Sitting of 12 May 1960

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
TYNE TUNNEL BILL
To be read the Third time upon Thursday next.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.) BILL (By Order)
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (FULLBRIDGE, MALDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
BUDE-STRATTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY)
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Fowey, presented by Mr. Marples; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT))
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Yarmouth (Isle of Wight), presented by Mr. Marples; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishing Grounds
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the failure of the Law of the Sea Conference, what steps he proposes to take to prevent disorderly exploitation of the fishing grounds.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): The Government have been considering the most appropriate action to take following the failure of the Second Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, and are already in touch with Canada and the U.S.A. about the general problem. As the House knows, I am fully aware of the need for speedy action to try and stabilise our fishery relations with those countries off whose shores we mainly fish, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is considering how best to bring this about. As far as conservation is concerned, powers are already available in the two existing Conventions covering the North Atlantic area.
    Mr. Wall: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that the voluntary restriction of British trawlers outside a 12-mile limit can obviously be only a temporary matter?
    Mr. Hare: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am in the closest touch with all sides of the fishing industry. In fact, I had a further meeting with them this morning.
    Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Geneva Conference was a very severe disappointment to us. Will he have a word with

    591
    his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see whether we could debate the matter in the House, because that might be helpful? At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the British Trawlers' Federation has been most statesmanlike in its conduct throughout these very difficult circumstances and that, for that very reason, it is important to endeavour to get an expeditious agreement?
    Mr. Hare: I think the House will be aware that I have already paid my deep tribute, not only to the British Trawlers' Federation, but also to the workers' side of the industry, which throughout these difficult times has been most helpful. On the other question which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, doubtless my right hon. Friend will note what he has said.
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to ensure that an adequate supply of fish is available through the British fishing industry, in view of the result of the recent Law of the Sea Conference.
    Mr. John Hare: It is too early yet to say what effect the result of the Law of the Sea Conference will have on the catches of fish by the British fishing industry.
    Mr. Jeger: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that trawler owners and fishermen are very concerned about this matter, as large stocks of fish are being landed in Britain, not only from Iceland but from Scandinavia. Will he do something to reassure the fishing industry that its interests will be protected by action which he will take—I hope soon—in bilateral talks between ourselves and Iceland?
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in close touch with the fishing industry and, as I said earlier, I had a further meeting with its representatives this morning. It is my intention to keep in the closest possible touch with them and to explain what is happening and to work out our problems together and to try to deal with them in the spirit of partnership.

    Milk
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how
    592
    much he estimates milk output for 1960– 61 will exceed that of 1959–60; and what directions he will give to the Milk Marketing Board to sell milk for manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. John Hare: In the year from 1st June, 1960, milk sold off farms in England and Wales is expected to be about 5 per cent. higher than in 1959–60. The surplus over requirements for the liquid market is being taken up by the manufacturers, and I am satisfied that the Milk Marketing Board needs no directions from me in selling for manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable imports of condensed milk are now coming in from Denmark and also from Holland at indirectly subsidised prices, which is having a severe effect on both liquid sales and manufacturing sales in this country? In view of the increased production which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced, will the Government reintroduce the quota which existed up to the end of December, 1958?
    Mr. Hare: As far as our own arrangements are concerned, I understand that the Milk Marketing Board does not anticipate difficulty in disposing of the increased supplies. As far as the other matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is concerned, if there is any question of imports being either dumped or subsidised, the parties concerned can apply to the Board of Trade for the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.

    Research Establishment, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the nature and value of the scientific and other plant now at his Department's Research Establishment at Greyhope Road, Aberdeen; and whether he proposes to deal with that plant by sale or transfer on his proposed closure of that Establishment.
    Mr. John Hare: The scientific and other plant at the Research Establishment is composed of pre-processing equipment for meat, fish, vegetables and fruit on an industrial scale, dehydration cabinets now of an obsolescent pattern and laboratory and scientific apparatus.

    593
    In addition, there is one prototype dehydration cabinet, the property of an American firm and on loan to the Ministry for experimental purposes. The cost of the plant, equipment and apparatus (excluding the plant on loan) at the time of acquisition was £131,000. On closure of the Establishment in March next the industrial plant will be sold: most if not all of the laboratory apparatus will probably be transferred to other Government Departments and the remainder will be sold.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that it has taken many years and much public money to build up this scientific Research Establishment, which has done and continues to do very good work for the public? Does he realise that it is a disgraceful waste of public money and of scientific effort now to break up this Establishment? Even at this late stage, will he change his mind about it and let it carry on its good work?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. and learned Member and I will agree that this institution has done very valuable work. In my opinion, that work is now over. If the hon. and learned Member is interested in public funds, I consider that, this work having been completed, it would be a waste of the £106,000 per annum which it costs to run the institution for the work to be continued when it could be undertaken by commercial firms and not borne on Government vote.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, while the immediate programme of work on dehydration has come to a close, the research staff is at present engaged on food research with associated problems, which would engage the staff for some years to come and be of very great value? Will he not, therefore, look at the matter again, particularly as he has some months to consider the step?
    Mr. Hare: I assure the hon. Lady that I have given this matter very serious consideration and would not have taken this step unless I thought that what I was doing was right, not only for the sake of the Government but for the national interest as a whole.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the other Govern-
    594
    ment Departments with which he has consulted, as promised by letter dated 29th April to the honourable and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, with a view to finding employment for the staff who will become unemployed as a result of his forthcoming closure of his Department's Research Establishment at Greyhope Road, Aberdeen.
    Mr. John Hare: I have consulted the Departments of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and also the Agricultural Research Council.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise, from my supplementary question on the previous Question and from the supplementary question asked by the hon. Lady for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), that both sides in Aberdeen are united in condemning his action in breaking up this very useful Research Establishment and separating these scientific workers who have done so well over the years? Again I ask him now to reconsider his disastrous decision.
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. and learned Member knows, I have not only respect but affection for him. However, I think that on this occasion his judgment is wrong and that I am right. What we are concerned with is to see that the employees from this institution are properly placed, and I am taking every care to see that that should happen.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Aberdeen is a development district under the recent Local Employment Act? Is he further aware that there is a united view in Aberdeen City that this work would be of value to the country as a whole? Would he, therefore, explain to the House in what other establishments in Great Britain this work is being carried on?
    Mr. Hare: As I have already explained, the fillip having been given by Government funds and by the collection of this staff, I believe that this type of work can now properly and more efficiently be carried out by commercial enterprise. That being the case, we have taken this decision. Of course, I am aware of the employment position in Aberdeen, which is why I made a particular point of saying that I was most

    595
    anxious to see that every effort was made to ensure that the people from this institution should not suffer.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. As this is so utterly wrong in principle, I hereby give notice—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat my appeal that hon. Members will stick to the traditional formula.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall stick to the traditional formula and hereby give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answers to both Questions, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Price Review
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many communications he has received from the National Farmers' Union branches in Yorkshire protesting against the recent Price Review and calling for his resignation; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. John Hare: I have received communications protesting against the Price Review from or on behalf of thirty-two National Farmers' Union branches in Yorkshire, including three resolutions calling expressly for my resignation. The senders have been told that I have noted their views.
    Mr. Jeger: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Farmers' Union of the West Riding has had 25 resolutions, representing the written opinion of 28 local branches, and says that the only difference in the resolutions is one of degree? As there can be only one degree of resignation, the other degrees must be in lack of confidence in the Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman transmitted these views to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with a view to getting the combined resignations of himself and his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Hare: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is fully informed about all these matters. I cannot talk about his resignation, but I wonder why the hon. Gentleman asked me about my intentions It is, perhaps, that he wants my job? It is not always a bed of roses.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council of the N.F.U. recently had eleven pages of foolscap of resolutions from 48 county branches condemning him? Has he sufficient humility to recognise that all the farmers cannot be wrong?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think that anybody would say that I lack humility. On the other hand, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reserve this line of attack for the debate on Monday, when I will be delighted to discuss the matter with him.

    Soft Drinks Order
    Sir J. Smythasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that food and drugs authorities are doing all they can to enforce the Soft Drinks Order; and what information he has regarding recent prosecutions.
    Mr. John Hare: I have no reason to suppose that food and drugs authorities are not doing all they can to enforce the Soft Drinks Order. There was recently a successful prosecution by the Borough of Beckenham.
    Sir J. Smyth: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health will continue to use their endeavours to see that adulterated orange juice is not imported into this country, is not supplied to our hospitals, and is not put on sale to the public?
    Mr. Hare: We are using all the powers we can to see that what my hon. and gallant Friend wants to avoid does not in fact happen. During the last year, 3,112 samples of soft drinks were taken.

    Timber and Wood Products
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of our requirements of timber and wood products was imported in 1954 and 1959, respectively; and whether he will state the corresponding percentage of imports of foodstuffs which normally are produced by agriculture in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Hare: About 90 per cent. of timber and wood products consumed in the United Kingdom was imported both in 1954 and in 1958, the latest year for which figures are available. Of those foodstuffs which farmers in the United Kingdom normally produce, a little more than one-third was imported in both years.
    Mr. Digby: Do not those figures show it is most desirable that we should grow more of the timber we require in this country and that perhaps better use could be made of existing home-grown timber?
    Mr. Hare: Of course, there will be a considerable rise in the output of homegrown timber during the next few years. Output will very definitely rise. I think all the steps we are taking to try to encourage the marketing of home-grown timber will bear result.

    Flour and Bread
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report of the Food Standards Committee on the composition of flour and bread will be published.
    Mr. John Hare: The Committee's report is expected to be ready by the autumn. As the hon. Member knows, an interim report on "milk bread" was published in October last.
    Mr. Lipton: Is our bread so doped with chemical of all kinds that, even after four years, the Food Standards Committee cannot decide what the standard of purity in our bread should be? Why on earth has it taken so long to deal with this very staple article of our diet?
    Mr. Hare: I know the hon. Member is a particular expert on this subject, but I think that with the knowledge he has he realises it is a very complicated subject—
    Mr. Lipton: Because of the dope.
    Mr. Hare: —because of the many types of bread on the market and 'the technical and nutritional questions involved. The Committee has done a very good job and will be giving me the report by the autumn.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisoners (Working Hours)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the average number of hours worked per week by male persons in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of Slate for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Over a recent period the average was 26 hours a week in local prisons, and 36½ hours a week in other prisons.
    Mr. Fitch: Would not the Joint Undersecretary agree that a working week of 26 hours is hardly the right type of training for a man who, when discharged, will be expected to work a 45-hour week? What are his proposals to increase the number of hours worked in prisons? Does he not think that a hard day's work is a far more effective deterrent than birching?
    Mr. Vosper: I could not agree more about the importance of work for rehabilitation in prison. For that reason, my right hon. Friend recently appointed an Advisory Council on Work in Prisons to try to help, and we are appointing local committees. I hope there will be an improvement.

