Lords Sitting of 4 May 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark
Several Lords—Took the Oath

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.35 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by Her own hand.
The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
2.36 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: 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 realise that we are no longer a Great Power; that we can no longer police the world; and that our present expenditure on defence no longer bears any relationship to our national resources.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the noble Lord makes three propositions. As to the first, the term "Great Power" is too imprecise for useful comment, but my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did point out in another place recently that this country is still a very considerable Power with great responsibilities in the world. As to the second, I do not know
408
in which particular period of recent history we thought we could police the world alone. However, the limitations which we accept on our contribution to peace-keeping were fully set out in the Statement on the Defence Review which was published last February. As for resources, the whole object of the Defence Review has been to bring defence expenditure into line with them.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply may I say that I am sure your Lordships will all agree—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BOOTHBY: May I ask whether your Lordships do not agree that it was with relief that we heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that something was to be done about the enormous expense of our Armed Forces in Germany, which are to many of us not serving any very useful purpose? Furthermore, may I ask your Lordships—
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He is empowered to ask a supplementary question of the Government, but he is not empowered to ask a supplementary question of the House.
LORD BOOTHBY: I do not know what I am empowered to do, but I am certainly going to be empowered to ask my next question, which is whether Her Majesty's Government think that, while there is no question about our duty to protect our oil interests in the Persian Gulf and in Malyasia so long as confrontation exists and we are needed there, it is necessary to maintain at full strength this enormous complex of obsolescent bases sprawling all over the world from Gibraltar to Singapore, and whether they do not think they could cut down a little without jeopardising vital defence interests?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it is a pity that the noble Lord did not take part in our recent Defence debate. The issues that he raises are so wide, and need such detailed consideration, that I do not think I can usefully comment upon them now.

OIL FROM COAL
2.43 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 what progress is being made in this country in the production of oil from coal, in view of the need to ensure full use of indigenous materials in the interest of the balance of payments; and whether inquiries are being made into a report that the U.S. Department of the Interior claims to have developed a process to make petrol from coal at prices below those of extracting it from crude oil, i.e., at 10½ to 13 cents a U.S. gallon against 12½ to 14 cents from crude oil.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, technological work on making oil from coal in this country was suspended in 1960 in implementation of a recommendation of the Wilson Committee on Coal Derivatives which found that the prospects of doing so economically were remote. There is close co-operation between the National Coal Board and those responsible for planning coal research in the U.S.A., and my right honourable friend is kept informed of the progress of American experiments. The process under examination in the U.S.A., to which my noble friend refers, was one of those inquired into by a delegation which visited the United States last October under these arrangements for collaboration. The delegation concluded that the process in question would not be capable of economic application in our own country, where the ratio of coal to oil prices is different from that obtaining in U.S.A.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. There is little else that can be said, and I believe it is quite obvious that this matter is being kept under attention.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, could my noble friend give an assurance that before consideration is given to vast capital expenditure upon the extraction of oil from coal, there will be an assessment of the full potentialities of obtaining gas from under the North Sea?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, of course assessments of the potentialities of all fuels are kept constantly in mind, but I think it should be said that the key factor in the question put by my noble friend Lord Leatherland is a comparison between coal and oil prices in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. Crude oil prices are about the same in both countries; that is approximately £ 6 to £ 7 per ton, which works out at 3½ to 4d. a therm; but whereas the average pithead coal price in the United States of America is about 1½d. a therm, the cheapest grade in Great Britain is just under 4d. a therm—more than double—and that is the governing factor.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will kindly reply to the question which I put to him?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the question which my noble friend put to me related to North Sea gas. I answered it by saying that all means of power and fuel were kept under consideration. That of course includes the supplies of North Sea gas.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while prices may be lower to-day in the glut of world oil, this may not last for ever and it is imperative to continue to try to get oil from the carbon in coal economically?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I am merely stating the present position, which is that the difference between 1½d. and 4d., as far as the coal prices are concerned, is a not unimportant factor. But my right honourable friend's Department and the National Coal Board are keeping in close contact with these developments overseas and they will continue to be kept so informed. However, I would say to my noble friend that we must have regard both to these indisputable facts and to the expert views of the National Coal Board.

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' PAY
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the Seventh Report of the Review Body on the Remuneration of Doctors and Dentists.

MATRIMONIAL HOMES BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales as to the rights of a husband or wife to occupy a dwelling-house which has been the matrimonial home; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

