Sitting of 15 June 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Norman Harold Lever, esquire, Manchester, Cheetham.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified)
Read the Third time and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL

    CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
    KENT WATER BILL (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified)
    Read the Third time and passed.

  NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL
    SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
      TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL
      Read the Third time and passed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  SELECTION
  Committee of Selection nominated: Sir H. Butcher, Sir R. Conant, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Sir N. Hulbert, Mr. Kenyon, Sir F. Messer, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Popplewell, Brigadier Prior-Palmer, and Sir G. Touche.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.
  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Boys (Discharge Applications)
    Mr. Haleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent boys joining the Royal Navy at the age of 15 years have the right to terminate their engagements on reaching a more mature age; and if he will bring the regulations relating to naval service in this respect into conformity with the other Services.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to my hon. and gallant Friend's Answer of 27th October, 1954, about the option available to boys of 18 to transfer to a shorter engagement. There is no right to terminate an engagement after this age, but all applications for discharge by purchase, or on compassionate grounds, are carefully considered. The position is the same in the other two Services.
    Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that recently there has been a General Election and that we now have a new Parliament? Does he not know that the continued reference by Ministers to past Answers given in the last Parliament, sometimes by other Ministers, is something that ought to be deplored? Will he bear in mind that in the case of this particular individual, to which I have called his attention, there are special reasons why the lad may be very unhappy in the Service? Would not the right hon. Gentleman wish the Royal Navy to be good employers, and not compulsorily retain the services of lads of 16 and 17 who may wish to go back into some other form of employment?
    Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although the right does not exist, the machinery does exist to release these boys who are obviously unsuited to the Navy in the early stages, and they are considered sympathetically.

    561
    There were 53 applications for discharge for this reason and 34 were approved in the 12 months ended last May.

    Naval Discipline Act (Select Committee)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Naval Discipline Act.
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action he proposes to take in order to bring the Naval Discipline Act into line with the revised Army and Air Force Acts.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I hope that it will be possible to set up a Select Committee on the Naval Discipline Act very soon now.
    Mr. Swingler: While we are all very grateful to the First Lord for acceding to our request to inquire into this obsolete instrument, may I ask whether he is aware that it is necessary to proceed with the utmost expedition because the Navy is way behind the Army and the Air Force?
    Mr. Thomas: I think the House will feel that I have given a reasonable reply, in view of the fact that the House has just met after an Election. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is in hand and that there is no cause for complaint about delay.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Boardmanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a man of H.M.S. "Warrior" whose return from leave from Manchester to Plymouth, a journey of 288 miles, was delayed by the railway strike, has been given punishment involving eight days' stoppage of pay, despite the efforts on his part to return to ship; and if he will review this sentence.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Yes, Sir. Men who were granted leave from this ship were specially warned that they must make sure of being able to return in time even if the strike took place: that is why those who returned late were punished. However, I have called for a detailed report and intend to look into individual cases.
    Mr. Boardman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man made the most commendable efforts to return
    562
    to his ship, including a 17-mile tramp through the night? Is he further aware that discipline of this kind in these circumstances can in the long run only do the Service more harm than good?
    Mr. Thomas: The case which the hon. Member has mentioned is obviously one into which I shall be looking very shortly.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider these two aspects of the case? First, did this man and others go on leave before the strike started? Secondly, can he tell us whether H.M.S. "Warrior" had any particular mission that she had to fulfil?
    Mr. Thomas: I should like notice of the latter part of that supplementary question. In reply to the first part, I think the strike had started when the men left, or I think it was known that it would start. It was a Saturday. I believe the strike started on the Sunday. It was known that if there was a strike the men must do their best to return.
    Mr. Callaghan: Further to that question, the Saturday in question was Whit Saturday. So far as I know, it was not known until very late on Saturday evening that the strike was going to start. What time did these men go on leave?
    Mr. Thomas: I should require notice of that question. That will be one of the points that I shall inquire into when I consider the cases.

    Retired Pay and Pensions
    Mr. Swinglerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will review the rates of retired pay and pensions payable to retired officers and other ranks of the Royal Navy, in relation to the current cost of living.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Current Government policy is fully set out in Command No. 9092. I have nothing to add to this.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the First Lord really say that he is satisfied with the very meagre concessions that were made in that White Paper? Will not the Government take any further action at all to assist these pensioners who are in receipt of completely out-of-date rates of pension which have no relation to the present cost of living? Cannot something further be done to bring those pensions up to modern standards?
    Mr. Thomas: This is a question which concerns all three Services and, indeed, covers an even wider field. It is really a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I cannot deal with it this afternoon piecemeal by answering for a single Service.
    Mr. Stokes: Does not the First Lord agree that it is a swindle to give a man a pension and then allow the cost of living to rise quite unnecessarily, as the late Government did, and as this Government will no doubt do again? It is really swindling the people out of their just deserts.

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Lewisasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that naval Service men are not paid any allowance for their children, and that a man with one child does not receive any assistance from the State towards the upkeep of this child; and whether he will adopt the practice in operation during the last war of paying a children's allowance to the wives of Service men or an allowance for the one and only child.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Children's allowances were abolished on the introduction of the 1946 Pay Code which, of course, applied to all three Services. The considerations which prompted the Government of the day in making this change are described in paragraph 22 of Command No. 6715; I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Service men with only one child are in the same position as other citizens so far as family allowances are concerned, and I see no reason to consider special measures for the Royal Navy alone.
    Mr. Lewis: I am aware of the excuses that are given in that answer, but may I ask the First Lord whether he is aware that National Service men and other young men going into the three Services find that they cannot get any allowance at all for their first child? Is he further aware that the cost of living, particularly the cost of food, has been going up consistently over the last three years, and that these Service men and their wives find it very hard to manage? Surely they ought to get an allowance, as was given during the war, or is the policy to treat Service men differently in war time and in peace time?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this policy was designed for special wartime conditions. His own Government withdrew it in 1946. I cannot see that young National Service men differ from other young citizens.

    Oil Tankerage Facilities, Gibraltar
    Mr. Doddsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can yet state in what way his Department will give practical assistance to Gibraltar in the efforts being made to solve the economic problems that have arisen; and whether it will now include the provision of oil tankerage facilities for commercial purposes.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: My Department is anxious to render such practical assistance as it can to the economy of Gibraltar. In particular, the Admiralty's consideration of the possibility of providing oil tankerage facilities for commercial purposes, to which my hon. Friend the Civil Lord referred in his reply to the hon. Member's Question on 16th March, is well advanced and I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision shortly on this highly technical question.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the First Lord appreciate that this matter has been receiving consideration for quite a long while, and that Gibraltar is in a very difficult position, while the neighbouring Spanish port of Ceuta is making great strides at the expense of Gibraltar? The right hon. Gentleman's Department could alter all that.
    Mr. Thomas: I realise that this matter has taken a considerable time, but it is a highly technical question. I hope I can say that a decision is not very far away.

    Aircraft Maintenance and Repair, Belfast
    Mr. Hydeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the extent of the maintenance and repair work at present being carried out by his Department in Belfast, including the number of men employed; how long it is expected to last; what redundancies are contemplated; and the future prospects of employment in such work.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to aircraft repairs and maintenance.

    565
    Approximately 1,000 employees are engaged at the Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Belfast. Although there may be some variations in the volume of work, I have no reason to expect any redundancies in the near future.
    Mr. Hyde: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will remove a certain amount of apprehension at present existing in Belfast? Will he at the same time bear in mind the continuing importance of this question from the point of view of employment, which is much needed in Belfast?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. The Admiralty, among other Departments, has this question of employment in Northern Ireland very much in mind.

    Sale of Vessel
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the sale by the Admiralty to Mr. John Dorling of a vessel subsequently found to be defective.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: No, Sir. As the hon. Member is aware, the sale of this vessel was the subject of a recent action in the High Court. The action was withdrawn with the judge's approval, on terms which were described in court by Mr. Dorling's own counsel as generous on the part of the Admiralty. I see no reason to institute an inquiry.
    Mr. Stewart: Does the First Lord appreciate that this vessel was made from timber which was subsequently found to be diseased; that it was described at the time of purchase as having oak frames, a statement subsequently proved to be inaccurate; that the purchaser, Mr. John Dorling, was not given proper facilities for examining the vessel before the purchase; and that, whatever may have been thought of the recent settlement in the High Court, the amount given in compensation is little more than half the sum paid by the purchaser?
    Mr. Thomas: I must say that Mr. Dorling was under no compulsion to buy this vessel. I think that the fact that his own counsel said that the Admiralty were generous in the settlement is a sufficient answer.

  POST OFFICE

    Personal Case
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. F. W. Turvey from the position of sub-postmaster at Ombersley Road, Worcester.
    The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): I have inquired into the circumstances of this case, and I can see no reason to modify the decision to terminate Mr. Turvey's services.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that Mr. Turvey strongly denies the charges of dishonesty which led to his dismissal, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by refusing to prosecute, as Mr. Turvey challenged him to do, the Postmaster-General has ruined a man who, in the eyes of the law, must still be presumed to be innocent?
    Dr. Hill: Mr. Turvey's services were terminated by reason of a deficiency in the accounts, disobedience of Post Office instructions, and a refusal for a considerable period to answer questions. I do not accept the principle that it is always necessary, in circumstances which justify dismissal, to proceed to prosecution.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has constituted himself not only the former employer but also the judge and jury in this case? Will he not see that elementary justice is done to this man of being given an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law against the allegations which have been made?
    Dr. Hill: The position must be sustained that there are circumstances in which an employing body can terminate the services of an officer following the long-standing procedure, and without proceeding to prosecution.

    Offices, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Government's promise, made on 22nd December, 1954, to open a sub-post office in the large and rapidly growing residential areas of Northfield and Mastrick in Aberdeen has not yet been fulfilled; that two separate post offices, one for each

    567
    area, with public telephone facilities, are required; and if he will take urgent steps to provide these post offices.
    Dr. Hill: Applications for the sub-postmastership in the Northfield area were invited as soon as the new shops were purchased and without waiting for them to open: it is hoped to open a sub-office there very shortly. Applications will be invited in the Mastrick area as soon as there are any shop owners who can be invited to apply—probably early next month.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that this procrastination is imposing a great hardship on thousands of people who are entitled to better treatment? Will he take steps to see that the promise given by the Government in December is promptly fulfilled?
    Dr. Hill: There cannot be a sub-post office opened until the shops are there in which to install it.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister not aware that some shops are there already?

    Telegraph Traffic (Staff Redundancy)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Postmaster-General what results have emerged from the increased charge for telegrams; and what representations he has received from the staff associations of the Telegraph Department regarding staff redundancy.
    Dr. Hill: Inland telegraph traffic has fallen by about 30 per cent. and revenue has increased by about 35 per cent. From the outset the problem of staff redundancy has been handled in full consultation with the staff associations concerned.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about staff redundancy? Is he satisfied that the staff are satisfied with the outcome of the discussions?
    Dr. Hill: The scheme for dealing with redundancy has been agreed with the staff associations concerned, and although the outcome cannot always be welcomed in individual cases, we are proceeding in full consultation and agreement with the staff associations.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Would it not now be better for the Postmaster-General and the Administration to reconsider the decision to increase the charges on telegrams, which make it almost impossible for ordinary people to avail themselves of this very important, indeed essential, service? Is he aware that some of us predicted that there would be this terrific decrease in traffic, with the result to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention?
    Dr. Hill: I am acting in accordance with the decision reached by the House.

    Postal Services (Restoration)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Postmaster-General why the parcel post service has been suspended in areas where parcels are not carried by rail.
    Dr. Hill: The initial plans for the emergency postal services of necessity restricted acceptance of parcels to local delivery areas. The service between the Orkney and Shetland Islands and Aberdeen and Thurso was reopened on 2nd June.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the whole, the public are very grateful to the Post Office for what it has done during the strike, although there was some disquiet when postal services were removed where no train services were involved? Can he now say when the service in full will be reopened, especially the C.O.D. and mail order services, which are important?
    Dr. Hill: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Post Office. I am sure I am speaking for the whole House when I say how deeply we appreciate the immense service which Post Office staff at all levels rendered during a very difficult period. May I take this occasion, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, to inform the House that the restoration of postal services will take place as follows: to morrow, Thursday, 16th June, all the emergency restrictions on the acceptance of letter packets for both inland and overseas destinations will be removed; Friday, 17th June, all the emergency restrictions on the acceptance of parcels intended for transmission to destinations overseas by surface route will be removed; Friday, 17th June, the inland

    569
    parcels postal service will be reintroduced with a weight limit of 3 lb. Parcels for local delivery, including delivery in any extensions of local areas which have been made or may become possible, will continue to be accepted up to the normal weight limit of 15 lb. A further announcement about the inland parcel service will be made as soon as possible after 17th June.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Arising from the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), will the Postmaster-General press for the resumption of cash-on-delivery postal services, especially in the Western Isles and in Orkney and Shetland, where they rely a great deal on this form of service?
    Dr. Hill: I will look into that point.

    Savings Certificates
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience and risk to holders of the system of holding Savings Certificates in their present form for many years; and whether he will consider some form of consolidation in such a form as a Post Office bank credit which would eliminate the need to conserve frail slips of paper.
    Dr. Hill: If the certificates are affixed to the books provided for that purpose there should be no undue risk of loss, and if loss does occur it can be remedied by the Savings Department, which maintains a complete file of duplicates. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would greatly increase the cost of administration.
    Mr. Woodburn: While I appreciate the assurance given to people that records are kept in case these certificates are lost—a great many people are worried about that—may I point out that these are very flimsy books, and not everybody's house is suitable for keeping there for a number of years paper books of this kind? If the Postmaster-General would look into the possibility of some consolidation of these books from time to time it would be a great assistance to people who have not these facilities at home.
    Dr. Hill: I will look into the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. If he would care to elaborate it in more detail, I should be grateful.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Doddsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what period a man, details of whose case are in his possession, served in the Royal Air Force before it was found that he was not up to the required physical standard; and why it was not found possible to allocate duties in keeping with the physical limitations involved.
    Mr. Goughasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the Royal Air Force have rejected the services of a man, details of whose case have been sent to him, because of flat feet, when they have accepted two other men, of whom he has also been informed, who had been more seriously disabled.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): This man reported for duty on 5th May. After a medical examination he was seen by two orthopaedic specialists, one Service and the other civilian. Both advised that the disability already present as the result of a foot defect would be likely, in their judgment, to be aggravated by the normal conditions of Service life. In the light of this advice it was decided, on 16th May, that he was unlikely, on medical grounds, to become efficient in any form of Royal Air Force duties.
    Both the other men referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) were trained and experienced pilots. There can, I think, be no comparison between the reduced standards we may be prepared to accept to enable us to use the skill and experience of such men and those acceptable in an untrained recruit. Moreover, in neither of these cases was there reason to suppose that the disability would be aggravated by further service.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister appreciate that unless he gives a better explanation than that the public will look upon this as a wangle? How does he explain the fact that there are many men in the Royal Air Force who are excused drilling, marching, and carrying any pack at all, who wear canvas shoes and who are in grades 3 and 4? If it is not a wangle, how can he justify keeping them in the R.A.F. when they are much worse

    571
    than this man? If it is not a wangle, will the hon. Gentleman let the others out?
    Mr. Ward: There is no question whatever of any wangle. The point is simply this: we have to bear in mind, first, the present medical condition of the man, and, secondly, the likely effects of normal Service life upon that condition—whether it will deteriorate or not. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are quite a number of people in the Forces who are restricted in the way he described, but in those cases we are advised that Service life is unlikely to aggravate their condition, and indeed under some forms of treatment there might be an improvement.
    Mr. Gough: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the two officers to whom I referred, who had no legs and who served as most distinguished fighter pilots during the war, seem to prove that this young man, who has a brilliant athletic record, could also become a fighter pilot? May I also ask my hon. Friend most emphatically to confirm that the person who is more distressed about this than anybody else is the young man who is the innocent cause of all this trouble?
    Mr. Ward: I certainly think the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question must be true, although I have not spoken to this man. Perhaps it would help the House to form a judgment in this matter if I were allowed to read one sentence from the report of an extremely eminent consultant in orthopaedic surgery, without mentioning his name:
    "My own view is that it will not be long before he is a candidate for operation and in my judgment Service life is likely to exacerbate the condition and precipitate operation."
    I do not think we can possibly overlook that point.
    Mr. Dodds: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment when I have fully prepared my case.

    Ground-to-Air Defence
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what measures have now been taken by the Royal Air Force to provide the ground-to-air defence of Great Britain.
    Mr. Ward: I have nothing to add to the information I gave in my speech on the Air Estimates on 10th March last.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there would appear to be a very serious gap in the take-over by the Royal Air Force of the anti-aircraft network formerly provided by the Army, and that this gap cannot be allowed to continue for any length of time; and can he give us an assurance that something will be done in the matter in the near future?
    Mr. Ward: As I pointed out in the debate on the Air Estimates, the deployment of surface-to-air guided weapons in the United Kingdom is still subject to detailed study, and the weapons with which we go into production must really meet the threat and at the same time be capable of further development. Good progress is being made in both those directions.

    Sunday Flying
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the disturbance which is caused in many areas by flying of Service aircraft on Sundays; and if he will make arrangements with a view to such flying being discontinued, or considerably lessened, during that part of the morning and evening normally devoted to the holding of religious services.
    Mr. Ward: Weekend training must be carried out, particularly by the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Observer Corps. I regret that this makes some disturbance inevitable, but instructions are in force to restrict flying as much as possible during the hours of church services on Sundays.
    Sir F. Medlicott: While appreciating the great importance of weekend training, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that in many parts of East Anglia there are many Sundays of almost continuous flying by single aircraft and by aircraft in formation, and that even the shortest break during the hours of worship would be greatly appreciated?
    Mr. Ward: During the hours of church services, the aircraft of the Royal Air Force are normally grounded or under instructions to fly so high that they do not create disturbance. Instructions naturally vary throughout the country to

    573
    take account of the local hours of worship. What I can assure my hon. Friend is that we shall do all we possibly can not to create disturbance during the hours of church services within the limits of Service training.

    Trainee Pilots (Fatalities)
    Mr. Turnerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the figures for the past three years of National Service trainee pilots who have lost their lives during their period of training; and what increase or decrease these figures show.
    Mr. Ward: The figures are 24 in 1952, 15 in 1953 and 8 in 1954. Expressed as a percentage of the number of National Service pilots under training during the three years in question, these figures show a small improvement for 1954.

  ROADS

    Tyne Tunnel
    Mr. McKayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that all the land and property required has been secured and the contract plans and documents have been prepared in readiness for proceeding with the vehicular Tyne tunnel; and if he will give sanction within the next few months for the work to proceed.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have no statement to make at present on this subject. My information does not, however, wholly coincide with that conveyed by the hon. Member in the first two parts of his Question.
    Mr. McKay: Can the Minister explain why, when he is spending millions of pounds for road transport, he is holding up this scheme, which has been under consideration for years and preparation for which is probably well developed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I dealt with this point in questions subsequent to my general statement on 2nd February, and I am afraid I have nothing to add on that subject at present.
    Dame Irene Ward: When may I expect my right hon. Friend to visit the north of England, as he promised before the General Election?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am still awaiting my hon. Friend's invitation.
    Dame Irene Ward: It is given now.

    Cromwell Road Extension
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if a start has now been made on the actual construction of the Cromwell Road Extension, as was authorised by the Minister of Transport in the programme announced on 8th December, 1953, as the first item in the list of schemes for 1954–55.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

    Cycle Tracks
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that cyclists refuse to use cycle tracks on some trunk roads because they are ill kept, with large potholes; and whether he will have these tracks repaired without delay.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member will let me know which roads he has in mind, I will investigate. There are heavy arrears of work to be done on this and all other aspects of our highway system.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman see what he can do about this matter, in view of the accidents that occur on the roads and the necessity to encourage cyclists to use these tracks? This is prevalent generally.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's desire to encourage the use of these tracks by cyclists. I agree with him that it would contribute quite substantially to road safety.

    Roundabout Scheme, Bristol
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the need for the construction of a roundabout at Redcliffe Way, Bristol, he will give consideration to the issuing of a grant so that the work can be proceeded with this year as the first step in the 5-year programme of the council.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid it will not be possible to make a grant for

    575
    this scheme this year. I have, however, offered the city council grants totalling £41,000 for nine smaller schemes.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the early part of this year the Bristol City Council prepared a 5-year plan which was submitted to his divisional road engineer and, I presume, accepted? It is impossible to go on with the second-year part until the council finishes the first-year part, and this roundabout is in the first-year proposals. Will the Minister have a look at this matter and give the council the opportunity of carrying out the first-year plan in the first year?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have, of course, studied the Bristol City Council proposals and, in fact, have this year authorised what is in my judgment the most urgent part of the scheme which was put forward, that in respect of the Deanery Road Bridge.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the engineer was notified in February of this scheme, and was it not given approval?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's view as to the priority to be accorded to the scheme, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that view is not generally shared.

    Bridge of Don, Aberdeen (Widening)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is yet in a position to state when the work on his announced plan to widen the Bridge of Don at Aberdeen will commence.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I expect work to start on this scheme in the early autumn and to take about two years to complete.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the people of the north-east of Scotland will be grateful for that date being fixed, and that I hope that the work will go on promptly?

    Forth Crossing
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on the proposed Forth Bridge
    576
    or Forth Tunnel indicating which plan he has decided to adopt; and when work on it will commence.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) yesterday.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the transport services of the north-east of Scotland deserve just as much and as prompt treatment as the transport services of England, and that this is a very important matter to Scotland?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. and learned Member will no doubt appreciate when he reads the answer which I gave to his hon. Friend yesterday, I have given full weight to that in the selection of three extremely capable and experienced men to go into this question.

    Warwickshire
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the disintegrating highways of Warwickshire; and why he has cut the grant to the county council by £60,000, which is approximately 10 per cent.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Warwickshire roads are not disintegrating. And I have increased their initial grant by £10,000 over that for last year. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that, according to the latest minutes of the county council, the vote is down by £60,000, that all parties unite in condemning his policy of parsimony in this matter, and that the engineer stated publicly that he cannot do his job adequately with this amount of money? Will the Minister not think again and look up his facts in order to get them correct?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The initial grant for last year was £360,000, and for this year is £370,000. With due respect to the minutes of the county council, those are the facts.

    Barking By-pass (Double Carriageway)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when work is to start on completing the double carriageway on the Barking by-pass road.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot add to the statement I made on 2nd February last about the expanded roads programme.

    Improvement Scheme, Weasenham
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations he has received for a road improvement scheme at Weasenham, Norfolk, where many accidents have taken place; and when he will give his permission to by-pass this dangerous corner.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a classified road, and my predecessor authorised a grant to the Norfolk County Council, which is the highway authority, in 1953. The council, however, had difficulties in acquiring the necessary land, and has now put forward a much more expensive alternative scheme. Modifications of this are now under discussion.
    Mr. Dye: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the modified scheme is a very much shorter one than the original one? Will he give attention to the number of fatalities which occur at that corner?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am giving attention to it, and my view, or that of my predecessor, is indicated by the fact that he was prepared to accept this for grant as long ago as 1953. We are now dealing with a totally different scheme, which must be thrashed out by representatives of the local authority and my engineers.
    Mr. Stokes: Is this not another case which shows how essential it is to deal with the land question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think it is essential, in dealing with the land question, in road construction as in other matters, to play fair by the interests of the people whose land one is taking.
    Mr. Stokes: Sheer robbery.

  TRANSPORT

    Canal Traffic
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that canal traffic shall be encouraged especially for carrying petrol oil and explosives.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the brevity of that answer almost overwhelms me? Realising that Britain has more cars to the mile than any other country in the world, may I ask the Minister when he and his Department are going to work out an intelligent policy which will mean we can use all the assets of these canals rather than leave them as the ugly duckling of transport?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is quite a different Question from the one put on the Order Paper by the hon. Gentleman. What he asked me to do was to give a general direction to the Transport Commission on a matter which is essentially for its commercial judgment and good sense, and it would be a direction that would be particularly unfortunate to give in view of the fact that both commodities he mentioned are not, in fact, carried in the Commission's own fleet.
    Mr. Leather: If private interests wish to take these canals over to prevent them from being closed down will they be allowed the opportunity?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to accept an offer of that sort without knowing the exact terms.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister represent to the Transport Commission that the proper economic development of our inland waterways is a most important national economic interest?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite unnecessary to represent that to the Commission because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has been giving very close study to that subject during the last few months.

    Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that the seriousness of many accidents could be mitigated if crash helmets were worn by all motor cyclists; and if he will make it an obligation on motor cyclists to wear them.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully realise the value of crash helmets, and I take every opportunity of encouraging motor cyclists to wear them. The response is increasingly satisfactory and I do not contemplate compulsion.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there are 18,000 road accidents of this character every year, that 1,300 of them are fatal, and that it costs £4½ million to treat these accidents in the hospitals? If these crash helmets were used, we should save a large amount of this money on hospital treatment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully share the hon. Member's desire to encourage the use of these helmets. Where we differ is that while the hon. Member favours compulsion, I prefer to rely—with, I think, increasing success—on the good sense of motor cyclists generally.
    Mr. Nicholson: Am I right in thinking that the main objection of my right hon. Friend's Department is that an undue burden would be thrown upon the police? If so, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there appears to be something hypocritical in constant statements by the Government that they desire to reduce road accidents while they will not impose the simple machinery which would be involved and which, as the hon. Member has said, would save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of injuries?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If one can, as one can in this case, make progress by encouragement and by the good sense of those concerned, I do not think that there is justification for going over to compulsion.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As this is a safety measure and saves lives, as the Minister admits, surely it is not right to allow those who have no sense to imperil themselves and others.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman raises profound issues almost of philosophy, but I am here concerned with the very practical question of what is the best method of encouraging the increased use of these helmets, and my view remains that compulsion is not the best method.

    Roundabouts (Traffic Precedence)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce regulations whereby on traffic roundabouts precedence must be given to traffic approaching from the right.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. While I appreciate that there is some argument
    580
    in favour of this, on balance I am very doubtful whether this would lead either to greater safety or better traffic flow. My Departmental Committee on Road Safety also takes this view.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a comparable principle has been accepted with considerable success in many foreign countries?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend may be aware that in Western Germany, where it has operated for some time, the authorities are now expressing grave doubts as to whether it has helped.

    Flashing Lights and Indicators
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to motorists by the increasing number of flashing lights of one kind and another which are now in use on vehicles and on or near the highways; and if he will cause a full inquiry to be made into the problem with a view to taking appropriate action.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The value of flashing lights at pedestrian crossings far outweighs any inconvenience they may cause, and as regards vehicles I am awaiting a report from the Road Research Laboratory on an investigation it is making into the use of various types of flashing indicators. There are other flashing lights near the highway over which I have no direct jurisdiction but I am asking the Road Safety Committee to look into the matter and let me know its views.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many motorists are increasingly doubtful as to the value of these flashing lights on vehicles, especially to drivers other than the driver immediately behind, and that the multiplicity of flashing lights of all kinds creates increasing hazards for motorists, especially at night and in wet weather?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not without sympathy for my hon. Friend's view. He may well be aware that these flashing indicators on vehicles were utilised some little time ago largely to assist the export trade in motor vehicles, as these forms of indicator are required on cars exported to certain parts of the world. I told the

    581
    House towards the end of the last Parliament that I was watching this matter fairly closely; and, as I have indicated, the Road Research Laboratory is watching the matter.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Whatever may have happened about the export trade—and that could be taken care of, I should have thought—is it not rather confusing that we now have at least three types of indication as to whether a vehicle is going right or left? Surely, that is confusing. Is it not the case that the Ministry really ought to make up its mind with a view to the standardisation of indicators showing whether a vehicle is going right or left; otherwise there is great confusion among other drivers?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a certain amount of force in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I think I must await the result of the investigation of the Road Research Laboratory, which, I understand, covers the very point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

    Kennet and Avon Canal
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what arrangements he is making for a thorough and impartial inquiry, with opportunity for interested parties to give evidence, before Parliament is asked to approve the proposals made to him for abandoning the Kennet and Avon Canal for navigational purposes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir. Such proposals have not in fact been made to me, but may, I understand, be included in the British Transport Commissions next Bill. If this is so, interested parties will have the full opportunity to give evidence and put forward their point of view which is given by the Private Bill procedure both of this House and of another place.
    Mr. Hurd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that time then will be short? Does he not appreciate that the Transport Commission is now deliberately neglecting the responsibilities placed on it by Parliament in that the Kennet and Avon Canal has been allowed to fall into worse disrepair week by week, thereby prejudicing its future use? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, please take an early opportunity of having a full and thorough inquiry into this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that there has been any neglect by the Transport Commission of its duties with regard to this canal. If the procedure which I have indicated may take place is followed, there will be the full investigation which, as my hon. Friend knows, is possible under the procedure very carefully laid down by Parliament for dealing with this class of matter.
    Mr. Leather: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently the Transport Commission quite deliberately had certain important equipment removed from the canal to strengthen the Commission's case that it could not be kept open and to prevent people using it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I really do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that in handling this matter any such subterfuge as he has suggested has been adopted. It is possible to differ as a matter of opinion on the very difficult matter of the use of this or other canals but my hon. Friend must be quite clear that no action of that sort is, or would be, contemplated.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Aircraft Break-in Points (Markings)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendation of the Singapore accident inquiry that steps should be taken to ensure that marks are placed on the outside of all fuselages to show clearly points of easy access for rescuers in the event of accidents.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: British Overseas Airways Corporation has already marked break-in points on its aircraft. I am discussing with other British operators standardisation of these markings. I have also instructed my officers to seek to raise this matter before the International Civil Aviation Organisation at the next convenient opportunity.

    Election Meeting, London Airport
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why facilities were refused during the recent General Election to candidates to address

    583
    electors employed by his Department at London Airport, when invited by trade unionists during their meal-time intervals.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No such facilities were asked for.
    Mr. Hunter: That is not correct.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman, who I think from the reports which I have had is under a misunderstanding as to the nature of the audience which he sought to address, cares to let me have particulars, I will investigate any matter on which an hon. Member differs from me on a matter of fact, but the report which I have received, after careful investigation, is that the hon. Gentleman did not ask to be allowed to address electors at London Airport employed by my Department. He may not have known the audience he was addressing, but that is an experience perhaps common to many of us.
    Mr. Hunter: I was invited by trade unionists working at London Airport and employed by his Department, I was definitely invited by the joint shop stewards' movement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the hon. Gentleman must do, if I may respectfully remind him, to bear out the allegation of fact made in his Question is to indicate to whom a request of this nature was made and to which responsible authority it was directed.
    Mr. Callaghan: Would the Minister of Transport address himself to the substance of my hon. Friend's Question? Is his objection to the request that was made that they were not wholly electors of my hon. Friend, or is it because there were electors from other constituencies included in the audience which he would have addressed? What is the general rule, so that we can be clear about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My information on this subject, which, of course, is subject to further investigation, is that no request was made to address the employees of my Department, no matter whose electors they were. That is the information which I have received. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a Question on the general issue about Government practice, I think it is a matter which would more properly lie with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Airports (Development Expenditure)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the actual amount of money spent on the development of London, Gatwick, Ringway, Renfrew and Prestwick Airports; the sums which have been allocated for further development in each case, but not yet spent; and what part of these amounts will be consumed in the present financial year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Rankin: I shall study the figures with interest. In the meantime, may I ask if the Minister is aware that the Government's performance in regard to Prestwick lags far behind the Government's promises?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not for one moment accept that. On the contrary, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, we are in particular getting ahead with the additional runway provision there.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: When my right hon. Friend is putting the figures into the OFFICIAL REPORT will he add the comparable figures for the airport at Erroll?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question down.
    Following is the answer:

    —

    (A)

    (B)

    (C)

    Expenditure to date

    Sums allocated for further development

    Expenditure this year on items in Col. B

    £

    £

    £

    London

    24,730,000

    5,300,000

    2,300,000

    Gatwick

    30,000*

    6,000,000

    900,000

    Manchester

    1,190,000

    75,000†

    75,OOO†

    Renfrew

    1,305,000

    100,000

    100,000

    Prestwick

    3,700,000

    1,400,000

    1,100,000

    * Expenditure on Gatwick before 31st March, 1946, is not available.

    † Represents the amount included in current estimates on account of a development programme, details of which have not yet been settled.

  RAILWAYS

    Fenchurch Street, Tilbury and Southend Line (Electrification)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made to date with the electrification of the Fenchurch Street, Tilbury and Southend line.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The British Transport Commission informs me that progress is being made with the planning and surveying necessary for the major engineering works which must be carried out before the actual electrification of this line can begin. It is hoped to make a start with the new "flyover" junctions at Barking and the re-arrangement of the track layout in the spring of next year.

    East Grinstead-Lewes Line
    Major Beamishasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that, during the investigation held by the Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee on the East Grinstead-Lewes railway line, the evidence of the Transport Commission was accepted without question, whereas the contrary views of local authorities were given scant attention; and if he will use his statutory powers to order the Consultative Committee to reopen the inquiry, so that it will be clear to all concerned that the evidence from both sides has been fully and impartially examined.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the South-Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee gave a fair and proper hearing to all the interests concerned. I would invite my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the fact that its view was supported by the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
    Major Beamish: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when people are likely to lose railway facilities which they have enjoyed for many years they naturally wish to be convinced that the branch line in question really is uneconomic and unlikely to pay in the future; and that the method which the British Transport Commission has
    586
    followed, of stating simply an over-all figure, which is its estimate of the annual saving, without any supporting evidence, is unlikely to convince many people? The result is that many of my constituents remain dissatisfied.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend's constituents remain dissatisfied, but the Transport Users' Consultative Committee of the South-Eastern Area, which consists of a large number of representatives of every category of transport user, including five representatives of the local authority associations, examined this matter according to its own procedure as carefully as possible, and has been upheld by the Central Committee.

  MOTOR CARS (CD PLATES)
  Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs his regulations regarding the qualification for a motor car owner to display the letters CD on his vehicle; how many cars in London are entitled to carry those letters; and how many actually do so.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): Motor car plates bearing the letters CD are not issued by Her Majesty's Government and no official recognition is accorded to them. There are, therefore, no regulations relating to their use, and I am unable to state how many cars in London carry such plates.
  Mr. Hynd: Does that reply mean that anyone can put a CD plate on his car—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—which may signify that he is connected with Civil Defence or that his name is Charlie Duncan or anything else beginning with CD? If that is possible, is it not most unsatisfactory, in view of the general impression that a CD plate means that the owner is attached to the Diplomatic Corps?
  Mr. Turton: That is the position. Any form of adornment can, I understand, be placed upon a car, and informed persons are aware of the fact that CD does not confer any special immunity or privileges upon either the car or the owner.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS, REUNION (EXPULSION ORDERS)
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken regarding the expulsion of Mr. Manila11 Jalabhay and Mr. Khemlall Loljee, Indo-Mauritians and British subjects, from the French island of Reunion on the ground that they were employed in the jewellery trade, in view of the fact that discrimination was shown against them.
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that two Indo-Mauritian subjects, Manilall Jalabhay and Khemlall Loljee, have been expelled from Reunion Island for practising jewellery; and what action he is taking in the matter, in view of this discrimination against British subjects.
  Mr. Turton: Mr. Jalabhay and Mr. Loljee were asked by the Prefect of Reunion to leave the island on the ground that they had been operating as jewellers in spite of the refusal of a trader's licence. The action was taken under local ordinances which forbid any foreigner to engage in the jewellery trade, and there seems to be no question of discrimination in these cases. Her Majesty's Consul at Reunion intervened in both cases but the Prefect refused to cancel the expulsion orders.
  Mr. Jalabhay applied to the Tribunal Administratif for a stay of execution. This application was refused, but he has been given permission to have the legality of the Prefect's action examined in the courts.
  Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these two British subjects have lived in Reunion for 20 years, that one of them is married to a French woman, and has nine children—[Laughter.]—which suggests that he has done his duty according to French standards? Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the Franco-British Convention of 1882, which lays it down that British and French subjects shall be allowed to practise any trade or profession in the territories of either country? Will he look into the matter again?
  Mr. Turton: I was not aware of the whole of the family details of these British subjects, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware from what I have said that
  588
  Her Majesty's Consul has gone into the case very fully and that this matter may be sub judice at the present time. It would be unwise, therefore, for me to say anything further.
  Mr. Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that there is much feeling in the island about this, and that these gentlemen have been there 20 years? Will he please use his best efforts in this case, and induce good neighbourly relations among the Indo-Mauritians and the other, people of the island?
  Mr. Turton: These ordinances were passed as long ago as 1938 and 1940, and, therefore, the people of the island are well aware of them.

  MOTOR VEHICLES AND TOURISM (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS)
  Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to ratify the Conventions on Customs Formalities for the Temporary Importation of Private Road Motor Vehicles and Tourism signed at New York on 4th June, 1954; and how many signatories have ratified these conventions up to date.
  Mr. Turton: The Customs Conventions on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles and on Tourism, and the Additional Protocol relating to the Importation of Tourist Publicity Documents and Material, were laid before Parliament on 7th June. Only the Additional Protocol involves legislation, and for this the necessary statutory Instrument and Regulations will be submitted in the near future. When this legislation is completed Her Majesty's Government will be able to ratify. One signatory has ratified already.

  KENYA (BANNED BOOK)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the importation and circulation of "The Trial of Jomo Kenyatta," by Montague Slater, has been prohibited in Kenya.
  The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): The importation and circulation of this book

  589
  were considered by the Governor in Council to be contrary to the public interest.
  Mr. Brockway: Do the Government endorse this view that the English-reading people in Kenya are so non-adult that they cannot judge for themselves when they read a book of this character? Will the right hon. Gentleman himself examine this book, and come to the conclusion that it is an objective account of this trial which ought to be permitted wide circulation?
  Mr. Hopkinson: The reason this book was banned was that it discloses the names, addresses and particulars of prosecution witnesses which were withheld at the trial by leave of the court and must still be withheld to protect the witnesses' lives. In these circumstances the Government see no reason whatever to intervene.

  UGANDA (CONTROL OF ENTRY, KARAMOJA)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds citizens from other areas in Uganda are prohibited from visiting the Karamoja district without special permits.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Karamoja is a backward and remote district, which is from time to time the scene of sudden outbreaks of inter-tribal fighting and stock raiding. Control of entry is considered essential for the peaceful administration of the district and for the safety of travellers; but I am advised that permits to enter on legitimate business are freely granted.

  MALAYA (EMERGENCY)
  Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the cost of the emergency in Malaya to date; how this has been allocated as between Great Britain and Malaya; and what further steps have been taken to bring it to an end other than by military means.
  Mr. Hopkinson: The total cost of the emergency in Malaya to the end of 1954 has been in the region of £135 million. Of this about £83 million has fallen on the Federation Government and £52 million on Her Majesty's Government. The latter figure does not include the whole cost of the external Forces in Malaya, but only the estimated difference between the cost of maintaining them in Malaya and in their normal stations.
  As regards the third part of the Question, political leaders in Malaya are associated with measures taken against the terrorists through their membership of the Director of Operations Committee and of the War Executive Committees at all levels. Every effort is being made to enlist the more active support of the public in hastening the end of the emergency.
  Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that this emergency has been going on for seven years and is impoverishing Malaya and this country, and that sometime, somewhere, somebody must take the lead in bringing it to an end? Will he press the Governments of Malaya and Singapore to try to bring about a settlement with the people in the jungle?
  Mr. Hopkinson: We are all aware of the need to bring the emergency to an end as soon as possible, but I think that we are equally determined that nothing shall be done which will involve submitting to force on the part of Communist bands.
  Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the leaders of public opinion in Malaya and Singapore have offered their services to meet the people in the jungle to try to bring about a settlement?
  Mr. Hopkinson: No, Sir, that is not the situation. Proposals were put forward by the U.M.N.O.—M.C.A. Alliance and these were discussed at the Director of Operations Committee in January, when leading members of the Alliance were present. It was decided unanimously that no general amnesty should be offered and that the present surrender policy should be maintained.

ATOMIC ENERGY (UNITED KINGDOM-U.S.A. AGREEMENTS)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the Agreements between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government which have been signed in Washington today, first, for co-operation on the civil uses of atomic energy, and secondly, for cooperation regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes.
These Agreements are required by an Act of the United States Legislature passed in 1954 to lie before Congress for a period of 30 working days. They should, therefore, come into force about one month hence.
The United States Act made provision for co-operation with regard to atomic energy between the United States and other countries, subject to the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the United States and such countries. I am confident that the House will welcome the fact of Her Majesty's Government having become a party to such agreements, thus establishing a basis for cooperation with the United States Government on matters relating both to the economic and defence uses of atomic energy.
592
The text of the two Agreements will be published in the next few days and laid before Parliament as White Papers.
Mr. H. Morrison: The House will be glad to have the information which has been given by the Foreign Secretary, and in principle we welcome it. Naturally, we must defer final judgment until we see the details which are to be available to hon. Members, but it is desirable that there should be this exchange of information for which the Government have pressed and for which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Government pressed as well but were prevented by legislation which then existed. In principle, we welcome the statement, and we hope that when we have examined the details they will prove to be useful and satisfactory.
Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to understand that atomic energy information includes information about nuclear energy, if that is the correct expression? The right hon. Gentleman will know that many of the weapons of defence or offence now seem to be more nuclear than atomic, as far as we lay people can understand.
Mr. Macmillan: This terminology, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is somewhat obscure, and perhaps it would be best to wait for the text of the Agreements which will be laid in a few days' time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [FIFTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[9th June]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. —[Mr. Simon.]
    Question again proposed.
    3.35 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This is the first occasion upon which it has been my duty to address the House as Foreign Secretary. It is now nearly thirty-one years since I was first elected a Member of the House and in that period I have seen the unrolling of great events. I came here, and so did many others at that time, as a survivor of the First World War. I saw the slow drift towards the second and, like every man and woman in every part of the House and in every home in this country, I share the determination that, God willing, we should be saved from a third which, if it came, might bring final destruction to the civilisation of the world. Now that I find myself allotted a small part in this vast drama, I hope that I may ask for the indulgence and perhaps the sympathy of the House.
    It has been the custom for successive Foreign Secretaries, in opening debates of this kind, to give a general review of our relations with various foreign Powers and of the special problems in different parts of the world. In the end, all of these are connected, to a greater or lesser degree, with the over-riding master problem; that is, the division of the world into the great blocs—the Communist and the non-Communists. Nevertheless, I think that it will be convenient for the House to follow the traditional plan.
    First, I should like to say a few words about Austria. The signature of the
    594
    Austrian Treaty took place on 15th May, in Vienna. I think that it was welcomed in all parts of the House. The negotiations, which were successfully concluded last month, had lasted since 1947. Their course has been difficult and often frustrating and, indeed, it had seemed that every time a solution came within sight the Soviet Government were determined to find a new reason to block agreement. The Austrian people are, however, now upon the threshold of their full freedom and independence, and for the first time since 1945 Soviet troops in Europe are to withdraw.
    The Treaty itself is an improvement on the earlier draft. For instance, the former Article 16 of the draft Treaty has been deleted. This paragraph, drafted originally by the Soviet Government, would have resulted in great hardship to many displaced persons and refugees in Austria, and we are very glad to see this paragraph go. The Treaty also contains new provisions about the return to Austria by the Soviet Government of assets in the Soviet zone of Austria. These provisions result from an undertaking given by the Soviet Government to the Austrian delegation which visited Moscow in April of this year. Although Austria is to make substantial payments to the Soviet Union, the new arrangements represent a notable gain for the Austrian economy.
    There is another change, the removal of restrictions on the size of the armed forces which Austria may now have. That is an important provision in view of the declared intention of the Austrian Government to observe neutrality. Indeed, the Austrian Government have stated their resolve to defend their independence and neutrality with all the resources at their command. Of course, Austrian neutrality is not a new idea. The Austrians had stated more than a year before that it was their wish to keep out of all alliances and to have no military bases on their soil.
    The legislative action which Austria takes to announce her neutrality has already begun. A resolution was approved by the Austrian Parliament on 8th June asking the Government to submit to Parliament a draft of a federal constitutional law. By that law Austria, of her own free will, will declare her perpetual neutrality, her resolve to maintain and defend her neutrality and her decision not

    595
    to join military alliances or to allow foreign bases on her territory. That resolution invites the Government, once the Treaty has entered into force and occupation forces have been withdrawn, to communicate that law to all States with the request that they recognise Austrian neutrality.
    That course of action corresponds with proposals which were discussed by the Soviet Government and with the Austrian delegation in Moscow in April and which were further considered at the Vienna Conference of Foreign Ministers, on 14th May. My United States and French colleagues and I, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, all said we had no objection in principle to the course of action suggested for Austria, but we made it clear that action must first be taken by the Austrian Parliament itself.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Swiss Government consider that their neutrality makes it impossible for them to join the United Nations at present. Will that be the case with the Austrian Government, or will they join the United Nations?
    Mr. Macmillan: I was just coming to that question, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for reminding me of it.
    There are certain other points which will come up for discussion in connection with the re-establishment of Austria in what one might call the community of free nations. The four Powers and Austria have stated in the Preamble to the Treaty that they wish it to serve as the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling the four Powers to support Austria's candidature for the United Nations. That is a part of and incorporated in the Preamble of the Treaty and I think it is of great importance to us all.
    There is another action to support Austria's independence which might be taken, such as a four-Power guarantee of Austria's territorial integrity, but, of course, that will have to be considered quite separately and no undertaking of any kind has been given about that nor, as the United States Secretary of States has made clear, is ratification of the Treaty in any way dependent upon any
    596
    action of that kind. The present position is this, and it is very satisfactory. Austria and the Soviet Union have both now ratified the Treaty formally. I understand that France and the United States expect to complete the process of ratification very shortly, I earnestly hope that this House will see no objection to the submission of the Treaty in the near future to Her Majesty for ratification.
    Speedy action is important, because the Treaty will enter into force as soon as all the instruments of ratification have been deposited with the Soviet Government. The occupation forces are to withdraw within 90 days, so it is important for the Austrians that the process of ratification should be speeded as much as possible.
    A free and independent Austria will then emerge, 17 years after Hitler's occupation. The new prospect which has been opened by this event is, clearly, most welcome to the Austrian people. I was fortunate enough to see that myself and I am sure that the whole House will join with me in wishing them prosperity and success.
    Mr. Frank Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman said that Austria would be able to defend her neutrality. Does that imply that Austria may have her own armed forces?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, it certainly does. That is one of the points of importance in the form which the Treaty takes.
    I should like to say a word about the Middle East. In many respects there has been an improvement, especially in the north. Nevertheless, there are areas which cause us considerable anxiety and problems about which we feel great concern. Perhaps the chief of those is the Arab-Israel question. I regret to say that the situation there has not improved. Tension continues on the Gaza frontier. Israeli vehicles are blown up by mines and Egyptian outposts are attacked in reprisal. Both sides are responsible and both sides have broken the armistice agreement. In this unhealthy atmosphere one violation breeds another, one incident follows another, and the situation daily becomes more dangerous.
    The United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, under General Burns, is doing all it can. It has our full support

    597
    and we join with our American and French friends in urging both sides to co-operate with General Burns according to the resolution of the Security Council of 30th March. General Burns is now trying to bring the parties together, under his chairmanship, to discuss at a higher level than the truce machinery provides—with more important figures on both sides—measures that might be adopted to reduce tension. In this task I am sure I may say that General Burns has the full confidence of the House and we trust that a meeting of this character will shortly be arranged. We are doing all we can to expedite it.
    Nevertheless, the situation is of grave concern to us. We are members of the United Nations. We have special and historic interests in that part of the world and we have special obligations under the Tripartite Declaration of May, 1950. I beg no one to think, either in this House or out of it, that we do not take those obligations seriously; we do, and we shall stand by them.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Before leaving that subject, as apparently the right hon. Gentleman is about to leave it, may I ask whether, in the circumstances, it is desirable to continue to provide arms for Egypt? Is it not the case that for some time now Centurion tanks, aircraft and other weapons have been provided? Would it not be wise to suspend the export of arms?
    Mr. Macmillan: We have tried to get what one might call an equilibrium, but we have had one or two very old contracts—some four years old—under which small quantities of arms have been provided. It is our purpose, as far as we can, to maintain the equilibrium, but it is still more important to get the truce properly regarded and an easement of tension on all sides.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that he is maintaining the equilibrium when, in fact, arms are being provided for Egypt and when Israel makes application for arms she is prevented from obtaining them in this country?
    Mr. Macmillan: We have supplied arms, also, to Israel but it is very difficult to maintain the equilibrium precisely. If the matter were debated at greater length, I think I could show that
    598
    we have tried our best to maintain the general principle of equilibrium, although sometimes some of these old contracts cannot be put wholly aside if they stand three or four years behind delivery.
    Before leaving that subject, I should like to reinforce what I have said. We hold this obligation as a serious one. We shall do our best to fulfil the 1950 Declaration. I should like that to be felt and known in all quarters.
    I will now say something about the Turco-Iraq position, or the position further north, in the Middle East. There is great improvement there and developing strength to withstand any aggression from without. In the first place, the settlement of the oil dispute has brought equal benefits to Iran and ourselves. It has strengthened the Iranian Government and people. It has allowed a great industry to spring back into life. The visit of the Shah-in-Shah to this country a few months ago was a happy symbol of a new period of co-operation. Next to that, the Turco-Iraqi Pact, to which we have ourselves adhered, is another sign of strength and of the will to resist, and our friends in Turkey, as members of N.A.T.O., form at once the right flank of N.A.T.O. and the firm centre of the Middle East position.
    With Iraq we have had many years of special friendship and of intimate relationship. Our new accord, called the Special Agreement, supersedes the old Treaty and is consistent with the remarkable growth in Iraqi strength and authority. The detailed discussions on the financial aspects, such as valuation of the bases at Habbaniya and Shaiba, which are about to be handed over to the Iraqis, are going on in a very friendly atmosphere.
    We are confident that our alliance with Turkey and Iraq forms a solid base on which to found Middle East defence. However, in case any misapprehensions on the nature of our alliance with Turkey and Iraq should continue to exist—and I would observe that our Syrian friends have some doubts on this score—I would like to reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the debate on 30th March about this Treaty:
    "It is a purely defensive arrangement which respects the independence of the countries concerned and their neighbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 381.]

