Lords Sitting of 27 May 1965

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon), The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Hives—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAXATION OF RETIRING BARRISTERS' EARNINGS
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any action to remove the anomaly which enables barristers who retire from the bar to avoid the payment of tax on a substantial part of their previous year's earnings.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Finance Bill does not include any proposals to amend the law in this matter. I understand, however, that in another place an honourable Member has given notice of intention to seek to add a new clause to the Bill which would alter the basis upon which barristers are assessed to income tax. I think that we should await the outcome before considering this matter.
LORD WILLIS: I thank the noble Lord for that reply.

EUROCONTROL SERVICES
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any operational responsibilities have been assumed by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) up to the present date.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, operational responsibilities were assumed by the Eurocontrol Organisation in the United Kingdom Upper Airspace on March 1, 1964, and are carried out in the manner outlined in my reply to the noble Lord on May 17. Similar responsibilities were simultaneously assumed in other Member States, and these are carried out under corresponding arrangements suited to the various national circumstances.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while being moderately grateful for that Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether we can soon expect to get the Annual Report of this organisation for 1964, and, if so, whether it will be placed in the Library?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that really is another question, but since the noble Lord got the 1963 Report only a week ago I cannot offer much hope that he will get the 1964 Report in the near future. However, I think that it will arrive rather sooner than the last one.

TOWN-TWINNING WITH EAST GERMAN TOWNS
3.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 desire local authorities not to enter into town-twinning arrangements with local authorities in East Germany, or whether they are content to make known the difficulties of such arrangements.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the twinning of towns is a matter for local authorities to decide, but Her Majesty's Government make it clear, if consulted, that in present circumstances there are difficulties in entering into such arrangements with local authorities in East Germany. Because of these difficulties, we do not see much likelihood of town-twinning arrangements with East Germany leading to a happy association.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the first part of his Answer will be greeted with some satisfaction by the town councils of certain towns who hold that the worse the relations are between the Governments of the two countries, the more interesting it may be to carry out town-twinning arrangements lower down the scale?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, T think the noble Lord, in his reply, said, "if the Government are consulted". May I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider sending a circular to local authorities pointing out the various difficulties?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords. I think it would be very wrong for us to interfere with the autonomy of local authorities. If they wish to make these arrangements without consulting Her Majesty's Government or the Foreign Office they are fully at liberty to do so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what is meant by a "town-twinning" arrangement? Is it a matrimonial arrangement, or anything to do with infancy?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think it is hardly a matrimonial arrangement. It may be what one may call a temporary liaison, but whether it leads to anything after that I leave it to the noble Viscount to decide.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the interests of the local ratepayers are sometimes heavily involved in these arrangements; and ought not the advice which he has just given, that the Government should be consulted before these arrangements are agreed upon, be more widely observed?
LORD WALSTON: Again I would repeat to the noble Lord that I think it is for the people who pay the rates, and the people who disburse the rates, to look into, and not for the Central Government to interfere.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the Foreign Office and those who work in the Foreign Office have a certain experience and expertise in this matter? I do not think it is entirely right to assume
956
that local authorities know all the ins and outs and pros and cons of these arrangements. Would he not look at this matter again and consider whether advice should be given?
LORD WALSTON: I would certainly agree that there is a very great degree of expertise among those who work in the Foreign Office and those who have in the past been associated with it. But I also think there is considerable common sense and knowledge of the world among the people who run local government and town councils, and I do not think that interference on our part would be welcomed, though, as I said, and I repeat (I am sure many know it already and will know it in the future) if they are contemplating such twinning arrangements they are at liberty to get any advice from the Foreign Office.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it could be put like this? While it may be important for the Foreign Office to avoid admitting that the President or Prime Minister of East Germany is in fact the President or Prime Minister of a valid State, there is no danger in a certain British town council admitting that the mayor of an East German city is indeed the mayor of that East German city?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, how can you admit a State is valid if, in fact, it is not?

EAST GERMANS' BANNED VISITS
LORD KENNET: 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 what categories of persons from East Germany, and coming for what purpose, are fobidden to enter the United Kingdom.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the criteria governing the eligibility of East Germans for temporary travel documents are agreed in NATO and are confidential. Each application is considered on its merits. If there is reason to believe that the applicant is likely to indulge in undesirable political activity during his visit

957
the application would be refused. Examples of such activity would be the intention of the applicant to act on behalf of or to represent the Soviet Zone of Germany as a sovereign or national entity. So also would be any public attempt to make propaganda on behalf of the Soviet Zone regime. The Allied Travel Office would not issue a travel document to an East German if they had reason to suppose that he would engage in such activities.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it within the knowledge of the Minister whether there is any confidential arrangement among the nations of the Warsaw Pact governing the criteria which would allow the admission of West Europeans on the other side of the Iron Curtain?
LORD WALSTON: When the noble Lord says "West Europeans" I take it that he means West Europeans and not West Germans? It is not within my knowledge that there is such an agreement.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is extremely likely that there might be such agreement; and is not the existence of a confidential international arrangement governing the free movement of human beings around our supposedly free Continent something which would be more appropriate within their treaty organisation than within ours?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am afraid that is getting a little too hypothetical.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that, subject to the progress of Business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Recess on Wednesday, June 2, and return on Tuesday, June 15.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Exchequer advances to Corporation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to put a question or two to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, because when we dealt with this Bill on Second Reading we dealt with it, through mutual agreement, rather summarily, and I did not put the questions that I had in mind. In considering Clause 1, I think it is important that we should have an assurance from the noble Lord that the information that we include in the future regarding the activities of the National Research and Development Corporation should not be less than in the past. Among other things, this clause provides that a copy of the annual statement of accounts shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I presume, therefore, that the Comptroller and Auditor General will examine this in the usual way, and his reply will then go to the Public Accounts Committee, where it will be considered, and no doubt another place will report on the matter in due course. But I would ask the noble Lord whether the amount of financial information that is given in what is called the annual report and statement of accounts will not be diminished in consequence of this further step, and whether the same information will be given to the House as in the past.
I am sure he will agree that a good deal of the recent success of the National Research and Development Corporation has been due to the fact that its activities have been getting much better known, and therefore many more people have been prepared to take their inventions to the National Research and Development Corporation than before; and the fact that the

959
reports have been gaining considerably in circulation has had a considerable part to play in this. Of course, the statement of accounts that is referred to here gives a fairly clear idea of the form that its activities take and the way in which it can help. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can give me the assurance for which I ask.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asks for. In fact, I can go a little further. We are now trying to devise a new form of accounts in consultation with the Corporation, its professional auditors and the Treasury, which we hope will be even more illuminating than the accounts have been in the past.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exchequer payments to meet interest due from corporation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a clause which has to do with Exchequer payments under interest due from the Corporation. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. The clause makes it possible for the Minister to
"give relief in respect of interest due under Section 8(1)(b) of the principal Act in respect of any advance, being interest in respect of the whole or any part of the period of eight years beginning with the making of the advance."
The period of eight years is, I understand, taken because that is considered to be roughly the average period that it takes for developments to come to fruition or at any rate to get to the stage when they can be made available to industry for further development and exploitation. It seems to me that there is a technical point here, and I should like to be quite certain that it is fully covered by this clause. If one looks at the accounts one finds that the total of advances over the period of years is slightly less than the total of development expenditure. One reason for this practice is that there is a certain amount of revenue coming in through royalties,
960
the sale of patent rights, the hire of computers and the like. But apart from that, it would seem to be common sense that the amount, or the amounts, of advances that are made are related to the day-to-day needs of the Corporation and are not tied to particular projects.
Over the period of the development of a project, advances will no doubt be made by the Minister on several occasions. What I want to be quite certain of is that the machinery here is right, and that the words used are right. I should have thought that it is expenditure in relation to the development rather than the advances that ought to be relieved of interest. Technically, this might be the correct description. From the point of view of the mechanics of the operation, how it goes on, it does not seem to be quite right. As I say, the advances are made en bloc in accordance with the general development needs of the Corporation. They are not directly related to particular projects. Indeed, it would be quite impossible to say, "You can have so much in advance in order to start such-and-such a project", even if the Minister had to be consulted about projects, which is not the case, either. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an odd form of words to use. Of course, one would not quarrel about it in any way if it does the job; but I thought it right to draw the noble Lord's attention to the point, and I should like his assurance either that it does the job, or that an alteration will be made before the next stage to ensure that it does.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I put what is perhaps a rather trifling question? This House has been much concerned of late with retrospective legislation, and the morality or immorality of such legislation. I see here from subsection (3) that this relief will
"apply in relation to advances made before or after the passing of"
the Act. Therefore, is this not retrospective legislation, and should it not incur denunciation by some noble Lords opposite?
LORD SNOW: I think the intervention of my noble friend is rather beyond my control. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, again I am happy to give him the complete assurance for which he has asked. His understanding

961
of at least the intention of the clause is absolutely what was in the minds of those who drafted the Bill. May I try to make it crystal clear?—although the noble Lord has forgotten more about these matters than I have ever known. Advances fall into two groups. There are, first, those which are used for the actual day-to-day carrying on of the Corporation, and, secondly, those for projects, but projects considered totally and not individually. It would be entirely unrealistic to try to give individual advances for individual projects, as the noble Lord has said. On the other hand, at the end of each year one can decide into which group advances fall, which advances have been used for the day-to-day running and which for total investments in projects. It is the second group which is going to be allowed interest relief.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord one further question? While it is perfectly right and proper, when one is considering advances globally, to take an average figure for the time the development may take place, surely when one is considering again individual advances one ought to relate those again to the individual projects. If an individual project takes much more than the average why should it not be possible to give a relief of interest for the longer period? This clause is not designed to even out the shorter periods and the longer periods, because the advances are to be related to the individual projects in each case. It means that if an individual project takes longer than the average it is going to be, as it were, penalised in comparison with an individual project that takes less than the average. May I ask what is the reason for taking the average period, rather than simply saying in appropriate cases: "Interest will be waived in relation to the time that the project takes to develop"? I should have thought that this was the more rational procedure, rather than that one should take an average time and say that that should be the maximum.
LORD SNOW: This is what a mathematician would call integral DX. We felt, on the whole, that smoothing out the investment
in projects like this was the most economical method of accounting. I agree that it could have been
962
done in another way, but after a good deal of consideration this seemed to us to be the most sensible system. The differences are really not very large.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
LORD STRANGE: I just have one word to say—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Snow.)
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I am sorry that I was out of Order. I have one very small thing to say. I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill on behalf of the inventors, and I have since had a number of letters from inventors. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, was very sympathetic towards them and they mention the fact that I called them "cranks". It is not so much the word "cranks" that they mind, but (to use an expression that we have in the Isle of Man) they do not like to he thought "not the hat". They wanted me to explain it in a few words.
I have tramped your Lordships' Turkey carpet in the Library trying to think of the simplest example I can give you to show their point of view. I should like to put the matter right by saying this. Between the wars persons like Professor Low, in this country. Herr Opel, in Germany, Mr. Goddard, in America, and many other inventors, were producing moon rockets. I think that the Governments were not interested in those rockets for the purpose of putting up a satellite or going to the moon. Some of them were interested in them as weapons of war or for mechanical propulsion. When the Russians actually put up a satellite the general public were rather amazed, for they did not think that the Russians were the sort of people to do that sort of thing. They thought they were charming people at ballet and circuses and cut nice things with pocket knives out of wood. An American comedian said that both

963
America and Russia have German technicians for rockets, but the Russians had the best. This was not exactly correct, because the film of Stalingrad in 1943 showed that the Russians were far in advance with their rockets, In fact in 1935 they had put up a rocket to six miles.
Your Lordships know that rockets were invented by the Chinese—and gunpowder, too—thousands of years ago; but the first stages of astronautical development came from the Russians in the last century. At that time it was considered impossible by everybody. Schoolboys reading the Eighth Book of Ovid,I think it is, would have thought that the astronautical adventures described there were impossible and just bunkum. Even science fiction writers were cagey about bringing in anything to do with rockets for their aerial flights. They invented a sort of anti-gravitational paint for their weapons. The whole public thought that it was impossible and that the idea was incredible. Yet for seventy years the Russians persevered. I think they got so far ahead before the last war that they had actually got some form of toleroid with instruments on their retro-rockets. The point I am trying to make is that, though the general public think that inventors are cranks or "not the hat", the inventors believe that they have the vision. What the general public believe at the time to be impossible they believe can be attained.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received accordingly.

COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (MELTON MOW BRAY) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROTHERHAM) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

RAILWAY CLOSURES BILL [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill standing in my name be now read a second time. Before I begin to explain the reasons for it, and its purpose, perhaps I should declare at this stage that a similar Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Scarborough and Whitby. The Bill, I may say, received a friendly First Reading but was then shunted into a siding, due to the natural pressure of Government business, and no time was allowed for a Second Reading. It was subsequently withdrawn, last March. However, I should like to point out that the honourable Member for Scarborough and Whitby, when introducing his Bill, was supported by honourable Members from all sides of the House, including the honourable Member who sits as chairman of the Labour Party's Transport Committee.

965
This short, simple Bill has the sole purpose of equipping the Minister of Transport with the power to reconsider, and if necessary to rescind, consent to close any railway station or railway passenger service. It could well be asked: Why should this power be given to the Minister of Transport? First, we have a Minister of Transport to-day who possibly looks upon rail closures in a different light from his predecessor. Secondly, with the benefit of hindsight one can clearly see that in a certain number of cases where lines have been closed, or where lines are due to be closed, unnecessary hardship will be caused, with little money saved. Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, from the very fact that the new Minister now orders that tracks shall be retained where lines are closed, there is a clear implication that he has it in his mind to reopen these fines at some future date. Why else would he allow this valuable equipment to stand rotting, year after year?
When the present Minister came to power last October he was welcomed by many people with completely opposite political views, for the simple reason that both he and his Party had pledged themselves to halt the main programme of rail closures pending a national transport survey. The Minister was faced with some 38 closure decisions that had been taken by his predecessor less than a month before. None of these lines was physically closed when the Minister took office. On November 4 the Minister made his first policy statement in another place, in which he regretted—and I would emphasise the word "regretted"—that under the Transport Act, 1962, he had no powers to rescind or reverse any decisions made by his predecessors on closing lines. This was a blow to his pledge, my Lords, but he softened it by announcing that where lines had been closed the tracks would be retained. This was widely interpreted, as I have said already, as meaning that he would take such powers in the near future.
On March 31, four months later, the Minister made his second policy statement. He confirmed that under a new procedure which he had introduced for hearing closure proposals the Regional Economic Planning Councils would in future consider proposals before they were published and again after they were
966
published, if there were any objections. There was no mention in that statement of his seeking powers to alter rail closures, and it was only when he was pressed by an honourable Member that he finally said he did not intend to seek powers to halt the closures on lines that had ceased to exist. Your Lordships will recall that by about this time 25 of the 38 services affected by the decisions made by his predecessor had been physically closed, but there were still about 13 services due to be withdrawn, including two lines which I have particularly in mind—the Barnstaple to Taunton line and the Stranraer to Dumfries line—both of which can be claimed to be major closures.
It seems extraordinary that this Minister and his Party, having given such firm pledges before the Election, should now, to use an expression of which the Prime Minister seems to be particularly fond, "not have the guts" to carry through their pledge. I am afraid that, for once, their broken pledge cannot be blamed on the financial crisis which they claim they inherited last October. To show the concern felt by local councils in areas where closures have taken place, I may say that I have to-day received a letter from a council in North Wales. They wrote to inform me that they had approached their local Member of Parliament, who had said that the Minister of Transport was in a difficult position at the present time because he had no power under statutory authority to review closure decisions. This simple Bill has the sole purpose of extracting the Minister from this difficult position.
If one examines the financial savings of the 148 lines that have so far been closed, I understand that the total estimate is something in the region of £6 million per year. This in itself is a substantial figure, but when taken in relation to the total annual trading deficit of the railways, which stands to-day, I believe, at £58 million, this saving looks rather small, especially when compared to the social upheaval which it has caused. Perhaps I should add that with the publication of the 1964 railway accounts the trading loss showed an improvement, which I understand is largely due to increased efficiency. This, I feel, is of credit to Dr. Beeching. But what is happening now is that, instead of the branch lines being subsidised, the Railways Board has to subsidise local bus

967
services, and I understand that in 1963 the total compensation which the Railways Board paid to local bus companies was some £92,600. Perhaps the Minister could later give us the present figure, or last year's figure.
I turn now to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Royle. Quite frankly, my Lords, this Amendment astonishes me. It cuts completely across the pledges given, and the views expressed, by the Labour Party before the Election. The noble Lord claims in the Amendment that this Bill would prolong the uncertainty and cause unnecessary anxiety about the future of the railway passenger services. All I can say is that the noble Lord must have failed to grasp the purpose of this Bill, because it does exactly the opposite. The Minister himself implied last November that he only wished he had powers to review the closures. What does cause anxiety, I submit, is the retaining of railway tracks without the powers to reopen the lines; and, even more, the making of a policy statement on halting major closures, without specifying which lines these are.
The noble Lord further claims that the Bill would prohibit progressive modernisation. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he replies, will explain what he means by "progressive modernisation". As I see it, modernising British Railways means, in fact, increasing the efficiency of the service and improving existing services, and has no relation to whether the lines are open or closed. Finally, the noble Lord's Amendment ends up with the statement that we should call upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure a properly co-ordinated transport system. As the Minister of Transport has said this on almost every occasion on which he has spoken since he took office, I hardly feel that this part of the Amendment has much merit in it.
To summarise, this Bill is designed to allow the Minister to have another look at rail closures. It will allow him to review the line closures which have taken place during his period of office, where the tracks have been retained. It will allow him to bring into play his new approach to railway closures. I would expect the Minister to use this power with the greatest restraint, and possibly
968
with the greatest discretion. Nevertheless, I submit that such a power is essential to the Minister, and I trust your Lordships will agree to support this Bill. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
3.41 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert:
"this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which would, by prolonging uncertainty about the future of rail passenger services after a fully considered decision had been reached, inhibit the progressive modernisation of British Railways, cause unnecessary anxiety to users of the services and delay the establishment of an efficient and economic pattern of transport, but calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that within a properly co-ordinated transport system it is possible to provide any rail passenger service which is required to meet future social and economic needs."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I in the first place, from the great heights of an old Parliamentarian in another place, say how deeply I appreciate the reasonable way in which the noble Earl has moved the Second Reading of this Bill? Of course, I could not possibly have hoped that he would refrain from making political points. In fact, I should have been disappointed, and it would have upset some of my arguments, had he not used political points in the course of his speech; but, for all that, I feel that the House will appreciate the reasoned way in which the noble Earl moved his Bill. While I look very closely at his statement that he is astounded at the terms of my Amendment, I hope in the course of what I have to say (perhaps at a little greater length than he himself has indulged in) to deal with the points he has raised and with the points on my Amendment.
The noble Earl referred to the fact—and I am very grateful to him for it—that my right honourable friend in another place has made statements on two occasions, on November 4 and March 31, about his new outlook with regard to this question; and I feel that the reasonable way in which he has approached it since taking office gives room for quite close

969
consideration of the new situation. However, may we, in the first place, get the issues clear? It appears that the Bill as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, does not seek in any way to amend the 1962 Act so far as preventing the Minister from consenting to further closures is concerned. It merely seeks to give him power to rescind consents to closure which have already been given. The 1962 Act gives the Minister the power of closure, and apparently the noble Earl has no objection to that power. With deep respect to the noble Earl, it appears to me that there is rather an inconsistency between giving the power to rescind what has already been done and the fact that the noble Earl does not seek to remove the power to consent to further closures. I am claiming a greater consistency for my Amendment, because, while it recognises the power to give consents, whatever one might think of the plan—and remembering also that full consideration has been given to them, very full inquiries having been made under subsections (7), (8) and (9) of Section 56 of the main Act—it refuses to give the Minister power to rescind what has already been done.
Having stated what I believe is the true position at this moment of time, may I say that I fully appreciate the noble Earl's reasons for raising the matter, even if I cannot see his logic? Of course, these closures have caused great concern; but, frankly, I do not think that the problem is as great as the noble Earl imagines—or, even, that at this stage it is a real one at all. I agree at once that when rail services are withdrawn there is inconvenience for a time. I remember when we received those heavy documents in another place containing Dr. Beeching's Plan in which he outlined in great detail the suggestions for closing railway lines. Personally, I got very hot under the collar about lines in which I was interested—and I am quite sure that the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, shared my anxiety about the suggested closure of the line from Manchester to Buxton. This was a line which carried thousands of commuters every day from that part of Derbyshire into Manchester, and I was very concerned for them. At one time, I lived on that line and used it a great deal; and I was tremendously relieved when
970
the previous Minister decided that he could not permit its closure.
Likewise, because of my constituency interests, I was concerned about the suggested closure of the electric line from Manchester (Victoria) to Bury because, in the same way, many commuters would have been very greatly inconvenienced. But one of the first jobs that my right honourable friend did was to refuse his consent to that suggested closure, and that refusal continues to-day.
I feel that these examples show that there are real safeguards, even under existing legislation. But I wonder whether the noble Earl shares my view that the railway services should be regarded as a public service irrespective of the profit motive, and that the making of the railways into a profit-making enterprise should be very much a secondary consideration. The profit motive was the policy of the previous Government: otherwise, Dr. Beeching would never have been appointed and his Plan might never have seen the light of day. That policy was arrived at without any consideration of the aim of a fully coordinated transport system for the whole of this country, as the Labour Party have envisaged for many years. The road hauliers were far too powerful, and they were in so many ways supporting the Tory Party, particularly just prior to the 1951 Election, that their demands had to be attended to.
But if the noble Earl does not accept my view, then I suggest that he must accept the fact that railway closures are inevitable. Again, I agree that in some cases inconvenience becomes hardship; but since I have decided to put down this Amendment my inquiries have shown that great efforts are made to reduce that hardship to a minimum. It naturally looks worse to those who are intimately involved, and who cannot see the whole picture. Noble friends of mine on this side of the House are deeply concerned about individual closures. In point of fact, my Lords, I have been expecting a stab in my right side ever since I rose to my feet. My noble friend Lord Addison will express himself in due course; but, in fairness, is it not right to say that we can all get absorbed in our own immediate problems, to the exclusion of the welfare of the country as a whole? I

