I would say is that if the noble Lord is able to make as good a fist of this intractable subject as, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, was able to in his time, or, for that matter, Mr. Nutting, Mr. Godber or Mr. Peter Thomas, then, so far as I am concerned, he will have done well enough for me. I hope the noble Lord will pass this pretty high test—and I am confident that he will—but, whatever political dividend the Government may possibly have extracted from his much-trumpeted designation, the particular designation he was given, I doubt very much whether this in itself will make a great deal of difference either way.
On structure, I should like to make one particular suggestion. It is now fashionable for the three Ministers of Defence to be given certain "across the board" responsibilities or interest. Without in any way wishing to derogate from the special responsibilities in this field of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but in order to make quite certain that all the disarmament ends are fully tied together within the Ministry of Defence from their aspect, I should like to throw out at least the suggestion that one of the Ministers of Defence should, so far as that Ministry is concerned, be given" across the board" responsibilities in this field of disarmament and arms control.
I have one other tentative proposal to make as far as structure and organisation is concerned. As many of your Lordships know, a great deal of work on both sides of the Atlantic has been put into the ways and means of monitoring a nuclear test ban. I think that less work has been put into the ways and means of monitoring and verifying a disarmament agreement, or even arms control arrangements. Of course, Sir William Penny's team did some extremely valuable pioneering work on the possible concealment of fissile material. I believe, however, that Mr. Leonard Beaton was pretty close
566
to the mark when he wrote not very long ago:
"It is time the great preliminary work done in this country on the test ban was put on a broad, strong and professional footing."
I believe that the Government should at least consider creating a small research establishment—a little Farnborough, say—probably under the Ministry of Defence but responsive to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, where our expertise in these matters—military, scientific and industrial—could be not only pooled but also developed. I think there is also quite a lot to be said for trying to promote this important research effort on a Commonwealth basis. I noticed what the Prime Minister had to say in another place yesterday about creating a research institute—the awful word "facility" went through my mind—within the Foreign Office. This may, of course, be the answer—I should not in any way wish to dogmatise on that—but I should be very grateful for any explanation of this proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, can give us. So much, my Lords, for the Government structure.
Next, G.C.D.—general and complete disarmament. As I understand it, since the Statement of Principles was agreed between the Soviet Government and the United States Government in September, 1961, the respective positions have been explored in depth and in great detail, both inside and outside the Geneva Conference, to which the noble Baroness referred. It would be idle to suppose (and she did not) that we are near agreement—that agreement which has alluded the world for a great many years, certainly since the days of the late Lord Cecil. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that we must continue to peg away at this matter, with all the determination at our command. We must do so, not only, of course, because of the importance of the prize itself, and of the perils to the world in which we live: but also, more regretfully, if only because we cannot, in my view, permit the Soviet Government the bonus of presenting itself as the only true believer in complete and general disarmament. But, equally, we must peg away, chisel away, at this without abandoning any of the essential safeguards—balance, verification, and ultimately an effective enforcing authority; and needless to say, failing that, the safeguard of the Western nuclear and conventional armoury.

567
My Lords, I have here one small but, I think, not entirely unimportant suggestion which again I should like to proffer to the noble Lord. I am no expert in this subject, and I may get some of the technicalities wrong; but, as I understand it, the Soviet disarmament plan, the 1962 plan, provides in Stage 1 for the complete abolition of all nuclear armaments; and this, as I understand it, is quite unacceptable to the West. The American plan, for its part, provides in Stage I for a 30 per cent. cut in armaments, both conventional and nuclear. I am inclined to think that this provision for a rigid proportionate cut may have proved an obstacle to possible agreement in this area of negotiation.
The West, of course, has a great preponderance in nuclear missiles and in their delivery systems. The Russians may conceivably feel that a proportionate cut might leave them, in this field, dangerously naked. For their part, both by reason of numbers and, more especially, because of geographical position, the Soviet bloc have a preponderance on the conventional side. There again, a strict and rigid proportionate cut could impair the conventional military equilibrium in Europe. Now any proposal to achieve strict parity, whether conventional or nuclear, in Stage I is clearly not "on", as I understand the position. But I would, very tentatively, suggest that it might be possible to make more progress in reducing the mutual disparities than the present American proposals permit. At least I think the idea is worth examination. So much for general and complete disarmament.
Then, my Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, there are the so-called collateral measures—measures of partial disarmament, of arms control and so on. I felt that the noble Baroness was a little unkind in what she said about the Geneva Conference. Of course 1963 was something of a annus mirabilis in this particular field, with its agreements (not all negotiated directly under the umbrella, but influenced by the Geneva Conference, and endorsed by it) on the partial test ban, on putting space out of bounds for nuclear weapons in orbit, on the Hot Line, on the cut-back in production of fissile material, and so on. I agree that, compared with 1963, 1964
568
has been a singularly barren year. We can only hope that 1965 may be a better vintage, because these partial measures can, in my view, do a great deal to give more stability to our unstable world and to create the climate in which progress towards the great goal of complete and general disarmament may conceivably be possible.
So I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the present Government, like the past Government, are determined to make as much progress in this collateral field, with actual and concrete plans, as the Soviet inhibitions about verification, for example, will permit. I hope he may be able to tell us where he feels that progress is most desirable and most likely.
May I, meanwhile, put my personal list to him so far as these measures of partial disarmament are concerned? There is the possible establishment of observation and control posts on both sides of the Curtain in order to provide safeguards against surprise attack. As noble Lords will recall, this was proposed by the Russians themselves three years ago. Could we not now propose, and, in view of their own Memorandum of three years ago, could not the Russians now accept this: to set up at least a working party of the Geneva Conference to study and negotiate this particular matter?
Then there are the important American proposals for a bonfire of obsolescent bombers and, more lately, for a freeze on the number and characteristics of strategic nuclear vehicles. A proposal to burn dead-beat, old bombers may on the face of it appear "old hat", but it could have important consequences in preventing proliferation. The supply of modern and, indeed, not-so-modern equipment—especially equipment that can be used for the conveyance of nuclear bombs—can have a dangerously de-stabilising effect. The supply of Soviet TU16 old bombers to China, for example, would have precisely that de-stabilising effect. As I understand it, these American proposals, both sets of them, have not, as it were, got off the ground as yet. Is there anything that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, feels can be done to assist their take-off?
Thirdly, my Lords, there is the possibility of a really complete nuclear test

569
ban treaty. I trust that this will be kept right in the forefront of these discussions and given a very high priority by the Government and by the noble Lord. The gap here, as I see it, is really very narrow. I think that when both sides broke on this point the West were prepared to accept a minimum of seven on-site inspections of possible underground tests and the Russians were fluctuating rather fuzzily, between nil and up to two or three. I am convinced myself that some verification by inspection is essential here if only on the wider grounds of mutual confidence. But if I am right in thinking that scientific opinion on this is becoming a little bit more flexible on the other side of the Atlantic, could we not once again here try for some sort of compromise? In any event, I trust the present Government, like the last (and this is becoming rather a refrain on my part) will do all in their power to convert the "try" of the partial test ban into a full goal.
This brings me logically to what is perhaps the most important collateral, if it be collateral, of all: non-dissemination, an agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to which, in my view, the noble Baroness attached great importance. I had intended to deal with this at some length since, like many others, I have shared the nightmare that I believe haunted the late President Kennedy and which he put in these words only in July of last year:
"I ask you to stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in many hands—in the hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, scattered throughout the world."
But, my Lords, we had yesterday in another place a very important statement by the Prime Minister which bore closely on this matter. It is being debated this afternoon, again in another place, and we shall be discussing it next week. I should, therefore, at this moment merely like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the present time, and as I see it, there is no would-be nuclear Power—no non-nuclear Power with immediate nuclear ambition—whose nuclear appetite is totally insatiated. All five have tested, albeit in the Chinese case, I suspect, with a fairly Heath Robinson device. I think this is a unique period in our modern world history and one not without certain opportunities;
570
especially when we reflect that these five are those Powers either possessing or claiming permanent seats in the Security Council. At this moment it seems to me, at least, that the Irish Resolution offers a way forward if it could be embodied in a firm inter-governmental agreement and coupled with effective nondiscriminatory guarantees to all the non-nuclear Powers whether in Europe or elsewhere.
Finally, my Lords, there is peacekeeping, a subject on which the noble Baroness spoke so persuasively. Our ultimate goal here is clear. If we are to have general and complete disarmament the essential condition must be the establishment of a world authority with, under its control, a military force with nuclear teeth—and I do not think that this could possibly be avoided—not subject to any veto and able to enforce, if need be, that disarmament. We have only to state this condition to realise how extraordinarily difficult it will be to achieve it. Meanwhile, if we are to carry, as I believe we must, the French and the Russians in their present mood, we should be wise to confine ourselves to a more modest approach than that which the noble Baroness was urging. We should be wise to think, in my view, at this stage in terms of only a peace-keeping and not an enforcement body—a United Nations "fire brigade", in short.
With this in mind, I trust the noble Lord will be able to. confirm that the Government will back the hopeful initiative which certain other Governments—such as the Canadian, the Dutch and the Scandinavian Governments—are taking in this field; and that we might be prepared to take something of an initiative ourselves. Could we not go just one step further here? Might we not take the initiative in suggesting that the United Nations might now set up, under a chief of staff, a small staff for contingency planning? And might it not be possible to embody under this staff some permanent but essential cadre for communication and signals, for example? This is a modest step. I hope myself that the Government will be able to take it or prevail on some of our friends to take this if it is more desirable for a non-member of the Security Council to take this particular initiative.
My Lords, that is all I have to say on this subject. I have tried to suggest some

571
disarmament avenues which the new Government might explore. In so doing I have No 1llusions that progress here is going to be at all easy. Even with the full-time intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I am convinced we are not in for an easy ride in this matter. I am sure it will not be easy to achieve that break-through in disarmament which the Government dangled before the electorate not so long ago. But provided that the Government do not, in search of an agreement, attempt to surrender any of the essential safeguards of our position, which if surrendered will make disarmament a hoax and a snare, I trust that they, like their predecessors, will continue to chisel away at this hard and unyielding material; because success in this field, even partial success, could ease the way to a saner and stabler world than that in which we unfortunately live at present.
5.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, it is with a sense of some humility that I ask your Lordships' indulgence on this occasion. I am deeply aware of the privilege and of the great responsibility that fall to one who is called to address your Lordships' House for the first time, especially when one's first contribution is made from where I now stand. Like many others before me I have been impressed with the unfailing kindness and courtesy of the welcome given by your Lordships to those who arrive here, often with some apprehension, to share in your deliberations. It is a moving and a heartening experience.
I have listened with admiration to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, whose approach to the problems of disarmament was as thoughtful and as stimulating as might be expected from so distinguished a Member of your Lordships' House. I shall try to deal with most of the points she has raised, although in the matter of permanent peace-keeping forces, I do not propose to go into much detail. This is, at present, more a problem of international policing than of disarmament and arms control, although I am aware, of course, of the importance of an efficient peace-keeping organisation in a disarmed world. I understand that my noble friend Lord Caradon hopes to address your
572
Lordships' House fully on this subject very soon. So, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall not spend too much time on that aspect of the problem.
I have listened with equal attention to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whose graceful speech displayed the perception of one with the deepest experience of international and strategic affairs. He and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition are among those who have contributed greatly to British influence in the world in recent years, and their views command our fullest respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, have raised some urgent and important issues, and your Lordships will wish me without delay to set out some of the thoughts and the plans that will guide Her Majesty's Government in their approach to the great problems of disarmament to which they have referred. Let me begin by the briefest reference to my own appointment. It has been the subject of some misunderstanding, and occasionally of rather ponderous jocularity in some quarters.
It is quite wrong to suggest, as some people have, that I am at the head of a new Ministry, with a new establishment of civil servants and all the ponderous infrastructure of a new organisation. This fallacy was brought home with some force to an old friend of mine from overseas only a few days ago. He appeared in my office in a state of some exhaustion, having failed after a long search of Whitehall to find the Ministry of Disarmament. He was saved from total disintegration by a telephonist at the Foreign Office, who answered his inquiries in the end, so I am informed, with the words, "Yes, we've got him here!"—whether the announcement was made in triumph or despair is not recorded. It is, of course, just as wrong to suggest, as some other people have, that there has been no change, except in name, from the arrangements that were in force under the previous Government.
Let me say at once that I shall seek to make no partisan debate of the problems of disarmament. Indeed, I should be ungracious and unperceptive if I did not pay tribute to the patient and untiring contribution which the delegations from this country have made to international disarmament negotiations under the previous Administration. The