VIETNAM
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on their policy towards the war in Vietnam in view of the recent developments. The noble Lord: My Lords, I wish first to express appreciation to those who have co-operated in giving me the opportunity to put my Unstarred Question to-day, which will not only enable an exchange to be held between Ministers and Members of this House but will also give the opportunity for a debate. I appreciate especially the action of members of the Government who, despite great inconvenience, have agreed to the change in the procedure which has been accepted.
I wish to discuss the issue of the war in Vietnam, which is surely the most important event in international affairs to-day. Every one of us must be conscious of the responsibility which our words have in the present situation. I shall try to speak in that spirit. At this moment in Vietnam we are at the crossroads between an intensification of the war and its possible extension in Asia, and indeed in the world, and the tendencies which are now making themselves evident for progress towards peace.
The intensification of the war has been shown by a number of recent pronouncements. There is the statement of Mr. McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defence, that 50,000 tons of bombs were dropped in the one month of March upon North and South Vietnam, three times the monthly rate in the Korean War, and that
412
it is planned to drop 638,000 tons of bombs during the present year. This fate is less than the use of a nuclear bomb, but it approaches it. In the Korean war three million civilians were killed and five million people were made homeless and destitute, and the rate of destruction and death in Vietnam to-day is three times this appalling holocaust. Moreover, my Lords, the destructive power of the bombs to-day is intensely increased. The "Lazy Dog" splinter bomb had not been invented at the time of the Korean War, and the napalm bomb did not cling so intimately and so devastatingly to burn human bodies which it touched. We now have the up-to-date weapon which destroys in the villages and among the population of Vietnam children and women as well as men, who are being sprayed and cruelly tortured to death by this infamously cruel weapon.
Quite apart from the inhuman tragedy of what is happening to the people of Vietnam, who have gone through 25 years of struggle for their own self-determination, against Japan, against France, previously to the present struggle, there are indications from at least the Pentagon—though I do not think it represents the whole of the American Government—of an extension of the bombing which is taking place. It is now nearing the suburbs of Hanoi in North Vietnam. It is nearing the port of Haiphong. It was officially announced this week, for the first time, that the American attack had gone over the frontiers of Cambodia. I recognise at once that the troops of the National Liberation Front may have withdrawn over that border and that in those circumstances the Americans were militarily justified in meeting their continued fire. Unfortunately neither the Government of Cambodia nor the Government of Laos is yet in a position to intern troops which cross into their territory. But this very fact illustrates the danger that the war in Vietnam may spread to new areas, into Cambodia, into Laos, over South-East Asia, challenging China. We have recently also had the disturbing news that in North Vietnam the American jet planes have been met by MiGs said to have been supplied from China (I think they are much more likely to have been supplied from Soviet Russia), and the threat that such assistance in the provision of planes would be met by retaliation on China.
My Lords, I am trying to take an objective view of the situation and I do not pretend for one moment that the intensification of the war is all due to the American side. There has been evidence in recent weeks of the growing infiltration of troops from North Vietnam into South Vietnam. And to-day we have to face the very serious position that there is an increased probability of external Communist intervention in the war in Vietnam. Soviet Russia is now succeeding for the first time in calling a representative international conference representing Communist countries at which North Vietnam will be present, despite the disapproval of China. We should be deluding ourselves if we did not expect at that conference greater pressure than ever for Communist intervention and support for North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam. I say, with the utmost seriousness and gravity, that unless these tendencies to intensify and extend the war are met, the danger of world war will be real before the end of this year.
I want to look at the other side and the more hopeful picture of the progress towards peace. There has recently been, in the territories which are under the control of the American armies and the Saigon administration, what is no less than rebellion. It has been led by the Buddhist community, the majority community within South Vietnam. It is not, however, only a revolt by the Buddhist community against the Ky militarist régime supported by the United States of America. A most significant fact, which has not been widely reported in this country, is that two major groups of the Catholic community have now formed a national front with the Buddhists in the Saigon area of South Vietnam in order to overthrow this military régime.
The revolt has taken place, not only in Saigon but in every town in the whole of the area of South Vietnam which is under the control of the American forces and the Saigon Government, and we should be taking a short-sighted and limited view if we thought for one moment that this was merely a protest against the military régime of Marshal Ky. The people of South Vietnam, whether they are in the Saigon territory or in the much larger territory under the
414
control of the National Liberation Front, have the same instinctive reactions to foreign occupation as any people in any country in the world have, and as we should have in similar circumstances.
Saigon and the other towns in the Saigon area are now among the most artificial and corrupt societies in the whole of the world. They are towns under American occupation; they are towns where the Americans have their camp followers in hotels, in restaurants, in the shops, in night clubs; where an American soldier renting a room at a hotel has a Vietnamese prostitute placed at his disposal. This is the most artificial, corrupt and immoral society in any part of the world to-day, and, except for those dependent upon American dollars, among the masses of the people there are rising prices, because of the American ability to spend; there is increasing poverty and distress, and there is increasing anger against these overlords in their towns and cities.
The protest that was reflected in the Buddhist revolt is a natural protest against people who are under alien domination. The strength of that protest is shown by the surrender of Marshal Ky to the Buddhist demands. There is to be an election in August of a National Assembly which is to meet in September. From all the experience there has been in Vietnam we must be a little reluctant to believe that that election of a National Assembly will be free and democratic. But our Government here has to face the fact which now the American Government is slowly beginning to face; that the case that was put by America, that the war in Vietnam is a war between the North and the South for the defence of the South against the North, is now crumbling to bits; and if there are free and democratic elections, even within the Saigon area, in August there is little doubt that a Government will be returned which will be seeking peace in Vietnam, and seeking peace negotiations with the National Liberation Front, to obtain self-determination for the people of South Vietnam, and the end of any foreign occupation of their territory.
I think it is worth while to-day to look at the American reaction to this situation. The whole case for American intervention in Vietnam is now collapsing. That case was the defence of South

415
Vietnam against Communist North Vietnam. It is now becoming clear that the people of South Vietnam want peace, and are prepared to negotiate that peace with their fellow Vietnamese who are in the National Liberation Front. I will not dwell on this, but the proposal of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam—called by the Americans Viet Cong—is for a Coalition Government in South Vietnam, representing not only the National Liberation Front but the Buddhists and the Catholics. On that basis, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that peace with national support can be secured in South Vietnam.
These events have caused new thinking in America. I am most impressed by what Senator Richard Russell, the Chairman of the Senate Defence Committee, has said. Senator Richard Russell has been regarded as one of the hawks, as distinct from the doves. Nevertheless, he says that if, on investigation, the majority of South Vietnamese people want America out, the United States should withdraw her forces. A large proportion of both Houses at the Capitol—it is said to be as large as 40 per cent. of Representatives and Senators—now wants a modification of Government policy. It is certainly backed by leading Americans, such as Robert Kennedy, Senator Fulbright, Senator Mansfield, Senator Jacob Javits and others.
The British Press has reported on the National Opinion Poll in America which indicates that the majority of Americans are still behind the policy of President Johnson. The most remarkable fact here is that over 30 per cent. of the people in the National Opinion Polls in America declared for the withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam. There has never been a war in modern times—a war in which one's Government is engaged in actual hostilities, when one's own boys are involved at the front—when such a proportion has been opposed to the continuation of the war. Something is happening to-day to American opinion of which our Government should be taking notice. I have no doubt whatsoever that President Johnson is now making an agonising reappraisal of the situation. I have no doubt that he is making efforts for peace between these two tendencies, that of the Pentagon and that manifested
416
by the more reasonable elements in the Secretary of State's Department, which are now clashing. I welcome the news announced to-day, that Mr. Averell Harriman, President Johnson's special ambassador, and the Roumanian Prime Minister, Mr. Maurer, are meeting at the International Red Cross Centre in Geneva. It is expected that they will be discussing more than the condition of the prisoners on both sides, and I hope that this will be true.
I want to add one other element to this very deep modification of opinion in America itself. It is the new situation in South-East Asia as a whole; it is the new balance of forces. One saw South-East Asia, with great Communist China in the North, and with the great Indonesian archipelago of 100 million people in the South disposed towards China. There has now been a change in Indonesia. I am not for one moment going to endorse all that has happened, certainly not the appalling massacres which have taken place; but the new situation has now changed the whole balance of forces in South-East Asia. This must require a reconsideration of policies by the West, particularly by our own Government. I welcome the contribution made by the Government to Indonesia's economic development. I also welcome the fact that there is now on the part of our Government a new attitude towards the settlement of the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation. I hope that it will take place on the basis of the Manila Agreement, which existed even before Malaysia was established. I submit to your Lordships that that change in the balance of power in South-East Asia must have a very considerable effect when we are thinking of developments in Vietnam.
I want to say this to my own Front Bench—and I have never doubted the sincerity of this Government in seeking peace in Vietnam; I have had my personal discussions both with the Prime Minister and with the Foreign Secretary, and that has been doubly evident to me. From the first I have taken the view that those efforts towards peace were prejudiced by the undiluted support given by our Government to the United States of America. I say this to our Government: not only can the United States not justify its actions in Vietnam on the