    Prison Hostels
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in how many of Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales the hostel system operates, as at Pentonville; and what his proposals are for extending this scheme.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): There are nine prison hostels for men and one for women. It is hoped to establish four more hostels during the next twelve months.
    Mr. Fitch: Would not the Home Secretary agree that one of the advantages of the hostel system is that when a man is discharged he has in his possession a stamped insurance card?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, and there are many other advantages. Provided they go on working as now, subject to certain corrections from time to time, I think this is a very useful experiment.

    Children and Young Persons
    Mr. A. Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children under the age of 17 years appeared before juvenile courts in England and Wales, during the period 1st January, 1950, to 31st December, 1959, as being children in need of care or protection, as defined by Section 61 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or as being children who are ill-treated or neglected in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health; and
    (2) how many children under the age of 17 years who appeared before juvenile courts in England and Wales, during the period 1st January, 1950, to 31st December, 1959, as being children in need of care or protection, as defined by Section 61 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or as being children who axe ill-treated or neglected in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health, were ordered by such juvenile courts to be remanded to remand homes, made the subject of probation orders, or committed to approved schools, respectively; and how many of such children again appeared before a juvenile court and were remanded to prison under Section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
    Mr. Vosper: As the answer contains a number of figures, I shall circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that Britain is now among the minority of countries in which child victims of lack of protection or of cruelty or neglect can still be brought before courts of summary criminal jurisdiction? Would he consider setting up courts of guardianship before which this class of children could be brought?
    Mr. Vosper: That is a rather fundamental question which the hon. Member put to me in place of the rather limited Question on the Order Paper. As I think he knows, the Ingleby Committee is shortly to report. It is considering the whole question and I would rather not make a further comment at this stage.
    Miss Bacon: With reference to Question No. 13 and remand homes, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that magistrates in juvenile courts find themselves
    600
    in an extremely difficult position because they have nowhere to send juvenile offenders on remand? Is he aware that recently a magistrate said that he never slept at night after he had been working at the juvenile court? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that even before the Ingleby Committee reports one of the most urgent things to be considered is the provision of more remand homes?
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member who asked the original Question has a Bill before the House dealing in detail with this subject. My right hon. Friend is giving consideration to that aspect of the matter in advance of the Ingleby Committee recommendations.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Should not the right hon. Gentleman also be asked to consider whether the juvenile courts are in any difficulty at all? In the case of very young people, juvenile persons who are not yet convicted and are on remand, if there is any real difficulty in finding a suitable place for them to go is it not infinitely better to send them home than to send them to jail?
    Mr. Vosper: In general, there is no difficulty in finding a place in a remand home. The difficulty arises with those people who are so unruly that the remand home itself is not suitable. That, I think, is the difficulty to which the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred.
    Following is the Answer:
    Between 1st January, 1950, and 31st December, 1959, 32,550 children were brought before juvenile courts in England and Wales under Section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as being in need of care or protection within the meaning of Section 61 and were dealt with in the following ways:

    Ordered to be sent to an approved school

    2,385

    Committed to the care of a fit person

    13,577

    Parent ordered to enter into a recognisance to exercise proper care and guardianship

    683

    Supervision order alone

    11,542

    No order made

    4,363

    In some cases, the number of which is not known, a supervision order was made in addition to a fit person order or an order requiring the parent to enter into a recognisance. The number of interim orders made under Section 67 (2) for detention or continued detention in a remand home is not known.
    Section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, applies only where a court remands or commits for trial or for sentence a person who is charged with or found guilty of an offence,

    601
    and information as to the number of persons so remanded who had previously been brought before the court under Section 62 of the Act of 1933 is not available.

    Street Betting Arrests, East London
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been arrested in the three months ended 31st March, 1960, in the Dagenham, Barking, Ilford, and East Ham areas, respectively; and what percentages of these arrests, respectively, were for street betting.
    Mr. Vosper: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Parker: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is a feeling in this area that there are far more cases of arrests for street betting taking place than in any other part of the Metropolitan Police area? Will he look into that to see whether it is so, and why?
    Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Member will see from the reply, the situation is rather alarming, but I suggest that it will be completely changed as a result of the Bill which recently left this House. I hope this problem will not arise in future.
    The figures are as follows:

    —

    All Arrests

    Street Betting

    Street Betting Arrests as a percentage of all Arrests

    Dagenham

    …

    278

    81

    29·1

    Barking

    …

    109

    21

    19·2

    Ilford

    …

    201

    Nil

    Nil

    East Ham

    …

    194

    20

    10·3

    Cardiff Prison (Boys)
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that a boy of 17 years of age, sentenced to one month's imprisonment for non-payment of a fine, was placed in a cell in January at Cardiff Prison with two older prisoners serving terms of imprisonment and was sexually assaulted by them; and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of such incidents; and
    602
    (2) whether he is aware that two boys aged 17 years, sentenced to undergo Borstal training, were placed in cells at Cardiff Prison, one in December, 1959, and one in January, 1960, with older prisoners serving terms of imprisonment and were each sexually assaulted by them; and what steps are being taken lo prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret to say that two youths sentenced to borstal training, aged 17 and 19, respectively, were sexually assaulted in Cardiff prison by two cellmates aged 20. A third boy, aged 17, serving six weeks' imprisonment for non-payment of a fine, was assaulted by one of these assailants in an attempt to commit indecency. The prison authorities, by careful allocation of young prisoners under 21 to cells, are doing all they can to prevent such deplorable incidents, but the only effective answer to this problem is to provide enough cellular accommodation to make it unnecessary to put three boys together in a cell and, as the House knows, I am pressing on with a prison building programme as fast as I can.
    Mr. Abse: Whilst welcoming his promise to press on in this connection, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the meantime, in this appallingly overcrowded prison in Cardiff, he will take steps to see that these young persons do not, as at present, share the same dining-room with murderers like Carter and Mitchell, or the same workshop with murderers like Straffen? Also, can we have a firm date when a remand centre will be built in Wales so that we can be quite certain that no young teen-agers of this kind will be placed with star prisoners as they are at present?
    Mr. Butler: I have frequently stated my belief in what the hon. Member has said, namely, that young persons should not be put with older prisoners in the wrong sort of circumstances. We are dealing with an exceedingly overcrowded situation owing to the increase in crime which has risen to a certain summit. What I am proposing is an unprecedented prison building programme. In the last three years no fewer than thirty-four institutions have either been started, completed or put

    603
    under planning. This is unprecedented, and we are pressing ahead as fast as we can. The present situation will be dealt with locally, as far as it can be, in the sense in which the hon. Member desires, but there are severe limitations on what can be achieved.
    Mr. Shinwell: Apart from the merits of this particular case, has the right hon. Gentleman expressed any opinion to the prison authorities, who are responsible? Was it not rather shocking that this should have been done?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, I have been into this most thoroughly with the prison authorities. For example, we found that the records of these boys did not give evidence that this sort of thing was likely to happen. In the case I mentioned, there was no evidence of previous violence. We have been into it as fully as possible and put the points raised by the hon. Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) to the prison authorities.

    Adoption (Revocation Orders)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Adoption Act, 1958 so as to enable revocation orders to be issued, when so requested, in all cases where a child is legitimised, and not only in those under Section 26 of the Act.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I can hold out no immediate prospect of Government legislation.
    Mr. Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many parents took the very wise precaution under the law as it then was to adopt their own children knowing that they were illegitimate? Since the Legitimacy Act, 1959, those who did not take the precaution of adopting their illegitimate children find that the children automatically became legitimated, whereas the children of those who did take the precaution cannot be legitimated and remain adopted. When older the child will want to know why he was adopted and not legitimated under the present law.
    Mr. Butler: I think there might be a case here for private Members' legislation. If so, I should certainly be glad to help.

    Motorist (Arrest)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent court case in which it was stated in evidence that the defendant, a British subject, had been locked in a room at the German Embassy in London, by Metropolitan Police officers; and whether he will make a statement on the action of the police in this matter.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: A constable on duty outside the German Embassy arrested a motorist at about one o'clock in the morning and, with the agreement of the porter, took her into the entrance hall of the German Embassy so that he might telephone for assistance. The door was locked by the porter but the key was left in the lock, and the motorist in fact left the Embassy while the constable was telephoning. She was at no time locked in a room.
    Mr. Bellenger: Surely the Home Secretary deprecates the use of foreign embassies as common lock-ups, because that is what it amounted to. Will he issue instructions to the Metropolitan Police not to take this high-handed attitude in future?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It was not, in fact, a high-handed attitude. This constable was on duty outside the German Embassy and this episode occurred immediately outside it. Perhaps wrongly, he took the lady in question into the German Embassy for the moment. This was in fact wrong, and is not likely to be repeated. Steps have been taken to draw it to the attention of the police.

    Young Persons (Wounding Convictions)
    Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many males under 14 years of age were convicted at assizes or quarter sessions for felonious or malicious wounding or at magistrates' courts for wounding, either as felony or as misdemeanour, in the calendar year 1959; how many males between the ages of 14 and 17 years were similarly convicted; and by what proportion the convictions for wounding by males under 17 years of age have increased since the last year before the war for which records are available.
    Mr. Vosper: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir R. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1938 at assizes and quarter sessions there was no conviction for wounding by juveniles under 14 and the total number under 17 in all courts was only just over 100? On the figures for 1958, that is less than one-eighth of the current figure. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this offence has increased faster than any other type of offence and that this habit of wounding and violence, acquired while young, may have caused the increased use of firearms by older people, about which we have heard so much lately, sometimes with fatal results? Since it is obvious that there is at present no form of deterrent which is proving effective, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the courts the power, where probation has been

    THE CLASSIFICATIONS "FELONIOUS WOUNDING" AND "MALICIOUS WOUNDING" COMPRISE A VARISTY OF OFFENCES NOT ALL OF WHICH INVOLVE WOUNDING. THE FIGURES FOR 1959 ARE AS FOLLOWS

    —

    Males under 14 years

    Males aged 14 but under 17 years

    Convicted at assizes or quarter sessions

    Found guilty by magistrates courts

    Convicted at assizes or quarter sessions

    Found guilty by magistrate courts

    Offences classified as felonious wounding

    —

    13

    18

    53

    Offences classified as malicious wounding (misdemeanours)

    —

    192

    16

    846

    Ninety-eight males under 17 were found guilty of offences classified as woundings during 1938. The corresponding figure for 1959 was 1,138. It is possible that some kinds of offence now dealt with as malicious wounding may before the war have been dealt with as common assault.