    599
    Also, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in the debate on 4th April, said:
    "There is nothing in the Pact which need threaten, weaken or cause anxiety to any State in the Middle East. It is directed against no one in the area, against no State or group of States. Indeed, it respects the independence of all countries and offers a specific guarantee to any States who should accede."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 835]
    Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: May I ask a question, in view of our adherence to that Pact? The Foreign Secretary has expressed a desire to maintain a strict balance in our relations between Jews and Arabs. Is he prepared now to sign a similar pact of a strictly defensive nature with Israel?
    Mr. Macmillan: This Pact is aimed, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, against the possibility of aggression from without. We have already the Tripartite Declaration which protects Israel against any breach of the peace and I do not think that these are at all comparable in their character. I believe it to be true that all States in the area, including Israel, feel and will begin more and more to feel, that this Pact is a sure shield for their defence against aggression from without, and it is for the purpose of building that defence that this Pact was entered into.
    While I am speaking about this part of the world, I would like to add how much Her Majesty's Government are looking forward to welcoming their Majesties the King and Queen of Jordan, who are coming to this country tomorrow as the guests of Her Majesty's Government.
    Now I must turn for a moment in this survey to say something about progress in the Sudan. The Sudan is now approaching the time when the process of self-determination will begin. The process of Sudanisation, provided for under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement, is nearly complete. Perhaps I might be allowed, without impertinence, to pay once more a tribute to the outstanding services which British officials have rendered in the Sudan.
    It is probable that the Sudanese Parliament will, in a month or two, pass a resolution requesting that arrangements for self-determination should be set in motion. Within three months from that date, which we expect to be in August,
    600
    British and Egyptian troops will withdraw. At the same time, preparations will be made for the election of a constituent assembly which will choose between independence or some form of link with Egypt and will draw up a constitution compatible with that choice. Arrangements for the process of self-determination are to be supervised by an international body whose duty it is to safeguard the impartiality of the elections and generally to assure a free and neutral atmosphere. Negotiations for the establishment of this supervising body have already begun with the Egyptian Government.
    It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to honour to the full, in the letter and in the spirit, the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan and to refrain from influencing in any way the choice which the Sudanese people may make as to their future. Unfortunately, irrefutable evidence shows that the Egyptian Government have not in every case refrained from intervening in Sudanese internal affairs. We have made strong representations to the Egyptian Government and have told them that we have a right to expect that they should follow the same policy of restraint as ourselves. Only in this way can both Governments fulfil their trust. Meanwhile, all of us in this House wish the Sudanese people good fortune in their new adventure.
    I turn now to the Far East, and I must say to the House that the events in Indo-China still demand our close attention. The Geneva Agreements remain the keystone of our policy. It was because the International Commission in Vietnam reported that it would not be possible within the prescribed time limit to give full effect to one of the most important provisions of the Geneva Agreements, that relating to the movement of the refugees—the House may remember that this was limited to a certain fixed timetable—that I took up the matter with the Soviet Government, both through the diplomatic channel and personally with Mr. Molotov, in Vienna. I am glad to say that it has proved possible to secure a two months' extension of the time limit. I only hope that no obstacles may arise to the effectiveness of this agreement.
    There is a further point. The House will remember that in the Final Declaration made by the Geneva Conference it

    601
    was provided that consultations about the elections, which are to be held in July, 1956, should be held
    "between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from July 20, 1955, onwards."
    Now, although the Government of Vietnam do not regard themselves as bound by the Final Declaration, this provision is, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, an important, and, indeed, an integral part of the Geneva Agreements. We hope, therefore: that it will be possible to arrange these consultations to begin as scheduled and we shall do our best to see that this happens.
    The problem of Laos continues to give us concern. I am afraid that there is no progress to report in the matter of the restoration of the authority of the Royal Laotian Government in the two provinces of the far north where the Communist Pathet Lao are entrenched. Nevertheless, I should like to say something now about the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty because at the moment, perhaps, it does not receive very much publicity. It is not spectacular and it is not provocative, but it is doing a good deal of quiet constructive work. The various sub-committees established at the recent Bangkok conference have all had useful meetings and their recommendations and reports will be considered by a meeting of the Council representatives in Bangkok in July.
    Staunch support for the Colombo Plan is a cardinal element in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South and South-East Asia. The task of raising standards of living in Asia is a tremendous one, but it proceeds steadily. As founder members of this imaginative plan, which now includes every country in South and South-East Asia, as well as the United States and Japan, Great Britain will continue to devote such of our resources as we can spare to this vital work.
    I now turn to the problems of the Formosa Strait. Hon. Members perhaps will have seen with some satisfaction that in recent weeks there has been a substantial reduction of hostile actions and propaganda in connection with the Formosa problem. We all hope that this will be maintained and, indeed, extended. Meanwhile, our Chargé d'Affaires in Peking has recently been in touch with
    602
    Mr. Chou En-lai in order to seek clarification of the Chinese statement, made at the Bandung conference, regarding their willingness to negotiate with the United States Government. In addition. Mr. Krishna Menon, to whose services I should like to pay special tribute, has also recently been holding discussions on this matter in Peking.
    All this is to the good. We shall continue our efforts in the light of these discussions to help to bring about a further relaxation of tension and to reach a peaceful outcome, and in this connection we regard the release of four of the United States airmen imprisoned in China as a useful first step. We particularly appreciate the part played in this matter by Mr. Hammarskjold.
    We have noted the statement of Mr. Chou En-lai on 13th May in which he said that the Chinese people were willing to strive for the liberation of Formosa by peaceful means so far as this was possible. This has been the constant theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the earlier stages of this dispute—negotiation, not force. I devoutly hope that it will become the accepted theme and principle in these troubled matters.
    After this review I must now come for a moment or two to what is the supreme issue: what are the prospects of peace—and by peace, of course, we do not mean what used to be called, or miscalled, appeasement, still less surrender. Nor do we expect that peace and security can come to us suddenly in a flash by a sort of miracle. We cannot look for that. But we can hope, I believe, for a gradual lifting of this shadow which oppresses us all.
    It will need patience and perseverance, but I really believe that our hopes have never been more soundly based than they are today. For they are based upon the reality of our achievements—the achievements of successive Governments on both sides of the Atlantic; and if we now begin a new chapter in this long story with greater confidence than before, it is because of men like General Marshall and Ernest Bevin, who taught us to seek peace not from weakness but from strength. They interpreted negotiation from strength not, of course, as meaning the use of force or the threat of force

    603
    to secure our ends. They meant negotiating from a position of strength, of equal strength, and, above all, negotiating on the basis of that moral reinforcement which comes from unity of purpose in seeking just ends and serving honourable causes.
    If these hopes are to fructify, as I believe they may, we must—and I am sure that both sides of the House will agree—be wary as well as bold. We must not lower our guard prematurely. We must not relax our efforts. This, of course, will throw a very great strain upon the democracies. It will not worry the autocratic Governments at all, but it will worry us—all the countries in the democratic alliance—because we know from bitter experience how difficult it is to keep the effort going when the danger seems rather less. Hon. Members will remember the fable of the wind and the sun, and which of them could make the man throw away his coat.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: And the spider and the fly.
    Mr. Macmillan: After a long Russian winter of ice and snow, the sun is beginning to come out, but I say that it is a good rule in setting out upon an expedition, if I may change the metaphor, to keep one's base secure. We have a sound base, and it is based upon a triple partnership of the British Commonwealth and Empire, the United States and the peoples of free Europe.
    There has never been a time when the Commonwealth has played a greater part than today. It draws a new strength from its variety—eight independent Governments representing so many creeds and races, whose standpoint in world affairs is by no means identical but whose broad purpose is similar. Each Government plays an individual part but their collaboration is close. At the February meeting the Commonwealth Prime Ministers pooled their ideas and declared their Governments' resolve to seek, each in their own way, to relax existing tensions and to work for real peace.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already referred to the contributions made by Canada and India, which together serve on the International Supervisory Commission in Indo-China. India currently is playing a quite unique
    604
    rôle both in interpreting the West to the East and in searching out the paths of peace. I am sure the House will also wish me to give a warm welcome to the recent decision of the Australian and New Zealand Governments to make their contribution to the defence of Malaya, thereby demonstrating that the peace and orderly development of Malaya is of concern to the Commonwealth as a whole and that friends from overseas are ready to stand by Malaya, side by side with those from these islands.
    Those are only some illustrations from the field of foreign affairs to show how fruitful the Commonwealth's contribution can be. The strength of the Commonwealth derives from the spirit which animates its peoples and I am sure that their resolve to work together for peace is one of the greatest forces in the world today.
    The second link is our alliance, I would almost say our partnership, with the United States. Our relations today, I am glad to say, are of a frank and robust nature. We speak freely to each other without offence. We do not always agree in every detail, and we are not ashamed of that, for that is a true partnership, but we all recognise the immense moral and material strength of the United States, that this is the central pillar of the whole of the edifice and that if this should weaken or fall, all that we hold dear would come crashing down.
    The third link consists of the nations of free Europe. It is the progress in Europe which, after many delays and disappointments, has at last brought us somewhere near the goal for which we have been striving for many years. The policy which culminated in the signing of the London-Paris Agreements is now bearing fruit. Important events last month marked the opening of a new phase in post-war European history. They brought a new sense of unity to the Western Alliance. We have only to rehearse them and they are already very impressive and dramatic.
    On 5th May the occupation of Western Germany was brought finally and formally to an end. On 6th May Western European union came into being with Germany and Italy joining the old Brussels Treaty Powers. On 7th May it was my privilege to preside at the first meeting of the council in the British

    605
    Embassy in Paris. This was a really moving occasion, for it was the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. A spirit of harmony and real understanding prevailed. From 9th May to 11th May followed the North Atlantic Council meeting and the formal accession of Germany as the fifteenth nation, Dr. Adenauer representing the Federal Republic.
    This was a well-deserved reward for the courage and patience of that great statesman. Frank and intimate discussions took place on current political matters, including the prospects for the four-Power talks. Following these meetings, the official invitation was sent to the Soviet Government. Also on 11th May, at its second meeting, the Western European Union Council agreed to accept general responsibility for the future of the Saar. After long and friendly discussions, full agreement was reached regarding the referendum and the five-Power commission to supervise it and the powers of the European Commissioner.
    This is a European solution to a longstanding European problem and this good work is going on. Permanent representatives of the Western European Union Council have now begun regularly to meet in London. Their discussions include the organisation and staffing of the Arms Control Agency, which is a very bold experiment in establishing a voluntary control system, and arrangements for the first meeting of the Western European Union Assembly.
    Germans are now fully participating in the plans of the West both here and in the North Atlantic Council in Paris. We are advancing, therefore, steadily towards a new high level of European and Atlantic solidarity. Despite setbacks and difficulties, Europeans have not lost their faith and these events bear witness to the good will and common purpose which have inspired them. I think we may claim that our country has played a good part in all this work.
    If we have not been able to accept the path of full federation, we have always been anxious to promote the true unity of Europe by every practicable means. I am convinced that the European idea is one by which, and perhaps by which alone the German people can be kept within the European fold, the Western fold. Of
    606
    course, this concept is one, and perhaps the only one, by which long feuds of centuries between France and Germany may be ended, but, above all, I think that it is one which appeals to the youth of Germany and by which they may be turned from the snares of Communism on the one hand, or the dangers of narrow nationalism on the other. More and more the youth of Europe, and especially of Germany, is turning to the traditions and the fundamental unity of Europe for its inspiration.
    From that I pass to a subject which is in a special way a link between the past and the future, and that is the problem of disarmament. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs told the House on Monday of the considerable progress which has recently been made in the discussions. The Soviet Union, in its declaration on 10th May, has now accepted several disarmament proposals which the Western Powers have long urged. In particular, it has adopted the proposals we put forward in conjunction with the French Government on the levels of armed forces to be permitted in the disarmament treaty and co-ordination of various aspects of conventional and nuclear disarmament so that the conversion of nuclear stocks to peaceful uses would begin when 75 per cent. of the agreed reductions of conventional armaments had been carried out.
    The Soviet change of attitude is a very notable fact and is a fitting reward for years of very hard uphill negotiation. I am sure that the House would like me to pay tribute to the present Minister of Defence and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for all that they have done. However, I should not like to create the impression that we are nearing the end of the road, for a number of important questions remain unresolved. There is the question of what is called "the control organ." We insist that this body must have the powers and be in a position to ensure that the disarmament programme is faithfully carried out and carried out by all States concerned. This, of course, is fundamental. But there is, in addition, the complicated and very technical problem of the control of nuclear energy This, of its very nature, raises enormous difficulties. We have, further, to decide on what action the control organ must

    607
    be able to take in the event of a breach of the treaty.
    Then we have to go into the question of what political problems need to be settled before disarmament can take place, for it is obvious that a great degree of international confidence is required before it will be safe and practical to begin the disarmament. To mention only one example, settlement of the German problem and disarmament are closely interconnected. Disarmament will no doubt be considered along with other political questions at the forthcoming four-Power talks and there will also be continued discussions in the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee at a date to be agreed. The House may rest assured that we shall continue, at whatever level discussion is begun, to do all we can to bring about an effective and comprehensive disarmament plan.
    I come from that to the question of the four-Power talks themselves. There is, as the House knows, first the question of the time-table. We suggested to the Soviet Government that the heads of Government should meet in Geneva on 18th July. Yesterday, we had the Soviet Government's acceptance of our proposal. Later this afternoon I have to go to New York, where I hope to continue with Mr. Foster Dulles and M. Pinay talks which we began a few weeks ago in Paris.
    We all expect to be in San Francisco for the celebration of the 10th anniversary meeting of the United Nations. Since Mr. Molotov is also to be in San Francisco, we hope to resume the informal discussions which we began at Vienna both on general topics and, of course, on arrangements for the four-Power meeting. I have heard with pleasure that Mr. Molotov has accepted Mr. Dulles's invitation for a meeting for these informal talks at San Francisco. I also hope that we shall agree to hold a short meeting of Foreign Secretaries immediately before that of the heads of Governments in July.
    Next, what is to be the substance of the four-Power meeting? What is it to be about, what do we expect it to do and what method shall we adopt? It may be, and I think probably is the fact, that with this four-Power meeting we are at the beginning of a new phase in diplomacy. I have never believed, and
    608
    never tried to persuade anybody else to believe, that a meeting of heads of Governments could, in the short period of a few days, or even a few weeks, arrive at a full solution of the immense problems which confront the world. No one, no responsible figure, has ever made such a claim. Indeed, it would be a great calumny upon the leaders of both sides, because if the solution was as easy as that, if it took only two or three days or weeks to find it, it might be asked why the answer had not been found already.
    What I think can be done, and I think will be done, is to get a clear picture of what precisely are the questions which divide each side; what are the suspicions which, rightly or wrongly, we maintain about each other; and what means of communication can be built up and established between us. What this meeting really is, and should be regarded as, is not the end but the beginning, the beginning of a new phase—I hope of a fruitful phase.
    The heads of Governments can take a broad survey of the field, however wide. They should not, I think, seek to reach final agreements, but rather to agree upon the scope of the problems to be solved and the methods by which agreement may eventually emerge. They would plan the outline of the work for the Foreign Secretaries to carry on, and this, in some cases, might best be done by that method or by the use of existing international organisations such as the United Nations itself.
    Nor should the four great Powers arrogate to themselves the authority to settle all the difficulties which beset all nations. They have no right to do so, they have no power to do so, without consultation with all the nations concerned; but they might well set the pattern of a whole machinery of conference and negotiation to which other nations could be invited, where they are specially concerned.
    Finally, Sir, what are the prospects of this meeting? There is a kind of "new look" in the West in Europe, in free Europe, and there is perhaps, after all, a "new look" in Russia. Of course, we are right to inquire for the reason for this action or for the motives of that action; but if we spend too much time in these speculations then events will pass us by. We must take advantage

    609
    of every new situation and get what good we can out of it.
    The signing of the Austrian Treaty, after months of obstruction; the pilgrimage to Belgrade in flattering, if rather overpowering, numbers of V.I.P.s; the invitation to Dr. Adenauer, soft phrases after years of abuse and vituperation, all these, according to how one interprets them, are either reassuring signs of a new policy towards Europe, perhaps almost a recantation or a conversion, or they may be regarded as sinister warnings of a more subtle but just as deadly threat to the safety and unity of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. One can speculate on all that for ever, without much profit in sonic cases. What we have to do is to act.
    It is much more difficult now not to make mistakes. It is very nice when Mr. Molotov begins to say "Yes, yes," instead of always "No, no," but we must not be swept away on a tide of emotion by the novelty of this experience. Nor must we take refuge, refuge from our fears and hesitations, in cynicism or suspicion. Just as open operations, in war, demand much more skill and experience than the routine of trench warfare, so it is in diplomacy. We ought to welcome the opportunity afforded by greater flexibility. Of course, it will put greater strain upon our own skill and resources.
    In any event, I feel sure that the House will not expect me to set out in any detail the way in which we propose to approach this series of conferences. If we can happen to find any good cards in our hands, I think it might be better not to reveal them, still less to play them, until the right moment. Every day I hear and read of proposals of almost infinite variety, all of which are claimed to be the sole key to success. We study them all. We do not even take much satisfaction in the fact that they nearly all cancel out.
    But, perhaps, after all, there is no single clue or no magic formula or sudden and dramatic transformation scene by which all the matters can be solved. Patience, perseverance and loyalty—on these we must depend. The Russians will always find us ready to consider their legitimate requirements, to accord them the security to which they are entitled, and to meet their reasonable demands. But we shall be equally resolute in securing satisfaction for our own needs and, above all, in refusing to agree to settlements which
    610
    conflict with justice and with honour. Loyalty to our own Allies, old and new; perseverance—do not let us lower our guard until our security is achieved; and patience, because the journey will be long with many disappointments and many stumbles on the road. But, Sir, the prize is great.
    Mr. Bowles: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question? Supposing that the neutrality of Germany is proposed at the four-Power conference, what is the policy of the Government on that?
    Mr. Macmillan: To consult with our Allies, and especially with Dr. Adenauer.
    4.27 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Younger: The speech of the Foreign Secretary, like the first page of the Gracious Speech itself, has ranged over very many international problems but without telling us very much about the substance of what the Government intend. The Foreign Secretary opened his remarks by claiming the indulgence usually claimed in this House by maiden speakers. I assure him that he can always rely on having fairness and a reasonable measure of human sympathy from our side of the House, but we would be paying a poor compliment to someone who has been immersed in world affairs for as long as he has if we were to treat him as a novice.
    I will give him this measure of sympathy that, making a survey for the first time since he took office, he may well have felt that it was necessary for him to set out at length a number of things which really in fact the whole House takes for granted but which he cannot afford to allow to go unsaid on first taking office. Certainly there was in his speech a great deal with which I cannot disagree and on which I find it impossible to make any intelligent comment.
    The Foreign Secretary, as I am sure he would acknowledge, has already been a little lucky, in that just after he had taken office the world achieved something which it had been seeking ever since the end of the war, namely the Austrian Treaty, something which had been talked of so many times by Foreign Secretaries of both parties as being possibly the first real sign of the beginning of a better phase in international affairs. The Foreign Secretary told us that he hoped

    611
    to see it soon ratified by all the Powers concerned, and certainly on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House I say that we could see no conceivable objection to it and indeed we are delighted to see it agreed.
    The Foreign Secretary told us that he is going later today to New York on his way to San Francisco for the tenth anniversary of the United Nations. I welcome that. I must say that I would have been a little happier if he had himself shown that he regarded this as a festive occasion and perhaps of some significance in British foreign policy, but he dismissed it in a half phrase and I hope that that is not the amount of space that it takes up in his thinking.
    On this tenth anniversary we on this side of the House would like to reaffirm our support of the principles of the Charter which, I think, has stood the test of 10 years' experience, even if some of the machinery has not proved to be workable. We would also wish to reaffirm our support of the work of the Organisation itself from day to day.
    Many of us have different opinions as to how far the United Nations is really able to influence world affairs. I think that sometimes we tend to under-estimate its influence, but, however that may be, it is certainly true that the proceedings in the United Nations have always reflected very clearly, and I think very usefully, the state of the world at any particular time.
    The early proceedings reflected the great hopes there were that it would be possible to organise peace on a worldwide scale. Later they reflected the decline in the universal idea under the impact of the cold war as the world seemed to be splitting up into separate alliances and blocs. Now, somewhat ironically, it looks as though the universal fear of nuclear destruction may be at last beginning to make the whole world feel akin. If that does happen, we may well find that that leads back to a renewed importance for the universal idea embodied in the United Nations Charter.
    After all, the new phrase "peaceful co-existence" is nothing more than new jargon for the universal tolerance between nations which was enjoined by the
    612
    Charter. Already we see revived interest in the United Nations disarmament plans which, five years ago, most people would have thought were dead and very nearly buried. Therefore I think it is permissible for us now, if we are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning of a new chapter, to hope that we may see an enhanced rôle for the United Nations.
    It is true that we are not likely in the immediate future to see the security provisions of the Charter come to life, but on this side of the House we have always attachéd the greatest possible importance to the economic and social rôle which the United States has to play. That work and the British contribution to it has suffered very greatly from the cold war, the financial crisis following the Korean war and the defence burdens which we have all had to undertake.
    During that particular period, successive Governments did their best to support the United Nations, but, frankly, what was done when we look at it in perspective was not very much. Now when the perspective is beginning to lengthen and we are able to lift our eyes from the immediate and disagreeable task of trying to build strength against a possible military crisis fairly near ahead, I think that we must give this economic side of the United Nations work a far bigger place in our policy. The time has come when we should stop stalling on the United Nations Fund for Economic Development. We have been a little more forthcoming on the other proposal for an International Finance Corporation, but in neither of these cases do I see any real sign that the Government appreciate that, if we are in a new phase, one feature of it ought to be a greatly increased emphasis on this type of work.
    There are other bodies like the Technical Assistance body, the Children's Fund, and not only United Nations bodies but others as well, such as the Colombo Plan, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today. The Colombo Plan gets its mention in the Gracious Speech, but once again in rather flat, routine terms which do not indicate any appreciation of the tremendous urgency of this problem.
    The enormous gap in under-developed countries between the needs, particularly for capital development, and the available resources is something which ought

    613
    now to be appreciated. If anyone doubts this, I would refer to the statement made recently by Mr. Deshmukh about the Indian Five-Year Plan, where it is perfectly clear that, even if India were to get double the foreign aid that he anticipates, he would still be far short of the target which has been envisaged.
    I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the success of the Indian Five-Year Plan, and the subsequent developments which, we hope, will follow, will be one of the determining things for the whole of the future of Asia. It is not a question of charity, and not even a question, though this comes into it, of sympathy with a real human need. It is one of the most important determining things in world policy in the next 10 years.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that events from the end of the Korean War up to the Austrian State Treaty justify hopes now that there may be a significant change in the Soviet attitude. As regards the recent Soviet visit to Jugoslavia, it may even be a sign that the Soviet Union is now finding that it has to climb down a little from the self-assumed post of arbiter of policy over all Communist States throughout the world.
    If that were to be so, it would be a great gain, although we cannot expect quick results from it. It is true that, after all that has happened in the last five or six years, we cannot be expected to take very much on trust from the Soviet Union. Still less can we be expected to jeopardise the unity we now have with our Allies whose friendship has stood the test of these very hard times.
    It is also true that there has been an irritating element of pure propaganda in some of the recent Soviet moves. For instance, in the way in which they produced, as though it were their own initiative, proposals on the Austrian State Treaty and on disarmament, which were, in essence, Western proposals, which they have been blocking.
    But it does not follow from that that the proposals are any less genuine. It may well be that the Russians feel—and I think feel rightly—that their previous policy is failing and that they had better try a new one. That is a problem which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will understand particularly easily, because running off with the clothing of parties more enlightened than themselves
    614
    is something from which their party has profited for over a hundred years.
    That method of thieving is often irritating to the victim, but nevertheless the theft has been a real one, and the policies of the more enlightened parties have become part of the stock in trade of the thief. I think therefore that the time is ripe when we must think of negotiating. In any case, it has always been the clear object of building strength to negotiate at some time. Those who like myself and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have always supported these policies in the last 10 years are, I think, beginning now to find it rather difficult to see how we can get ahead to any further stage unless some new element is added to the mere strength-building aspect of our policy.
    The success of this strength-building has been very uneven indeed in different parts of the world. I want to say a word about that. The Foreign Secretary mentioned the South-East Asian Treaty, and he did his best for it, but it was not a very good best. But it is, of course, the most recent of the moves in the building of strength. We did not give it a very warm welcome six months ago, and I do not think that the performance since then alters our opinion. It certainly does not alter mine.
    I am not going into greater detail on the South-East Asia problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) hopes to have a chance to do that later. The main point that I wish to make is that I still see no sign of this Treaty gaining the Asian support which is absolutely essential if it is to be worth anything significant. I believe that such security as is now enjoyed by such countries as Laos and Cambodia in fact derives far more from Asian and, in particular, Indian diplomatic success in handling the Chinese Government than it does from any accretion of Western military strength.
    I should like to include in my mention of India the democratic influence of Burma, whose Prime Minister, Mr. U-Nu, I am glad to see is coming to this country. We admire the progress which he has made in his country in the face of difficulties beside which most of our post-war difficulties pale into insignificance. We believe that Burma is in a far stronger position than she was, and

    615
    we welcome her increased influence. Indeed, I think the lesson we have learned from recent events in South-East Asia is that the development of democratic Asian and, particularly, Indian influence is by far the best shield for the whole of that area, and anything we can do to promote that we should do.
    In the Middle East, I recognise some of the advantages from the Turko-Iraq Pact to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is not part of my business to attack it now, and I welcome our cooperation with Turkey, as well as the new basis on which our relations have been placed with Iraq. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree—indeed, what he said indicates that he would—that this by itself has done nothing whatever to unite the Middle East as a whole; if anything, it has done precisely the opposite. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the various misgivings we expressed about some of the effects of the Middle Eastern situation in the debate last April.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has already referred in an interjection to the fears which Israel feels about the arms situation in the Middle East. I do not think we can accept from the Foreign Secretary what he said about maintaining the equilibrium. There were all sorts of restrictions four or five years ago on the supply of arms to the Middle East, not the least being the practical difficulty of the producing countries in actually supplying arms. Many of those have gone. The flow of arms in some respects is being increased, but Israel feels that she is unable to get the share which she requires for her security.
    We have now this very serious state of tension between Israel and Egypt over the Gaza strip. Threats are being uttered on both sides, and now we gather that Egypt is not prepared to meet and talk with Israel at a high level, despite the popularity of high-level talks in other great matters. This is a very threatening situation, yet apparently all we have from the three signatories of the 1950 Declaration is a deep silence.
    The Foreign Secretary reiterated today what the present Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary, said in the April debate. In effect the right hon. Gentle-
    616
    man said, if I understood him rightly—I hope he will correct me if this is a misrepresentation—that in his view the 1950 Declaration was as good as a treaty, and that we stood by our obligations. I confess that I have used that argument myself when talking with Israeli friends. I was in the Foreign Office at the time of the Declaration, and I believe it was the intention of the Government that that Declaration should have the force of a treaty.
    One has, however, to appreciate that that is not understood and not accepted in the Middle East. Not only is it not understood by the Israelis, but it is also not understood by the Arabs, which is perhaps even more dangerous. If it be really true—as I believe it to be—that the intention of the British Government is that the Declaration should be equivalent to a treaty, I cannot see that there should be any great obstacle to their turning it into a treaty. The question of Israel's security is involved above everything, and it is not much comfort to the Israelis to have rather cryptic hints given in the April debate that the then Foreign Secretary would not, perhaps, oppose venturing into some new form of guarantee including the frontiers, the Jordan waters, refugees and so on.
    What is required is a straightforward guarantee of security. We all know that there are considerable problems which will take a long time to solve; in particular, the refugee problem. One of the troubles, it would seem to me, is that there is so little pressure on the Arab States at the present time to solve most of those problems. I am not saying that this is entirely the fault of the British Government. It is one of the facts of life that the economic barrier between Israel and the Arab States hurts Israel but does not hurt most of the Arab States. The existence of Arab refugees hurts only the Arab State of Jordan and not the others. These are facts of life, but the result is that very little pressure indeed is at present put upon the Arab States to alter their attitude.
    The real principle lying behind all this is surely that we in the Western world, and particularly this country and the United States, are deeply committed by past history to the permanence of Israel's existence in the Middle East; and that is something her neighbours in the Arab

    617
    world do not at present fully accept. We here, perhaps more than Israel, can make them eventually accept it. There is nothing anti-Arab in this sentiment. It is simply something which, being part of our policy and the policy of our greatest Ally, we must insist on making clear to everyone that we do not propose to alter.
    I believe that some kind of security treaty, followed no doubt by negotiation on wider questions, would go a long way to putting things on the right basis. If, in fact, Her Majesty's Government are following constructive policies, either in this or in other Middle Eastern matters, apart from purely military defence against external aggression, they are hiding their light under a bushel, and I wish that they would tell us and the peoples of the Middle East a little more about the initiative they are taking.
    It is in Europe that the building of strength has been most successful. I believe that there we have a real asset with which to tackle the difficult negotiations ahead. As I have already indicated, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Western European Union do no more than ward off a danger and clear the stage for diplomacy. So far as permanent settlements are concerned, all is still to play for.
    While I cannot possibly attempt to cover the enormous field which might be discussed at high level talks, I wish to comment briefly on two of the questions which have been most explosive in the world in recent months. I do not suppose that discussions on Asia can go very far at any conference from which the Chinese Communists are absent. Nevertheless an expression of the British attitude may be important. On this side of the House our attitude to the Far East is well known, and I can summarise it in a very few sentences.
    First, we believe that no tears should be shed and that there should be no loss of blood over the off-shore islands in the Formosa Channel. We hope that may be settled by a peaceful withdrawal but, if not, at least there should be no Power involved outside the Chinese contestants themselves. Beyond that problem lies Formosa, which is a problem of some difficulty and will take longer to solve, since at present there does not seem to be any possibility of a formal
    618
    reconciliation between the views of Peking and Washington. It should be our objective to put that problem into cold storage for a bit and to prevent fighting about it, rather than attempt to achieve any early formal settlement in which, I think, our success would be very doubtful.
    The important thing in gaining time is to make a profitable use of it, and we might use it to concentrate on solving some of the other Far Eastern issues. On our side, in particular, that means obtaining recognition of the full status of China in the world today, both by membership of the United Nations and in the ordinary diplomatic work of the world. Were we to do that, it would facilitate what may have to be attempted at a future time, namely, the arrangement of some kind of international supervision of the status of Formosa for an interim period. I do not see how we can expect to use the machinery of the United Nations so long as one of the principal parties involved, the Chinese People's Government, is kept out of the organisation.
    I hope that the intervening period will also be used on the other side, by the Chinese, to prove by action that they really believe in their own five principles of peaceful co-existence. If they did that over a period, some of the problems, particularly those relating to Formosa, which seem so desperately explosive, but which are not in their essence large-scale world problems, might fall into proper perspective and be settled. I think that we are right to do what the Foreign Secretary said, namely, to discourage the use of force for the settling of the Formosa problem. It would, however, be most unwise at this stage for this country to assume commitments in respect of Formosa which are beyond those of any other member of the United Nations. Anything of that kind can come only when there may be a general settlement in which all interested parties would be involved.
    Finally, I come to the European situation which is, I believe, much the most difficult of all the situations upon which to make any responsible and worthwhile comment. European security is for us the core of the co-existence problem, and the core of European security, I believe, is still that of Germany. It is in Europe that the build-up of rival forces has been most complete, that the frontier between them

    619
    is most unnatural and that the stakes are highest.
    These facts alone indicate that there cannot be a quick solution to the problem. I am sure that both sides are going to move with great caution when they meet on this problem. Eighteen months ago in Berlin both sides moved with such caution that the world verdict was that neither of them had really believed that agreement on German unity was possible at all. I am not saying whether or not that was a correct verdict, but it was a very general verdict, and I am sure that we should approach this conference at least with the hope of starting a process which could end later in German unity, for, without German unity, I think that a permanent European settlement is very hard indeed to envisage.
    In recent weeks and months the Press of the world has been full of speculation about the different ways of breaking the existing deadlock in Europe, ranging from proposals for neutralisation, which would clearly wreck Western European security, to one-sided demands upon the Soviet Union which scarcely amount to negotiation at all and which would risk the very dangerous result of making moderate German opinion fear that the Western Powers were not anxious to help them in obtaining what, after all, is to them a perfectly legitimate objective—their unity.
    Between those two unacceptable extremes there are endless possibilities, and it is within this middle range that we on this side of the House ask the Government to show imagination and a recognition that certain things which seemed impossible a year ago may now be becoming possible. The most important of these things is probably disarmament I think that there is a possibility—though, as the Foreign Secretary said, we are only at the beginning of things—that something may now be achieved in the disarmament field.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Germany and goes on to disarmament, I wonder whether he will think it wise to express any view about the declaration reported in this morning's papers by Mr. Eisenhower and Dr. Adenauer excluding, apparently in advance, from the area of
    620
    negotiation one possible method of reconciliation and unification, namely, closing the door in advance to any possible neutralisation of Germany under any conditions.
    Mr. Younger: I prefer to keep as far away as I can from general discussions of this very general word "neutralisation." I do not think that all forms of neutralisation should be ruled out in advance. Different people refer to different things when they use the word. I have not studied in detail the exact form which this statement took, although I saw it in the Press, and I cannot really think that whatever may have appeared in the Press this morning anything said in that way can close the door in advance of the time when the Powers come to meet.
    I notice that Dr. Adenauer attaches very great importance to there being a measure of disarmament and that he thinks that an indispensable condition of a European settlement. I think that he is right. Indeed, it is hard to envisage any agreement of lasting value on Germany which did not in some way end the situation in which massive armies are confronting each other in the centre of Europe. The various suggestions made for bringing about "disengagement"—whether that means withdrawing troops from various areas or demilitarised zones—would, I think, only carry conviction if one saw them accompanied by a substantial reduction in the size of forces stationed just off-stage as well as those in Central Europe.
    In such a context many things might be possible, and what we are entitled to demand of the Government is flexibility in searching for a way of advancing agreement without destroying the rather precarious sense of security which has been built up in Europe during these last years.
    I wish to echo something reported to have been said by Mr. Adlai Stevenson in the Press yesterday. He is stated to have said that we do not want our negotiators to be too scared in advance. We want them to show a certain boldness and, in particular, not to be too scared about the German attitude. I am very glad that the initial alarm caused in some quarters when Dr. Adenauer received an

    621
    invitation from Moscow did not last very long. It was certainly not justified. I do not say this merely because Dr. Adenauer personally has been an ultra-loyal supporter in the past of Western policies, because I do not accept that he is essentially a better friend of the West than are his Socialist opponents. Perhaps I should put it round the other way and say that his opponents are as good friends of the West as he is. Nor do I think them less important as solid pillars of democracy inside Germany.
    My belief that Germany will not readily again betray her own democracy or her Western friends and that she is aware of her own deep interest in peace, is based more on confidence in the motives and strength of the trade union movement in Germany than on the discipline which Dr. Adenauer has been able to impose on some elements of his own Coalition.
    I think that to represent a Socialist victory in Germany, as some do, as being a disaster for the West is on a par in fatuity with the groans which greeted M. Mendes France, because he was not thought to be keen enough on the German treaties, and would be as quickly proved absurd. I do not think that the Germans will easily be led into any spider's parlour, and I believe that to fear that too much might put crippling limitations on our negotiators.
    There seems to be unanimity in the United States, France and this country—and now, apparently, in the Soviet Union—that the possibility is now opening up of unfreezing the cold war. It will be a lengthy process because confidence has been so deeply undermined that it cannot be quickly restored. The process can however start at Geneva next month and that is the measure of the Prime Minister's responsibility and of his opportunity.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. Martin Maddan: I hope the House will grant me the customary indulgence given to those making their maiden speech. This is an occasion on which I remember all the virtues of silence and the scriptural injunction that death and life are in the power of the tongue. I remember that particularly because it falls to me to follow the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), and, on that account, I feel that my task is made doubly difficult. It is perhaps
    622
    also made difficult because we have listened this afternoon to a tour d'horizon by the Foreign Secretary, and what I have to say is only on a very small aspect of foreign affairs.
    I wish to refer to the Gracious Speech, which mentions that the Atlantic Alliance will receive the wholehearted support of Her Majesty's Ministers. I would draw attention to the fact that, on the same day as the talks at Geneva are due to begin, another conference will begin in Paris at which this House will be represented. I am referring to the conference of Atlantic parliamentarians initiated by the Norwegians and the Canadians.
    I want to say a few words to show why that conference is being held; to illustrate the needs that it has been called to meet, and to indicate what I believe our attitude towards it should be. It is significant that one of the nations who have called this unofficial conference of Atlantic parliamentarians is Canada, which, as one of our Dominions, is respected and trusted on both sides of the Atlantic. Any action which she supports or initiates should receive our special attention.
    The other sponsor is Norway; indeed, it is from the Norwegians that this House has received an invitation to send delegates to the conference. Norway is a particular ally of ours. As a small country which has stood by us, she has earned our friendship and respect. In the spring of 1940 I was in that country, and although I am afraid that it was a question of quick in and quick out, I resolved to go back there in better days if I could, because of the great friendliness of its people and the respect which I developed for them in the few short weeks I was there.
    Parliamentarians of Norway and Canada have called this conference to take place in Paris on 18th July, and it is hoped that the conference will go some way to meet the need for us to look beyond the military aspects of Western defence and our negotiations with Russia, to the war of ideas and the winning of the cold war. It is almost a platitude to say that if N.A.T.O. is nothing more than a defensive organisation it will commit suicide if it is successful in enabling us to reach some détente with the Russians.
    It is very significant that Lord Ismay, the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., in

    623
    his report upon the first five years of N.A.T.O., should have said:
    "… if, by building up positions of strength we are able to avoid a third world war, then the contest between the free countries and the Communist totalitarian countries may be won by those who have been the most successful in solving their economic and social problems."
    At this moment, therefore, when these talks in Geneva offer some hope of reaching a détente with the Russians, we must turn our thoughts to the question how we shall win the war of ideas.
    One of the objects of the conference of Atlantic parliamentarians in Paris is to emphasise the need for political unity in the West. That would also help our military position. Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has drawn attention to the emphasis that should be placed upon guidance in military matters from politicians. It can also be seen quite clearly that the differences of opinion between ourselves and other nations, such as the United States, are exacerbated because of lack of information about the political attitudes of the different countries making up the North Atlantic Community. On the one side, many Americans have a profound distrust—based upon misinformation—of the British Empire. On the other side, our equally profound distrust of the American political system is also based on misinformation.
    We should try, through closer and more frequent contacts between the parliamentarians of these Atlantic countries, to develop a common approach and not just a series of political compromises. There is something un-English and un-Western about leaving the whole question of Atlantic unity to the experts—to the military; to the officials, and even to the leaders of our Governments. Atlantic unity will become a reality only when ordinary politicians, leaders of public opinion outside Parliament, and representatives of civilian interests get together to create an Atlantic opinion.
    I hope that the conference in Paris will not be wholly overshadowed by the one in Geneva, which starts on the same date. I hope that the delegation from this House which goes to Paris will be a strong one, and that if—as is quite possible—the question of some continuing association between the parliamentarians of the Atlantic countries is mooted
    624
    we shall give it favourable consideration. I shall not presume to advise upon the question whether there should be some special assembly or whether we should try to enlarge the Council of Europe at Strasbourg.
    It is almost certain that this question will be raised. The Canadians already have a N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Association, which has unanimously resolved that at this conference in Paris in a month's time the agenda should include a resolution that the parliamentarians at the conference:
    "respectfully urge that the necessary steps be taken to create a North Atlantic Consultative Assembly of parliamentarians, to meet at regular intervals."
    If such a proposal is put forward I hope that, whatever form it is decided such an association should finally take, we shall not merely dismiss it. There is no time, in our present world situation, for what the secretary of the Durham Miners' Association has called, in this context. "halfers." We have to go the whole hog.
    I hope that there will arise in our Parliament a British Parliamentary Atlantic group. We are in the centre of three interlocking circles—the circle of our Commonwealth and Empire, the circle of the Atlantic, and the circle of Europe. The conference in Paris will concern itself with the circle of Europe and the circle of the Atlantic, and I believe it is vital that our delegation should press for recognition of the fact that there is a third circle, namely, the circle of the British Commonwealth and Empire, and that that fact should be taken into account in the setting up of any organisation that may be established as a result of this conference.
    This is vital not only because of the traditional part that we have played as the Mother country of our Empire, but also because, of all the great Powers, we are the one best fitted to press forward with the security of the West without at the same time alarming and alienating the Asian countries. We can do this because of the Asian dominions, which form so important a part of our Commonwealth.
    I thank the House very much for its forbearance in listening to what I have had to say. The experience has been rather like a cold bath—worse in anticipation than in the event. I thank hon. Members for that.
    5.8 p.m.
    Mr. Percy Daines: I have been here for nearly 10 years and I have never before had the privilege of following a maiden speaker. I am grateful that the opportunity came today, especially in view of the forthright and thoughtful speech which we have had from the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan). I admire his courage. He was quite right to get in as soon as he could, but I would point out that although I have not a reputation for being bashful or shy in this House, it took me eight years before I had the courage to make a speech upon foreign policy. The hon. Member is obviously not so politically speech-inhibited as I was.
    We are grateful to him for his views upon extensions of government, which I am sure we all found interesting, and we shall look forward to hearing him again. In fact, I thought how energetic his manner of speech was, especially after listening to the Foreign Secretary. I appreciate the responsibility which rests upon the Foreign Secretary; he is about to take part in a great and important conference, and every word he says has to be carefully weighed, but my goodness how his words were weighed this afternoon ! I expected to hear our old friends "explore every avenue" and "leave no stone unturned" popping out at any moment. Remembering some of the rumbustious speeches which he used to deliver at half-past nine at night, with his cohorts cheering behind him, it seems to me that he must have had a lot of rehearsals before he achieved the new garb of dignity which has descended upon him as Foreign Secretary.
    I intend to dive quite deeply, and if some of my colleagues on these benches do not like what I have to say, I might as well warn them in advance that I propose to tread very much the same path as I have done in previous speeches on foreign policy.
    I often muse on the parallels in history. I have read the latter and rather disastrous stages in our diplomacy towards that end of the war, particularly at Yalta and Teheran and how the great statesmen—in this regard I except to a considerable degree the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—guided their policy on the mistakes of the last war, seeking to avoid making the same mistakes again, not recognising that
    626
    the circumstances were quite different. Despite the best intentions of those statesmen, I believe that that is one of the factors that have landed us in our present difficulties.
    I recollect how Woodrow Wilson, a great President of the American people, laid strong emphasis on the desire of subject peoples for national freedom, particularly the subject peoples of Europe. In the last 10 or 11 years, we seem to have become so obsessed with the ideological differences in the world that we have overlooked the essential fact that the peoples of Europe and countries throughout the world desire their national freedom, their right to run their own countries in their own way, just as strongly now as they did after the previous world war. I propose to come back to that theme towards the end of my remarks.
    I am not limited like the Foreign Secretary. He touched lightly on some of these big problems. I want to pose quite simple and fundamental issues which have to be faced. It is no use our trying to fool ourselves because we want to be fooled. Has Russia changed? That is the guts of the problem we have to face. We have to avoid deceiving ourselves and living in a false heaven, as I imagine some of my comrades do. We have to face facts for what they are. In some cases the only speeches that some of us ever listen to are those we make ourselves. In the case of one of my right hon. Friends, he suffers from the limitation that the only speeches he listens to are his own.
    As a student of what happened in Russia, I recognise that the whole trend of history does not necessarily change because a revolution has taken place. If we pay regard to the facts of geography, we find the same contradictions showing in Russia today as she has shown all the way through her history. There have been periods when Russia has expanded against weakness and when she has contracted against strength. That historical factor is again showing itself in the great drama that we are seeing played today. I know how difficult it is to get at facts, but a certain amount of evidence is coming through about Russia's internal economy. We can see clearly that Russia has not solved, and does not show herself capable of solving, the contradiction between her industrial

    627
    and agricultural expansion. Put quite simply, this means that she cannot feed her people from her own resources and expand her economy at the same time.
    I would point to another contradiction which has great significance, although I am not quite sure what the answer is. I remember one of my hon. Friends telling us that if we had taken advantage of the opportunities when Malenkov was Prime Minister we would now have an entirely different situation. Let us look at the facts. When Malenkov was Prime Minister, Russia's internal policy was one of softening up and of providing more consumer goods and also giving the people more to eat and so making them happy. The external policy was tough. That is a question of fact. Under the new régime there is something quite different, a tough internal policy, for one thing. The consumer-goods policy has been thrown overboard and emphasis has been placed on rearmament. Externally we have the interesting evidence before our eyes of a change of policy, in Austria, Yugoslavia and now in Germany.
    These are significant facts. I am not sure that I dare even venture to suggest an answer. It may well be that after Stalin's death the régime was not sure of itself and was prepared to pay off with a soft internal policy in order to buy time and so make sure of its position. One can only speculate. What has happened? Has Russia had some blinding light of conversion? Has there been a departure from the original dogmas and a complete reorientation of policy, to use a favourite word of some of my colleagues?
    I do not believe it. Neither do I believe that Russia has the initiative. Rather it is the West that has the initiative. What has happened has happened so often before; where a policy clearly does not pay the Russians it is thrown overboard overnight. One has seen many examples of that. There was, for instance, the denunciation of Hitler before the war, while the Hitler-Stalin Pact was made almost overnight. We have to reckon with the fact that such overnight changes can still take place. I remind the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister very seriously that some of us believe that the real Russian objective is to move from her situation which is threatened by her comparative weakness and to get a neutral
    628
    belt right across Europe and, as the main consideration, to get the Americans out of Europe. I believe that would be disastrous not only for this country but for democracy in Europe and throughout the world.
    Suppose there is a policy of neutralisation in Germany. I am glad that Dr. Adenauer and the Social Democrats have completely rejected it. Suppose, too, there were a modification of what one meant by "neutralisation"; does it follow that the Russian long-term objectives are completely unrealisable? These objectives are to clear the Americans out of Europe and to control the West German economy so as to get something like an economic balance with the United States.
    I have always, certainly in respect of the last century and a half, interpreted history in the light of the simple principle that the reality of power is economic power. I believe we would be wise always to bear that in mind. I hope the House will forgive me for repeating it, but I believe it is an eternal truth. It has often happened that we have not believed to be true some of the statements made by those opposed to us and we have not faced them because we did not want to believe them. We would not believe Hitler would do what he said before the war, although he did precisely what he said he would. We can find item after item of evidence of what Russian Communism really is. Lenin himself laid down quite clearly that there comes a time in the development of their system when there must be one step backward in order to take two steps forward.
    I have stated quite clearly what I think are the fundamentals underlying the summit talks. Are we going into them expecting far too much? I suppose the talks will be between President Eisenhower, our own Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of France—whoever he may be at that time—and, on the other side, one is not quite sure whether it will be Bulganin or someone else.
    Let us look quite seriously at this opening which, I admit, has elements of hope in it—I do not put it higher than that. The parties at that meeting may even get so far as to define what the real difficulties are between East and West. Are we expecting too much from the Russians? I say that with the greatest care and circumspection. Under the old