417
ground that it is a defence of the South against the North; our own Government cannot now justify that argument. For it is becoming increasingly evident that the majority of the people of South Vietnam are against the war in which the Americans have been engaged and are against the Government which the Americans have propped up in South Vietnam.
I want to submit to our Government that in this new situation they should reconsider their policy. Because I so earnestly desire peace, I want to see pressure being put on the United States and upon the Government of North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front. Our Government can still influence the United States. The non-aligned Governments—Marshal Tito, and President Nasser are at this moment in consultation to call a new conference for this purpose—can influence North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front. France can bring influence to bear, as can Russia, because, despite its commitment to the cause of the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front, Russia sincerely desires peace in the world. I beg whoever replies to this debate for the Government not to point to past failures in this direction: I am aware of them; I have participated in them. But we now have a new situation in face of which our Government must take a constructive attitude towards peace.
I welcome the fact that, during the Election, spokesmen for our Government said that there was no intention to send British troops to Vietnam. I need not warn the Government of the strength of protest that would arise if any suggestion of that kind were to be considered. I want now to make one further appeal to the Government. We have British police in Saigon who, apparently, are responsible for the maintenance of law and order there; and in Saigon, and in all the other towns of the Saigonese territory (if I may coin a word) there are these popular demonstrations against the Government of Saigon. It would be absolutely disastrous to future good will in Asia if British police were ever used for the suppression of the will of the Vietnamese people. Incidentally, may I just add this comment? I have regretted that Australia and New Zealand have sent their troops there, but I have taken pride in the attitude of the Australian
418
Labour Party, in the much more difficult circumstances of a country near to South-East Asia, opposing the sending of Australian soldiers to Vietnam. Also, in New Zealand, despite an approaching Election, the Labour leadership is saying, "We will reconsider sending troops to Vietnam, and at least will limit any aid to technical assistance."
My Lords, I want to conclude by making quite constructive proposals. There is to be an election in the Saigon area in August—at least, we hope that that pledge will be fulfilled and there is to be a meeting of the National Assembly in September. I want to ask the British Government to use the influence which I recognise is still in their power, particularly with their greater majority now, to urge upon the American Government that a truce should be called in the fighting in Vietnam during that election in August, and until the meeting of the National Assembly in September. I ask for a cease-fire, a truce, during the month of the election until the Assembly meets in Saigon in September. If that could be achieved, it would be the beginning of the end of the war.
I want to make another suggestion, and this is an appeal to the non-aligned Governments, and to those of France and Russia. It is that North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front should accept any proposal of this kind. They, to our regret, have previously declined opportunities of negotiation, but now they have everything on their side. They now have the rebellion in the Saigon area against the continuation of the war. I want to suggest to them, not only that the truce should be accepted in August and September, but that the National Liberation Front should agree to a simultaneous election in the area of South Vietnam controlled by them. I suggest, also, that that election should take place under the supervision of the International Control Commission of India, Poland and Canada. I believe that those constructive proposals, supported by our own Government and accepted by America, backed by the non-aligned Governments and by France and Russia, might bring us some hope that at this critical cross-roads of history Vietnam will move not towards the road of extended war but towards the road to peace.
3.25 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, a lot has happened since we last had a debate on Vietnam in this House. Thousands and thousands of villagers have been killed, their homes burned, their children, if not dead, perhaps maimed for life. The gravest thing of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, is that the war is escalating. In this country the question of Vietnam was deliberately kept out of the General Election, but I suggest that the majority of people here are absolutely horrified by this war and would welcome Britain's dissociating herself from the American Pentagon so that she could help to make peace in Vietnam. I do not think President Johnson had any right at all to consider that the big victory of the Labour Party in the Election was a blank cheque for him and that the British people would support him in the war in Vietnam. I welcome very much a large advertisement in the middle page of The Times the other day, signed by people who are anything but Left, saying that they dissociated themselves from President Johnson's remarks.
In the Queen's Speech, Vietnam was glossed over. We were merely told that Her Majesty's Government are seeking ways for getting peace. I am absolutely sure that the British Government are quite sincere in this, but I do not see how they are going to manage to be taken seriously as an independent peacemaker as long as we are tied to the tails of the American Pentagon. I was sitting in the Gallery in the other place the other day when the Prime Minister was questioned about bombing getting very near Hanoi. I was disturbed at the way the questions were simply brushed aside by one sentence, such as "Hanoi is not bombed" and similar answers. I was also disturbed at our Foreign Secretary's not having budged one inch since we last discussed this matter in the House, and at the fact that we are still fully behind the American policy in Vietnam.
Meanwhile, things are stirring amongst the people in this country. The Scottish T.U.C. have come out against what is happening in Vietnam. There has been the action of the Shopworkers' Union. We have had large marches and demonstrations, very largely, of the youth; and although the youth may not have the vote before 21, I consider they are becom-
420
ing more and more political, especially on foreign affairs and in their demand for decency and justice and real common sense. The Council of Churches has also raised its voice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, about 37 per cent. of the people in America are now questioning, or are against, the policy of their Pentagon on the war in Vietnam, and the Government has now been forced to recognise this opposition. In the past these people were treated more or less as unpatriotic traitors, but now, because the movement has grown so quickly and so large, the Government has to argue with them, reason with them and treat them as a legitimate opposition. The American Labour Movement is now stirring; and their Government Committees, as we have seen on our own television, are questioning some of McNamara's policies very openly and hard indeed. Yet on May 2 the United States Government said that it needed more napalm for the Vietnam war. It had recently awarded an 11-million dollar contract for the production of 100 million pounds of the stuff to a company in Redwood City, California, but the people from this city strongly objected to their city spawning what is believed to be the first large-scale production since the Korean war of this unpleasant fire-bomb. That is the sort of thing that is happening in America to-day. To think that they are going out to produce more and more and more of this horror!
Every week the American military build-up in Vietnam goes on. Last week, thousands more soldiers were drafted to Vietnam. The war is escalating. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has told us how many tons of bombs they plan to drop on Vietnam this year. What Lord Brockway did not quote were Mr. McNamara's following words. After boasting about the bombs, he said:
"We are a very peculiar people. We should be proud of what we are doing there, in applying an unlimited military power in pursuit of a limited political objective".
"Proud", my Lords! He said that the objective was
"simply to guarantee self-determination for the Vietnamese people."
Is that not exactly what the Vietnamese people have been trying to get all these years?