971
have been at pains to find out the true position; and it is remarkable how the protests die down after the closures take place and people make other arrangements.
I can find very little evidence of the hardship, which was so often forecast, or of the ill-effects to local economy. But even if that hardship and those ill-effects do arise, I suggest that there are adequate safeguards in existing legislation. The Minister has the power to vary the conditions on which consent has been given: for example, to require provision of additional bus services. In at least six closures under the Act adjustments have been made; and a complete review of the alternative services which was undertaken by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee at the request of the Minister has resulted in greatly extended provisions in one case in Wales.
I think that the noble Earl, if not directly, then indirectly, suggested that there were cases where rail services meet needs which cannot be met by alternative services. In isolated cases that is possibly true; but, with respect, I should doubt if this is so in the main. In any case, it is because of that very possibility that my right honourable friend has introduced two new features into the closure procedure. First, as the noble Earl pointed out, he is ensuring the retention of the track, in any case where a future need for passenger service might, in his view, arise, say in isolated parts of the country. Second, he is being very careful to obtain the views of Regional Planning Councils and Boards on planning, considerations which might give rise to such needs in the future. I have a sneaking feeling that Her Majesty's Government could secure a reopening anywhere, if it proved to be essential, without this Bill.
But, in spite of that, I may be asked: "Why not accept this Bill?" I think there are several reasons. From the drafting of the Bill, it would appear—and the noble Earl later will have the opportunity of correcting me if I am wrong—that it might affect only closures to which consent has been given but not implemented. This must be a very limited field. I am told that there are at present six such cases where consent has been given by the previous Minister and thirteen where consent has been
972
given by my right honourable friend. Half of these services will be closed in two weeks from now. If I heard the noble Earl aright, he intends that his Bill should give power not only to prevent such closures from ever taking place but to require the reopening of any service to which consent for closure has been given under the Act. I am told that this would affect 144 rail services and another 18 stations, considered independently of those listed in the Beeching Plan, as well as "pipe-line" cases to which consent was given soon after the Act came into force. So, the noble Earl's Bill can have very far-reaching effects.
Has he considered the consequences? I suggest that the effect of the Bill would be that no closure decision could ever be regarded as final. This is a very serious matter. Would any noble Lords welcome the granting of the power for every case to be reopened, whatever the ultimate decision might be in the future, with all the uncertainty that that implies? Surely all would accept that the Minister's decisions are not taken lightly or haphazardly; there is a statutory procedure to ensure minute examination. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lindgren, when he comes to speak later in the debate, will deal with this point; but I feel sure alternative services are closely considered. When a decision is reached I feel certain it is the right answer so far as human effort can make it so. I even believed that of decisions of the last Minister of Transport.
But would noble Lords not agree that the power to rescind would put all this elaborate process at very grave risk and would imply the possibility of the reversal of all considered decisions continuing indefinitely? The railways would never know when they might have to reopen a line. Staff dispersal and the running-down of installations are all involved, and there are the difficulties of restoration which would be enormous. Has the noble Earl considered the cost in terms of staff retention, equipment, tracks, and the maintenance of those tracks? Who is going to cut the grass over the years?
How can there be plans for the future if this Bill is accepted? Let us not forget for one moment the bus companies (in which noble Lords opposite may have a greater interest than we on this side of the House), who all over the country

973
have made provision to replace closed railway lines. How can councils in general go ahead with redevelopment? Have they to build bridges for new and improved roads all over the country in case one of the railway lines beneath might be reopened at some time in the dim, distant future? So far as the users themselves are concerned, I suggest that by this time they will have made their alternative arrangements; they will have made them when the closure took place or when it was about to take place. Surely they are not all just staying at home because these changes have been made in their transport arrangements. Do not let us burden them with uncertainty again.
Perhaps I should not be unfair if I were to ask the noble Earl why an Amendment of this character to this Bill was not moved in another place or in this House during the passage of the 1962 Bill, when other people were in charge of the arrangements. The noble Earl has kindly drawn attention to the latter part of my Amendment. I feel that those words are very important ones and hit the nail on the head so far as our policy is concerned in the future. Accepting the position, I would say of the 1962 Act (whatever we thought about it; and some of us had very grave doubts indeed) that my Amendment refers to the establishment of an efficient and economic pattern of transport. Noble Lords in various parts of the House will have different views on the methods of achieving this end, but I think all would agree that it is an end well worth achieving. I do not see how it can be achieved unless the transport operators, the people who actually provide the services, are assured of reasonable stability in the framework within which they operate. This Bill, of which the noble Earl has moved the Second Reading, would do much to impair that stability.
I do not find the prospect of unlimited appeals attractive. Of course there may be occasional mistakes. I think even my noble friend Lord Lindgren, when he comes to speak for the Government on this issue, will agree that any Government makes one or two mistakes during the course of its lifetime. More important, unforeseen developments may change the whole picture as the days go by. I am sure that if such a situation arises the Board and the Minister can
974
reach a solution by common sense and common consent, and I do not believe this Bill is necessary. Even less do I believe that it is so necessary as to outweigh the very serious difficulties which would arise if, however many appeals had been rejected, no decision was ever final. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("This House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which would, by prolonging uncertainty about the future of rail passenger services after a fully considered decision had been reached, inhibit the progressive modernisation of British Railways, cause unnecessary anxiety to users of the services and delay the establishment of an efficient and economic pattern of transport, but calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that within a properly co-ordinated transport system it is possible to provide any rail passenger service which is required to meet future social and economic needs.")—(Lord Royle.)
4.2 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I have very considerable sympathy with my noble friend's Bill, but I must admit at once that I cannot agree that it is necessary. The reasons for this view I will come to in a moment. However, I imagine that Her Majesty's Government will welcome this Bill most warmly, since it gives them the golden opportunity to redeem the Prime Minister's public pledge to the citizens of Whitby and Scarborough. I must say that I have very great sympathy with the citizens of Whitby and Scarborough. After all, when they read in their local newspaper last September a letter from the then Leader of the Opposition stating that should the Labour Party be returned to power the closure of the Whitby, Scarborough and Malton line would be halted while the new regional authorities prepared new transport plans for those areas, they were entitled to believe it.
It is now a matter of history that the Labour Party was returned to power and the Leader of the Opposition then became the Prime Minister. It was then, and only then, that the Prime Minister discovered that under the terms of the Transport Act, 1962, it was not possible to halt a closure which had already been decided. Surely it would have been wiser, and indeed more honest, to check the facts—an easy enough thing to do

975
—before giving such a pledge to the people so closely concerned. Now, however, thanks to my noble friend's Bill there is a perfect opportunity where, by the passing of the Bill, the Prime Minister may redeem his public pledge; and I presume those sitting on the Government side of the House will support the Bill with serried ranks rather than support the Amendment we have just heard moved.
I also feel that the Bill will have the warm support of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I have no doubt his governmental duties prevent his being present at a debate in which he must be very closely interested, since the noble Earl whose Bill this is, is Lord Stonham's immediate successor as President of the National Council of Inland Transport. Therefore I feel sure one member of Her Majesty's Government must be wholeheartedly in support of this Bill. I make that point with great sincerity, because I feel this is an opportunity for the Prime Minister of the country to redeem a publicly given pledge, and it is an opportunity that, in the interests of our national life, should not be allowed to escape.
So far as the Bill is concerned I cannot agree with my noble friends that it is necessary, because I am satisfied that the procedure for the raising of objections if any railway service is discontinued, which was set up under the Transport Act, 1962, adequately protects the interests not only of the travelling public but of local authorities, education interests and, not least, industrial interests. I would remind my noble friend of the existence of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees. These are independent bodies brought into being in order to hear objections from all and sundry, whether it be an individual or a local authority.
The very fact that a number of proposals for closures have been refused is proof that objections to a closure are no mere formality to be thrown aside. I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Royle, made reference to the Buxton—Manchester line, the closure of which was refused. This is a perfect example of the fact that it is not a formality and that the machinery does help, and where there is a case either of unnecessary hardship or
976
of its not being in the national interest for a closure to be proceeded with, then that particular closure is discontinued. The whole essence of the question must be, "What is in the national interest?"
The rôle of our transport system must be to meet the needs of the community. We hear constantly, and rightly hear, that we must bring Britain up to date. Surely, the streamlining of the railways of this country must play a leading part in the modernisation of Britain. While some may regret this pruning for sentimental reasons, and others may suffer inconvenience to some extent, or indeed to a considerable extent, we must not delude ourselves into believing that this pruning is not vitally necessary if we are to hold our place among the great industrial countries of the world.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Royle, when he says we must put an end to uncertainty. Above all else, a decision must be decisive, and to hold the door open and say, "It may not be" will lead only to uncertainty and to a weakening of our effort to bring our country up to date. So, although I have sympathy with it, I cannot agree with my noble friend's Bill. I have some sympathy with the first part of Lord Royle's Amendment. This, unfortunately, is not an occasion for a full-scale debate on transport, but I have very grave doubts as to the last three lines of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I should like to go on record as saying that I do not agree with that part of it.
4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter, and congratulate him on the moderate speech he made. I thought some of the best advocacy for the Bill actually fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Royle, when he was moving his Amendment. I think this is a necessary Bill for the reason that without the provisions contained in it I can see no way in which the Government can fulfil the undertakings given to their supporters in the General Election campaign. I can see no reason why the Bill need be amended. It is permissive only, and places no direct duty upon the Government to reopen any particular railway line or railway station that has already been closed. I therefore feel that the Bill should receive support, and

977
I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
I cannot help feeling that the Minister, when he took over his duties, must have found great resistance in the Department to any sort of policy designed to change the Beeching Plan. I hope he is strong enough to insist on changes where he thinks they are necessary. To my mind, there is a clear duty to the electors to provide a co-ordinated transport system, and financial considerations are not the only ones to be borne in mind. This was made clear by the Minister himself in a speech he made in another place on November 4, 1964, when he said that he felt that too much importance had been placed in financial considerations, and expressed his intentions to take account of the wider, but equally important, social and economical factors.
In the Minister's speech in another place, it was made clear that arrangements had been agreed with the Railways Board, where consent to closures had already been given, that the track should not be removed or disposed of for the time being. I can only say that I have seen with my own eyes, in the last three weeks, the railway tracks being pulled up on the slow lines at Wellington Station, in Somerset, so that in future the trains will be able to use only the fast lines, thus putting the station completely out of use. And I have no reason to think that it is only at Wellington where this kind of action, contrary to undertakings given to the Ministry, is being pursued.
I feel sure that the problem for British Railways is in no way capable of solution by means of the pulling up and disposal of what may, in the future, be valuable assets. The solution is much more likely to lie in a vision of the problem with a much more outward aspect, with a view to trying to make the service more attractive and to provide many low-cost light railway trains at convenient times upon which the public can rely. Sooner or later, the situation on the roads will reach a stage of congestion, when members of the public will find it more convenient to travel by rail, and it is with a view to obtaining the kind of increased traffic, which I feel sure will in the end be available, that the policy of railway redevelopment should be directed. I can see no particular merit
978
in the Amendment, and particularly in the kind of bumbling phraseology in which it is worded. It would be better, in my view, to carry out any necessary slight amendment in Committee. I support the Bill, and hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
4.12 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I should like, in a brief speech, to follow my noble friend Lord Addison in what he has just said. At the end of his speech, he gave examples of track removals, and my experience is exactly the same. Tracks are being removed in order that double tracks may become single.
In dealing with this Bill, I think that we should have a further look at subsection (2) of Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962. This subsection appears to be somewhat ambiguous. It mentions the imposition of conditions in two ways—apparently, in the first instance, before the Minister has given consent to the closure of a line and, in the second, after the line or service has been closed. That is how I read this subsection; but of course I may be wrong. In any case, it does not appear to give the Minister power to rescind a closure order after it has been agreed upon, and this interpretation seems to be in the Minister's mind, as he has stated that he has no power to rescind or amend a decision to close the line which was given by his predecessor. Mistakes which may then have been made cannot be put right by the present Minister, whatever the change of circumstances which may have arisen in the meantime. Also, by this subsection, it is not within the power of the Minister to rescind or amend any action he may have taken during his own term of office in closing a line, station or service.
This Bill seeks to rectify these disadvantages and to increase the power of the Minister accordingly. I have said that mistakes may have been made in the past, and similar mistakes can occur in the future. I do not think that the proposed Amendment, although proposed and supported by my own friend, meets the case. As my noble friend Lord Addison said, the Amendment is wordy and not at all conclusive. It reminds me of a game we all played in our childhood with cherry stones, "This year,