    629
    régime, if Stalin went to talks, what he said was law. He did not have to wire Moscow to find out if he was right. Can anyone say that either Bulganin or Kruschev are in the same position to make decisions?
    I think that we have to be restrained in our expectation of what may happen when we meet the Russians. I do not know whether I read it aright, but I think that there is great significance in the fact that Malenkov himself has not disappeared from the scene. Had that event taken place five years ago, he would by now have been liquidated. I have the feeling—I may be wrong—that the reason he has not gone from the front seat to the "hot seat" is that it is possible that those at present on the front seat want to create a new tradition in case they too have to leave it. It shows that they are not in a position—because of collective leadership, which is the happy term they have given it—to make the quick, permanent and vital decisions which are necessary in a four-Power talk of this kind. I therefore think that we should be extremely careful not to expect too much.
    I intend now to return to that part of my speech at which I began. I believe the desire of civilised people to run their own countries in their own way is a real desire. Whether they are part of the great Slav race, whether a Hungarian and Magyar, or a Czech, a Yugoslav or a Pole, above all things—even at terrific cost to themselves—they want to run their own countries in their own way.
    May I say a word or two about Yugoslavia, which I know very well? I would plead for understanding of her position. Her economy is an extremely difficult one. She has had two disastrous harvests, and she is trying to pull herself up by her own bootstrings. I do not believe that the Yugoslav people want to go on indefinitely taking a hand-out from us, the United States and France. They want to get their own economy on its feet and to give their people a full and prosperous life.
    It is easy enough for us or the Americans to look with suspicion, and perhaps with criticism, at the recent invitation to Belgrade given by the Yugoslavs to the Russians. I wonder if we would feel the same if we had the pistol at our belly as the Yugoslavs have had it at theirs
    630
    since they had the great row with Moscow. Did we know—and I wonder whether we thought about it if we did know—that until 18 months ago, while the "heat" was on them, right down the frontiers of Yugoslavia there were shooting incidents? I recall also the terrible fact that of this small people, proud and intelligent people, brave and courageous people, 1½ million of the population of 15 million were killed in the last war. I plead for tolerance and understanding.
    When I look at some of the things upon which the Government have been engaged, I hope that we are not going to make the mistake of looking upon the Poles, the Czechs and even the Hungarians as expendable. This country tried to follow that policy before the war at Munich, when we treated the Czechs as people of a far and distant land and paid a terrible price for that mistake. We must not let that happen again.
    I want to tell the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who spoke after me in a previous debate on foreign affairs, that I do not want to start another war—of course I do not—but I am not prepared to be quiet when these great problems are before us and to condone the murder and rape of these nations.
    This problem has to be faced. I believe that the Americans are right to put the subject of these nations on the agenda at the conference—whatever the diplomatic finessing of Her Majesty's Government may be. In the long run, we cannot escape certain essential principles of justice and freedom. Let us by all means go into this conference and try to survey the difficulties. Let us do all we can to cast bridges across waters that run so deep, and which, I believe, will continue to run deep. Let us not expect too much, but go into the conference clear-sighted as to the magnitude of the problem; let us go in with courage, and temper our courage with judgment as to the facts.
    5.26 p.m.
    Mr. Airey Neave: I think I can fairly say that the House has thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines). He made some robust observations and showed a commonsense approach which we, at any rate on this

    631
    side of the House, much appreciated. Judging by their faces, so did most hon. Members opposite, though some possibly did not. I hope that his approach will continue to find favour.
    He said one thing with which I do not agree. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave a most excellent and lucid survey of our international problems. I want to refer in particular to the statement which he made—before he began that speech—with regard to the Agreements reached on atomic energy. I did not hear the text of those Agreements but I understand that a satisfactory stage of negotiation has been reached between the United States and this country on the future of the peace-time use of atomic energy.
    I am sure that most hon. Members will welcome the offer of President Eisenhower to make available facilities for nuclear power to the small non-Communist underdeveloped countries. At this stage I think it is fair to say that, though when President Eisenhower made this offer it aroused great interest all over the world, the proposal has not yet passed through Congress and it may be involved, I suppose—though I do not know—in some of the McMahon legislation. Nevertheless it is a very important departure, and it is right that we should consider what should be the attitude of the British Government and of the country in general towards the way in which we might be able to match such a great offer by doing something in that field ourselves.
    It would be wrong to suggest that we could ever in any sense equal it. We have neither the resources nor the great facilities that the United States can make available, but we have the skill and the research, and we should look at this subject particularly in regard to our own territories which will require those resources just as much as will the smaller non-Communist countries referred to in the President's statement.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I am very interested in what the hon. Member is saying. I felt uneasy when the statement was made this afternoon. I happen to be fairly closely acquainted with what has been taking place. If this country had the resources to finance our main engineering
    632
    concerns we could lead the world in the way the hon. Member mentions. We can live only by exports, and in the middle of the twentieth century we have reached the stage when the great possibilities of our engineering industry, allied with science, have given us the chance to meet world needs. Provided these Agreements do not limit our opportunities, my uneasiness will be allayed. That is what I am concerned about.
    Mr. Neave: I hope not. As I told the House at the beginning of my speech, I did not hear the statement in full, and I have not read the text of the Agreements. Perhaps we could have some explanation of that point when my right hon. Friend replies. That is most important, and, indeed, I was putting in a plea for caution in this matter, so that we should not raise hopes too far, because there are many technical problems which we still have to face, and there will also be financial ones. I think the hon. Gentleman was quite right to make that intervention.
    There is another point about President Eisenhower's plan. We must remember that it will involve us in a certain amount of competition in our own field of technical improvement and in our own production of atomic energy equipment, and that is a matter which we must also consider very seriously. During the past two years there has been a growing sense of relief that we are now developing nuclear or atomic energy for peaceful uses and turning people's minds as much as possible from the destructive power which the splitting of the atom has created.
    One other point about President Eisenhower's proposal which I think is also worth commenting upon, and upon which I should like to hear the attitude of the Government, is what has happened to the proposal for a world bank of atomic or fissile material to be kept by an international agency for atomic energy? That proposal was made in 1953. There was not very much cooperation from the Russians about it, but it may be that some hon. Members will think it a proposal which has excellent points and has many advantages over the present scheme suggested by President Eisenhower, which still has a lot of hurdles to overcome.

    633
    My final point is with regard to our own obligations to our own territories. We were all very glad to hear the statement of the Minister of Fuel and Power on Monday on our domestic programme for building nuclear power stations, and as that subject was dealt with very fully on Monday, I do not propose to comment upon it now. It certainly was very welcome, but it is quite clear that our obligations to our own people in the Commonwealth and Colonies present rather a different problem to that which President Eisenhower was dealing with in his proposal.
    For instance, he was suggesting that the non-Communist and underdeveloped countries should receive experimental reactors, and that they should be given trained officials and engineers and other forms of administrative or financial aid. They were, in fact, as I understood it, to receive these reactors at half the cost. That is a rather different problem from that which we face in regard to our Commonwealth.
    I do not think that it would be right to hold out any hope that we can send out atomic reactors at this stage to our territories, because we certainly do not possess them at present. We cannot increase the production of atomic power until we have a clear idea how we can train the engineers and other people who are to run the power stations which may be set up. I think it needs a great deal of thought, but certainly it would be possible, for instance, to develop the training centre at Harwell, which is now training industrialists in this country, to train people from the Commonwealth for that purpose. We should not hold out too many hopes until we find out how our own nuclear programme is going and who are to be the people to carry out the suggestions that I have put forward.
    As the House knows, there are news stories every day about the peace-time uses of atomic energy and the tremendous opportunities that are being created, particularly in agriculture. There is the treatment by radioactive materials to improve fertility of certain crops, which would be of very great importance to our Colonies. I am sure those opportunities will not be lost sight of—I hope not—by this Government in considering the whole of this question.
    634
    We have the opportunity to make atomic energy the servant and not the master of mankind. It is perhaps a happy augury that the International Conference on Atomic Energy will be taking place at Geneva in August, roughly at the same time as the four-Power talks.
    5.36 p.m.
    Mr. A. E. Hunter: In asking the indulgence of this House, which I know is always extended to a new Member, may I say that I am not making my maiden speech tonight because I consider myself an expert on foreign affairs. I should imagine that there are many foreign affairs experts on both sides of this Chamber. I am making my plea for peace tonight because that has been a subject which has always been close to my heart since I joined the Labour Party in 1919, when as a young ex-soldier demobilised from the First World War I attended a meeting addressed by the late George Lansbury. If it has been a long, long trail in reaching the House of Commons, that has not in any way diminished my desire to secure peace for the people of this country and of the world.
    I am very proud indeed to represent in a new Parliament, in a new reign, the new constituency of Feltham, which, when I joined the Labour Party 36 years ago, comprised five villages—Bedfont, Hanworth, Feltham, Cranford and Heath, which were mainly engaged in market gardening and in sending fruit and vegetables to London by horse and cart. Such is the great change which has taken place in 36 years that Feltham is now a great industrial centre, with the largest airport in the world, which is sending air liners to every quarter of the globe, and with one of the largest railway marshalling yards in this country.
    I make my plea to the Government today to press forward with four-Power talks and for world disarmament. I believe that everyone in this House wants peace. Every political party in this country today declares that it stands for peace, and most of the leading statesmen in the world proclaim the sincerity of their desire for peace. In the minds of common people all over the world, the desire for the maintenance of world peace is overwhelming.
    I have taken part in many Elections in this country since 1919, but, in the

    635
    recent General Election—and I say this in no unfriendly spirit—for the first time in any Election in which I have taken part in this country, I saw peace slogans appearing on the windows of my opponents. Even when canvassing, I saw the pleasant smiling portrait of the Prime Minister with the slogan "Working For Peace," and though I knew that the people who displayed it would be voting against me, I was glad that they showed their desire for peace.
    How different from the campaigns of yesterday, when my Conservative opponents generally showed a large poster of a growling bulldog accompanied by military slogans. I confess that it is much easier to canvass opponents with a slogan of "Working For Peace" and a photograph of the Prime Minister than with an illustration of a growling bulldog. The people, however, want more than slogans in order to relax world tension, because if it can be relaxed, in my opinion it should lead to world disarmament.
    My party, in its election manifesto, "Forward With Labour," stated Labour's policy for peace. Tonight I wish to mention only two points in this connection to which I hope the Government spokesman will reply. One is the immediate cessation of hydrogen-bomb tests which, in my opinion, would ease world tension. The other point relates to Formosa.
    I have not been able to discover what is the Conservative Party's policy on this matter of Formosa. I believe that the evacuation of the Nationalist forces from Formosa and the placing of that island under the United Nations in order that the inhabitants may make their own choice, would remove one of the danger spots of Asia. The admission of China into the United Nations would lead to the settlement of other world problems. I sincerely hope that the Government will tonight give some indication of their policy regarding the admission of China to the United Nations and the settlement of the Formosa question.
    I am a social democrat. I have served in local government for nearly 30 years. I cherish democracy and democratic institutions as much as anybody in this House. I believe confidently that the
    636
    various nations in the world can live together. We lived with Russia from 1941 to 1945. I urged the Foreign Secretary to press forward with a policy of peaceful co-existence.
    We are living in a changing age. Often, as I walk through the splendid new housing estates erected by my good friends on the Feltham Council, estates with green lawns for children to play on—and wonderful healthy, sturdy kiddies they are—I think how different conditions are from the poverty that I knew in my childhood days. Frequently, while the children are playing, giant airliners fly over from London Airport. The children are so used to these airliners that they go on playing their games without looking up. I shudder to think that, if war came again, these airliners would give place to monsters of destruction.
    My generation experienced two world wars. The first war killed millions, the flower of my youth and of my schoolboy days. The second war killed millions more and brought great cities to ruin and rubble. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in a speech some months ago declared that peace was the greatest prize of all. I echo those sentiments, and so do the common people all over the world. I urge the Government to press forward with four-Power talks and to seek world disarmament, not on the differences that may divide us, but on the great ground of humanity which is common to all nations.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I have been many years in this House, but it has never hitherto fallen to my lot to have the pleasure of congratulating a Member on his maiden speech. I am glad that on this occasion it is the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) whom I have to congratulate. I am sure that he has won the hearts of all hon. Members by his sincerity and by a quality which always appeals to the House—his brevity.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he has followed a long trail before coming to this House. I am sure that he will never regret having had the honour of becoming a Member of this House. He will find it full of kindness and tolerance, and he

    637
    will also discover that it always respects a man for what he is rather than for what he says. I am glad for his sake that he has survived the ordeal of his maiden speech, although I have rather cold comfort to give him, for I find that I am more frightened with every speech I make in this House. I am afraid that this first hurdle that he has just got over may be the lowest of a long series that he will have to surmount.
    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that his words will find an echo in many hearts. The longer one is in this House the more one realises that in every quarter of the House there are true lovers of peace and of our fellow men. I look forward to hearing many more excellent contributions from the hon. Member for Feltham.
    I want slightly to change the tone of this debate. I want hon. Members to project their minds away from Europe to the Far East. My theme is the need for friendship with Japan. I am neither anti-Japanese nor pro-Japanese—I am pro-British and pro-peace—but I think we are all making a very great mistake in not directing our thoughts towards Japan. After all, Japan is a first-class Power industrially, and has a very large population. It comprises nearly 90 million of the most intelligent, industrious, dynamic people in the world, highly educated and well equipped with modern industrial power, faced with grave economic difficulties that are being bravely tackled.
    I believe it is criminal folly on our part to ignore such a powerful factor in world peace, and if we continue to do so we shall do so at our peril. Japan may well be the key to peace in the Far East, and the Far East may well be the key to world peace. Japan's attitude towards the West depends mainly on us. We are very prone in this country to look to our front doorstep, to look to Europe, and pat ourselves on the back because the situation in Europe has improved. I hope that the House and the country will look to the back door as well. The situation in Europe may well be much improved but the situation in the Far East is exceedingly dangerous.
    In South-East Asia there is a state of fluidity and deliquescence. S.E.A.T.O. has been inaugurated but, as we heard from the Foreign Secretary today, the
    638
    situation in Indo-China is fraught with peril. We must, first, try to create one stable bastion, one fulcrum, one point of solidity in the Far East, and that must be Japan. Japan must be wedded to the West, not only on paper and by treaty, but also in heart and head.
    I am not going to try to frighten the the House by saying that I think Japan is liable to go Communist. The structure of Japanese mentality, society and civilisation is not one which yields easily to totalitarianism. I do not think there is an immediate danger of Japan going Communist, but I do think there is a real danger of Japan being drawn into the Communist camp, for economic reasons, if she is ignored or rejected by the West. I think there is a grave danger of Japan being lost as a strong and solid bastion and of her being sucked into the Communist vortex, looking towards the mainland of Asia rather than to the outside world, if we reject Japan and do not give her economic opportunities that she needs.
    The striking fact that I want to bring before the House is that Japan urgently wants British friendship, for many reasons. If I may go back into the past for a few minutes, I should like to recall that until 1855 Japan was shut away from the world. Between 1855 and the end of the nineteenth century there was the most remarkable growth that any country has ever shown. Japan, from a mediaeval and feudal nation, became a world Power. The climax and the zenith was the Anglo-Japanese alliance that was signed in 1902. That marked the emergence of Japan as a world Power; she was allied to the nation with the greatest prestige and reputation in the world.
    The Japanese, maybe simple and innocent in their outlook, thought that when a Great Power signed a treaty of alliance with them, the alliance was destined to endure for ever. However, in 1922 we renounced the alliance at the behest of the United States, for reasons which appeared good to statesmen on both sides of the House at that time. We rebuffed and snubbed Japan and rejected Japanese friendship. The British military attaché at the time turned to one of the British delegates and said, "Within 20 years we shall be at war with Japan." He was wrong; it took 20 years and three days It is a sombre, solemn, and sober thought

    639
    that if we had not renounced the Anglo-Japanese alliance the history of the Far East in recent years would have been different.
    That renunciation brought in its train the immediate triumph of the military clique in Japan as a result of a gap in the Japanese Constitution. All the time the alliance endured there were Union Jacks in every Japanese house. It was the most popular international alliance that there had ever been. The consequences of renunciation have been tragic—Manchuria, China, and all the terrible things which began in 1942.
    I recall this not for the sake of a melancholy excursion into the past. I recall it because it holds a deep moral for us, which is that we cannot play fast and loose with Japanese sentiment and loyalties. Loyalties mean more to the Japanese than to any other nation. The nature and pyschology of the Japanese demand a network of loyalties and corresponding obligations. A man in Japan is judged by the way in which he fulfils the complex network of loyalties imposed upon him by his station in life, his employment, his family, and so on. Our rebuff to Japan by that renunciation left a vacuum in Japanese international loyalties.
    A fresh opportunity is now offered to us. Pro-British feeling in Japan is again resurgent. At the end of last autumn I had the honour of leading a Parliamentary delegation to Japan. I am glad to see present two hon. Gentlemen who were with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), and I know they will agree with what I am about to say. We do not judge just from our own experience. We were welcomed and treated warmly, but we also had an opportunity of talking to Englishmen and other non-Japanese persons with long experience of Japan.
    Japan is aching for British friendship. It would be an outlet for the Japanese urge for national self-respect once again to be recognised as a friend on equal terms by Britain. I warn the House and the country that the right hand of friendship will not be left extended indefinitely. We must grasp it quickly or it will be withdrawn. I want action from this
    640
    country to make that friendship a reality. Somehow or other we must tell Japan that we want to be friends again.
    There is something that the Government could do almost this very day, which would have an immense effect in Japan. I ask the House to refrain from judgment upon this until I have expounded my case. It is that the Government should permit the release of 87 class B and class C war criminals.
    This brings me to the whole question of war crime and war guilt. Nothing can excuse or palliate the war crimes committed by Japanese nationals. Every Japanese acknowledges, and is prepared to carry his share of, the guilt. The Japanese do not make excuses like some other nations, saying it was the military clique or the Government. I have never heard a Japanese attempt to evade his share of the moral responsibility for war crimes.
    However, the Japanese think that Japan has paid the price for those crimes, and has paid it in full. Many times more people were killed in Allied bombing of Japan than the number of British prisoners of war who died in Japanese hands. I am not at all proud of our bombing record in Japan. Whole cities of flimsy wooden structures were burnt to the ground with their inhabitants in petrol raids, and we all know about Hiroshima and the atomic bomb. However, that is not the point. Japan recognises her war guilt, thinks she has paid in full, and desires the release of these war criminals.
    I was not opposed to the trials of war criminals. I take it that the object was to mark the horror of the civilised world; the object was not revenge. The intended effect has been achieved. I am not defending the criminals, for their crimes would lead to imprisonment or capital punishment in any civilised nation. They have served about two-thirds of their sentences. The House will readily understand that it is a matter of national self-respect and prestige. The Japanese want their release as a symbol of Japanese freedom and independence.
    There are 87 Japanese war criminals who were tried by British courts. I am not suggesting that anything be done about the class A criminals who were tried by an international tribunal. The United States courts tried 300, and I

    641
    am not talking about them, beyond pointing out that the Americans are releasing those war criminals quicker than we are. The Australian courts tried 200, and I am not referring to them. I am merely referring to the 87 criminals—I say "criminals" without any qualification—tried by British courts whose release would create a tremendously beneficial effect in Japan, for it would prove to Japan that we really want friendship with her and are willing to make a new start.
    I could talk at great length about the Japanese nature, but I will refrain from doing so. I merely want to say that I respect the Japanese for not making excuses for what happened during the war, and I admire them for their industry, their warmth of heart and their courage. I do not think it is right for any hon. Member of this House to be for or against a foreign country; he must consider the interests of his own country and the interests of world peace. In the interests of my own country and of world peace, I say it is high time we made a new start and grasped the right hand of friendship which Japan is for the time being extending towards us.
    I am convinced that from Japan we should get no less loyalty than we get from our Continental Allies, and I believe that we might get a good deal more. As I have said, the Japanese pay great attention to loyalties and obligations. Japan is almost the only country in the world which has never defaulted on its debt. Japan has never renounced a treaty. It was we and not the Japanese who renounced the Anglo-Japanese alliance. In the interests of reality and world peace, I suggest that we should seize the great prize which is offered to us. It is not merely the friendship of 90 million people but stability in the Far East, which may be the key to world peace.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Tomney: I am sorely tempted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) in his discourse, but as the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has referred to me specifically, along with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), in connection with the delegation which went to Japan last December and of which we were members, I will for a few moments
    642
    comment upon his speech; and, indeed, enlarge upon it.
    I do not think the Japanese can say that the Labour Government were unmindful of the difficulties with which post-war Japan was confronted. At San Francisco the Labour Government showed that they fully realised that to impose heavy penalties on Japan would mean virtual starvation for her people. The San Francisco settlement was in essence a good one for that nation. The Labour Government realised that to do otherwise would have meant severe penalties on Japan.
    In one sense Japan is unique. She is the only country in Asia which has not come under Communist domination or influence in one way or another. The Japanese are a united and disciplined people. There is nothing they could not make, given the raw materials and the designs, as good as anything produced by the Western nations. It is a nation of 80 million people in tight islands, having the same problems as ourselves. There is very little countryside from which the people can produce their own food. They exist chiefly on fish and, by a strange coincidence created by the last war, Japan is now in a vital strategic position which no one could foresee at the time of the last war. It is one of those things which has arisen through the Communists getting control in China.
    Although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham did not mention the fact, Japan's strategic position is a vital issue in that part of the world, particularly in regard to S.E.A.T.O. and to the defence of South-East Asia. That being so, let us consider some of the factors confronting Japan of which she is fully conscious. She has got to feed herself. Like us she has to live on exports and is determined to export to live. Her strategic position may drive her to make the best possible bargain for herself, but it is imperative, in my opinion, that Japan should be allied with the Western Defence Organisations and with S.E.A.T.O.
    There is no nation in Asia more united and more disciplined, and while we were there we saw some things perhaps through different eyes. No nation will starve willingly, and any nation which is faced with starvation will seek alliances with which she can bargain. That is why in this debate this afternoon, much to my

    643
    surprise, no mention has been made of the conversation at present taking place in London between the Russians and the Japanese, which can be of profound importance if the balance were to be turned against Western influence in the Far East. Then indeed the S.E.A.T.O. pact would become null and void, because a nation with a potential which could produce the great strength which the Communist Powers need in the Far East would go over to their side.
    That is why it is of such importance that we should create international goodwill, as the delegation tried to do whilst it was in Japan, in the Far East and so pave the way for a wider outlook on the difficulties of Japan. It is not part of the Socialist creed to deny any nation the right to earn its own living. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North said, they have also the right to their own nationalism and to their own standard.
    In Japan, we are faced with a particular problem. She may—we do not know—drive the hardest bargains possible. It is up to the Western diplomats to make sure she does not. But how can that be done? We know the difficulties. There is the G.A.T.T. trading agreement between the various nations outside the dollar area, and the Japanese are insistent in getting into that Agreement. Thirty-four nations comprise the Agreement, but Japan needs the consent of only two-thirds of the members to participate in the scheme and to let loose among those nations the full force of her commerce and trade.
    These are factors which the British and American Governments have to consider in their tariff agreements and restrictions, especially the Americans, because they hold the key of dollar credits. Those are just a few of the points upon which I want to enlarge arising from the hon. Gentleman's speech. I can well understand how he feels, especially after some of the wonderful hospitality we experienced in Japan. Some hon. Members have heard something about it in conversation. It was an experience well worth having, but I will say no more about that.
    I have come to the conclusion, after speaking in several foreign affairs debates, that one does not begin to under-
    644
    stand foreign affairs unless one is given the opportunity to travel. Without it, it is completely and utterly impossible. It may be disconcerting for me to admit that up to the time of the trip to Japan I have never been outside the United Kingdom. Having travelled across the face of the earth by aeroplane in four days, I know now it was well worth while, and hon. Members will understand me when I say that I took full advantage of it. It was impressive to see the world pass beneath the plane and the geographical facts one studied as a schoolboy come to life as the plane grounded in country after country.
    To get back to the original theme, democracy in Japan is now having a hard struggle. It is struggling for its life with what is for Japan a new form of government. The old Emperor worship and feudalism have to a large degree gone for ever, but there is still a great backroom influence. The old Nationalists who dragged Japan into war are still to be feared; but we saw the beginning of a democratic system. Japan realistically accepted the American occupation. American techniques in war succeeded, and the Japanese, being realists, accepted the position.
    But the Japanese in one respect have something in common with the Western world. They never had it before. I am referring to trade unionism. My first contact with an embassy abroad was the British Embassy in Japan, and having seen how it worked I was very favourably impressed. I came to the conclusion that the Ambassador was two jumps ahead of anybody else in the country. But I also came back favourably impressed with the Labour Attaché. This was an institution created by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, and if this is the pattern operated in other countries, then all I can say is that it is doing a very good job.
    As I have said, the Japanese have this in common with the Western world; they have trade unionism, but we should not imagine that the fight is over by any means. Alongside the fight in the chancelleries and Foreign Offices of the world has been another fight, which people do not hear about—the Foreign Office knows about it—and which is still going on today. It is the fight of the free trade unions against the Soviet-dominated unions. It has been a tremendous fight,

    645
    The World Federation of Trade Unions, the Communist-dominated federation, is actively engaged against the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which is backed by Great Britain, by the T.U.C. and by the Americans. This struggle has taken place in all parts of the world, but nowhere is it keener or more intense than in Japan.
    The industrial nation of Japan is the key to the Far East. It is capable of producing and making things which war machines, backward peoples and modern civilisation need. That is the key, and that is where the pressure is to be found. I saw it with my own eyes. I was given a job to do by the Labour Attaché when I arrived, and it became apparent to me that the struggle was keener in that country than in any other part of the world.
    It is a matter of conjecture at this stage of British political life and development whether it is not feasible that a large expenditure of the sums which the trade union movement, through the I.C.F.T.U., is forced to expend throughout the world, should be charged to the Foreign Office Vote. This job of beating down all the intrigues, cross-intrigues and duplicities which Communist techniques have perpetrated throughout the world has been done by the trade unions alone. We saw it at work in Japan. The prize over there is great, and whoever wins it will control not only the minds of the people, but their skill. We must make sure that the I.C.F.T.U. wins that prize.
    After my visit, I made my report to the T.U.C. Allowing for the fact that the great capitalist empire of the United States and our own employers and trade unions and the Conservative Party in this country recognise the existence of the need for, and the capabilities of, trade unions, I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether in this struggle it would not be better to help the trade unions with finance in this great fight. The Soviet Government are not afraid to put the money down. They know exactly what they are after and what the fruits are, and we should be prepared to do the same.
    I saw, for instance, in Japan demonstrations by workers—not strikes, but marches in the streets and public parks. When one knows the pattern, one can trace the characteristic leadership, the cheer-leaders and the usual technique of
    646
    the Communist Party, with people going alongside the procession in private motorcars leading them on to cheer and to sing the "Internationale" and their other songs. We saw that in British Guiana and in South Africa. We have been up against it in Middle European States and in Spain, and no doubt in time we will find it in the Middle East. That is something that we should tackle in association with the T.U.C. If the T.U.C. is necessary for maintaining industrial peace and if it fulfils its rôfully with whichever Government is in power—it is pledged to do that—I cannot see why the same thing should not operate internationally to tackle this problem.
    It is the minds of men and the skill in their fingers that are at stake. The Communists are a united and disciplined people, and sometimes others have been bent easily to their policy and programme. In any Western policies in the Far East which might go the wrong way and provide the Communists with a great opportunity, we should make sure that we do not miss our opportunity.
    I have covered as much as I want to cover of that part of the world, and I want to return to the Middle East. Since going to Japan, I have been privileged to visit Jordan. I know something of the Israeli-Arab struggle and its background since 1911 under the Balfour Declaration and what has happened in the intervening years. What I was confronted with there is something which should shake the conscience of common humanity.
    One-third of the Arab population is in refugee camps in such degrading conditions that the human mind in this House of Commons cannot convey in words the misery which is being suffered. The Western nations cannot avoid responsibility for this and should do something about it. I recognise, as do other Parliamentarians and politicians, the Jewish right to a national home. I recognise that all that has gone before cannot be undone, but when one has seen, as I have, 35,000 people in one camp, in mud huts, being kept alive on United Nations charity and sustenance with nothing to do from one day's end to another but just sit in the sun among the flies and filth in the most primitive conditions that man can imagine, one feels that something must be done. The United Nations is doing a great job, and where

    647
    it can it has put all the children into school uniforms for the school day. When the school day is finished, the school uniforms are taken from them. The damnable thing is that those children attend school until the age of 14 or 16 and then, when they have finished school, they have nothing to do but sit in the sun, in misery.
    Any civilisation which is worthy of the name cannot allow this to go on. Whatever may be the solution of the Middle East problem, a solution must be found to the untold misery that thousands of people are suffering in that area, and it must be found quickly. We hear of projects for building dams which could irrigate vast parts of the desert, but we are told that there are technical hold-ups regarding the height or the depth of the dams. If that is so, these hold-ups should be overcome.
    If it is possible to bring a great part of the desert under cultivation, we should take the chance. But in taking the chance, we should also make sure that those who are now displaced persons in refugee camps become tenants, shareholders and lease-holders of the land we irrigate. It would be fatal to hand over the water which the United Nations creates by means of a dam to private landlords in Jordan and Arabia. Any efforts made by the United Nations on this scale must be seen to go, and must in fact go, to the common Arab, who has his own difficulties. That is a problem which in all conscience must be dealt with, and be dealt with quickly.
    To return to Europe, I am amazed, as was my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, at what is now taking place. I deduce some of the same reasons which my hon. Friend has deduced from Soviet behaviour of the last few years. It has taken 10 long years to get to the stage we have got now; but do not let anyone imagine that we have got anywhere, because we have not. All that we have got is a better outlook and a little more good will, for the real gains have been very small indeed.
    The Austrian Pact as such must be welcomed, but let us not forget that it has taken over 400 meetings spread over eight years. Any man who had even 10 mothers-in-law to argue with could get agreement in less than 400 meetings—
    648
    but not with the Soviet Government. We remember in 1947 the names that were slung at Tito—"Little Monkey," "Imposter," "Deviationist"—and the new diplomatic language that the Soviet employed. What did Tito do? He decided to stand on his own. The prime reason, I am informed, was that he could not get back from the Soviet Union even the railway wagons in which he sent his produce. So he decided to stand on his own.
    We have witnessed all the tortuous negotiations over Germany. We have seen the trouble they have caused even in my own party, in which have been found people who have had the courage to stand firm. If ever there was a justification for firmness, then we saw it in the last General Election; we saw it in the return of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). [Interruption.] Justification for firmness was given up to the hilt. We in this party know. We know what some of us have had to take. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not have to take it. They do not have the same troubles, because they do not have the same connections. [Interruption.] No, they do not.
    Mr. Nicholson: Quite right.
    Mr. Tomney: Over-night there was a switch—so called—in Soviet policy. As yet, I am not enamoured of it. I for one should like to see some fruitful results of this so-called switch in policy, results such as the release of imprisoned Czechs, Poles, Rumanians, Hungarians. I should like to see them given the right to live their own lives under their own national flags and under Governments of their own. Until they are, we cannot say that Europe has advanced in civilisation.
    I do not know what policy the Soviet Government intend to follow. We have seen the new approach to Yugoslavia. It may be that that is to be the pattern of the Soviet Government's approach to the rest of Europe and the rest of the world, and it may be generally followed. It may be that Malenkov has not lost his head like Beria and others before him. There may be reasons for all this from which we can draw hope. However, if I were one of the people of Eastern Germany, I should be feeling very shaky at the present time, because, let us make no

    649
    mistake about it, there is no retreat eastward for these people whom the Soviet can expend when it thinks the time has come.
    We have learned today on the tape that Dr. Adenauer has rejected neutralisation. The Social Democrats have rejected it, too. The policy of neutralisation would inevitably lead to the recreation of Hitlerism in the centre of Europe. However, regarding the situation as a whole, in the light of all the experiences we have had in recent times, even in the short time of my membership of this House, whatever, if anything, may come of the proposed new talks at the summit, I am not too hopeful.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: A great number of compliments has been paid in this House to maiden speakers, and I am sure that the House would like a bouquet to be given to an older Member. I would say straight away that I think we have heard a very courageous and excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) to this council of State. Give us our flowers now: we shall not be in this House for a very long time.
    I do not propose to follow the hon. Member but to deal with the general philosophy of foreign affairs; and I am glad to see that he joins in the overwhelming support in this House for the idea that our foreign affairs should be based on strength. It is perfectly clear that the nations live in a world of lawlessness. We are, as nations, in circumstances very like those of citizens in a State which was a lawless State, when it was the duty of the strong man armed to keep his house, or otherwise it was a temptation to the lawless. I am, therefore, glad to see what certainly seems to be the case tonight, that there is no one on the other side, no one taking the contrary view, and that we are unanimous in batting from strength.
    I want in this context to call the attention of the House to a most important article in the "Reader's Digest" of June by General MacArthur. The "Reader's Digest" has the biggest circulation in the world, with the widest influence. The article raises these most important issues of philosophy in foreign affairs. It comes, too, in the context of General
    650
    Eisenhower's saying that we may hope to look forward perhaps to 25 years of peace, on the principle of the strong man keeping his house.
    We ought to face it, that, judging by past experience of the traditional philosophy, we have only the alternatives of either bigger and better wars at long intervals—say, 25 years or more—or, by some degree of disarmament or by banning of the bomb, to which I shall refer later, of smaller and less civilisation-extinguishing wars at no doubt rather shorter intervals. I want to underline the fact, however, that those are not the only alternatives before the world.
    As to the banning of the bomb, it is perfectly clear that the bomb is owned by only two nations in effective strength. They are looking anxiously at one another, and there is no one to "bell" either of those two particular "cats," apart from themselves, and they cannot do that, and so banning the bomb is an impracticable proposition. It is absolutely clear, too, that trustfulness in treaties is an impossibility in the long run, certainly over a period exceeding 25 years. So I wish to emphasise, that we are faced also with another two alternatives, the choice between the continuation of lawlessness, which imposes on each nation the obligation to be, as it were, the strong man armed, or a system of law and a new authority in the world.
    First, it seems to me, we must create the world law, and then we must create the government institutions for enforcing that world law. What the Foreign Secretary said about the Gaza strip emphasises that the United Nations Organisation has not such a world law and is not such a world government institution for enforcing it. It has not even a single rifle. The government institution for enforcing the law must take over the duty of defending the different nations.
    It is precisely that which General MacArthur is saying in his article in the "Reader's Digest." It is precisely what the Foreign Secretary himself said on 2nd March, and I was very interested to see in the Labour Party's General Election manifesto a mention of a world authority of such a character. Knowing my right hon. and learned Friend

    651
    the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), I am sure that the fact that there was not one in the Liberal Party's manifesto was an oversight due to absence and not an indication of any change of policy.
    I should like to ask whoever replies to the debate to say to what extent in the meantime we can, while maintaining in parallel the traditional philosophy of the strong man armed, keeping his house, develop the new philosophy of a world authority, either by a revision of the United Nations' Charter, when it comes up for revision, or by some other means, and explore further the opportunities of taking the other of the two alternatives, that is to say, abandoning lawlessness in the world and going over to a state of law with a Government institution and authority for carrying it out.
    Let us remember that in Scotland and England that is exactly what we did. We set up a new British law. We set up a new British Government. Scottish regiments and English regiments became the British Army. We ceased to have the possibility of war between those two countries. We produced a state of affairs in which it was the British Army which was defending both nations—and not against one another but against an invader. I hope that the Government will say whether there are possibilities of exploring this much more fruitful of the two alternatives. Twenty-five years of peace is all very well for some of us here, but for our children it is too short a period to be contemplated.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I hope that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) to whom I have listened, as I used to do five years ago, with great attention, will forgive me if I do not follow what he has been saying. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate will not think it inappropriate if I raise today, rather than try to raise next week, the question of the omission from the Gracious Speech and also from the Foreign Secretary's speech of the subject of Cyprus. It might be said by the Minister and his colleagues that this was a matter for the Colonial Office, but the Colonial Office could say that
    652
    some aspects of it are a matter for the Foreign Office; and I think that, on balance, this is the day for me to try to make my remarks on the subject.
    I want to make as helpful and uncontroversial a speech as possible today, first, because this problem and above all the repercussions which it is having on allied unity in the Eastern Mediterranean are far too grave to be used as ammunition for party polemics in the House; and, secondly, because we have had recent indications that the Government may be thinking of making some new approach to the problem of Cyprus in the very near future. If that is so, I am sure that none of my hon. and right hon. Friends would like to say or do anything which would embarrass the Government, or any of the other parties concerned. For this reason, I shall say as little as possible about the past. I shall not go over many of the familiar arguments which the House has heard in recent months, or talk a great deal about the recent record of Her Majesty's Government.
    We believe, of course, that grave mistakes have been made, and made by all the parties concerned. But if some of Her Majesty's Ministers have been on occasion very tactless, and if the Government's policies, in my view, have been very unrealistic, we can hardly claim fairly that the Greek Government have always acted with complete wisdom, or indeed the leaders of the Enosis movement in Cyprus itself. Wherever the responsiblity for past mistakes may lie, however, surely this is the moment to try to forget old recriminations and to see whether, by a new approach, a sensible and honourable solution cannot be found.
    It is clear from the statements made by Ministers in recent months that one of their chief preoccupations has been the military security of the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course, there are other factors which they rightly bear in mind. We have to consider the interests of the Cypriots themselves—the Greek majority and the Turkish minority of the island's people. We have also to consider Cyprus in the context of the rest of the British Commonwealth and the repercussions which a new policy for Cyprus might have in other British Territories and in other countries. Finally, we have to consider the effect on our Allies most closely concerned, particularly our old and trusted friends, the Greeks.

    653
    I take first the question of military security in the Eastern Mediterranean. In a debate in the House, on 28th July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Chandos, who was then Colonial Secretary, said:
    "Eastern Mediterranean security demands that we maintain sovereign power in Cyprus."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 549.]
    On the same day the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said:
    "…it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that nothing less than the continued sovereignty over this island can enable Britain to carry out her strategic obligations to Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 511.]
    On 28th October last, the present Colonial Secretary said:
    "In the present troubled state of the world we cannot foresee a time when the relinquishment of our sovereignty over Cyprus would be compatible with our responsibilities for security in the Middle East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 2147.]
    In the last debate on Cyrus in the House, shortly before the General Election, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that Her Majesty's Government
    "adhere to their view that British control in Cyprus must he maintained unimpaired during this period of world tension."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 1935.]
    Therefore, the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the military security of the Eastern Mediterranean has been made very clear by Ministers in recent months.
    The lamentable fact, however, is that it is precisely the security of the Eastern Mediterranean and the unity of our Allies in that area which has been gravely damaged by the tension over Cyprus in recent months. Our own relations with our good friends the Greeks have suffered very badly. Greek-Turkish relations have been impaired and Greek-American relations have been disturbed, and all this at a time when events in the Balkans and the Middle East make close and friendly allied defence co-operation particularly important in that area.
    At this very time in mid-June, Greek and British forces should have been taking part in a joint exercise in Greek waters arranged by N.A.T.O. and to be known as "Medflex 3." "Medflex 3" has been cancelled, and the traditional
    654
    visit by British warships to Greek waters will also not take place. If the smooth working of allied co-operation in the Eastern Mediterranean continues to be disturbed in this way, then surely one of the chief objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cyprus—the security of the Eastern Mediterranean—has failed, and surely recent arguments about the military importance of sovereignty over Cyprus are becoming a little out of date.
    In this age of global warfare and nuclear weapons, has not the question of sovereignty really become of very much less importance, and is not our overriding interest to have defensive arrangements which work and which permit effective and wholehearted co-operation with our Allies? For all these reasons, I hope that the Government may now feel able to look again at this military aspect of the Cyprus question and consider whether a British base, or an Allied base, and the facilities needed to operate that base could not be maintained just as effectively, and indeed more effectively, even if the possibility of an eventual change of sovereignty in Cyprus were to be admitted by Her Majesty's Government.
    I now turn briefly to the problem of the future of the Cypriots themselves. There can be no serious doubt about the views of most of the Greeks in the island—and I do not suppose that either the Minister of State or any of his colleagues would seriously doubt what the Greek Cypriots would say if they were asked now to decide their future. To continue to try to keep the door closed for ever on their aspirations can only stimulate their agitation for union with Greece.
    On the other hand, and this is a very delicate point, it might well be that during a period of genuine self-Government, in preparation for self-determination, some of the Greek Cypriots might well begin to reconsider their future relationships with other countries. As for the Turkish minority, I say only that, of course, their interests have to be safeguarded, and the fact that now, and for many years, there are and have been more Turks living freely and peacefully in Greece, and more Greeks living in Turkey than there are Turks in Cyprus proves that the fears expressed in some quarters are perhaps a little less justified than they appear to be.