421
However, there are some sane American voices in their Government. Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he found it difficult to be proud of American military power. He said.
"It is very difficult to think of any country in history which had comparable power and did not become very arrogant and self-righteous, and did not seek to impose its will on other people".
My Lords, the whole human spirit is losing its sensitivity to-day. More and more horrors are taken for granted. Men are being trained to perpetuate them and to accept them as part of their job. Perhaps some of your Lordships saw the two films recently shown on "Panorama", which showed American troops being taught all about torture and having their faces covered with red ink to make it more realistic.
The danger of escalation is very acute indeed, and that is the most serious and important thing to-day. Bombing is getting nearer and nearer to Hanoi, nearer and nearer to China. Air battles are now taking place right on the border of China. So much so that Senator Robert Kennedy has asked:
"…what would be the Chinese response if her territory is bombed or her air space invaded? Will the Chinese seek to strike at our bases—in Vietnam or Siam, or aboard our aircraft-carriers? And if they do, what then will our response be—further bombings? And if the scale of the bombing increases, will China confine herself to air fighting—or will she send her troops to engage ours on the ground in South Vietnam,?'…He viewed 'with the gravest concern' the recent clashes between the latest types of U.S. and Soviet-built fighter planes over North Vietnam and the reaffirmation that China would be no sanctuary."
He went on to say:
"This was a clear escalation of the war…"
A still different angle of the danger of the escalation of the war is seen by Senator Fulbright.
"A second danger foreseen by Mr. Fulbright is 'the stirring up of a war fever in the minds of our people and leaders,' which was likely to grow and cause mounting popular demand for an expanded war, 'for a lightning blow that will get it over at a stroke'. This way led to global war."
However, because of world opinion, public pressure inside America, the military bog-down and the tremendous hostility to the Saigon Government, President
422
Johnson has now declared that he is ready for unconditional peace talks and a return to the Geneva Agreement. But, unfortunately, every time he says this one knows there is going to be increased bombing the next day. That has happened every time. It is always followed by intensified bombing. How can Hanoi come to the peace table or take things seriously when this happens? Hanoi is blamed for making no response to President Johnson's peace talks, and our Government echo these views in complete subservience. But what about General Ky in Honolulu the man that America is backing? He got very worried when President Johnson started to begin to talk about negotiating, and immediately put it out that the South Vietnam Government would not negotiate.
Now the answer always comes back that Hanoi is the aggressor. But are these not really some of the facts? In 1956 there were supposed to be elections to unify the country, which had previously always been one country; but by 1959 the patience of the South Vietnamese, the peasants, and the people of the country, was absolutely exhausted because there had not been any elections. Diem had refused to have them. So the National Liberation Front was formed to get rid of Diem. The American intervention in Vietnamese affairs followed, and afterwards a full-scale war broke out. Is Hanoi to be called the aggressor if she wants to help her own countrymen? Because it was one country. That is the point we must really keep in our minds. If England were in the same situation, if a foreign army were occupying Southern England, would you Scotsmen not come to our help, and would you not be furious at being called the aggressors?
Since our Government unfortunately go on echoing these American accusations against Hanoi, I think that the views of those in Hanoi should be looked at seriously—not in hot blood, but trying to treat them as human beings, as a Government of intelligent people. First of all, they say, "Stop the bombing", naturally, "and withdraw troops from the territory of our fellow countrymen in the South". Is that not absolutely natural? Then they say, "The affairs of South Vietnam must be settled by the South Vietnamese people themselves". Is

423
that not all right? Then, "Pending peaceful reunification, as in the Geneva Agreement, neither zone must join any military alliance". Is that not an absolutely fair, safe, sane demand? And then they want reunification without any foreign interference.
The Americans say that the troops will be withdrawn once peace is assured. It seems to me that these are the two sides of the question: When is peace going to be assured? And how can one trust that they will retire when peace has been restored—since the Geneva Agreement was never allowed to be carried out? I can see that Hanoi has tremendous doubts and is terrified of falling into another trap. And what kind of "decision" would the South Vietnamese have in choosing their own Government if the elections were held under more than a quarter of a million American bayonets? But unfortunately, as I have said before, the British Government stick to the American Government under the slogan, more or less, of "My ally, right or wrong." But it is no longer a war between two Vietnamese régimes; it is war between America and the Vietnamese people. That is why Saigon, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway told us, is now putting up slogans all over the place: "Yanks, go home!"
I feel it is descreditable—and I am sorry to say it—that, in spite of increased world revulsion, the Labour Government have not added their voice to the growing protests of the world to-day against all this bombing and what is happening. Mr. Wilson has denied—Thank goodness, it was not true!—that the reason we were behind the Americans was because of dollars. I am glad that that is not true; I am sure that it is not true. But I cannot understand what it is that does tie us so absolutely uncritically to the Americans' apron strings. This policy of ours, of unquestioned support of America is, I think, doing us tremendous harm in Asia and in Africa, and will continue to do so in the future as those countries develop; and one knows that the Americans themselves do not respect people who do not stand up to them. I feel convinced that this year other trade unions will be following the example of the Scottish T.U.C., that our youth will
424
get more vociferous against this war as the year goes on; and that it will happen all over the world.
I am sure that we have got to stop accusing Hanoi of being the aggressor and to stop saying, "Hanoi will not negotiate"; and really try to understand the situation and get independence ourselves, so that we can do something about it as co-chairman of the Geneva Agreement. Thousands of thousands of tons of napalm and high explosive do not provide the atmosphere in which to negotiate; so, obviously, first of all the bombing has got to stop. Vietnam must be allowed to become one country and to settle what kind of régime they want for themselves. My Lords, there are two Americas to-day. One is a little smaller than the other (at the moment, 37 per cent.), but I think it is getting bigger all the time. I hope that our Government, our Socialist Government, will put all their efforts in support of that other America which agrees with the principle that all nations should settle their own affairs. If we could dissociate ourselves from the Pentagon side of America, we could at once make a reality of our Government's wish to go forward and help bring about peace.