573
aim of disarmament is not the prerogative of any one political Party. But it is important to be clear that for the first time, under the present Government, there is now a Minister of State for Foreign Affairs whose sole responsibility it is to deal with arms control and disarmament: to give his full time, thought and impetus to new initiatives in these matters; to support the efforts of the noble Lord who represents Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations; to lead the experienced and extremely capable British delegation at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva; and to be prepared to travel the world to discuss disarmament with the Governments of our Allies, and, when the occasion arises, with the Governments of other countries as well.
This, as the Prime Minister made plain yesterday in another place, is a measure of the importance that Her Majesty's Government attach to disarmament and arms control; and not only that, but to the need for a new approach to the ideological confrontation that has kept the world in a state of tension and often of naked fear for so many years. We shall make the new approach that is being asked for; but first we must create the machinery to do it. It might be appropriate then at this point to mention some of the ways in which we are trying to mobilise and concentrate the intellectual and other resources available to us. The first concern is the relationship between disarmament and defence. It is not true to say, as some military theorists have said, that disarmament is simply one of a number of strategic options. Disarmament is very much more than that. But it is true to say that no disarmament policy makes sense if its implementation places the safety of this country or its Allies in peril. It is equally true, and just as important, to say that no defence policy which makes disarmament more difficult can ever be acceptable.
From this, it follows that there must be the closest possible and continuous harmony in the formulation of defence and disarmament policies. To an encouraging degree this already exists; but we are strengthening it and developing it, at every point and at every level. There is constant liaison among Ministers and officials of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on these problems. I note with interest the noble Earl's sug-
574
gestion for certain changes in responsibilities among the Ministers of the Ministry of Defence. And to help us down the labyrinthine ways of science and technology, we already have the enormous benefit of the advice of Sir Solly Zuckerman, whose deep knowledge of the military uses of nuclear power is equalled only by his unrivalled insight into its appalling dangers.
But it is not only within the official establishment that we intend to mobilise our resources. In the universities, learned societies and institutes of this country there are men of many intellectual disciplines—scientists, economists, mathematicians and historians, who are capable of casting new light on some of the problems that face us. We shall see that their contribution is not wasted. The Government have indeed already put in training two plans to this end. The first is the establishment of regular contact with these outside experts, so as to make available to the Government the views and advice of eminent men and women outside the Government who have devoted much of their time and thought to these matters. I shall thus have ready to hand a panel of advisers, to whom I can refer from time to time—either individually or in groups, or at seminars we shall arrange at various universities to discuss broad issues of disarmament and arms control policy. Those qualified and willing to assist in this way will be invited to do so irrespective of Party.
The second plan, which is already well in hand, is the establishment in the Foreign Office of a Research Unit specifically to deal with disarmament and arms control. This unit, working under my direction, will engage in the sort of deep research which we have already heard mentioned and which is beyond the resources of a small official department preoccupied with the urgent matters of day-to-day policy and under the constant pressure of international negotiations. This Research Unit will be made up partly of officials experienced in disarmament matters and partly of economic and scientific and other experts brought in from outside the Foreign Office. They will work, of course, in the closest cooperation with other Government Departments—especially with the Ministry of Defence—and they will keep in close touch with universities and learned societies, both in this country and abroad. I

575
hope that this move will be welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to your Lordships' House.
If I may make one final reference to the machinery of disarmament policy, it is to the paramount need for continuous consultation with our Allies. This means discussing our plans fully within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and especially among the four Western Allies (the United States, Canada, Italy and the United Kingdom), who are members of the Disarmament Committee. As your Lordships may be aware, I have recently had talks in Washington with the other three members of the Western Four. The discussions were most valuable in defining the lines of approach that offer the best chances of success in the United Nations and at Geneva.
In passing, it may be of interest to report that while in Washington I took the opportunity to make my first official contacts with the American Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and with its Director, my opposite number, Mr. William Foster. I noted that one of the more fanciful Press reports from Washington alleged that I began my conversation with American officials by asking them when they were going to start getting serious about disarmament. In the unlikely event that anyone should get the wrong idea from this rather hilarious picture of how international negotiations are conducted, let me say that I was immensely impressed with all that I saw and heard in Mr. Foster's organisation. Nowhere in the world is such a weight of serious intellectual and scientific effort brought to bear on the problems of disarmament.
But this is not to say that we can leave it all to the United States. We in this country have an important and specific rôle to play: we have our own ideas for initiatives designed to break the stalemate that has (it must be admitted) frozen serious disarmament negotiations for the past year or so. The Americans and cur other Allies have made it clear that they welcome these initiatives—and we shall, of course, put them forward in full consultation with our Allies.
Let me now, my Lords, turn to the problems that we face. I will not take up valuable time in rehearsing the whole history of the confrontation between the
576
Western Alliance, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and its Allies, on the other. It is enough to say that these two great groups of Powers continue to glare at each other across the centre of Europe. And if the confrontation sometimes seems less precarious and the atmosphere less tense, these occasional relaxations have done little to halt, or even significantly to reduce, the apparently uncontrolled speed of the arms race. Each side now has a great stockpile of nuclear warheads; each side has between 2,000 and 3,000 strategic nuclear delivery vehicles—aircraft and missiles of varying ranges; each has over 3 million men in its ground forces. And the huge resources of money, equipment and skilled manpower locked up in this immense military apparatus are a constant reminder of the way in which they might, in a saner world, be organised for the good of humanity.
Figures are notoriously unreliable, and when they involve a large number of noughts, often totally uninformative. But I think it worth saying that our best estimate of world expenditure on armaments is that it is now running at about £50, 000 million a year—that is, at about 8 or 9 per cent. of the world's total output of goods and services. Most of this is, as I have suggested, involved in the confrontation between Nato and the Warsaw Pact, where the main concentration of weapons takes place. But a disquieting factor is the rapid increase of military spending in the under-developed countries, who can least afford it. The defence budgets of African and Asian countries are growing at an alarming rate—much faster than those in Europe and North Amercia. Unless some measure of international agreement can be reached, this crippling and wasteful spiral is bound to continue.
All this is depressing enough, and on its own might seem to call for drastic measures. But the whole situation has suddenly, within the last few months, been complicated by a new development. I refer, of course, to the explosion of a nuclear device by China—and not, I may say, such a Heath Robinson device as has been suggested. It was not unexpected, but the fact that it has actually happened has brought with it a new and real danger. India is now under the severest political pressure to engage in a nuclear weapons programme in an

577
attempt to redress the balance. I think I should say here that the calm determination of Mr. Shastri's Government not to be stampeded into sterile competition with China in this field deserves the highest praise and the wholehearted support of the rest of the world.
But let there we no mistake, my Lords: this is the most urgent and immediate problem that now faces us. There are many countries that are scientifically and industrially capable of creating a crude nuclear weapon, not in decades, not in years, but in months from now. Once that door is open, it may be impossible ever to close it again. What, then, are we in Britain and the West to do, first to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, and then to halt and put into reverse an arms race that, quite apart from its appalling dangers, is using up nearly one-tenth of the world's resources?
Let me first deal with the matter of the economic and social implications of disarmament mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening speech. It has often been suggested that, especially in highly industrialised societies, the process of conversion from a military to a non-military economy would inevitably involve unemployment and recession. This argument hardly stands up to serious examination, even if we assume the Russian timetable for general and complete disarmament in five to six years. As your Lordships have already heard, at the end of the last war we easily surmounted a much greater problem, in two years. Between 1944 and 1946 Government expenditure was cut by 55 per cent., while national expenditure as a whole fell by only 4½ per cent. In the same two years, 7¾ million people were demobilised from defence industries and the Armed Forces.
The problem now is much smaller, and there is a wide variety of demand—from capital development to overseas aid—into which resources released from military programmes could be diverted. The aim in the transition period would, of course, be to ensure that there was no damage to the economy. We should have to increase civil expenditure to replace military budgets. So far as Britain is concerned, it seems to me that it would be open to us to stimulate expenditure in at least three areas that spring to mind at once: private consumption; public investment in health services,
578
roads and education; and, of course, as the noble Earl has said, in aid to developing countries. I think we can turn to the specific problems with good reason to believe that our national economy would be much healthier in a disarmed world.
What then are the possible initiatives to which I have referred? Your Lordships will perhaps have remarked two terms that have been much used in what I have had to say so far—"disarmament" and "arms control". I think it important to appreciate and to maintain the distinction. Measures of arms control—sometimes called, in the jargon of international negotiations, "partial" or "collateral" measures of disarmament—are designed to reduce tension and increase confidence, particularly between the Soviet Union and the Western Alliance. They are the sort of measures that are meant to limit the growth and spread of armaments, especially of nuclear weapons, and to reduce the risks of war by accident, surprise attack or by some sort of miscalculation. It is only by these measures of arms control that we can hope to establish an international climate in which actual measures of disarmament—that is to say, reductions of existing weapons and armed forces—can take place.
The first and, as I have said, the most urgent of these measures (the noble Lady said it with some force in her opening speech, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also referred to it) is an agreement to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. As the Prime Minister promised yesterday in another place, this will be the very first of our preoccupations in the coming disarmament negotiations. We shall work, together with the United States and our other Allies, to secure a firm agreement binding the nuclear Powers not to transfer to non-nuclear Powers either nuclear weapons or the information needed for their manufacture. Of course we shall ask the non-nuclear Powers to bind themselves not to manufacture or—and this is very important—to seek control of nuclear weapons.
A very serious obstacle to any agreement of this sort in the past—and this has already been mentioned—is the repeated accusation by the Soviet Union that proposals for multilateral nuclear forces in NATO themselves involve the transfer of nuclear control to non-nuclear

579
countries. Whatever the views of Her Majesty's Government are on the current multilateral force proposals, we do not accept this Soviet view. I think I should state quite clearly that one of the basic requirements for nuclear control within the Alliance—one of this Government's basic requirements—is that such an arrangement should be seen clearly to involve no dissemination or transfer of control to any non-nuclear Power. Beyond that, I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to elaborate further on what the Prime Minister has already said on this subject in another place.
The next of our aims is to extend the provisions of the present partial nuclear test ban, to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred, to include underground tests. It is doubtful whether any of the nuclear Powers any longer gain any real advantage from these tests. They are unlikely ever, in fact, to upset the balance of power between the Soviet Union and the West. But they are a serious loophole in our defence against the spread of nuclear weapons, because it is by no means out of the question, in the present stage of technological development, that a country wishing to make nuclear weapons could now do so with underground testing alone. There would be no need to test in the atmosphere or in space or under the sea. The difficulty about this, as we have heard, has been the difficulty of inspection. The West has always insisted that a comprehensive nuclear test ban must be verified by the provision of some sort of physical inspection of suspicious underground events and explosions. Now the Soviet Union reject this. They did, as your Lordships have heard, indicate their readiness to accept a small number of inspections, but they subsequently withdrew from that position.
We believe that the technique of detecting and identifying underground nuclear tests by seismological means has now developed to a stage at which only a very small number of inspections would be needed—a far smaller number than the number of seven which was the last to be presented by the West in disarmament negotiations. We think that the number can now be much smaller, and we see some hope of persuading the Soviet Union to accept this. There are signs that they may be interested in a proposal of this sort. This is an area where, above all,
580
British influence, backed by the seismological research programme of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, will be very important in promoting an early solution.
At the same time as we try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons from country to country, we must also put an end to the steady accumulation of weapons in Nato and in the Warsaw Pact that do not add to the security of either side. It has been estimated, for example, that since 1962 the United States has trebled the number of its strategic nuclear missiles, and they go on growing, as the noble Lady has said. President Johnson and his Administration are fully seized of the danger and waste of all this. President Johnson, as we have heard, has also proposed his freeze—an agreement to stop the production of nuclear delivery vehicles. But the Soviet Union did not react very favourably to this because they said it would involve inspection without disarmament, which is always anathema to them.
One of the possibilities that we now think worth while examining is a proposal to link this freeze agreement with an agreement to destroy agreed numbers of existing nuclear weapons and delivery systems on either side—perhaps starting with the obsolescent bombers and then going on to more modern missiles. This would, in effect, be the first step in general and complete disarmament. It would be a part of the first stage in the controlled elimination of all missiles, bombers and all armed forces.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the difficulties in the present rather inflexible Western line about insisting that weapon reductions in the first stage of disarmament should be carried out on a percentage basis. Quite clearly, it is important not to present the Soviet Union, at some stage in the procedure, with an intolerable sense and reality of inferiority, and I believe that there is room for flexibility here. This is a line that I am following up very energetically with my American colleagues.
Those are only three of the lines of inquiry that we shall be following in New York and Geneva and the other capitals of the world in the days to come. These initiatives that I have outlined may seem to your Lordships to