979
next year, some time, never." It does not remove the present restrictions upon the Minister or enable him to reopen a single line which has been closed. It leaves the matter in its present uncertain and unsatisfactory state. Its pious hope that something advantageous may happen in the future may never be realised.
In one instance, I want steps to be taken at once—I stress, at once—to reopen a closed section of line in my own county, certainly for industrial and maybe for passenger services. I refer to the Fakenham to Wells-next-the-Sea portion of the Eastern Region. The Amendment gives no hope whatever that, if it is carried, industrial activities which are in contemplation will be catered for. There is nothing more detrimental to industrial progress than frustration in endeavouring to establish efficient transport services. Production and business enterprise are not going to a district where railway services are non-existent, or, if available at the moment, are likely to be closed down in the immediate future.
I have spoken of the Minister's inability to reopen lines, which may have closed or will close in future, if development in that particular area merits the reopening. Such inability may prejudice the future of many towns in Norfolk and Suffolk. What I consider might be described as a major closure by the railways authority is the recent announcement that the line between King's Lynn and Dereham will be closed in September. I know of no proposal by the Railways Board more disastrous to the welfare of the people living in that part of Norfolk. It would cut off King's Lynn from Norwich, and if the line from King's Lynn to Wisbech is also closed, as I believe is proposed, there will be no rail connection with the Midlands or with the rest of East Anglia. King's Lynn is a flourishing, progressive and expanding town. It has dock facilities, adaptable for the distribution and collection of goods throughout East Anglia, and its industrial developments are growing apace. This proposal of the Railways Board must be stopped. Human needs are of more importance than finance. I wonder whether the Railways Board's proposal has been submitted to the Minister for his approval or rejection.
980
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me.
The outcome of putting such a proposal into effect would entail, in one instance, a journey by bus and rail from King's Lynn to Norwich of over three hours (the timetables have already been published), or by rail alone, via Ely, of over two hours, and at an additional cost of 9s. over the present single fare for the direct journey by rail, by reason of the extra rail mileage incurred. This is one example of what I believe is described as "co-ordinated transport facilities". The journey between King's Lynn and Norwich by car can be done in about one hour, or a few minutes over; but hundreds of country people in that area cannot go by car. If this closure should be approved by the Minister, his mistake would soon become apparent. Yet as things stand, he would be unable to amend his decision. The Bill before your Lordships would enable him to put right a very grievous error of judgment.
I am anxious that the proposals for closing lines in Norfolk and Suffolk should not be brought into operation. If the Railways Board succeed in persuading the Minister to support them, then these two counties will be devoid of all rail services, except the main lines to London. A dozen or more country and seaside towns will be isolated, and the area and people will not be able to add their share to our economic and prosperity growth. It is also appropriate to say that the country men and women pay their shares in direct and indirect taxes to the upkeep of our social services, which in my view include our national railway services. That being so, they are as much entitled to consideration as those in more densely populated districts. It has been announced that rail fares in the Manchester areas are to be reduced. Why not elsewhere? There is need for such reductions to put passengers back on the railways. I have one final question to the Government: if I had introduced this Bill, or one on similar lines, would it have been acceptable?
4.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I intervene in this debate, quite briefly, to say that I wish to support any action which will have the effect of overturning wrong decisions taken by

981
the Minister of Transport or his predecessor, because, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Royle—and I am prepared to agree—Governments of all complexions may occasionally slip up and make mistakes. I have a very genuine case, in which I believe that the Minister of Transport, and also Dr. Beeching, did make a mistake. I represented the constituency of Moray and Nairn for a long time, and not a single person up in the North has agreed with the decision to close the old line from Aviemore to Inverness. This is not a straightforward, normal closure, as in many cases, because there are alternative routes from Aviemore to Inverness.
The tragedy, from our point of view, that of the local residents, is that the direct line, by Carrbridge, from Aviemore to Inverness was ever built at all. While I am in favour of competition, I must confess that it was a pity it was ever built. It was built by the old Highland Railway to avoid increasing competition coming in from the East Coast route. If the direct line had not been built, this problem would never have arisen, since the old original line, round by Grantown-on-Spey, Forres and Nairn, would have been retained, because there would have been no alternative for the through-traffic to Inverness and on to the North. But the fact to-day is that the population, as everybody up there knows, lives along the old original line, by Grantown-on-Spey and Forres—and for the very obvious reason that the line was built because the people lived there. Very few people live on the short-cut route, as I might call it, by Carrbridge. There are a certain number of sheep, and sometimes a few grouse, but that is about the lot.
My other objection is this. The Ministry always say, "The buses will be able to handle the traffic". But at present no bus route runs on the road from Grantown-on-Spey to Forres. It is a hilly moorland road, and follows the same line as the railway. In the first place, the road would have to be rebuilt. I think that both county councils concerned agree on this, and both have made representations; all the burghs, too, agree, and have made their representations; and many inquiries have been held. But still the answer remains the same—that the old line, apparently, is to be closed. As I say, it will take time, because in order
982
to establish an effective, usable bus route most of the road will have to be rebuilt. I may add that since it was built something like 100 years ago the railway has only twice been closed over the Dava Moor by snow and weather conditions.
This matter has been raised in another place, and it has been raised by all the local councils and burghs, but I felt it my duty to take this opportunity to intervene, because I feel that anything which can be done should be done. If the two noble Lords who spoke against the Amendment are correct in their interpretation of the law, then it is my genuine view that I should take any steps I can to get these mistakes reviewed and put right, if that be possible.
4.25 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I have no political views and I have reached the age when I have no ambition, and I look at this matter from a long way off. I feel that we are in an evolutionary age and a difficult age. We have the railways, a species which is going out of date. We have the roads, which are a problem in themselves, and possibly we have the competition from the air, which may be the next species. I feel that if action is taken in smashing up an old species too quickly it may cause a great deal of trouble. I think it has already caused trouble in the closure of the railways.
I feel that Dr. Beeching was briefed, possibly quite correctly, on the lines of economy; but, at the same time, it might have been considered from a distance further back, and we might have thought of what we were putting on the roads. Every time a commuter train stops, other trains stop, or the housewives' shopping trains stop, it puts a good deal more vehicles on the overcrowded roads. It is overcrowding the hospitals with more damaged people to be repaired (and the hospitals themselves need repairs), and it is cluttering up the towns with the parking problem, which it is almost impossible to cure unless violent measures are taken. Every closure on the railway means more parking trouble in the local towns. It means all that, and it means fumes from petrol in local towns. It also means wider roads. It means eating up the agricultural land which is our

983
heritage and which is of great use to us in times of peril.
I have to be rather careful in what I say, because I still have to answer for a word I used previously—perhaps I should not have used the word "crank"—but certain aspects of this problem seem to me to be pure savagery. I cannot forget the great facade at Euston Station. There were erudite and intelligent letters to the papers about it and there was a man who wanted to buy it and take it down at his own expense. But, no! This offer was turned down and the facade was smashed up. Perhaps I should explain why I say "savagery". I say it because in evolutionary law we come to an instinct to tear down and smash up all the old and put up the new. This is an instinct that we succeed to, like any other. A savage man obeys his instincts; he does not argue with them. A civilised man thinks it over. He thinks about what he will put on the roads. A man does not smash a selection of Meissen china and put plastics in his china cabinet. He thinks it over. There is always good in the old, and bad in the new. He tries to make a mixture of the two.
I have led myself to an opportunity of talking about a subject for which I took up this ancient Peerage—the Isle of Man Railway, which is a wonderful example of what civilised man can do. He can make an ancient railway, keep it, maintain it and make it pay. This railway covers 46 miles of track, and it was made in the last century. Not only does it give service to the people living in the island, but, at the same time, hundreds of thousands of tourists derive pleasure from it every year. It is up to date. I should have mentioned earlier that I am a shareholder; I have three preference shares, which give me a vote. I do not have any more, because everybody in the island loves the railway and they all want shares in it, and it would be selfish to take more. We all like our railway, and it runs well. We even have diesel locomotives to spare our old engines, which are our lifeblood and our attraction in the winter. One of our engines, "Fenella", a great favourite of mine, came out in 1908, and is still going very strong. "Fenella" draws the express from Ramsey to Douglas, and there are always people looking at her and admiring her fine
984
polished brasswork and paintwork. She roars down the track with the boat express, and when she gets to a section of the road near to tourists in motor cars they hear "Fenella" and the boat express roaring towards them and pull up to 15 m.p.h. and take her photograph. They all like her.
Also, we have a properly run railway with maintenance staff, and our signal boxes do not fall down. Our children do not pull up the rails. I have seen children with belts round them which at one time may have been something to do with railway carriage window belts, but on the whole they like their railways and they appreciate them. The children in the Isle of Man are extremely intelligent. They go to school in the same carriages, drawn by the same locomotives that their grandfathers went in.
I think the most important thing of all is that not only does this railway give pleasure now, and has given pleasure all these years, but it pays. I get a dividend of 5 per cent. on my shares, and the ordinary shareholders also get a dividend. It pays because it is run by intelligent and civilised people, and I think that is the way the railways should be run in this country. In any case, before closures are made consideration should be given to the question of congestion on the roads, and also what will be the effect of putting this pressure on road traffic.
4.32 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I feel very encouraged to know that I have beaten my noble friend Lord Strange by one year. I came out in 1907, and I am still going strong. I should like to support this Bill. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I found it a little difficult to follow the logic in his argument for his Amendment. In fact, there were times when I wondered which side he was on. I agree entirely with him that the railways are a public service and not big business, and that they should be run for the purpose of the public benefit.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? Over the years, this was not the policy of the Party which he supports, when we were bringing in nationalisation measures, to look into questions of transport as a whole.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not want to make this a Party matter at all, because circumstances can change as time goes on and I do not suppose the noble Lord can name any Government in the history of our country which has not made a mistake. That also applies to Ministers of Transport, even the most able of them; they also can make mistakes. I shall only say that if I were a Minister of Transport I should welcome any measure which would enable me to rescind any mistaken decisions that I had made. I think this Bill is logical and right, because there is no doubt that even if a decision is not mistaken when it is first made, it may become so. Conditions change. For instance, the population in a certain area may grow and a certain branch line which was not considered important a few days ago may become very much more important within a few years. Who can tell? Therefore, I think that a measure which enables a Minister of Transport to reverse his decision and to go back on his original intentions is a very logical and wise one.
4.34 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, but this subject has been argued to a certain extent as if the railways were ancient monuments and ought to be preserved. There is machinery for preserving ancient monuments, but I doubt whether it should be applied to the railway service. After all, the railway service is something which is designed to meet the convenience of people, and the case for closing the railways has always been that there is no longer a demand by reason of changes in population, and so on. It is not the word of the Minister or anybody else which is final. It is only after the fullest possible inquiry and the greatest opportunity given to everyone concerned to state their case that a decision is ultimately arrived at.
I myself have had the opportunity of taking part in a number of these inquiries, and I have found that the greatest possible consideration is given to all the factors in the matter, including the alternatives open to people who are going to be affected, and wherever there is any doubt at all the Minister—and I am referring to the former Minister—has
986
refused to close the line. It so happens that in the two inquiries in which I took part, the closure was not allowed. Therefore I feel that the public are certainly protected under the existing procedure.
The noble Earl and those who support him have put forward a superficially attractive proposition that a Minister should be enabled to put right at some time in the future mistakes that he might make. I think that is a very dangerous doctrine. For one thing, might it not weaken the importance of the Minister's coming to a definite decision on the merits? If one has at the back of one's mind: "It is all right; it is not so important, because I can always put this right later on", is that not really dangerous from the point of view of administration? And would you extend it to other Ministries and other activities?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer me one question? Why keep the tracks there? Why does the present Minister of Transport keep the tracks?
LORD SILKIN: My noble friend will deal with why we keep the tracks, but I would suggest that that would not be a change of decision. He would not be reversing his decision. The tracks were there, and they could be used hereafter for some purpose which might commend itself to the Minister. But it would not be necessarily for the purpose of changing his mind and having a new inquiry, which would be necessary, and going through the whole performance again.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that when you close lines because there is no passenger demand, you must, in the long-term view, keep them for strategic purposes?
LORD SILKIN: That is another good answer, and I am obliged to my noble friend for helping me. This reminds me of the spirit in which, unfortunately, a number of young people embark on matrimony to-day: "It is all right; we hope it will work; we hope we are right, but if we are wrong there is always the divorce court." I do not think that is a spirit we ought to encourage, and certainly not in Ministers of the Crown. I hope that, by not giving this power to change their minds, we may induce in them the need for taking the greatest care in