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' PAY
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just made in another place, about doctors' and dentists' pay. His words were:
"I should like to make a Statement about the latest Report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, covering the next two years, which is being published to-day. I should like to express the Government's gratitude to the Review Body for the sustained and intensive work they have put into the conduct of this particularly difficult review.
"The Government accept all the Review Body's recommendations in principle and are at once making arrangements to implement those for hospital doctors and dentists, and for general dental practitioners, in full

425
with effect from April 1, 1966, at an estimated cost in the current financial year of about £ 12 million. The average percentage increases in net remuneration are 13·4 for hospital doctors and dentists and 10·6 for general dental practitioners.
"For general medical practitioners it is estimated that full implementation of the recommendations would cost some £ 28 million this year and would involve an increase of about a third in aggregate net income. The Government agree with the Review Body that special considerations of workload and manpower in general practice justify an exceptionally large increase in remuneration for general practitioners. In the light however both of current economic difficulties and of their general policy for prices and incomes, the Government have decided that they would not be justified in implementing an increase of this magnitude in a single immediate step. They accordingly propose that the Review Body's recommendations should be implemented in two stages. The first stage would apply retrospectively from April 1, 1966, and would be designed to increase net income by about half the full amount, or rather more than 15 per cent. The second stage, completing the implementation of the Review Body's recommendations, would take effect from April 1, 1967. The Government are willing to discuss with the profession how this can best be achieved and are putting forward their own proposals.
"A third and final Report on the negotiations between the Health Departments and the profession about the proposed new contract for family doctors is also being published to-day, and the Minister of Health is to-day writing to the Chairman of the General Medical Services Committee to convey the Government's proposals as regards both the contract and remuneration."
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement to the House. It is a very important Statement and it deals with what is going to be a very expensive matter. I have no doubt that the medical profession as a whole is, and has been, of the opinion that the Gov-
426
ernment were morally obliged to accept the recommendations, whatever they were, of the Review Body without referring them to the Prices and Incomes Board. Whether other wage and salary earners will think so is another matter, because the increases recommended by the Review Body are obviously far in excess of anything that could be reconciled with the Government's incomes policy as a whole.
May I ask the noble Earl just two general questions? First, what effect do the Government think their decision to accept in principle the Review Body's recommendations will have on the incomes policy as a whole? Secondly, I should like to ask whether the Government expect that the medical profession will accept that general medical practitioners alone of the doctors concerned should not get the whole of the recommended increase in one step?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful for the careful tone of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I think that I can only give him a personal answer to the questions he has put. I feel that I cannot avoid them, but equally, I cannot commit the Government to my view of these rather speculative matters. I would hope that the line taken by the Government here is the one best calculated to assist the incomes policy. It shows that the Government pay great attention to the advice of very well qualified bodies of this kind. Moreover, it shows that they make tremendous efforts, as on this occasion, to soften any impact that might appear undesirable. As regards the attitude of the medical profession, there are distinguished members of that profession in this House whose opinions might be more valuable than my own, but I hope for the best.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I join in expressing gratitude to the Review Body for the work which they have done? Would the noble Earl agree that general medical practitioners, as well as hospital doctors, have been leaving the country not only because of offers of better remuneration but often because of offers of far better working conditions? Therefore, may I ask whether the first stage to which reference has been made in the Statement applies only to net income; or whether it will also deal with requests for help

427
for better treatment over ancillary assistance for doctors, and the improvement of premises, and other matters affecting working conditions? I should be obliged if the noble Earl could say to what extent that is covered in this first stage.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I would rather have a little more notice of that question. As the noble Lord is aware, the arrangements being reached with the medical profession refer to a new system of remuneration as well as to the actual pricing within that system, and I would hope that, apart from the actual pricing, the new system, which certainly one hopes would be accepted, would itself be beneficial along the lines which the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he expects the trade unions who represent the £ 9-a-week man to accept the 3½ per cent. norm in the light of this enormous increase?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I appreciate the gravity of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. He will be aware that this extremely well qualified Review Body has taken that factor into account. They point to the special circumstances in the case of the medical profession. The incomes policy was never supposed to apply across the board without any qualification at all, but I recognise the gravity of what the noble Lord has in mind. If it were not for that kind of consideration I have no doubt there would not have been this delay in the implementation.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when the medical profession last received an increase in remuneration?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: A large part of the profession received it last year.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I anticipate for the noble Earl the criticisms of members of the medical profession? They will wonder why the general practitioner has been discriminated against for this reason. This Review Body has been sitting for some years, and during that time large numbers of young general practitioners have left the country. The result has been that the older general practitioners have been holding the fort. Postponing full
428
implementation for the older men—for that is what it means—in this country will make them feel that they are being called upon to bear a hardship which perhaps the Government never considered.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should be much surprised if the present Minister of Health, who I think is perhaps as good a Minister of Health as we have had in this country, has not considered all these aspects. I feel quite certain that he has.