581
be modest enough, but let us remember that even a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. The truth is that there is no single dramatic stroke that will transform the world of nuclear stalemate into a world of peace. So long as the structure of international relations is based upon the concept of the sovereign nation State, so long is there likely to be recurring conflict between them, and so long is there likely to be armed force and the threat of its use to achieve national aims.
Our final objective, of course, is world government, with the reins of international peace-keeping firmly in its hands. But (his is scarcely to be achieved in our generation. To bring about any change in this system would be a matter of long and patient endeavour. It will demand a deep and universal knowledge, not only of the political and social pressures that bear upon the peoples of the world, but, perhaps more important, of the uses and limitations of military power. It was, I think, Captain Liddell Hart, one of our most distinguished military thinkers and a prophet largely without honour in his own country, who first brought an old aphorism up to date when he wrote:
"If you want peace, you must understand war."
It seems to me clear beyond a doubt that the arms race has now passed into a phase of near lunacy and that there can be no relaxation of those vicious tensions unless the race is stopped and put into reverse. While we contemplate justifiably all the real difficulties that lie in our way, let us be quite clear about one central fact: there is No 1nsurmountable barrier, technical, scientific or economic, to the achievement of a disarmed world. The barrier is political; it is one of will. If the nations of the world want disarmament, they can have it. We must really look beyond the limited horizons of the sort of cynics who say, "When disarmament is possible it is not necessary, and when it is necessary it is not possible." I reject this counsel of pessimism and despair, and Her Majesty's Government reject it utterly. We must break into this circle somewhere. Her Majesty's Government believe that, although the safety of Britain and her Allies must be paramount in all our negotiations, this safety can be assured with a much
582
lower level of armaments and armed forces, and that some substantial measure of disarmament is essential if the political deadlock is to be broken.
In spite of the moving words of the noble Lady in her opening speech, it may, I think, be too much to hope that many of us here to-day will live to see a world from which fear and suspicion, and the dreadful squalor of nuclear blackmail, have been totally banished. But we shall all have failed most miserably and unforgivably if we do not bend all our efforts to bequeath to our children the heritage of a world liberated from the fear of nuclear annihilation. We can succeed because we must succeed; and, with God's help, we shall.
5.30 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has already been warmly welcomed from both sides of the House to his place on the Front Bench and, in adding my own good wishes to him, I should like to congratulate him in our name on his maiden speech here. I suppose that it is only right to say that, of the many subjects in which a Bishop ought to be interested, disarmament would take at least a very high place, and I have listened with the greatest interest and edification to what the noble Lord has said. I was glad that to some extent the House filled up as he rose to his feet, although, unfortunately, owing to the lateness of the hour, it is not as full as it ought to be for such a statement as we have heard from him. We recognise that we should expect from him, despite the mysteries surrounding his office, a very deep experience and deep thought which he has exercised for a long time in this whole field; and he has given us the benefit of this to-day in a very lucid and, I was going to say, a very disarming way. I would only add that we shall look forward to his contributions to us in this and other ways and on many occasions with the greatest anticipation.
My Lords, I am sorry for him that the deep and rather involved subject through which he has taken us has to be followed at first remove by a few remarks from one on this Bench who cannot, obviously, be expected to follow up in that particular vein. I would wish to be brief and to catch something of the note

583
of general importance and urgency in this subject which the noble Baroness has imparted to it in her opening and very able speech.
I should like from this Bench to assure the Government, as they are seeking new ways through our impasses, of a very strong body of thoughtful support from the Churches in a field which has exercised their minds and consciences over a very long time. Perhaps I might recall a resolution which was sent last autumn from the British Council of Churches to the then Government. It spoke, as your Lordships have done already, of the increasing stocks of nuclear weapons in the world; of the dangers of a further spread of them with the consequent waste and expenditure of human resources upon them; and said that it is convinced that these are an offence to God and a denial of His purpose for man, and that only the rapid and progressive reduction of these weapons, their submission to strict international control and their eventual abolition can remove this offence, and that no policy which does not explicitly and urgently seek to realise these aims can be acceptable to the Christian conscience. There is nothing new or startling in this statement; nothing with which probably all noble Lords could not from their own hearts agree; and if I refer to it now it is because we recognise that here may be a moment when the Government, as they have said they are seeking some new initiatives, can get, if not a real foothold, at least some niche in the wall of this situation into which they can get their fingers.
As the noble Lady has said, this is a quite monstrous and scandalous situation with which we have become all too accustomed. The massive build-up of armaments, out of all proportion to any needs of peace-keeping in the world and, as the noble Lady has reminded us, with the power to destroy the whole human race if that were the object, is something which in itself is so inconceivable that it is only familiarity that has made us accept it. This build-up has gone out of all proportion to the desperate needs of so much of the world in economic amenity and survival; a world which is being deprived of the kind
584
of resources we can give because they are being spent in this way.
It may be true, as the noble Lady has said, that we are on the whole too complacent about this. Public opinion is very fickle; it flares up for a moment and very easily dies down. I think that at the moment so many people have the impression that we have to be reconciled to this existing and very costly stalemate and must even give up expecting any serious change. We are, as the noble Lady said, on the eve of a great festival, but it would appear that most people are more busy preparing to celebrate the festival than to consider ways of establishing peace on earth at the present time. It may be in part that they have given up hope over these long years of patient negotiations which, in their eyes at least, seem to have produced so little effect. What we would hope for at the present time, if we are to stir them out of their acquiescence in our own quandary, is some ray of hope, even a small one, some suggestion that we are beginning to get somewhere. For these reasons I am sure that all of us, certainly from these Benches, welcome the efforts which the present Government are making to take some new step forward. No doubt next week will be the time to discuss more fully some of the proposals which the Prime Minister in another place has outlined.
I would, secondly, say that we would hope also, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said, that so far as possible our approach to this whole question of disarmament could be as much tripartisan as possible. But we cannot disguise the fact that there are certain cleavages, and the Government may have to steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis in some respects.
We have been reminded that there are those who will always find the solution only in renouncing unilaterally our share in nuclear weapons, and thereby in our alliances which depend on them, and therefore they would see any new approach which did not go this way as suspicious and to be opposed. That attitude may be taken up on the grounds of conscience or on grounds of economic consideration; but the longer we go on in our present stalemate the more fuel we are adding to those opinions because the more difficult it will be to unseat people

585
from them. On the other side, of course, there are those who are so jealous, it may be, of the image of our own national independence that they cannot tolerate any steps which might seem to diminish in any sense our own independent power, especially of the possession of nuclear weapons.
Obviously it is always difficult for anyone to claim to express any opinion but his own, but if I might quote from the thoughtful and representative councils of the Church, we would not market either of those views. We would not accept unilateral renunciation as the wisest kind of contribution to peace. But, equally, we would state that we should be acutely concerned about any policy that seemed to cling unrealistically to national independence in the nuclear sphere. Perhaps I may quote again from the Council in Bristol last year:
"The Council believes that Britain should express her willingness to forgo the claim to independent nuclear action if thereby more effective machinery could be established for shared control of the deterrent in any part of the world and so the proliferation of national nuclear forces could be halted."
This view we put in the name of the Churches before the last Government, and we begged them, as we would beg again, that it might be received in a non-Party way. We would renew this plea to the present Government. In so far as they have indicated they are aligning themselves more in this direction, I think we take fresh heart.
Perhaps most of us would recognise that some of the considerations that urge the retention of an independent deterrent are less convincing now than they were, and that it is more difficult to find British interests in any part of the world which are only British interests. But the arguments against seem to grow stronger, and while I am not going to press this myself of course at this moment, I would say they are more strong as we consider the main objectives that we have in hand. These have already been stressed by all three of the speakers.
One of the nearer of these objectives is, of course, the avoidance of proliferation in nuclear weapons. We would recognise that the danger to the world is more likely to come from the smaller or less committed or less responsible nations possessing the bomb than from the main nuclear Powers. That adds a particular
586
urgency to the present situation with regard to Asia. But our ultimate objective, of course, is not non-dissemination, not even reduction in armaments, but their total subjection to international control, through which alone elimination can ultimately be made effective.
The avoidance of dissemination and the advance towards shared control in arms must go hand in hand. The fact that two countries, France and China, show no disposition at present to surrender their independence in developing and possessing these weapons seems an argument not so much for adhering to their example, with all the confusion and danger it is creating, as for pressing ourselves for some greater measure of shared control. But where do we begin in this? It is difficult to see how we can logically, as has been outlined, propose a self-denying step to other countries which we are not showing a degree of readiness to accept ourselves. It would seem at the present moment that there are new opportunities for leadership before us which are not in any sense bound up with our own armaments, but rather with the ability that rests with us to create some newer degree of shared control, out of which perhaps this wider agreement can later spring. If I understand rightly what the Prime Minister said in another place yesterday, he is reaching in that direction.
Lastly, while apologising for intervening on a very technical question with some rather different observations, may I urge that in this subject we pose the question as widely as we can to that public—that is, the nation—which will ultimately have to provide the will, as has been said, behind the political decisions? Most of the questions relating to disarmament are themselves so intricate and so technical that most of us tend to give up in despair. And yet behind them there are serious moral decisions which a country would have to make, and we ought to see the country is aware of these and prepared to make them. It is a moral question, for instance, how far any nation is entitled in our modern world to claim for itself sovereign rights independently of others when the interests of others are inevitably at stake. This must apply especially where there are weapons whose power of destruction can be indiscriminate. It

587
is also a moral question how far economics should be allowed to affect policies on armaments.
The noble Baroness has called for far closer and more detailed planning, and I am very glad indeed she has, for we have already been reminded painfully in another context that relations between countries, which are to some extent underpinned by trade agreements in arms, can embarrass us greatly and even colour, if not direct, the kind of decisions of policy which we have to make. This is something we cannot set aside in our considerations of disarmament. There is a third kind of choice which a country would have to make. How far would it be ready to use its own strength and resources, which if they are not any longer in the first rank of power are still very considerable, to promote interests for the peace-keeping of the world which might not in any particular sense affect it? The problems of disarmament, in other words, cannot be separated from the need to which reference has been made for machinery for international peace-keeping forces. The noble Earl referred to this. I hope some of us would go further than he in pressing on.
For we are at the beginning, but only at the beginning, of this question. To take a glaring example, the situation in the Congo might have been so very different if there had been in existence a peace-keeping police force which was already established and already recognised as genuinely international and therefore genuinely neutral. It should appear quite absurd in our modern world, and tragic too, that possessing as we do vast forces capable of world-wide destruction, we cannot address ourselves more effectively now to the creation of even a small force which might be mobile and ready to intervene and put out "fires" and stop them from spreading, or at least stay the hand of those disastrous acts of disorder and atrocity which we have been witnessing lately.
Ultimately, of course, we must have more than a small peace-keeping force, but some new initiative surely could be taken now to make a beginning with it. This might affect our pockets and our decisions, and we should welcome it. This opens a whole field of United Nations reform, which I dare not enter
588
into now. I was greatly heartened in hearing in another place that the presentation by the Government of a new policy towards nuclear shared control, within NATO and outside it, was coupled with promises of a much more serious effort to build up the effectiveness of the United Nations, as itself, in the end, the guarantor of peace.
5.45 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for introducing this subject. It is entirely a non-Party political subject. No one Party has a monopoly of knowledge or enthusiasm. I am also grateful that we have to-day a Minister for Disarmament. I should like to congratulate him on his maiden speech and to wish him all success. But it seems to me that we have to look on this subject from a very wide angle. I am all for making progress in reducing armaments, in getting agreement for the banning of weapons; but no one of those actions is going to be any use unless it is possible to set up some security for the ordinary nation.
I thought the right reverend Prelate struck the right note in his speech. That is really the essential thing. That is what is forgotten by the advocates (one can understand their attitude) of "Ban the Bomb!". My Lords, "Ban the Bomb!" takes us back to 1929. "Ban all kinds of advanced weapons" takes us back to about 1815. Ban all explosive weapons, and you go back to the sword and spear; but that means only that you are back to Genghis Khan. Unless you can get the rule of law in the world, you have not made any real advance. Therefore, while I welcome the appointment of my noble friend the Minister for Disarmament, the essential point to attack must be the United Nations.
I think the right reverend Prelate was quite right in drawing attention to the need for an international force, which has been effective in many places, even though it has been only an ad hoc force. We ought to have had, right after the last war, a fully equipped force to prevent bushfires and minor outbreaks. I think we might have got it if the present danger had then loomed as large as it does now, had it then been the danger of world destruction. But when we