    655
    After all, in the past the Turkish Government have not been unaware of the rights of majorities, as they showed in the case of the Sanjak of Alexandretta. I am sure that, in the end, provided that the freedom of their compatriots in Cyprus is properly protected, Turkish Ministers will realise that a settlement of the Cyprus question is a major Turkish interest as well.
    I turn now to what I consider to be, from a long-term point of view, and from a British point of view, the most important aspect of this whole question. On 28th July, 1954, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said:
    "…there are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances can never expect to be fully independent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 508.]
    He added that that applied to Cyprus.
    Surely, that is a very dangerous and unrealistic doctrine. It strikes at a fundamental principle, because today the whole basis of the development of the British Commonwealth is that colonial people, when they reach political maturity, shall be granted the right of self-government and self-determination, which includes, of course, the right to leave the Commonwealth itself if they desire to do so.
    It may well be that there are some Colonial Territories—St. Helena, for example and one or two very small islands dotted around the world—where complete independence might be impossible for purely practical reasons. I have no doubt that the people in those places are as well aware of that as we are, but that argument certainly cannot apply to Cyprus. Whatever the effect on local administration or living standards, no one could claim that Cyprus would not be viable if it were taken away from the control of the British Colonial Office.
    This new doctrine that there are exceptions to the general rule, that there are certain places which, for strategic reasons, cannot have the right of eventual self-determination, is a dangerous, unrealistic doctrine. It is one which in the past could have been equally well, and equally unreasonably, used in the case of many other countries—the Sudan for example, about which the Foreign Secretary spoke this afternoon, and perhaps in regard to Ceylon or even India. It is certainly an untenable doctrine in the case of Cyprus.
    656
    I hope that I have dealt reasonably fairly and helpfully with some of the considerations which must have been in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen in Her Majesty's Government in recent months—their preoccupation with security, with the future of the Cypriots, and with the implications of the Cyprus question on the British Commonwealth at large. I know that this is not an easy or simple problem, I know that the Government are anxious about it and are very worried—as Governments always are and must be—by the possible results of creating precedents and by repercussions which there are bound to be if they now end what "The Times" very aptly described as "The British front of silence" in favour of a new and brave approach. But there are many signs that a new and courageous policy might evoke a generous response.
    I had the privilege not many months ago of meeting a number of leading Ministers in the Greek Government. That Government are certainly as anxious to get out of the present dilemma as we are. The Greek people hate the deadlock which, temporarily, has disturbed our traditional friendship. The Cypriots—at least the great majority of them—are disillusioned and worried by the events of the past year, which have got no one anywhere.
    In this situation we beg the Government to mark the start of a new Parliament by telling the House that they have decided to try again to find a way out of the Cyprus deadlock. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I venture to suggest three propositions for his consideration. First, could the Government not take an early opportunity of making it clear that the Cypriots, like other colonial peoples, are entitled to look forward, after a period of real self-government, to full self-determination in the future? Until that at least has been made clear it is difficult to see how any political progress can be made in Cyprus or any progress with the Greeks or other interested parties.
    Secondly, could the Government not now make it clear that our primary military interest is in having an effective base available to us and our Allies in Cyprus, and that that matters far more than questions of sovereignty? Next, will the

    657
    Government look again at the Constitution offered some months ago to the Cypriots and see whether they can go very much further in giving the Cypriots an opportunity for real, representative government as a step towards self-determination within a specified period?
    Finally, can the Government at this moment, when they resume responsibility for the people of Cyprus and for our relations with our old and trusted friends in the Eastern Mediterranean, make a real effort to ease tension by talking over the whole problem in a free and friendly way with those concerned?
    I have stuck closely to my notes because I was deliberately trying to be careful in what I said. This is a difficult, complicated and sickening problem. It is a tragedy that our relations with our Middle Eastern Allies should have been bedevilled as they have. I do not want to put responsibility for mistakes specifically on the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else, but can we not now make a real effort to get the problem settled in a friendly, sensible and democratic way?
    6.44 p.m.
    Mr. William Yates: This is to be another maiden speech, but I first wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) on the way in which he raised the great problem of Cyprus, on which I intend to follow him in a few moments.
    First, I should like to record my grateful thanks for the way in which members of the staff of the House have been extremely helpful to all new Members. It gives one great assurance to be helped with the geography of the House, the bar, Dining Room and other places which I cannot express in Parliamentary language. We are very grateful, and I wish to express thanks on behalf of all the new Members. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), who took me round the premises on the first day I was here.
    We are asked to make sure that our maiden speeches shall not be of a controversial nature. I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Swindon and do all I can not to become controversial on the subject of Cyprus: but first I am here as the representative of the people of The Wrekin Division and before I speak on that subject, I wish to present to the
    658
    House the reasonable claims for Government attention made by the people of The Wrekin.
    There are nine points which the people of The Wrekin have asked me to raise as their Member. I crave the indulgence of the House while I go through those nine points. First is the matter of franchise under the postal vote system. In an enlightened country like this, surely it is possible for some method to be found whereby people might record their votes if they happen to be on holiday or away on business at the time of an Election? I beg the Government to consider legislation on that matter at the first available opportunity.
    Secondly, I beg the Government to be mindful of widows who at the moment receive a 10s. pension. I look forward very much to the report which has been promised by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Thirdly, I am in agreement with the Opposition concerning the question of National Assistance. I am not fond of the word "assistance," either public, private, or national. I therefore support the suggestion that the name of the Ministry should be changed to the Ministry of National Welfare and Insurance—welfare first and insurance afterwards. That may seem a small point of wording, but to many people it is very important. I also ask the Minister to pay special attention to those who, when the increased scales of National Assistance came forward, said that they had not received an additional increment.
    Fourthly, I ask the Treasury whether in some way they can make funds available to the county council of Shropshire for the improvement of the roads around The Wrekin. Although motor buses and cars use them, it is wrong to call them roads for they are nothing but tracks. I hope that during the course of the next five years something can be done to make those roads better than they are today. Probably in the past The Wrekin has been considered a rather degrading poor relation of Shrewsbury, but so long as I stand here as the Member for The Wrekin, I shall do all I can, publicly and privately, to press its claims.
    I must congratulate the Government on their financial prudence in managing to put by a certain sum of money for

    659
    hospital building for the first time in 16 years. Of course we in The Wrekin point out that we are a highly industrialised area and I am convinced that Wellington will be a city within 20 years. We are making a priority claim for a new hospital. I agree that there are other people and other areas in the country who may need a hospital before we have one, but it is no use saying that this matter should be left to the hospital board in Birmingham. I have spoken to the Ministry about this question and I have been told that there is no national priority list for the building of new hospitals. I believe there should be one. If there is to be one, I expect to see The Wrekin very high on this list. It is no use saying that there is no staff available, because, if a hospital is built which is adequate for the needs of the people in or around Wellington on Oakengates, there will be staff available. I am not saying that we are dissatisfied with the present arrangements. We accept them gratefully. Now, however, we are making a claim for the future.
    Sixthly, playing fields. Surely the authorities responsible for building large housing estates realise that there are bound to be children? Although the authorities are forever condemning parents who allow their children to play in the streets, they never seem to try to find ways of providing playing fields for children on the new estates. This is especially noticeable at Ketley Bank and at Mannerley Lane. It is a problem which the planners of new estates must bear in mind, and if we can have any help in this direction from the Government, we shall be grateful. Luckily Sankeys of Hadley, a famous free enterprise firm, in celebration of its centenary decided to provide one of the finest playing fields I have ever seen, and this shows the sense of responsibility on the part of those who run industrial affairs in our area.
    Seventhly, I am mindful of promises in past Gracious Speeches and in this one concerning water schemes, sewerage and also the present proposed legislation to protect those who work with agricultural equipment and with dangerous machinery. I hope all these promises will be fulfilled during the next five years, and if I am obliged to goad my right hon.
    660
    Friends on the Front Bench from time to time, I hope they will forgive me.
    Eighthly, I am mindful of an agreement made with the Ministry of Education by the Catholics in 1944, and I ask the Minister to consider sympathetically the application for meeting the needs of the Catholic community in our area.
    Ninthly, subsidence. Unlike the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), whose constituency sounded like a cheese—subsidence underneath and noxious vapours above it—we are fortunate in The Wrekin in being blessed with the fresh air coming across from Wales. However, we have had serious accidents through children falling down disused pit shafts, as well as damage to property, so I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider favourably those who suffer in this way.
    I submit, Sir, that these are reasonable requests to the Government from the people of The Wrekin. They look forward to the fulfilment of the promise of a doubling of our standard of living in twenty-five years and they hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue their efforts in this respect. The industrialists believe that the period can be shortened to ten years, but they point out that this means that the present Government must continue in existence.
    Now, with the permission of the House, I will refer to foreign affairs and, more especially, to the Middle East. It is hard for me not to be controversial, because I am so by nature. What is left of my military career remains in a safe in General Headquarters Middle East with an epitaph on it to this effect: "Honest Bill, he meant no ill, but he would not hate the Egyptians." This, of course, ended my military career, and I have attempted many things many times, but at last I am able to make a plea for the Arab people.
    First, however, I must refer to the island of Cyprus and to our relations with the Greek Government. It is no use adopting the attitude of Madame la Marquise—everything will be all right—because it will not. Disraeli did not like that attitude, which is a kind of ancient Whig attitude. Lord Melbourne was supposed to have said once: "If anybody is telling you to do something, then you

    661
    should do nothing at all." That is a fallacious attitude to adopt towards our foreign policy. It is nineteenth century Toryism and not part of the Toryism of today. Of course everybody understands that, even hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    I am trying not to be controversial, but we must be straightforward about Cyprus. We must face the facts which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon put dearly before us. Three-quarters of the population speak Greek, they speak Greek dialect in their homes, their inheritance is Greek, they have the Greek Church, they look for their culture, not to London where they are restaurateurs, but to Athens. Athens is their cultural centre. The other one-fourth of the population is a charming Turkish minority, and of course there is also the small British minority in the island.
    It seems to me extraordinary that we cannot come to some agreement with our great ally Greece, a country which we diked and understood so much during the war. It may be difficult because of certain strong feelings which people may have about the constitution of Cyprus, but we should try to consider both parties. I want to suggest a plan which, though a novel one, may be worthy of the consideration of the House. I offer it in humility in addition to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Swindon.
    The Cypriot people are Royalists. In almost every small home are to be found pictures of the Greek and our Royal Family. There is, therefore, a way of neutralising Cyprus from international affairs and from discussion in the United Nations, which was threatened recently. The way it can be done is through a meeting of the Greek and British Governments to declare that Cyprus should be deemed a Royal Estate, held in joint sovereignty between the Royal House of Windsor and the Royal House of Greece.
    There could then be a Royal Greek Governor and a Royal British Governor, and the Duke of Kent might be the latter. I would like to see the Royal Governors in Kyrenia and in Nicosia. There would also have to be a small local legislative assembly which could send three or four representatives to the Greek Parliament. The Cypriots could then say, "We can discuss anything we wish with our Royal Governor and we also have representa-
    662
    tion in Greece." In that way they would have union with Greece. The Greek Royal Governor and his Minister would be responsible for education, church affairs and labour relations, whereas the British Royal Governor would be primarily responsible for internal security, defence, the protection of the Turkish minority and public works. This is not an outrageous suggestion, since most of the services would carry on as they do now, but different people would be responsible for them. It seems to me a pity that such a lovely island should become a source of estrangement and embitterment between us and the Greek people.
    I do not suggest that the plan is in any way complete. It is obvious that there are faults and flaws in it, as any person trained in international law will realise. There is the question of the administration of justice under Greek law, Roman law, or under the present common law. There are other grave diplomatic complications as seen by those trained in such matters. However, I offer the plan in humility. I should like the pageantry from time to time resulting from there being two Royal Governors on the island. It is not, after all, such a novel proposal, because Richard Coeur de Lion was King of Cyprus.
    The attitude of the Services in the Middle East is another pressing problem. It is particularly a pressing problem because many of our Service personnel are now going into Jordan from the Canal Zone. I am definitely worried about the attitude of average British personnel towards the Arab people. I am even worried about the attitude of the intelligent British towards the Cypriots. Here is a true story. An Englishman and his wife in a car at the fountain of Lapithos had a puncture. As it was a hot day, they wondered whether to repair it themselves or get someone from the village to do it for them. Three boys from the village came along and offered to help in changing the tyre. The man asked them if they would like some money, and the boys replied, "No thank you. Do not worry. We are only too glad to do it for you." The gentleman turned to his wife and said, "I say, dear, these people are quite civilised." That is the attitude which as was explained to me by the mayor of the town afterwards, causes complications and so much rancour in the minds of the

    663
    people. It is very unnecessary. I hope hon. Gentlemen will do all they can in their correspondence to help to make Service personnel understand the people in Jordan and Cyprus.
    I want also to refer to the sad plight of those in the Middle East who, driven from their homes, have spent another year under the trees in Beirut, those who struggle to live at the north end of the Huleh Valley, and those who under today's sun will be carrying water up and down the grey city of many steps, Amman, taking water to their homes which are no more than caves. Their suffering goes on. We must realise and applaud their fortitude and forbearance, and hope that, as Allah is compassionate and merciful, they will receive a just reward. I warn everyone, in the words of Omar Khayyam, a name which means "tent maker," that:
    "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ
    Moves on…"
    It moves on very slowly. The Governments of Britain and America should think carefully now before anything else goes wrong. These people ask us in humanity for our help and consideration, and I am glad to have this opportunity of pleading their cause.
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) upon the somewhat original maiden speech which he has just delivered. It would be hypocritical to say that we do not miss his predecessor on these benches. Mr Ivor Owen Thomas had a habit of raising points of humour and points of order in the House which will be sadly missed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has to some extent followed the precedent of Mr. Thomas in that he has been a little out of order, or, rather, out of place, in speaking from the Gangway, which is not generally done in this House.
    I am sure that his constituents will very much appreciate the fact that he raised his nine points, which, presumably, he had promised to raise at the first opportunity, but I can assure him that he will have to sit on the benches opposite a very long time and to prod the Government Front Bench a great number of times before he will get satisfaction on them. He was courageous in
    664
    intervening in a foreign affairs debate, even though he did not confine his remarks entirely to foreign affairs. He will not always find it so easy to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in such debates, I feel sure, but when he does we all look forward to what appear likely to be most controversial contributions.
    I would also extend congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) upon the first contribution that he has had the opportunity of making since his return to this House. We look forward to his participating in our debates, as he did in previous Parliaments.
    I wish to deal with the question of the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary appeared not fully to appreciate the distrust and suspicion which Government policy has aroused there, and not to realise the extent to which our influence has declined among Jews and Arabs alike. I have had the advantage of visiting the Middle East since the General Election. It was a most disheartening experience to find oneself attacked equally in Israel for lack of support and lack of permission to purchase arms as in the Arab states for similar reasons. In the case of Israel, I think it is largely due to our refusal to satisfy the Israeli demand for security. Following the further commitments that we have made with the Arab States, Israel is desirous of having a defence pact with Great Britain and the United States. That alone would give her the assurance of security which she desires, and without it the situation in the Middle East must continue to be that of a state of tension.
    I regret to say that there has been a lack of consultation with Israel and the Arab States on our policy, and there has been a lack of information for them about our proposed policies. Israel was not informed of the action that we were taking in regard to the Iraq-Turco Pact, and the Arab States which were not parties to it were not informed or consulted either. With such lack of consultation, it is natural that there is suspicion and fear about our next move.
    It would have been far better if the assurances which the Foreign Secretary read out today, which were given in the speech of the Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary, had been given prior to our signing the Pact. That

    665
    would probably have prevented the greater disunity which has developed in the Arab world and the attempt to formulate a rival agreement on the part of Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) referred to the lack of faith of the Israelis in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950. I confirm that that is so, but equally I found that in the Arab States there is suspicion of our sincerity about our commitments with them.
    I was very surprised to find in Jordan that many Arabs asked me whether our present Treaty with Jordan would be implemented in the event of an aggressive attack across her present frontiers. That is to say, they were not satisfied that the present Treaty applied to the existing frontiers of Jordan, but thought that it might be interpreted by us as relating to the former frontiers. Of course, I pointed out that the present Prime Minister had stated in the House that the Treaty applied to the present frontiers of Jordan. I ask whoever replies to the debate to reaffirm our unquestioned determination to carry out our commitments in our treaties with Arab States, especially with Jordan.
    This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary, in dealing with the Middle East situation, had no constructive proposals to put forward. I admit that it is extremely difficult to be constructive in the present situation. Only by outside efforts can peace finally be brought to the Middle East, efforts through the United Nations and especially through Britain and the United States. I regret that it does not appear that mediation as such is on the cards at present. There does not appear to be any immediate basis for mediation. I say that because Egypt persists in the view that she is still in a state of war with Israel, and Israel acts accordingly.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby said, the Arabs refuse to accept the permanency of the State of Israel. Until they are convinced that the Western Powers will maintain Israel as a permanent State, that Israel is there to stay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to bring about a peaceful settlement between the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs blame the United States and the United Kingdom for not implement-
    666
    ing the 1947 Resolution on the partition of Palestine. They overlook the fact that they opposed it at the time and probably want implemented only those portions of the Resolution which suit them. It is equally important that we make clear to the Arabs that there can be no return to that Resolution, because of the action which has taken place since 1948, the development of the situation in the Middle East, particularly the establishment of the State of Israel, and there can be no going back on that.
    Until that is made clear and the Arabs have been convinced of it, I am afraid that the refugee problem will be equally difficult to solve, because it is as a result of the refusal to accept the permanency of the State of Israel that the Arab refugees maintain their wish to return to their homes in Palestine—as they call it—and refuse to accept resettlement in the Arab countries. They are still encouraged by their spokesmen and by their leaders to believe in their ultimate return to Palestine.
    Of course, that is in spite of the fact that they are living in appalling conditions. I do not wish to deal with that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) described those conditions in vivid terms, and they have just been referred to by the hon. Member for The Wrekin. The fact remains, however, that they maintain that even if they have to go on living in these frightful conditions for years and years, they would prefer that to surrendering their right to return to their former homes.
    Resettlement must come, and can only come, from without. It can only be imposed, because no Arab Government could support resettlement today and remain in power. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, it is only through the United Nations that resettlement, which is the only solution, can come. I hope that the United Kingdom delegation to the next United Nations Assembly will receive instructions from the Government to press for a constructive programme of resettlement, and will make clear that future relief must ultimately be supplanted by resettlement. I suggest that the period for relief must be fixed and during that a resettlement must take place.
    If some pilot scheme of resettlement could be started and experience gained, with compensation offered and land pro-

    667
    vided, and an opportunity given to the refugees to be resettled, we should then see whether the refugees will not accept it in far larger numbers than at present appears probable because of the pressure put on them by their spokesmen and Governments. I know that it will require great patience and persuasiveness, after the demoralising conditions to which they have been tragically subjected, to convince the refugees that they cannot return to Palestine or that certainly that the vast majority cannot return.
    There is another aspect of this refugee problem which has not been touched upon this evening. Those existing in the camps in these bad conditions harbour the idea that the responsibility for their tragic state rests with the Western Powers, and that provides a fertile field for the spreading of Communist influence. I found that in all the camps which I visited, and I visited several. I was frequently told that they knew that Russia would provide the Arabs with their independence in Palestine again, and would enable them to return to their homes. Certainly the Communists are exploiting the situation in the Arab States.
    I suggest that the Pacts which we have recently made may be aimed at building up this northern tier of defence against Communist aggression, but that the danger may be as great from within the States as from without, not only because of the conditions which exist in the camps, and for which U.N.W.R.A. is not entirely responsible because it is probably doing as good a job as money and circumstances permit—but also because of the appalling poverty which still persists in the Arab States and to which the present tension and economic boycott between them and Israel contribute.
    Until the refugee problem is solved, there can be no peace settlement in the Middle East. Settlement has to come by steps, and the first, of course, must be relief of frontier tension. The pressure for retaliation on both sides of the border is very strong indeed. It is particularly strong at the moment, because elections are pending in more than one country, and it becomes a matter of party politics. A strong policy appeals to the electorate. It is somewhat surprising to find how incidents are justified by those who are ultimately responsible for them. They
    668
    justify them on the grounds of retaliation, and provocation, and there is that on both sides.
    If these incidents continue, there will be considerable pressure by the extreme elements in these countries for strong action, and it may be that the extreme elements will gain the upper hand. That is especially the case in Israel if it is left in a state in which it feels that it is isolated, if it feels that it is separated from the West because of our increasing commitments with the Arab countries and our failure to make a defence pact with Israel.
    It is impossible to visit the Middle East today without becoming convinced of the immense difficulty of achieving any settlement. No peace settlement can be brought about quickly or soon; but we must not be defeatist. I suggest that the settlement must be based on the acceptance of five facts.
    First, there must be acceptance of the permanency of the State of Israel, and equally, of course, of the independence and integrity of the Arab States. Both parties must be convinced of that. Secondly, the inconsistency of the present demarcation line must be remedied and the frontier must be free from incidents. Relief of tension is dependent on removal of the present anomalies which have frequently been cited in this House. The demarcation line has been drawn across farms, separating a farm from its water supply, and in some cases it has even been drawn through houses. The demarcation line in itself contributes substantially to the incidents which take place, and one incident leads to another.
    Thirdly, the situation in Jerusalem must be changed. Jerusalem cannot remain divided as it is today. The United Nations suggested the internationalisation of the Holy City as the solution, but nothing has been heard of that suggestion for some time. Fourthly, the commitments of the West must be equal as between Israel and the Arab countries. The guarantees of adjusted frontiers must be equally and severally given and they must be impartially observed.
    Fifthly, resettlement is the only solution of the refugee problem. That must, in my view, precede the peace settlement, which is dependent upon its prior solution. Resettlement through the United

    669
    Nations must be accompanied by adequate compensation on the part of Israel, the principle of which she has already accepted. There may be some opportunity, perhaps on the basis of the reunion of families, for a certain number of refugees to return home where practicable, though that can only be on a small scale.
    In sum, peace between Israel and the Arab States which we all desire to be brought about can be achieved only through an empirical approach to both sides from the West. It cannot be imposed or brought about by pressure. It must be made worth while to achieve for all who are concerned. That means adequate guarantee of security against renewal of conflict, convincingly backed by sufficient military aid for defence purposes. This guarantee of peaceful existence must be supported by an improving standard of living made possible by economic aid on an extensive scale; and without that peace cannot be brought to the Middle East.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will forgive me if I do not go deeply into the affairs of the Middle East, except to say that it seems to me that the anchor of security and the basis of any hope for lasting peace in that area is bound to be the British position in Cyprus. That is a matter which has been referred to in most moving and persuasive terms by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), whom I inn sure we all welcome back in theHouse though I for one, as a personal friend, would rather have welcomed him to the benches on this side. He is the son of a family well known in Greece, and he and I share a very deep affection for that country and its people.
    Before adverting to the Cyprus problem, I propose to set out a context in which I believe we might formulate a new approach to our difficulties in that part of the world. But we must first look at the wider panorama before us. I could not help thinking, as I followed the outline of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, how very greatly we are in debt—all of us on both sides of the House—to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his enterprise and efforts exerted over several years. He
    670
    has set the consolidation of the West as his steadfast aim. He has worked for it throughout disappointments and discouragements, through tedium and ill-health, with devotion and faith in the outcome. His gifts have brought results for which we are all deeply grateful.
    When I think of his steadfast purpose, I cannot help recalling George Meredith's lines in "Marian"—how she was "as steadfast as a star." The poet concluded:
    "She can wage a gallant war,
    and give the peace of Eden."
    The Gracious Speech made it clear that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to advance and establish yet more safely the free community of the West. I should like to suggest that there are already two first fruits of the consolidation so far achieved. There has been the meeting in Vienna and signature of the Austrian Treaty. There is to be the "summit" meeting in Geneva.
    There has also been a by-product. This has been what the Foreign Secretary described this afternoon as that "pilgrimage" to Belgrade—the pilgrimage of Mr. Krushchev and Marshal Bulganin.
    That in turn is not only a by-product of the consolidation of the West, but a reflex of the rising prestige of the Commonwealth which we have witnessed in the past several years. It has grown as consultation within the Commonwealth has been so intensified as to produce something almost recognisable as a Commonwealth diplomacy. We have seen India and Canada, one might say on the two flanks of the Commonwealth, playing a great and critical part not only in the maintenance and supervision of the truce in Indo-China, but in damping down the menace of war over the Formosa Strait. We have likewise seen the Commonwealth ease the harshness of the war of ideas.
    At all events Marshal Tito, to whose shrine the Russian pilgrimage was made, found in a Commonwealth Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, a friend worthy of his ideological station. That friend, in turn, is now being feted in the U.S.S.R. It is not insignificant that Mr. Malenkov, who has returned to the world stage as Soviet Minister of Fuel and Power, is now showing Pandit Nehru a five megawatt nuclear reactor and boasts that the Soviet Union will have a 50 megawatt

    671
    reactor working before our own is in operation at Calder Hall.
    I cannot feel that these events are altogether accidental. I believe that they reflect a very important contact that was established between the free world of the West, through the Commonwealth, and the twilight world of Socialism that borders the Iron Curtain, when Marshal Tito himself paid a visit to New Delhi. There he found a welcome in the free world; there he found a statesman with Whom, on terms of confidence, he could exchange many ideas that they found they shared; there he learned that the Prime Minister of India looks not to Russia, not to China, but to Britain for consideration and help in the development of nuclear power; there he could see for himself that the Commonwealth is a free association, where the free movement of ideas enjoys unrestricted currency. I believe that the experience that Marshal Tito gathered in New Delhi has contributed substantially to the turn of events which we have seen quite recently in Europe.
    I believe that the consolidation of the West and the rise in prestige of the Commonwealth—the emergence, as I have said, of something recognisable as a Commonwealth diplomacy—are to be observed as a single pattern, certainly as springing from a single free spirit. That is why, in reading the Gracious Speech, I was particularly happy to observe two pledges.
    There was the pledge to pursue the work of consolidating the West—the N.A.T.O. Alliance, the American Affiance and Western European Union; and there was the pledge to deepen and enhance consultation within the Commonwealth. It is because these two matters are so interwoven that I beg the indulgence of the House to touch a little on Commonwealth affairs in what had, by general agreement, been planned out as a foreign affairs debate.
    It was said by the great Bacon, to whose wisdom you, Mr. Speaker, directed our attention not many days ago:
    "It is a miserable state of mind to have few things to desire and many things to fear."
    As we look out on the panorama of Commonwealth affairs there are many
    672
    doubts that cloud the horizon. But first a ray of light. I should like, if it is proper, to pay a tribute, perhaps a little presumptuous, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his choice of a Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The noble Lord who is now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations formerly sat for my constituency of Lanark.
    We in Lanark—and I found this during the Election—are deeply conscious of our ties with the Commonwealth and with the world overseas. There is, indeed, a Lanark in Ontario. There are a Biggar and a Carmichael in Saskatchewan, a Carstairs in Alberta, a Lamington in Queensland, a Braidwood in New South Wales, a Blackwood in Victoria, a Hamilton in North Island, New Zealand, a Douglas in Cape Province in South Africa, a Blantyre in Nyasaland, a Chapelton in Jamaica. These are ties of soil and kinship which we feel deeply in Lanarkshire, just as we feel deeply about Commonwealth relations, although we are not always very precise in the terms of our thinking.
    It has been said that
    "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties."
    One of the first doubts that crosses the Commonwealth horizon at the moment must be in the Mediterranean. There will be none in this House, I am sure, who will not join in welcoming the visit of the Prime Minister of Malta to London. But his visit is going to raise one question: What is the natural future to which a self-governing Colony can look forward in the Commonwealth if it is too small to be a viable and, therefore, fully Sovereign independent State. I believe that this Parliament now starting its work must, during the coming five years, face up to three broad Commonwealth problems of that type, and in facing up to them will be sustaining and helping to develop a Commonwealth foreign policy, while also deepening the whole process of consultation within this magic circle of sovereign nations.
    Then there is Cyprus. The hon. Member for Swindon—I must not in Parliament call him my hon. Friend, but he is a personal friend; we were colleagues

    673
    during the war—made reference to that island. One is reminded of the adage:
    "Let men beware how they neglect and suffer matter of trouble to be prepared; for no man can forbid the spark, nor tell whence it may come."
    Again it was wisely said:
    "In great oppressions the same things that provoke the patience do withal mate the courage."
    I believe that in the Cyprus problem we are concerned with something much more profound than the wholly natural and fundamentally healthy aspirations of the Greek-speaking, Greek-thinking and Greek-feeling population of that island to be united with the land where their culture flowers. I believe that in this twentieth century of great multi-national States we face a hangover here from nineteenth century nationalism. What is arising in Cyprus can arise elsewhere.
    I believe that we have to think out how in our Commonwealth system of many nations and of States composed of more than one nation there shall be a place for this fervent—one might almost say "violent," but I would prefer not to—aspiration for national unity and ask ourselves how that aspiration is to find its natural place in a multi-national system of multi-national States.
    Then one might perhaps, at the risk of being misunderstood, phrase the Cyprus problem in a different way. One could put it in this form: if Cyprus cannot join Greece, why should not Greece join Cyprus? That may be a provocative way of turning the problem upside down.
    Mr. George Brown: England did not join Scotland.
    Mr. Maitland: Of course, it is quite right that England did join Scotland and thereby made Britain Great. But the British still talk about the British-American and British-Egyptian treaties as "Anglo-American," "Anglo-Egyptian;" but education will follow in due course.
    We have to ask ourselves, and I believe that this Parliament has to consider seriously in the course of the next five years, what are to be the Commonwealth's relations with friendly neighbours and allies nearby. There is Greece in the Mediterranean. But in three oceans we meet Holland. We confront Holland in the North Sea and the Atlantic; we confront Holland in the Caribbean; and we confront Holland in the South Seas.
    674
    Holland is a nation of sober, vigilant, watchful people, energetic, creative, hardworking. They were once described as "those Low Countrymen who have the best mines above ground in the world." At some stage we must determine what should be the form of our Commonwealth's relations with such neighbours.
    I believe that it is possible to set a simple and general aim. Indeed, in the context of foreign policy there is much to be said for modesty of purpose. I believe that we should be making an advance and a constructive proposal to our neighbours if we made it known that we seek to establish a passportless freedom of movement for persons and property between nations that are members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Were we to do that I believe that there would be—or there could be—a rapid transformation of the scene as between ourselves and the Greeks regarding Cyprus.
    The frustrations that beset the people of Cyprus, as I see it, are the frustrations which in fact make them feel that they cannot come and go to Greece as they wish, and vice versa. The fact that that may not be altogether true is irrelevant; the point is that they feel it. The day when it is possible for any Greek from the Kingdom of Greece and any Cypriot to take ship at an hour's notice to the land of the other will be the day when the agitation and the ferment of nationalism which affronts our multinational principles in the Commonwealth will begin to diminish and fade out. At all events, if we stated as our objective the attaining of this total freedom of movement as between the peoples whose countries are members of the North Atlantic Alliance we should, in the context of Greece and Cyprus, clear the air. We should clear it for the initiation of administrative reforms which I hope, and I am sure, that we shall have an opportunity of debating in this House.
    Administrative reforms are due in Cyprus, where it is necessary to remove the existing suspicion that we seek to de-Hellenise the island. Were we to state that our objective was to institute administrative reforms, we might well create an atmosphere in which a fair constitutional offer could receive reasonable consideration.

    675
    Just as after the war Europe clamoured for the intervention of Britain on the Continent and for Britain's leadership in the whole process of integration, I believe, from my contacts abroad, that there is now emerging—certainly in Europe and, I believe, elsewhere too—the thought of nations friendly to ourselves that they might well, upon the beckoning of a finger, seize the opportunity to establish some organic relationship with our Commonwealth.
    I believe that the world is moving toward bigger and not smaller units, and were we to show, in the unfolding of our Commonwealth policy and in consultation with our fellow members of the Commonwealth that we think in terms of an expanding, and not a contracting, circle; that we live in a Commonwealth of freedom, where people are free to adhere as well as to depart; were we to spread that idea, or even discuss it publicly amongst ourselves, great hopes would arise in many quarters where small nations fear the colossi of power focussed in Communist Eurasia and the United States of America. I think that so we should consolidate old friendships and adorn our system.
    I believe that we could start in quite a modest way. We could begin by setting freedom of movement within N.A.T.O. as our first main goal and seek as a start to resume the pre-war practice of cross-Channel trips to France without passports and to make them not just day trips, but month trips and perhaps year trips. Beginning thus, I believe as a Scot that we should be pointing the way for the British people to find their place in the sun.
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. George Brown: I have no doubt that there is a good deal of sense in some of the things said by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland). But the hon. Gentleman rather destroyed the general feeling of comfort—at any event in my mind—by his allegations. First, he said that England joined Scotland—which on the whole I found rather an offensive suggestion and not historically supported—and, secondly, that an emergent nationalism, which we have all seen in various areas of the world, is, as he described it, an out-moded nineteenth century doc-
    676
    trine—it is nothing of the sort; it is much more one of the essential issues of the twentieth century. To say that we can deal with it by having passportless trips to France, was, on the whole, I thought, putting it a little lightly. I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman's observations further.
    I rarely intervene in debates on foreign affairs: I think I have done so on four occasions in the last ten years. I do so tonight merely because of a matter which has been worrying me for a long time and upon which it would seem that I disagree with the prevailing mood on this side of the House, and, I suspect, on the other side also. I thought it better, therefore, that I should say what I feel.
    It is customary for hon. Members of this House to make trips to foreign parts, to spend a few days there, and to come back and make a report. I wish to discuss an area of the world which I visited four years ago and about which I have thought deeply before attempting to talk about it in this House. I refer to the Middle East. Every hon. Member who has spoken today about that area, which is vital to us and the free nations of the world, would appear to have assumed that the effect on Israel of what we do or say is the first issue which we must resolve.
    Everyone talks about the Middle East problem as if it were simply a matter of Israel's relations with her neighbours. I do not think that is true, although a tremendous problem exists in that respect. I will be quite frank, and say that my own sympathies shifted considerably while I was there, and since. But although it is an issue on which passions and prejudices are so easily roused and stay with one for a long time, I do not think it a good thing for hon. Members to approach the question of the Middle East as though we were speaking for an Israeli foreign policy.
    It seems to me that so often speeches about the Middle East made in our debates on foreign affairs would be relevant were we putting the case for the Israeli Foreign Office, or arguing the line which the Israelis should take. Were I an Israeli, no doubt I should be thinking on the lines urged in this House on many occasions. But we are not. We are debating what shall be Britain's foreign

    677
    policy. We are, therefore, bound to consider British interests rather than Israeli interests, and where they conflict we are bound primarily to consider the problems of security for the free world rather than the interests of Israel as a State.
    I hope I do not offend the susceptibilities of anyone when I say that the interests of Israel are a matter for Israel now that she is a national State. She must argue them for herself. It is not a matter for us when we debate British foreign policy. That is where it seems to me that several speakers today, as on other occasions, have gone wrong. I agree in some respects with the impressions of the refugee problem and the outstanding issues between the Arab States and Israel brought back by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Where I disagree is in thinking that it would be right, or that it is any part of our purpose, or that it would be a good thing for us to preface our foreign policy in the Middle East with a determination to force on to the Arabs views which they do not at the moment desire to hold.
    I agree entirely that until the refugee problem is solved, until there is resettlement, it will not be easy, if at all possible, to get a peace treaty and to talk to the Arabs of terms they must accept. In fact, any Arab politician, no matter how good and sound he may be on other matters, would be in great danger, were he to admit the acceptance of such a view.
    I think that we must expand and build up a much closer friendship between ourselves and the Arab countries than has existed for a long period, at any rate in recent times. To talk to them at the moment as though they have to do something on the lines suggested would, in my opinion, be making a great mistake and running the risk of our foreign policy depending on something which is not our immediate concern.
    I was concerned at the exchange between the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). That sort of enunciation means that what we must do is to maintain the equilibrium there, as though that is our purpose and as though we have a policeman's job to do in the Middle East. We have nothing of the sort. It may be our desire that the equilibrium should
    678
    remain, but it is not our purpose to maintain it, as was said by the Foreign Secretary.
    Our purpose is to develop foreign relations and policies there which will contribute to our main purpose in the world, which is, first, the security of the free world, and, secondly, the development of British interests in the world. Whether or not the equilibrium is maintained is a by-product of that which may or may not be good. At any rate, it is a different question, a by-product, and not our main purpose. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary was led into laying that down as our purpose. The idea that Britain should be the policeman of the trouble spots of the world was outmoded at the end of the last century.
    One of the troubles of all Foreign Secretaries is the view that we have to conduct foreign affairs debates on the basis of a grand tour by the Minister, who is not specific about anything, but only touches lightly on matters all over the place. Of course, the Foreign Office always hopes that the Foreign Secretary will not be specific, and, as a result, he throws in every single cliché which one has ever heard. I must say that today the right hon. Gentleman excelled himself.
    When the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary he used to throw in all the clichés, though there was usually a connecting sentence or two. Today we did not even have that, and before the right hon. Gentleman finished he was stumbling over the stones he had not unturned in the roads which he had already explored. No doubt the Foreign Office regards that as very suitable because he has not said anything dangerous.
    I think that such a procedure is a waste of opportunity, and that it would be better if Foreign Secretaries were to deal with two or three vexed questions and really give us a statement of policy about them. I think that this is one such question, and I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have said more about it than he did, but I will say what I think we should do.
    I think that we should begin by getting out of our minds the idea that it is our business to make a choice between the Israeli case and the Arab case, and that it is our business to maintain the peace of the Middle East by policing methods. I, like everybody else, hope that there will

    679
    be peace in that part of the world, but I believe that only time will bring it about. If for a period of time certain other things are done, peace will probably come between these States, always assuming, of course, that the Israeli State is able to last. What we want is time and an absence of incidents on the border.
    The existence of incidents is a dangerous thing for us because it complicates our foreign policy. If the Egyptian proposal that the United Nations should police the border were adopted, it might well help to prevent incidents. Were the United Nations to police the border around the trouble area it would not be so easy for anybody to step across the border, create an incident, and go back again.
    When all has been said and done, the outstanding thing is that for Britain, in these times, that area is vitally important. It has the richest oilfield in the world. I am told that from the Arab part of the oilfield alone, leaving out Iran, about 150 million tons of oil are taken every year, to the value of some £300 million. To retain that oil must obviously be a vital consideration for British foreign policy, and it would be out of the question to let other countries get away with it.
    Apart from retaining it for ourselves, we must deny it to a potential enemy. After all, we must realise the geography of that area, how near to Russia it is, and how vulnerable it is. I am told that it would be practically impossible to deny it to an enemy, and that to get an oil well working again would take only a couple of months. If we had to pull out of the area we could not, for all practical purposes, deny the oil to an enemy.
    Secondly, the whole area of the Arab world is a tremendously important potential economic market to this country. We hear a lot about other areas in the Commonwealth which we can build up as markets for our goods, but here is a tremendous ready-made market for us. It already has vast sums of money and a potential rate of development. It also has an enormous population. The Arab has an old culture, and he is capable of tremendous advance if given the opportunity.
    It seems to me that we should treat that area as being a great deal more important for Britain than we do. Of course,
    680
    it is an area which, economically, we could lose very easily. That is another reason why I am reluctant to see us so tied up as the Foreign Secretary tied us up today. With the political troubles in Egypt, the Germans got into that market very quickly and easily. Were we to subordinate our interests to other interests in that area, we might well find that we had allowed the economic potential to pass to somebody else to exploit and develop, and that, as a result, we had lost it permanently.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): Is the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman is making of my right hon. Friend's policy that this country should not take what action it can to prevent the outbreak of war between the Israelis and the Arabs?
    Mr. Brown: Of course I did not say that. I said that it should not be laid down that our main purpose in the Middle East is, as the Foreign Secretary put it, to keep the equilibrium. Our main purpose should be to secure the defence of that area and to build up British interests in it. The maintenance of the equilibrium may well be the business of the United Nations. It does not seem to me to be the main purpose of British foreign policy, which is what we are discussing.
    Mr. Younger: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether his criticism of what the Foreign Secretary said and, by the same token, of what I said, implies that he wishes in any way to weaken the force of the 1950 Declaration, or whether he wishes to stand by that Declaration to the letter, as has been said by both Front Benches?
    Mr. Brown: The Tripartite Declaration of 1950 is all right with me, and, from inquiries I have made from Arab friends of mine, I can say that it is accepted by the Arab States. What I am quarrelling with is the interpretation which every speaker seems to put upon the situation.
    Everyone talks of our settling the Israeli-Egypt problem; of our securing the permanency of the State of Israel; and of our doing something about the relationships which exist there. That attitude seems to me to replace the Tripartite Declaration and the United Nations responsibility by British responsibility and British interests, and I regard that as extremely dangerous.

    681
    The second aspect of this question which worries me is the importance of this area to the free nations. We often talk about negotiating from strength. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) made it very clear today that, despite the Jeremiahs who warned us that the contrary would happen, very many benefits have flowed to the free world since we began seriously negotiating from strength with the Russians. It is vitally important for us to be able to negotiate from strength in the Middle East.
    That area has a very vulnerable frontier. It has an easily infiltratable backdoor. However good may be the present defence arrangements which have been built up with such difficulty—however good the Turco-Iraq-British Pact, even if it included Persia and Pakistan, as I hope it will, giving a kind of semicircular line of defence or barrier between the free world and the East—there will still be an extremely vulnerable frontier because it will lack defence in depth. At its middle there will be practically nothing at all, so long as the other Arab States are not included in the defence arrangements. It is, therefore, an essential part of British foreign policy to build up a defence arrangement in the Middle East which will bring in the Arab countries behind this very thin line, even if it is extended, as I have described, by the inclusion of Persia and Pakistan. When we talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict we have to remember that Egypt is half the Arab world and has to be taken into account in formulating British policy.
    Another reason why that area is so valuable to us is that it offers tremendous opportunities for building up a standard of living of millions of people who are now having a very miserable time. If we were to take advantage of those opportunities we could establish an enormous amount of good will. I know that some people say, "Ah, but look at the old pashas, the old landlords and the reactionary people." I can only say that the position in the Arab world is changing, and Arab politics do not now depend upon the old reactionary landlords. Younger men are emerging who have been educated here, and who are social
    682
    reformers. To some extent the Egyptian national revolution is a social reforming revolution.
    If we follow the correct policy in the Middle East it will be possible for us to go along with the changing ideas, along with the younger men, and along with the social reformers in that area, and help to effect a very considerable revolution in a tolerably short space of time which will very considerably change the defence possibilities of that area. I have a tremendous admiration for General Nuri Said, whom I met once while I was in the Middle East, and who impressed me as an exceptionally wise and able statesman, especially in an area where it is not easy to find such qualities. It is a very great combination in one man. But even so exceptional a man as Nuri Said will not be there for ever; he is getting old. He desperately needs some sort of public opinion behind him, and unless we help these new leaders or the good old men by building up better conditions which will create a public opinion to back them up we shall run the risk of even good men like Nuri Said disappearing from the scene, as he once did, in fact—and being replaced by other people. In that case all our best intentions will be undone, as happened over the Portsmouth Treaty, negotiated by Ernest Bevin, because these leaders will not be able to maintain themselves in power.
    There has been a considerable improvement in British-Arab relationships. I am prepared to give some of the credit for that to the Conservative Party, provided that it is realised that if we had done, in Egypt, Iran, and Indo-China, what they have done, they would have called it scuttling.
    None of the party opposite, if he were standing where I am standing, would be patting us on the back for doing what they have done. They would have gone about the country, as they did once before, smearing us, and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), for all they were worth, talking about scuttling, and making it as difficult as they could to carry through our policy, and doing a great deal of damage by making the people in the Middle East think that the arrangement was not to be a permanent one.

    683
    I do not take that line. The Conservative Party has been lucky enough to preside over these improvements, and that is merely the luck of the draw. It would be better for both parties if they took that line, especially upon foreign policy. The Government's withdrawal from Egypt; their handing over Habbaniyah and Shaiba; their arrangements in regard to Jordan, have all contributed to these improvements, and in so far as they were carrying out Labour policy there is all the more reason for giving them a pat on the back. These improved relationships have contributed to the creation of new beliefs—or a revival of old beliefs—on the part of the Arabs in regard to British friendship for the Arab States.
    I am an organiser of so-called unskilled workers, and because I have that background I am not likely to go round sneering or turning up my nose at the wretched Arabs because, for the most part, they are fellaheen, with no skills, standing, or responsibility, and being attracted to other people because they are more sophisticated, mature or anything else. The Arab is an excellent and an attractive fellow and he has an almost inherent belief in Britain's friendship for him. That belief recently became rather shaken, but I believe that it has now been re-established, together with a much clearer realisation of where the Americans really stand than existed in 1951.
    This is the time to capitalise what we have done, and all the improvements out there. There is less suspicion now about an Arab approach to the West, and to the idea of associating directly with the West, than there used to be.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East spoke about the Communists making use of the refugees in Jordan. I saw that myself. The Communists make use also, in Israel, of anything we do on the other side, and can be relied upon to play a double game either way. They will make the utmost propaganda and will exploit to the utmost whatever we do on one side or the other. It is, therefore, all the more important that we should be able to justify what we do. The Arab is now more willing to accept association with the West, but the younger and educated Arabs who have emerged are not prepared to go on being the camel drivers or truck drivers for
    684
    our Defence Forces in the future. They want to have their own defence forces and Army.
    The very first thing we should do is to encourage some form of federation or unity among the Arab countries in order to strengthen the defence arrangements that we are building up there. Men like Nasser in Egypt, President Camille Chamoun in the Lebanon—whom I know personally and who has done so much—and General Nuri, are diverse examples, different types of men and politicians who, in their different ways and backgrounds, are willing to approach this business of association with the West in a very much more realistic and practical way than before. It is for us to enable them to come along.
    I press this matter on the Joint Under-Secretary of State because I am told that Her Majesty's Ambassadors over there are discouraging the idea of an Arab pact with Iraq. It might well be possible to have the existing Turco-Iraqi-British Pact and an Arab defence pact, in which I am sure Iraq would participate, existing together. I hope we can get Iraq into both, and can secure the synchronisation of an Arab defence pact with the existing pact. That would be a relatively simple thing, and might well lead on to a real defence organisation for the area, which cannot exist until the other Arab countries come in. If we want that, we must encourage it.
    Am I correctly informed that our Ambassadors are discouraging the idea of an Arab pact with Iraq side by side with the existing Pact? If so, I think they are making a very great mistake and are putting the younger and more practical politicians who would come along with us, into an extremely difficult position.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I will reply to that question at once. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Her Majesty's Government are trying to dissuade Iraq from joining a pact with her neighbours, that is quite untrue.
    Mr. Brown: I am very glad to hear it, because it shows that the information that I have been given is not accurate.
    I hope that the pact will come about, because in that way we can save that vulnerable and vital area for the free

    685
    world and shut another back door to Britain. We can build friendships for Britain in the Arab world which we need more than anything else in that area, and that will pay enormous dividends for us and help us enormously in our economic problems. I am wholly in favour of it.
    I have ventured to make this intervention and to disagree with my hon. Friends on a number of points because I hold very strongly these views about the best method of approach to the complex problems of the Middle East.
    8.15 p.m.
    Viscount Lambton: I enjoyed very much the earlier part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). When I heard the same points a second and then a third time, I found that my enjoyment was decreasing very slightly.
    Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Member agreed with them?
    Viscount Lambton: No, but I was entertained by them the first time. The right hon. Gentleman was slightly unfair to the Foreign Minister in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had covered too much ground and that he should have confined himself entirely to one or two questions about which he should have expressed a definite policy. After all, there are hon. Members on both sides who wish to have the points in which they are interested answered, or at any rate expressed, by the Foreign Minister, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend did quite right in going over so wide a field at the beginning of such a debate.
    I shall leave the subject of foreign affairs now and make a speech which I had intended to make earlier in the week but for the fact that there was a statement to be made yesterday on the subject of the House of Lords which I wished to wait for. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the composition of the House of Lords, a subject which Her Majesty declared in Her Most Gracious Speech would be given further consideration in the coming year.
    There have been two debates within recent months on this subject in another place. The first was upon a general Motion put down by the Lord Samuel, and the second was to decide whether or not it would be possible for the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr.
    686
    Benn) to remain in this House upon the death of his father. If these debates achieved nothing tangible, at any rate they illustrated by their high standard the value of the second Chamber. It is because of the high esteem that I hold for the House of Lords and for the whole system of bi-cameral government that I hope that some measure of reform will be proposed within the year.
    There was a most interesting feature in the debate on Lord Samuel's Motion, in that practically every peer who spoke, who had served in some great office of the State or had knowledge of the machinery of Government expressed the need for reform, while opposition came from the back benches. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that those who use the House of Lords as a working-place find that it is becoming intolerable, while those who use it as a luxury find that it is delightful.
    A notable exception was Lord Jowitt, who made a curious speech. He did not pretend that the House of Lords was working well, or that he was not in favour of certain reforms, yet, somewhat apologetically, he had to declare that the Labour Party was not in favour of talks to find a solution to the problem. The reason for his speech is, I am quite sure, the Socialist belief in one-chamber Government. They believe that all they have to do is to sit still, that time is on their side and that in a few years the second Chamber will become unworkable.
    At the present moment it is said that 100 peers a day use the House of Lords. What these noble Lords do is another matter; whether they collect their post or read the newspapers I do not know, but certainly a very large number of them are not at any time in the Chamber. Upon occasion I make use of what is, I suppose, the only privilege left to an heir to a peerage—to sit at the steps of the Throne. I must confess that on those days it is not a privilege that could excite envy.
    If anything, the scene resembles the last night of a rather unsuccessful play. The benches are empty, the atmosphere is apathy. It is difficult to see how such a, setting could be conducive to good government. Lord Samuel quoted irrefutable evidence of the reduction of committee work, and Lord Salisbury of the difficulties of government. The danger is,

    687
    that these warnings should pass unheeded, and that the House of Lords be judged by its past record and by the attendance at an occasional debate of national interest.
    Within the last 40 years, the House of Lords has changed almost beyond recognition. The type of man of whom it then consisted has disappeared; the honour of a peerage has declined, and those who seek to preserve its past character seek to preserve but a shadow. I am sure there will be many hon. Members here today who believe that I am wasting the time of the House; that this reform has been spoken of for years and years and nothing has become of it, and that the same fate will await any proposal made today. I am not certain that this is the case and that there is not—at any rate within the House of Lords—a general awareness of the need 'for reform which, if it can be achieved without loss of dignity and a total diminution of the inherited right, may be more generally acceptable than is supposed.
    The last all-party conference broke 'on the delaying powers of the House of Lords, and other conferences have broken down for similar reasons. Any complicated scheme would merely produce further difficulty. I am sure that the best schemes are always the simplest. I do not think that its powers could be increased without embittering the whole subject of reform. That they should be is perhaps an ideal, but inevitably a Labour Government would decrease them and again bring the subject into turbulent debate. As the House of Lords is by no means an ideal second chamber today, nor has been for the last 40 years, all that can be attempted with any chance of success is to improve the present system and to gain for it that popular respect which, above all else, is the strength of a second chamber.
    As to actual reform, I would suggest, first, the creation of life peers, and secondly, a reduction—either by voluntary agreement or by election—of hereditary peers. The first proposal is long overdue. I will not go into the history of Lord Wensleydale or the objections of Lord Lyndhurst, but simply say that times have changed and that the House of Lords would be enriched by men who at present will not go there on account
    688
    of the financial burdens which they fear they will lay upon their sons or because of the penalties of a peerage which in recent years has removed Lord Hailsham from this House and which casts uncertainty upon the future of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), myself, and several other hon. Members.
    This present disinclination to go to the House of Lords is disadvantageous to both Houses. Let us take the case of the present Foreign Minister and imagine that in 15 years' time, perhaps for the first time in his life, he decided to follow the example of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and retire from high office. What is he to do? If he goes to the House of Lords, where his experience and talents could not but add to the dignity of debate, he jeopardises the career of his son who has just entered this House. It may be said that he could do service here, but I think that there can be too many ex-Ministers in this House. Many back benchers opposite will agree with me when they find that they have both an official Front bench, an unofficial Front Bench and a retired Front Bench at the same time. With all respect, I suggest that the proper place for an ex-Minister is the House of Lords, though not, of course, for Prime Ministers.
    I believe, also, that right hon. Members opposite would have less qualms about accepting such honours if they were confined to themselves alone. Indeed, I find it very hard to discover any argument against the creation of life peerages unless it be that the membership of the House of Lords is already too large. With that I would agree. It is for that reason that, at the same time as the principle of life peerages is accepted, there should be a reduction in the number of hereditary peers with voting rights.
    How this reduction could be brought about is another matter. If it could be voluntary and a certain number of peers would contract out, so much the better. If it were by election on the Scottish system, I cannot see the harm, as a great number of peers never attend debates. At the same time, and inclusive in the scheme, peers should be able to decline once and for all to sit in another place

    689
    and be able to stand for election to the House of Commons.
    I do not wish to go into detail today. That, after all, is the task of the Select Committee which is about to sit to consider the position. I merely illustrate how it is possible to strengthen, without at the same time uprooting, the Second Chamber. The issue is clear. The Upper House is daily declining in effectiveness, calibre and talent. If this continues we shall soon in fact, if not in theory, have a single-Chamber Government, or at any rate a House so ineffective that it will make a convenient pity for a Government whose activity it is designed to check.
    Therefore, I ask hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, to reflect that if they oppose reform for fear of endangering the Constitution, the ultimate result in all likelihood will be exactly the opposite of their desire. The sole hope of retaining the Second Chamber is to improve it, to strengthen it and to give it the chance to achieve that respect which alone can justify in the public mind and give it a secure place in the Constitution.
    I expres again my regret for intervening with this subject in a debate which has been devoted to other matters, but I assure the House that I have done so only because I believe that reform is long overdue.
    8.32 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Healey: Perhaps the House will forgive me more readily than usual if I decline to follow the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). I would, however, like to say that the speech to which we have listened was of only a little less value to our proceedings today than the oration with which the Foreign Secretary opened the debate, an oration which was very unworthy of the ocasion. It was limp, listless and, as one of my hon. Friends said, stuffed with clichés and altogether lacking in a sense of occasion. In fact, it made one regret the rapier wit and flashing style of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in that office.
    After all, the occasion which we are celebrating in the debate is the consummation of 10 years' hard work in
    690
    Western policy, and it certainly deserves more notice than it was given by the Foreign Secretary. The policy which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by Ernest Bevin almost 10 years ago has at last reached a decisive point. It is at last bearing fruit. I do not believe that there has been any occasion in history when the vindication of policy has come so rapidly or so completely as this.
    On 5th May, only a few weeks ago, the instruments of ratification of the Paris Treaties were deposited. On 11 th May the Soviet Union, for the first time for 10 years, moved great strides towards the position which the Western world had been putting forward on disarmament ever since the United Nations began. On 15th May the Austrian Treaty was signed, a Treaty which had been in draft for years. On 26th May Mr. Kruschev and Mr. Bulganin made their pilgrimage to their Canossa at Belgrade. A few days later the invitation came to Dr. Adenauer, for years the target of Communist propaganda as a "Fascist hyena," and in a few weeks' time the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of the great Powers are to meet for what looks like being the first serious session of negotiation since 1945. Surely this occasion deserved a rather different speech from the flaccid, limp, tour d'horizon which we heard from the Foreign Secretary today.
    Why is it that we are now faced for the first time since 1945 with a possibility of a real change of temperature in the cold war and of real and fruitful negotiation with the Soviet Union? Surely, the reason is that for the last five years Soviet policy has had as its main aim to prevent the inclusion of Germany in the Western Alliance. So long as people inside the Western world were trying to secure that aim for Russia, why should Russia make any concession herself in order to achieve it? Now that Germany is in N.A.T.O., now that we have the Paris Agreements, Russia can only achieve her aims by making concessions herself. I do not believe that Russia's basic aims in Europe have changed at all, but what has changed is very important indeed. For the first time since the end of the war it seems possible that Russia is now prepared herself to pay a price for the achievement of those aims.