987
arriving at decisions. I am bound to say that, from my own experience, which is limited, although I have attended some of these inquiries, I have found that great care is taken before a line is finally closed. Therefore I suggest not only that it is unnecessary to have this Bill, but that it would be against the public interest to give the Minister this second chance.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill, which I hope no Member of your Lordships' House will regard as being a Party matter. I speak from the point of view of the people in the isolated districts of Scotland, where the railways are their lifeline in regard to supplies. The roads are often blocked for many days, sometimes weeks at a time, but it is very rare indeed for the railways to be so blocked for more than, at the most, a day and a night, and usually for a less time than that. If it is found, as I think it undoubtedly will be, that some of these closures mean that considerable hardship is inflicted on the population of these very remote areas, with great difficulties in getting food and other supplies during unexpected storms in the winter, surely it is common sense, as well as fairness to the inhabitants of these far-off places, that some opportunity should be given to rescind a decision which, in many cases, will prove to have been sadly mistaken, and which, doing a little economic good to the railways, will do a very great deal of harm to people far away.
4.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, may I first of all join with my noble friend Lord Royle, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and appreciating the manner in which he introduced this Bill this afternoon. I will deal with some of his points a little later. Equally, may I welcome the noble Duke in his venture into transport? I look forward to a long period of time in which he and I will be in the positions we are in now in dealing with transport. As a good politician, he opened his case with a little bit of political knockabout. But this Bill stems from the honourable Member for Scarborough in another place, and he voted for the
988
1962 Act. He never made any appeals, except to his own Minister, or put this Bill in during the lifetime of the previous Government; and even then when he went to the electorate at the last Election, much to my disgust they re-elected him. So the people in the area supported the policy of the previous Government. Therefore, there is not a great deal in that political knockabout. I was glad that the noble Duke expressed what I think must be the point of view of any noble Lord who sits on the other side and who supported the 1962 Act, that this Bill is unnecessary.
To continue the congratulations, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord Royle? He has made my job this afternoon much easier. He made the general case against the passing of this Bill, and all that I am going to do now is to emphasise some of the points he has made and try to put the present procedure in its correct perspective. I have been a little surprised by the rather sentimental attitude that some noble Lords have taken this afternoon, and also by the new and welcome approach of some noble Lords opposite that railways are a public service. But I was a railwayman. They never came to my aid on wages or salaries when we were having to subsidise uneconomic lines by low wages on railways. And of course the attitude now adopted, that we ought to subsidise certain lines so far as the railways are concerned, is, I think, a wrong one to adopt.
I have just mentioned to your Lordships—I have never hidden from your Lordships—that I am a railwayman, and that I have been a railway trade unionist for 47 years. When I lost my seat in the other place in 1959 I went back to work on the railway before I was asked to come to this House. May I say with all sincerity that when you have given 47 years of your life to an industry, when it has provided you with your bread and butter, you have more than a passing affection for it? Therefore, I quite readily admit that any bias I may have is towards the place and function of the railway system of this country in a co-ordinated transport system. Therefore, no one should accuse me of being in any way prejudiced against railways.

989
I want to emphasise what has been said by some noble Lords this afternoon, and some of the points which are sometimes lost sight of. The railways of this country developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and many of them, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, said, were in competition with each other; there was duplication of lines, of services and of capital, and many of them were quickly redundant when the monopoly ceased to exist. For seventy years railways virtually had a monopoly of movement of both passenger and freight. But with the invention and the development of the internal combustion engine, that monopoly of movement of goods and passengers of course ceased to exist.
Let me say this. Some noble Lords speaking this afternoon seemed to have the idea that railway closures started with the 1962 Act and with Dr. Beeching. That is completely wrong. The Railways Act, 1921, brought together 111 separate railway companies into the four mainline groups, the Southern, the Western, the London Midland and Scottish and the London and North Eastern. Ever since the 1920s, because of the redundancy of many of those lines, because of the development of the lorry, the bus and the motor car, railway closures have been taking place. Of course, since the 1950s there has been a much quicker development and a much greater use of the lorry, the bus, the private motor car, the motor cycle and the scooter. And the greater the development of those forms of transport, the greater is the amount of traffic which is drawn away from the railways. Therefore, they become uneconomic.
All noble Lords, except the noble Lord, Lord Strange, who objected to the taking of land for the making of roads, supported the previous Government and support this Government in the provision of better roads. Many roads have been provided. And when the opportunity for quick movement on roads is greater we have to face the fact that the personal choice of the individual for both goods and passenger movement will mean that more and more the traffic will tend to be in a certain direction, for short hauls to move from railways to road. It is a question of personal choice and convenience. Unless noble Lords who
990
support this Bill are going to say that we should adopt a dictatorial attitude and tell the trader or the passenger that he must go by rail, that he cannot go by private car, or use road haulage, then we have to make arrangements in order that they should be more effectively dealt with.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Wise—he has made a reference this afternoon to the rural areas, and I will deal with them a little later—that it is his friends in the rural areas who have destroyed the railways in rural areas? As a railwayman in the old days I know we used to carry cattle and everything else on the railways. Now, of course, the farmer, his wife, his son, his daughter, all have motor cars; they have their lorries and tractors. They take their cattle to market by road. They carry their feeding stuffs and their produce by road. And it is equally true, particularly among the younger members—and I am glad of it—that the agricultural worker now has his motor bicycle or scooter. But you cannot really keep a railway in a rural area for sentimental reasons, or because the farmer, on an odd occasion when his own lorries are in full use or the road hauler who generally serves him has all his fleet engaged, wants to take an odd wagon once a year from the railway. You cannot run a railway economically on that basis.
I think I ought to emphasise the basis on which this Bill should be rejected and the Amendment carried. The functions and economics of all forms of transport are fundamentally the same. The function is to move goods and people from place to place in safety, with speed, in comfort and with regularity. When you come to economics, the same applies again to all forms of transport. The nearer you can get to a 24-hour utilisation of your invested capital, the nearer you are to making the undertaking viable. It is the same in all forms of transport. If you have an aircraft standing on the tarmac it is not earning its keep. A ship in dock is not earning its keep. A bus or a lorry standing either in the garage or on the road and not running, again is not earning its keep.
Nor are a railway engine and its carriages or wagons when they are standing in sidings or in carriage or engine sheds. If they are not earning money, they are

991
costing money. Therefore, you must try to get as much of your capital as you can utilised for 24 hours a day. Of course, the ideal to work to, although noble Lords opposite may not easily accept this, is to use the right vehicles for either the people or the goods to be carried and the journey to be made, keeping those vehicles which are used in each form of transport, and which ought to be complementary one to the other, utilised to the highest possible degree.
As I have already suggested, more and more the function of the railways will tend to become the speedy, long haul of goods and passengers from areas of dense population, and the lorry and the bus will collect from, and deliver to, the railhead, goods and passengers in the more sparsely populated areas. If the railways are going to be viable at any time, that is bound to be their future function. That is my view. It is not only my view. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to a railway trade unionist in another place having sponsored the Bill that is now before this House. But Mr. Tom Bradley, M.P., the President of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, speaking at the annual conference of that union last Monday, said:
"Let it be made clear that at no time has the Labour Party, or this trade union, gone on record in support of a policy of petrifying the present railway structure. What we have said is that we want an adequate transport system taken as a whole, based on the principle of integration. The Labour Party Election Manifesto stated specifically that there would be no further major line closures pending a national survey of transport resources and requirements—and that is the present position."
Therefore the leaders of the trade union movement within the railway industry—at least the better ones among them—accept the fact that the railway system of this country is part of the transport system of the country, and that to require that it should be maintained for uneconomic workings, or just for the purpose of running trains that are hardly ever used, is not the correct way of running the railways of this country.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord when we can expect the results of this review?
LORD LINDGREN: Which review?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It has been said that railway closures would be halted until there was a comprehensive review of the problem.
LORD LINDGREN: May I again emphasise—I thought I had made it quite clear—that what the Labour Party Manifesto said, and what my right honourable friend the Minister said, was "major closures".
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am sorry. I did not mean that.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the review is going on now. As the proposals come up to the Minister they are considered by him. They are considered by the Regional Development Councils and, as they come up, they will be dealt with. But not every closure is a major closure. The closure of a branch line running round the Highlands of Scotland cannot exactly be termed a major closure, except for the ghillie who is trying to catch a salmon.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood me. I was not asking an awkward question or one dealing with major closures. I was merely asking, when we could expect to see published the results of the review.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is no actual review, because these cases are coming up from the Railways Board one by one. There is, for instance, one under consideration at the moment. The railways have suggested that the old Great Central Line, which again was a line which was set up in competition with the London Midland and, to an extent, with the Great Northern, might be closed because its area is served by other means. That is in fact under consideration, and there will not be a policy statement until they are all through.
May I again emphasise what my noble friends Lord Royle and Lord Silkin, together with others, said on the protection of the travelling public and the national economy in regard to this question of railway closures? First of all, the proposals of the Board are submitted to the Minister for consideration. If, in fact, they are obviously "non-starters" because in the Minister's opinion they directly affect the national economy of