589
formed the United Nations at San Francisco we were still tied and bound by the conception of the absolute sovereignty of the individual nation, and we pledged ourselves to assist in the preservation of world peace really in the hope that the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., the "big boys" of the world, would keep order.
Since those days we have had the Stalin period; we have had the emergence of China; we have had the vociferations of sovereign States. As a result, we have not had what we should have had—a peace-keeping force. Still less have we had a world authority to control it. We want a peace-keeping force, but it must be under control; and that control must be a world control. Certainly, I do not think we shall get it with the United Nations as it is.
Therefore, in my view, it is within the forum of the United Nations that action is needed for building up an authority which could control a peace-keeping force. The authority must be a wide one; it must be effective. It must not be just European or American; it must be Asiastic and African. But unless you can get an authority like that within the United Nations you cannot have effective control of an international force; and that is what is needed. You will never get disarmament without a security force of some kind; and that force must be internationally manned. The world will not sit down under the idea that the peace of the world must be kept by one or two big Powers. We need a say for every nation.
If, as we know now, war is out of date, incredibly wasteful, with a danger at all times that, somehow or other, we are slipping into world destruction, surely we ought to be taking the initiative. I believe that Britain, as head of the Commonwealth, is specially fitted to take the initiative towards creating a world peace force, and a world authority limited, for the time being, to controlling just that one thing.
At the present moment everyone realises that there is need for world cooperation in all sorts of directions, but the one I would emphasise is the one essential, the control of world sovereignty in armaments, in the right to make war. That limitation of sovereignty must be imposed by all on all. That is my view.
590
I reckon that unless within a generation we can get that, the world will inevitably go round to chaos. Therefore, while welcoming my noble friend's appointment, I say: have international action on the widest possible scale, on the stage of the United Nations, for getting rid of the fetish of national sovereignty which threatens the destruction of all of us.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO: (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for the Royal Commission.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance (No. 2),

Gambia Independence,

Expiring Laws Continuance,

Travel Concessions,

National Insurance &c,

Protection from Eviction,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

DISARMAMENT AND THE ECONOMY
6.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should like to start my remarks by welcoming the Minister for Disarmament, and by pointing out to your Lordships that he is a unique political animal. He is the first and only Minister for Disarmament in the world. There is in the United States

591
the Director of the Disarmament Agency, but he is not a Minister in the full sense of democratic government. It is something which I think is fundamental to the policy and general direction of the present Government in this country, that it should have invented and set up the first Minister for Disarmament in the whole world.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister stated the new plan for the control of nuclear weapons, in NATO and outside of it, and gave inklings of the approach which may be developed to the problem of reaching an arrangement on arms control between East and West. Both in its objectives and in its detailed proposals, the new plan is the fruit of what one might call the mainstream of study in strategy and foreign policy which has been going on in this country for the last three or four years. There was detectable in it the hand of those official planners who are most directly concerned with the awful and ramifying responsibility of laying down now the criteria which are best adapted to precluding Armageddon then. Cranky and extreme solutions have been avoided, and that is good.
Even better, it was the first frank and upright statement of what every qualified person in this country has thought for a good long time—namely, that the mixed manned surface fleet is (and I quote the Prime Minister), "the least satisfactory way", of achieving Alliance control of nuclear weapons. I think that on both sides of this House we may be glad that this has been said aloud at last. On this side, we may also be permitted to regret that it has never been said before; if it had been, the confusion in NATO might not have gone so far. Because in the last resort one has no right to conceal one's conviction. Among friends, frankness is worth two of that. But that is over now; and better late than never!
These proposals are, in the first place, proposals for arms control within the Alliance. How will they affect the East-West arms control situation? I think, well. The Prime Minister was adamant—in fact, one has rarely heard such outright commitments in foreign policy—that the American and British vetoes on whatever force our two countries might set up would never, either soon or at any
592
future time, be rescinded; and that any system whereby the nuclear Powers contributing might be out-voted, either on firing or on a change in the command systems, was categorically excluded. If that is so, it follows that centres of control of nuclear weapons cannot be held to have proliferated if this plan is adopted. I hope that this argument may be audible to the Soviet Union. I am sure that it will be strongly put when Mr. Kosygin comes to this country early next year. It may be—all those who have travelled much in Germany must face this fact—that these provisions will meet with a negative first reaction there. But there are good grounds for hoping that German second thoughts may be more positive. I shall come in a moment to what those grounds are.
Another facet of yesterday's announcement holds hope of progress in arms control; and that is the Prime Minister's statement that a land-based, mixed-manned element would be preferable to a seaborne one. The Polaris warhead is the smallest and neatest hydrogen warhead in the world. The Russians complain (because we know that their great fear is West Germany, and I think it is easy to understand why) that if we allow German technicians access to Polaris warheads we lift them over fifteen years' technological development in one jump, without any effort on their part. I want to ask my noble friend who is to reply to the debate whether there is anything in this argument. If there is nothing in it, can we not explain to the Russians just why they need not worry about this? If there is something in it, what measures can we take to avoid the (as it were) technical proliferation—not proliferation of command, or of "fingers on the trigger", but the dissemination of technology to countries which are at present non-nuclear? I do not know what weapons the Government have in mind for the land-based, mixed-manned element. Minuteman in the United States, Mace, the improved Pershing—all these weapons are pretty advanced; the warheads are pretty neat. Might the same argument apply to these?
My Lords, the European proposals in the Prime Minister's speech were expected: they covered familiar ground. Not so his proposals for Asia. Here I think we may see the working through

593
of the effects of Mr. Shastri's recent visit. We saw the wish—the strong and justified wish, as yet unclothed in precise proposals—to defend India, a country so closely bound to ours by every tie of sentiment and shared experience, against the threat posed by a nuclear China. The Prime Minister said that there could be an international guarantee of non-nuclear countries in Asia. The idea is a fertile one, a new one, possibly an inescapable one; but, just because it is new, it is worth pausing for a moment to look at some of the features of the landscape into which it has to be fitted.
It has been clear since the signature of the Test Ban Treaty by the great majority of the nations in the world that the small minority that did not sign it—China, Albania, China's East Asian client States, North Korea and North Viet Nam—regarded the test ban itself as a white man's plot. "Look!", they said, "The white men up there in the North, with their Christian and post-Christian culture, their wealth, their industrial technology, their nuclear status, have at last dropped all pretence that their nuclear weapons were being developed to deter them from attacking each other among white men. They have enough nuclear weapons now, and they have turned round to face the rest of the world, holding their vast nuclear arsenal as a joint deterrent against the non-white, never-Christian, technically-backward majority in the warmer countries from ever doing anything they do not like". They see thermo-nuclear weapons as the white landlord's shotgun, and they see the test ban as the lock on his gate.
This is the feeling which induced the Chinese to develop their own primitive, or not so primitive, A-bomb. They claim it is the non-white A-bomb. The line of argument leads straight towards the second cold war, worse than the first because to ideological differences would be added racial differences and differences of wealth. Pakistan says that the Chinese bomb shows that Asians are as good as anyone else. Ceylon says that it is a technological feather in Asia's cap. Algeria had perhaps the most interesting reaction of all. Mr. Ben Bella wrote to Chou En-lai on November 17:
"Having obtained nuclear weapons by their own efforts, the People's Republic of China has enabled the Asian and African peoples to have the right to participate in discussions about world peace."
594
Where have we heard that argument before? It is our old friend the Top Table. The Algerians recently failed to hold their routine demonstration against the last French weapons test in the Sahara because it might have seemed to conflict with the messages of delight and approval which they had been sending to China about the development of the Chinese bomb.
As for the Chinese test itself, what should we think of it? We tend to think of China as permanently and ineradicably aggressive. My Lords, China is the only nuclear Power in the world which has declared it would never use nuclear weapons first. The United States has not; we have not; France has not. The Soviet Union has come close to it, but has not precisely made that declaration. That China is the only country to have made this declaration is the conclusion of a study carried out by the Hudson Institute in the United States, the results of which I can send to any interested Members of the House.
What is the real nature of this tormenting question of proliferation? What do we see? We see something bad, spreading and spreading. We see a thing which ought not to exist cropping up again and again in place after place over the globe. We see hitherto pure territory after hitherto pure territory sullied by the parthenogenesis of these weapons which are, at best, a great diplomatic worry to us, and, at worst, a mortal danger to all mankind. That is how we see it. We have got the things, and we hate to see others get them. That is natural enough. But if we look at it from the point of view of the other countries, they do not see proliferation at all. They see the other side of the coin. They see monopoly. They see the great nuclear Powers with a source of military and political might which they do not have. They do not see why anybody should have the monopoly of these sources. They could have them, too. They have the scientists, the engineers and the wealth. They have at least as long a history; at least as great a sensation of their own wisdom and rectitude as the countries which have nuclear weapons. They feel that it is their duty to the world to bring their own special national contribution to bear by this means which is within their power as well as by others.

595
What is America, they ask, that it should be permitted to be a nuclear America, while France or China are not permitted to be a nuclear France or a nuclear China—France with 1,000 years of culture, China with 3,000 years? What looks like proliferation in London or Washington looks like laudable monopoly-busting in Paris and Peking. What looks like monopoly in Paris and Peking looks like laudable proliferation-preventing in London and Washington. It just depends where you stand on the line. There will always be pressure on countries to go nuclear unless and until the existing nuclear Powers begin, in General de Gaulle's words—and he is the person who counts in this, because his is the first country which did not sign the Test Ban Treaty; the first dissident in this whole test ban field—to cease the production and commence the destruction of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Proliferation or monopoly-busting cannot be stopped, alas! simply by a treaty among the existing nuclear Powers declaring their intention to stop it. Nobody is helping the new countries to build nuclear weapons; they are doing it themselves. I wish it could be stopped by treaty, but it can be stopped only by an unmistakable, controllable and substantial arms reduction among the existing nuclear Powers.
Let us consider what it is that causes the development of nuclear weapons in country after country at all in the first place. It is not the desire to threaten and bludgeon and blackmail: we must face this. Why did this country and the United States together develop the first nuclear weapons in the world in the 1940s, during the war? It was because, in the middle of a world war, our intelligence was not good enough to assure us that Germany was not developing nuclear weapons. We feared the Germans were. So we followed the first rule of military planning, which is to plan for the worst eventuality, and went ahead. The Soviet Union knew well enough that the United States had nuclear weapons; and therefore developed their own. Britain, and later France, developed their own independent forces later because the Soviet Union had, and they did not wish all the deterring of Soviet attacks on them to be done by a country 3,000 miles away—namely, the United States. China de-
596
veloped nuclear weapons because an American nuclear fleet had been steaming up and down a few miles off their coast for fifteen years—that at first, and later perhaps because their former friend, the Soviet Union, had become their sworn adversary and was a nuclear Power. If India develops them it will be because China has. If Indonesia does—and we must pay attention to the fact that the Indonesian Government is now stating its intention to develop them—it will be because of the British nuclear base in Malaysia. We are familiar enough with the pressures in Germany; and so on down the line.
This brings me back to Europe. I do not believe that, in the long run, we can get forward by dealing with disarmament (East-West arms control), or with the question of alliance control of nuclear weapons, or with the question of a Central European settlement, by itself. I believe the only way we can get forward is by handling all three things together. We are conditioned by a rather rigid triangle, the three sides of which are: our purposes in NATO, why we are in it at all; our relations with our adversaries, the Russians and their Allies; and our relations among ourselves. Our original purpose in NATO, and we can remember it well enough, fifteen years ago, was to prevent the Russians from walking to the Pyrenees, which they could have done. We have achieved that purpose; they can no longer walk there and, realistically, they have lost interest in the idea.
But we must look now to the unification of Germany and the demolition not only of the Berlin Wall but of the whole Iron Curtain. This cannot be done by war; it is better that some Germans should be oppressed than that all Germans should be dead. We cannot do it by threat of war; the Russians now have an invulnerable retaliatory capacity and their nerve is just as good as ours. We can do it only by negotiation, and that means removing, if we can, the incentives which cause the Russians to be so stubborn.
What are these incentives? Why do they maintain an odious and ridiculous tyranny in East Germany? Is it because they are so blind they think it is the Garden of Eden? Obviously not. Is it because they are so proud of Communism that they must make it appear that