    691
    What I should like to discuss is on what conditions we can negotiate sincerely with the Soviet Union for a settlement in Europe, which after all is by far the most important problem dividing the two camps at present. The Soviet Union, in her statement to the United Nations on disarmament about a month ago, restated her main aims in Europe. Quite simply, they are to get Germany out of N.A.T.O. and to get N.A.T.O. out of Germany. Those have been her aims ever since 1949. There is no change there. What has changed is that she appears now to be ready to consider making some concessions, some sacrifices, herself in order to achieve them.
    If Germany left N.A.T.O. and N.A.T.O. troops left Germany and there was no major concession on the Soviet side, the defence of these islands would become impossible. That is why—rightly in my view—we have always refused to consider acceding to Russia's demands in the past. Perhaps it is worth making the point that now that the occupation in Germany is over, now that Germany is a sovereign State and is herself a member of N.A.T.O., Russia can achieve both her aims at one blow if Germany can be got out of N.A.T.O. In the past it was possible for N.A.T.O. to be in Germany without Germany being a member of N.A.T.O., but it is very difficult under present conditions to conceive of a situation in which Germany could leave N.A.T.O. and yet N.A.T.O. troops still remain in Germany.
    The question we must face, not only as the Parliament of Britain, but also as members of the Western Alliance, is whether there are any conditions, any demands, we can make on the Soviet Union whose acceptance would justify us in meeting the Russians at least halfway in the achievement of their aims. What price must we ask of the Russians?
    I make a short digression here. There is a feeling growing in some quarters in most of the Western countries that the local defence of Europe is no longer necessary or important because the thermo-nuclear deterrent by itself would be sufficient to prevent any change in whatever status quo might be agreed in Europe for evermore. In my view that belief is a sort of deadly atomic radiation sickness which is totally contradicted by the real facts of the thermo-nuclear age.
    692
    Surely the real fact is that as Russia approaches equivalence with the Western Powers in her thermo-nuclear striking power, the Western Powers will not be prepared to unleash their atomic power against the Soviet Union in any circumstances which do not directly threaten their own survival as peoples. In other words, with the approach of so-called atomic saturation, the atomic deterrent is only a deterrent against atomic aggression on an atomic Power. It loses almost all its value as a deterrent to local or conventional aggression, particularly against countries which are not atomic Powers or allied with atomic Powers.
    It has been suggested, for example, by a former British Chief of Air Staff, Sir John Slessor, that we can make a settlement with Russia on Germany by a kind of atomic Locarno, by agreeing to drop atomic bombs on one another if any one tries to upset the neutrality of Germany. But what nonsense that is when we know today that the unleashing of atomic war may mean death not only for ourselves but the annihilation of future generations. Surely it is inconceivable that any country will use the major atomic weapons except in the very last resort. Certainly no atomic guarantees can provide any safeguard against changes in the status quo through diplomacy or even changes in the status quo through subversion.
    The fact is that with the approach of atomic saturation the local defence of these islands and the local defence of Western Europe becomes more important than ever, and it is less possible now than it has ever been for us to accept the demands of Russia that we should let Germany leave N.A.T.O. and take our own N.A.T.O. troops out of Germany unless Russia makes very far-reaching withdrawals on her own side.
    On the other hand, I do not think we can rule out of hand the possibility that Russia is now beginning to consider the question of far-reaching withdrawals. My own view is that the only kind of withdrawal which would justify the West in agreeing to withdraw out of Germany on its side would be a Russian withdrawal to the status quo before the war; in other words, the withdrawal of Soviet power to within the frontiers of the Soviet Union itself. I believe it is this possibility that we must begin seriously to consider.

    693
    My hon. Friends the Members for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) referred to this possibility, but rather in moral than in practical diplomatic terms. However, I believe it is a possibility we must start to consider as hard-headed diplomatists. If the Russians really want the dismantling of Western bases in Europe, as they say, they must be told that the only condition on which that is conceivable is that they go back into the Soviet Union itself and liberate the satellite countries.
    I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North suggested, that Kruschev's pilgrimage to Belgrade was the first tentative feeler by the Soviet Government in this direction. I think Kruschev wanted to see whether Titoism offered any pattern for the other East European States which might possibly be introduced there. However, I think we must be extremely cautious here. Soviet control of the East European States does not depend on the presence of the Red Army in Eastern Europe—there is, in fact, no Red Army in Czechoslovakia today. It depends on the control of the East European communist parties by the Russian Communist Party. And that control again does not depend on the Cominform—I believe it is highly likely that the Russians will dissolve the Cominform within the next four or five weeks. It depends on the absolute subservience of the Communist satellite leaders to orders from Moscow. After all, the Comintern was dissolved during the last World War when the National Organiser of the British Communist Party was committing espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union.
    We must face the fact that the only way in which the withdrawal of Russia from Eastern Europe can be guaranteed is by the fulfilment of the pledges given to the West by Russia at Teheran, at Yalta and Potsdam to hold genuinely free elections in the satellite countries. Perhaps we are a very long way from that at the moment. I do not want to suggest for a moment that there is any chance that we shall reach agreement with the Soviet Union on it in the next lot of talks, but I believe it is a point which should be put by the Western Prime Ministers to the Soviet Government. Certainly, the Soviet Government
    694
    must be told that if they want what they say they want in their series of diplomatic documents, namely the dismantling of foreign bases in Western Europe, we consider that the dismantling of Soviet bases in Eastern Europe can only be secured by free elections in all the satellite countries.
    I hope that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, will not be too hesitant about raising these points. After all, he has been chairman of the European Commission of the European Movement for many years. I should not like to embarrass him, particularly in his absence, by reading out some of the resolutions to which he lent his prestige when he was in opposition. However, I hope he will not forget his obligation as a person to the peoples of the satellite countries and will not ignore his responsibility as a statesman to raise this issue, if only privately, at the highest and most discreet level in the next series of talks.
    My own view is that the only major disengagement possible in Europe would be one along these lines, a disengagement which looks towards the creation of a Pan-European bloc between the Soviet Union and the United States, which would be the only unit which could conceivably form any sort of third force or independent bloc between the two. However, as I say, it is very unlikely that we shall reach any final agreement, even in principle, along these lines in the next series of meetings.
    I think there is a danger, to which the Foreign Secretary himself gave colour in his speech, that, having failed to reach our major aim in these talks, we shall be satisfied simply to tinker around with the existing system and try to make coexistence more comfortable on the basis of a divided Europe and a divided Germany.
    Nothing could be more dangerous than that. We must never forget that, now that Western Germany is a sovereign State, if she can be weaned away from the Atlantic Alliance, Russia will achieve all her European aims for nothing, and that the major interest and desire of the West Germans is for national unity, the liberation of the Soviet Zone of Germany. At the next conference we must make a very serious attempt at progress along these lines. I do not believe that we shall satisfy anybody in Europe that we are

    695
    sincerely trying to liberate the Soviet Zone if we stick now, after the Paris Treaties, to the very rigid position which we took, quite rightly in my view, at Berlin a year before the Paris Treaties were finally ratified.
    Nobody in Western Germany believes that Russia can reasonably be expected to agree to the full Western position as it was laid down at Berlin, because it would have meant the advance of N.A.T.O. to the frontiers of Poland and Czechoslovakia, in practice if not in theory. On the other hand, I do not think anybody in Western Germany, except the Communists, believes that the West can be expected to accept the Soviet position at Berlin, which would have meant that the Iron Curtain should advance to the frontiers of France and Holland.
    However, between those two extremes of the very rigid positions taken by Russia and the West at the Berlin conference a year ago there is an immense variety of possible compromises. I believe that the West must put one of the compromises, or, if necessary, several of them, at the coming talks with Russia, and I believe that we must put them publicly at the beginning of the talks. The type of compromise possible, of course, is demilitarisation of part of a united Germany, or the imposition, with German consent, of some restrictions on the diplomatic and/or military freedom of a united German Government. Those are possibilities which we can reasonably consider now.
    But I believe that it is very important for the West to make some proposal along those lines publicly at the beginning of the talks, if not before. Otherwise, the Russians will take the initiative from the word "go" and, when we finally uncover our counter-proposals towards the end of the conference, their real significance will be lost on the Germans. Let us never forget that if the Russians could be sure that the West would take the blame for the break down of talks on German unity at Geneva, break down of the talks would suit the Russians better than any form of success. It is only by making sure that if the talks break down the Russians carry the blame that we can have any chance of making the Russians make the concessions on which success will be possible.
    696
    I want to make one final point. It may be that the pessimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North is justified and that the Soviet Union is not yet prepared to make any of the concessions on which either major or minor agreement could be reached at the Geneva conference. It may be, as some journalists and others have suggested, that the Russians have no intention at all of talking seriously about German unity at this conference because they hope in future to do a bilateral deal with the Germans on unification at our expense. This is a danger which has always been present in our minds.
    One of the reasons why the majority of Members on this side of the House so strongly supported the Paris Agreements was that we believed that they would give Germany a type of interest and confidence in her membership of the Western Alliance which would make it progressively less likely that she would break away from the West and do a deal on her own with Russia. I ask the Minister of State when he replies to say a little more than the Foreign Secretary said at the beginning of the debate about how Her Majesty's Government propose to develop the Western European framework in order to give Germany this type of interest with the West.
    All the Foreign Secretary did, if I may say so, was to read us a diary of his appointments from 5th May to 12th May and then to unleash a few of those extremely vague and empty phrases which he is so experienced in using and which he has used again and again at meetings in the European Movement, at Strasbourg, and ever since. What we want to know is how the Government propose to make a reality of Western European Union about which they made such a great song and dance when the Paris Agreements were first being drafted last Autumn.
    As far as one can tell, nothing whatever has been agreed so far about the arms production pool. The arms control agency is in its most embryonic form and there is no sign whatever that the Government are moving closer to Western Europe to make a reality of Western European union, except in fact as a makeshift to get Germany into N.A.T.O. I hope that the Minister of State will say something about that.

    697
    In conclusion, I believe that we are now at a possible turning point in the affairs of the whole world. The policy which we have pursued for the last 10 years with such patience and firmness is paying off. A real chance of a settlement with the Soviet Union which will give us peace and peace with honour—is opening before us. If we are to achieve this, we shall need vigour, imagination, dynamism and flexibility. I hope that the Minister of State can show that somewhere in the Government these qualities exist, because they were nowhere apparent in the speech with which the Foreign Secretary opened the debate.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Smithers: There are about five minutes left to me, and therefore I propose to put the notes of my speech ceremoniously in my pocket and not to make it. I should not have risen to intervene in the debate were it not for the fact that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has spoken in the terms in which he did of the speech of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. The hon. Member for Leeds, East has a very great knowledge of all these matters. In my opinion, he has perhaps a more detailed knowledge of foreign affairs than any hon. Member on the other side of the House. I think, therefore, that it was peculiarly unworthy of him to have attacked the Foreign Secretary for his speech in the present circumstances.
    The hon. Gentleman knows very well what the circumstances are. He knows very well the flashing wit and brilliance of which the Foreign Secretary is master, and which he could well have used. He knows very well that the Foreign Secretary this afternoon preferred to put first service to this House and his country, and that he made a matter-of-fact and factual speech upon a large number of matters about which many hon. Members wished to have information. The hon. Member fell considerably below himself when he suggested that the Foreign Secretary should make a speech on major matters which divide us from those on the other side of the Iron Curtain when my right hon. Friend's bags were actually packed and he was just about to step into an aeroplane to fly to New York to meet the Americans and to San Francisco to meet
    698
    Mr. Molotov. I do not think that was a statesmanlike proposal to make.
    Mr. Healey: If the Foreign Secretary's bags were already packed, and if he really was just going into conference with his Western Allies and with the Soviet Foreign Secretary, that was just the moment when he should have had something to say to us. In fact, he gave us not one piece of information in his speech which has not been available to readers of the Press for weeks.
    Mr. Smithers: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which seems to me completely to vindicate the Foreign Secretary. It shows that, however great the hon. Gentleman's knowledge may be, his judgment does not bear comparison with that of the Foreign Secretary.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: It is customary to say on occasions such as this that the debate has ranged very widely. Today we have had the unusual experience in a foreign affairs debate of hearing a full-length speech on the future of the House of Lords, a speech to which I do not propose to reply. The House has also enjoyed hearing three admirable maiden speeches, one of which was from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), who made a sincere plea for peace in the tradition of the party to which we belong. I think that his speech pleased the whole House.
    We also heard two maiden speeches from the benches opposite, one from the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) and the other from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), who showed a very free mind. He showed that in future he does not intend to be any slave of the Whips, which is a characteristic which is always warmly appreciated in one's political opponents. We should like to offer him our warm encouragement in carrying on in the same spirit in which he made his maiden speech.
    The debate has also shown the keen desire of Members on both sides that the forthcoming talks shall succeed. It is clear that the prospects will improve if the Government pay serious attention to the kind of constructive suggestions and discriminating criticism which has been

    699
    made from these benches during the debate. It is true that there is a wide area of agreement between the parties on foreign affairs. Where this can happen without violating anyone's conscience or principles it is welcome; but, as this debate has shown, that does not mean, I hope, that we on this side of the House will let the Government get away with anything. They have made mistakes in the past. We do not rely on them not to make mistakes in the future, and we certainly do not intend to let them relax or become complacent.
    It is clear from the speech of the Foreign Secretary, and from other statements, that the Government are determined that the British public shall not expect too much from the forthcoming talks. We have been warned that it will be a long business. We were warned today, quite superfluously, that it is not a question that can be solved in a day, and the French, and particularly the American, spokesmen have been taking the same line for some weeks past.
    I confess to feeling a little irritation sometimes with this kind of talk. It is natural enough that the Western Governments should be frightened of raising excessive hopes in Western minds, and should be anxious to avoid being blamed unfairly if the talks fail; but there is some danger of underestimating the intelligence and experience of the people of the West. They are not innocent children in this matter. They have had experience for 10 years past of the difficulty of negotiating with the Russians.
    I am sure that the Government will not necessarily be judged harshly if the talks fail. They will be judged on their performance at the talks, which we shall watch most vigilantly and carefully. They will be judged by the extent to which they show themselves prepared to judge proposals on their merits, even if they come from the Soviet delegation. That is a good reason for looking at them twice but not a good reason for not considering them most carefully on their merits.
    The Government will be judged, too, by the extent to which, if they cannot accept the Soviet proposals, they give fully and clearly, valid reasons why, preferably in non-diplomatic language, so that we can all understand and appreciate them. And perhaps the Govern-
    700
    ment will be judged, above all, on whether they put forward reasonable counter-proposals.
    I should have thought that in the meanwhile there was some danger in playing down the possibilities of these top-level talks. This may well give the false impression that the Government are more anxious to find excuses in the event of failure than they are determined to go to these talks with the intention of succeeding. I think also that it may tend to make the Government themselves feel, in underestimating the possibilities of holding these talks at top level, that it is not these talks but all the other talks which will proceed out of them later that matter.
    They may start looking at these top-level talks simply as a kind of sorting office for dispatching downwards to Foreign Secretaries and officials problems which are, in fact, insoluble without some progress at the top level. I think it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that there is a small margin by which we have a better chance of making some progress at the very top level than at any lower levels, and certainly the prospect of making progress, in so far as it exists or appears to exist, is at that top level rather than lower down.
    Among a number of speeches this afternoon, the House appreciated two very courageous and straightforward speeches on the subject of Russian intentions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). If I may say so, I think that there was some danger of my hon. Friends underestimating the degree to which their views carry conviction among their colleagues on these benches. Of course, I think that we all agree it would be disastrous to think that the longterm aims of the Russians had changed or that their basic cast of thought had changed, or that the negotiations which we are about to start with them will be the kind of negotiations which one could have with, for example, the Indian, the United States or the French Governments.
    Certain hon. Members here, I believe, may remember meeting some of the Soviet leaders last autumn during a very interesting visit which we made to the Soviet Union as representatives of this House. They will remember the talks

    701
    which we had in the Cabinet room in the Kremlin with Mr. Malenkov and Mr. Molotov. I think that we were all struck by the courtesy and charm of those two Soviet leaders. They really made us feel quite at home. They made us feel that surely it should be possible to do business with them, as with anyone else.
    Yet, of course, we could not forget that two months before, in that very room, perhaps in one's own chair, Beria had been sitting; and that these two genial men, rightly from their own point of view, had been planning his death. Eight Soviet leaders out of Stalin's first Politburo of 13 sat in that pleasant room and subsequently were killed, or committed suicide, or died in suspicious circumstances, as the result of acts of their colleagues against them.
    We have the plain duty of negotiating with these men and of trying sincerely to reach agreement with them. But also we have the duty, in the cause of freedom and peace, of sizing them up realistically, without sentimentality, and without wishful thinking. We should constantly remind ourselves that they pursue power in strikingly uninhibited ways, and that their sense of duty, which is often strong, not only permits them, but obliges them, to use deceit and sometimes violence in the cause in which they believe.
    I agree strongly with my two hon. Friends that it would be wrong to think that these men did not still feel that sense of purpose; that they did not feel they knew what was good for the rest of the world; and did not still feel it was their duty to try to direct history in the way they thought it should go. And so, at these coming top-level talks, we cannot hope for the same openness and trust that we could in negotiations with some other country. I hope, therefore, that at these talks the Government will not trade points of substance for promises or general assurances. I hope that the agreements reached will be strictly reciprocal and, so to speak, self-executing; not overtaxing the good faith of the Soviet leaders.
    That being said, I hope that I can still carry my hon. Friends the Members for East Ham, North and Hammersmith, North with me in saying that there are great opportunities in the present situation. After all, these actions of the Soviet
    702
    Union which we have seen, and which were clearly listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), are actions and not words or Just propaganda. The offers to Austria and Yugoslavia and the invitation to Dr. Adenauer are all actions. That is the acid test of Soviet intentions, the only real way in which we can be sure of judging them truly.
    It is still possible to put a sinister interpretation on what the Soviet has done. It is always possible to put a sinister interpretation on the actions of any great Power, and we have evidence that the Russians are adepts in so doing. But the plain fact is that the recent actions of the Soviet Government have reduced world tension. They have normalised the relations between the Soviet Government and Governments which resist Soviet ideology, and, what is more, they have acutely embarrassed Communists all over the world.
    I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was exaggerating or being optimistic when he said that the Soviet Union must be considering perhaps quite wide ideas of retreat in Eastern Europe and, possibly even more probable, the dissolution of the Cominform. There seems to be general agreement that this happier state is due to the success of the negotiationthrough—strength policy of the Government. If that be so, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary did no more than justice in paying a tribute to the firm foundations laid by Mr. Ernest Bevin immediately after the war. In so far as the Government have carried on this policy, we give them credit. As the world situation improves, however, I find myself remembering more and more the courage of Ernest Bevin, the man who took those first and hardest steps along that road.
    If that be so, and we are faced with this more hopeful and more fluid situation, now is the time for a Western policy which will show the Soviet leaders that their new line will profit them more than their old line. Surely it would be disastrous were the Western Powers at this moment and in this new fluid situation, to stick to the more rigid diplomatic formulae which was appropriate at an earlier time.

    703
    The Russians might then well conclude that their old unco-operative line got them almost as far as the new and more promising line which they are taking at present. After all, it would be quite easy for the Western Powers, congratulating themselves on their positions-of-strength policy, to begin to regard the build-up of those positions of strength as an end in itself and not, what it surely is, an instrument for reaching agreement and for negotiating with the Soviet Union.
    History has shown how often positions of strength have been built up and then, when that has been achieved, demands have been raised and negotiations refused. Therefore, we on this side of the House ask that the Government should show a genuine desire to reach agreement at these talks. By that we mean that in order to reach agreement with the Soviet Union and to gain great prizes, such as German unity, the West must be prepared to consider making concessions acceptable to the Soviet Union. That is inevitable.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that we should put such counterproposals forward at the beginning of the talks because, otherwise the Soviet Union might be presented with a propaganda victory. There might be more than one view on that, but, looking back over the past years, I am struck by the fact that at one conference after another since the war the Soviet Union has achieved some clever propaganda victories. At the end, however, surely the real reputation which the Soviet Union has achieved is merely that of winning clever propaganda victories.
    I do not believe that its sincere wish for peace and its sincere championship of the forces of liberation and freedom are any better, owing to that reputation, than they were before this long line of propaganda victories. I should like to see the Government play their cards with out too much reference to this propaganda point, and with the sole purpose of trying to reach agreement. That might well mean holding these cards very close indeed to their chests.
    For one reason, we do not want Government secret decisions and plans appearing in the Press of our Allies in the United States and France too soon. I do not think that we can attribute to our Allies, with all their many virtues,
    704
    the virtue of keeping secrets longer than absolutely necessary. One cannot altogether blame the American columnists. Nowadays they have to publish the secrets quickly or they might be scooped by the United States State Department. The seriousness of that point might be brought to the attention of Mr. Dulles at some stage.
    It would be a good thing if confidential, off-the-record talks could be held between statesmen at top level, but only in the certain knowledge that there will be no premature publication of them by any of the delegates present. We surely ought to have worked out by now, if the Government really intend to be flexible, a perfectly clear picture, in cooperation with, as far as possible, our Allies, as to what is and what is not practical in the way of counter-proposals at these talks on disarmament, on Germany, and on the possibility of a European security pact.
    On Germany, I trust that the Government will not rule out in advance all forms of what is very vaguely called neutrality for Germany in exchange for free elections. I hope that the Government have made a close examination of the many different forms which the conception can take. Some forms are far less harmful than others. I hope, too, that the Government have studied in detail all possible forms of withdrawal and disengagement of troops, not necessarily the withdrawal of all troops from Germany, but perhaps all of the troops some of the way or some of the troops all the way or of some of the troops some of the way. There is an infinite variety of detailed possibilities upon which it is the Government's duty to clear their minds and obtain the views of their Allies.
    I hope that the Government have studied all the implications of the conception of a European security pact, bearing in mind that they must not weaken the relative power of the West. It is very difficult for outsiders, who do not know the potentialities of modern tactical weapons, to judge the facts, but surely it is wrong to assume that there is no concession which we could make, in exchange for free elections in Germany, which would not weaken the relative power of the West, vis-à-vis the

    705
    Soviet Union, and would not leave Germany either too weak for her own comfort or too powerful and independent for the comfort of her neighbours.
    The establishment of free elections would be an immense prize to the West, not only because of the retreat of Soviet troops but because of the rolling back of the Iron Curtain—which has already been rolled back twice recently—the exposure of the East German satellite Government for what it is, and the impact of that event further East and upon world opinion. Surely it is worth hard thinking about, in order to maximise the chances of agreement—the proper principle in all cases being that of reciprocity.
    The principle of reciprocity is about the only idea left in foreign affairs which is equally and similarly interpreted in the East and in the West. The ideas of coexistence, of non-interference in internal affairs, of freedom and even of peace, are sources of tremendously different interpretation, as we well know, upon the two sides of the Iron Curtain, but the simple idea of tit for tat seems to have survived. Given this basic principle of reciprocity. I cannot believe that no opportunity exists for reaching a practical agreement upon this question. We expect the Government to go into these negotiations with a genuine desire for agreement, having studied all the possibilities on their merits, in co-operation with their Allies—and prepared to make concessions upon a strictly reciprocal basis.
    I turn now to a subject which was referred to only very sketchily by the Foreign Secretary, namely, the problem of South-East Asia. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, I say that it was noticeable that the Foreign Secretary spoke at much greater length upon subjects such as Austria, where the facts are known and where no acute crisis impends at the moment, than upon subjects of an immensely critical nature, such as the Geneva Agreements. I submit that it is not of much value to Members to present them with facts which they know, or, if they are not lazy, can find out for themselves without difficulty, while skating over subjects such as the implementation of the Geneva Agreements.
    I had the chance earlier this year of discussing these agreements both with President Diem of Southern Vietnam and
    706
    Ho Chi-Minh of Northern Vietnam. The negotiations and compromise which ended the fighting earned for the Prime Minister the congratulations of both sides and, outside a narrow group in Southern Vietnam, there is a wide respect in South-East Asia for the work which the Prime Minister did at the Geneva Conference. Indeed, if I thought it would not embarrass him, I should like to quote to him some of the opinions expressed about him by leading Communists in Northern Indo-China.
    This is an urgent and critical question. Next month there are to be talks between the two sides in an endeavour to reach agreement upon an electoral law to be applied in respect of the elections laid down by the Geneva Agreements, for elections which are to take place next year to unify the country. Most reports suggest that unless a miracle happens the Communists are likely to win free elections in Vietnam which, of course, would be a severe humiliation for the West.
    It need not have been so. The anti-Communist Forces had the opportunity in South Vietnam to pull themselves together to try to win these elections in July next year but they have so far lamentably failed to grasp their opportunity. The situation in Saigon is extremely squalid, as anyone who reads the newspapers can see.
    The position has been made worse by a series of clumsy and often conflicting interventions from outside by the United States and the French Governments. These events give easy plausibility to the Communist allegation of colonialism in this country. What should the Western Powers do in those circumstances? They can do what I am not quite convinced it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do, to give general verbal support to the Geneva Agreement without taking strong diplomatic action to support them. If that happens, the Geneva Agreements will certainly be nullified. The South Vietnam régime will not make any agreement about an electoral law at all. They do not even seek agreement. They can claim that legally they are not bound to reach agreement on the electoral law. They know that so far as they are concerned free elections will be the end of their régime. Unless a strong initiative is taken by the

    707
    Western Powers they will not reach agreement on an electoral law.
    Surely it would be disastrous if this happened, because the prestige of this country and the prestige of the Prime Minister personally are bound up with the fulfilment of the Geneva Agreements. He was the architect of the Agreements and he was co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference to which the International Commission still reports. Our prestige would be damaged, not only locally and throughout South-East Asia, but perhaps throughout the world. If we or the Americans or the French take the line that South Vietnam is a free country and we cannot compel it to fight these elections, that will be widely, and perhaps rightly, regarded simply as a trick. It will not save southern Vietnam from Communism.
    The Communists in the North called off the fighting on the promise of free elections. I would ask the Minister to say when he replies whether the Government assume that if the free elections do not take place the Communists will not restart the fighting? Can we assume that? It is a very dangerous assumption. It is conceivable, and it is not alarmist to suggest, that the Communists might consider the Agreement torn up, and very large and powerful Communist armies in the north could strike south over the 17th Parallel, which is guaranteed by the Manila Treaty.
    What is the position of the British Government then? Do we resist such an attack, and if so, with what armies and with what moral justification? Alternatively, do the Government think that if the Communists restarted guerrilla fighting in the South that the South Vietnam régime would survive? I do not think that these speculations are altogether academic. Admittedly the alternative policy might also have a hard and humiliating result. If we use our influence with the Americans, the French, and the Vietnamese, to enforce the Agreements we might pave the way for a Communist victory in the elections.
    If, however, the majority of these people will vote Communist anyhow, for how long can we support régimes which they do not support—in fact, impose on them régimes in a partitioned country in violation of the Geneva Agreement? I hope that the Government will give us
    708
    an assurance on this point, and that they will take to heart the lessons of this miserable, squalid business in South Vietnam.
    I would say that the first lesson is that a great deal of this situation sprang inevitably from the decision of the French in 1946 to try to re-establish their influence by armed force. From that day, it seemed to me that French influence in Indo-China was doomed. We, in Britain, avoided a similar mistake on a vaster scale in Asia, as a result, if I may say so, of the General Election of 1945, which gave my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a chance to adopt an alternative policy which has since borne wonderful fruit.
    The second lesson to be drawn from the situation there is that resistance to Communism in Asia cannot succeed without the basic minimum of courage and honesty among the non-Communist Asians themselves. The West can provide military, economic and diplomatic aid in great quantity, but there comes a point at which further aid defeats itself by weakening the will of the non-Communist Asians to help themselves, and by giving substance to Communist charges of intervention and colonialism—especially if the aid is given tactlessly and shovelled out in dollars and francs rather than through the splendid machinery of, for example, the Colombo Plan and the United Nations Specialised Agencies. These mistakes have been made time and again by the Americans and French in Vietnam. If these people cannot defeat their own Communists within their own boundaries with the scale of help they are getting from outside no one really can very well do it for them.
    My final point on that is that it is surely a mistake—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has already said—to think of this matter too much in military terms. Surely it is wrong to visualise the non-Communist régimes in Asia as defenceless against a heavily-armed, menacing Communist aggressor. It is true that the psychological effect of China's huge armies over the frontier must have been considerable, but those armies did not actually move into Indo-China. Arms and instructors did come in, but the overwhelming advantage in arms, planes, technicians and money was on the non-

    709
    Communist side. What was lacking was not further military support from the West but the will to victory in the non-Communists themselves, and a lack of moral conviction about their cause.
    There will, of course, be an additional vital gain if we stick to these Geneva Agreements—it will enable us to intervene more effectively in the tragic problem of the 600,000 refugees from the North. We welcome the concessions on the subject of refugees made by Mr. Molotov and Ho Chi-Minh, and announced by the Foreign Secretary. I think that the concession stems from the desire of those people to maintain the Geneva Agreements. If we stand by those agreements ourselves we shall have a better moral and legal standing for intervening effectively on behalf of the refugees.
    It has, of course, been the Big Four talks that have dominated the debate today. We all profoundly hope that the West and the Soviet Government will make progress at those talks—and particularly, perhaps, on the subject of disarmament. Here, after all, is surely the best road to an immediate and quick increase in the economic welfare of every country, probably, of the world. Between the two parties there are differences about economic policies, but I am not sure that we should not be on common ground in agreeing that for an immediate increase of the standard of living of our people there would be no substitute—if it could be done without jeopardising our security—for the cutting down of the appalling bill that we have to meet for defence at present.
    If that is true of us it is even truer of the Russian people themselves. Their standards of living are below ours; for them the burden of defence is far higher. Why cannot they, at these talks, really agree with the West on a comprehensive, multilateral disarmament proposal? It can be done, and it is perhaps the most important thing of all. Thus it may well be that this new diplomatic phase, as the Foreign Secretary described it, may be humanity's great chance, and that these talks, for good or ill, will dominate foreign affairs and the prospects of peace for many months—perhaps for many years—to come.
    I hope that the Government will pay attention to the careful and constructive
    710
    suggestions and criticisms which have been made from this side of the House, because it is the heartfelt wish of us all that these vital talks shall succeed.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): As is usual on these occasions, this debate has ranged very widely indeed. We have travelled from four-Power talks to another place, to Cyprus and even to the roads of The Wrekin Division. I should like to say straight away how much I have enjoyed, and how much the House has enjoyed, listening to the excellent maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) and The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) and of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter).
    We have had a plethora of advice, all of which will be carefully passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—that is all to which unfortunately he had no time to listen as he had to leave to catch his aeroplane. We have had a plethora of advice on how to conduct the four-Power talks which are to begin at Geneva next month. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made a number of interesting suggestions, but, particularly after the injunctions I received from the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to be discreet, I am sure that they will not expect me to deal in detail with those suggestions at present. My right hon. Friend will shortly be discussing all these problems with his American and French colleagues. I hope that the House will understand, therefore, that I am not in a position to say at this stage precisely what line Her Majesty's Government will take.
    There is, however, one general comment which I should like to make on what the right hon. Member for Grimsby said. The right hon. Member and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East said that we should adopt a flexible position. I agree with them that the Western Powers should adopt a flexible position. Indeed, I do not think that anyone could say that the position of the United Kingdom has been exactly rigid in the last few years. We have shown the very greatest flexibility and the utmost desire to talk matters over with the Soviet Union

    711
    where there was any prospect of fruitful discussion.
    There can hardly have been a period in the world's diplomatic history when there have been so many conferences as there have been in the last two or three years. If I may venture upon a prophecy, I would say that if the conference at Geneva offers hope of positive results, there will be a great many more conferences in the future. But, having agreed with the right hon. Member for Grimsby and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East that we must be flexible, I would invite them and the House to agree with me that we must combine flexibility with firmness. For if readiness to talk and patience in negotiation get results, so equally do unity and firmness in standing up for one's principles. The most recent and spectacular example of this occurred only a few weeks ago.
    The House will remember the threats which were uttered by the Russians about what would happen to us all if the Paris Agreements were ratified and Western Germany joined N.A.T.O. We were told that the Russians would never speak to us again, that there would be no deal over Austria, no deal over disarmament, no point in having talks about Germany, that the Russians would cut themselves off from us, would meet bloc with bloc and hurl themselves headlong into the armaments race. What happened? Within eight days of the ratification of the Paris Agreements becoming a certainty, Mr. Molotov had invited the Austrian Chancellor to Moscow and had offered to sign a treaty over which the Soviet Government had been holding out for seven long years.
    Only four days after the admission of Western Germany into N.A.T.O. the Soviet representative at a Disarmament Conference came out with the statement which adopted several of the key proposals the Western Powers had been urging them to accept for years and which the Soviet Government had been stubbornly resisting all those years. Four days later, Mr. Molotov informed the Foreign Secretary at Vienna that the Russians would be glad to attend a four-Power conference. Most recently they topped all that off by inviting Dr. Adenauer to a cosy chat in Moscow.
    712
    That is not a bad list, and it is no small achievement for the Western policy of rebuilding our unity before we confer and not after, for the policy of negotiating from strength and not from weakness. I take it, therefore, that when we are invited to be flexible in our attitude towards negotiation, we are not being asked to abandon our unity with our friends and Allies which has been so laboriously built up by successive Governments over the past years and is now just beginning to bear fruit.
    The hon. Member for Woolwich, East made a very wise and prudent observation that we should not trade points of substance with the Russians for vague promises and general assurances. I am sure the House will agree that to do this would be to cast away our best and greatest opportunity for getting a settlement. It would invite a repetition of those years of frustrated endeavour which followed 1945, when Mr. Bevin laboured so endlessly and patiently, but always with the handicap that the Western world had cast away that strength which is the only solid basis for negotiating the settlement we desire.
    In speaking of negotiation from strength, I do not of course mean that we are thinking in terms of an imposed settlement or diktat. I say this not because there is likely to be any misunderstanding in this House on this question, but rather because there has been some misrepresentation of our attitude in these matters in recent Soviet commentaries. When in this House we talk of negotiation from strength, I am sure we all mean—I hope I can clear up any real misunderstanding in the Russian mind on this—negotiation from an equality of strength. It has been that equality, or balance of strength, which we have lacked in the past. Now we have achieved that balance, the prospects for real negotiation are greatly improved.
    That, of course, does not mean that we think the problems which have divided the world for so many years can be settled at one conference, or in one week. What it means is that we look to Geneva as the beginning of a process of gradual and progressive settlement and easement of tension. The message I get from the debate is that the House looks at the Geneva Conference in that same light, as the beginning of the process and not as likely in itself to produce a spec-

    713
    tacular settlement of all the issues. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), in some typically robust speeches, said that the Russians had not in any way changed their policy. I should prefer on this occasion not to follow those hon. Members in that speculation. I notice that "The Times" in its leader this morning said
    "prospects are different from a few months ago. Generally they are brighter."
    I think that is the view generally held and expressed in this debate.
    Not only have we been able to solve such a hitherto insoluble problem as the Austrian State Treaty, but even the still unresolved problems do not seem to be in quite such an eruptive state as they were a few months ago. We have heard it said—it emerged from some speeches in this debate—that the principal issues which now remain, Germany, European security, the Far East and disarmament, are all inter-related. Certainly the recent Soviet proposals in the Disarmament Conference suggest that is the view of the Soviet Government, and I think there is much to be said for that inter-relation. Dr. Adenauer has recently developed some interesting and far-reaching ideas on the connection which must lie between a settlement of the German question in freedom and a general and effectively controlled system of disarmament.
    When we consider the problem of reunifying Germany, certain hon. Members of this House are not unnaturally inclined, as was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East, to cast around 'for some concession or compromise which we could honourably offer to the Russians. I do not complain of that, but I do say—and I think that the House agrees with this—that we cannot compromise about freedom. We cannot offer Germany half-free elections or a half-free choice of whether she wants to throw in her lot with the Western democracies after she has been reunified. The House will have read the wise words on the subject of the neutralisation of Germany which were recently uttered by the French Foreign Minister, M. Pinay.
    Equally, I am sure we cannot impose neutrality upon Germany. I would only repeat the two simple but succinct questions which my right hon. Friend the
    714
    Prime Minister asked on this subject in the House some time ago. He asked, "If Germany is to be neutral and unarmed, who is going to keep her unarmed? It Germany is to be neutral and armed, who is going to keep her neutral?" These two questions have never been answered, and I do not believe there is an answer to them. Neutralisation imposed as a condition of reunification upon 80 million Germans living in the heart of Europe would not only be a nonsense; far worse than that, it would be a constant source of danger to Europe and the whole world.
    It is no doubt because there can be no compromise about freedom of elections and freedom of choice for a reunified Germany, and because, too, a neutralisation imposed by the four Powers is a non-starter, that Dr. Adenauer has advanced the idea of a German settlement in freedom within the context of a general disarmament agreement. There is much to be said for this viewpoint. Indeed, whether or not we admit that we cannot get one without the other, there is no one in this House or outside it who would not heave an immense sigh of relief if both these settlements were to come together.
    Now I turn to the issues in Indo-China which were raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East. I would like to give the House a short account of the tasks and achievements of the International Commission. In Vietnam the major purposes of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam was the disengagement, concentration and withdrawal by stages north and south of the military demarcation line of the opposing forces of Vietminh and French Union. This was completed without incident and according to the provisions of the agreement a month ago, and it was no small achievement. The supervision of this extremely complicated process—for there was no front line and the opposing forces were mixed up with one another all over the country—was the major task of the Commission in Vietnam and its execution reflects considerable credit upon the Commission.
    The feature of the agreement which has attracted most attention in this country has been the provision for the free movement of refugees between north and south or vice versa. Here, although the Commission has been able to reduce, and

    715
    on occasion to expose Vietminh violations or evasions of the agreement, it has not been able altogether to prevent them. Nevertheless, many thousands of refugees have left North Vietnam with the aid of the Commission who would undoubtedly never have got away without it.
    In Laos the tasks of the Commission have been complicated by disagreement about the interpretation of those provisions of the agreement concerning the authority of the Royal Government of Laos over the two northern provinces of that country. The Foreign Secretary referred to this in his opening speech. For some time, too, the Commission was also handicapped by transport difficulties, but these have since been alleviated by the supply of additional helicopters.
    Although these two difficulties have prevented We Commission from doing all that it might otherwise have done, it has nevertheless accomplished much valuable work. We hope that it will eventually be able to secure compliance by the Vietminh and Pathet Lao with the provisions of the agreement relating to the two northern provinces.
    In Cambodia the task of the Commission has been the easiest of the three, and, so far as military withdrawals are concerned, these are already completed.
    I now come to the question of elections in Vietnam about which the hon. Gentleman had some comments to make. The final declaration of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China provides that the general elections to be held in Vietnam in July, 1956, shall be supervised by an international commission composed of representatives of the member States of the present International Supervisory Commission in Vietnam, namely, India, Canada and Poland. This electoral supervisory commission has not yet been set up, and agreement has still to be reached on its functions and terms of reference. However, in reply to the direct question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, we are proceeding on the assumption that elections will take place as laid down in the Geneva Agreement in July, 1956.
    As the House knows, our policy is to do all we can to uphold the authority and prestige of the international supervisory commissions in Indo-China and to support them in their efforts to make the
    716
    Geneva Agreements work. They can do no more. Their task in doing that has been by no means an easy one, nor for that matter has ours; but, by and large, I hope the House will agree, and give them credit for it, that they have done all and more than they could be expected to do in seeing that the Geneva settlement is carried out. But what they cannot do, and are not called upon to do, under the Geneva Agreement is to intervene in the internal situation and internal affairs of the State of Indo-China. All they can do is to ensure that elections take place. The International Supervisory Commission should not and cannot try to win the elections for whichever side we should like to win.
    Mr. Mayhew: What steps are the Government taking, first, to get the supervisory commission set up immediately, and, second, and most important, to ensure that there is a real will on the southern side to reach agreement on the electoral law for elections next year?
    Mr. Nutting: We cannot order the Government of South Vietnam about. With regard to getting the supervisory commission going, the hon. Gentleman will know that under the Geneva Agreements the two parties in Vietnam, the Vietminh and the Government of South Vietnam, must agree on the powers and functions of the supervisory commission which is to supervise the elections. It is upon that that we are stuck at the moment, but we shall certainly do all we can to lever that along and get agreement so that the supervisory commission can take up its duties.
    Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no power to order the South Vietnam Government about. That is the crux of the problem. The French signed the agreement before the South Vietnam Government became independent. Now that Government is independent. If the Western Powers seek refuge in saying that it is independent and cannot be influenced, the Geneva Agreements will fall.
    Mr. Nutting: I am not saying that we cannot influence it; I am saying that we cannot order it about. We shall use all our influence to get the South Vietnam Government to agree upon the early establishment of the supervisory commission, but, as I say, to be fair, it does not rest with them alone. The Vietminh

    717
    have to he brought to agree to the authority as well.
    Now I turn to the Middle East. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Grimsby and Easington both refuse to accept from the Foreign Secretary that we do in fact, maintain a balance in arms as between the Arab States and Israel. The right hon. Member for Easington, in particular, said in illustration of his contention that we in Britain were supplying more to the Arab States than to Israel. He must not think that we are monopoly traders in arms to the Middle East, for this simply is not so.
    Both Israel and her neighbours are perfectly able to receive, and do receive, arms from other countries, including some over whom we could not expect to exercise any influence, let alone order them about, even if we wished, such as—
    Mr. Tomney: Czechoslovakia.
    Mr.Nutting:—Czechoslovakia, as I am reminded by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I really do want to assure the House that the balance of forces on the frontiers of Israel does not constitute any danger to the Israelis. Besides this, I would remind the House of the obligations which we owe to defend Jordan in the event of any attack upon her, obligations entered into by the Party opposite. The Arab Legion, which has a British commander, and the small British forces stationed in Jordan cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as excessive for the purpose of defending Jordan, still less as constituting an element of menace to Israel.
    The hon. Member for Enfield, East echoed the suggestion which has come before from the benches opposite that we should counter-balance our obligations to the Arab States by a formal treaty with Israel. The right hon. Member for Grimsby said that it was no good saying that the 1950 Tripartite Declaration was as good as a treaty for the Israelis and that we must turn this into an effective and formal guarantee followed by negotiation. With respect, I submit that that is putting the cart before the horse.
    When we last debated the Middle East, the Prime Minister said that if a settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours could be reached, we would be
    718
    willing to enter further engagements to back up the arrangements arrived at. What we want to do is to get stability first and then guarantee it, not to enter into a formal treaty commitment to perpetuate the present instability. Meanwhile, the Tripartite Declaration holds, and we hold firm to all our obligations under it. I hope that there is no illusion on that matter in the House, or outside it. This is an obligation to resist any attempt to alter the present demarcation line by force.
    But a treaty of guarantee inevitably presupposes that the arrangements guaranteed are permanent and have been freely accepted by both parties. It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to belittle the effectiveness of the Tripartite Declaration and say that it is not as good as a treaty, but the fact remains that it has served its purpose since it was made in 1950, in that no attempt has been made by either side to alter the frontier by force since the Tripartite Declaration came into effect.
    It is true that there have been numbers of regrettable incidents and retaliations on this border, but we are doing and will continue doing everything we possibly can to bring the parties to a meeting under General Burns's chairmanship to discuss this regrettable and dangerous situation on the frontiers. In passing, perhaps I might correct what the right hon. Member for Grimsby said about the Egyptians having refused to join a meeting with Israel to discuss the Gaza situation. This is not so. We are still hopeful that a meeting can be arranged and we have done and will continue to do all we can to bring about a wider settlement of these problems.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that if we were doing anything, then we were hiding our light under a bushel. As one of my illustrious predecessors he must well know that it is not always advisable, when one is trying to bring an end to a long-standing feud, to proclaim to all the world everything one is doing or trying to do at each and every moment one tries to do it.
    The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) raised the question of Cyprus, as did my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. The hon. Member for Swindon drew attention to the

    719
    bedevilling effects of the present situation on N.A.T.O.'s defence arrangements in that part of the world. He expressed the hope that we would do something to bring about a solution of this problem with Greece, including an offer of a more liberal constitution to the island. He will not expect me to invade the province of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies by dealing with the constitutional problem particularly as I understand that there may be a debate on colonial affairs a little later on.
    However, I draw his attention to one important point. The Greek complaint, if I may so call it, is not that we do not offer this or that constitution to the Cypriots; it is that we do not hand over the island of Cyprus to Greece. That is their complaint. Therefore, I cannot accept the view that the unhappy situation, the explosive situation if he likes to call it so, which has arisen over Cyprus is in any way the fault of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is quite unrealistic to suggest that the only line which the Government could take to make the Greeks happier is the immediate cession of the island? I did not suggest that, and nor did anyone else.
    Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman may not have suggested it, but that is precisely what the Greeks have suggested.
    I do not want to stir things up any more than they are already stirred up over this question, but I would invite the hon. Gentleman to read some of the outpourings of the Greek radio and Press against this country, and some of the direct incitements to violence which they contain for the Cypriot people to rebel and to adopt a policy of violence against the present administration. To say the least of it, these are not the sort of things which one expects to hear from a country with whom one has normal relations, still less from a country which is our Ally in N.A.T.O. Besides, as the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, there is a third party involved in all this business—Turkey. There is, as he said, a considerable Turkish minority in the island of Cyprus, and we are responsible for safeguarding their interests.
    720
    Not least of the unhappy and unfortunate situations which have resulted from this Greek campaign over Cyprus has been the deterioration of the relations between Greece and Turkey. This is having its disruptive effect not only within N.A.T.O., but also within the Balkan Alliance, which gave us all so much encouragement to hope that an ever closer co-operation would develop between Turkey and Greece.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend clarify one point? Would he say whether in the last six or seven weeks there has been any change in the general tone of the Greek broadcasts to Cyprus?
    Mr. Nutting: There has been a slight improvement, but nothing to be particularly pleased or gratified about.
    Surely the House will join with me in regretting that outside influences are trying to persuade the Cypriots not to work with us for the constitutional development of the island. Of one thing I am certain—that to work for this is in the interests of the Cypriot people themselves, and that no greater disservice can be rendered to them than the present attempts by some people in Greece to stir up trouble and violence in the island of Cyprus.
    To sum up, the tasks of Her Majesty's Government in the field of foreign affairs are really fourfold. They are, first, to work for an easement of tension and progressive settlements between East and West leading to general disarmament; second, to go on building up the unity and cohesion of the Western world; third, to help to settle outstanding issues such as those between the Arab world and Israel; and, fourth, to help in the great work of fighting ignorance, poverty and disease among the less fortunate of our fellow men.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby said that he hoped that as future settlements emerged the United Nations would not be ignored, but would play an enhanced rôle in world affairs. I can assure him that the Government share this hope. As my right hon. Friend said, we do not arrogate to the Four Powers an exclusive right or power to arrange the world's affairs. In all our dealings we shall seek to strengthen the United Nations.