    State Management Scheme, Carlisle
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the orders for the refurnishing of public houses of the Carlisle State Management Scheme in Carlisle were placed locally, and what proportion outside Carlisle, during the three years ending at the latest convenient accounting date.
    Mr. Vosper: In the three years ended 30th September last, orders for the refurnishing of the Scheme's public houses and hotels in Carlisle amounting to some £21,000 were placed locally and orders amounting to some £4,000 were placed elsewhere.
    tried and failed, to inflict corporal punishment in cases of wounding?
    Mr. Vosper: There may be a slight conflict between the figures given by my hon. Friend and those which he will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would not dissent from the argument which he has advanced that the figures for this offence have increased most rapidly and alarmingly. He no doubt realises that even in 1938 the courts had no power to order whipping for juveniles over the age of 14. Therefore, I do not think it would necessarily be fair to draw any conclusions from the comparison. This is a matter which the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders will consider.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will remember that it is in the common interest that supplementary questions should be short.
    Following is the answer:

    Durham Prison (Prisoner's Letter)
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a prisoner in Durham Prison was ordered to rewrite a letter to his mother in which he complained of prison treatment, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.
    Mr. Vosper: Prisoners are permitted to complain of prison treatment only through one of the official channels or, if dissatisfied with a reply obtained in this way, through a Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that that I have received another letter from this young man stating that he was not allowed to tell his mother anything about his treatment in prison and that he was not allowed to ask his mother to contact her M.P. on his behalf? Is it not rather silly that interference should take place with the letters from a young prisoner to his mother?
    Mr. Vosper: I do not think so. There are four recognised channels which the prisoner can use to complain about his treatment—to the governor, to the assistant commissioner on his visits, to the visiting committee or by way of petition to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; and beyond that, once he has exercised one of those rights, to his M.P. I therefore think that he has every facility, which he can and in fact does exercise.
    Mr. Short: Is the Minister saying that a prisoner cannot comment on his treatment in prison in a letter to his mother?
    Mr. Vosper: It depends what the hon. Member means by "comment". If it is a matter of complaint, then he has these recognised channels which I think he should follow.

    Civil Disobedience (Prison Sentences)
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider amending legislation to ensure that prison sentences shall not be imposed on persons charged with minor acts of civil disobedience.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. People cannot be exempted from the normal consequences of breaking the law or disobeying the courts because they are doing so to attract support for their opinions.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is the Home Secretary aware that on 2nd May Southend magistrates sentenced thirteen anti-nuclear demonstrators to six months' imprisonment? Is he also aware that one of those sentenced was an old lady of 70, that another was a mother with the care of children, and another was a boy of 19? Does he not think that those sentences are monstrous, and will he give further consideration to amending legislation to see that this does not happen again?
    Mr. Butler: I understand that the time for a possible appeal has not yet run out, and I would therefore rather not comment on those cases.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman has given us today of the overcrowded conditions of our prisons, will he not consider some other methods of dealing with these minor offences committed on grounds of principle rather than that of putting these people into prison with habitual criminals and others?
    Mr. Butler: It is not I who put them into prison. This is a matter for justice and the courts. It is not always essential for them to go into prison if they do not want to, but very often they seek to go into prison because they feel so strongly about what they are doing. I must leave this matter to the operation of the courts and the possibility of appeal.

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the course of his examination of the law relating to air-guns, he will consider making it compulsory for youths carrying air-guns, air-rifles, or air-pistols to apply to the police for a firearm certificate.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Yes, Sir. This suggestion will be considered.
    Mr. Wainwright: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in 1958 over 700 accidents occurred due to the misuse of air weapons and that recently a youth of 19 made younger children jump up and down while he fired pellets at their feet? I hope that the Minister will bring into operation as quickly as possible some legislation which will stop these irresponsible youths from having the use of these air weapons.
    Mr. Renton: We are aware of this problem and discussions are proceeding with representative chief officers of police as to the best way of handling it. The firearms certificate procedure under the Firearms Act, 1937, is not the only possible solution. We are considering the various alternatives.

    Crimes of Violence (Compensation to Victims)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give further information as to the date by Which he expects to receive the report of the Working Party which is studying the problems of compensating the victims of crimes of personal violence; and whether their report will be published.
    Mr. Vosper: On the question when the Working Party will be able to present their report, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 17th March. Reports of official Working Parties are prepared for the assistance of Ministers, and it is not the practice to publish them.
    Mr. Prentice: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill which I have introduced, with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, which unfortunately has not been reached on any of the Fridays set aside for Private Members' Bills? Would it not save delay if the Government were to support this Bill, give time for it, expedite the work of the Working Party and then, if necessary, introduce Amendments in Committee as a result of the Working Party's findings? Would that not avoid a further delay during which more people might be injured without any proper scheme of compensation?
    Mr. Vosper: I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in and anxiety about this matter, but I assure him that the Working Party found it an intractable problem. They found it no easy matter to solve. I must therefore ask for further time before I produce any report or even agree with him about his own proposals.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has almost lost count of the innumerable committees and working parties which have been set up by the Home Office? Will he give some indication when we shall get the fruit of all their labours?
    Mr. Vosper: I do not think that that arises on the Question. At least one working party appointed by the Home Office has reported in the remarkably
    610
    short time of four months—the Peppiatt Committee—and my right hon. Friend hopes that other working parties will follow that example.

    Mr. W. J. Darby
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will order the destruction of the fingerprints and photographs retained under Section 6 (2) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1871, of Mr. W. J. Darby, 17 Clee Road, Scotts Green, Dudley, which were obtained without statutory authority.
    Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend has no authority to order the destruction of fingerprints or photographs taken by the police. Statutory authority is not necessary for the taking of fingerprints and photographs with consent.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Darby was charged before the Dudley court with a minor offence, on which he was conditionally discharged? He was subsequently visited by the police and taken to the police station for his fingerprints to be taken. It was there found that the room was locked.
    Is the hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that the police visited Mr. Darby a second time and took him to the police station? When the photographs were taken, it was found that the apparatus was defective. He was taken for a third time. When the man protested and said that the had been coerced into going, this was denied by the police. When Mr. Darby asked for an investigation, the investigation was carried out by the Watch Committee without Mr. Darby having an opportunity to state his case.
    Is the hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1871, the Home Secretary has a responsibility for the custody of the fingerprints and photographs which were illegally obtained?
    Mr. Renton: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the complaint that he has is entirely one for investigation by the chief constable, who I understand has investigated it and been in touch with the hon. Gentleman. As regards the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Central Register, it is true

    611
    that my right hon. Friend has the responsibility of prescribing the form of the Central Register, but he has no responsibility for deciding that any fingerprint copies, photographs or documents in it shall be destroyed.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that Mr. Darby gave his consent, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, to the taking of his fingerprints and photographs? If he did not do so, this was an excessive use of power. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether Mr. Darby, in his view, gave his assent to these things being done?
    Mr. Renton: It is not a matter for which I have any responsibility, nor has my right hon. Friend. I understand that there is a conflict of evidence between Mr. Darby and the chief constable in this respect.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and as the Home Secretary clearly has a responsibility, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Prison Labonr
    Mr. J. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further instruction 'he has given to Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners to take steps to ensure that goods produced and services provided by prison labour should be offered at fair prices and should not unfairly undercut goods produced and services provided by disabled workers' organisations; and whether the Prison Commissioners, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, have completed their review of this problem as promised on 27th March. 1958.
    Mr. Vosper: Since 1958 the Prison Commissioners have ceased to compete with disabled workers' organisations for supplies of brushes and baskets to local authorities. The review of tenders for Government Department contracts will be completed in the near future.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that a serious problem has arisen in regard to competition in the repair of shoes and that blind people's organisations and workshops are being very seriously prejudiced and there is a
    612
    possibility of them having to close down? Is it not possible to get some sort of co-ordination with the Ministry of Labour in this matter? Whilst one realises that it is necessary to provide suitable labour for prisoners, there should not be this competition, which throws blind people out of work.
    Mr. Vosper: Yes. I am aware of the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind in relation to Birmingham, but I find it very difficult to reconcile that with the facts, because the Prison Commissioners did not compete for the Army contract in the Birmingham area. The purpose of this review, which is very nearly concluded, is to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I am so glad that he appreciates, on the other hand, the importance of finding work for the rehabilitation of prisoners, to which the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) directed attention on an earlier Question.

    Approved Schools
    Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many approved schools are run by local authorities, voluntary societies, and local committees, respectively.
    Mr. Vosper: Of the 117 approved schools, 25 are managed by local authorities, 38 by religious or voluntary organisations, one by a limited company, one by an incorporated body, and the remaining 52 by local committees.
    Miss Bacon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is a very unsatisfactory position that 50 approved schools in the country should not be under the jurisdiction either of children's committees of local authorities or of suitable voluntary organisations, but be in the hands of local and self-appointed committees? Will he give an assurance that in any future legislation all approved schools to which children are sent by courts will be under an appropriate authority?
    Mr. Vosper: I realise that to someone like the hon. Lady, who has considerable knowledge of the management of approved schools, this seems rather a strange system. Since the beginning of the year, my right hon. Friend and I have visited more than a dozen approved

    613
    schools and have found some very enthusiastic and efficient managers. I cannot quite give the assurance the hon. Lady asks for, but my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of improving the existing arrangements for the management of these schools.