597
17 million Germans adhere to it, besides all the other people? Hardly. Is it not rather because they need the defensive depth? Do they not hang on there and prop up Ulbricht for the very same reason that they shot down unarmed workers in Budapest in 1956? Is it not because they dare not allow Western bomber and missile bases to be set up so many miles nearer to the Soviet heartland? If this is so, it leads us straight to the second side of my triangle: relations between the Eastern and Western Alliances and the possibility of balanced arms reduction, which is the subject of this debate, and the duty of our new Minister of Disarmament.
Many ideas about how to begin reducing arms have been canvassed at Geneva and elsewhere and we have discussed some of them this evening. Most of them run into one or other of two obstacles: either Russian unwillingness to permit foolproof inspection, or West German unwillingness to permit geographical discrimination. I think there is one possibility which would involve neither inspection of the type the Russians refuse nor discrimination of the type that the Germans fear. It was a possibility mentioned very briefly in passing by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday, and mentioned rather more fully by my right honourable friend the Minister for Disarmament in your Lordships' House this evening.
Early this year President Johnson proposed a verified freeze on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. He proposed that no more missiles of over 500 miles range and no more bombers of over 25 ton weight should be brought into service, and that no new types of either should be introduced. Could we not now go further—and there are indications that these matters are being considered in Washington and here—and propose the actual destruction of so many delivery vehicles, perhaps an equal number on both sides? That should be all right provided the numbers are not too big—perhaps defined in the same way, missiles of over 500 miles range and bombers of over 25 tons. We might even agree on the overall number and allow each side to choose what type to destroy. You would need no verification for that beyond the quite painless inspection of the actual destruction at agreed places.
598
Such a plan would begin to point towards the achievement of that condition of balanced low-level secure deterrence which all qualified students recognise to be the best way out of the present East-West arms race.
This brings me to the third side of the triangle: our relations among ourselves in NATO and the new British proposal of the Atlantic Nuclear Force. If the Russians were allowed to choose which actual delivery vehicles to destroy they would obviously not destroy any of the 500 which could reach the United States (because the United States have nearly 4,000 which could reach them; and their little 500 are too scarce to destroy). They will obviously destroy some of the 2,500 they have which can only reach Europe. And if they bring their numbers down there can hardly be any reason for us to think of entirely new nuclear forces on our side, whether the seaborne M.L.F. or any other increase in our weapons, including the present national American build-up in I.C.B.M.s and submarine-borne Polaris. If we are reducing the overall size of our nuclear forces and if we are faced by a Soviet threat which is itself being visibly reduced, as it would be under the plan, I think we may solve our own difficulties within Nato—and I am thinking of France—a good deal more easily.
My Lords, let me wind up by repeating my good wishes to the new Minister for Disarmament who was not here when I said it originally and by taking up one point which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made in his speech—and this is the crux of disarmament itself—about the pattern of reduction of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. He said that the Russians proposed in 1962 that all nuclear delivery vehicles should be abolished in Stage I of general disarmament. So they did. But this is not what they now propose. In September 1962, Mr. Gromyko in the United Nations proposed that a small agreed number of I.C.B.M.s, anti-missile missiles and anti-aircraft missiles should be left outstanding on both sides until the end of Stage II. In March 1963, Mr. Tsarapkin, in Geneva, proposed that these agreed minimum deterrent forces should be subject to international inspection directly on the launching pads; and in September, 1963. Mr. Gromyko, again in the United Nations in New York, proposed that these forces should be left

599
outstanding until the end of Stage III; that is, throughout the disarmament process. The Soviet Union, in other words, proposed agreed balanced low-level minimum deterrent forces throughout disarmament.
I think my right honourable friend the Minister for Disarmament put his finger on it when he said that it might indeed be necessary to get away from the idea of proportional reduction; and for myself I warmly welcome his statement that he would pursue this idea energetically in Washington. He is, if I may say so, the younger brother of a very strong man indeed; and when you are seeking to negotiate a reduction in strength as between a very strong man indeed and just a very strong man—and I refer to the United States and to the Soviet Union—it is obvious that the first initiative must come from the very strong man indeed.
6.40 p.m.
EARL BALDWIN OF BEWDLEY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for having originated this debate on what is, I should think, the most important subject there is, and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, I am only sorry that I shall have to strike the one discordant note in this harmonious debate, and I ask your Lordships' tolerance with my heresy.
It is a rum world. I have observed, not in the small square circles that I move in, but in more intellectual orbits, that it is quite acceptable to affirm that there is no God and that religion is a kind of dope, but one is given a very old-fashioned look if one suggests that the United Nations Organisation is not the hope of the world and disarmament a dangerous folly. Yet a careful study of the origins of the last world war and a comparison with the present times have convinced me that we have been, for over 40 years, barking up the wrong tree, which we are now being invited to climb. The cat is not there, my Lords. Over 25 years ago, I thought it might be; but I have learnt that it is in another part of the wood, and there can only be a frightful accident if we persist.
This whole subject has become clogged with clichées. Mark them early,
600
my Lords, and cut them down when they grow, because they breed like fungus and they stifle thought. Shun misleading analogies about fire brigades and police forces, as though the world were a well-conducted English municipality. Sentiment, and ethics, too, have added to the mental confusion. I take it that our real objective is peace; if possible, with good will, if necessary, without it; that the means must be political; and politics has rightly been called the art of the possible, not of the desirable or of the virtuous. I was a little startled to read the other day in a leading article in The Times—and the same thing has been said in your Lordships' House in other words—that what everyone desired was disarmament. Not I, my Lords—not unless it brings peace. Disarmament is only a doubtful means; it is not an end, and it leads to almost certain war. For mercy's sake, do not make a creed of it!
Two main false assumptions in equaling peace with disarmament are, as I think, that the signature of a nation on a covenant is of any lasting value, and that the United Nations Organisation can control a powerful delinquent any better than could the old League of Nations. History teaches us that international agreements are for fair weather only, and that the breaking point comes as soon as the wind changes and national interests are thought to be at stake. The precipitants of bad faith, as is well known, are temptation and opportunity—in other words, the prize and the occasion, a conjunction all too common in international affairs. Our friends, as well as our enemies, will break their words as soon as it suits them. And so will we. If we British, reputed to be one of the honestest nations in the world, can break nine covenants without warning on a mere economic pinch, cannot any other nation break one when it judges that its very life and liberty are threatened?
Macaulay wrote:
"How large a proportion of the blackest crimes recorded in history is to be ascribed to ill-regulated public spirit. We daily see men do for their Party, for their sect, for their country, for their favourite schemes of political and social reform, what they would not do to enrich or avenge themselves."

601
My Lords, let no one underestimate the elemental power of nationalism, now, more than ever, boiling all over the world.
In my view, the way to the heart of the problem of peace lies through the layers of human motives and reactions, seeing clearly what they are and getting them in the right order. In all natural tasks, wherever possible one should work with the grain, and not against it. If love of country is a profounder emotion than love of peace—and I am very sure it is—then to make plans on the opposite assumption seems to me to be simply asking for trouble. Since international law, overwhelmingly enforced against any State, however powerful, is only a dream of the future, sheer terror may be the only thing stronger than this monster of selfish patriotism. And now, for the first time in history, we are given our chance, if only we use it intelligently.
Where reason has failed, modern scientific inventions are beginning at last literally to put the fear of God into the nations, and that may force them, as nothing else has yet done, towards keeping the peace. We should make good use of that fear. There is nothing ignoble in that suggestion. If our real desire is peace and not just a disarmament covenant, we must renounce all sentimental and ethical dogmas and get the natural motives in their correct order, never forgetting that the moment any nation decides that its vital interests are threatened no pact on earth is going to hold it.
It is not easy to find words or similes to demonstrate the peculiar danger of a disarmament pact, but it seems to me that the problem might be clarified in this way. Reverse it. It seems an absurd hypothesis, but suppose the nations agreed, instead of disarming, to promise to rearm to a certain high level. Then, what if one or more powerful States were tempted to break the agreement, say, for economy's sake, and did so? The peace of the world would not be endangered, because the power would rest with the armed majority, the peacekeepers, and they could penalise those members if they chose. But reversing this again to an agreement to disarm, if then only one powerful State decides to rearm, where lies the power then? Not with the disarmed and law-abiding majority, but with the armed and lawless minority of
602
one, and it is then a choice of war or appeasement.
When former treaties of alliance have been broken, the situation for the betrayed has been bad enough; but what is uniquely dangerous about a disarmament treaty is that you start in the last ditch, and when the treaty is broken, as it will be, those who are betrayed are left without any means of defending themselves. It is that fact that puts such a treaty in a fatal category of its own. Now that is an intensification of the sort of thing that happened in the 1930s.
As for the United Nations Organisation, devised to be the guardian of the rights of nations, the defender of the weak against the strong, it is very easy to be derisive about its failures. They are too tragic to be mocked. I have to mention it, however, if only to remark that if it is to be charged with the task of controlling and inspecting the weapons of the world when total disarmament shall have begun, then, as in the sorry case of the League of Nations, which could only be strong with the weak and weak with the strong, it is just not up to the job, nor, as at present constituted, ever can be. Many other valuable jobs it can do, but not that one; and we should be mad to entrust our people's safety to such hands. I will say no more about that, for it is only indirectly concerned with this debate.
It is because, between the wars, we based our policy on a fantasy of good will and covenants that we got into the mess that we did. I am fairly certain that the last World War was made more likely by the existence of a protracted Disarmament Conference and an overestimated League of Nations. That war was quite impossible on paper. For, in addition to the Locarno Treaties of 1925—so full of guarantees and such good will, with everything ship-shape and Geneva fashion—there was the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, by which first 15 and ultimately 62 nations solemnly pledged themselves to outlaw war. And the League was there to ensure their implementation. It did not take long, my Lords, for the human law of national self-interest to overthrow the paper law of international faith and co-operation, and for great States to run riot in the face of world opinion, which, as a moral force, was then supposed to be the greatest

603
deterrent to aggression known to civilised man. Is it not pitiable, my Lords?
It may be asked why, if this is true, the bloody lesson of the inter-war years has never been learned. I think the reason is that in 1939 this country was so profoundly shocked by what had come upon it that there arose a compelling emotional need for a satisfying explanation. This need was supplied by ignoring the facts of the faulty system upon which the peace of the world had been built (systems are relatively dull things to get angry with; you cannot hurt their feelings) and, instead, offering the names of a few guilty politicians. So far as I can remember, these men were also called evil. The British temperament is said to luxuriate in moral indignation. The consoling myth was gladly accepted; and it stuck. So the real lesson was shirked; and here we are again, asking for another one. Shall we never learn?
I mentioned the danger to clear thinking from sentimental jargon and crude ethics. Public opinion reasons in deep ruts scored by the repetition of emotive words and phrases, where the obvious is commonly mistaken for the actual, the golden casket containing a carrion Death chosen in lieu of the leaden casket with the true image. I respect, but do not share, the view of well-meaners who see these terrible new weapons of war as moral rather than political issues. Certain spokesmen for Christianity see in them a blasphemy against the Almighty, spokesmen for humanism a blasphemy against humanity. These things, they say, are wicked and will destroy us and our children; therefore, they must be forbidden. An individual need set no limits to his personal piety; he may take for his motto, if he pleases "My conscience, right or wrong", and nobly damn the consequences—to himself. But a Government cannot afford to neglect any means of making secure the defence of the Realm, however repugnant those means may be. The Government are the trustee of bodies, not of souls. And, by the way, which weapons are to be named less odious than which others? And why? Which war, with its agony and corruption, was not altogether loathsome?
My Lords, I say again that the goal is international peace, not the arbitrary banning of one weapon as being more
604
inhuman or destructive than another. My underlying theme throughout is that a treaty that certainly cannot be kept is too dangerous to sign. It is also, if I may say so, having just criticised the moralists, immoral; for good faith ought to be the unbreakable strand in public as in private relations. Would that it were!
I now draw your Lordships' attention, with some diffidence, to another line of thought, in an attempt to reconcile this long enmity between conscience and devastating armaments. It is very far from being original, but, owing to its antiquity, it may have been overlooked.
"Nothing",
said Hamlet,
"is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".
My knowledge of science is scanty, and I may be at fault, but I cannot ever see any new discovery as evil in itself, even though its primary purpose appears to be one of causing pain; and to seek to halt the progress of invention in any direction seems to me impious, shortsighted and, in any case, futile. Even where we cannot discern anything but evil, it is not my experience that evil must necessarily come of evil. Often I have found it otherwise. I am now wading out into theological waters where I may quickly get out of my depth. But the spectre of morality has been called up, as it always must be, to attend this debate, which is implicitly about peace and war, about life and death, and we cannot avoid facing it. The older one gets, and the more one tries to understand metaphysical problems, the more one finds oneself coming up against a paradox. And that, I believe, my Lords, is as it should be in this world.
Many of us know that there is a far greater Power than nuclear power: a Divine Power, which ordained this lesser power's discovery for purposes unknown to us at present. Why then should we rashly cast the gift away? Believing that we are through all eternity in the hands of God, I should have thought that quite a large body of Christians would have reached a wiser conclusion than the one to be reached only through pure reason: the wiser one that God's values are not our values, His justice not our justice, and that it is one of the best observed of His