993
the country, he returns them to the Railways Board immediately. Thus we avoid this tedious procedure that has to be gone through, and quite rightly, for the protection of the public, of calling in the Transport Users' Consultative Committees and the rest. If the Minister does not reject the proposals at first sight, they go to the Transport Users' Consultative Committees who consider them on the basis of hardship to the traveller. They also go to the Regional Development Councils, in order that they can look at them on the basis of the present and the future intentions of economic development of the region.
In the light of the information which is supplied to the Minister by the Transport Users' Consultative Committees and by the Regional Councils, the Minister makes his decision: a refusal or a consent. If there is a refusal, everybody is happy. When there is a consent, the Minister, on the basis of public protection and in the light of the information that is available to him, makes a condition that in fact there should be an alternative service. That alternative service is required by the Minister to be provided by the Railways Board in conjunction with the bus companies. When the Minister is satisfied that his conditions are met then the Railways Board may implement the closure of the line. That is not the end, because, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Royle, even after there has been a closure and the alternative conditions which have been set down by the Minister have been met by the Railways Board, if they are found to be inadequate the Minister has the right to vary those conditions. He can revise the conditions, and has already done so in a number of cases. As has already been said, the track is maintained, and I shall say something about this in a moment,
The noble Earl asked me about the subsidy which the railway companies had to pay in 1964 to the bus companies for the services which they put on. It is interesting to note that where, in fact, the railway branch line does not pay in relation to the passengers of the area, neither does a bus service. It either has to be carried on on the basis of cross-subsidisation within the undertaking itself or by a subsidy from the Railways Board.
994
Last year the Railways Board had to pay £80,000 in subsidies to bus companies. The closures which were supplanted by the bus services, on which they had to pay the £80,000, saved the Railways Board £6 million, so there is a great deal of difference between the provision of a rail service, involving capital, wages and salaries and the rest, and the provision of a bus service.
This applies equally to the maintenance of the track. I am afraid, my Lords, that, as I am an enthusiast in these matters, I am carrying on longer than I intended. The track is maintained, and the Minister, in conjunction with the Board, can still require the reintroduction of a service. Let me make clear that the track is maintained in case it should become necessary to use it. In fairness to the Minister, as well as in fairness to Dr. Beeching, I should say that what has happened up to the present time is that the most obvious closures have taken place first. Many closures would have taken place had there never been a Dr. Beeching, or, for that matter, had there never been the 1962 Act. Many of the other closures may be more difficult. The track is being retained so that, if it is proved necessary, a service can be reinstated. Equally, if any of these lines was closed before the Regional Development Councils were set up and it was shown that there was the possibility that developments in the area would require a railway service, then, because the railway track is there, it would be possible for the service to be reinstituted. But one ought to be clear that, if a service is to be reinstituted, the Railways Board have every right to expect that the capital which they put into the service will be justified by the traffic and the revenue which they obtain from it.
In regard to revenue, the Railways Board deficit last year was £120 million—£13 million less than the year before. The actual working deficit was £67½ million. Even a Labour Government cannot use £120 million twice. If we spend it on subsidised railways, then we cannot spend it on housing, hospitals, and in developing social services, education and the rest. It may be said by some that the railways should be a public service subsidised by the Treasury. One would then have to decide whether in fact they were going to be used.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the matter of the track, would he inform the House whether the Minister has the power to reopen lines which have been closed but where the tracks have been retained? That is what we wish to know.
LORD LINDGREN: The power is not there by Act of Parliament, but not everything is done by Act of Parliament. My right honourable friend is fully satisfied that, if it became necessary to reopen a line, where in fact a consent had already been given, he could negotiate with the Railways Board for it to be reopened—always provided that the Railways Board were satisfied that they would get their return on it.
LORD WISE: Has that happened in any case?
LORD LINDGREN: No, it has not happened in any case, because it has not been proved in any case.
As my noble friend Lord Royle said, there has been quite a stir in some cases when there has been a suggestion that a line should be closed. Very often the promoters of a petition to keep the line open never, in fact, use the railway; and when the line is closed and the alternative is there, they are all happy. They are all happy in many of the areas in which the noble Lord is interested. In fact in some of the complaints in the area in which the noble Lord is interested, they said, "We want the railway only because it is a quicker service than the bus". Therefore, we said, "We will have express buses right the way through". Then, when we had the express buses, what did they say? They said, "We can go through quickly, but if a person happens to live in between two stops and sees the bus go by, it is not much help". So we had to institute the stopping buses to serve the villages in between.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in regard to retaining the tracks, can the noble Lord explain why the Minister of Transport said on November 4 that he regretted he had not the power under the 1962 Act to reopen lines?
LORD LINDGREN: He has not the power to reopen lines. Why he said that
996
he regretted it, I do not know. Perhaps he did say "regret". I do not know. I have not his words before me. I am not the Minister, I am the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have to answer for the policy of the Minister on this matter.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords—
LORD LINDGREN: I am being pressed by two sides, one telling me to wind up quickly, the other to carry on.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, as I have not taken part in the debate. The noble Lord referred to the question of tracks retained for further use and mentioned, too, that railways were mainly used for long hauls between railheads. In certain cases would there not be strong grounds for using a light railway service as a feeder service to the railheads, rather than to use bus services? If the railways are to provide alternative services, why could they not, in certain cases, provide alternative light railway services rather than bus services?
LORD LINDGREN: They could if they wanted to; it is within the competence of the Board; but questions of the capital to be invested are involved, as are the cost of maintenance, the cost of operation of the service, and so on. If any organisation wants to operate a light railway service in place of a railway branch line which has been closed, then, provided that the land is not wanted by the local authority for road widening or for social or other purposes, and also provided that the organisation can satisfy the Minister and his inspectors of its ability on grounds of public safety to run the light railway, it can get an Order under the Light Railways Act.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am not talking about other organisations. I am asking the Minister whether he is satisfied that the Railways Board, in considering alternative uses, go thoroughly into the question of whether or not light railway operation could be entered into.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, I have said so. The reason why they are not doing so is the capital costs and costs of operation involved.
There were complaints in regard to the withdrawal of stopping trains between

997
main stations, and my noble friend Lord Addison referred to this matter. One visualises that the function of the railways is to move in bulk passengers from centres of population, and that the intermediate services in the sparsely populated areas in between should he country bus services which should be able to go on to the railheads. The other point is that the railway service faces the difficult operation of making a timetable. If one is going to have speedy trains between two points, particularly when there are only two tracks, up and down, then the stopping trains in between impede the flow.
Perhaps I may now make a statement that I have been authorised to make by my right honourable friend. It is that the Minister of Transport has decided to carry out a sample survey to test the effect on travellers of rail passenger closures. The survey, which begins on Saturday, consists of an interview of passengers using trains on three services, which are scheduled for closure on June 14, Eridge—Hailsham, Bradford—Huddersfield and Stranraer—Dumfries. It will be carried out by Marplan Limited, a market research firm engaged by the Central Office of Information, on behalf of the Minister. During the week beginning May 29 passengers will be invited to give their names and addresses to interviewers. A month or two after the closures have taken place they will be interviewed a second time to find out what alternative transport they are then using and how their journeys compare with those they were making by train before the closures took place.
The object of the survey is to establish how far the fears expressed by objectors to the closures are borne out in practice, and how successful are the arrangements made by the Minister for alternative travel as a condition of consent to the closures. The analysis of the results, which will be carried out by the Ministry of Transport, is not expected to be available until the beginning of next year. My Lords, I am sure that this survey will commend itself to your Lordships as a
sensible and practical way of testing the quality of users' objections to closures and of my right honourable friend's arrangements for providing them with adequate alternative means of travel in those cases where he decides that consent is the right course.
My Lords, in conclusion, I hope that the House will support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend. It gives us the opportunity to put the operation of the railways in their correct [Lord Lindgren.] perspective within a co-ordinated system of transport, and I hope that the House will carry it.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the noble Earl has the right of reply to the Amendment before I have.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Thank you, my Lords. I am very grateful to all those who have spoken to-day. It is very noticeable that, on the Amendment, seven speakers have spoken in favour and only four against, two of them from the Front Bench and both obviously committed to their policies. I do not think that the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Royle, added any real bones to his arguments in favour of the Amendment, and in consequence I would advise the House to resist the Amendment to this Bill
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, in view of the innings which I had earlier this afternoon, I do not intend to take advantage of the right to reply that I now have, particularly in the light of the middle part of my noble friend's speech and the statement which he made at the end of it. There is only one thing I would do, and that is to appeal to the noble Duke to re-read the last three lines of the Amendment and, if he does believe in the co-ordination of transport in this country, to support the Amendment.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Beswick, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Blyton, L.

Champion, L.

Archibald, L.

Boston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Attlee, E.

Bowles, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Haire of Whiteabbey, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Simey, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Sinha, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Snow, L.

Henley, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rea, L.

Strang, L.

Hobson, L.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Taylor, L.

Latham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Leatherland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Waleran, L.

Lindgren, L.

Samuel, V.

Walston, L.

Listowel, E.

Segal, L.

Williams, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shepherd, L.

Williamson, L.

Merthyr, L.

Sherfield, L.

Willis, L.

Mitchison, L.

Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mansfield, E. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monsell, V.

Baden-Powell, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Strange, L.

Bossom, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Kemsley, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Darwen, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

BRITISH CONSULTATION ON U.S.A. ANTI-COMMUNIST POLICIES
5.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made to the Government of the United States in respect of its declared policy of intervening within its spheres of interest to prevent the establishment of régimes which it regards as Communist; and whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there are adequate opportunities for consultation before such action is taken. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I recognise that I am treading on delicate ground, and I will seek to speak with a sense of responsibility and without provocation; but I speak because I believe this House should consider the developments of American policy and how far they will affect the peace of the world.
I do not think there is any doubt that there has been a development of American policy of which we should take note. It has been described by the Washington correspondent of The Times as "the second phase in the cold war". I think it would be more accurate to say that it is the third phase. The first phase was that of the brinkmanship policy under Foster Dulles, which nearly brought the world to nuclear destruction on a number of occasions. The
1000
second phase was that under President Kennedy, who sought the policy of coexistence, which gave great hope everywhere that peace would be made secure. The third phase, upon which the American Government has now entered, I would describe as that of intervention; and I believe that our Government and both Houses of Parliament should look calmly and quietly at the implications of that policy.
My Lords, American policy has been based upon the Monroe doctrine. That doctrine was first elaborated by President Monroe as long ago as 1823. It is interesting to-day to read its objects. They were twofold. The first was to protect the American continent, and especially South America, from intervention by European Governments to re-occupy the Spanish colonies; and the second was a declaration against foreign intervention in the political affairs of independent American States. It was a warning against European colonisation of the American continent.
It may be worth while just reading the actual terms of the Declaration, because of their relationship to the present position. The terms were as follows:
"With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered"—
that is, the United States of America—
"and shall not interfere; but with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their

1001
destiny, by any European Power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States".
The principle of the Monroe doctrine of 1823 was subsequently endorsed by other American States who became united in the Organisation of American States.
The American Government has now quite clearly extended that policy. It has now expanded the Monroe doctrine to the proposition that the United States will intervene to prevent any State in the whole of the Americas becoming what it regards as Communist. President Johnson said on May 3:
"The American nations cannot, must not, and will not permit the establishment of another Communist Government in the Western hemisphere."
I hope, my Lords, that I do not have to emphasise my opposition to all authoritarian and totalitarian régimes. I believe tremendously in personal liberties; I believe tremendously in political democracy; and I hope my record has been sufficient to indicate that my speech to-day is not made in sympathy with a totalitarian Communist regime. But I do say this: that the very principle of liberalism and the very principle of democracy requires that we accept the right of any people in the world to become a Communist society if that is their desire. The danger of this new development of American policy is that it will misinterpret Communism. The American Government is inclined to interpret as Communism any legitimate movement of commendable revolt against political and military dictatorships, against the economic oppression of the people and against social injustice.
I want to take the case of Santo Domingo as an example and I propose, if your Lordships will forgive me, to read a rather long quotation from Mr. Roy Perrott in the Observer of May 16. He wrote this regarding the people of Santo Domingo who revolted against the oppressive military dictatorship which then existed in that country:
"The United States forces may have landed in the Dominican Republic to prevent a takeover by a relatively small group of determined Communists. But the longer they stay the more they will become embroiled in a popular movement whose adherents can be numbered in tens or hundreds of thousands and whose main objective is an elementary social justice.
"They have never read Marx but, in many cases, they know all about hunger. There is
1002
no special indoctrination that binds the country together except that of hard experience.
"Whether they are country peasants, sugar factory workers, nickel miners, housewives, doctors, lawyers, teachers or shopkeepers they are, almost to a man, unutterably sick of a system which allowed swindling on a large scale, hallowed by tradition: which permitted a country, potentially prosperous by Latin-American standards, to wallow in stagnation with scarcely one new school or hospital built while a handful of generals and a few others took a cut of almost every major contract and pocketed large fortunes.
"This was the simple impetus, compounded of rage and frustration, which made the streets of Santo Domingo wild with revolution for a few days three weeks ago. The rebels must have known that the U.S. had been their benevolent uncle for a long time, doling out assistance in characteristically generous wads, but unable or unwilling to do anything about a system which was not even refined enough to be described as Fascist.
"The really significant thing about the revolution was its spontaneity and massive backing. It would be a pity if this central fact were obscured by the important argument about the legitimacy of the American landing.
"It was not the normal Latin-American coup d'état engineered by a few and affecting only a group at the palace. It was a shudder of indignation that went through the country and included nearly all but the richer classes. It was a grass-roots revolution that was about to succeed when the Marines landed."
America regarded that revolution as Communist. It rushed in its marines. The only evidence that it has given of Communist control is to name 54 Communists. Some of these have subsequently been revealed as dead and some of them have been revealed as not in Santo Domingo at all. The Americans are now retreating from their original position that the intervention in Santo Domingo was due to this Communist conspiracy. I think it should be emphasised this evening that Professor Juan Bosch, who was elected by an overwhelming vote as head of the Government of Santo Domingo and who was later overthrown by a coup of a militaristic junta, was a Social Democrat, exactly as are we who are members of the Labour Party. He has been endorsed by the Socialist International of which our Labour Party is a leading member. The Times said editorially on May 3:
"Most of those who support him"—
that is, Professor Bosch—
"no doubt still wish above all, as he does, for an orderly civilian Government."
I find it very significant indeed that the Mediation Committee of the Organisation of American States does not share