    721
    At the same time, I am sure that the House will agree that the business of trying to get settlements between East and West and continuing the unification of the Western world, and of Western Europe in particular, are in no way incompatible. On the contrary, they are complementary. To succeed with one will help us to succeed in the other, as we have already seen in the brighter prospects now opening before us for the four-Power talks which flow from and follow the recent successes in the field of European co-operation and integration.
    We in the Western world are united with our friends not only for military purposes but also for co-operation in its broadest sense. We hope that out of this unity, which we have built together within the free world, will grow an ever wider unity and co-operation throughout the world as a whole.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, might I ask him if tomorrow he will have a look at what I said and if he will ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a slightly more helpful answer when we debate this subject next week?
    Debate adjourned.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Select Committee appointed to consider every Statutory Instrument laid or laid in draft before the House, being an Instrument or Draft of an Instrument upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:

  (i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent, or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments

  (ii) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the
  722
  courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period;

  (iii) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

  (iv) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

  (v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

  (vi) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification to Mr. Speaker under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

  (vii) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation;

  and if they so determine, to report to that effect:
  Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Blyton, Mr. Harold Davies, Mr. Eric Fletcher, Mr. Hector Hughes, Dr. King, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Page, Mr. Enoch Powell, Sir Harold Roper, and Mr. Spence:
  To have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker:
  Power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to report the Minutes of their Proceedings from time to time:
  Power to require any Government Department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Instrument or Draft which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Instrument or Draft:
  Three to be the Quorum:
  Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any Instrument or Draft the Committee do afford to any Government Department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the Department think fit:
  Power to report to the House from time to time any Memoranda submitted or other evidence given to the Committee by any Government Department in explanation of any Instrument or Draft:
  Power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Instrument.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  Select Committee appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:
  Mr. Stan Awbery, Mr. Burke, Sir Herbert Butcher, Mr. Edward Evans, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Jean Mann, Sir Thomas Moore, Miss Pitt, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, Mrs. Harriet Slater, Sir William Steward, and Mr. Gerald Wills:
  Four to be the Quorum:
  Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
  Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to delegate to such Sub-Committees any of the powers upon them conferred for controlling the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:
  Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:
  Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Ten o'clock.

RAILWAYS
  Industrial Towns (Priorities)
  Industrial Towns (Priorities)
ROADS
  Bridge of Don, Aberdeenshire
  Bridge of Don, Aberdeenshire
  DISARMAMENT TALKS, LONDON (REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS)
  DISARMAMENT TALKS, LONDON (REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS)
  UGANDA (KABAKA OF BUGANDA)
  UGANDA (KABAKA OF BUGANDA)
  TURKS ISLANDS (SALT INDUSTRY)
  TURKS ISLANDS (SALT INDUSTRY)
  SINGAPORE (SITUATION)
  SINGAPORE (SITUATION)
  ST. LUCIA (SOUFRIERE FIRE)
  ST. LUCIA (SOUFRIERE FIRE)
  MAURITIUS (CONSTITUTION)
  MAURITIUS (CONSTITUTION)
  NYASALAND (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)
  NYASALAND (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)
  INDIAN AIRCRAFT LOSS (INQUIRY)
  INDIAN AIRCRAFT LOSS (INQUIRY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Marketing Board (Ministerial Appointments)
  Potato Marketing Board (Ministerial Appointments)
  Potato Crop
  Potato Crop
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Advance Factory Building, Scotland
  Advance Factory Building, Scotland
  Indian Cotton Cloth
  Indian Cotton Cloth
EDUCATION
  Teachers' Superannuation (Wives)
  Teachers' Superannuation (Wives)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Radio-Activity (Warning Organisation)
  Radio-Activity (Warning Organisation)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.

EMBARGO ON EXPORTS TO CHINA
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the trade agreement (as reported in The Times of 5th May) negotiated between and signed by a Chinese delegation and Japanese business organisations in Tokyo on 4th May, in which the first of five goods lists for export to China consists exclusively of embargoed items such as ships' steel plates and bars, railway equipment, and heavy machinery and generators; whether the embargoed items are to be subjected to review and prohibition by C.O.C.O.M., and, if not, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to enable British traders to compete on equal term; with the Japanese in these items in the China market.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the trade agreement to which the noble Lord refers. This is a private arrangement between an unofficial Japanese delegation and the Chinese authorities. The Japanese Government is not a party to it. The agreement takes substantially the same form as previous agreements in 1952 and 1953 whose conclusion, so far as we are
110
aware, in no way affected the operation of the strategic controls by Japan.
Japan is a member of the group of countries which consult together about the enforcement of the United Nations' recommendations on the classes of goods which should be embargoed to China. Her controls are similar to our own and include an embargo on the export to China of the goods mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord. Elibank, in his Question. We have no reason to suppose that the Japanese Government will depart from the agreed policy. The question of British traders not being able to compete on equal terms with the Japanese in the China market does not therefore arise.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him whether, seeing that the embargo was imposed in 1951, in relation to the war in Korea only, and has not since been extended to include any other area, Her Majesty's Government will now take the necessary steps to move in the United, Nations that the embargo be brought to an end?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that raises a far wider question than that originally put down by the noble Viscount, but I can assure him that all the implications of his supplementary question are well understood by Her Majesty's Government. I may also remind the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see trade with China in non-strategic goods developed as much as possible.

BOMBING OF ARAB VILLAGES
2.44 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the reported bombing by R.A.F. aircraft of five small villages in Southern Arabia on or about Friday, May 20, 1955.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD) LLOYD): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring

111
to the punitive expedition undertaken on May 20 in the Lower Aulaqi Sultanate of the Western Aden Protectorate; if so, the circumstances were as follows. On May 11 the Ahl Mansur section of the Bakazmin tribe destroyed a section of the main road to Said, the principal town of the Aulaqi Sheikhdom, and attacked a Government Guards convoy, killing one civilian and three Government Guards and seriously wounding one other. More than a hundred men were concerned in the attack. The tribe were called upon by the Governor of Aden to pay a fine and deposit fifty rifles, but they did not respond by the expiration of the time limit. Consequently, air action was taken against the habitations of the tribe, consisting of one village, five hamlets and two forts. Adequate warning was given to enable the inhabitants to evacuate, and there were no casualties.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Arising out of it, I should like to ask him a further question. While not wishing in any way to condone these murders, or the non-payment of the fines, may I nevertheless ask the Government whether they consider that collective reprisals of this kind against habitations and property are either just or wise?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the destruction from the air of the property of lawless tribes is, in our opinion, the most effective and probably the most humane way of punishing them when they refuse to pay a collective fine. It has been used for many years in the Aden Protectorate. I say it is the most humane way because, when preceded by adequate warning, as in this case, it is less likely to result in loss of life than a ground expedition, which would invite resistance from the tribesmen.
Collective fines are imposed on a tribe only when some degree of collective responsibility for the crime can be ascertained. Ample opportunity is given to the tribe to collect the money and pay it. Adequate warning is also given before the attack, usually twenty-four hours and two hours before the time selected, and the targets are carefully chosen. Collective punishment is, in our opinion, the only practical method of dealing with
112
offences of this kind in the Protectorate, as it is not possible in a territory which is not under direct administration by Her Majesty's Government to identify and arrest individual culprits, who would almost certainly be shielded by their fellow-tribesmen; nor, as a rule, has the head of the tribe concerned either the means or the will to hand over individuals.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask who took the decision to indulge in these reprisals?
LORD LLOYD: To the best of my recollection it was the Governor of Aden.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I understand that the people concerned were under Her Majesty's protection. Is it the Government's view that the only way in which retribution can be exacted is by indiscriminate bombing of tribal property? Is it not extraordinary to have people under Her Majesty's protection being bombed by Her Majesty's own forces?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I really cannot allow the noble Lord to make that statement. It was not indiscriminate bombing: the targets were carefully selected and adequate warning was given. It is the opinion of those concerned with maintaining law and order I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, does not suggest that offences of this kind should be condoned or should go unpunished—that action of this kind affords the best, most practical and, as I have said, most humane way of dealing with people who commit these crimes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The difficulty seems to be that you punish people who are not guilty in order to frighten people who are guilty. How is it possible, when bombs are dropped indiscriminately on people's homes, to discriminate between people who have committed these offences and those who are innocent?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, in these tribal areas it has long been tribal custom that the tribe accept collective responsibility for the acts of their members. This is in line with a policy which has been pursued by successive Governments in the Aden Protectorate for many years.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S VISIT TO AFRICA
2.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal statement. I have received, as Lord Chancellor, an invitation from the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to attend the opening ceremony of the Federal Supreme Court on July 1. It is proposed that in the Lord Chancellor's robes I should head a procession of all the judges in the Federation, and address them after the new Court has been sworn in by the Governor-General. Your Lordships may perhaps think it fitting that the importance which we all attach to the worthy administration of justice should be emphasised in this way. I should add that in attending the ceremony I should be following a happy precedent set by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in Kenya when he was Lord Chancellor.
The air services to Rhodesia are such that it will be necessary for me to he away from June 28 until July 6, and therefore to be absent from my place on the Woolsack on several days when your Lordships' House will be in session. Accordingly, I ask for your Lordships' approval of this proposal and for leave of absence from your Lordships' House. If your Lordships are good enough to grant me this, I know that I shall take with me to the Federation and to the new Federal Court the good wishes of your Lordships in every quarter of the House.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to say how cordially I support the proposition which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has put before us. I did exactly the same thing in Kenya. I thought it would be good that the majesty of the law, which I then represented, should be present at the opening of the new Court in Kenya. I am bound to add that shortly after I had been there the Mau Mau rebellion broke out, though I assure your Lordships that it was not a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I would add this further consideration: that while we shall miss the noble and learned Viscount, we are such a well-behaved assembly that I am sure that we can get on without him for a few days.
114
I think it is important that he should take an opportunity of seeing what is going on there. It is a very interesting Territory, as I know well, and I hope he will not be concerned to get himself back here at the earliest possible day. I believe that if the noble and learned Viscount had a few extra days, or an extra week, in which to see the condition of that area and of the Province, both he and, ultimately, your Lordships' House would be the gainers. I most cordially support this proposal.
LORD REA: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches will endorse all that has been said by the noble and learned Earl, and I would add my support to his latter remarks. But there is another aspect of this matter. It is not only a question of the impression that the Federation will make on the Lord Chancellor, but also a question of the impression the 'Lord Chancellor may make on it. I am sure we should all like then to feel, after the considerable discussion which has taken place about their affairs, both in this House and in another place, that we do take a real interest in them and should like our most senior officer to visit the Federation.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it is hardly necessary for me to add anything to what has already been said. Of course, we always like to have the Lord Chancellor in the House, and if there were not a sufficiently good reason we should make that perfectly clear; but on this particular occasion it is a very special event, and there is no doubt that the visit of the Lord Chancellor will not only acid greatly to the prestige of that event, which is an important thing, especially in African country, but will also, I think, add one further link, if such a link is needed, between these two parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. Therefore, I think his proposal is most desirable. Like the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt, I know the Federation well and I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will find his visit an extremely interesting and stimulating experience. I agree with the noble and learned Earl that if he stays for a day or so, if his visit is not too long, we shall wish him to make full use of his time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I say, without presumption, that in

115
accepting this invitation the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will take with him the good wishes of the whole legal profession?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and to the whole House for the kindness with which it has received my proposal. I shall try to justify my absence in the service of the House by conveying the good wishes of your Lordships' House and, at the same time, trying to be worthy of the traditions of this House in the office which I have the honour to hold.

DRAFT AMENDMENTS OF THE MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933 (AS AMENDED TO 1950)
2.55 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN) rose to move, That the Draft Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933 (as amended to 1950), reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of April last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments to the Milk Marketing Scheme for England and Wales have three main objects. First, they are designed to give the Board the necessary powers to continue the marketing arrangements introduced during the war and operated since under Defence Regulations. Secondly, they will enable the Board to operate the guarantee arrangements for milk. Thirdly, they will bring the Scheme up to date in certain other respects.
These amendments are some of a larger number which were circulated to all registered producers about a year ago to give them an opportunity of asking for a poll on whether or not they should be submitted to my right honourable friend. In fact, no requests for a poll were received. Formal submission followed, and then the amendments were published and an opportunity was given for objections to be made. A number of objections were received, and a public inquiry was therefore held. In the light of the objections and of the Commissioner's Report, my right honourable friend
116
decided that certain modifications should be made to the amendments, and to these the Board gave their assent. The Agricultural Marketing Acts require that only those amendments to which objection has been taken should be submitted to Parliament for approval, and that is why the full number are not before your Lordships to-day. I might add, however, that the remainder are in many cases of comparatively small importance.
Of the seven amendments that are before the House, a few are also relatively unimportant and I need not dwell on them. This applies, I think, to the first two. Their purpose is explained in the covering explanatory notes. The third amendment relates to matters which are considerably more important, the first of which is the implementation of the guarantee arrangements. The Board have in fact been implementing the guarantee for milk on behalf of the Government ever since the Board's marketing powers were restored on 1st April of last year, and this amendment will make permanent provision in the Scheme to enable them to continue doing so. The third amendment will also require the Board to give the Minister notice of their intention to exercise certain of their main marketing powers. This derives from the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949, and is now a common feature of marketing schemes. It enables the Minister to consider the matter before a board take action which might conceivably be contrary to the public interest.
Under the third amendment, the Board's powers will also be extended in certain ways, for which the 1949 Act provided. In the form in which this amendment was originally submitted, it sought power for the Board to manufacture anything required in the production and distribution of milk, as well as a general power to provide services for the benefit of registered producers. In the light, however, of the objections made, and the Report of the Commissioner, my right honourable friend could not be satisfied that a general power of manufacture would, in fact, conduce to the more efficient operation of the Scheme, and decided that this power should be limited to the manufacture of dried grass. On the other hand, he was satisfied that the other new powers sought in the same paragraph, and particularly the general

117
power to provide services, was a useful and proper one for the Board to have and that this provision should remain as part of the amendments.
I now turn to the fourth amendment, which is also quite important, in that it will confer on the Board the power to require producers to sell their milk only to, or through the agency of, the Board. As your Lordships will know, the main control exercised by the Board over marketing before the war derived from a system of contracts, to which the Board were a party. Since 1942, however, the Board have acted as sole buyer of milk produced in England and Wales except that sold by producer-retailers operating under licence. Until last year they did so under the control of the Ministry of Food, deriving the necessary powers from Defence Regulations, and it was proved that very worthwhile economies in distribution could be achieved under this system. The main purpose of this particular amendment is to give the Board permanent power to continue in the same way.
The effect of the fifth amendment is to revise certain provisions of the Scheme relating to the Board's obligation to buy milk. It introduces some changes in the circumstances in which the Board may refuse to buy or cease to buy milk, and I think that the nature of these changes will be apparent from the text itself. The sixth amendment relates to the Second Schedule to the Scheme in which is specified a list of commodities which the Board are empowered to produce from milk. The amendment extends this list to include margarine and any other corn-modifies of which milk is a substantial ingredient, except that there is a proviso limiting this power in relation to margarine. The seventh and last amendment is concerned only with the renumbering of paragraphs.
In commending these amendments to the House, I am sure that your Lordships on all sides would wish me to pay tribute to the fine work done by the Milk Marketing Board over many years in helping producers it a variety of ways to improve their standards of production and marketing. I art confident that these amendments will help the Board in their
118
continued efforts to this end, and that for that reason your Lordships will wish to give them your approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933 (as amended to 1950), reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of April last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his clear explanation of this revised Milk Marketing Scheme. These alterations, which he has explained to us in some detail, are perhaps less important than they appear on paper, because they will not for the most part involve any change in the structure of the Milk Marketing Board. The Board are already doing most of the things it is proposed that they should do under the revised Milk Marketing Scheme, but it is desirable that these alterations should be embodied in permanent legislation and should not be renewed from year to year by Defence Regulations. We are grateful to the noble Earl and the Government for con-tinning this basis of tidying up the law.
I know that your Lordships desire to get on to the debate on the gracious Speech, but I feel that I should comment briefly on two new powers which it is proposed to give to the Board and which are of some importance—namely, the power to produce more commodities, such as margarine, from milk, and the power to provide more services for producers. For my part, I think that both of these powers are extremely necessary. The Board should have a free hand to deal with any surplus milk. In relation to the other power, I feel sure that farmers will benefit from extended services provided by the Milk Marketing Board. I am particularly glad to see that the Board will be given permission to provide grass-drying centres, because grass drying is an expensive business and most farmers cannot do it for themselves. We support this amended Milk Marketing Scheme because, like the noble Earl, we feel it will be in the best interests both of the consumers of milk and of the dairy industry.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

DRAFT CALF SUBSIDIES (ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) (VARIATION) SCHEME, 1955.
3.3 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of April last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Instrument is to give effect to the decision announced in the White Paper on the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1955, to increase the rate of calf subsidy to £7 10s. Od. a head for calves born on or after 1st April, 1955; the rate of subsidy for calves born before that date is unchanged at £5 a head. Your Lordships will know that the Scheme which this Order varies applies to calves born between 1st October, 1951, and 29th October, 1955, and that my right honourable friend has announced his intention of laying before your Lordships a Scheme to continue this subsidy for another three years, which is the maximum period for which a Scheme may run. This draft Scheme will be laid before Parliament in due course. Your Lordships will remember that the purpose of the calf subsidy is to encourage the rearing of calves for the production of beef. The conditions of the Scheme remain unchanged. It is only the rate of subsidy that is now being increased. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1955. reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of April last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT CALF SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) (VARIATION) SCHEME, 1955
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, this is the corresponding Instrument for Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme, 1955,
120
reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of April last, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
3.6 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees has asked me to apologise to your Lordships because he has had to leave the Chamber to preside over a meeting of the Unopposed Bills Committee. On his behalf, therefore, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Fortescue,

E. Jowitt,

L. Teynham,

L. Carrington,

E. Listowel,

L. Merthyr,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Faringdon,

L. Clwyd,

L. Milne,

L. Tweedsmuir,

L. Rea,

L. Ammon,

L. Schuster.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Willingdon,

E. Hardwicke,

E. Iveagh,

V. Mersey,

L. Teynham,

E. Listowel,

121

L. O'Hagan,

L. Hindlip,

L. Merthyr,

L. Rochdale,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Blackford,

L. Rea,

L. Belstead,

L. Ammon,

L. Schuster,

L. Kershaw,

L. Campion.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords., I beg to move the third Motion standing in the name of my noble friend.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Norfolk,

D. Wellington,

M. Salisbury,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Willingdon,

E. Scarbrough,

E. Selkirk,

E. Darthmouth,

E. Ilchester,

E. De La Warr,

E. Clarendon,

E. Fortescue,

E. Munster,

E. Iveagh,

E. Bessborough,

E. Halifax,

E. Jowitt,

E. Swinton,

V. Mersey,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Samuel,

V. Hall,

V. Thurso,

V. Simonds,

L. Teynham,

L. Saltoun,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Carrington,

E. Crawford,

122

L. Hartherton,

E. Listowel,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Stanmore,

L. Merthyr,

L. Terrington,

L. Amulree,

E. Lucan,

L. Mancroft,

L. Rea,

L. Belstead,

L. Nathan,

L. Killearri,

L. Ammon,

L. Schuster,

L. Pethick-Lawrence,

L. Pakenham,

L. Henderson,

L. Chorley,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Burden.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in. the name of my noble friend.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Fortescue,

E. Jowitt,

E. Swinton,

V. Samuel,

V. Stansgate,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

E. Lucan,

L. Schuster,

L. Rea,

L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend.
Moved, That the Personal Bills Committee be appointed to which all Petitions for Personal Bills, presented during the present Session, which have been certified as such under the provisions of Standing Order 3 relating to Private Bills, shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Macclesfield,

V. Simonds,

L. Merthyr,

L. Kershaw,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Cohen.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
3.7 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Viscount Runciman of Doxford—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in Continuing this debate, I know that I can say with what general relief it has been learned that the railway strike referred to in the first paragraph of the gracious Speech is now at an end. It will be the hope of everyone that the final agreement which is to be reached will be satisfactory, and will continue to give satisfaction, not only to all those in the railway industry, where we hope to see such great developments in the not too far distant future, but also to the general public for whom the services are provided. I know that your Lordships would wish me to express our gratitude to all those who
124
have undertaken such unstinting work in trying to reach an agreement. I do not think anyone misconceives the tremendous advantage which this country has in being able to call on the remarkable and high qualities of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour in difficulties of this sort.
We have no grounds for complaining of the manner in which noble Lords have spoken on the gracious Speech. They have said, quite frankly, that they expect performance, which is a reasonable and proper view. It is not a very serious criticism that the worst adjective the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or the Economist could produce was "stodgy." That is not a serious stricture of something which, after all, was never intended to be more than a blueprint; and it is certainly better than some adjectives which have been applied to the gracious Speech on other occasions.
I was glad that two noble Lords opposite referred to the future of this House, and I should like to make two remarks about that subject. The first is that no-one in this country really knows what does go to make up public opinion. What we do know, however, is that public opinion is very real and very influential. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, rather suggested that possibly the popular Press, in which our debates are not extensively reported as a rule, played a considerable part. It is at least curious that, after the Press had said all they wanted to say about the General Election, after the extensive use of television, radio, the innumerable speeches which were made and the activities of countless canvassers, one out of four of the electors of this country did not think it worth while to go to the polls; yet nobody advised them not to vote.
The other point is with reference to the work of this House. The whole House is deeply indebted to noble Lords opposite for the work which they have done in the last Session. Anyone who knows what preparation goes into that work knows that it is a tremendous grind. I am conscious that I am in a different position from noble Lords opposite—I am paid, and noble Lords opposite are not. I have the assistance of a wide range of advisers if I want help. Noble Lords opposite have to do their own work; and I am keenly aware, and I

125
think the whole House is aware, of how much we owe them for bringing out the many points that have been brought before the House. There is even, I think, some criticism that has arisen from the very assiduity with which they do their work, because I believe that sometimes the Back-Benchers feel that the discussions in this House are too much of a duologue between the two Front Benches. If we do fall into this error, I am sure that noble Lords sitting in other parts of the House will not hesitate to draw our attention to a proper sense of proportion of the breadth and width of this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that we on these Benches were being rather stubborn. If that is so, and in so far as it is so, it is a grievous sin. I would agree with the prophet Samuel, that stubbornness is an iniquity. I think it would he quite wrong to give any impression that the impact of this House on legislation has not been considerable; indeed, I think it has been greater than sometimes appears on the surface. I should like to assure noble Lords opposite that, without falling into the error of vacillation, we are most anxious to get the full benefit of their advice and guidance, and, indeed, of any admonition which they may care to make on proposals we put before the House.
Last night the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Meston and Lord Wolverton referred to the question of local government. We have in mind certain developments there which we hope will be of considerable importance to local government in this country, the health of which I know this House has very much in mind. The Rating and Valuation Bill, which has already been introduced, is similar to the one which was placed before the House in the last Session and which received, I think, an, unopposed Second Reading in another place. It will be a considerable step forward if it is possible now to carry through valuations which have been held up for a considerable number of years. In Scotland, even more important developments are taking place. There are the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Bill and an inquiry into the working of the equalisation grant. Rating in Scotland, which may be a subject of some complexity to many of your Lordships, has been a bone of contention for many years, and we are indebted to the
126
noble Lord, Lord Sorn, for his departmental report, which we hope will lay the foundations for a much sounder basis of local government assessment than exists at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the more general question of the reform of local government and, although this is a subject on which he speaks with great authority, he frankly admitted that it was a perplexing one. In this field, too, we have made some progress. Owing to a change in certain points of view, early this year we were able to reach among the local authority associations a fairly wide measure of agreement on certain proposals. They do not cover the whole field, and there are certain matters which will certainly require further examination and discussion. But if these discussions continue in the same successful way, we hope to be able to bring forward a measure of legislation which will deal, we trust effectively, with a number of these points. I can say to the noble Lord that the points which he made yesterday will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend. There were one or two references to slum clearance. I am sure that I am expressing the view of all your Lordships when I say that if there is one feature in this time which remains a blot on our life it is the condition of some of the slums which remain in this country. After an interval of some fifteen years, we have restarted on that work, and I can say that at present nearly 170 authorities have already submitted schemes to the Minister.
I should like now to say one word on the subject of monopolies, a subject which has been extensively canvassed at one time or another. Two extreme views are taken about monopolies. One is that, as there are some monopolies, there ought to be more. The other view is perhaps the American view, that all monopolies are necessarily harmful and must be abolished. I was glad that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, did not take either view. He took a view in between them and, indeed, there has not been a wide measure of difference of opinion between Parties since the publication in 1944 of the White Paper on Employment Policy. The fact is that, although we are a fairly small country, industry must none the less be able to manufacture on a fairly large scale.

127
Moreover, many of the practices which may be considered monopolistic grew up in an entirely different industrial atmosphere. And that applies just as much to trade unions as it does to industry. To-day, the atmosphere is different, and we require a new outlook on these things. I think it is common knowledge that the discussions on the legislation passed in 1948, and the extension of that legislation in 1953, showed little controversy between the Parties.
The Commission's reports, for which we are deeply indebted, have revealed a number of interesting things. Some restrictions on competition have not been contrary to public interest, and in others the trade itself has been quite willing to accept the conclusions which the Commission have reached. There are two further reports which will shortly be published, one of which deals with a class of practices known as exclusive dealing and collective boycott. But as this report has not been published, I will not make further reference to that matter. It has already been announced that steel frames for buildings will shortly be referred to the Monopolies Commission, and the Government will continue to make references where there seems to be need for inquiry. I should like to emphasise that we believe that practices which are found to be contrary to the public interest, and which no longer serve the purposes for which they were intended, must be altered. By far the best way of doing that is to persuade those who are engaged in industry themselves that they can conduct their industry in a better way without those practices. That is the policy which we intend to pursue; but, where persuasion proves ineffective, we shall not hesitate to use the statutory powers of the 1948 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, emphasised the need to curb national expenditure, and may I say how warmly I welcome his remarks. The general tendency of Parliament is to rejoice in spending money. Very few candidates go to their electors and say: "We have saved the Government £1 million." No—they go to the electors and say: "We have persuaded the Government to spend £1 million on these houses, on these roads, on this hospital," so that the whole tendency of Parliamentary government,
128
in both Houses, is to press the Government for more money. What I may describe as the theory of the bottomless purse still has a pretty wide currency at the present time. I have heard even noble Lords say how ridiculous it is for the Government to say they have not the money for, or cannot afford to carry out, certain expenditure. It is not only officials in the Treasury who have to guard the public purse; if I may say so, it is the duty of every Member of either House to keep a watch on the purse which is public and which belongs to, or at least is drawn from, every member of the general public.
Passing from that to the antithesis, perhaps I may say a word about one or two of the capital developments which are taking place, particularly in reference to a matter which I know is in the minds of many noble Lords—that is, the question of roads. It is estimated that in the next three years there will be an increase of about 1,500,000 in the number of vehicles on the roads. Very little has been done in the way of a major roads programme for at least sixteen years, and the Government are quite willing to recognise this as a matter of great urgency. A certain programme has already been announced by the Ministry of Transport. The speed with which that programme may be further developed depends necessarily on the general economy of the country. The programme deals with different needs of the modern road. It includes motorways, which will have two carriageways and three traffic lanes and will be equipped with a modern design for junction and points of entry. Dangerous points will be dealt with, and it is hoped that we shall be able, even this year, to deal with up to a hundred of them. Already, a good deal of preparatory work has been done, and both big and medium-sized work will start this year. Work has already begun on the Conway Bridge, and in the next month or two work will begin on the Cromwell Road extension and the Markyate bypass. There will be an extension of the dual-carriageways on the Western Avenue and improvements in Wales and Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he thought the agricultural community were unlikely ever to be entirely satisfied, I agree. It is highly improbable that there will ever be a time when the farmers of

129
this country admit they are satisfied. Nevertheless, it is true to say that at present they are not dissatisfied. We are spending £250 million on agricultural subsidies at the present time; next year, it is likely to be more. In the years from 1951 to 1954, production went up about 6 or 7 per cent. Last year production went down—or it is anticipated that it will have gone down—but the remarkable thing is how little it went down, considering the nature of the climatic conditions last summer. I know your Lordships will agree that it is the highest testimony to the work of the farming community that the fall in agricultural production last year was as small as it was.
The number of rural houses has increased about nine or ten times in the last four years. Electrification of farms is higher than it has ever been before. Only last Friday, the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Bill, which will allow assistance to be given to unclassified and unadopted roads, was introduced into the other place. What I suggest is important is that production grants and assistance, on the whole, help the smaller farmers and farmers of more difficult land, which is exactly where I think assistance should go. I agree entirely that we can, and must, go further in the efficient development of the agricultural industry. I know that that is what the Government have in mind. A number of other points were mentioned yesterday with which I have net been able to deal, including the question of the Queen's Hall. I regret that at the moment I have been unable to get any answer to give the noble Lord who raised that matter.
May I say this? We are now a decade from the end of the fighting in the Second World War. We can no longer say that we are in the immediate post-war period —indeed, we are well into the second half of the twentieth century. It is not unfair to ask: what sort of world are we going into? The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, very rightly and properly, emphasised to us three things on the economic side yesterday: the essential necessity of securing the balance of payments, the need for fall employment and the need for stable prices. I agree with him that to achieve those objects is a terrific task for any Government. But even that is not enough, because we live
130
in a dynamic world. If, five years hence, we were to go to the electors and report that our payments were balanced, our employment full and our prices stable, but that consumption had remained where it was, that production had remained where it was and that wages had remained where they were, we should be driven from office—and quite rightly, because, in this world, as has been so often quoted from Lewis Carroll, we have to run very fast in order to stay it the same place.
As the mover and seconder, in their remarkable speeches, emphasised, we are living in a world of change, change both in the structure of our lives and in the impact which science is making on it and on industry. There is no likelihood of that change becoming slower, because the gap between what is practised in industry and what is possible in science, far from getting narrower, is tending to get wider. Therefore, I suggest that one of the first requirements that we shall need in this world which is opening before us is an ability to adapt ourselves to changing conditions. We cannot put the future in shackles. No man can tether time or tide. We muss: be ready to use any method which will operate to the public good. That is the advantage of the Conservative empirical approach to the problems of government; and I can say there is no weapon in our economic armoury we should not use if it should prove to be necessary. We believe that the greater opportunity which freedom gives will more surely release the genius of the nation and enable us to meet the problems of the future.
In the past, we have had to use many different forms of Government control, and we shall not hesitate to use them, if necessary, in the future. We have used import control; we have used credit restrictions; we have put regulations on mines and quarries in order to improve their health and safety; and we have used regulations to free the seas from pollution. We are now seeking to clean the air, which may prove an even more difficult task. We hope to take power to maintain the safety and welfare of agricultural workers. I do not think noble Lords underestimate the control which can be exercised on Government expenditure through taxation. We have no starry-eyed vision of the sort of Utopia which was built up in the mind of Adam Smith. To meet the future we may have

131
to use every method which is useful to meet the problems that come in front of us. May I say this. In this changing world to which we will seek to adapt ourselves, whilst we seek to harness science and technology to the service of man, let us not forget that the spirit of man is not satisfied just with modern plumbing and countless television sets.
When Lord Beveridge refers quite rightly to the need for imaginative planning as an essential to encouraging a gracious way of life, important as that is, it is not the only thing. When the Scottish Parliament some six centuries ago spoke of:
"that freedom which no good man lays down but with his life",
if was not expressing just a doctrinaire point of view—it was expressing something which is absolutely fundamental to human nature. It is just because we believe that if man is given freedom he will not only be able to live a full life but will elect to live a creative life and thereby enable his latent abilities, which in many people are most inadequately developed, to be of service to his fellow men, that we believe that the broad general policies which we have pursued, and which we intend to pursue, will be of lasting benefit, not only to the nation as a whole but to every individual, no matter what his occupation, his age or his inclinations may be.
3.32 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as the noble Earl's speech indicates, the general debate so far has ranged mainly over important matters affecting the domestic life of the nation. I am not going to follow along that line; I intend to devote my remarks to some of the references in the gracious Speech to foreign affairs, and I shall hope to do it without taking any undue length of time. We are told in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government will resolutely go forward with the policies to which they are pledged. Those policies have been steadily developed throughout the post-war years, and are based on principles which have the broad support of Parliament and the people. The principles find their place in the Charter of the United Nations, and we can be sure that so long as we, as a nation, remain loyal in practice to those
132
principles we shall be enabled to make a real and effective contribution to the cause of peace and security and to the safeguarding of freedom throughout the world.
We on these Benches welcome the assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give wholehearted support to the United Nations, the Atlantic Alliance and Western European Union, and that they will continue to work in close accord with the United States. These are common denominators of Government foreign policy and of Opposition foreign policy, and they provide a sure and firm basis upon which British influence can play its proper part in international affairs. In this connection, let me say that we are very glad that the Foreign Secretary is going to attend the tenth anniversary meeting of the United Nations at San Francisco next week. I hope that this can be taken as an indication that it is Mr. Macmillan's intention to lead the British delegation to the United Nations Assembly each year. That is one of the ways, and an especially good one, of showing wholehearted support. I do not, of course, mean that he should be present throughout the whole of each session, but that he should make a point of being personally present for some part of the time; that he should take an active part in some of the important deliberations and thereby make British influence more fully effective, and at the same time add to the prestige and authority of this unique international institution.
My Lords, we on these benches have been strong and convinced supporters of the Atlantic Alliance from its inception in the régime of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin as Foreign Secretary, and we have welcomed the new Association of Western European Union which derived from the Brussels Treaty for which, again, Mr. Bevin was so largely responsible. I do not think it can be doubted that the steady strengthening of the free world's defences under the ægis of these organisations has contributed powerfully to bringing about the more favourable international atmosphere which exists to-day. If the free world is safer, it is because the free world is stronger. At the same time, let none of us forget that common defence was not the only object that these collective agencies were designed to promote. Circumstances have put an overriding emphasis on defence, but as

133
circumstances become less onerous we should be able to direct increasingly greater attention to economic, social and cultural matters of common concern, and to developing a greater practical cooperation for the common benefit.
The achievement of peace and security for each and for all is still the supreme need of the world, and it must continue to be the supreme objective of British foreign policy. So long as it stands, the Iron Curtain may keep the world divided in many ways; but I do not believe that it can divide the peoples of the world in their common desire to be made secure from another war and to be able to live their lives free from the fear of another war. That desire has peen intensified into a powerful world force by the coming of the hydrogen bomb, and I am convinced that this has become a major factor in international life of which all Governments will have to take full account in the framing and conduct of their foreign policies. It has already brought the problem of comprehensive general disarmament to the very forefront of international problems. There is a wider recognition to-day than at any other period that the question of world disarmament must be given (if I may borrow the word) super-priority. The problem of world disarmament has got to be solved if humanity and civilisation are to be rescued from the terrible fate that would overtake them if a hydrogen war broke out.
We therefore welcome the promise that Her Majesty's Government will zealously maintain their efforts to reach agreement on a comprehensive disarmament plan designed to bring peace and security to all nations. I think the Government are entitled to credit for their past efforts in the Disarmament Commission, and it is most gratifying that some progress has been made. It is a month since the Soviet Union made their statement in which they adopted several of the key proposals which the Western delegates had for several weeks been urging the Russian delegate to accept. Mr. Nutting has said that Her Majesty's Government regard this change of attitude on the part of the Soviet Government as an encouraging step forward and as a dividend for the Western policy of patient and resolute negotiation in the face of repeated rebuffs.
But while there is row agreement on many important points, there are still
134
serious differences which have yet to be harmonised. After the Soviet statement has been considered by the Western Governments, the work of the Commission will have to be resumed with a view to widening the area of agreement. We hope, however, that discussions at the coming "Summit" Conference will give new impetus to disarmament discussions and speed the Commission on its way to getting a comprehensive and effectively-controlled disarmament agreement. I am sure that that is what we all most ardently wish to see achieved.
I have referred to the coming conference at the summit. We all welcome the fact that it is taking place in Geneva next month. We on these Benches consider that Her Majesty's Government have been wise in reversing the policy—or perhaps I should say the procedure—which, until recently, they favoured. Almost up to the end of the last Parliament the present Prime Minister expressed his preference for meetings at the official level, at Foreign Ministers' level and at heads of Government level, in that order. I believe that the general view, both in Parliament and outside, is that conditions are more favourable to-day than they have been for many years for making a top-level effort to open the road to agreements on problems which have for so long vexed international relations. There appears to have been a change in the attitude of Moscow. The Soviet leaders seem to be less frigid and unfriendly towards the West; the cold war may be unfreezing. There are Soviet deeds which encourage that hope. Austria, at long last, has got her freedom and independence, and will soon be free of all foreign troops. There has been the favourable change, to which I have referred, in the Soviet attitude on some aspects of disarmament. There has beet the visit, at their own request, of Soviet leaders to Marshal Tito and, more recently, the Soviet invitation to the Federal German Chancellor to visit Moscow.
I agree that we have to be cautious against exaggerating the degree of change in Soviet policy or attitude which these moves may seem to suggest. But, on the other hand, we should also be careful not to minimise it. I noticed that the.

135
Vice-President of the United States warned his fellow countrymen that
"the recent conciliatory actions of world Communism represent a change of tactics rather than a change of heart."
If by this is meant that Communist faith in the inevitability of world revolution has not changed, Mr. Nixon is undoubtedly right. But what we are concerned with is not so much Communist faith but Soviet Russia's foreign policy and actions, and in this context a change of tactics could be a matter of profound importance to the free world and, indeed, to the whole world. If the Soviet Union should decide to call off or abate the cold war and to adopt the method of negotiation, surely it matters little whether it is called a change of heart or a change of tactics. What does matter is that the change should prove to be a real and genuine one.
We have to find out whether there is a new approach on the part of Soviet Russia. It seems to me to be not without some significance that the Belgrade communiqué should declare that:
"both Governments are agreed that all nations should make further efforts to achieve positive results and agreements in negotiations so vital for the peace of the world as the reduction and limitation of armaments and the prohibition of atomic weapons, the establishment of a general system of collective security, including a system of collective security in Europe based on a treaty, and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
If that is a clear indication of the Soviet Government's mind, the emphasis on the method of negotiation may also represent an important change. The statement which I have quoted is followed immediately by another paragraph which also may have significance.
"Through such efforts"—
the paragraph says—
"an atmosphere would be created which would at the same time make possible solution by peaceful means of such urgent problems of the first importance as that of an agreed settlement of the German question on a democratic basis in conformity both with the wishes and interests of the German people and in the interest of general security, and the satisfaction of the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China with regard to Formosa."
If this statement means what it appears to mean, it would seem to indicate that, in the Russian view, an agreed settlement of the German problem will depend on
136
further efforts by negotiation to achieve disarmament and collective security.
It is equally significant that Doctor Adenauer, the Federal German Chancellor, as reported in The Times only two days ago,
"holds today, as he has always held, that the German question can only he settled in conjunction with other questions,"
and that, in his view, a general disarmament agreement will have to precede a German settlement. There seems to be, therefore, an important point of agreement between the Soviet Prime Minister and the Federal German Chancellor; and it adds emphasis to the urgency of securing a comprehensive disarmament agreement. It would appear from these statements that the reunification of Germany on the basis of genuinely free elections and the attainment of full international sovereignty are closely linked with the provision of an agreed framework of a European security system and a comprehensive disarmament convention—perhaps I may be allowed to say that that is a view which I myself have always held. But that need not exclude the taking of agreed intermediate steps which would continue the easing of tensions and thereby facilitate agreement on these vital related matters.
My Lords, I am not going to speculate on possible lines of advance or on possible new proposals or new counter-proposals that may see the light of day when the conference is in being. Many helpful suggestions have been projected in recent weeks and months and Her Majesty's Government are no doubt giving them careful consideration. May I be permitted to remind your Lordships that I myself, in this House, some twelve or fourteen months ago suggested that consideration should be given to providing overall security for Europe by linking the defence systems of East and West with reciprocal guarantees to ensure collective resistance to any aggression in Europe.
We have been told in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government are going to the conference in a spirit of confidence and good will and that they are looking forward to fruitful negotiations. But the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, when he speaks at the end of this debate, may intend to expand that statement and to give the

137
House some indication of the Government's views and plans. I hope he may be able to do so. We on these Benches are equally anxious to see fruitful results come out of the conference, which we hope will be the beginning of a new concerted effort by negotiation to remove the causes of the world's dangers and fears. We trust that the Western representatives, as a result of the preparatory consultations that are proceeding, will enter the conference with unity of mind and purpose, with agreement on a constructive and flexible approach, and with a determination to do their utmost to get such a measure of agreement and understanding with the Russian representatives as will bring increasing stability to international life and increasing security to world peace and freedom.
The only other paragraph in the gracious Speech to which I will refer is that which says that
"In consultation with the other governments concerned, My Government will continue earnestly to seek a peaceful settlement of the situation in the Formosa Strait."
The lead given by the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, to bring about a cease-fire seems to be winning through. Though there is no formal agreement for a cease-fire, active hostilities seem to have come to an end, and what is, we hope, a de facto cease-fire is operating. I notice that Mr. Walter Lippman, the eminent American commentator on foreign affairs, has stated that:
"the firing has virtually ceased though none of the three principal parties directly concerned—namely, the two Chinese Governments and the United States—has renounced any of its legal or political claims in the final settlement."
That position shows the value of a British initiative, because it is broadly in harmony with what might be called "the Eden formula."
That we seem to be passing safely out of a situation that was fraught with the most dangerous possibilities to peace is also due in part to the wise statesmanship of President Eisenhower, who has displayed both political courage and moral strength in getting an end put to offensive operations from Formosa against the mainland. Communist China, for its part, shows no sign of launching an attack for the conquest of Formosa. One naturally wonders what are the prospects ahead. Can the tacit cease-fire
138
subsist indefinitely? Is there any likelihood of the People's Government of China forswearing the use of force for the recovery of territory which it claims, just as the Federal German Government has declared that it will not resort to force for the recovery of its lost territories?
What is needed in the Far East is a permanent peace settlement. It is pretty certain that, during his recent visit to Pekin, Mr. Krishna Menon obtained an insight into Mr. Chou En-lai's mind, and that he has some idea of the lines along which the leaders of Communist China are thinking. Since then, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been fully informed of the views and conclusions which Mr. Menon has brought away with him as the result of his mediation efforts. We hope that the recent release of the four American airmen will soon be followed by the release of the other American Service personnel who continue to be detained in China. When that stage has been reached, more favourable conditions will exist for taking in hand the problem of a permanent peace settlement.
I do not doubt that Her Majesty's Government lime already given careful thought to sonic of the main issues on which agreement will have to be sought: entry of Communist China into membership of the United Nations, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Formosa to be neutralised for a period and thereafter the people of Formosa to be enabled to determine their own destiny. It will be surprising if the position in the Formosa Strait, the future of Formosa, and China's entry into the United Nations are not among the subjects discussed at the coming Geneva Conference. In any case, it seems hardly likely that the position in the Far East can be left indefinitely where it is at present, and the sooner a real peace settlement can be brought about the better it will be for all concerned.
Finally, my Lords, I hope that both in Europe and in the Far East the coming weeks and months are going to see an increasing relaxation of tensions, the elimination of sources of friction, and the settlement of tit least some of the problems which have kept the world on the brink of danger in recent years. I am not looking for any miracle or magic decision but for steady progress as the result

139
of patient, tenacious and constructive effort; and when our next debate on the international situation takes place in this House I hope it will be an occasion for us to consider progress made and results achieved by the coming meetings of heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers.

AGREEMENTS ON ATOMIC ENERGY
3.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a brief but, I think, not unimportant statement on Agreements between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government which have been signed in Washington to-day, first, for co-operation on the civil uses of atomic energy, and secondly, for cooperation regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes. These Agreements are required by an Act of the United States Legislature passed in 1954 to lie before Congress for a period of thirty working days. They should, therefore, come into force about one month hence.
The United States Act made provision for co-operation with regard to atomic energy between the United States and other countries, subject to the conclusion of bilateral Agreements between the United States and such countries. I am confident that the House will welcome the fact of Her Majesty's Government having become a party to such Agreements, thus establishing a basis for co-operation with the United States Government on matters relating both to the economic and defence uses of atomic energy. The text of the two Agreements will be published in the next few days and laid before Parliament as White Papers.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is indeed a happy moment, and I congratulate the noble Marquess on being able to announce it to your Lordships' House. The fact that we have these Agreements now shows. I hope, that we have overcome the difficulty which arose—to some extent at any rate—from the McMahon Act. That is to my mind a most satisfactory state of affairs. The closer our co-operation with the United States can
140
be, the better for all of us. I am quite sure of that.
LORD REA: My Lords, the noble Marquess remarked that this matter was not unimportant. I think we all agree that it is of vital importance. We are to-day discussing important subjects which arise in the gracious Speech, and surely Agreements like these, which relate to atomic energy and atomic information, have a direct bearing on certain of those subjects. We congratulate the noble Marquess on being in a position to tell us what he has done, and we look forward to seeing the White Papers in the course of a few days.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I will do my best to curtail my remarks as much as possible. I do not think I can remember a gracious Speech so comprehensive and so full of ideas which, when carried out, will be of such benefit to the people. I should like to say a word about the two admirable speeches moving and seconding the Address. I was particularly pleased with that of my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford, because he is a member of my Party and we feel very proud of the way he conducted himself in his difficult task.
I propose to give what I hope are some constructive ideas on one or two of the subjects mentioned in the gracious Speech. I hope that the Bill on road traffic, though not in its previous form, will come before the House as soon as possible. I think all noble Lords realise the appalling state of the roads, particularly with regard to pedestrians. They are all over the place, and in spite of the use of extra police they seem to ignore all the usual ideas we have of protecting our lives. I should like to add a word about crash helmets. Your Lordships will remember that I tried to get the Government to make it compulsory for motor-cyclists to wear crash helmets. They did not agree to that proposal, but, as a result of the publicity given to the matter at the time, a high percentage of motor-cyclists now use crash helmets.