VIETNAM
3.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, my political philosophy has been fairly well known in both Houses of Parliament. My political instincts prompt me always to oppose dictatorship of the Right and of the Left and to regard war as a means of settling disputes as a primitive conception. But perhaps that has to do with the fact that I belong to a sex which is not called on to indulge in the rather brutal scenes that are depicted on television in these days. Nevertheless, this television of ours does do this, and I think it serves a very useful purpose. It brings into our home a picture of what is happening in distant parts of the world, and it has brought the Vietnam war into our homes. I feel that no individual in this House, or in the other House, can feel he is not involved in it in any way.
Britain, my Lords, is not only a sleeping partner in this war, in this anachronism. The majority of American servicemen are European in origin and they speak our language. I believe that this diminishes us all. I would say, in parenthesis, that it seems paradoxical that one reads about crimes of violence and allied perversion in our newspapers and at the same time young soldiers are encouraged to regard killing and torture as part of their legitimate training in the military arts. All this makes a mockery of the debate we had yesterday, when speaker after speaker stood up and discussed how we could train our young men to think along lines which perhaps were more pacific than their usual approach to life. How can we reform

429
the potential criminals in this country, in the United States, in Vietnam, or in any other country of the world while our young men are indoctrinated by such example?
I read in the Guardian yesterday (this is what prompted me to speak today) that information had reached the newspaper through Swedish diplomatic sources that the Soviet Union had managed to arrange a conference of Communist Powers to agree on a course of action on Vietnam. I confess that my first reaction was that of someone who had watched the bullying of a small man by a big man for too long and now another big man was coming along to pull him off. That was a primitive reaction. My second reaction, of course, was to picture the possibility of world involvement in a war which is arousing racial passions in every continent. These pictures we see in our homes go throughout the world, and men and women identify themselves with the men and women and children in those pictures.
The question we want to ask the Government at this stage—because I feel with my noble friends who have just spoken that we have reached a stage, surely, when we must look at the whole picture again—is, can we look forward to the end of this futile slaughter before other Powers are committed? We learn of the bombing of North Vietnam. Yet more North Vietnamese troops and supplies are entering South Vietnam than ever before. Officials in Washington wishfully think that the war can be won early next year, but this is wholly discounted by Saigon. General Westmorland has repeated on many occasions that the war will be long-drawn-out.
The figures are easy to remember. The Viet Cong now have about a quarter of a million men under arms in South Vietnam; the United States have approximately the same; and there are about three-quarters of a million in the South Vietnamese forces, including the police forces. But men and arms are not the sole determining factor—the French learned that to their cost. The monsoon season, the thick jungles and the mountain areas are formidable allies of the Viet Cong. However much we see these great, tough, pathetic Americans being taught jungle warfare, they cannot in a few weeks or a few months learn how to conduct war
430
under those conditions. Furthermore, the Buddhists' political action—and the Buddhists command tremendous respect in the whole of South-East Asia is threatening to bring down the military dictatorship.
I want to ask my noble friend a question, and I hope he will try to answer. I am also trying to help. I think that taking part in a constructive way in this debate strengthens the hands of our spokesmen with the spokesmen of the United States. We know by now that there are many in the United States who feel as we do, if the elections are held—and the Buddhists will not tolerate undue delay—and the new Government asks the Americans to leave, what is to happen? I think we have a right to ask. After all, as has already been said, Britain has echoed the declaration of the United States that they are there to preserve democracy. We have sat here quietly in this House all these months because we have been told that the object is to preserve democracy. What can be their justification for staying if a democratically elected Government tells them to leave? Would the United States defy them and try to destroy the Viet Cong from a few coastal bases? At this stage I think we should be told what is to be the strategy. The French failed after six years of fighting—and I have forgotten the colossal number of young Frenchmen whose lives were sacrificed in that ridiculous and futile attempt to continue to occupy that country.
I suspect that the United States would like to withdraw now but fears to lose face, now that it has been announced during the last 48 hours that the Communist countries are coming together with a view to seeing what can be done about this situation, we should anticipate what might happen. I feel that it is not just a question of losing face but that the Government should, on what I am told is the "hot line" to President Johnson, tell him that it is better to lose face with dignity than to invite humiliation.
4.5 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, when he commenced his speech, said that this was one of the most serious issues that we have to face. I agree with him. But it is an issue which is not going to be decided by student demonstrations; it is not going to be decided by public opinion

431
polls; it is not going to be decided by slogans, nor even advertisements in The Times from ladies and gentlemen, however distinguished. Few things, I think, are more dangerous than a person who goes to a locality, spends a short time there, and then comes back posing as a "know-all" and possibly writing a book.
Nevertheless, it is possible to go to an area and gather authoritative opinions from all sides. Quite recently I had the opportunity of going to Singapore and Thailand and talking to many people of all nationalities represented in those places. One can get two views. One can get the view that if America pulled out of South Vietnam the Viet Cong would walk into the country, greeting their brothers. I must say that I found Lord Milford's view that Hanoi wishes to help their comrades slightly strange, having heard first-hand of the complete obliteration of a South Vietnamese village. It had been occupied by the Viet Cong, then the South Vietnamese had come back, and then again the Viet Cong had returned; and because the village had accepted the South Vietnamese, the Viet Cong took every man, woman and child and murdered them and burned the village down. I find that a difficult thing to accept as a method of helping your friends.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, after two world wars. I think we have to be careful about atrocity stories.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I will let that go. You can get that view. It reminds me of Hitler saying: "This is my last territorial aim". Then you get the view, which I found much more widely held, that this is a war in aid, not of democracy, but of freedom, and that the issue is twofold: first, it is an issue local; and secondly, it is an issue almost global. The local issue is whether the South Vietnamese shall or shall not come under Communist domination. The global issue is that if this happened, would it be the start of the capture by the Communists of Thailand and then going further West right through to India? That seems to me to be the issue. It is a fringe war.
If one looks at history, one sees that Britain in the 19th century and early in the 20th century was doing very much
432
more what America is having to do now: that is, fight a war on a fringe, on an outpost, on a frontier, in aid of a cause which they feel is vital. We did it in the 19th century, and we did it in Malaysia in the 20th century. America is doing it now. As such, I feel it is our task, if we can, to fight against a surrender to the Communist advancement throughout the free world, and to support America in her present policy, as Her Majesty's Government are doing. I would say at once that there is no final military solution; the final solution must be political. But let it be a political solution not under the threat and the shadow of Communism. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and other noble Lords, said, "Bombing must stop." I do not think one can isolate bombing. It is part of a military operation. It is part of an operation combined with action by ground troops, and possibly naval ships. If you say, "Stop the bombing", you are virtually saying, "Stop all fighting and surrender to the other side." I do not believe that that would be a wise or a sensible policy to follow in the interests of the Free World.
I sincerely hope that we in this House can express sympathy and not condemnation of the Americans—sympathy for the lives that are being lost, and for the mothers who are losing their sons in Vietnam in the ultimate cause which we share with them. I hope we can express admiration for the American troops. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, talked about "fat young Americans". I believe she used that expression.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I said that they were pathetic.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think one ought to admire those young men who are being trained for jungle warfare for what they are doing, and not to criticise them in any shape or form.
I think Her Majesty's Government are in a difficult position. They are supporting American policy in its broadest terms, and yet we in this country are not sending any troops. I should not like to send troops; I entirely agree with Her Majesty's Government on that. But, nevertheless, we are now obtaining the benefit of the security of the fringe war which the Americans are conducting.