    Refugees
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria employed by his Department in selecting the quota of refugees for resettlement in Great Britain under the World Refugee Year Scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) on 10th March.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the allegations in a recent article in the Daily Mail that the type of people being brought in by his Department are rather different from those we naturally think of in this connection? Is he likewise aware that, if he wants to bring into this country fit people in this category, I can recommend him to the case about which I have been in communication with him? There is a job waiting for that person in Carlisle, and he can be brought into the country without any expense at all.
    Mr. Renton: The revised criteria which I gave to the House on 10th March have been welcomed by all concerned, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who has described them as
    "a gesture that is nothing less than unprecedented".
    I am glad to be able to tell the House that it seems that about 1,200 people in refugee camps, who have been there for a long time, come within the revised criteria and it seems that there will be no difficulty in finding sponsors for them in this country.

    Consumer Protection (Report)
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to take to carry into effect the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Darlingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take, on the recommendations in the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, to reduce risks of injuries and accidents in the use of oil heaters, electrical appliances, toys and flammable clothing materials.
    Mr. Vosper: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated on 27th April, he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are now studying the Committee's recommendations. My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a further statement.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: In view of the statement in the Report of the Committee that the Home Office should have known as early as mid-1957 about the danger of these drip-feed heaters, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether an improved organisation has been set up so that this defect can be remedied in future? Can he say whether urgent consideration is being given to the introduction of general legislation, as proposed by the Committee, particularly to stop the importation from abroad of dangerous appliances?
    Mr. Vosper: I do not necessarily accept the strictures in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary. As regards that issue, the Government are giving support to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). In respect of the general issues raised by the Molony Report, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Report was published only last month. It requires to be considered with interested bodies, and some time must elapse before one can reach a decision.
    Mr. Darling: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point at this stage? Will it be necessary to introduce individual items of legislation, such as the Bill we are having tomorrow, to deal with each section of the recommendations in the Molony Committee Report, or will it be possible to give power, which the Home Secretary does not now have, to introduce Regulations in a general Measure? If it can be done in a general Measure, would it not be

    615
    a good idea to introduce that quickly and then come to the detailed regulations later?
    Mr. Vosper: As I understand the Molony recommendation, it is that comprehensive legislation should be introduced, but that is one of the matters which must be considered with other bodies before a decision is taken.

    Corporal Punishment
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, for the avoidance of doubt, he will request his Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders to incorporate in an Appendix to its forthcoming report the views publicly expressed by the Lord Chief Justice on corporal punishment for crimes of violence.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: When I have referred a matter to my Advisory Council it is for it to decide on the content and nature of its report.
    Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is very significant that the present Lord Chief Justice, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, Mr. Justice Hilbery and many other great lawyers of equal distinction all support the restoration of corporal punishment? Will he, therefore, draw this fact to the attention of the Advisory Council?
    Mr. Butler: No. I propose to adopt a proper constitutional attitude in this matter. When I have referred a Question to my Advisory Council, I do not propose to put my own views, nor do I think it right for other people who are not giving evidence to give their views. I suggest that those who want to give evidence to the Council should give evidence. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the Lord Chief Justice has agreed to give evidence, which is the right thing to do. I am also glad to hear that there has been a very big response to the chairman's request. Many people are to give evidence. I understand that they are going to give evidence both ways.
    Mr. H. Hynd: In order to provide first-hand experience to hon. Members interested in this subject, will the Home Secretary arrange for the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) to be flogged?

    Horror Films
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in his next discussion of the policy of the British Board of Film Censors, he will inform the new president of the Board of the increasing public concern about the number of horror films exhibited in cinemas.
    Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the policy of the British Board of Film Censors, but I have no doubt that the Board takes due note of expressions of public concern about the kinds of films exhibited.
    Mr. Goodhart: I am sure that the new president needs no prompting about the state of public opinion, but will the Government, as a practical demonstration of their concern in this matter, take steps to tighten up their control of certain horror film advertisements, which are very horrifying in themselves?
    Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend appreciates the concern about this matter. My hon. Friend, I think, appreciates that there is no State censorship. The Board of Film Censors is an independent body. Both the Board and the local authorities, who are the licensing authorities in this respect, will, I am certain, take note of the Question.

    Mr. and Mrs. Thompson
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the alleged offence against the Road Traffic Act that resulted in Mr. Thompson being taken into Brixton Police Station on 16th April; who tendered an apology to Mr. Thompson; and why.
    Mr. Renton: Mr. Thompson was reported for an alleged offence under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The officer on duty tendered an apology in accordance with the normal practice in the Metropolitan Police when a charge is refused.
    Mr. Burden: Would my hon. and learned Friend say what was the offence with which he was charged? Will he also say whether the two officers who took him into custody were in plain

    617
    clothes and whether he first spoke to them or they saw some reason for approaching him first?
    Mr. Renton: He was charged with the offence of driving a motor vehicle when under the influence of drink. I am not in a position to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. May I say that the refusal of a charge does not imply any impropriety on the part of the officers who reported the matter. It is not an uncommon occurrence for officers on duty to refuse a charge reported by a constable, and in the Metropolitan Police for many years the practice has been to tender an apology when the charge has been refused. I think that it will be a sad day when the making and acceptance of a generous apology ceases to be the practice.
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mrs. Thompson, who was charged at Brixton police station on 16th April with being drunk and disorderly, was examined by a doctor before being charged.
    Mr. Renton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not most odd to apologise? According to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend in the answer which he gave me last week, when the husband was in the police court the police brought the police surgeon, who found that Mr. Thompson was not under the influence of drink. If that is the case, why was the wife, who was charged at the same time, not examined by the medical officer? Would he not agree that in the circumstances it is most disgraceful that this woman should have been charged the following day with being drunk and disorderly? Why was the police surgeon not asked to examine her?
    Mr. Renton: The two cases, although they were both cases of drinking, are not strictly comparable, because they are slightly different offences. One is for driving under the influence of drink and the other is for being drunk and disorderly. The magistrate, in dismissing the charge against Mrs. Thompson, said,
    "I shall dismiss this case but it is obvious that your behaviour was such that it naturally led to your being arrested."
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Are not the facts elicited by the hon. Gentleman in the last two weeks through Questions very disturbing indeed? Whereas, of course, it is very proper to stand by the police in the proper discharge of their duty, is it not also right that they should be reprimanded when they have done something palpably wrong and stupid? Would it not be much better if the hon. and learned Gentleman said that they had make a mistake in this case?
    Mr. Renton: The case of whether a police officer should be reprimanded is for the Chief Officer of Police. It is not considered by the courts necessary that in every case of drunk and disorderly that is brought before them there should be medical evidence, and the police officer in this case, considering the facts of the case, decided that medical evidence was not necessary before bringing the charge to court.
    Mr. Burden: In view of the most unsatisfactory replies that I have received during the last two weeks, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment in order that still further facts may be elicited.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. May I also give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment because, when the facts are known, it will be seen that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is quite unjustified in his accusation?
    Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member, but all this is completely out of order and beyond my control.
    Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order. Is it not obvious that this is a case of sour grapes by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)?

    TRAFFIC WARDENS
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend an extension of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Police to cover specifically the relationship of traffic wardens to the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.

    619
    No, Sir. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission could not appropriately be extended to cover this matter, which is at present before Parliament.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his opinion, the terms of reference of the Royal Commission would prohibit it from considering this matter? Would he not agree that it is very important that this new experiment of traffic wardens should be carefully considered before the introduction of it, so that we run into no danger of having a two-tier police force, and that the traffic wardens in the Metropolitan Police area should be the responsibility of this House through the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Butler: My difficulty is that Parliament has not yet decided what the nature of the provisions for traffic wardens shall be. Perhaps later the right hon. Gentleman will put down a further Question when Parliament has made its decision. Then, I think, it would be proper to consider whether or not this fell within any such terms.
    Mr. Paget: Would it be within the terms of reference of the Commission to raise the sort of question raised by Mr. Justice Diplock in the recent Pen Club case as to intimidation and protection of witnesses?
    Mr. Butler: I would not like to interpret the terms of reference to the Royal Commission. I think we must leave that to them.

    SUMMIT CONFERENCE (DISARMAMENT)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if he will propose to the Summit Conference a declaration expressing the common interest of all peoples in peace and disarmament and their Government's determination to seek international agreement on complete disarmament, subject to maintaining security forces for internal purposes, commencing with nuclear disarmament and proportionate cuts in armed forces and the organisation of nuclear-free and limited arms zones under adequate international control, together with economic measures to expand civil production and trade.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
    The Western Disarmament Plan is well known and a good one. But it would be unwise for me to anticipate the discussions on disarmament at the Summit Meeting.
    Mr. Swingler: As I understand that the Prime Minister is to speak at the end of the debate tonight, which we all welcome, may I confine myself to asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that he made a statement to the Russians:
    "It is not that we fear acts of calculated aggression, and I hope that you do not. At the same time it is impossible to hide from ourselves the dangers of a war by miscalculation or by muddle."
    In view of recent events, will he make sure that his right hon. Friend makes this his starting point at the Summit?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the intervention of the hon. Gentleman.

    AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE (SOVIET TERRITORY)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister to what extent British agencies have co-operated with the United States agencies in aerial reconnaissance over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the past four years.
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a United States aeroplane has been destroyed by the Union of Socialist Republics defence forces whilst flying over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics territory; and whether he will seek an assurance from the United States Government that none of the United States Air Force bases in this country have been, or will be, used for flights over the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what joint arrangements exist between the British and the Union States Governments for exploring the stratosphere and outer space above Russian territory.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will issue instructions to the competent Ministers to forbid reconnaissance flights over the territories of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or her allies by aeroplanes of any nationality from this country, and to Her Majesty's Government's representatives in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to insist on the prohibition of such flights from bases on the territories of any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Europe or the Near or Middle East.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air reminded the House yesterday, it has never been our practice to disclose either the nature or the scope of Intelligence activities.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nobody is asking for details of Intelligence activities, which are inevitably a regrettable reflection of the division of the world into rival armed camps? Is he also aware that what we are seeking, and all the more since the recent statement by Mr. Herter and President Eisenhower, is an assurance that the British Government will neither undertake, nor assist, nor condone the violation by aircraft used for military purposes of the national sovereignty of a friendly Power.
    Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot add to my answer, for very good reasons.
    Mr. A. Lewis: Will the Home Secretary deny that these planes have been going from American bases on the East Coast? Will he deny it?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I will neither assert nor deny.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to this question? Are there any joint agreements between Britain and America to carry on this type of work? Surely, in view of the fact that joint agreements do exist for many purposes between Britain and America, we should know whether a joint agreement exists for this purpose?
    Mr. Butler: I am sorry, but it would be contrary to the public interest to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the fact that international law forbids violating the air sovereignty of a country by flying over its territory and that we are bound to observe that international law by the terms of the Charter of the United Nations, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will refrain from violating international law by sending planes over the territory of other countries without authorisation?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot accept any such assumption as the hon. Gentleman has made, and cannot go beyond the original Answer I gave.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will not let their Intelligence work be restricted to please fellow-travellers?
    Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's totally unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Paget—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know to what purpose the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, (Mr. Paget) is rising, but he cannot ask a question on this topic now.
    Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament this question was discussed in great detail, and it was then decided that the giving of notice of a proposal to raise a matter on the Adjournment did not put a stop to questions.
    Mr. Speaker: I should desire to have information on that point and the opportunity to look at the precedent which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. If it is so, I have recently been very guilty of departing from a precedent I had not discovered.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could make special arrangements for television to be brought into the Chamber, so that the public could see the scoffing attitude of the Government and the serious attitude there is on this side?
    Mr. Speaker: I am not confident, really, that the public would profit by seeing some of the spurious points of order that are directed to me.
    Mr. Rankin: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it in order for me to remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am asking if it is in order—
    Mr. Speaker: With due respect, the hon. Member must not use the cloak of a point of order in order to do something else. If he has a proper point of order, let him put it.
    Mr. Rankin: Then may I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."].
    Mr. Speaker: Reminding the right hon. Gentleman cannot, at first sight, relate to any point of order for me.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to say to the House, as he did on Monday last, that he was only too anxious to answer these Questions when, by his behaviour today, we have now seen how really anxious he was on Monday?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not noticed any breach of the rules of order involved in that. I do not profess to remember with precision without reference the context in which every single word has been spoken.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH MAY—Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Comittee.
A debate will take place on the Agricultural Price Review, on the appropriate Votes.
TUESDAY, 17TH MAY—Second Reading of the Ghana (Consequential Provision) Bill; the Merchant Shipping (Minicoy Lighthouse) Bill; and of the Commonwealth Teachers Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages of the Dock Workers (Pensions) Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Import Duties Order relating to Fresh Tomatoes.
624
WEDNESDAY, 18TH MAY—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which will be resumed on Thursday, 19th May.
FRIDAY, 20TH MAY—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 23RD MAY—The proposed business will be consideration of private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Committee and remaining stages of the Ghana (Consequential Provision) Bill; the Commonwealth Teachers Bill; and of the Merchant Shipping (Minicoy Lighthouse) Bill.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be a statement after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and, if so, whether he will find time for a debate fairly soon afterwards on Commonwealth affairs generally?
Mr. Botler: The Conference is not quite finished, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but I shall put that suggestion to my right hon. Friend. We shall, naturally, endeavour to meet the wishes of the House.
Mr. Bellenger: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to implement the Report of the Tucker Committee on Proceedings Before Examining Justices? This is now an urgent matter, because during the last few days, in my own constituency, 10 defendants have been committed for trial, and nobody knows the charges levelled against them except those who were at that time in court, which sat in camera.
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to draw the case to my attention. I cannot give a definite date for consideration of these important proposals, but the fact is that this case has again accentuated their importance.
Mr. Grimond: Bearing in mind that there are many problems concerning the railways that are not to be studied by the Stedeford Committee, do the Government intend to make any proposals to deal with those problems, or to discuss them before the Committee reports?
Mr. Butler: I think that we had better let the Committee make progress first, but if the hon. Gentleman would let me know the sort of questions he has in mind perhaps I could help him with an answer.
Mr. Brockway: In view of the strong public opinion there is in this country against apartheid in another country, and the desirability of our setting an example, will the right hon. Gentleman provide facilities for my Bill against racial discrimination in public places and social contracts in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Butler: We have never relied, in our Constitution, on legislation on the question of race discrimination. That does not mean that we do not attach the very greatest importance to such questions, but we have never relied on legislation. While I appreciate the objects of the hon. Member's Bill, I cannot undertake to give time for it.
Mr. Gaitskell: Without committing myself on every detail of my hon. Friend's Bill, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to allocate some time for its discussion? In the present circumstances, it would surely be of value that the House of Commons should consider the matter.
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that, owing to the intense importance of this subject, we should at least precede a discussion in the House with a discussion between ourselves.
Miss Herbison: The Leader of the House will be well aware of the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by all Scottish Members on this side, on unemployment in Scotland. Can he assure us that we shall have an early day for discussion of this Motion? If he cannot give that assurance, will he use all his very great influence with the Secretary of State for Scotland to allow us to discuss it in the Scottish Grand Committee? I ask that further question since, last week, the Leader of the House said:
"… there are also opportunities in Scottish Grand Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 1264.]
Since the right hon. Gentleman feels that, surely he will use his influence with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
[That this House, while welcoming the efforts being made to induce development of private industry in areas of high unemployment, believes that where those efforts prove insufficient it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to bring full
626
employment to those areas by setting up and operating publicly owned enterprises.]
Mr. Butler: One of two Supply days for Scottish affairs which come a little later in the Session might well be reserved for this important question. One is quite often reserved for Scottish education. There are also opportunities in the Scottish Grand Committee. I certainly have no objection to discussing the situation with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Darling: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the selection of Votes for Monday's debate will allow the debate to go wider than just a debate on the Price Review?
Mr. Butler: Which Votes are put down is essentially a matter for the Opposition. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to what his hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I say that we shall put down sufficient Votes to enable the debate to go rather wider than the Price Review?
Mr. Mulley: In view of recent developments, will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for us to discuss the economic situation in Europe and the proposed organisation to replace O.E.E.C.?
Mr. Butler: This certainly is a most important development. The difficulty is to find time. I must digest what the hon. Gentleman has put before me.
Mr. Short: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955 (Amendment) Bill continues to be blocked each Friday by his hon. Friends, the latest hon. Member to add his name to the list of those who wish to deprive old people of concessionary fares being the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach)? Does not the Leader of the House think now that he should find some Government time for this worthwhile Measure?
Mr. Butler: There are many worthwhile aspects of this Measure. There is no opposition of an organised character to its consideration. I cannot give any undertaking; the difficulty is to find the time.
Mr. S. Silverman: Since the right hon. Gentleman is considering the finding of time to discuss various Motions on the Order Paper, has his attention been drawn to a Motion put down quite recently, and signed by about 50 of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, dealing with a most urgent subject which, apparently, we are to be allowed to discuss this afternoon only on a Motion for the Adjournment, which prevents any expression of opinion on the matters involved? Could the Leader of the House suggest an alteration of today's business so that that Motion might be taken before we proceed to the Motion for the Adjournment?
[That this House warmly welcomes the forthcoming Summit Conference and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in ensuring that it will fulfil the high expectations of the peoples of the world by taking decisive steps towards the ending of the cold war and the arms race, the abolition of nuclear weapons and the solution of the major political problems which threaten world peace, and, in particular, by concluding an agreement on the banning of nuclear weapon tests; by making a joint declaration that no one of the four Powers will ever initiate the use of nuclear weapons; by negotiating a pact of non-aggression and mutual security to supersede the rivalry between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact Powers and to include a substantial zone in Europe to be nuclear-free and in which armed forces and arms are reduced under international control; by drawing up new directives to the 10-nation Disarmament Committee providing for agreement on the goal of total disarmament to be achieved within a specified period of years by continuous stages, in which each stage represents a real reduction in armed power verified by appropriate measures of control; by renewing discussions on the problems of Germany and the Middle East; and by pledging co-operation through United Nations Agencies in the provision of massive economic aid to under-developed countries.]
Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a Motion in my name advocating the institution of a Commonwealth Court?
628
As the Commonwealth Conference has not finished and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are in this country, and as there are Commonwealth disputes, particularly relating to apartheid, does he not consider that this would be a very appropriate time to discuss the institution of a Commonwealth Court? Will he find time for this purpose in the immediate future?
[That this House, impressed by the fact that there is not now in existence a Commonwealth Court with powers to hear and determine disputes between members of the Commonwealth, appeals from the Supreme Courts of the members of the Commonwealth, questions submitted by the Governments of members of the Commonwealth, or questions submitted by the Supreme Courts of Members of the Commonwealth, recommends Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to initiate conversations with the Governments of all the other members of the Commonwealth for the purpose of agreeing upon and of instituting a Commonwealth Court, with all, or any, of the said powers; and further recommends Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to report to the House from time to time the progress and results of such conversations.]
Mr. Butler: This is a very important matter. I am not aware whether it has been raised in the Commonwealth Conference. I think that there might be just time for the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his case to one of his friends in the Commonwealth.
Mr. C. Pannell: Has the Leader of the House finished his leisurely appraisal of the future of this building? Can he yet announce, or must we wait until next Session for them, the names of the members of the committee which is to consider the affairs which we have already so much discussed?
Mr. Butler: It is proposed to synchronise the announcement of the names of the committee with the production by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works of the plans and models of the future upstairs accommodation. We hope to produce these models and plans in what may euphemistically be described as the early summer.
Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman's continuing search for time an indication that the Whitsun Recess will be for only a week?
Mr. Butler: We had better wait and see.
Mr. Ross: Does not the Leader of the House think that the importance of Scottish employment and unemployment is such that the Government should find time to give the House an opportunity to discuss the subject? Secondly, can he elucidate his reference to one of the Scottish Supply days being used for a discussion of Scottish education?
Mr. Butler: It is normal for two Supply days towards the latter end of the Session to be devoted to Scottish affairs. I should have hoped that one, at least, might have been devoted to this. Further, it would still be possible for Her Majesty's Opposition to choose a subject which clearly interests so many of their supporters and us on this side of the House also, namely, Scottish unemployment.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House try to find time for a discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration? Is it consistent with the dignity of the House that this matter should be discussed elsewhere, that the professions should be calling national conferences, and that negotiations will start without the House having an opportunity of expressing its views upon this very important document?
Mr. Butler: We should like to find time, but I think that it would be very difficult.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY SUPPLY
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1960–61
CLASS II. VOTE 1