141
I feel that if this could be made compulsory, it would save a great many lives on the road. I noticed in a case only the other day that the coroner said that two people who had died in a motorcycle accident would undoubtedly have been alive if they had been wearing crash helmets.
Apropos what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said with regard to the improvement of roads, a friend of mine who has studied this question put to me an idea which I think is worthy of consideration. There are certain roads, which in the old days were by-roads, which now, because of new towns and so on, have become almost main roads, although they remain very narrow. To increase the width of all these roads would be a terrific expense, upon which I do not think the nation could embark. Yet we all know that in driving on the roads I have described it often happens that an enormous vehicle in front will cause the traffic to build up behind it and there is no possibility of passing with any safety, perhaps for a great many miles. I wonder whether it would not be possible to have, at suitable places, passing positions on the road. It would not be necessary to have them more than a hundred yards or so long, and they could be made where it was not very expensive to widen the road. Possibly the widening could be done on both sides of the road, so that these enormous goods vehicles could be passed and journeys accelerated. I put that forward as a practical suggestion which I hope will be considered.
As I was Chairman of the Committee which sat to examine the scheme for a Forth Road Bridge, I should like to endorse every word that my noble friend Lord Dundee said in regard to this matter. My noble friend Lord Selkirk said that as soon as the Government had got in everybody was trying to get them to spend more and more money. From what I know of the situation, I am certain that, if the Government do not want to spend the money to which they are committed on this scheme, if they will grant a toll for a certain number of years private enterprise will build the bridge and then hand it over to the Government later, after they have had their money back through the toll, which would be less than the ferry is today. Noble Lords who have travelled North and have gone over the Forth will realize
142
what an appalling situation there is. I. hope that every consideration will be given to this matter and that the Government will do something to meet the serious situation which now exists. To show how long this matter has been hung up, I would add that I was Chairman of this Committee in 1946. The Report, called the Teviot Report, which was then made, and which is available to anybody, said that there was no alternative to the bridge. Those who have studied the bottom of the Forth will realise that anything in the shape of a tunnel or a floating bridge is quite fantastic.
I must apologise for again having to advertise myself a little, but for ten years I was Chairman of the National Joint Council in Scotland, which is the equivalent of the Burnham Committee in England, and I should like to say a word or two about education. We all agree that, somehow or other, we must reduce the size of classes. As we know, that can be done only by getting more teachers and more schools. The Government have laid down in their policy that they are going to do everything possible in this regard. This question of equal pay is a difficult question in education, because we find so many teachers in different categories, but it ought not to be an insoluble question. It is one that has to be seriously considered, because I think that its solution would greatly help to increase the number of teachers.
I now come to the point in the gracious Speech which refers to safeguarding health. Your Lordships may begin to smile about my reference to this matter—you will know exactly what is coming now. I understand that a drive is about to take place to reduce the extraction rate from the wheat grain to 70 per cent. and to reinforce what is left with synthetic vitamins. To my idea there is no doubt that if this is done it will be thoroughly detrimental to the health of the people of this country. Wily should we take out of the wheat grain the live elements in it, in the shape of vitamins and proteins, with all the trace elements that the scientists know are there but with which they cannot deal because they cannot pick them up, and substitute chemical synthetics? The chemist never can make life, and if we are going to keep healthy we must feed the people with live food. If we get rid of synthetic chemicals, to my mind we shall enormously increase

143
the health of the people. I think it is of the greatest importance that, in the national flour, nature's vitamins, properly grown, are maintained.
I should also like to say a word or two about the administrative tribunals which hear disputes between the people and certain Government Departments. We know that when a dispute takes place an inspector is sent by the Department concerned to investigate the matter, and the report to the Minister is confidential. Our people are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, and would like to see something in the shape of the Conseil d'état which they have in France, or an equivalent type of organisation to that which they have in America, so that they may be in a position where they can get real satisfaction and can know that justice is done. Surely these matters should be given far more publicity. There is the report to the Minister, but no-one knows what it contains. One presumes that justice has been administered as a result of the report; but if we were to give publicity to the report and to the reasons which led the Minister to arrive at his conclusions, I am sure that the country would appreciate it and that it would do a great deal of good.
During the Election I went up to Stornoway, and there are one or two things that I should like to say as to the conditions that I found there. Before the war, Russia and Germany had large contracts with those people in regard to the fish caught round the Western Islands; but, of course, when the war began that all stopped. To-day, those people find themselves in the unfortunate position that trawlers come round from Aberdeen and the East Coast of Scotland and do a little bit of poaching all round these islands on the West coast. I should like to see a six-mile limit imposed, instead of the present three-mile limit. The people who live in these islands are all what may be called inshore fishermen, and such an extension would benefit them enormously; and I do not think it would result in any less fish being caught in the area. Your Lordships who have been to these islands will realise how poor they are in relation to the production of food. The islands are bare, and agriculture is at a minimum. The consequence is that the people have
144
to import from the mainland a great deal of their foodstuffs, and as a result of carrying it up to the port and transferring it over the sea in ships there is a high freightage. I should like the Government to consider their position. They cannot be blamed for their position, which is merely the result of geographical conditions, and I should be grateful if the Government would look into this matter to see whether some special freightage cannot be charged for commodities that are necessary to the lives of these people.
I hope your Lordships were impressed, as I was, with the fine speech yesterday of my noble friend Lord Woolton, particularly when he gave us that interesting information, which nobody could give better, on the subject of industry. I do not intend to go into detail, and would only mention the one word "inflation," which seems to me to convey to us the difficulties and dangers of being very prosperous, and to give a warning that we must not feel that things are now, and will continue to be, all right. This reminds me of a story that I have told on many occasions, of a great Eastern potentate who sent for his head man and said to him: "I want you to make me a ring that I shall always wear, and I want you to write round it something that will cheer me up when I am 'down' and make me careful when I am up and prosperous." The head man went away and did not know what to write round the ring; but finally he came back, and round the ring was written these words: "All these things will pass away." With regard to prosperity, we know that it cannot go on for ever. With regard to inflation, I should just like to add a word to what my noble friend Lord Woolton said. As he aptly put it, we must go on increasing production. I believe that we should impress on all our workers the dangers of the evil of inflation, and say to them: "You are the people who might help towards keeping inflation away by always remembering, in all the work you do to give, so far as possible, and within reason, as much production as you can." If that appeal is made to all our workers, and if it is explained to them in the simple and able way in which my noble friend explained it yesterday, I am sure that they will respond. I have spoken a little longer than I generally

145
do, and I am not going to say anything more, because many other noble Lords wish to speak. I hope that the suggestions I have made will be studied by the Government and that some good may result from them.
4.18 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords I hope that I may be forgiven for introducing somewhat of a controversial note into this debate which has shown so much unanimity, and rightly so, I think, on most of the matters mentioned in the gracious Speech. Although the subject to which I wish to refer is one of domestic policy, it is one which affects international trade and will, therefore, have international repercussions. My noble friend Lord Layton, in his survey yesterday, drew attention to an apparent contradiction or inconsistency in the reference in one paragraph of the gracious Speech to a free flow of international trade, and to the imposition of new duties in another. It will be no surprise to noble Lords opposite that we on these Benches should select for critical inquiry a paragraph which foreshadows legislation to permit the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties on imported goods. The noble Lords who spoke on Thursday last trod rather warily when referring to this paragraph; they seemed to be a little frightened of it—perhaps it made the Liberal blood in their veins run a little cold.
There has been in recent months a good deal of good-humoured speculation about the character of the new Government. Without the Liberal influence of Sir Winston, will there be a reversion to the Toryism of the 'twenties? To us, this paragraph looks like a reversion to the ideas of 1923. The noble and learned Earl who leads the Labour Opposition referred to the fact that an alert Opposition is necessary for the effective work of our democratic constitution. With this, particular paragraph he voiced no disagreement. His chief anxiety was that the Government should equip themselves with a full armoury of weapons which could be let off When faced with a difficulty—perhaps a little indiscriminately, it seemed to me—and hope for the best. But that, in our view, is not the way to conduct our trading relations, and Liberals are not in favour of concentrat-
146
ing continually-increasing powers in the hands of any Government.
Whilst we Liberals are ready to applaud and support Her Majesty's Government in carrying out the Liberal professions which they have been making (and may I say here how glad we are to note the references of the Prime Minister to the encouragement of co-partnership schemes in industry) we must keep a watchful eye for deviations. The paragraph to which I have referred is not only a deviation but a reversion to devices which, in our view, are, or should be, as out of date and as out of place in the sphere of international relations as the strike should be in the field of industrial relations. For it is as certain as night follows day that tariff provokes tariff and a duty provokes more duties.
I wonder how, in the new legislation promised, dumping is to be defined? Is it to be, for instance, the disposal of commodities abroad at a lower price than to domestic purchasers? If so, is this to be banned within the Commonwealth? Or, is it designed to check attacks on a market in this country by underselling for a period with a view to subsequent selling at a profit when the market has been captured? If so, are such practices to be made illegal in the home market? Are the regulations to be revised which apply to goods made up, for instance, in Ireland, from foreign raw materials, and then imported into this country under a preferential tariff'? We shall see.
For whatever reasons this legislation is contemplated, we say that in our view it is ill-advised. Competition from abroad is the only real and satisfactory check in the interests of the consumer on an inflated home selling price, particularly in a country where price rings abound. If Her Majesty's Government are in earnest in their desire to reduce the cost of living, they will not adopt a policy of adding to tariffs, but rather of reducing them. The same applies if Her Majesty's Government are in earnest in their desire to stem inflation, maintain a satisfactory trade balance, and keep up this country's important invisible exports. If Her Majesty's Government are in earnest in their professed desire to see undeveloped territories progress, they will not use the tariff weapon against them. Is charity to these territories to be preferred to trade with hem?

147
As our exporters know only too well, customs regulations involve not only the amount of a tariff, but a whole host of complexities in classification. The words "countervailing duties" sound ominous and replete with administrative complexities, and this at a time when we are asking the United States of America to simplify her regulations It is true that the United States and the Commonwealth countries, or several of them, have had for many years anti-dumping laws, but they have not, I believe, been much invoked. Is it desirable to stir up this sleeping monster? For how vulnerable this country is which has been riddled with subsidies, from which a Conservative Government has not yet been able entirely to free us—nearly £300 million a year subsidies on agricultural products, plus a hidden subsidy in derating, to which my noble friend Lord Meston referred yesterday. Is this to be invoked against us every time some foreign manufacturer finds our competition unwelcome?—a coal price, a steel price, to home manufacturers below the world market prices; fixed rates of exchange still operating which may conceal the real costs of many manufactured goods. What complications are the Government trying to make for our exporters? No, my Lords, in these days of Commonwealth and international co-operation other methods are open to us for dealing with our trade problems. Expansion of trade must be our watchword, and not restriction of any kind. This paragraph envisages legislation which will be highly restrictive, and I should like to express the hope that we shall hear no more of it.
4.27 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the Liberal arguments of the noble Lord who has just sat down, as I wish to deal with the importance of nuclear power. I, too, should like to add my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government for this new agreement which has been announced between the United States and ourselves as regards nuclear power and nuclear information, and I am sure that we shall all look forward to seeing the White Paper when it is issued.
I suggest to your Lordships that perhaps one of the most important measures outlined in the gracious Speech is that Her Majesty's Government
148
"will actively promote the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
I would say that it is not too strong to say that in this short statement may well lie the future prosperity of this country. We are all, of course, most anxious to increase the standard of living, but that cannot be done unless we have a much larger supply of power than is available at the present time. It really is tragic that, after all the years of nationalisation of the mines, which it was thought in some quarters would relieve us of our labour troubles in that direction, and in spite of the greatly increased use of mechanisation, coal production is far less than it used to be and for the last three years has been practically static.
How are we to support the expanding industrial production year by year unless we can, at the same time, provide increased power? What are the figures of coal producion for the last three years? I believe that they are barely 225 million tons per annum. That really is most deplorable. On the other hand, in 1954 industrial production rose by something like 6½ per cent., and I think I am correct in saying that the present indication for this year is that the rise will be about the same. It is obvious that we cannot go much further in this direction without approaching a bottleneck in power supply. It is no use putting up more coal-fired power stations if the coal is not available. Even now we are relying on a heavy importation of coal to keep our fuel position more or less static. I think it is true to say that the demand for electricity is increasing at the rate of over 10 per cent. per annum. In 1954 the increase, I believe, was 11 per cent., whereas the provision of additional electric power was only about 8 per cent. The writing is on the wall for all to see; and unless we take drastic steps to increase our power supply the living standards of the country will be seriously jeopardised. What is equally important is that besides abundant power we must have cheap electric power; otherwise, before very long, we shall not be able to compete in the export markets of the world. It is for these reasons that I welcome most strongly the development of atomic power outlined in the gracious Speech.
I think it was in February this year that Her Majesty's Government announced a large programme for the

149
construction of atomic power plants. The programme was to extend over a period of ten years, and something like ten plants were to be built. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether these ten atomic piles are, in the main, to be used for generating electrical power, and if Calder Hall and the one to be built in Caithness are included in their number. In another place a welcome announcement was made yesterday by the Minister of Fuel and Power that an additional six atomic power stations were to be constructed. Can Her Majesty's Government give any indication of when they are likely to be commenced, and when they may be completed? I do not wish to press for this information to-day, but it would be interesting to know if we can be told the location of some of these new power plants and how far ahead we are looking for their completion. I am a little disturbed, and I think many people are, at the length of time it is going to take to produce the first hatch of piles which were announced in February, which I think was indicated as something like ten years.
I should like to put these questions to Her Majesty's Government. Can the work of construction be speeded up? Is the difficulty lack of finance or of raw materials, or is it, as I suspect it is, the lack of trained scientists? We know that certain steps have already been taken in that direction. I suggest that the whole matter is of such vital importance that we should do our utmost to speed up the production of these atomic piles. If by such means we can save some millions of tons of coal a year, we can divert more to the export trade and put a stop to the senseless importation of coal. I am not criticising Her Majesty's Government for carrying out this necessary policy, in view of all the circumstances, but I do suggest that every financial support should be given to the Atomic Energy Authority so that power output can be increased at the earliest possible moment.
On a previous occasion when we debated this subject of atomic energy, mention was made of the participation of private enterprise in the field of atomic power units. I wonder whether the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who I understand is to reply on
150
behalf of the Government, could say something about this aspect, and about what part private enterprise will be able to take in the design, construction and working of atomic piles, and what information will be available to them. I was one of those privileged, earlier in the year, to visit the atomic pile at Calder Hall and the generating plant under construction, and I was amazed at the progress that had been made. I hope that 'by suitable propaganda the people in the country can be rude aware of the great and prosperous future that is not far away if they will only grasp this great opportunity which lies before them in the development and use of nuclear energy for industrial purposes.
I hope that families will induce their sons to study nuclear energy and power, so that they become the great scientists of the future in the important developments that lie ahead. We have made a very good start, but we must keep going and forge ahead in this new industrial era. We are undoubtedly stretching out to a new industrial era which may well bring to mankind benefits barely dreamed of and new opportunities for generations to come. I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the progress that has already been made. I hope that they will be able to find ways and means of speeding up the production of nuclear energy.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the opportunity which we have at the start of a new Session of discussing the legislative programme and the state of the world would not be used to the best possible advantage without some reference to the Commonwealth and the Colonies. The noble Marquess who will wind up this debate himself has been Secretary of State for the Colonies arid Secretary of State for the Dominions, so we can he sure of having an admirable statement of Government policy. This is peculiarly necessary, because this subject will not be discussed in the debate that is taking place in another place; so that this is the only opportunity that Parliament will have of a Ministerial statement about the Colonies and the Commonwealth.
I should like to confine myself mainly to the rôle of an inquirer who wishes to

151
ask questions. First, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he can tell us anything about the situation in Singapore. When I was in Singapore in 1950, I remember being told how the Communist leaders had tried to capture the trade unions in order to paralyse the Government of the Colony by strike action. Having failed to do this, they made off into the jungle and joined their friends in the Federation to start a shooting war. It looks very much as if what is happening at the present time is another attempt to discredit and coerce the newly elected Legislature. It would be extremely interesting to know how serious the strike situation is, to what extent the aim of the strikes is political and not industrial and, above all, what measures the Government of the Colony are proposing to take in order to prevent violence and to check this attempt to coerce legitimate authority. I can assure the noble Marquess that he will have our support for any measures that may be necessary in order to maintain democratic government in Singapore.
May I now pass to one or two matters mentioned in the gracious Speech. I was glad to see reference made there to the prospect of "further progress" in the setting up of a British Caribbean Federation. This new Commonwealth nation has been growing steadily in past years, more and more rapidly, and is approaching full self-government. I hope the Government will continue to speed its growth. The time factor is, indeed, a condition of success. Let it not be said in the future, as was said in another connection, that we gave "too little and too late."
There are one or two questions I should like to ask in connection with the Caribbean Federation. The Federation will not, of course, be complete without the two mainland territories. It is therefore right that the door should be left open for their entry, if they so desire, after the Federal Government has been set up. In the meantime, it is surely most desirable that they should be associated as closely as possible with the island territories in the final phase before federation. This brings me to my first question. Will the Government ask the authorities in British Honduras and British Guiana to send observers to the forthcoming conference of West Indian
152
representatives? Those observers would, of course, report back to their Governments and in this way would keep their fellow countrymen informed of the prelude to the birth of a new nation.
I am sure—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was able to confirm this when he was in the Caribbean—that the fear in both these mainland territories, that federation would release a flood of immigrants from the densely crowded islands, was a genuine fear; but this fear—and this has been the main deterrent to their joining in federation—must have been lessened by the agreement in March (in which the noble Lord opposite assisted materially by his chairmanship of the Conference) to give the territorial Governments a concurrent power with the centre for the control of immigration. I think it is generally recognised already in the islands that the mainland territories cannot absorb their surplus population. It looks very much as if the prospect of British Guiana joining the Federation has improved. It was encouraging to hear that the interim Legislature in British Guiana approved the federal plan in April. But, as we all know, the British Guiana Legislature is appointed, not representative, and therefore clearly cannot commit the country. A decision to join the Federation, or a final decision not to join the Federation, would necessarily be taken only by an elected body.
This brings me to my second question. I should like to ask the Government whether they will consider the possibility of holding elections and restoring the Constitution of British Guiana, suspended in 1953. I am fully aware that the timing of elections must depend on local conditions. The Government know far more about local conditions than I do or anybody else does. Therefore I do not pretend to know how soon elections can safely be held. But it looks to the ordinary, outside observer as if the political atmosphere in British Guiana has considerably improved since the Robertson Commission reported last year. The egregious Doctor Jagan has lost his position as chairman of his Party and has been replaced by a less extreme colleague; and his wife, a no less formidable politician, has also lost her position. Indeed, it appears that there has been a wide split in the People's Progressive Party, and, as we all know from recent experience, a divided Party is not an

153
electoral asset. Moreover, the Opposition Party, led by Mr. John Carter, whom some of us had the pleasure of meeting in the Palace of Westminster last year, has increased its membership and is gaining public support. In view of this evident strengthening of the moderate and responsible elements in Guianese political life, and of the weakening of the extremists, I hope the Government will be willing at any rate to review their policy, and to ascertain whether or not these changed conditions still justify direct rule.
There is one further question I should like to put on the subject of the West Indies. When the Caribbean Federation is set up, it will not be completely sovereign, because Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom will retain a certain measure of control. I imagine it will be on very much the same rung of the constitutional ladder to sovereignty as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Your Lordships will remember that the new Federation in Central Africa sent its Prime Minister, Lord Malvern (whom most of us know better as Sir Godfrey Huggins) to the recent Prime Ministers' Conference. I think it is dead certain, therefore, whatever the merits of the case may be, that the Federal Government in the Caribbean will expect an invitation. Moreover, the Federation will not be able to play its full part in Commonwealth affairs unless it shares in ministerial consultation at every level, including the highest.
This is obviously not a matter for us alone, but we could, and I think we should, take the initiative in raising this matter with other Commonwealth Governments. May I express it in this way?—we should put up the candidate as a member of the club; we should be prepared to propose the new member. I should therefore like to ask Her Majesty's Government (if they can give a reply at this stage, having given the matter consideration) whether, when the time comes, they will be willing to propose to other member Governments that the Caribbean Federation should be represented at Commonwealth ministerial conferences, including conferences of Prime Ministers. A decision on this matter, whichever way it goes, would, I think, be of the utmost importance to the whole future of our multi-racial Commonwealth. If it goes in the way that I think we should all
154
like it to go, it will do much to reconcile opinion in the Caribbean to a further period of subordination to the Government of the United Kingdom. Another matter in the gracious Speech that will directly affect the West Indies is the Bill to end State trading in sugar. I trust that the Government will safeguard the position of Commonwealth producers generally, and particularly those in the West Indies, because the economy of the West Indies is, as we all know, entirely dependent on a stable price for sugar. I hope, therefore, that, whatever the Bill may contain, it will provide some sort of safeguard for the present position of the West Indies and the continuation of a stable price for sugar.
I now come to one or two, I hope, controversial matters. I am not at all happy about the description of our Commonwealth in the gracious Speech as "the Commonwealth and Empire." To my mind this Churchillian expression is an unfortunate example of language that lags behind events. We go on using these high-sounding phrases in official pronouncements, long after they have dropped behind the movement of our Commonwealth towards greater unity and greater freedom. The expression "Commonwealth and Empire" is as much an anachronism today as was the expression "British Empire" after the First World War, although I admit that it is some consolation that the Conservative mind has at any rate moved forward from 1918. This phrase is not only obsolete—that would not matter very much, except to the theorists—but the trouble is that its use in important official pronouncements of this kind, which are read all over the world by a wide and mainly indiscriminating public, is misleading and positively harmful, because it suggests that our dependencies are still Imperial possessions. This suggestion is palpably untrue. It became untrue after 1947 when the Indian Empire ceased to exist and the two sovereign States of Pakistan and India took its place. It should be noted that our Queen is Queen, not Empress, of her territories overseas. That is the official description in the Royal Title of the present relationship between the Crown and the British dependencies.
But, apart from committing a constitutional solecism, it is surely unwise and harmful to exclude the Colonies from the Commonwealth and to go on using an

155
imperial terminology which jars on many minds and offends in many quarters. The Colonies are, after all, part and parcel of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, whose authority in these matters we all respect, has described them as junior partners, sharing already with the senior members in many of the activities of partnership. Of this the Colombo Plan is probably the outstanding example. They want to stay in the Commonwealth when they become independent, but we shall not encourage them to do so by emphasising their political subordination or banishing them from the inner circle of self-governing countries. The suggestion of imperial rule will, I am sure, be sharply resented by most of their politically-conscious inhabitants. Every time a piece of imperial terminology reappears in an official document or statement, it offers a fresh target to the Communist and anti-colonial critics of British imperialism. We all know them in the Press; we all know them at meetings of the United Nations.
All the difficulties I have mentioned could have been avoided if Her Majesty's Government had stuck to the terms "Commonwealth" or "Commonwealth of Nations," which indeed are now commonly used when referring to the area over which the Queen is head. If Ministers wanted to mention specifically the dependent sector of the Commonwealth, as they might well have done—it would be perfectly legitimate to do so—they could surely have found a happier, more inoffensive and more appropriate word than "Empire." No one wants to be pedantic about the use of language or to impose his views on other people, but it is surely not unreasonable to expect Her Majesty's Government, in official statements which go out all over the world, to set an example of accuracy and statesmanship in the choice of words.
Now I come, as briefly as possible, to my second controversial remark. There is no mention in the gracious Speech of the situation in Cyprus. I am sure that that does not mean that it is not causing the Government a great deal of concern. The facts, so far as I can judge them from studying the Press and from conversations, are these: not only has there been no improvement in the last few months, but it appears, from what one hears, that things are steadily getting
156
worse. In Cyprus itself violence, sabotage and lawlessness continue. Our relations with Greece, which used to be so good, are deteriorating, and in consequence the organisation of Western defence in the Mediterranean has been weakened. It looks very much as if Cypriot nationalism is taking the same reckless and destructive course as Irish nationalism, and will continue to do so unless it is redirected. While this unrest goes on in Cyprus, Greece will stand out of Mediterranean defence and the Western Alliance will suffer. I hope that if these facts are not correct I shall be told so, as Her Majesty's Government naturally have much fuller reports in these matters than we can get. If these are the facts of the situation, there is surely urgent need for reconsideration of policy and for a real effort to find a new approach to the interconnected problems of strategy and politics.
It is not the first time that we have stated this, but it may be worth stating it again in order to get our view considered by Her Majesty's Government. We on this side of the House believe that a new approach could be made if only Her Majesty's Government would initiate discussions with all the parties concerned, with the object of securing an agreed settlement of all these differences. I cannot believe that it would be more difficult, when we are dealing with our own friends in the Commonwealth and with our allies outside the Commonwealth, to reach an agreed settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean, than it will be to deal with the Soviet Union in reaching an agreed settlement on these much wider, vaster and even more important issues in relation to Europe and disarmament. At any rate, we feel very strongly that the attempt should be made; if it fails we shall not be worse off than we are now.
The success of any negotiations, for whatever object, must depend on the willingness of all parties to make concessions. The concession that we ask Her Majesty's Government to offer, without which I do not suppose talks would even begin, is the right of the Cypriot people to ultimate self-determination, not excluding a change of sovereignty. We should make it clear that this right cannot be exercised now but that it would be permitted at an appropriate and

157
agreed date. Although, again, it is difficult to judge on this side of the House we should probably be right, on this basis, first to start talks with the Greek and Turkish Governments. We should ask the Greek Government to support a political settlement in Cyprus, and we should also ask them to accept our strategic requirements on the island, including the leasing of bases in the event of a change of sovereignty. The Turkish Government would naturally need an assurance that we were not backing out of our defence commitments in the Eastern Mediterranean, and should also be guaranteed adequate safeguards for the Turkish population of Cyprus.
If these negotiations with our Allies were reasonably successful, we could then go on to make a similar approach to the leaders of the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus. We could offer them self-determination on two conditions: first, willingness to co-operate with the Government of the Colony in re-establishing parliamentary rule with proper safeguards for minorities. The second point upon which we must insist is that they shall facilitate the use of the island and its harbours by the Armed Services of the Crown. Whether or not a settlement can he reached on these lines, I am sure that we should try for it. After all, it is the bankruptcy of statesmanship to persist in a policy which experience has shown to be unsuccessful; and we know from experience that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and other members of the present Government are statesmen and men of resource who must, I think, be willing to consider alternatives to the present policy.
In conclusion, I would only say this. There is no substantial difference between the Parties about the aims of Commonwealth and Colonial policy. That is a state of affairs which has continued for a considerable time; it is highly desirable and I hope that it will go on. At the same time, there is a good deal of difference between us about the right method of securing these aims. I can assure the noble Marquess that we shall continue in this Parliament to try to find common ground with Her Majesty's Government and to support them whenever we can conscientiously do so. But when, and if, we differ from Her Majesty's Government, as we did in the last Parliament over
158
Central African federation and as we appear to do to-day over Cyprus, we shall not hesitate to state the case for what we believe to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth family.
4.57 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence in rising from my seat a second time this afternoon: I feel compelled to do so on a certain matter, although I shall not detain your Lordships for long. May I say at the outset that I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has raised these various colonial questions and how much we on these Benches agree with what he has said, particularly about the appearance in the gracious Speech of the anachronistic word "Empire."
I am somewhat disappointed that the gracious Speech makes no mention of colour discrimination. In recent years we have seen some alarming examples of this most un-Christian and illiberal prejudice. We on these Benches are strongly opposed to any form of discrimination against Africans and West Indians because the colour of their skin happens to be different from ours. The Church, as is to be expected, of course, has given a good lead over this vexed question. I would say also, without wishing to appear in any way patronising, that Her Majesty's Government, during their last term of office, adopted entirely the right attitude. They have done much to foster better relations between the different races in Africa; they have not attempted to prohibit the entry of Jamaicans and Africans into this country, and where prejudice against them has existed in this country, they have done their best to discourage it.
I am bound to say quite frankly, however, that there are many people in this country, of all classes, who from time to time are guilty of colour discrimination; and this is a fact which in my view must be faced frankly. We have had some cases lately. For example, members of a particular trade union have refused to work with coloured people; nurses in a certain hospital have refused to work with other nurses because they happen to be coloured. The other day the headmaster of a private school refused to take a boy, not because he was not a good boy, not because he could not pass the examination, but because his skin had

159
been given a different pigmentation by nature. I consider this last case, affecting as it does a young and innocent child at a most sensitive age, to be a particularly cruel one. And there must be, every day, cases which never get into the Press of rudeness and arrogance from which Africans and West Indians continually have to suffer. We are told that this is the result of lack of education in individuals. But I myself have found colour prejudice among some of the most highly educated people I have ever met, and also among some of the most ignorant; so that cannot be the true explanation. Perhaps it is the result of some psychological defect in certain people—noble Lords who are members of the medical profession will know about that better than I do. But what I do know is that this attitude has done more harm to our reputation amongst our coloured fellow men than anything else. I should have liked to see some mention in the gracious Speech that the Government, whose policy has been right, as I have said, would consider appointing a Commission to inquire into ways and means of dealing with this question, because I believe that one day it may have great repercussions. This is a very complicated and difficult subject, but it is one that has got to be faced. It is my earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to appoint such a Commission during their present term of office.
5.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, when I first gave notice of my desire to speak in this debate, it was my intention to confine myself to a mere couple of points mentioned in the gracious Speech, but, after all, this is—or should be—a debate, and several matters have been mentioned upon which I feel I must also speak, though I will do it as briefly as possible. First, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, alleged that he made a non-contentious speech; but it contained one remark, or rather a series of remarks, that were both contentious and inaccurate. When the noble and learned Earl said that, in his opinion, the prestige of your Lordships' House had declined during recent years, that was a complete fallacy. If the noble and learned Earl would take the trouble to examine the position in the country as a whole, I
160
think he would discover that your Lordships' House has seldom, if ever, had greater prestige than it now has throughout the country. It is for that reason that I view with a certain amount of apprehension the penultimate sentence of the gracious Speech in which is announced the Government's intention of investigating the possibilities of improving the composition of your Lordships' House.
Now this country has always progressed slowly in matters of constitutional reform, and I should be perfectly prepared to see minor changes in our composition, but I think it would be a very great mistake on the part of any Government to introduce a comprehensive measure which would attempt radically to alter the composition of your Lordships' House. I should much prefer to see it done piecemeal, though I know that there arc many who are opposed to such a course. Let us rather consider seriatim suggestions such as that for the creation of a limited number of Life Peers, and possibly that for permitting heirs to Peerages to remain Members of another place, or stand for election if they are not already Members, and other matters of that kind. Let us consider each question on its merits, and then, if we think fit, attempt to make the necessary alteration in our Constitution. But wholesale change would, I am convinced, neither add to the reputation of your Lordships' House—which, as I have said, stands very high—nor in any way improve the working of the combined Parliament of this country.
In a few words I should like to support my noble friends Lord Dundee and Lord Teviot in their comments on the most welcome proposals for the improvement of road services in Scotland, with particular reference to the crossing of the Forth, whether such crossing is to be by bridge or by tunnel. I raised this matter in your Lordships' House some months ago, and the reply then given could be described, at best, as noncommittal. But I am very glad indeed that since then the Government have found it possible to state that it is their intention to proceed with this most necessary improvement within a reasonable period of time. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke of a toll which he said should end after a number of years. It does not seem to me that there is any reason why such a toll should not be

161
permanent. The ones that exist in many areas in the United States appear to be permanent and no one seems to grumble about them. Such a toll would go far to produce the necessary revenue for the upkeep of the bridge or tunnel as the case might be.
In connection with this matter of improvement of roads and that of the extension of the housing programme, there is one point which I should like to lay before Her Majesty's Government, though it is one with which they are already all too familiar. I wish to urge them to do as much as they can to spare agricultural land when carrying out these improvements. By the nature of things, our great cities are usually situated in plains where the best agricultural land lies. Equally, roads tend to run along valleys near rivers, which is, again, where we find our best farm land. In this small country—particularly in Scotland, though it applies to the whole of Great Britain—we really cannot afford the unnecessary loss of one acre of good farm land. We know, unfortunately, that as we progress we are bound to lose a great deal more, but I hope that every effort will be made to ensure that the courses of roads are run where possible over less good land, and that houses, where possible, are built in areas which are not of the most valuable description from a farming point of view.
It is rather disappointing to me that until the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke, so far as I am aware there had been no reference in any speech to what—pace him and Lord Strabolgi—I shall continue to call "the Colonial Empire," which term I hope Her Majesty's Government will also continue to use, for it is my view that we have no reason to be ashamed either of our Empire or of so calling it. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give further serious consideration to the question in particular of the West Indies and of their development to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. Now that the Chief Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Norman Manley, is in this country for the purpose of discussing the future banana trade between Great Britain and Jamaica, I trust that opportunity will be taken to have discussions upon a much wider basis than that merely of bananas. Though conditions in the Caribbean have improved generally over
162
the past few years, undoubtedly there is still in every island a vast amount of poverty and malnutrition which, in some cases, amounts to actual starvation—in the case of Jamaica, for example. Although many areas have benefited extensively from the increased amount of sugar cane now grown, from the increased area under bananas, from the ever-growing tourist traffic and, to a lesser extent, from the discovery and exploitation of bauxite, it must be remembered that there are a considerable number of extensive areas which do not enjoy any one of those advantages.
In considering what aid can be given from the Colonial Development Fund, I would urge the Government to bear in mind particularly roads and water supplies. In Jamaica there is much ground which at present is hardly used at all, even for agriculture, because of its inaccessibility. Many of these areas could be opened up without much difficulty by using bulldozers, and roads could be constructed which, although possibly hardly of the type to take ordinary motor cars, would still enable the small settlers to get their produce out, and would open up large untapped sources of agricultural production.
It may surprise your Lordships to learn that although Jamaica has a very high rainfall the problem of water is just as acute as it is in certain parts of Scotland which have an equally high rainfall. That is due to the fact that the terrain of Jamaica is so porous that there exists in the whole of the country only one lake, and that practically at sea level. When water touches the ground, some of it runs down the rivers and streams to the sea, while the rest of it sinks right through the limestone rock and forms natural reservoirs underneath, some of which have been tapped. But much more could be done, thereby rendering fertile many areas, particularly in the south of the island, which at present are of a semidesert nature. The improvement of water supplies, which means the construction of catchments, would be of great benefit to the people all over the island. It is a common sight in Jamaica to see women and small children carrying kerosene cans full of water on their heads for distances of two miles and more, that being their sole water supply for drinking, cooking and washing.

163
The question of population of the West Indies is of paramount importance. Within a generation the population, which is already somewhat larger than can be supported, will be doubled; and then the position will be one which we can regard only with the gravest apprehensions. For that reason the problem must be regarded as of extreme urgency, and it is very much to be hoped that when the Caribbean Federation comes into being we shall be able to induce both British Honduras and British Guiana to accept a suitable number of settlers. That can be done only by the provision from this country of large sums for opening up the hinterlands of both these countries. British Honduras is comparatively small, but British Guiana is very large, and great sums will have to be spent on the construction of roads and the provision of other services before immigration on any substantial scale will be feasible; yet such immigration is the only possible solution on a large scale of this terrible problem of over-population. Where else are these people to go? They are not being accepted any longer, save in very small numbers, either in the United States of America or in the other islands of the Caribbean, which, in any event, are them-selves grossly over-populated. So, hand in hand must go improvement of roads and water supplies in all the islands, not only in Jamaica, together with some attempt to solve the pressing problem of the ever-increasing birthrate in relation to resources which hardly increase at all.
I have already spoken for as long as I intended, but I want to say just a few words on a subject which I did not know was going to be raised to-day but which is one of great importance—that is, the question of the colour bar, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am happy that I am in complete agreement with him on this point. The colour bar operates differently in various areas of the world. It exists somewhat strictly in some of the islands of the Caribbean, but I am happy to say that in Jamaica it has almost disappeared; and such remnants as arc there are going fast. Jamaica is a good example of how, given good will on all sides, black, white and the shades in between can live amicably together. But the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is quite right; there is a great deal of colour
164
prejudice, and it is as harmful and as irrational as anti-Semitism. Whether the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the situation is the best way to find a solution I should not be prepared to say, but this whole question of the colour bar deserves, and I hope will receive at an early date, the earnest consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In conclusion, let me congratulate the Government on producing a gracious Speech which contains in it a great many potential measures which should be of the greatest benefit to the people of this country and what I am still pleased to call the Empire.
5.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, in the last Parliament the Government majority in another place was a narrow one, and I think most people will agree that this had the effect of making it difficult for Ministers in that place to fulfil their respective obligations to Parliament and to the Departments, and also of imposing a serious strain both on the Ministers and on the senior civil servants of their Departments. In this Parliament the strain will not be so great, and I hope that it will be possible and much easier for Ministers to give more time to the Departments than they were able to do in the last Parliament. I feel that that is very necessary, because if the gracious Speech was described in certain quarters as "stodgy" I take it that that was only another way of saying that a great deal of humdrum, honest-to-God administration would be required to implement what was proposed. The proposals in the gracious Speech can be implemented only if the Ministers have proper time to take proper control. I am not saying that the Ministers should spend all their time at their desks, because I hope that they will be able to get out and about, particularly those Ministers in charge of Commonwealth and Empire affairs (again I used the word "Empire"), of agriculture and of industry. There is plenty to do in these directions.
So far as agriculture goes, I think it is fair to say that a start was made by the Minister to take control in the last Parliament. Then we have the questions of local government, re-rating and boundaries. The Departments concerned and the Ministers in charge will need to show

165
a great deal of skill, tact and firmness if the whole thing is not to degenerate into a form of jungle fighting between Whitehall and the local authorities, which otherwise it would do.
In the field of defence I think it is most necessary for the Ministers to give real attention to what is going on at the lower levels of their Departments. The gracious Speech touches on the problem and in certain places talks about the need to maintain our power to meet the obligations of N.A.T.O. and the free world, and of the necessity to keep order, both at home and abroad. One of the things giving most cause for thought at the moment, I believe, is the difficulty in which the defence Ministers and their Departments will find themselves in trying to develop their forces on the modern lines which atomic and nuclear energy demands while maintaining our obligations to N.A.T.O. and our need to keep order elsewhere.
All this is a most complex problem. The right solution, I imagine, depends on what sort of appreciation Service Ministers and Service Departments make of the form which possible aggression might take in the near future. Sometimes one hears the suggestion that because atomic and nuclear energy are in existence, we can assume that any aggressor will not make use of any other method than atomic and nuclear energy. If that were true, it would make the whole matter easy: we could scrap everything that was not atomic or nuclear; we could finish with National Service, and we could send the Home Guard and the Civil Defence home. I do not think that is at all the right way in which we should begin, however, because if we were to take that view we should be assuming that any possible aggressor would disregard the principle of economy of force which used to be one of the principles of war. So I think we must go on assuming, at any rate for the present, that an aggressor has the choice, either of using nuclear or atomic weapons or of using conventional weapons, if he thinks that is the quickest way of doing the job he is going to do.
If that is right, it means that we must do two things during the transition period. We must, of course, go on developing our atomic and nuclear weapons equally for defence as for peace, as is said in
166
the gracious Speech; but we must also see that at no time do we allow our position to be worsened in regard to our power to meet our obligations to N.A.T.O., and to keep order within those areas where we are responsible for keeping order. And we are under the necessity to support our diplomatic effort at what is going to be a most important stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, by seeing that our defence effort matches our diplomatic effort until the final goal is achieved and disarmament becomes not merely a hope, albeit a strong hope, but a matter of practical politics.
So we get this transition period; and when we get a transition period, as has happened before, we get a number of slightly specious arguments. There is the argument which is brought up in Treasury circles which says that, since change is so quick, anything you produce now will he obsolete by the time you produce it. That is a grand argument: it happens to be the argument which deprived this country of tanks for the first two years of the last war, and I hope that it will not be used again. Then you get the argument that, because atomic and nuclear warfare is developing so rapidly, National Service is unnecessary; and from that you get the argument that an inquiry of some kind or other should be held to decide on the necessity, or otherwise, of National Service. I devoutly hope that no-one will listen to any such proposition, and I should like to give my reason for saying that. After all, the need for National Service depends largely on the forecast which the Government make, with the help of their advisers, the Chiefs of Staff, of what is likely to be the need for National Service; and this forecast is bound to depend, to a large extent, on secret information which could not possibly be published as cart of the proceedings of a Royal Commission.
In any case, I do not think there is any difference of opinion in any part of the House, or outside the House, with regard to prolonging National Service, or calling up more men for National Service than are absolutely necessary to fulfil the needs of the time. Therefore, whether you have an inquiry or not, whatever Government are in power will certainly reduce the numbers called up for National Service as soon as it is safe to do so. In the meantime, there are plenty of well-known ways

167
of regulating the number of people called up—and one way, as we see from our newspapers to-day, is to discharge all cricketers with flat feet. What is important is to make certain that no-one called up for National Service is employed on a job which is not really necessary for defence purposes; or, to put it another way which comes to much the same thing, is employed on a job which he will not be the better for doing when he finishes his National Service.
If we are to pursue our policy of reducing National Service as fast as we can, we must, at the same time, see that those National Service men are replaced with Regular Service men who make the Services their career, because at the moment one of the important things that the period of two years' National Service is doing, as opposed to eighteen months, is providing a large proportion of the junior leaders and junior technicians in the Forces. They will be required whatever happens, and they will need to be replaced by career soldiers or airmen, and perhaps even sailors, if National Service men are to be dispensed with. That involves giving a great deal more thought to the question of the lot of Regular soldiers and Regular airmen, and possibly more expense, whatever my noble friend Lord Selkirk may have said. Now that we are in a slightly easier housing period, I think it is legitimate to point to the crying need to improve barracks, or, if you like, the hutted camps. We shall not get men to make a career in the Forces, and we shall not get their wives to allow them to, if the amenities in the Services are not at least as good as those in the Welfare State outside and if there is not some compensation for the frequent moves which Service life entails.
Another job which I am sure needs to be undertaken by those in charge of defence Departments is to take a fresh look at the whole position of voluntary part-time service in peace time: what are the needs for that service; what are the conditions offered; whether, under the new conditions in regard to home defence, we still want what we wanted a few years ago; or if not, what do we want; whether we expect people in civil life to give that service, and if so, how we can make it sufficiently attractive and objective to get the right number of recruits of the right
168
types. The whole question of home defence has been in a mess ever since the Civil Defence Act, 1948. The matter was brought to a head last year by the developments in atomic power, which, rightly, caused the disbanding of Anti-Aircraft Command. But whatever the causes are, the position is still in a mess. Far too many cooks are getting busy with that broth, and we shall not get the matter right until home defence is looked at as one problem, and until we get Ministers to insist on looking at that job as one problem, whatever the number of Departments they now find dealing with different ends of it.
Having said that, I should like to turn now to the needs for a proper state of defence. I would put it this way, and say that one of the advantages—though by no means the only one—which we should get from proper defence and strategic preparations is the maintenance of, and maybe the increase of confidence in, the industrial power of this country. I feel that proper defence preparations definitely have their effect on the strength of the pound sterling and the confidence which overseas investors might well feel in placing their money in this country. I do not think we should underrate the contribution which sound defence can make in that respect.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: This is a very important point. Will the noble Viscount look back to the early part of 1951? After the proposal to extend the triennial defence programme to £4,700 million there was such a rush on raw materials and such a strain on sterling that you created the financial crisis of 1951.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I quite appreciate what the noble Viscount has said, but I was assuming that the defence expenditure would be regulated in such a way as not to cause a crisis; and I have confidence in my noble friends in front of me not to do that. However, the two things go largely together, just as I am sure that we are getting now to a very critical stage with our trade in this country. We are meeting far more competition than we have met up to now. The Germans and the Japanese are in the market. Our cost of living here has to be kept down if the prices at which we offer our goods are to be kept down. If those prices are not kept down our

169
goods will not be bought but the goods which arc being offered by the foreigners at lower prices will be bought. Therefore, the whole question is vital to this matter of full employment.
There is another factor which creates a need for extreme care, and that is that two of our most important markets, Australia and New Zealand, are both going through a period of an adverse balance of payments which is limiting the amount they can take from this country, however much they want to take goods from us. That is why I was glad to see in the gracious Speech that economic development of the Commonwealth and Empire is to be encouraged. That is going on now. It was most heartening to read, and to hear in East Africa when I was there, that the World Bank is providing a loan for improved transport in the form of railways and harbours in East Africa. It was most heartening to hear that the Kariba Scheme in Rhodesia has been agreed upon. All these things are most necessary, and the Government of this country must encourage them. Equally, it is necessary for industry in this country to make every effort to produce competitive tenders and competitive prices, in order that the orders for capital goods come home and do not go abroad. My noble friend Lord Mansfield, who has just sat down, referred to the same sort of subject when he was talking about the West Indies.
Look at it from another way. Many of us hope that before very long the pound sterling will be convertible; but it can be convertible, and convertibility can be round the corner, only if we maintain our confidence in the pound sterling. We certainly shall not maintain it if, for any reason, people overseas think we are incapable of producing the goods or of maintaining our deliveries. That is another reason for thankfulness and relief that the stoppage of work on the railways has now ended. It is too early, and in any case extremely difficult, to measure the loss of confidence that a stoppage of that sort might represent in the minds of foreign buyers. After all, disputes of that sort are, in a sense, luxuries which at the present time we can ill-afford if we are not to damage our means of creating the wealth to pay for the things that are promised in the gracious Speech and which, to a large extent, are part of the policy of all the main Parties.
170
A great deal can be done, as was hinted by the Prime Minister in another place, in encouraging profit-sharing schemes. In some industries it is not easy to produce profit-sharing schemes, but in the manufacturing industries it is very easy, and most necessary, to produce some sort of incentive bonus, based on output, which, directly or indirectly, passes some of the profit made by the company to the people who are actually manufacturing, selling or helping in some way. That is a most necessary thing, and I hope that full use will be made of such schemes in order to make everyone, in every manufacturing concern, feel that he has a definite and distinct part to play in what is undoubtedly the national need to keep up our production. And we must realise that our failure to do so will be a national danger. A great deal of hard work will have to be done if the programme outlined in the gracious Speech is to be realised, but if good will is there on all sides, and there is good team work, then there is no reason why the plan outlined in the gracious Speech should not go steadily forward.
5.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, this debate appeals to me as being somewhat in the atmosphere about which the Press commented so much during our visits to the hustings—it has been very quiet all the way through. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not like the words in the gracious Speech being described as "stodgy," any more than he seemed to like the comment of the London Times of April 30, that the Tory Election programme was "woolly," and other remarks of that kind. I must say that the gracious Speech is a very long one. There are many references in it to a large number of subjects, and when somebody like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, feels bound to leave it entirely to see what the Administration are going to make of it (because there is nothing more concrete in the gracious Speech than that), then we can only say at this stage that we shall really have to "Wait and see." We hope it will meet with good results—we all hope that our country will always meet with good results.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, at the outset of his speech, made a reference which I liked very much. That was the