433
Equally in the past they on their part have obtained the credit and security from the fringe wars that we have fought, particularly in Malaysia. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will take the view that, although there is no military solution in the long term, nevertheless it is a necessary part of the final solution which we hope will be arrived at, to continue to resist aggression which, if successful, would suppress liberty, not only in Vietnam, but probably throughout the whole of the Eastern World.
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything in this debate because we have discussed this matter so often lately, including, in the debate on the Address. I intervene only for one moment because of what has just been said about discounting atrocities. I think I ought to say that all our information, both official and unofficial, is to the effect that the Viet Cong rule by terror. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who talked in his intervention about discounting atrocities after two world wars, thinks we ought entirely to discount what happened at Lidice in the last war, and in more than one French village, in which the inhabitants were all massacred by the Nazis because they tried to support Resistance movements. That is an exact parallel to what is happening now in Vietnam, where the villagers want to be allowed to live their own lives in peace. They do not want to he conquered by anybody. The reason why they are often constrained, either to co-operate with the aggressor, or to refrain from resisting him, is exactly the same reason why so many wretched people in Czechoslovakia, France, and the other occupied territories, had to some extent to collaborate with the Nazis in the last war.
I do not want to add anything more. We believe that this is a case where a weak country is being invaded by an aggressor who is stronger than it is. I think it is a pity to obscure that principle by trying to make out that all the horrible things are being done by one side and not by the other. The truth is that the ultimate responsibility for all the horrible things that happen in any war must surely lie with the aggressor who refuses to negotiate.
4.16 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I at the outset apologise to your Lordships, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Brockway, for my absence during the early stages of this debate. I explained the reasons to my noble friend, who was as usual very understanding. I can assure your Lordships that it was only an essential engagement which had been entered into prior to the change of programme which forced me to do so.
As usual, the debate on this subject has been carried on in a thoughtful, informed, and helpful manner, and for that I am grateful. My noble friend Lord Brockway in his original Question drew attention to the recent changes which have taken place in South Vietnam, and suggested that that was sufficient reason for a new look at this whole problem. I can assure my noble friend that there is a new look continuously going on at the whole of this area, and at the difficulties which confront it. It is not simply when a particular headline-striking event takes place that the old files are dug out and we say, "What can be done now?" We are weekly, and daily, studying the problem and seeing what can be done to bring the present state of affairs to an end.
The present situation in South Vietnam undoubtedly has changed the internal situation in South Vietnam itself with regard to the present Government and, of course, with regard to the future elections. I should like to assure noble Lords that, in spite of the difficulties which Marshal Ky's Government has experienced during these last weeks, there is no indication whatsoever that those in South Vietnam who are opposed to him, and in particular the Buddhists, are in any way anxious to hand their country over to a Communist-dominated Government of any kind. In fact, one of the more extreme Buddhist leaders has said:
"It is agreed by all that the struggle against Communism here must be met with the assistance of the Americans."
So I think it would be highly misleading if noble Lords and others went away with the impression that the opposition to Marshal Ky and his colleagues stems from those who would rather see a Communist Government take over.
As for the new elections, I share my noble friend's hopes in this. I should

435
certainly share his desire that these might take place, not only in those areas which are controlled by the Government of Saigon, but also in those areas which are controlled by the Viet Cong. I think that that would be a highly important step forward. As my noble friend suggested, if these elections were supervised so that the world at large could be satisfied of their authenticity, by something like an International Control Commission, that of course would add inestimably to their value. If the Viet Cong showed any willingness to arrange for them to take place in their territories, to allow the International Control Commission to look after the elections, and were themselves prepared to enter into a truce during the period of those elections—and a truce, I would remind your Lordships, involves not only a truce in the actual fighting but a truce in the build-up of the materials of war and the supply routes also—if anything of that kind were at all possible, I can assure my noble friends and the House that Her Majesty's Government would use their strongest endeavours to persuade—if persuasion were indeed needed—the United States Government to accept such a situation and such an arrangement.
Assuming that such elections, or indeed any elections, were to take place, this does not in any way alter our desire to see that the people of South Vietnam are protected, and to see them enabled to lead the sort of lives they have chosen for themselves. If anything, our desire (and here I believe that the Americans and we are completely at one), our joint desire, would be even stronger when we were assured that the Government in South Vietnam was—I will not say truly representative of the will of the people, but at least more representative of the will of the people than is the present Government.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Milford, I think in a somewhat rhetorical manner, and perhaps he did not expect an answer, what it is that ties us to the United States of America if it is not dollars, and I am glad to say that he was prepared to accept the fact that it is not dollars. What ties us to the United States is that we both share a belief in the rights of ordinary human beings to choose their own Governments and to
436
lead the sort of lives that they want to lead, and that they choose for themselves. It is that that ties us to the United States and to many other countries.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, did not Sir Anthony Eden (as he then was) negotiate and bring about the Geneva Agreement, which the Americans did not want and did not stand by?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am discussing the present time, and I think it is better on these occasions not to delve back into the past. We have done that on many occasions in the past, and we all have our different ideas about it. What we now want is to arrive at a solution for the future. And I repeat that what we want to see in South Vietnam is freedom; and I believe that the United States also wants to see that—a freedom not only to choose their own Government, but also to paint slogans on the wall, to which the noble Lord referred; freedom to have the demonstrations which have recently been going on in South Vietnam. We want to see even freedoms of that kind.
Those are not freedoms which exist in Hanoi. Who has seen any slogans painted on the walls of Hanoi saying, "Chinks go home!"? They may be there, but we have not heard of them; and I do not suppose that many people would be allowed to see them. We have not heard of any disturbances in the towns of North Vietnam. Whether or not they take place, I do not know, but I rather doubt whether they do. These are essential freedoms which North Vietnam has not so far been prepared to allow in its own territories.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one question. If he says that we stand for the right of people in South Vietnam democratically to decide their future, can he undertake, on behalf of the Government, that they would accept a decision by an elected National Assembly in September on the question of withdrawal of American troops and negotiation with the National Liberation Front?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I was about to come to that when I made reference and paid tribute to the restrained and helpful speech made by my noble