Foreign Service
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,273,310, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including Her Majesty's Missions and Consulates abroad, and the salaries of two Ministers of State. [£7,500,000 has been voted on account.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The purpose of this debate, provided out of Opposition time, is to permit a final exchange of views between the House and the Government before the Summit talks, to enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to tell the Government what we expect them to try to achieve at the Summit, and, so far as we are agreed on the objectives, to give them our support and encouragement in their efforts.
Reaching the Summit has been a very slow business. There have been doubts in many quarters. There have been laggards. There have been false horizons, and there have been disappointments. Now, at the last minute, on the last slope, a sudden unexpected storm has threatened the whole expedition. The episode of the U2—the destruction by the Russians of an American intelligence aircraft engaged on photographing Russian airfields and military installations—has caused very great concern throughout the world. It could have stopped the Summit talks, though I am glad to say that that seems

631
unlikely now. But this episode also highlights the very great dangers of the present world situation and, therefore, emphasises the need for success at the Summit.
I see no purpose in being hypocritical, or mealy-mouthed, about intelligence work and espionage. Every large Power engages in it. Sometimes spies are caught. Sometimes they are killed. Sometimes these things happen at awkward moments. We remember the episode of Commander Crabb. Governments do not usually acknowledge espionage, or take any interest in their agents if they are caught. There is a tacit understanding to keep this kind of thing under the rug, the reason for this tacit understanding, of course, being the risk that it might prejudice normal diplomatic relations between Governments. If it were not for the fact that so many of those engaged in this business were men of great courage, I should say that it was the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
Moreover, it is undeniable that the Soviet Union practises espionage, and does so on a grand scale. It is undeniable that the Russians have a somewhat easier job in obtaining intelligence from the democratic countries than we do from the Soviet Union, because we happen to have an open society. It is undeniable, also, that the development of nuclear weapons gives a terrifying advantage to the surprise attack and, therefore, produces an overwhelming case in favour of agreements to safeguard all countries against surprise attack. It is undeniable, too, that, in the absence of such agreements, the danger of surprise attack produces an urgent and natural need for intelligence to guard against it.
All this must be admitted, but, having said it, I feel, and I believe that very many Americans feel, that it was a singularly inept and stupid thing to allow flights of this kind to take place just before the Summit talks. I should have thought that it would have been wiser had the President of the United States given instructions some little time ago that they should be cancelled.
Moreover, one cannot but be concerned with some of the statements made by the United States Government—by
632
the Secretary of State and others—about the whole matter. I hope that I am wrong, but certainly some of the things said by State Department spokesmen have suggested that the United States Government regard themselves as legally entitled to send their planes over Soviet air space and, further, that they intend to continue to do so.
This seems to me an almost untenable proposition. I should have thought that it was quite clearly a violation of international law, and I hope very much that the Government will give us their opinion on this and that they will confirm what I have said. I hope that they will also urge second thoughts on the United States Government if it is the case that they propose to continue these practices.
This particular type of intelligence work is peculiar because it involves risks not only for the pilot or photographer conducting it, but for the whole world. Such forms of espionage do not merely discover, or fail to discover, enemy secrets, but the process of attempting to do so could conceivably trigger off a nuclear war. It is a very different matter from the old-fashioned spy with field glasses, counting the number of lorries moving along a road.
For these reasons, I must record my view that this kind of thing should not be done without consultation with, and knowledge and approval of, the whole Atlantic Alliance, because it involves the risk of war; and it is not right that one country should take such risks in the absence of the consent of its allies. I hope that these lessons will be learnt and that, meanwhile, the episode, despite its peculiar character, will not be allowed to prejudice the vital need for success at the Summit. It is reassuring, I think, that, despite Mr. Khrushchev's sharp comments in part of his speech, he has not indicated any desire to suspend the Summit talks. It is good news that his remarks about President Eisenhower's forthcoming visit to Moscow appear to have been censored from the Soviet newspapers.
I think that the thing that we most want to see achieved at the Summit, starting with what I regard as the most practicable step, is agreement to ban nuclear tests. Even in this field, as everywhere else, progress has been slow. It has taken eighteen months at least to get to the

633
present stage, but we can say that the progress has been quite perceptible and, relatively speaking, substantial. The three Powers—America, Russia and ourselves—are now ready to sign an agreement to make no more nuclear tests except those below ground with a seismic magnitude of less than 4·75. That is how I understand the position. In practice, this means that they agree to make no more tests above ground, in the atmosphere, in, I think, the stratosphere or underwater, and no more tests below ground with a greater seismic magnitude than that I have mentioned.
Furthermore, the three Powers are agreed to make unilateral declarations that for a period to be agreed they will make no other nuclear weapon tests, even the smaller ones which are not detectable, those not covered by the rest of the agreement, pending a joint programme of research in order to establish better methods of detecting the smaller explosions. Thus, two major problems alone seem to remain unsolved in the negotiations on nuclear tests—the number of on-site inspections to be permitted in a given period, and the length of the moratorium.
With regard to the first problem, I know very well that there is a difference, which is sometimes described as a difference of principle, on whether the number shall be determined on political grounds only, as the Russians wish, or whether it shall be determined in relation to the number of unexplained explosions of all kinds or, rather, seismographic incidents. I say only one thing on that. It seems to me that all that is needed to settle the number of on-site inspections is to have enough to deter any Power from trying to evade the agreement. So long as there is a risk of detection, it is extremely unlikely that any one of the three Powers will do this because it would know that this would mean a breach of the agreement and quite probably the starting of nuclear tests all over again by the other two countries.
The length of the moratorium surely is a matter of common sense. It has been said that the British Government have proposed two years. If that is so, I think that that is a quite reasonable period. I would not be fussy about whether it is two or three years. It would be a great mistake to allow the
634
chance of agreement to break down on the narrow issue whether the moratorium should be just that length or just this length.
In view of all this progress, the recent United States declaration about their forthcoming series of underground tests in the autumn is decidedly puzzling. It has not been cleared up by the answers given by the Minister of State yesterday, nor, I fear, by the statements, reported in the Press this morning, of President Eisenhower. I must, therefore, ask the following questions to which, I hope, the Foreign Secretary will give answers.
First, does the moratorium cover all underground tests below the 4·75 level? Does it cover so-called civil as well as military tests—civilian research as well as military research purposes? If, as I rather fear, the moratorium is intended to relate only to so-called weapon tests, is there not a very great danger of a loophole being left, because how exactly can we distinguish between civil tests, or tests for civilian purposes, and tests for military purposes?
Secondly, do we understand that the only tests to be allowed after the agreement has been signed will be those which take place under the co-ordinated programme of research to improve the means of detection or, at least, if not wholly confined to those, can they be limited to those together with any other very specific civil ones for which approval is sought and given?
Thirdly, may we take it that these tests are to be carried out jointly or at least with complete freedom for the other two Powers concerned to send their observers to see what they like?
Finally, can the Foreign Secretary say why the United States Government made this statement just before the meeting of scientists in Geneva—which, I think, is today—to discuss the details of the programme? Did they intend it to be simply part of the co-ordinated programme? If so, does it not seem a little strange that they did not wait until the meeting in Geneva to put it forward? If it means more than that and something outside the programme, may we have an explanation how it fits in with the proposed moratorium?
I hope that it will be possible for the Foreign Secretary to clear all this up. I hope, even more, that when the Prime

635
Minister goes to the Summit, although I am well aware that because the French are not taking part in these negotiations the subject of a nuclear test agreement may not be on the agenda, he will do everything in his power to get this agreement signed.
Such an agreement among the three great Powers to ban nuclear tests is important for various reasons. In the first place, as has often been said, it involves setting up international control posts in the three most powerful countries of the world. That itself is a tremendously significant development, if it occurs. Secondly, at least it puts an end to the pollution of the atmosphere by those three countries. Thirdly, it will mean in large part the freezing by them of their nuclear weapon development.
But one must, of course, recognise that the agreement has to be negotiated and will—in the first instance, at any rate—be signed only by three Powers. We know very well that the French have said, and said repeatedly and consistently, that they will not be party to an agreement on tests unless and until there is an agreement to stop the production of nuclear weapons and to destroy nuclear stocks, or the means of delivering them.
The French attitude may seem to us irritating and tiresome, but it is hardly for us to put the French in the dock on this issue. They are perfectly logical in saying, "It is all very well for you to tell us that we must not make any more tests; you have made your tests; you have your weapons; you have plenty of weapons, and more, to enable you to blow up the whole world many times; but we are not in that position and we do not see why we should stop just at this point in our progress towards becoming a nuclear Power."
It could be said, at any rate, that we would certainly have used just the same argument in previous years ourselves. There are only two ways by which we can meet the French argument. One of them, if we can persuade them, would be to follow the proposals which we put forward last year for establishing a non-nuclear club, apart from Russia and the United States. I will refer to that later. The only other way, and the way which we have always recognised as superior
636
and as the first priority, is through general disarmament, and to that subject I now turn.
To start with, I quote a few words which I used about multilateral disarmament in a recent speech. I said:
"What are our chief aims in international policy? They are quite simply peace and freedom. There is only one secure way of achieving these—by all-round comprehensive controlled disarmament. It must be all-round, because if even one powerful nation keeps its arms, the others will do so, too. It must be comprehensive, because even if we have nuclear disarmament, conventional weapons can produce a terrible war."
One might add that unless conventional weapons are covered, the probability that one country or another will regard the other Powers as having some special advantage will almost certainly prevent an agreement.
"It must be controlled, because without controls to make sure an agreement is kept, there will be no agreement."
I make no apology for underlining those facts, because this is the most important thing in the whole sphere of international negotiations today.
Because of its complexity, and because we so often have to discuss the subject, we tend to get bored with it and allow it to become stale and consequently to underrate it. We must try to avoid that danger. It is supremely important, and none of us can ever afford to allow our attention to be deflected from it for a moment.
If one contrasts the immense importance of multilateral disarmament with what has been achieved in the first stages of the Ten-Power Disarmament Commission, it is a very distressing result. Reporting on the first six weeks, The Times said, on 30th April, about that Conference:
"The first session of the 10-Power disarmament conference ended today in full disarray. So far it repeats the doleful fate of all such negotiations since the end of the war."
That can hardly be better illustrated than by the fact that the Powers concerned failed to agree even on the final statement when they adjourned. Mr. Zorin, the Russian representative, thought that we could say that it could be said that there had been a certain rapprochement. I understand from the Press that the Minister of State was not