605
mysterious ways to allow apparent evil to be done in order that greater good may prevail. Shakespeare knew the truth of it when he wrote:
"We ignorant of ourselves, beg often our own harms, which the wise Powers deny us for our good."
Nuclear power, electronics, space exploration and the colossal supranational expense of these undertakings all seem to me to be pointing the way towards the unifying rather than the dissolution of mankind, so long as we do not lose our nerve and try to stop their guided development. We cannot yet see far enough ahead to know the exact shape and scope of their benefits. Many can only see disaster or stupidity in what they very imperfectly understand. I have read that some scientists themselves are distrustful of the future. I think a little more faith is needed. Having quoted from Shakespeare, may I quote from Bacon too?
"We ought not",
he writes
"to attempt to draw down or submit the mysteries of God to our reason; but contrariwise to raise and advance our reason to the divine truth."
And it depresses me to see that on the subject of this nuclear deterrent public opinion is not being shaped to conform with this timeless piece of wisdom.
My Lords, I now wade back to the material shore where I can tread more firmly and reach my conclusion. I did not intend, by counselling a more reflective approach to these frightful problems, that nothing more need be done than sit down and leave the keeping of the world's peace to an invisible council of angels carrying out Heaven's decrees. There is, as usual, no final solution, only an awful choice of constantly recurring risks. I wish I could observe more power for good and less for harm in the United Nations Organisation. But I cannot. The best chance I can see of keeping the peace of the world for the time being is to use what was made for a sword, not as a ploughshare so much as a shield—I refer to the nuclear missile: to let birds of a feather continue to flock, as their nature is, together, in defensive alliance with others of like mind and morality; for each great group to stand firm and, I believe, safe under its nuclear carapace (I am not
606
denying the terrible risk, nor overlooking the immensely high insurance premium of money to be paid) until such time as the human race can be trusted to disarm itself and keep itself disarmed, or until the marvellous advance of science somehow performs the miracle for it.
At present there is no sign whatever of such a state of trust existing, and in my view, with all respect to the noble Baroness, to call attention to the need for progress in disarmament in these conditions is to invite something worse than a repeat of 1939, and bring us all to annihilation. In the highly unlikely event, however, of such an insane covenant ever being signed in our lifetime, there is a kind of gruesome consolation in the fact that we shall not be the laughingstock of posterity, only because there will not be any posterity to laugh.
7.2 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I always feel encouraged to take part in a debate on a subject so urgent as disarmament, because it gives me an opportunity to learn more about it, both before and during the debate. Certainly my noble friend Lady Summerskill "hit the jackpot" when she initiated this debate at this particular moment. Both the speeches of my noble friends Lady Summerskill and Lord Chalfont, the Minister for Disarmament, were more than usually informative and stimulating.
May I here, as a rather new Member of this House, add my humble congratulations to my noble friend Lord Chalfont on his speech to-day? I found myself very much in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in practically everything he said. He was, of course, being more knowledgeable, more experienced and more cautious than I feel about this subject. But I disagreed with him on one point. He queried whether it was very good to have a separate Minister for Disarmament. I think it is very good indeed. It gives a psychological boost to this subject which I believe is very necessary at the moment.
I am sure that we each have our individual methods of research—and mine is often a short cut one, a crib—to become more knowledgeable about subjects about which we do not know a great deal. I have tried to pick the

607
brains of anyone who is well informed on disarmament. Experts are not always available, but there is often some kind of authoritative person ready and willing to discuss his pet subject, and generous with information. But when talking with various people who have made a study of disarmament, I found that we were continuously talking not so much about disarmament as about rearmament. In the last decade rearmament has filled the picture all over the world. In fact, disarmament and defence are inextricably bound together, and run parallel to each other. No country will begin to disarm before it has reached what it considers its needs are; and each country thinks that it is the only judge of what its needs should be; and that is usually saturation point in its defence.
So, my Lords, as arms are equated with power, nuclear strength has become, as everyone has mentioned in this debate, a status symbol. One would have thought that Governments without nuclear weapons would heave a sigh of relief and get on with increasing their national prosperity. But they cast envious eyes on those who possess them, so that the spread of nuclear weapons—a bad thing in itself—is bedevilled by national ambitions, as well as by irrational and rational fears.
We have the position now in which the Disarmament Conference, recently at Geneva, and now in the United Nations, patiently negotiates for a reduction in armaments, taking a few steps towards it, while the big Powers and the rest of the world press on with great strides in rearmament. It is the case of the tortoise and the hare. All the same, it is imperative to keep this small haven of sanity in our wildly irrational world, this Disarmament Conference, working and active. Though its achievements have not been spectacular, they are none the less achievements, and not negligible when it is the peace of the world that is at stake. We have taken some steps towards disarmament, like the partial Test Ban Treaty, the "Hot Line"—better, after all, than the cold war—and the decision to cut back fissile material.
But apart from these things, the Conference is a platform, a platform for propaganda, and for propaganda to reduce arms. The Russians know this only too well. Taking this important
608
aspect into consideration, it is here, I think, that the Prime Minister has made one of the most felicitous appointments in the Government—that of Lord Chalfont as Minister for Disarmament. I cannot think of anyone with better qualifications, with better testimonials, so to speak, for the job. Lord Chalfont was a soldier, so he cannot be accused of being a starry-eyed idealist, with no practical experience of war. More than that, he is an expert on defence, and has been writing on the subject for years. No expert in this field can afford to dabble in wishful thinking on these matters, and on top of all these qualifications my noble friend is a Welshman. Your Lordships may think that this is irrelevant, but the Welsh have a gift of speech which will, I hope, come in very handy when talking to the Russians; and I am pretty sure that Lord Chalfont will be a match for them.
Here I must for a moment pay a passing tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose courageous stand years ago at the United Nations was so good for our morale. The stumbling blocks of disarming nations spring from the fears, imaginary as well as real, about defence. Some people argue that we in Europe have maintained peace for nearly 25 years because of the West's superiority in nuclear strength. These weapons are very costly, and though no price is too high to pay for peace, we should not accept indefinitely a situation of sky-high, nuclear pile-up. If we go on increasing defence expenditure at the rate we have been doing, we shall be subverting our economy in the name of defence. To-day, our economic position is more vulnerable than our defence position. Our industries need more modernisation and automation; but this, again, is costly. A balance has to be made between defence and economic progress. In fact, the day has come when disarmament, defence and economic progress, this triumvirate, must not be considered except as a whole—in peace time, that is.
We have shed many territories, but we still retain many commitments; we wish to give aid to developing countries; and we ourselves have to become more competitive. How can we succeed in doing any or all of these things and keep our special position in the world, a position which I think is well worth

609
keeping, if we do not take all these three things into consideration at a time?
We in Britain may have economic difficulties, but we have prosperity, too. What of other countries like India, for example, where they have great defence problems and no prosperity? How can they arm themselves and survive? One of the crucial objectives of disarmament is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We have no power to do this, but we try by exhortation. Exhortation is all very well, but it carries with it great responsibilities. If we wish to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to such countries as India we have an obligation to go to her aid if she is in trouble, say, with China.
In all discussions on disarmament we tend too much to concentrate on the big Powers. We say to ourselves that there can be no significant reduction in arms until they decide on a significant reduction. Meanwhile, as has been said in this debate, in many parts of the world re-arming is going on all the time. I think we should give more thought to this. Even if the prospects for general and complete disarmament are not yet in sight, it is most important to give every support to the Disarmament Conference and to keep the prospects of disarmament floodlighted for people everywhere. The Conference should always be ready for a change in the international climate so as to take immediate advantage of the change. Efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons must never be relaxed. It is encouraging to think that America gave no help to France, and neither did Russia to China, in the development of their national nuclear bombs. Fortunately, it is easier to produce nuclear weapons than to deliver them. The Egyptians, even with the help of German scientists, have so far not been very successful in this.
To-day, my Lords, if we are serious about disarmament, the goals are reductions, control and destruction. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out, we have come to a complete impasse about nuclear arm;. When we think coldly and logically about their possible development it leads us straight into science fiction. We read that some nuclear weapons are buried deep down in concrete, underground, so that, in the event of a nuclear war, when cities are
610
destroyed these remain unmanned but intact. This is lunacy. The time is ripe for a new appraisal, a bold new move, not just a freeze but a dissolution of these terrible weapons—not, I may say, unilaterally, but multilaterally.
Before noble Lords on the other side go into paroxysms of patriotism about our independent deterrent, they should read very carefully what the Prime Minister said in another place yesterday. The concept of World Government still smacks of day-dreaming, but is the idea of world annihilation any more real? I think, my Lords, it is easier to conceive of a time when the United Nations will have the power to maintain peace-keeping forces in the trouble spots of the world, on the borders of Israel and Egypt, let us say, or in Cyprus or the Congo, so as to give the festering hatred time to heal. This seems to me a much more desirable aim than the ever-increasing production of more destructive nuclear arms. I can see a gleam of hope for the world in a more powerful and effective United Nations Organisation even if it is a distant one; but I see no future in the continuing build-up of powerful armaments. So the sooner we get down to serious disarmament the better for all of us; and when the destruction comes of nuclear arms and it begins I hope that I shall be invited to the party.
7.15 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I stand here rather in the same spirit as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, since I am not an expert. But I have been listening to this debate with the greatest interest and I have been amazed at the professional language and the vocabulary, a special language of its own kind, almost a mystique, that has grown up around the problems of armament, disarmament and rearmament. But I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for putting down this Motion because it gives me an opportunity to thank her for introducing what must be a discussion of a vital subject, and also to offer two handshakes to my noble friend Lord Chalfont, the Minister for Disarmament. The first handshake is one of welcome and of congratulation for his very interesting opening speech. The second handshake is one of deep sympathy, a sympathy that has grown throughout the course of this debate as I considered the

611
kind of job that the noble Lord has landed himself in for. It seems to me it is a job which is both heartbreaking and yet one of the most important facing the Government or any politician anywhere.
I have watched for some time the discussions that have gone on about disarmament; watched, shall I say, as a deeply interested observer though not an expert; and I have been rather interested by the kind of Parkinson's Law which seems to be operating in this field. The law goes like this: the more you talk about disarmament, the more you rearm; the more speeches you make about disarmament and the more paper and ink and documents you turn out about disarmament, the more arms you create. Thus, for example, in 1962 it was estimated that the world was spending £45, 000 million per year on arms. In 1963 this had risen to £50, 000 million per year. During this time, of course, the Geneva Disarmament Commission was meeting and there was a considerable amount of discussion in the Press and elsewhere about disarmament.
My Lords, I am not a cynic in these matters. In fact, although, as I would tell the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I was a soldier, I am still, I think, a bit of a starry-eyed idealist. That may explain some of my feelings on this subject. For example, last week I went to what was an extremely interesting lecture in one of the Committee Rooms here on the Economic Consequences of Disarmament, a subject which was touched on in several of the speeches to-day, and I could not help feeling that it was so unreal. The speaker, who was very able and very clever and had obviously mastered his subject beautifully, described what would happen, what we should do and the kind of problems we should have to solve if, to-morrow, disarmament was declared, so to speak, and we had thousands of men to retrain into other jobs, and so on. That was his brief; I am not blaming him; it was a brilliant lecture of its kind, but it was unreal.
It was made a little more unreal for me, I must admit, because behind him all the time he spoke was a massive action picture of King Alfred, sword in hand with a very brawny arm, calling on his soldiers to defend England against the invading Danes. This talk of disarma-
612
ment being declared tomorrow, and of having this kind of economic problem, seemed to me to be about as real as if at 12 noon on Christmas Day this year the nations of the world suddenly decided they would put the Sermon on the Mount into operation as a programme of action, instead of as a beautiful text which one reads now and then. We know that this will not happen. To me it is a tragedy that it will not; and I speak as a humanist. Disarmament will not come like that either. It is going to be—and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Chalfont saying this—a painful, back-breaking, inch-by-inch progress towards some kind of sanity. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that if he can bring us back one small victory, one tiny hint of a victory, in this field, he will have done more than almost anyone I know to achieve peace.
I spoke a moment ago about the complex language and vocabulary which has grown up around this subject and which seems to me to have been over-complicated and sometimes to have wiped out the reality of the type of problem with which we are dealing. Let me put it this way. The world is crying out to-day for more teachers, more scientists, more hospitals and more food. For the cost of one single new prototype bomber with full equipment we could provide one year's salary for a quarter of a million teachers. We could equip and build 30 science faculties for 1,000 students, we could build 75 fully equipped hospitals each with 100 beds, and build 50, 000 tractors or 15, 000 harvesters—for the cost of one new prototype bomber. I will put it another way. I have been speaking in this debate something a little over five minutes. During this time while I have been on my feet the world has spent approximately £100 per minute on armaments: that is a total of £500. In the same time, in that five minutes, six children have died in this world for lack of food, through hunger and malnutrition—six children while I have been on my feet!
The strange and frightening thing to me is that nobody wants this to happen; everybody has good will about it; everybody sees the terrible danger in this vast stockpiling of arms. We get proposal and counter-proposal—you destroy so many, we will destroy so many, you do this and we will do that. Nobody seems to move on it and the arms bill keeps