1003
the view of the American Government that the insurgents are controlled by Communists. I think we should take into consideration when we are discussing this matter that Francisco Caamano, who is now head of what is known as the insurgent movement, has been elected President of Santo Domingo by the remaining Members of the Legislative Assembly. He has been elected President by 49 votes to 5; and what should be very important for those of us in the Labour Party, and who as Democratic Socialists are opposed both to the capitalist point of view and the Communist point of view, is that the Government is composed of 5 Social Democrats and two Christian Socialists.
I think that that analysis of the situation, which I do not want to extend, indicates that this development of American policy is very dangerous, not to Communist extension but to our liberal democratic ideas, and indeed that that policy will tend to extend Communist support. If the American Government takes the view that all who stand for liberal democracy, for social reform and for the liberation of people from economic exploitation are Communists, the American Government will become the greatest protagonist of Communism that there is in the world.
I want to recognise at once that the Government of the United States has now modified its policy. It is not now continuing its allegation that the insurgents in Santo Domingo are controlled by Communists, and it is seeking to make the Organisation of American States, rather than itself, responsible for peacemaking activities in Santo Domingo. The Governments in the Organisation of American States have been hesitant about accepting the American proposal that they should send forces to Santo Domingo. The necessary two-thirds majority was carried by only one vote, and that one vote was cast by a representative of the military dictatorship in Santo Domingo, against which the people, led by the Social Democrats, are now protesting.
There is not only the danger of the development of the American policy in suppressing democratic movements for social justice when they are not Communist at all, but the very great danger
1004
that American policy is now ignoring the United Nations. One has read almost with tears what U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been saying in recent days; that when conflicts occur, whether they be in Vietnam or in Santo Domingo, the United Nations is being ignored. It may be that in the case of Vietnam it was difficult to bring in the United Nations, because, unfortunately, China has so far been excluded from the United Nations. But there is no reason whatsoever why the United Nations should not function in Santo Domingo. The Americans want to keep it out. I was astonished when I read in this morning's newspaper of the proceedings in the Security Council yesterday. Let me say to the Government that I was very glad indeed that our representative on the Security Council supported—I am not sure that he did not actually propose—the resolution which was carried in favour of a cease-fire in Santo Domingo. But the American attitude towards the United Nations now is such that it abstained from voting yesterday in the Security Council because the resolution did not mention the Organisation of American States, which it believed should be responsible.
I need not this evening emphasise the importance of this issue. The United Nations itself is in the balance now. If it disappears it will be a disaster to the world. One does not know how the peace of the world will be maintained, and it is immensely important that every Government should support the authority of the United Nations wherever disputes occur, and particularly when disputes occur, as in Santo Domingo, where an external Government has assumed the responsibility of imposing its forces upon an independent country.
I want to add one point to the two points that I have made, about the danger of America misinterpreting democratic movements as Communist, and the danger of its ignoring the authority of the United Nations. President Johnson has at present applied the policy of intervention to countries which are in the Americas. He has sometimes used words which make one wonder whether the present policy of America is limited to that. He has spoken of American intervention wherever there are American citizens and where what he called

1005
"Communist aggression" may appear. He has claimed that America has the right to intervene where American interests are involved.
But, where are American interests not involved? They are now involved in every part of the world except the non-Communist world. Their investments dominate the economy of the world, and one's fear is that the American policy of intervention which has now been applied to the American continent, which previously was applied to Vietnam, about which I have spoken before, and about which I will not speak now, will be extended. It already recognises the whole continent of America as part of its sphere of influence, and is now recognising South-East Asia as part of its sphere of influence. The terrible danger is that this policy of intervention may spread to other parts of the world.
My Lords, my Question also asks:
"whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there are adequate opportunities for consultation before such action is taken."
I am led to ask this because of indications in a number of dispatches from Washington that the American Government is now declining to give the consultation with our Government and with other Allies that one would expect in this kind of critical situation. I am almost reluctant to quote what the Washington Correspondent of The Times has said on this subject. If what I am going to read had appeared in the Daily Worker, everyone would have regarded it as incredible and irresponsible; but it is said by the Washington Correspondent of The Times—the organ of the Establishment in this country—and when he makes these remarks, one cannot ignore them. They appear in The Times in the issue of May 21, 1965.
The dispatch began by saying that our Ambassador had been to see Mr. Rusk, of the State Department, and had learned very little from him. Then the correspondent goes on to say that in foreign affairs there is now no pretence at consultation.
"In spite of the pious genuflections to interdependence, the President is no more prepared to consult with Allies than he is, say, to further the political careers of the Kennedy brothers. Alliance and special relationship are becoming obsolescent words, without much practical meaning. The relationship which Mr. Johnson is prepared to establish with lesser countries
1006
can only be described as alignment; that is, he expects them to fall in line behind the United States."
Later in the dispatch he indicates that President Kennedy was always prepared to discuss with us when crisis in foreign affairs occurred, but not now.
"Much of this has now gone by the board. There is little exchange of information in times of crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that even common diplomatic courtesy is now rather uncommon. This distinguishes President Johnson's administration. It is not that he regards the Allies as a bunch of 'wogs', 'frogs', 'krauts', or 'limeys'; they just do not enter into his calculations."
A third quotation. The Times correspondent says that the Monroe Doctrine is being applied universally in the East—West dispute. This policy has been adopted, irrespective of the aims of the so-called allies.
"Super-power, provided by missiles, enormous fleets, and 16 active divisions are seen to make the doctrine universally applicable. The concepts of super-power, devised by an array of thinkers and tested on computers, have revolutionised alliance diplomacy
"To some extent it has got rid of a lot of cant and past assumptions no longer relevant. What is a special relationship when the computers find the allies wanting in terms of nuclear power, standing forces, and goals and capabilities?
"The answer is now found to be easy. If an ally does not share in the burden of carrying the doctrine round the world it has no right to be consulted or informed. If an ally does share the burden it does not have to be consulted or informed because agreement clearly exists."
I conclude by making this appeal to the Government. Many of us are deeply impressed by the steps they are taking to restore the image of our country as Great Britain; to restore its economy so that we are self-reliant, and to begin to establish a society in which poverty will be abolished and which will be an example to the world in its freedom and its social justice. Whilst our Government are doing that at home to make our country great, I would urge our Government at the same time to create an image of our country which is great for the world, which is great for peace, which is self-reliant, which is not prepared to be subservient to any country, even though it has the power of America, and which is prepared to give the leadership which the world so badly needs at this time for the freedom of the peoples and the peace of the earth.
5.52 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, when I saw the question of the noble Lord on the Order Paper, I felt that I must say a few words. May I begin by saying how much I agree with him that the decision of independent countries as to the Government they should have should rest with them? But I make one qualification to that. The noble Lord said, "if it is the desire of the people". That is the whole point with Communism; it is not always the desire of the people. Only too often it is, or has been in the past, imposed upon nations.
I take as an example Czechoslovakia. where about four key posts were retained by the Communists, the President was brutally murdered and others were driven out of the country, and, as a result. Czechoslovakia became nominally a Communist country. But who knows today what proportion of the people really want that régime? And, for that matter, who knows what proportion of the Russian people really want Communism? The noble Lord described the revolution in Santo Domingo as being the result of extreme hardship and a totalitarian Government. I agree that a revolution there was to be expected, but the trouble with these revolutions is that they are occasions in which the Communist organisation will "cash in". They will show themselves as being the freers of the people and the bringers of salvation, and people who are very heated in their revolution will not stop to realise that what they are doing is merely exchanging one form of totalitarian Government for another.
While I agree with the noble Lord that consultation is desirable between nations such as the United States and ourselves, who hold similar ideas, before any steps are taken, there are occasions on which one simply has got to act before things get too far for action to be of any use. There is a habit to-day, when any crisis occurs, of saying that we must sit down and have some talks about it. We sit down and have talks and more talks and still more talks, and in the result nothing is ever really achieved, because nobody can agree. In international affairs I do not think that that is a tolerable position.
The noble Lord also mentioned the United Nations, and I think this might be a suitable moment for me to mention
1008
to your Lordships a book which I received a short time ago and which I have lent to the Library—I have it here in my hand—and it is there for any noble Lord who is interested to read. It is by an American author and it is called The Fearful Master: a Second Look at the United Nations. I must say that I was extremely shaken when I read this book. The author does not use his own prejudices or suspicions; he simply quotes historical facts. I will not go any further into the book, which your Lordships may read, but it shows that the United Nations is not quite the benevolent power we once thought it was. Therefore, if the United States decides to act without consulting the United Nations, I think she has every right to do so when she considers that the situation demands it.
I also think that it is not generally enough recognised that the Communist doctrine is a little different from other political doctrines in that the Communists are not willing to allow other political doctrines to exist side by side with it. For instance, in our country the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, though they may have arguments with each other, are all perfectly happy to let each other work side by side. But the Communist dogma insists, in its heart of hearts, that eventually the whole world shall be Communist, and they will go to any ends to achieve that purpose. Therefore, I feel that the Communist movement, whether in the Western Hemisphere, in Africa or anywhere else, is not to be trusted, and the United States is perfectly justified in taking the view that she does in acting without consultation with her allies, who might try to put the halter on her and prevent her from taking the action which she feels is necessary.
6.1 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I am sure the whole House, or what is left of it, must have been deeply moved by the passionate plea of my noble friend Lord Brockway in support of his Question. I, like other noble Lords present, am anxious to hear the reply to be given by the Minister, and I do not wish to detain the House unduly. But arising out of the second part of the Question,
"whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there are adequate opportunities for consultation before such action is taken",