637
prepared to accept that. He thought that there had not been a certain rapprochement, but only a clarification of ideas. Those were the things they argued about.
I do not want to reproach the right hon. Gentleman. I draw attention to that to show the kind of atmosphere which must have existed at the conference at that time, an atmosphere in which almost anything that one side said was bound to be contradicted by the other side, because one side got suspicious because it thought that in some way or another the other side was trying to get one jump ahead, because it thought that if it agreed to anything which the other side said it would thereby lose a certain amount of prestige and that that might prejudice further negotiations. There is nothing peculiar about this. I expect that most of us are familiar with it in some small way in even quite minor negotiations in which we have become involved. Most of us are aware that it happens time and time again in international affairs.
We see it happen when we see the various countries coming together and the ritual performance beginning, the ritual performance of propaganda and counter-propaganda—or, not counter-propaganda, but parallel propaganda. When one has had several weeks of that, each side really ignoring the main issues and concentrating on trying to impress some unknown outside world, one waits for the bargaining to start, but when the bargaining starts one can be sure that neither side will seriously put forward anything which it thinks that the other is likely to accept. One side begins the process by asking in a completely Oriental fashion—I hope that I say that without offence—for something which is quite clearly unacceptable to the other side, because it shifts the balance of power against it. The parties go on like that, and the process goes on and on and round and round and the rest of the world looks on astonished. It is astonished and worried because there is no progress.
I find it amazing that anybody should think nowadays that a country or Government makes successful propaganda by this sort of thing. The fact is that the most successful propaganda which any Government or country can put across today is to be able to say, "I put forward the proposals which the other side accepted".
638
There are other things, apart from those underlying difficulties, which seem to me to be wrong about the Ten-Power Commission. To start with, the procedure seems to be highly chaotic. There is a change of chairman every day. There is no agreed agenda and no apparent order. I take the report for one day as an example of this, the report of 22nd March. M. Jules Moch began by putting forward the familiar French thesis that a ban on tests must be linked to the cutoff of nuclear weapon production and the diversion of nuclear material to civilian purposes only.
The Rumanian delegate talked about the dangers of reconverting nuclear weapons to peaceful purposes. The Canadian and Soviet delegates talked about other aspects of nuclear disarmament, and the American delegate began to talk about the importance of retaining foreign bases until peace was really secured. I am sure that they made admirable speeches, but there is no sign whatever that they began to get to grips with the problem.
Then there is the question of the privacy of the proceedings. The proceedings are supposed to be private, but, of course, they are not private, because the delegates tell the Press whatever they want. They issue some of the speeches to the Press. By acting in this way we get the worst of both worlds. I think that there is much to be said for purely private diplomacy on these occasions, although, as has often been said, the agreement must be published eventually. But if we are not to have purely private diplomacy, then it might be better to have purely public diplomacy, because then, at least, the rest of the world would know accurately what was going on.
The United Nations staff is there to assist, but its only job appears to be the production of minutes, and what happens about the minutes? Do we get them regularly and can the rest of the world discover from them exactly what progress is being made? It cannot. They are not published until after a month or so following the proceedings. I should have thought that either it was best to have these discussions in private, in which case there surely could be an understanding between the delegations to keep them private, or let them be public, or, at least, let the minutes be published

639
every week so that we may know exactly what is going on.
There is another important matter which cannot be ignored in the composition of this Disarmament Commission. I very much doubt whether the two sides facing each other—although I admit that there was something to be said for enlarging it from the basis of four as it used to be, to ten, five on each side— I very much doubt whether this direct confrontation, without any neutral personality present, will lead anywhere. I ask the Government to consider very seriously whether it would not be wise to propose the appointment of a neutral chairman to take charge of these proceedings and to act in that capacity permanently.
The other thing I want to suggest is this. We are concerned here with the disarmament of the world. Even supposing that we were to make progress and get to the stage of agreement, or if an agreement were to be signed, should we really have achieved all that we want? Of course not. We should be covered in respect of the ten Powers concerned, but we should have left out the two most populous countries in the world—China and India. I think that the idea of saying to the Chinese, "We will negotiate first, and afterwards, at some unspecified time, we will bring you into the proceedings," is not enough. What reason could we have for supposing that the Chinese would simply sign on the dotted line after that? If, as President Eisenhower has admitted, they must be brought in at some time, why not bring them in straight away? To preserve some balance, I strongly urge that not only China but India be brought in, and I should like to press the Government specifically to put forward this proposal at the Summit talks.
On the substance of the disarmament negotiations, or arguments, as it would be better to describe them, I do not propose to say very much. It is a complicated subject. But I think that it will be agreed that the great issue which really divides the two sides here is the issue of controls in relation to disarmament. We can all agree that we should not and cannot have disarmament without controls, and that we cannot and will not have controls without disarmament. I believe that this original phrase
640
of M. Moch was very generally accepted by all, but the way in which it is interpreted is fundamental.
Here I think that the Western Plan suffers from a fairly serious disadvantage —that it is not adequately balanced in time in these matters, because the whole of the first part of it is concerned with the establishment of controls, rather than with the securing of disarmament. The Foreign Secretary himself, in our last debate in February, said that we were going to put in manpower ceilings. Up to then, these limitations on manpower were excluded, but the ceilings that were subsequently put in were very high ones —2½ million as the figure for Russia, 2½ million as the manpower for the United States. I understand that this is in excess of what they have at the moment, or, at any rate, not very much above it and likely to be reached before long.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby Gore): Mr. Khrushchev announced in his speech in January of this year that the present level of the Soviet Union forces was 3·6 million.
Mr. Gaitskell: But it is being reduced, is it not?
Mr. Ormsby Gore: Yes, but over two years.
Mr. Gaitskell: Exactly, over two years, but we are dealing with disarmament negotiations. If the Minister thinks that they will be completed in two years, I should only be too delighted, but very surprised.
In 1955, we brought forward a ceiling of 1·5 million. Why cannot we go back to that? It is not only sensible, but it would at least give the Russians the clear and correct impression that we were trying to get disarmament at the same time as we had control. Indeed, in considering the absolute failure to make progress in the present conference, I cannot help wondering whether it would not be better to go back to the 1955 plan. The tragedy is that on that plan the two sides were nearer agreement than they have ever been before or since; the tragedy was that we in the West withdrew the proposal as soon as the Russians accepted it. I know

641
very well the reasons for that. There was this problem of detecting stocks of nuclear weapons. Of course, it is a very real problem, but I suggest that it should be brought into a reconsideration of the 1955 proposals.
That leads me to one other point of equal substance. It is becoming increasingly realised that the way in which we deal with this hideously difficult problem of nuclear stocks is quite fundamental. Let it be agreed that we cannot detect them. Then, there is only one way in which we can deal with the problem and that is to bring under control and limitation all possible means of delivery. Another criticism that we have of the Western plan is that it does not seem to place nearly enough emphasis upon that point.
I trust that the Summit statesmen, in relation to disarmament, will, as I have already suggested, invite China and India to join, will, at any rate, explore the possibility of a neutral chairman, and, above all, will issue a joint directive to both sides to put an end to the propaganda, bring the ritual to an end and finally and genuinely get down to brass tacks.
Meanwhile, there remains the danger, which must surely be all the more evident to our minds, in view of the absolute absence of progress on general disarmament, of the spread of nuclear weapons. I will not today go over again all the arguments for our proposals last year. I merely reaffirm that this is a tremendous danger to the West and that a special responsibility rests upon Britain, and now, I think, upon France. I should like to propose that the Foreign Secretary, although he has always opposed our suggestion, might now get together with the French and try to work out with them some plan to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, pending the conclusion of the general disarmament negotiations.
I do not think this is altogether hopeless. The British Government are in a new position since the decision to abandon Blue Streak, and the French Government have shown signs recently of doubts whether they really intend to proceed along the path which they originally contemplated. It seems to me that this might be the psychological moment when Britain and France could together
642
put forward proposals for the benefit of the world.
I have spent much time in this speech on the subject of disarmament, but that does not mean that I underestimate the other issues. I will not say anything about the Middle East, but will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who will wind up the debate from this side of the Committee, and who has recently been there. Nor will I say anything, important and vital as it is, on the subject of aid to underdeveloped countries, except that if we could get these same Powers agreeing on general plans in this field it would be of immense importance and give confidence to the world.
But I should like to say a few words on Berlin and Germany. On Berlin, we must recognise that there is not much prospect of a long-term agreement. There will be no agreement on Berlin unless there is agreement on Germany—no long-term one; and I do not see myself that there is much chance of an agreement on German reunification so long as neither side is prepared to put forward realistic and practical proposals.
It may be that the Russians do not want it at all, but, certainly, they will not have it on the basis that a reunited Germany is free to remain in the Western camp. We have said that again and again, and it is perfectly obvious, and it is really nothing more than hypocrisy to go on talking about any proposal for reunification unless that problem is dealt with first.
Meanwhile, however, we cannot accept that West Berlin should be swallowed up, or that unilateral action by the Soviet Union can be regarded as affecting our rights of access and of our presence in West Berlin. I think that the best that we can hope for is an interim agreement such as was nearly reached in Geneva last summer. The Committee will be familiar with the details and I need not go over them again. I mention only two points. First, I hope that in such agreement, or any negotiations for such agreement, which should not be too difficult in view of the long discussions which have already taken place, the British Government will support the proposals for improving the access to West Berlin.