613
rising. It is as if the world were in the grip of some terrible, terrifying insanity and madness. I think perhaps the historians in the distant future, if there is a distant future, will write of our times in this way, seeing us as madmen and primitives. They may admire much of our art and culture and philosophy, but shake their heads at these other barbaric tendencies we show, just as we admire much of Roman civilisation but abhor its barbarities. And these future generations will have full reason to do so.
Here I would make a comment to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. He asked, what weapon is more moral or less moral than another. I hope I shall be able to tell him. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the Federal Radiation Council of the United States Government and Professor Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize winner—two very distinguished and authoritative Government bodies plus one distinguished scientist—have calculated that the bomb tests carried out in this world so far, and which we banned just over a year ago, amounting to 600 megatons, will in the course of time affect 16 million children so severely that they will suffer gross physical or mental defects or death. It is calculated by the same sources that about 1 per cent. of this total will be stricken in the first generation—about 160, 000 children. But the damage will continue, with only a slight decrease, for generation after generation for thousands of years. I would say this. If you fire a rifle bullet you kill somebody opposite; you do not affect, except perhaps indirectly, future generations. But what we have already done in this world is to sentence to mutation and slow death thousands upon thousands of children in future generations. We may well speak of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children unto the fifth or sixth generation.
One 20 megaton bomb detonated in the atmosphere or on the surface of the earth will, it is estimated, cause gross damage and mutation to about 500, 000 unborn children. This is the price—and I think it should be written up in letters of fire above Lord Chalfont's desk at Geneva or anywhere else—future generations will pay for the testing of one single H-bomb. But we, the fathers and the mothers of this generation, have not escaped entirely; the same sources tell
614
us that 2 million human beings now alive will die five, ten, fifteen or twenty years sooner than they would have done because of the high energy radiation liberated in the bomb tests, which tends to produce cancer. Many among us have been robbed of life by these tests.
Looking at these facts, and they are facts, we may well think that the treaty was signed in the very nick of time and that humanity checked itself on the very rim of disaster. But the madness continues, and the frightening thing is that it develops a kind of rationale of its own, like a lunatic who is convinced that he alone in the entire world is sane. I read an article in last Sunday's Observer which spoke about what quantity of armaments is enough. It was a very intelligent and good article. It said:
"All the people I talked with assured me that the human species was destined to survive, come what may. Perhaps the most authoritative assurance was given me by General Glenn Kent (of the United States Defence Department …). General Kent, a quiet-spoken pleasant man told me 'Even if we did nothing to protect ourselves enemy attacks would be unlikely to kill more than 70 per cent. of the American people'."
In fairness to General Kent, it is his job to calculate these things. But it sent shivers up my spine. For once you argue that anyway there will be 30 per cent. left and we can start again, then you open the way to the argument that a nuclear war would not be a complete disaster; you open the way to an adventure that could cripple and mutate the earth and its peoples for a thousand years.
I felt the same cold shiver when I read last night that there was a proposal to place nuclear minefields along the border between East and West Germany. It seems to me that this is a most monstrous suggestion and would be a most monstrous provocation, because the Russians and the Germans will no doubt decide to go one better and so we shall escalate. I felt the same horror when I read that the German Social Democrats, people of a Party I support, at their conference recently had behind them a map of Germany showing their pre-war frontiers; and at the conference it was stated that they wanted their territories back, but of course intended to get them by peaceful means. I believe them and I believe in their sincerity. But this is

615
opening the way. The first thing is talking about peaceful means, the second is warlike means. This again is a provocation to Russia and Poland and other countries. I am sure the one thing we have to avoid is provocation, and I include any suggestion that West Germany should have a finger on the nuclear trigger.
I was tremendously impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in his speech about the need to look at the arguments from the point of view of the other countries, and when we talk about our being the nuclear Powers and therefore we rule the world, they look at it from the point of view that we have a monopoly and they want to get in on it. The hour is late and I do not want to go on at great length. I believe that the points that have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would make a tremendous beginning. I should like to see greater emphasis on the idea of a world peace-keeping force, and no doubt this will come.
I want finally to touch on just one point, and it is this. I do not think disarmament is a problem that can be solved only at Government level. I believe it is quite clearly the concern of every thinking human being. Therefore, I would say that I should like to see Lord Chalfont and the Government make it part of their job to organise some kind of campaign for mental disarmament. It seems to me that this is an aspect of the problem that we forget. We leave it to the politicians to argue about in committees and conferences, and in the meantime the same kind of propaganda continues in our schools and elsewhere. In the schools, in the history books, there is no positive education about the virtues of peace, but plenty of positive education about the glories of our past triumphs. I am not suggesting for one moment we are bringing up all our young people to be young soldiers, but I do not think very much good is served by stressing the tremendous warlike victories of the past. We ought to have a look at our history books and other lessons in order to see whether we cannot introduce this idea of mental disarmament. I should like to see us free ourselves of some of the encumbrances that we have in this particular area.
616
We automatically say, and assume immediately, that the Russians are our enemies; that they are the people we are going to fight with, in a nuclear war or any other kind of war. We automatically assume various other kinds of things about other groups and other peoples. I think this is wrong. In my view we do not want this kind of automatic warlike thinking. I should like to see this aspect of the problem looked at, because if the Minister of Disarmament is going to be successful he needs behind him the strength and power of an organised movement in this country, of the whole of the people of this country, who not only want him to manœuvre his way to disarmament, but want to help him, by massive support, to achieve it all over the world.
7.31 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, replies I should like to say just a few words. I shall not keep your Lordships long. This is a subject in regard to which one is liable to allow emotions to overcome one's sense of reasoning. I am glad that during the debate this evening there has been little sign of that. I entirely agree that disarmament is a desirable thing. Indeed, I think the only noble Lord who has not taken that view this evening is my noble friend Lord Baldwin of Bewdley; but I think that probably he does, in his heart of hearts.
The point is: How are we going to achieve it? Unfortunately, it is impossible to force human beings faster than they can go at a particular moment. There are some, of course, who would do it in a highly dramatic manner—by throwing away all our weapons and beating our swords into plowshares. That, no doubt, would be in accordance with the Christian principles of "turning the other cheek" and so on. We would open our shores to our enemies, or to anybody who wanted to take possession of us, and, when they came to our country, we would shake them all by the hand and say, "Welcome to you, brothers. Take whatever you wish, and have it as your own. If you wish for a home, do come into my house". But that sort of thing is not practicable at the moment. We know perfectly well what we, as individuals, should do, but

617
we cannot force our fellow countrymen to be subjected to things like that.
One is apt to forget, too, that armaments have two purposes, aggressive and defensive. If arms are made for aggressive purposes, of course no condemnation is too great. But is it really so old-fashioned, so "square" (if I may use the term), to wish to defend one's own country? Is: it so extraordinary to wish to remain English, and to wish for one's fellow countrymen to have their freedom? The noble Lord, Lord Willis, spoke about our automatically assuming that the Russians are our enemies. I do not think there is anything automatic about it. One has only to look at their actions over the past generation or more to realise what their intentions are.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord assuming that in the course of the past thirty years or so, there has never been any expression of aggressive intent towards Russia, so far as Britain is concerned?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, there has never been any expressed aggressive intention by them, I agree. But one does not know what lies behind that; and there is no doubt that this country would be a most valuable outpost for anybody who wanted to take control of Europe. I cannot help looking back to the days, just after the last war, when the Russians took control of some central European countries in a way that was positively sadistic, simply by murdering their Prime Ministers and replacing them; by imprisoning the police and by other such methods. I do not think that there is any great reason to believe to-day that the leopard has greatly changed its spots. Although I think it is important that we should remain on good terms with the Russians, I believe that we shall do so only while we remain at equal strength, so far as arms are concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, quoted China as having said, "We will not use it first"—meaning the nuclear weapon. They may say that; but who is to believe them? I think that could equally be said by almost any nation. One may say, possibly, that inspection is the way to prevent further trouble and the further manufacture of arms. But who is to inspect a country the size of Russia? First of all, would they permit it? Secondly, how on earth could one cover
618
a country of that size and find out whether arms were or were not being manufactured? I agree entirely that, in the end, disarmament is a desirable thing, provided that it is multilateral; provided that every country takes part in it. But it will take a long time, and I do not think we can possibly force it. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe mentioned a world authority. I think that that, too, will take a long time, because nations who have a strongly independent nationalist feeling are not likely to obey a world authority.
I personally found one of the most reassuring speeches of the evening that of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. May I join with other noble Lords in congratulating him on a really striking maiden speech? I do not think I need make the conventional remark, that we hope we shall often hear him again, because, as he sits on the Government Front Bench, that can be taken for granted. Certainly I am one of those who look forward to hearing him again. This has certainly been an interesting debate, but I do not think that we can afford to shut our eyes to the facts if we want to defend our country.
7.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, it is seldom that a Peer feels it right to speak "off the paper", and at this late hour I apologise for so doing. I will not keep your Lordships long. I have, however, been somewhat provoked into venturing to contribute one simple idea to this debate. It is this. A State is a moral person; a State is bound by the laws of morality. One of the laws of morality is that the means and the end must be proportionate. Thus, it is right to light your pipe with a match; it is not right to light your pipe with a £5 note. Means and end must be proportionate.
We have to-day principally been discussing the atomic bomb, and we must ask whether any conceivable end could be proportionate to the vast destruction which the dropping of an atomic bomb upon a large inhabited city would cause. That is a question which every man must ask of himself. I have no doubt what the answer must be. However, it is said that the atomic bomb would be morally legitimate if it were dropped on heavy concentrations of troops

619
(supposing that the strategists of a nuclear age permitted such concentrations), or upon aerodromes, or upon rocket sites. The answer to that is, in my judgment, that escalation to atomic bombs on cities is almost inevitable. Moreover, we have received no assurance whatever that the atomic bombs of the polaris submarine are in fact to be targeted only upon such military objectives.
We have then to consider, as a moral problem, whether it is right to possess atomic bombs without any intention of using them. This raises a problem of ethics of considerable complexity. I myself would say that it can hardly be right to threaten to do evil. To do that is to express a conditional readiness to do evil which cannot be reconciled with Christian ethics, or indeed any system of ethics. I therefore support the right reverend Prelate in what he has said. I have ventured to intrude these arguments on your Lordships not so much with a view to convincing your Lordships' House, but that I may have my say in the debate which is likely to occur at next year's session of the second Vatican Council, wherein there is a possibility, if not a likelihood, of a condemnation of all atomic weapons.
7.44 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, certainly I would not venture for a moment to impugn the sincerity of the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I must confess that I find his argument not very easy to accept. In particular, I do not see how he can square with his reading of history his idea that the State is a moral being. I think that idea, if it was not invented, was at any rate nurtured and developed by German philosophers in the last century.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: It comes from St. Thomas Aquinas.
LORD COLERAINE: It may be that it originated there, but it was nurtured and developed by German philosophers of the last century. That idea led us directly to German militarism and, I think, to the two world wars. I do not want to dispute with the noble Earl, whose sincerity I respect completely.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for initiat-
620
ing a debate which has been, for me at any rate, one of the most fascinating I have ever listened to in this House or in another place. I am only sorry that I was not here to listen to the speech with which she began, but I have listened to some interesting and most stimulating speeches. Two most remarkable speeches, if I may so differentiate and particularise, were the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—and I should like to congratulate him on it most heartily—and the other speech which impressed me very deeply, as I think it impressed the whole House, even those noble Lords who did not agree with it (and I do not entirely agree with it myself), namely, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. In his choice of words, in his processes of thought, he reminded me very much of someone I heard speak very often, someone who on his day was the greatest orator of his day. I mean, of course, the noble Earl's father. Like the noble Earl, I remember the futilities and fatuities of the discussions on disarmament in the 'twenties and 'thirties. I agree with him that they led, or at any rate the frame of mind which engendered them led, directly to the Second World War.
But I feel that our discussion this afternoon has been on an entirely different plane. I even go so far as to say that, listening to the noble Earl, I did not feel that there was that antithesis, that dichotomy, between what he was saying and what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had said which the noble Earl supposed there to have been. What struck me most about the speech of Lord Chalfont was its moderation, its realism, and its determination. I remember that in the debates on Disarmament to which we used to listen before the war there were only two sides to the question. There were the cynics, who thought the whole exercise was futile and evil. On the other side there were the idealists who believed, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, does not believe, that the whole difficulty could be resolved by a single dramatic stroke.
I do not think to-day, either in this House or in any section of opinion, there is the same futile reaction to the problems of disarmament that there was then. We are all less hopeful, but more realistic, and, I hope, more determined. I hope that I shall not disappoint the