1009
I should like to ask my noble friend if adequate opportunities for consultation were afforded, also, by our fellow members of the Commonwealth on the action taken by the Australian Government in sending 800 Australian troops to South Vietnam in support of the American troops now engaged in that area. I fully realise the treaty obligations of our Commonwealth partners, particularly Australia and New Zealand, in that area, but may we have an assurance from the Minister that these 800 Australian troops were landed with the fullest support and approval of Her Majesty's Government? I believe that at this moment 200 New Zealand troops are either on their way, or are about to embark, in support of the 800 Australian troops.
I do not for one moment question the justification of this procedure. The only question I would ask of the Minister at this stage is: Were Her Majesty's Government fully notified in advance of this action? I am sure he will realise, as we all do, the deep desire on all sides of your Lordships' House, and far beyond this House, that the conflict in Vietnam should be contained as much as possible. If he can give an assurance to the House that this action in to-day's news is a step forward to containing the hostilities which are at present going on, I think it would have a reasuring effect on the country at large.
The other point I should like to make quite briefly is this. I do not attempt for one moment to draw a parallel, but I should like to recall to the memory of the House the action taken by General de Gaulle, to my mind an action of supreme statesmanship against strong public opinion in his own country, when he completely withdrew from Algeria. It was an action which, so far from detracting from his own prestige, I believe, enormously enhanced it. A great deal of national pride was involved, but the results I think have justified the action then taken.
The corollary of the withdrawal of French troops from Algeria was also shown in a spontaneous voluntary action on the part of General de Gaulle, despite the most extreme opposition within his own territory, as we know, in giving French economic aid to Algeria to enable that country to maintain a Government, rightly or wrongly—it is not for us to
1010
judge—of its own choice. Although I do not want to press this parallel too far, is it not conceivable that, so far from America to-day offering economic aid to these harassed and distressed territories while American troops are still in that area, that economic aid would be far more effective and far better received in that area if it was preceded by a withdrawal, or a partial withdrawal, of American military forces there? As I say, I do not want to press the parallel of Algeria too far, but I think it is a significant factor which the whole of the world, and certainly public opinion in this country, might do well to take note of.
6.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I just seek to formulate briefly two questions on which I think the House would be interested to hear the Government's view when the Minister comes to reply? The first one touches the validity of the O.A.S. decision about these troops. My noble friend Lord Brockway has already mentioned it. At the relevant meeting of the Security Council, at which I happened to be present as a spectator, the Soviet delegate said to the Americans, "How do you justify calling this an O.A.S. operation when you need a two-thirds majority and, therefore, have to rely on the vote of the Dominican Republic, and the whole point of your intervention was that there was no Government of Dominica?" The United States delegate answered, "We should have had a two-thirds majority even without the vote of the Dominican Republic. There would have been a two-thirds majority of those present and voting without the Dominican Republic"—and, indeed, there was more than a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. But I have heard the interpretation held that the O.A.S. Treaty requires a two-thirds majority of the members, and if that is the correct interpretation, then an achievement of this majority did indeed depend on the Dominican vote. My question to the Government is this. Do we accept that as a valid decision under the Rio Treaty? Do we hold that it is a real O.A.S. operation which is going on?
My second question is this. A week or two ago, in the other place, the Foreign Secretary was questioned rather closely about the Government's attitude to this intervention, and he said, "Yes; we

1011
approve the initial sending of marines in order to protect American lives". But he was careful not to commit himself one way or the other as to his approval of their continued presence there now that the initial purpose of protecting American lives had been achieved. I should like to ask whether now, two or three weeks after that statement by the Foreign Secretary, the Minister can go further and say whether Her Majesty's Government still continue to approve of the marines who have now been there for six weeks or a couple of months?
6.8 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for asking this Question and for the, as always, admirable and restrained but very feeling way in which he did so. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part in such a helpful manner in this short debate.
It may perhaps be simpler if, before embarking on the main points at issue, I answer quite briefly the specific question of my noble friend Lord Segal concerning the 800 Australian troops who have been sent to Vietnam. The specific question as I understood it, was whether there was adequate consultation with ourselves and other members of the Commonwealth. Australia, of course, is an independent country, and is free to do whatever she likes with her own troops. We acknowledge that. But there was ample consultation. We were informed in good time before this took place, and we have no complaint at all, quite apart from the fact of whether or not the troops should have been sent, as to the manner in which they were sent. It was a very fine example of Commonwealth consultation.
In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for allowing me (and I hope he will agree that I achieve the purpose) to clear up some misunderstandings about President Johnson's remarks. I confess freely that when I first read of these remarks in the newspapers I was horrified. Later I was able to get the exact wording of his speech, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, quoted. I do not for a moment suggest that he deliberately did not go on to quote other relevant parts of it, but I will do so
1012
because I think it puts this matter in a slightly different, in fact a very different, perspective.
As my noble friend said, President Johnson spoke on May 2 and May 3 about the situation in the Dominican Republic, and he then said, as my noble friend has quoted:
"The American nations"—
and I would ask your Lordships to note the plural: it was not just "the American nation"—
"cannot, must not and will not permit the establishment of another Communist Government in the Western Hemisphere."
But he went on to explain why this was so. He said:
"This was the unanimous view of all the American nations when, in January, 1962. they declared—and I quote: 'the principles of Communism are incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system'."
Therefore, it was not simply the President of the United States saying what he felt with regard to the United States itself, or even what he felt the rest of the American nations should feel on it. He was merely reiterating an agreed policy statement agreed in January, 1962, at Punta de l'Este, when they all took this attitude concerning Communism. We may like it or we may not like it, but it is a fact that that is what the members of the O.A.S. agreed unanimously at that meeting.
LORD KENNET: My Lords I am sorry to interrupt, but may I do so for a moment? Is it not the fact that the President said that the American nations must not allow the establishment of another Communist Government in the Hemisphere, but the Punta de l'Este declaration said that the principles of Communism are incompatible with the inter-American system? That is not quite the same thing. There could be a Communist Government in the Hemisphere that did not belong to the inter-American system. Indeed, there is one already—I refer to Cuba.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, there is one in Cuba, but it is still against the unanimous agreement of the members of the O.A.S. The only point I wish to make, very clearly, is that the statement which has been attributed, by most people, solely to President Johnson was merely a restatement of an agreed policy.

1013
Whether that agreed policy has been fulfilled in certain places; whether or not there has been a difference in Cuba, is irrelevant to this point. I will not weary your Lordships with the actual quotations from the Punta de l'Este document but it spells out the position in a very clear manner.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am even more sorry to interrupt again, but it seems to me that it is not the same thing. What the noble Lord said is true only if the inter-American system is precisely the same as the Western Hemisphere.
LORD WALSTON: I am afraid that I cannot follow precisely the line of argument of my noble friend in this. To me—perhaps I am over-simple in these matters—the point at issue is whether the words stated by President Johnson, and the action taken by him in support of those words, were based solely on his own personal feelings, or of his country alone, or whether they represented the agreed views of the American States. I hope that what I have said will convince most noble Lords that the latter is the case. They do, I submit, establish very clearly the doctrine of the right of the American States, acting through the O.A.S. organ of consultation, to intervene to prevent the establishment of regimes which they regard as Communist.
But the matter does not end there, of course, because there is also, apart from the O.A.S., the United Nations. Therefore it is relevant to remind your Lordships that the Charter of the Organisation of American States specifically says, in Article 4, that the Organisation is founded
"to fulfil regional obligations under the Charter of the United Nations "
and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance also subordinates action under it to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore the first point, which I hope I have established to the satisfaction of most noble Lords, is that President Johnson was merely re-stating the agreed views of the American States; and, secondly, that the O.A.S. has no intention, and never has had any intention, of acting in contravention to the higher authority of the United Nations.
1014
I would break off here for a moment to agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway in his remarks about what he described as commendable revolt. Of course, there are occasions when I think not only those of us on this side of the House but all of us in this country, with what we call, and I think rightly, our liberal traditions, are happy to see people striving to liberate themselves from oppression, and taking steps where necessary to bring about a régime of social justice, instead of one of injustice and oppression. Certainly we on this side of the House, as my noble friend so eloquently said, view such actions very strongly indeed.
I would also agree here with what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, quite rightly pointed out: that frequently such movements—and he specifically and correctly mentioned the example of Czechoslovakia—good though they are in themselves, may often be taken over by an even more oppressive, or at least an equally oppressive, régime. We must bear that in mind when we see any movement of this kind taking place; and we must do what we can, through the United Nations, to support the true movements against injustice and for a better society, but to protect those countries against the evils which may so well befall them if the movements are taken over by the Communists.
I come to the more specific questions of the Dominican Republic at the present time, and the consultations which the noble Lord mentions in his Question. It is, of course, very difficult to have adequate consultation when something occurs very rapidly indeed, as it did in this case. When this took place, the Americans acted rapidly and, on their own initiative, sent in their own marines to protect the lives of their own people. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Organisation of American States, and at the present time, as your Lordships well know, the troops who are in the Dominican Republic, although to a large extent composed of United States troops, are under the authority of the O.A.S., and not of the United States alone.
With regard to the specific question which my noble friend Lord Kennet asked concerning the two-thirds majority, I understand (and I am no lawyer in these matters) that the United States

1015
interpretation of the voting procedure was, as we understand it here, quite correct, and that the Russian objection to it was ill-founded in law.
In connection with the relationship between the United States Government and the authority of the United Nations, I should like to remind your Lordships also of the remarks made by Governor Stevenson on May 22 at the United Nations, when he said:
"The appropriate relationship between the United Nations and regional organisations such as this one, the Organisation of American States, can be summarised, I think, in terms of the following principles."
I will not quote them all, but I will quote two of the relevant ones, using Governor Stevenson's words. One is:
"… the members of the United Nations, pursuant to Articles 33 and 52 of the Charter, should seek to deal with threats to the peace within a geographical region through regional arrangements before coming to the United Nations. This is precisely what the members of th OA.S. have done in the Dominican case."
He further said:
"… the Security Council should at all times be kept fully informed of actions undertaken by regional organisations. The O.A.S. is keeping the Security Council fully informed—witness the report you have just had from Dr. Mora through Mr. Mayobre this afternoon—and the Council has also arranged to keep itself informed through a representative of the Secretary General.
"The Security Council has the competence to deal with any situation which might threaten international peace and security. That competence is not at issue here. But the Security Council should not seek to duplicate or interfere with actions through regional arrangements so long as those actions remain effective and are consistent with our Charter."
That, I think, makes it clear that the United States Government's official representative at the United Nations is fully aware of the overriding authority of the United Nations and is not on behalf of his Government in any way attempting to circumvent it or take unilateral action in defiance of the United States' membership of the United Nations.
So far as the second part of my noble friend's Question goes, representations by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States, we have made it clear in private communications to the United States and other Governments, and also public state-
1016
ments in another place to which my noble friend, Lord Kennet, referred, and in the Security Council too, that Her Majesty's Government consider that in Latin America, as elsewhere, the use of armed force is subject to the obligations of the Charter, and that international security is the primary responsibility of the United Nations. These representations have been made, and made very clearly, and in re-stating these two principles. In the Security Council on May 13, on the express instructions of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Caradon said that he believed all members of the Council shared the conviction that it should rise to its responsibility and maintain its authority, and that those of its members who constantly preached the need for a stronger United Nations must be the principal protagonists of that cause.
A week later, on May 21, he told the Council
"The test of our words and our action in this Council should not be big power politics but always the interests of the people of the country we consider."
Therefore, I hope that there can be no doubt in the minds of your Lordships, or of anybody else, that the United States Government, through its declarations, is in line with the obligations that it carries as a member of the O.A.S. and, above all, of the United Nations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I intervene? How then can an explanation be given of the United States abstention from the Resolution of the Security Council for a cease-fire in Santo Domingo, and what is the explanation of the declarations of U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has expressed misgivings upon this matter?
LORD WALSTON: I think there are very many explanations of both those points, some of which I might be able to give and many of which I probably could not give very adequately. But, in any case, it would take too long to do so at this time—although this is an important question and time should not preclude us from discussing it. But there are, as the noble Lord knows, many technical reasons for abstentions on voting; even in another place that sometimes takes place. It does not mean you

1017
rebel against the authority once the decision has been taken. The United States has, through the words of Governor Stevenson, made it very clear that it is still adhering, as it has always done, to the United Nations. So I hope that that is clear to-day.
I hope it is also very clear where Her Majesty's Government stand in this matter. We are always prepared, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly, as seems to us best, to make our views known on these matters and, above all, on the overriding importance of the United Nations as a peace-keeping force. We are firmly convinced that peace in this world can come about only through collective security, through interdependence, and we do not believe that any Power, however great, has the right or the authority to force its will upon others, however small. We stand by that very firmly, and we believe that the great majority of our fellow members of the United Nations believe the same.
We are satisfied so far as the United States is concerned; we have consultations with them—we have many—and they are quite adequate. They are in no doubt as to what we feel and we are in no doubt as to what they feel. Finally, I repeat, we believe what they say and what Governor Stevenson on their behalf says: that they are still good members of the United Nations and of the O.A.S.

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.
BRIGHTON SKYDECK BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.