171
reference to our great rejoicing over the end of this most unfortunate and damaging industrial dispute, which has led to such a serious interference with our general life and which has been such a threat to the general build-up of the economic position we require to reach. As I understand the position, the settlement involves reference to a great and learned Lord Justice, and I take it that under the terms of reference the parties to the dispute will abide by the decision which he is called upon to make. I think I speak for my Party when I say that we welcome this method of procedure for dealing with the matter. The only pity of it is that it could not have been arranged many days earlier. I am not blaming anybody for that. I am not blaming the Government in any way. However, it sets a pointer; and whereas there might be great difficulty in trying to follow the example of Australia by having a legislative basis for compulsory arbitration—which has not, by any means, always been successful—it is better to have a willingness to state a case on each side and to have it referred to this kind of real and factual consideration in order to try to get a settlement than some of the other methods which have been applied. Therefore, we welcome the statement of the noble Earl very much indeed.
The noble Earl referred to the agricultural subsidies as amounting to £250 million. I do not quarrel with the great spirit of support of the farmers which he evinced, and his hope that it will work out to the benefit of the farmers; but they do not by any means get the whole of the £250 million. On any examination of the actual process through the channels of production, distribution and the like, one finds that it is a very small part of the £250 million that goes into the pockets of the farmers. They very much resent its being said that they get all of it. They pointed out in their conference last January twelvemonth that they have been put in a position which is out of place with that of nearly all the other large industries in the country which are afforded statutory protection. There is no other means of providing farmers with the kind of incentive to production that is given to other industries which are on a secure basis as a result of statutory
172
protection. I hope that when the noble Earl looks at the matter again, he will agree with what I have said.
I was interested, as I am sure my colleagues who listened were, to hear that the noble Earl agreed with my noble and learned Leader on his three main points regarding trade and economics. He said that of course the Government were willing to use any method which was applicable to the situation; that they had used controls and, of course, would not hesitate to use again whatever controls were necessary. After the Election campaigns of 1951 and 1955, it appears that it is only just a question of which variety of controls the Tories are committed to—whether they are to be on the special lines that we had, within a general planned economy, or whether they are to be, as exercised in what is supposed to be the new free political world, penal and certainly very often unjust. I must say I thought that was very peculiar indeed.
Let us see what the implication of this sort of policy is upon our economic practices. We do not need to go to any Socialist handbook or trade union brochure to learn about the fears for the future. I thought the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, upon the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on May 2, following that of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was most revealing of the real situation facing the Government. Much of it has arisen without their special contribution to the creation of difficulty, and it has been aggravated by the two main strikes which have occurred; but, of course, much of it also has been caused by their policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, just now said something about the need to deal with what I might call the nexus between cost of living, wages, prices and general capacity for competing in the world. As he was speaking, I thought there was a great pointer to that this morning in the announcement made by Sir Basil Sanderson, of the Shaw Savill Line, that his company are ordering four great ships for the New Zealand line traffic.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): Three.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Four, I thought.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): One in Belfast.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But three abroad—I had not quite finished. I was going to say that of the four ships they were ordering, three were to be ordered from Bremen at a cost of over £3 million, on the ground that there was going to be 15 per cent. difference in price and up to eight months speeding up in delivery. It is perfectly true that the general overall cost of living has increased by 8 per cent. in the last three and three-quarter years in this country; but the ratio of food prices has become one of the principal factors in the pressure for increase of wages, and wages have become a large factor in the question of increasing prices of production for export. The Government have a very heavy load to bear. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, promised the electorate in 1951 that they were not going to remove the subsidies.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: It is a very old story, but if the noble Viscount will insist on bringing politics into this debate, he might finish the sentence.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should be glad to do so if I had it by me, but certainly they were making great promises. The fact of the matter is that the largest increase in the cost of living in the last three and three-quarter years has been centred round food commodities, and that has been chiefly responsible for the increasing pressure from the industrial workers for rises in wages. That has had a great effect upon our general costs of production. It is far better to spread the cost of giving any help we can give to our export trade over the whole of the taxpayers, as was being done, than to adopt the methods suggested, and indeed put into practice, by the Government.
For example, what would be the effect of the kind of control that the noble Earl obviously indicated if the situation regarding the balance of payments, pictured by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, should arise in the next few months and you still further restricted credit by the ancient use of the bank rate method? Apparently, the Government have still not learnt how that reacts upon industry.
174
I hope they will give some little attention to it. They might take the lesson from how it is reacting upon themselves. On matters of that sort, I like to go to documentary evidence. I have here a copy of the Midland Bank Review. I cannot be accused again of quoting from special Party sources when I say that the Midland Bank Review for May, 1955, refers to the effects on Government borrowings of the rise in the bank rate. They are fundamental. Treasury Bills that were costing the country 10s. per cent. under a Labour Government in 1951 are costing, at the end of May, something like £3·85 per cent.—very nearly £4 per cent. It has its effect upon productivity and it has its effect upon the use of credit by the Public Works Loan Board. The whole of the activity that we want to see devolved upon local authorities is being handicapped, cribbed, cabined and confined. Bank rate may have to be increased in some cases of necessity, but to suggest that that is the kind of control which will be more effective in helping us to reach our general objective of a sound economic level in a planned economy for the whole country just does not make sense, in my experience of what has happened.
I hope that the wise and cautious words of the much more temperate speech that my noble and learned Leader always gives to the House than I do—not that I want to be rude or anything of that kind; it is just my way of putting a case—when he raised this question yesterday, will be given much attention. Now that the noble Earl has committed the Government to exercise whatever controls are required to meet the situation, I hope they will not be too nervous about getting the right sort of controls and making them of such a kind that will lead to a general improvement in the whole national economy.
There are one or two other points to which I should like to draw attention. I was sorry that the noble Marquess was not here when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was speaking, although I expect he has heard of the speech. I thought it an excellent speech. I did not agree with all of it, but it brought home to us, at a time when Mr. Manley is visiting us from Jamaica and no doubt is making contacts with Ministers, what is the position in Jamaica in particular, and the generally desirable objectives to

175
be reached to bring relief to the West Indies, and especially the development of the Federation. If the noble Marquess is unable to answer the noble Earl today, I sincerely hope that at some time when either he or the Under-Secretary for the Colonies is speaking we may have more detail from the Government about what is the actual plan for dealing with those matters.
I was exceedingly interested in the speech of my noble friend Lord Listowel, and especially in what he had to say about Cyprus. Although I certainly do not intend to go into the detail of his general submissions on Cyprus—it would take far too long—I do want to draw the attention of the noble Marquess to the note from the London Times correspondent in Athens, on May 29, which said that
"Greek officials have announced that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's Mediterranean headquarters in Malta has acceded to the Greek Government's request that Greece be excluded from all Allied exercises until further notice."
In the cutting it is explained that they want to do some work for themselves in connection with the earthquake, reclamations and so on. But at the end the correspondent went on to say:
"There is no doubt in the minds of foreign observers here that this is a specious pretence for the cancellation of the 'operational visit' of British warships to Greek ports in the course of the exercise after recent developments in the Anglo-Greek dispute over Cyprus."
My noble friend spoke about the possibility of a dangerous rift in our generally developing North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for defence in the Mediterranean, and I hope that when the Government are considering the submissions made by my noble friend they will consider this aspect of it. If the noble Marquess has any knowledge of it, perhaps he will tell us exactly what he thinks about it.
The speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, which I had not expected, was nevertheless interesting. He said that the greater expenditure upon and organisation of defence might well bring financial confidence in the country. I suppose that may be true sometimes but, with my hand upon my heart, I can say that my experience in 1950-51 proved just the opposite. I listened to the Prime Minister when he
176
broadcast his first Election speech. I thought it was a nice speech and I really had no reason at all to criticise it until, at the end, he seemed to me to make the suggestion that the country must have confidence in those who are going to undertake the control of our foreign affairs and continue a policy of negotiating from strength. All I have to say about that is this. On the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I would point out that in 1950 we had to increase our Defence Estimate for a triennial period from £3,500 million to £4,700 million. That did not bring confidence financially. In November-December, 1950, I saw the rush for raw materials in New Zealand and Australia, and then the consequent strain upon sterling. That, and especially the rush upon sterling in the following months of 1951, was the main cause of the growing financial restrictions. So I would not put down that point of the noble Viscount as being a wholly sound argument.
Then the noble Viscount came to talk about the general problems of high office. I have no general quarrel with his main approach to that question, and about the types of weapon which will have to be considered—whether they are going to be used, and what equipment will be necessary. I have no quarrel with his general approach. He is a most experienced staff officer. But I am concerned with what is the real danger to the country to-day. I do not want to say too much of a dampening nature, but the noble Marquess has long experience in the handling of foreign affairs, and I think that the Foreign Office like to hear views from outside on what is considered to be a question of critical decision. I would say that we stand to-day in a position of almost greater danger than any in which we have stood at any time since the war, because there seem to me to be movements going on which quite possibly would defeat the undoubted objective of the Government and of those who properly support their view within the federation of free nations—namely, to have a defence of the free Western world which is at the proper place, and with the correct view of how we in this country should stand behind that defence.
I am not giving any real secrets away when I speak of how from time to time one has to consider the way in which America has reacted to this matter. There

177
is no question at all but that we have heard a great deal about an ultimate defence line from the Pyrenees to Casablanca. That I should call retiring to a defence upon the extreme rearward periphery, whereas what we are all trying to seek is a real union of free nations in Europe who will be fighting on an internal defence line that is going to protect them. That is the great question we have to settle, and that is where the greatest danger lies to-day. The problem on the European side of foreign affairs to-day is fundamental. The Government have had very great difficulty. I had great sympathy with the present Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, in the difficulties he had to face, and great sympathy indeed for him in regard to the contingencies which were arising all the time. He saw E.D.C. defeated from 1952; M. Schumann sacked, and the M.R.P. becoming non-effective. Now he has achieved Western Union and he has got the new approach of Russia, which I should like to see coming to negotiation. But I should like the negotiation to come upon a reasonable basis.
Frankly, if we are to maintain the question of the internal defence that I have mentioned, we must certainly not permit of the neutrality of Germany in this matter. I am bound to say that I view with some concern the separate visit by Dr. Adenauer to Moscow. So far as one can tell from the communications sent by Moscow to Germany, the position is not merely one of talking things over: it is really to insist that Dr. Adenauer should discuss other matters separately, including the alliances. I know that the noble Marquess may well say to me that Dr. Adenauer is probably going to see the Foreign Secretary, and maybe the Prime Minister, when they go to the United States; but I think that Dr. Adenauer ought to know that there would he considerable concern in this country w ere there to be any attempt to win him away from the statements which, I am glad to see, he made during the course of consideration of the offer from Moscow, on Germany's inability to accept a neutral position. In my view, it is fundamental that the Western Union must be kept together upon the general basis on which it was formed, and with the same objectives in mind. That is why I am glad that the discussions at top level ("summit talks"
178
is the title they are now given) are to take place fairly early.
Why am I so concerned about it? Here perhaps I am on difficult ground, where one has more or less to rely upon personal recollection of history. In the course of more than forty years of political experience I have seen many great national and international dangers arise, and sometimes I have had to sit down years afterwards and try to discover how those had arisen. When I consider the attitude of the Romish Church, so different from any other religious organisation in the world, with its own position as a temporal power, with its ambassadorial representation in nearly every national Chancellery, and when I start to trace what has happened in the past, I begin to wonder what is going on at the present time. The mind goes back to the days after the First Great War and to the position taken up for a time by the social revolutionary, Mussolini. He made contact with a cardinal in Milan, and there was next something of an agreement between him and the Romish Church which ultimately ended with the Lateran Treaty of 1929—and then came Abyssinia and after that the Fascist Axis.
When one looks at history one does not see all the decent, fine, individual Roman Catholics in the world who are involved; one sees what has been the work of these secret societies within this Romish control which have so much to do with policy. I pick up a copy of the Universe, the Roman Catholic paper, and I see a report from Rome which says that it is necessary for them to deny in the Osservatore Romano—the official Vatican newspaper—that there is a secret society working within the Vatican. They then go on to comment upon the fact that it is wrong to suppose that the Curia, the general body of the Roman Catholic priesthood, has anything to do with these outside influences—trying, in fact, to give the impression that there is no great schism in this matter at the moment.
Then I see, in another edition of the Universe. that a Jesuit priest has returned from Russia—so-called "released"—with word that, in spite of all that has been said on both sides, Russia is returning to God. I am just wondering whether there is some move going on for the kind of Axis that these people set

179
up; first Mussolini, then the Lateran Treaty and Abyssinia; they then got Von Papen to lead the Roman Catholic Party in Germany over to the side of Hitler, with Von Papen himself ending up, during the war, as the German Ambassador to Turkey. I do ask the representative of the Foreign Office to take particular note of the present situation and to regard it very carefully, because I believe that perhaps the greatest need of all at the present time is that we should come to something like the kind of change which came to Europe with Martin Luther. We read in our history of a new learning. We, at the present time, need a real new learning to deal with the situation confronting us, and a return throughout the world to standards which would be in accordance with the vows on the Protestant faith that we in this House take, and that Her Gracious Majesty took when she ascended the Throne. As I have often said before, man will be free, and will fight till he is free; and no peace that may be arranged which does not give freedom between nations will ever bring real peace. We believe that to be free you must be free in every respect.
As your Lordships can well imagine—and I am sure the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will agree with me—I am not suggesting, on these subjects which I have put before your Lordships, that I have anything to do except to ask Her Majesty's Government to see that this matter is very carefully examined. I say that in the light of history, and of facts which. had I had time, I was going to quote from Vatican newspapers, as reproduced in the Universe. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will very carefully watch this new line-up, as it may well prove to be, between Moscow and Rome. If anything else were needed to confirm a Conservative Administration upon that point, it might perhaps be found by examination of the Encyclical Letter for the beginning of May of this year, 1955, which will be found to state (I am speaking from memory) that capitalism is not conformable to Nature and, indeed, not in accordance with God's law. It seems to me that the major Moscow moves have been made after the issue of that Encyclical Letter.
180
I hope that I have not sprung a tremendous surprise upon the House about this matter, but it does not hurt us at any time to try to examine our own immediate, intricate and puzzling problems, in the light of what we have been able to perceive from events. I would end by saying to Her Majesty's Government, whatever else I may say, however much I may criticise, that I am most anxious that they shall secure the greatest possible success in getting this general settlement between the nations on the basis of a free people and not one which is either under the dictation of an overwhelming Power or under a kind of dictation from a power which claims to be both temporal and spiritual.
6.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it falls to me this afternoon to say the last word on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the end of our two days' debate on the humble Address. This debate, as noble Lords will know, traditionally being concerned with all the topics included in the gracious Speech, covers the whole political scene. Nothing is excluded from it. In my experience, at least, it always, therefore, ranges very wide, and this has certainly been no exception to that rule. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has just spoken, said that it had been a quiet debate. Well, it has been unusually quiet, although debates in your Lordships' House are never extremely noisy. But, if not controversial it has, at any rate, certainly been extremely comprehensive. I am, in fact, rather embarrassed by the plethora of questions which I have been asked to deal with and to answer—foreign affairs, Imperial affairs, defence, atomic energy, home economic policy, and reform of the House of Lords. Those are just a few; and, to me, it sounds much more like a good list of subjects for debates to occupy a whole Session, than headings for a single speech in your Lordships' House.
With many of the subjects that have been raised, I do not propose to deal. They have already been discussed by the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, in the very remarkable speech which he delivered to your Lordships last night, and also by my noble friend Lord Selkirk this afternoon. And that, of course, applies particularly to home affairs. I do not want

181
—time, in any case, would hardly permit—to trench on the same ground again, especially as both noble Lords spoke with very much more authority on those subjects than I could hope to do. I, therefore, shall say very little on such subjects as finance and economics, full employment, inflation and matters of that kind, which have found a place in many of the speeches to which we have listened. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will forgive me if I do not follow him into that field, for, if I did my speech, I warn him, would be absolutely endless.
There is, however, one sphere—and perhaps it is the most important of all—which Lord Woolton left to me. That is, of course, foreign affairs. On these, something, clearly, should be said, especially in view of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, to which we have just listened, and of the important speech which was delivered to us earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Lord Henderson, if I may say so in his presence, is always listened to with very great attention in this House. He always speaks with moderation and, if I may say so, with a total lack of partisan bias upon the problems which face our country in the international field. To-day he spoke, just as we should have expected. As I understood him, he reaffirmed his Party's support, first, of the United Nations; secondly, of the Atlantic Alliance, and, thirdly, of disarmament, as the ultimate aim of our policy. I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome the assurances which he gave on behalf of his Party in this House. It immensely strengthens the influence in the world of any British Government that it should be known that all Parties alike support these three main buttresses of British policy.
The noble Lord referred, very rightly, with satisfaction to the progress of preparations which are being made for Four Power talks at the highest level, which are to take place, as we all know, at an early date. It will, I imagine, come as no surprise to him if I ay that I cannot go into any great detail at the present juncture on this subject. He knows, I suppose, as well as anyone in the House, the dangers that might easily flow from Governments being forced, or even wheedled, by their Parliaments into taking up public positions, before they enter into delicate
182
conversations with each other. As Professor E. H. Carr has wisely said, in his study of foreign policy from the time of the Versailles Treaty to the outbreak of the Second World War—a work published some years ago, that I have read with very great interest:
"Democracy must remain in ultimate control of foreign policy. But some means must be devised by which British interests in vital and delicate negotiations shall not be imperilled by a fire of public exhortation and comment directed at the negotiators."
As we who have also worked there all know, Professor Carr worked for many years in the Foreign Office. There are others who would, I am sure, re-echo his words.
However, I can, I think, go so far as to say this as to the present position in Europe, the position with which the negotiators will have to deal. It seems to me, as I think it seemed to the other noble Lords who have spoken on these questions, that there are encouraging signs—what one might call hints of the possibility of better things on both sides of the Iron Curtain which has so long divided Europe. On the Western side, after all the hesitations and delays which have for so long frustrated every effort of Western statesmen—the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, also referred to this subject just now—a new chapter really does seem to have opened. The occupation of Western Germany, which was an inevitable legacy of the last war, has come to an end, and the Western European Union, with Germany and Italy full members, has come into being. Old enmities, we may hope, have been ended and new friendships, we may hope, are being forged. That, of course, would in itself be very welcome to all of us. It is the more welcome at the present juncture because it provides a common base for the Western Powers to come together to make a further advance towards a general relaxation of world tension.
At the same time (I think Lord Henderson mentioned this) there are, equally some signs, as I see it, of a more accommodating spirit on the further side of the Iron Curtain. There is, for instance, the decision of the Soviet Government to bring to an end the division of Austria, to withdraw their troops from that country and to restore her independence. There was a time, not so very long ago, during discussions upon these matters in

183
this House, when the conclusion of an Austrian State Treaty seemed to most of us an unattainable aim. It looked as if the occupation of Austria was something which might well be with us throughout our lives, and possibly long after. And now the Treaty is an accomplished fact. It is no longer something far off in the future; it is something that has been done. And that gesture towards Austria, as we all know, has since been followed by a further gesture towards Yugoslavia. Of course, none of us knows what lies behind this new trend, or this apparently new trend, of Russian policy. Does it represent a change of heart? Or is it merely the realisation by Russia of a growing equality of strength in the West and a desire to reinsure against it? Or is it, finally, the first result of the development of the hydrogen bomb, with all that that must mean even for the greatest and most extended countries? Time alone will show exactly what is in the minds of the Russian Government. But, if I may use such a metaphor, there do appear to be some signs of the breaking up of the ice jam after the winter. One can only hope that it will prove to be a precursor of the spring. At any rate, I think we all agree that the moment seems propitious for a Four Power meeting at the highest level.
This is the present position. As your Lordships know, we have proposed to the Soviet Government that the heads of Government should meet in Geneva on the 18th July. The Soviet Government have now accepted that proposal. This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary leaves for New York, where he hopes to continue with Mr. Foster Dulles and M. Pinay the talks which he had a few weeks ago in Paris. He will be present in San Francisco at the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations, and, since Mr. Molotov will also be there, the Foreign Secretary hopes to resume the informal discussions which he began with him in Vienna, both on general topics and with regard to the arrangements for the Four Power meeting. Beyond that I cannot go at the present stage. It would be idle, as Lord Henderson said, for us, at the present moment, to speculate as to what exact course those talks are likely to take. I can only repeat what is the gist of the words of the gracious Speech: that Her Majesty's Government do genuinely
184
and hopefully look forward to fruitful negotiations. Let me add, that I am, quite sure that there will be no desire unduly to restrict the scope of the exchanges of views which will take place.
Now I should like, if I may, to turn for a moment to the Middle East. I was asked by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, whether I could say anything about Palestine and about the recent unhappy incidents which have occurred between the Jews and the Egyptians. The noble and learned Earl rightly stressed the importance of that area to the peace of the whole Middle East. I honestly wish I could give a more reassuring account, but I am afraid it is idle to deny that the situation at Gaza provides serious ground for disquiet. Unhappily, incidents seem to continue on both sides of the frontier. There are reports of Israeli vehicles blown up by mines on their own side of the line and then of retaliation by Israeli forces against Egyptian military forces on the other side of the line. As your Lordships probably know, General Burns and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation are at present doing their best to calm the situation, and we and the United States and French Governments are giving the fullest support to their efforts. I understand that a number of practical proposals have been put forward to ease the situation, and at present General Burns is engaged in trying to bring the parties together so that they may discuss them at rather higher levels than is allowed for by the machinery of the Mixed Armistice Commission.
In the meantime, we—that is to say, Her Majesty's Government—have made clear to both parties that we feel that they should co-operate with General Burns in the efforts to relieve tension. One can only hope that these efforts will be successful and that talks will soon begin again. In our view, and, I am certain, in the view of every noble Lord, this will be to the interest of the parties themselves and of general peace throughout the Middle East.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, ever since the new arrangements with Egypt we have been anxious as to the exact situation in which we stand with Israel, as the noble Marquess knows, and particularly with

185
regard to the passage of goods through the Suez Canal. We have still a very important interest in the Canal. What are we doing to try to avoid the continuance of that position? We have a grave responsibility there. I am sure it is receiving the attention of the Foreign Office, but I should like to be assured about that, because it is half the difficulty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should have liked notice of that question, because it is rather technical, but I understand from my noble friend, the Marquess of Reading, that there has been no recent change in the position.
The noble and learned Earl also asked whether I have any information which I could give him about the situation of the Arab refugees, of whose plight noble Lords are all aware. Here, again, I regret to say that the situation still remains far from satisfactory. At the same time, I think I ought to add that I find, from inquiries I have made (because the noble and learned Earl was good enough to give me notice that he intended to ask this question), that the reports which were published in the Press early this year and which the noble and learned Earl may have seen, that there was widespread ill-health among the refugees, appear happily to have been exaggerated. The noble and learned Earl will he glad to learn that new hospitals have already been opened for the relief of those suffering from tuberculosis, which was one of the evils afflicting the refugees, and the Government hope that further progress will be made with this problem when the United Nations' Relief-and-Works Agency receive the result of recent investigations which have been carried out by the World Health Organisation. In the meantime, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that the Government are watching every opportunity that presents itself of alleviating the lot of these unhappy people. As he knows, there is not an immense amount that can immediately be done, but we are fully aware of their suffering and we want to do what we can to assist them.
There are one or two other questions in the international field with which perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt now. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, was a little worried at there being mention in the gracious Speech of the Western Union, but no mention of the Council
186
of Europe. He was worried whether it implied any shift of emphasis in Government policy. The short answer which would be given in another place is, "No, sir." There certainly has been no such shift. The position is exactly as it was. I think the practical proof of this is that the new Foreign Secretary, I understand from inquiries I have made, who is well-known as one of the oldest protagonists of the Council of Europe, has already decided that he will himself attend the meetings at Strasbourg this autumn.
Perhaps I ought now to say a word about the Far East, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred. Here I have nothing very definite to report, but at any rate we can (if I may use a French word for which I think there is no exact English equivalent) constater, that here, as in other parts of the world, there has been some relaxation both of hostile acts and hostile propaganda in connection with the Formosa problem. I am sure that all of us will welcome that as warmly as the Government do themselves. I hope most sincerely, with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that that relaxation will be maintained and extended. In order to assist that aim, quite recently Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires in Pekin has been in touch with Mr. Chou En-lai to try to obtain some clarification of the statement which was made by the Chinese delegate at the Bandoeng Conference about the willingness of the Chinese Government to open negotiations with the United States Government; and I expect that some of your Lordships know that Mr. Krishna Menon, who has been-very active in these affairs, has also been in Pekin discussing that particular point. So far as I know, nothing very definite has yet emerged from these approaches, but it is our hope that the discussions which have already been held will enable us to continue exchanges for the purpose of further relieving tension and bringing nearer the solution of the present difficulties in the Far East.
Indeed, there are some signs already which I trust noble Lords will regard as not unhopeful. One is the release of the four airmen imprisoned in China, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has already referred; yet another is the statement by Mr. Chou En-lai on May 13, that
"the Chinese people were willing to strive for the liberation of Formosa by peaceful means, so far as it was possible."

187
That may not go very far, but still I think it is a step in the right direction. I do not want to raise false hopes in these matters. Of course, the situation remains delicate. But I think that we can, at any rate, as I have said, register a small but definite improvement; and that is a great deal more than could have been said the last time I addressed your Lordships on this subject. I think the right course now for all concerned is to feel our way steadily forward, not indeed attempting to go too fast, because that may only frighten either one party or another, but never relaxing our efforts—to keep, as it were, a steady pressure for peace. So alone, I believe, by combined patience and resolution, will the position in the Far East be finally stabilised.
Before I pass from the subject of foreign affairs, I would add a word about a kindred subject. Together with foreign affairs always goes defence. The two are inseparable, for without defence forces—and by defence forces I mean adequate defence forces—one cannot really have an effective foreign policy at all. That is the hard truth; one that we all have to recognise. It is for that reason that I welcome so warmly the speech made by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. He spoke with wisdom and with the authority which he has on the subject to which he addresses himself. That speech was full of "meat," and I should like to study it before I make any further comment on it. I believe that such a study would be of great use to the whole House. It may form the foundation for a debate on defence when the time is ripe for that.
In the meantime, I would say that, whatever fears may be expressed in some quarters—I am referring to some words which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, used in the latter part of his speech—I frankly do not share them. I have full confidence in Herr Adenauer; I believe him to be a great man and a strong man, and I think, as a result, that the situation is certainly better than it was a short time ago. Still less, if I may say so, do I share the other views which the noble Viscount expressed at the end of his speech; they seemed to me to be absolutely fantastic. Everybody is entitled to his own views, and the noble Viscount may not share mine; but in view of the
188
record of those parties that he mentioned, I can hardly believe in the sort of danger which he appeared to anticipate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If the noble Marquess is passing from foreign affairs, I would say that I note what he says, but in view of his having had no notice of this matter I think I shall have to raise it again and perhaps bring even more impressive proof.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that case, no doubt we shall do our best to give the noble Viscount an answer—and when I say that, I do not mean an answer in the sense that we shall repulse what he says; we should like to hear what he has to say. I personally cannot believe in the sort of fears he mentioned and the sort of sinister forces that he believed to exist. However, that is a matter of personal opinion.
I should now like to turn to another sphere which I think is quite as important to us in this country, in its own way, as are foreign affairs. I refer to the Commonwealth and Empire. Of the general relations between the members of the Commonwealth there is little that I need say. They remain as close and as cordial as they have always been. I think, under all British Governments. No doubt on this or that issue we have our small differences, but, broadly speaking, our relations remain a model for other nations to follow and, I believe, always will do so.
In the colonial sphere, to which a good deal of attention was devoted by various noble Lords, a number of questions were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about which I feel I should say something. First, he spoke of Cyprus. This, as I am sure your Lordships will all realise, is an extremely delicate subject; it is about the most delicate subject there is at the moment. The noble Earl was good enough to tell me that he intended to raise this matter, and I have been in touch with my right honourable friend, the Colonial Secretary, who tells me that there is nothing he can usefully add at present to his statement of May 5. However, I think I may usefully remind your Lordships, if you have not lately studied that speech, that there was in it a broad definition of our policy which I should like to quote—and as it is a Ministerial statement on behalf of the Government,

189
I do not think it will be outside the Rules of Order if I quote the words used by my right honourable friend in another place. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 540 (No. 83), col. 1993]:
"Her Majesty's Government have in Cyprus a number of duties which it is our intention to fulfil; to carry out a strategic responsibility on which, in our belief, our survival, Greece's survival, the survival of Turkey and the N.A.T.O. nations and, indeed, the free world depend; to maintain law and order and promote economic advance; we have the will and the means to do all those things, and we also want orderly constitutional development. For that, of course, we need co-operation and if we are given that co-operation we will pursue that end, I assure the House, with precisely the same vigour as our other aims."
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if do not go further than that to-day. I know that the Secretary of State will consider carefully everything that has been said by the noble Earl this afternoon on behalf of his Party—and I recognise that he was speaking not only for himself but for his Party as well. I am sure he will believe me when I say quite earnestly to him that I do not think it would be helpful to the situation at the present moment if I were to go further than I have.
Then the noble Earl raised some points regarding Singapore, and wanted to know what was the position in Singapore arising from the present troubles. I have here a statement, and I think it conforms with the statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend, and I am sure that the noble Earl and the House would like to have it here. I do not think I can do better than inform the House along the lines of the statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is making today in another place. This is what he says:
"There has been an organised attack on the authority of the newly-elected Labour Front Government by extreme left-wing politicians, including members of the People's Action Party. These, with the help of well-organised pupils from the Chinese Middle Schools, have worked to prevent any compromise in industrial disputes and to excite strikers to acts of violence. Their aim has clearly been to discredit moderation and to subvert constitutional processes. These reckless tactics resulted on the night of the 12th May in an outbreak of rioting in which four men were killed. I should like to express on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and, I am sure, of the whole House, our deep sympathy with the families of all those who lost their lives. Only the magnificent forbearance and firmness of the
190
police prevented further and more extensive damage and casualties. The strike which was the ostensible cause of the agitation leading up to the earlier troubles has been settled. It is, however, clear that those responsible for the riots are undeterred by the bloodshed which has been caused and are prepared to continue using the same tactics. Sudden strikes have been called by unions dominated by the People's Action Party and on Monday last there was an attempt to call a general strike.
"The Singapore Government have warned the persons responsible for these troubles that they will not tolerate these attempts to use violence to thwart the mandate so recently given to them. Responsible leaders of the Trade Union Congress have warned their members not to allow themselves to be used as tools to further the political ambitions of persons who have no real regard for their interests. On Saturday last the Government authorised the arrest of a number of key agitators who were playing a large part in the general strike threatened for Monday. About 15,000 men were on strike on Monday, but in a statement in the morning papers of that day, the T.U.C. called upon 'all trade unions to maintain restraint on their activities and not to take hasty action which might worsen the present Industrial unrest.'
"I have no doubt that the great body of ordinary, decent people in Singapore are anxious to help their Government in carrying out the paramount duty which it owes to all citizens of the Colony, the maintenance of law and order. In this they may be assured of the full support of Her Majesty's Government. Upon the maintenance of law and order depend alike the economic stability of this great centre of trade and the success of the bold constitutional advance which it has just made."
That is the position which exists at the present moment, and I have no doubt that if there are further developments and the noble Earl puts down a Question we shall be happy to answer it.
From Singapore the noble Earl turned to the Caribbean, and he asked me a number of questions in relation to that area. First, he asked what progress was being made towards the establishment of a British Caribbean Federation. The present position is as follows. The three Commissions set up to consider the fiscal, civil service and judicial aspects of federation have started work. The issues they have to consider are complex and far-reaching. The Commissions will work as quickly as they can, but they cannot all be expected to present their Reports before the autumn of this year. After the Reports have been considered by the West Indian Governments and by Her Majesty's Government a revised federal plan will be drawn up for consideration at a conference of representatives of West Indian Colonies who will, it is hoped,

191
have power to act on behalf of their Governments. It is unlikely that a conference can be held before the turn of the year. When the final plan has been agreed, the drafting of the necessary constitutional instruments will have to be completed and a Bill introduced into Parliament. With all these stages to be completed, it is doubtful whether we shall see a Caribbean Federal Government in being before 1957. Her Majesty's Government will, however, carry out all the stages within their control with the utmost expedition. We want, as I know the noble Earl does, to get this Federation as soon as we can, but I have had experience of the formation of Federations, and it is a very slow job.
The noble Earl asked a second question arising really out of the first: can British Guiana and British Honduras, that is to say, the two Colonies on the mainland, be represented at the final conference? The answer to that question is that Her Majesty's Government certainly wish to see these two mainland territories represented at the final conference. The Commissions have been asked to take account of the possibility of the territories joining the Federation and of arrangements being made—I think this is the special point he made—for them to come in later if they should wish to do so. Then he asked further whether consideration will be given to the possibility of early elections in British Guiana, so that it will be possible to obtain a valid expression of public opinion in the Colony on federation. As the noble Earl knows, the British Guiana Legislative Council, which is not an elected body, included in their resolution in favour of the Colony joining the Federation a request to the Governor to take steps to ascertain the state of public opinion towards federation. The present position is that my right honourable friend is waiting for a recommendation from British Guiana on that request. Clearly, however—and I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate this—a return to representative government can be considered only in the light of the general political situation: and this, I can assure him, will continue to be very carefully watched.
Finally, the noble Earl asked whether, when federation is in being. Her
192
Majesty's Government will take the initiative in asking Commonwealth Governments to invite the Federal Government to send representatives to the Imperial Conferences and to the Prime Ministers' Conferences on the analogy of the Central African Federation. I think this was a hypothetical question. I have no doubt it will be considered at the proper time, but I am not in a position to give an answer now. That, I hope the noble Earl will agree, answers the questions he asked me on this important question of federation. Then I think he added something about sugar. There is not much I can say about that subject. I think the point he is worried about is whether the price will be maintained.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Whether the guarantees under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement can be continued if we go back to private trading in sugar.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In any case, whatever is done now, it will not be possible to complete anything new until 1962—that is, in about five or six years—and a great deal can happen before that. But I will bear in mind what the noble Earl has said. Lastly, he asked something about the East African Reform Commission—the Royal Commission sitting on East Africa.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not ask that question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl gave notice of that question to me.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It was entirely my fault, because I intended to ask it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I will not answer it. In the latter part of his speech the noble Earl also made a very wide excursion, and a very interesting one, relating to the nomenclature of the Colonies. That is, I have no doubt, a very important question, and it is not the first time I have heard it discussed. But I am sure the noble Earl will agree that in the course of a long speech at the end of a debate there is not the opportunity of dealing with it fully. It is a matter which I think we could discuss further at some time more appropriate.

193
There was one further question raised, not by Lord Listowel but by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, relating to assistance to these Colonies, which he thought was inadequate. I should like to refer him to a speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Munster in a debate on the Second Reading of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund Bill on February 24 of this year. From that I think certain facts emerge. The first is that the total provision which was being made to all Colonial Territories was £80 million. That is, I think I am right in saying, over a period of ten years. The second fact which emerged was that, out of that £80 million, £13½ million or £14 million will go to the Caribbean area. That does not include the assistance which is to be given to the University College of the West Indies. The territories there will also share in the central allocations for the overseas territories as a whole. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have given specific undertakings to certain of the West Indian Governments in connection with certain schemes of assistance which may be necessary to safeguard their banana and citrus industries.
I am not going to say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that that is enough. I do not think you can ever give enough to people who want more; and I know that there is in the West Indian Colonies a genuine and proper need for as much as can be given them. But I do suggest that, out of £80 million for the whole Colonial Empire, £13½ million is not a bad allocation. I do not think there is any possibility of increasing it at the present time; but this matter of colonial development and welfare is always being kept under review, though I should not like to give the noble Earl any hope that any more can be done at the moment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: May I say to my noble friend that the question is not so much what percentage of the total allocation it is. However welcome it is, it is totally inadequate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That might easily be said of other territories within the British Empire. There is only a certain amount we can give for this purpose, and I think that this country as a whole is doing its best to be as generous as it can.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was most interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. There was a special case for Jamaica, which badly needs assistance. That might also bring relief from this sudden wave of labour emigration from Jamaica to this country. Unless they have the industrial capital they cannot do much more themselves. I think there is a rather special case for Jamaica, and I was hoping the noble Marquess would be able to say something better in his reply.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite appreciate that point. One of the difficulties with regard to Jamaica, if I remember aright, is that it is not simply a financial question, but also a question of over-population, which would not necessarily be solved by the means which have been suggested. Indeed, this is a very difficult matter.
I do not want anybody to think that the Government have not these things seriously in mind. No Government with any sense of responsibility can neglect such things. But the specific question I was asked was what was being given and what more could be given. At the moment I think they are getting their fair share of the total global sum which is available under the Colonial Development and Welfare scheme. I do not say that the Colonies do not present any problems—of course, any agglomeration of growing and developing communities presents problems; one cannot avoid that—but I think it is fair to say that, broadly speaking, these colonial territories, as they are called, which now compose the Colonial Empire, are continuing to advance, and, in particular, are continuing steadily to climb the ladder of self-government. That, I think, is the policy agreed among all Parties in this country. It is in fact the essence of the family relationship for which we stand, and will, I hope, continue, whatever Government may be in power.
I am afraid I have addressed your Lordships for a long time, but before I sit down there are one or two things I must say on aspects of home affairs which were not dealt with by my noble friend Lord Woolton. First, I ought to say something about the remarks which were made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in the latter part of his speech yesterday afternoon, as to the

195
attitude which is to be adopted by his Party in the Parliament which is just beginning—a matter of great domestic interest to us all. Noble Lords opposite have had, within recent weeks, an experience which I am afraid comes sometimes to all of us who are engaged in politics: their Party has been beaten at the polls. It happened to us on this side of the House—I remember only too well 1945—and we had to make up our minds at that time what attitude we should adopt. It was for us, I think, in some ways, an even more difficult decision than that which has had to be faced by the noble and learned Earl and his colleagues, because we had a very large majority in your Lordships' House and we could have defeated the Government at any time we wished. But we decided, as your Lordships remember, that it was not for us to dispute the will of the people, as expressed at the General Election. Therefore, so far as measures were concerned which in our view had been definitely before the electorate at the Election, we confined our action to trying to improve those measures and to make them more workable, even though often we did not like them very much. I believe that, constitutionally, that was the right decision for us to have taken. Therefore, I am very happy to know from what the noble and learned Earl said yesterday that he and his Party have come to very much the same conclusion.
Of course they must, and I have no doubt will, reserve to themselves complete freedom of action, in individual cases, to judge of their attitude as each comes before them. But, as I understood the noble and learned Earl—and I do not think I misunderstood him—there will not be from the Benches opposite any factious opposition. I was glad to hear that declaration. I can assure noble Lords who sit on that side of the House that we shall welcome the co-operation of the Opposition and the Liberal Party in improving legislation. I feel certain, if I may say so, that, so far as the Liberal Party are concerned, that co-operation will be forthcoming under their new Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whom we are so glad to see in his place, just as it was in former days under the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. If I may, I
196
would add this: of course, we all hope that, although the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is no longer to be leader of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House, he is not going to desert the House. We look forward to his continuing his wise counsel to us on any subject on which he feels inclined to address us.
That brings me to another question, also a domestic one; that is, the reform of the composition of your Lordships' House, about which we had some remarks last night from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I had some doubts, I must say, as I listened to him, whether he was in favour of the reform of the House of Lords or against it. On the whole, I felt that he was in favour. Anyway, he did stress the importance of an effective Opposition, as did the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I think it is quite clear that the only chance of getting a really effective Opposition is by some scheme of reform which will enable noble Lords opposite further to recruit their members. That is only my own view, and I hope that it is not an impertinence on my part to say it. With all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and also by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, on the same score, or at least with the great part of it, I find myself in very general agreement. I can assure them that I will bear in mind very much the points they made, whether they be financial or other points, and I will see what I can do to improve the position.
Unfortunately, I was not in the House this afternoon when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, spoke, but I am told that he does not see the need or the desirability for the reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. Of course, we have discussed this matter lately, but, as I do not think he was present on that occasion, I should like to say to him what I think I said last time to the noble Lord, Lord Elton: that, if it were practicable for him—and I know he has other important commitments—to be more often in the House, I am quite certain that he would realise how tremendous are the difficultties in carrying on at all its activities with which we, who have to keep your Lordships' House running, are faced at the present time.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I must intervene, for I feel that my remarks have not been interpreted correctly by the noble

197
Marquess. What I said was that I was very much opposed to any wholesale alleged reform of your Lordships' House, although I was perfectly prepared to consider favourably the creation of Life Peers, or other matters that have been raised in detail. I merely said that any reform which would in any way greatly curtail the hereditary element, or anything of that kind, would be one that I should be bound to oppose vigorously.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I perfectly understand: the noble Marquess was not here.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The last thing I wish to do is to misrepresent the noble Earl. I do not want to begin now a full-dress debate on the reform of the House of Lords, but my convinced view is—and I have been driven to it by my experiences over the past few years—that the House cannot go on for very much longer exactly as it is at present. The only question is how it is to be reformed. When we come to that point, no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and I, and many others, will have to try to work out a scheme which is generally satisfactory.
There is another point which came from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who made, I thought, a most interesting speech. He complained of an apparent discrepancy between the paragraph in the gracious Speech which deals with the free flow of goods and the paragraph which deals with anti-dumping duties. With all deference to the noble Lord, I personally do not see any discrepancy between those two. One can desire the free flow of trade and yet find it possible to defend, or take steps to defend, British industry against the dumping of goods, perhaps sold here below the cost of production, a thing which might well happen and to which British industry might be subjected. I personally had, in my innocence, imagined that even those of us who desired the maximum liberation of trade would in present circumstances accept that.
If the noble Lord boggles even at that, if he holds that in no circumstances is there to be any protection of any kind for British industry against competition,
198
however cut-throat that competition might be—if that is the attitude of his Party (I cannot believe it is the attitude of the general run of his Party)—then I am afraid that it is not the Government, as he suggests, who are out of date: I think he is living years behind the times, if he will forgive my saying so. I should have thought that he provides in his own person, in his visible form, the complete explanation why all the more realistic Liberals, or a great many of them, are at present abandoning the Benches on which he sits, not particularly in this House but throughout the country, and taking refuge in other Parties.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I did say that there were other methods of dealing with the problems to which the noble Marquess refers. I hope that, rather than instigate a new commercial war by bringing in new tariffs, those more modern methods will be used to deal with the problems to which the noble Marquess has referred.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Lord that neither this Government nor, I am sure, any other, welcomes higher duties for their own sake. We have had very deep divisions in this century in this country between those who thought that protective duties were right and those who thought that protective duties were wrong. I think the general view now is that protective duties are wrong, except in special circumstances which justify them. I do not imagine there is really a great deal between the noble Lord and me; but I thought it was a point which I ought perhaps to make.
I come now to the last part of my speech which deals with the situation with which we have lately been faced in the industrial field. I feel bound to say a word about this, though can assure your Lordships that I shall try to avoid speaking in any controversial spirit, for indeed I do not feel in any controversial spirit about it. The present ferment in industry has not occupied any great part of this debate, and that is, no doubt, because noble Lords in all parts of the House were most anxious not to exacerbate the present position. Nevertheless, I am sure it is in all our minds; and I am equally certain that, for that reason, noble Lords in all parts of the House welcome extremely warmly the

199
news that the railway strike is over. It has been a victory for common sense, at a time when common sense was extremely badly needed. But I should have thought that there could not be anyone, in any Party, to whom this crop of disputes which we have recently witnessed has not come with a sense of severe shock. It is not my purpose to-night to go into their rights and wrongs—no doubt there will be an opportunity for that in due course—but none of us can be blind to the evil effect which disputes of this kind have, not only on our material prosperity but on our reputation in the world, just at the moment when the high repute of Britain was perhaps more needed than ever before in our history.
My Lords, we in this country have lately, as a result of our own efforts—I am not saying the efforts of this particular Government or of any other particular Government—attained a standard of living for our working people which I believe has never been equalled before in our history. But that does not mean that any of us—that means any section of the community—can afford to take risks that might imperil the maintenance of that standard of living. Otherwise, we shall undoubtedly, as Lord Woolton said last night, as earlier had Lord Runciman of Doxford, who speaks with very great authority on this matter, merely fritter away all that we have gained, not only after the war but through all the arduous years of the war; and nobody will benefit but those who desire our destruction. It seems to me that a higher responsibility is thrown upon this country than perhaps ever before.
We must recognise—and I do not mean only your Lordships, but everyone—how fragile our hard-won prosperity is, how delicate, as Lord Runciman of Doxford said, is the machinery upon which it depends, and how easily, without meaning it at all, that machinery might be utterly shattered. We cannot, any of us, afford to take liberties with that machinery. And yet in this country there is always that danger, especially when things are good. It is just when things are good that is the dangerous time.
Practically a hundred years ago—I think it was in 1853—Mr. Disraeli, in a speech in the House of Commons, spoke some words that I should like to quote
200
to your Lordships, because I think they have a certain relevance to our present position. He said:
"The English nation is never so great as in adversity. In prosperity it may be accused, and perhaps justly, of being somewhat ostentatious, and, it may be, even insolent: in middle fortunes it may often prove itself unreasonable: but there never has been a time when a great sense of responsibility has been thrown upon the people of this country, when they have not answered the occasion and shown that matchless energy which has made and will maintain their position as the leading nation of the world."
I hope that all of us—all sections of our community—will ponder those words now. We do not want adversity, and it is for us to see that we do not get it. I agree most profoundly with what Lord Woolton said yesterday: there is no reason why we should get adversity. There is much to encourage us, if only we all work together.
There was a speech this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who spoke about nuclear power. The noble Lord mentioned the installations which are being installed in the North of England. I am sure he would agree that no one who has seen those installations, as I have, would come back without being imbued with a new vision of the immense potentialities of atomic energy for the future. He asked me certain specific questions to which I think he has a perfect right to an answer, as to the production of these new atomic piles. He asked what was the purpose of the new piles, for the construction of which plans were now being made. Are they purely for the production of power? The answer is that they are not entirely for the production of power but they are expected to be of great value for that purpose.
The noble Lord also asked why plans are not being made to complete them soon. My Lords, the reason is not primarily a mere question of money; there are rather more fundamental reasons. The first is that atomic piles are still in an experimental stage: each pile is an experiment, and from each pile we learn something which can be used in the next pile which is built. Therefore, it would not be wise to build them all at the same time. The great thing is to build one, to get your experience and to use the benefit of that experience in building the second one. Moreover, at present there is another very simple reason why we

201
cannot go too fast: the workmen for this particular sort of work are not available. It is a completely new sphere, and we are gradually having to train up people who can do what is necessary. So, for all those reasons, we shall, I think, have to proceed at a fairly sedate pace. But I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the introduction of atomic energy, as I have seen it, may well lead to a real revolution in British industry.
I believe that the potentialities are quite incalculable, but, if I may repeat this just once more, even these things, even these new forces, even the electric power which is provided by these new forces, will not bring prosperity, unless the industries, which those stations are to feed, work smoothly and harmoniously in their operation—unless they act, if I may use a very hackneyed metaphor, as members of one body. In my belief, at any rate, we really must give up thinking of employers "and" "employed" as inevitable enemies, in an unending struggle, in which the object of each is to get the better of the other. We really must come to regard them as allies and partners, each contributing something to a common enterprise and each earning the reward to which their contribution entitled them.
My Lords, I am afraid that you will say that this is a very old hobby-horse of mine—and it is. I inherited it originally, I think, from my noble relative, Lord Cecil, who, as your Lordships know, has long been interested in the question of co-partnership and profit-sharing in industry. Indeed, I fancy, almost the first speech I ever made in another place—the House of Commons—when I arrived there in 1931, was in support of a Bill which was to give the advantages of protection only to those industries which introduced profit-sharing schemes. Looking back, I do not think it was a very good Bill; it greatly over-simplified the issue; and, I am sorry to say, it was counted out during the Second Reading—as a result of what we who supported it regarded as a thoroughly disreputable and unholy conspiracy between industrialists and trade unionists, both of whom disliked it for varying reasons. But it was defended.
202
even at that time, on the grounds that the theory that capital purchased labour, just as it purchased raw materials and machinery, in the cheapest market, was out of date, and that it had been succeeded by a new and better one under which capital and labour were, in fact, partners, each of whom lent something to the business in which they were jointly engaged.
My Lords, even in those days, over twenty years ago, it was considered a novel, indeed, eccentric and, to some people, a definitely dangerous idea. But I feel that it is now coming into its own. Indeed, almost every week now some new scheme is announced by some great firm, which incorporates in one form or another just that type of idea. I feel that we may be on the verge, even though we do not fully realise it, of a new Industrial Revolution, as "glorious" as the Revolution of 1689. if that proves to be the case, these present troubles which have opened the eyes of thinking people in all sections of the community to the disastrous results of industrial strife may well have been worth while. But we shall only succeed if we discard our old pre indices, if we forget old bitternesses, and if we look resolutely forward to the future. That, as I see it, is a challenge to till political Parties, to Her Majesty's Government and to the Opposition alike. It is a challenge from which we cannot shrink; and upon our success in meeting it the future prosperity of our country will most assuredly depend.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with the White Staves.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons, and (pursuant to the Resolution of the 26th April last), a declaration of an officer of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation having been deposited in the Private Bill Office, Bill read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons, and (pursuant to the Resolution of the 26th April last), a declaration of an officer of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation having been deposited in the Private Bill Office, Bill read 1a and referred to the Examiners.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past seven o'clock.