621
noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, if I say that he did not seem to me to be cynical There was so much truth in what he said, and there was, too, a little hope—indeed as much hope as we are entitled to. I cling to the words with which he concluded his speech: "Birds of a feather cling together". I think that that is where our salvation lies; that is where our hope for disarmament really comes from.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the barriers are not technical; they are political. I think that two of the real political obstacles to disarmament and peace are, first, status, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, devoted part of a very interesting speech, and, secondly, fear. Both of these ideas, if one can call them that, stem from the same source: the conception of national sovereignty. Those underdeveloped countries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred, who are now reaching after armaments themselves, want them as a status symbol to prove that, in spite of a great deal of evidence to the contrary, they are really sovereign nation States; and the rest of us cling to armaments because we are afraid.
I agree very much with a great deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. He, too, said that the real issue was sovereignty, and that the need was to establish in the world the rule of law. Where I cannot follow him, and what I cannot understand in him, is his belief that he is going to get away from national sovereignty through the United Nations, because, as he himself pointed out, the United Nations is itself based upon the principle of sovereignty. I think I am right in saying that that great man, Marshalissimo Stalin, insisted on these words being inserted into the Charter:
"the national sovereignty of peace-loving States."
I do not see how an institution which was born out of national sovereignty, which has been an arena for the propagation of conflicting national sovereignties, can possibly lead to the rule of law and the dilution of national sovereignty for which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was asking.
The second point on which I differ from the noble Earl is this. He said, "You must have a world authority. Nothing less will do." I think he is ask-
622
ing for the impossible. I do not see why we cannot take it step by step and stage by stage. It is a very long business, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said. We shall not see a solution in our day. It is doubtful if our children will see any real solution in their day. Our grandchildren may see something like a solution dawning, if they are lucky. But why cannot we start with building up again the idea of a European community, then go from that to the idea of an Atlantic community, and then go from that to the idea of a world community? I remember a passage in Gibbon which is no doubt familiar to your Lordships. I cannot quote it exactly, but it is something to the effect that the statesman may enjoy seeing the peoples of Europe at each other's throats, but the philosopher may justly feel that underlying all this civil war there is a community of interest which unites the civilised world against the uncivilised world.
I am not suggesting now the building up of just another bloc, a civilised bloc against a barbarian bloc. I am suggesting that the only road to disarmament and the only road to safety is through getting away from this idea of the sanctity of national sovereignty. My noble friend Lord Baldwin of Bewdley said, "Love of country is stronger than love of peace." I think he is right; it is stronger. What I am suggesting is that, surely, we have now got to a stage in our development where we can extend our country to wider frontiers, and extend our love of country without diluting it. If we cannot do that, I see very little hope, either for the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his mission on which we all wish him well, or for the world of civilised men.
7.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the hour is rather late, and after I had heard the opening speech of my noble friend Baroness Summerskill I thought the situation on all the major issues had been made so clear that there would probably be very little debate, except on some of the means to achieve objects which were desirable and on which I thought the whole House was agreed. I noticed at that moment, also, that the fog which had invaded the Chamber began to lift, although it seems to have come back with

623
a good deal of evidence lately. The atmosphere was particularly clear, also, when my noble friend Lord Chalfont and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, were speaking. I must confess that in some of the later speeches we have heard, starting with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, I began to see why there was such difficulty in arriving at agreement in Geneva.
However, I should like very briefly to deal with some of the points that have been made, and will then return to those rather wider issues referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Coleraine, and, indeed, by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. My noble friend Lord Chalfont has been so highly congratulated, that there seems no need for me to add to it. But this is one of those occasions when I am quite sure that the House really meant its congratulations. I find it difficult to find words to congratulate a new Member of this House, and a new Minister, which would be adequate to his achievement. I must admit that he had a very good lead-in by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, and I think most of the points that she dealt with have been discussed pretty fully.
I am inclined a little to regret that in this debate we have not been able to go more fully into the peace-keeping forces. Standing at this Box, I, naturally, do not criticise the Government, nor those who organised the debate. It is, of course, very difficult to draw the line. But it soon became very apparent that to use the phrase popular in defence circles, the "seamless robe of disarmament and of arms control" one must include, for the sake of completeness—and it is even material to it—the question of peace-keeping. This also brings up such subjects as alliances, the ultimate shape of peace-keeping forces, and, indeed, the more immediate issues of which we have had examples. I think it is true (I believe it was the noble Baroness who said it, although it may have been another speaker) that one of the great tragedies at the present moment, despite the criticisms we have heard of the United Nations Force in the Congo, is that the real nature of the alternative has been shown by the absence of the United Nations Force in recent weeks.
624
The noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, also regretted the absence of China from the disarmament negotiations. Of course, it is very definitely the policy of the Government that every effort should be made to bring the Chinese into negotiations in the disarmament field, just as it is that they should be admitted to the United Nations. If we are to make a significant advance with disarmament agreements—and, indeed, ultimately with peace-keeping—the Chinese must be brought in. But it must also be pointed out that, so far as Geneva is concerned, the Chinese have at the present moment made it very clear that so long as they are not members of the United Nations they will have nothing to do with the disarmament talks which are being held under the aegis of the Eighteen-Nation Conference. So long as they prefer to remain outside, we must, of course, press on in our discussions with the Americans, the Soviet Union and the other nations; and, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont has shown, we hope that it will be possible to make useful progress.
My Lords, I think that, despite the very clear understanding of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who I think, in matters of nuclear weapons, is not quite typical of his Party, judging by some of his wiser remarks in the past, as well as to-day, there is a difference—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. I do not think that there is anything which fell from my lips to-day which was in any way heretical.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should much prefer to think that the noble Earl's views, rather than some which we have heard from other noble Lords, particularly on other occasions, represent the views of the Party opposite. But I was, of course, referring at that moment to his long-term views on the future of nuclear deterrents. That is why I thought my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, in her extremely clear speech, in which she chastised the Opposition for their devotion to the independent nuclear deterrent, would have been unfair if she had been looking at the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. But I am sure she was looking

625
very much in the right direction, as was perhaps apparent from some of the subsequent speeches.
My Lords, this question of China brings up in a big way the problem of non-dissemination. The Chinese nuclear test has underlined how vital it is that the creation of additional nuclear capabilities should be prevented. The most urgent task in the field of disarmament and arms control must therefore be the conclusion of an international agreement that will achieve this purpose. As my noble friend Lord Chalfont made clear, it certainly is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as I believe it was the policy of the previous Government—and let me also add my tribute at this point to the work done by the previous Government in regard to this matter—that an agreement on non-dissemination should be found that could be supported by nuclear and non-nuclear countries alike.
It is at this point that I am inclined to disagree with my noble friend Lord Kennet, who, I thought, in an interesting speech, got caught on the horns of a particularly difficult piece of dialectics when he attributed different postures or different positions to the two concepts of dissemination and monopoly-breaking. My Lords, I am a little more hopeful in regard to the attitude of those very countries to which he referred, whether they be African or Asian, in regard to this matter. I am sure that, although he put his proposition in extreme form—and it was valuable to put it in that form—he would agree that the meetings, both of African countries and indeed of the so-called Non-aligned Conference, give rather more ground for confidence than the rather stark proposition he put before us. Something like fifty Governments at the Non-aligned Conference in Cairo in October declared their willingness to sign an international agreement not to acquire their own nuclear weapons; and, before that, many of the same Governments, meeting as the Organisation of African Unity, made a similar declaration. But, of course, with every day that goes by, while the main nuclear Powers maintain their monopoly the greater is the danger of the disappearance of that willingness which exists. This, of course, has been well illustrated, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont made clear, by the dangers of
626
the exploding of the Chinese nuclear weapon.
This brings me to the question of peacekeeping arrangements before we find a more thorough solution of the problem along the lines advocated by many speakers, and especially by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Until that day, I would agree with those who say that any too rapid advance to disarmament without providing adequate security could in fact be more dangerous to peace. None the less, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the development by good will and energy—the energy that my noble friend Lord Chalfont and, indeed, the Prime Minister have shown—of new forms of alliance, and particularly the Atlantic nuclear force, which may be a model for further developments East of Suez, is an immediate contribution to the prevention of further dissemination.
There is a particular point to which I should like to refer in regard to dissemination which the noble, Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned when he asked about the Atlantic nuclear force, whatever form it might take, or a multilateral force. I do not propose to go again through the very full explanation of the Government's views which was given in another place yesterday by the Prime Minister, but it would not be true to suggest that, in accordance with British policy in this matter and the aims that we seek, the security and safeguarding arrangements for any nuclear warheads would be such that non-nuclear countries would be able to have access to design data. This is a point of some importance which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, with his extraordinary depth of knowledge in regard to these matters, interestingly raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made some interesting remarks about the machinery of Government. I do not propose to go further into that to-day beyond saying that, of course, by far and away the most striking and important proposal is not just to ask another Minister in the Ministry of Defence to take an interest in the subject, but it is the appointment of my noble friend Lord Chalfont with the sole responsility. I am sure he would agree with that. I appreciate that in putting forward his suggestion he was well aware of the fact—and this is a point which I should like to emphasise—that the Ministry of

627
Defence officials and the staff officers are completely at one with their colleagues in the Foreign Office and elsewhere in wishing to press forward to disarmament. It is a happy thing that there is very little within Whitehall or Governmental organisation in this country which is other than wholly in favour of disarmament.
I should like now to turn very briefly to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. The House fully accepts his sincerity in this matter. He started a little unfortunately by criticising the defenders and advocates of disarmament by saying their remarks were clogged with clichés. I started to make a list in the course of his speech, but I ran out before he had finished. I noticed, however, that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, used that particularly dangerous phrase "History teaches us." It may be that both the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, have a peculiarly bitter view of certain consequences of recent historical actions. But I think they ought to widen their reading. And I think particularly—and I am sure he will not mind my saying this—that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, should widen his reading. I am sure that he did not think that Thomas Aquinas was a 19th century German political scientist.
LORD COLERAINE: Nor did I think that St. Thomas Aquinas had a great experience of the modern nationalistic State as it has developed since the 16th century.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: He was 13th century.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to suggest that it would help the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, if they, and indeed the whole House—and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Iddes-leigh, will not mind if I say this—refresh themselves with re-reading Thomas Aquinas.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Hear, hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: I should expect support from my noble friend on this matter, and would suggest that both the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—I will not
628
say "fell into heresy"; I would rather put it that they had not done their homework. But if the attitude, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Somers—and everybody has a high respect for him and is delighted when he speaks, for no one sits more faithfully throughout debates than he—were typical of his Party, that would be one reason why no great progress has been made in regard to disarmament. I do not happen to think that his attitude is typical of his Party any more than I think the attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, is typical of the Cross-Benches. It is a great advantage to have these different points of view in this debate, and we welcome them. But I should have thought there is common measure among a large number of us in this matter, and that phrases like "Leopards do not change their spots" are not really helpful to the study of a subject so extremely complicated as disarmament.
I do not think it is "square" to wish to defend our country or to remain British; but I also hope that we shall remain alive along with other people in the world. The important thing, it seems to me, is not merely the teachings of history, but what is going on in the world to-day, as my noble friend Lord Willis exemplified, in regard to children and the effect of nuclear tests. Nor do I believe that in this matter we should distinguish between "birds of a feather"—unless we are all "birds of a feather"; and I suspect this really is the case. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD SOMERS: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord: but I think we should be certain that we really are "birds of a feather".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that on the whole I prefer to revert to a rather more taut form of thinking. It was at this point that I found that the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, with whose views in theological matters I am not in agreement, came to me like a breath of fresh air and clarity into a discussion of a kind that is always liable to be bogged down by phrases like these very cliches to which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, so strongly objected. I think that in this debate, for the introduction of which we

629
are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—and we are grateful also to all noble Lords who have spoken; and especially I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Chalfont—there has emerged a pretty clear view among the majority of the speakers, and indeed among; all noble Lords, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that a determined approach to disarmament is desirable. We hope very much that we shall be able to proceed, as to a large extent we have done, on a non-Party basis; but I believe that this Government will bring a greater degree of determination to bear on this. And if we do I am sure that no one will welcome this more than the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
8.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank all the noble Lords who made a contribution to this debate. While it was not a fascinating debate (although I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was paying us all a compliment by using that expression), I want to say that it was a useful debate. It was useful to our new Minister for Disarmament, who we hope will read all the speeches and consider all the suggestions that have been made. I agree with my noble friend in his attitude at the Dispatch box. We love his modesty, his sincerity and hi:; sense of dedication; but I must say that I am married to a Welshman, and therefore am biased.
But, having said that—and I am sure he would not respect me if I only flattered him—I want to tell him that he omitted to refer to my most important point. I attach such importance to a peace-keeping force, a permanent world peace-keeping force, that I hope he will consider the whole matter, and
630
that in the long days he has in these various countries discussing with other people he will not just say that this is impractical. I want to remind noble Lords that practically every reform in this country was at some time said in this House to be useless to pursue because it was impractical. Therefore I bring to his mind this suggestion, which in my opinion and also in that of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and in the opinion of many wise people, is a practical approach. Again, I want to thank all the noble Lords who stayed until this late hour for their contributions. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.