437
friend Lady Summerskill. Before I come to that particular point, I should like to refer to what she said about small men being bullied by large men. Of course it is always our instinct, when we hear of such an action, or see these things happening, to rally to the support of the small man. I believe that is the right thing for us to do. But we have to be very careful who the small man is; and on that some of us have different ideas.
Is the small man South Vietnam, being attacked by North Vietnam? Is it the United States of America being attacked by China, or North Vietnam being attacked by the United States of America, or the Soviet Union lending its support? People can argue about who the small man may be in such circumstances, but to me the small man is literally the individual human being—the small man who lives in his village in Vietnam, in the delta. Some of them I have seen myself, and in a few weeks I hope to see some more: the people who are attacked by night by terrorists who come to demand food, and who will kill the headman of the village if it is not provided; the man who goes out to till his own plot of land, and plant his rice at the right season, and who may not come back because he has been set upon by others.
I am not saying it is only the Viet Cong who attack the freedom-loving people of South Vietnam. Of course it is not. There are the militarists on both sides. But those are the small men we must try to protect, and do not let us talk in large terms about little Vietnam being attacked by great China, Russia, or the United States. Let us think of the people we are really trying to protect and to look after.
The question was asked by both my noble friends, if these elections are held, and if the result is such-and-such, what shall we do? These are hypothetical questions, but the greatest question mark arising out of these elections is not so much what the result will be but whether all of us here, collectively, can be satisfied that these are genuine elections and that they represent the will of the people. If we are satisfied that the elections have been held throughout a great part of South Vietnam, that they have been justly held and represent the true wishes of the people; and if the Representative Assembly which comes into being as a result of those elections asks the United
438
States Government to withdraw its troops, I believe that the United States Government will do so, because President Johnson has made it quite plain that the wish of his Government in these matters is simply to see that the people of South Vietnam can freely decide their future.
So, although I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of the American Government, I believe that it is what they would do; and I think they would be right to do that. We would encourage them and use such influence as we have to get them to do that. But I would ask, in return, that if these elections do in fact take place, and if we are satisfied that they are representative, and if that representative body asks the Americans to stay to help them, then my noble friends will support the Americans in doing that, because they are expressing the will of the people and helping them to lead their own lives. If that were to take place I do not know whether the war would end very much sooner, but at least we should all be satisfied that the fight was being carried on for the freedoms and for the democracy in which we all believe.
My noble friend Lord Milford said to us, "Let us treat Hanoi as if they are intelligent human beings", and I have no doubt they are intelligent human beings. How would any of us as intelligent human beings treat any other intelligent human being with whom we were involved in a struggle? What should we do? Of course we should say, "Let us talk about it, instead of going on fighting, which can do no one any good", and that is what has been happening, times out of number, over these years.
Unfortunately, we all know the response of Hanoi to this; they have not responded to any of the past approaches that have been made; nor, indeed, to the most recent one made in an indirect fashion by my noble friend Lord Chalfont when he was in Moscow in February and had talks with the Chargé d'Affaires of North Vietnam. No response came to his conversations or approaches. Nor was there any response at all when on April 18 Senator Mansfield proposed peace talks between the United States, North Vietnam, China and essential elements in South Vietnam. He then suggested possibly Japan or Burma as the correct place in which this should be done, and his proposals were endorsed

439
by President Johnson. But North Vietnam, after this approach to intelligent people by intelligent people, rejected it as a new "peace trick", and the Chinese, too, dismissed it as another peace talk hoax".
The only reason I, as, I hope, an intelligent man, can see why they rejected this intelligent man-to-man approach and all those others, is because they believe that they are winning, that they can get their way without having to talk, without having to make any concessions. If that is true, what is the right answer to it? Surely the only answer can be to convince them that they are not winning and that they will not win. That can be the only intelligent way of dealing with this matter. First, and above all, we must convince them that they cannot win, and that is precisely what the South Vietnamese and their allies, prominently the Americans but also the Koreans and others too, the Australians, are attempting to do. In order to do that, they must use bombs and they must use other weapons of war, because this is the most effective way of bringing a realisation of the facts to these intelligent men who live in Hanoi.
And these bombs are directed, as I believe your Lordships know, solely at military objectives. Recently there was some bombing of sites within 17 miles of Hanoi. That is getting close. But, after all, Hanoi is not a city like London; it does not spread out over many miles. These sites were situated there by the North Vietnamese themselves, and they cannot expect that they can attempt to bring down hostile aircraft but have their anti-aircraft sites, their SAM sites, completely invulnerable. They must be prepared to be attacked and they will be attacked. But the attacks are always on military objectives and so they will remain.
I cannot hold out any very great hope of a speedy solution to what is going on
440
there now. It has been with us now for many years and it is progressively getting more serious. But I reiterate once more that the most effective and most likely means of bringing the other side to talks is by convincing them they cannot win, and that entails military action. Secondly, I fully endorse my noble friend Lord Brockway's desire for the elections, and express my hope that these elections will be held over as wide an area as possible and in such a manner as will convince all of us, on both sides, that the results are truly representative of the will of the people; and I hope that the will thus expressed will guide the future activities of all those who are engaged in the country. Finally, let us never forget the individuals who live in Vietnam and that it is really for them and their future well-being that we are all engaged, in one way or another, in this struggle.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders have been complied with: ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Examiners Certificate that the Standing Orders have been complied with: ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Thursday last relative to Consolidation Bills, as desired by this House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.