643
I think that the West Berlin people are entitled to be rather surer than they are at the moment that, for instance, their export trade, on which they depend, is not held up by what is nothing more than sheer bureaucracy on the part of the Russians or East Berlin officials, whichever they may be.
The other point is this. The great difficulty at the end in Geneva was that we could not agree on what the juridical position would be of each country after the interim period was over. The Foreign Secretary proposed some words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), but the Russians refused to accept them.
I think that the Committee knows that we discussed this matter at length in Moscow last summer, first, with Mr. Gromyko and, later, with Mr. Khrushchev. Mr. Khrushchev indicated to us there that the proposal was, after all, reasonable. I cannot disclose private conversations although these facts have been made known, and they would not, of course, bind Mr. Khrushchev, but they lead me to hope that we could now get an agreement on this basis.
What else can we do? On this side of the Committee, we want to see a start made with the establishment of a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe. I dealt with this proposal in detail in our last debate, and I will not repeat it all again. The story is a depressing one, of timidity and evasion. We all remember the Moscow communiqué, and the hopes raised by that —the phrase that the possibility of this kind of thing would be the subject of joint study. We all remember that it was then put on one side; sat upon, if hon. Members like, by Dr. Adenauer. We know that the German Government have opposed this steadily ever since.
We know that the British Government have tried to wriggle out of the Moscow communiqué by saying that this was fulfilled in the package proposals put forward at Geneva. But how can anybody seriously suppose that the Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev really meant, when they talked about "further study" of the proposals, a totally different plan dependent on political conditions put forward by the West at Geneva? It simply does not make any sense at all.
644
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not give the sort of answer he gave last time he spoke, that all this was connected with the neutralisation of Germany, and so on. I can argue that with him at any time on other occasions. The fact is that we can have a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe and need not have any further disengagement if we do not want it. It can stand on its own.
It is important for these reasons, first, because it is easy to ensure that the balance of power is preserved, and this, of course, is the difficulty in all these negotiations. Secondly, both sides are fully committed at least to something of the kind. The Rapacki plan, the Moscow communiqué and the Eden plan before are all involved. Thirdly, because it is surely much easier to get acceptance of control in Eastern and Central Europe than it is in the Soviet Union, or, for that matter, in the U.S.A. Fourthly, because the establishment of international control posts and disarmament in this area will remove the danger of surprise attack from this part of the world, and certainly reduce the possibility of friction. Finally, because if it were achieved it would be a valuable pilot scheme for general disarmament.
I have tried in this speech to show the kind of things that we hope will be achieved at the Summit—a nuclear tests agreement, a new directive to the Disarmament Commission, an interim agreement on Berlin, the beginnings at least of a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe. Even so, when one adds something on the Middle East and economic aid, I know that there will be many who will say that this is far too much to expect. They will say, "Do not be impatient. You cannot get there quickly. International negotiations depend on confidence. Confidence is a plant of slow growth. It cannot be forced." All these things have been said and, no doubt, said by wise, experienced men whose sincerity one does not question; and in quiet times this may be enough when one can assume that the status quo is not likely to be disturbed, or when natural changes are not likely to be unfavourable.
I cannot say today that we could make that assumption, that we could let

645
the Summit Conference and perhaps further conferences and the disarmament negotiations move along in a leisurely way with all the full ritual and paraphernalia, while nothing else is happening outside, except, perhaps, that the skies were clearing. There is nothing more difficult than to peer through the mists of the future. I would not deny that in the past some things which have happened have been unexpectedly favourable. I think of the changes in Russian policy and outlook since 1953, for example.
Nevertheless, looking ahead as clearly as possible, I can see many things which are likely to disturb rather than maintain the status quo. First, we cannot honestly say that the balance of terror, as it is called, is a stable equilibrium. It is a very unstable equilibrium. Could there be a better example of that than the U2 episode?
Secondly, nobody really can deny the danger that, if nothing is done to stop it and there are these long delays, nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries—and not only in Europe. China is expecting to produce a nuclear weapon, I understand, by 1962. Will India be indifferent in those circumstances? Or Japan?
Thirdly, there is the position of China herself. Here is this immense country, already with over 600 million people, whose population is expected to rise to 1,000 million. Can we regard it as a sated Power? Is it not time that we were thinking really of persuading our American allies to change their attitude to China? It may have been justifiable. One could understand that at the time of the Korean War, and afterwards, because of the losses and casualties the Americans sustained, they would not recognise Red China. But if one is working for peace and disarmament it is no use leaving out the most populous country in the world, which will, in a decade, be one of the most powerful countries in the world.
In the face of these grave dangers the world can no longer take the leisurely displomatic progress of the nineteenth century. There must be a speed-up. We do not ask that the Government should give way on vital points, or fall into any trap which may be laid. We understand the need for defence, and we under-
646
stand the need for alliances in present conditions, but, because we are realists, we also see the danger of delay to the world. We ask, then, for a greater sense of urgency in every participant of this Summit Conference, and greater unity between the participants in the struggle for peace. Let the Government say to their colleagues at the Summit: Hurry, hurry. That is what the peoples of the world demand.
4.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I welcome this debate. I think it is extremely important that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I should be made aware of the opinions of the Opposition and of all quarters of the Committee before going to this Summit meeting. As for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as I think he will know, there were certain specific points in it with which I am in disagreement with him, but I do not quarrel at all with his general approach to this question of the Summit meeting.
The right hon. Gentleman referred in the early part of his speech to the recent incident and disturbances in the international atmosphere. I will not go into the merits of that matter at all, but it is on the whole perhaps a good thing that it happened before and not immediately after the Summit meeting, because it seems to me to show that the Summit meeting is all the more necessary. It may perhaps have served another purpose—and this is very much in tune with what the Leader of the Opposition said towards the end of his speech. It may have served a useful purpose in shaking people out of their complacency about the Summit.
We have never believed that the cure for all international problems is just to have a Summit meeting. We have never believed that everything will be solved just at one Summit meeting. There has been built up—and I am not talking; particularly of hon. Members in the Committee—in certain areas of opinion the feeling that one has just to arrange a Summit meeting and have it, and then that it is a nice free-wheel down an easy gradient to peace and better times.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Prime Minister thought that.
Mr. Lloyd: That feeling of complacency is ill-founded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not want to be unduly polemical but it really was the Opposition that said again and again, "All you have to do is to have a Summit meeting." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Again and again we have been asked, "Will you suggest a Summit meeting? Why don't you have a Summit meeting?" Every time, to every problem, the answer was, "Have a Summit meeting." And we have always taken the view that it was a good thing to have, provided that there was adequate preparation for it. We stick to the opinion that the creation of better relations between the nations is uphill work and we have to work steadily and patiently for it, not expecting too much from the first meeting.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), writing in the Daily Worker the other day, said that our purpose was to have a stalemate at the Summit. He is quite wrong. We want results. We mean to do our best to get them, and I repeat that I think that recent events have shown this meeting to be all the more necessary.
Mr. K. Zilliacus: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least repudiate the doctrine that we are entitled to violate international law and treaty obligations? Unless he does that, there will not be a stalemate but dead failure at the Conference.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member's argument in the newspaper article was that our purpose was to get a stalemate, and I repudiate that.
I will tell the Committee what are the three purposes which Her Majesty's Government have in mind. First of all, we want to sustain and develop the move towards a relaxation of tension that had been apparent for the last fourteen months or so, since the visit to Moscow in February last year. Secondly, we want to push on with the seeking of specific agreements in the field of general disarmament and also during the Summit we seek progress over agreement with regard to the suspension of nuclear tests. Our third purpose is to see further evidence of support for the principle that disputes between the Powers should not be settled by war or the threat of war, but by discussion and negotiation.
648
It may be said that these are three rather vague, almost platitudinous expressions of our objectives, but I want to show by dealing with each specifically, exactly what we shall try to achieve. First, as to the relaxation of tension, I hope that we shall get much more clearly defined what each side means by relaxation of tension, by détente and by co-existence. There was a time when it could be truthfully said that Communism and a free society had nothing in common. Now, owing to the destructive capacity of modern weapons, both nuclear and conventional, and the revolutionary developments in the means of delivery of explosives, applied to nuclear as well as conventional weapons, both systems have in common the need for physical survival and the prevention of mutual destruction. This means not only renunciation of war but also putting the relations between the two systems on the basis that each is not constantly working far the destruction of the other. Live and let live is an admirable principle, but how do we get it? How do we work it out in practice?
There is a strange paradoxical situation at the moment. Mr. Khrushchev loses no opportunity for expressing his dislike of capitalism. He loathes the capitalist ruling circles, monopolists and the imperialists, and he constantly predicts the collapse of the capitalist system, though I am not certain that he knows how it is evolving. On the other hand, when he visits capitalist countries he finds the people friendly and he is full of admiration for what he sees. I have been reading speeches he has made in Moscow about his visit to France and about the great things that are taking place in capitalist France. We, for our part, say that we have no use at all for Communism as a faith. We dislike its atheism, its materialism, its ruthless pursuit of world domination, and its exploitation of its subjects, but that is a system which is also evolving. When we go to the Soviet Union we find pleasant friendly crowds and physical achievements which we can admire.
Therefore, does this difficulty about peaceful co-existence lie with the Governments, with the so-called ruling circles on both sides? Is that the problem? If this détente is to be real, therefore, the first problem we must

649
tackle is to try to understand that genuine peaceful co-existence involves certain obligations on the part of Governments on both sides.
The first thing involved is non-interference. I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred in a Question—and I do not know whether the Question was reached—to the indivisibility of the détente, which was the phrase used in a recent N.A.T.O. communiqué. Of course, that does not mean that one cannot have a détente anywhere until one has one everywhere, just as "the indivisibility of peace" does not mean that one cannot make peace anywhere until one makes it everywhere. The point which the users of this phrase had in mind is that one cannot genuinely improve relations with certain members of an alliance and at the same time unleash against other members of the same alliance a really virulent radio propaganda campaign which is both offensive and untruthful.
The first thing that the leaders of great Powers must accept as a principle to guide their conduct is non-interference in the internal political affairs of other countries. We must try to have accepted the principle that it is the countries themselves that must decide in their own way how their lives are to be led and that it is not for outside countries to attempt to do this for them.
The second principle concerns genuine exchanges of information and personal contact, in the belief that, as people get to know one another, the harshness of the differences between their political leaders may be mitigated. Finally, Governments must so conduct their trading policies, aid to underdeveloped countries, and supplies of armaments that their purposes are not, and are not seen to be, an attempt to destroy the other's system of society. I hope, therefore, that at the Summit meeting the first thing we will do is to have a very frank talk about what a dàtente means and try to get established between us whether we both mean the same thing by it, and that we shall then live up to this code of conduct among the Powers.
As to disarmament and the nuclear tests conference, we can take pride in this country that the conference originated from a British proposal to get
650
the experts to meet, a proposal which was accepted nine months after it was made. During these negotiations— which have, I admit, been protracted— there have been no tests by the three negotiating States. Twelve months ago, as I have stated before to the Committee, we reached the practical position when it was readily accepted that we could control the suspension of tests in the atmosphere, under water, and underground down to a certain threshold. But there was a threshold below which underground tests could not be detected in the light of existing knowledge.
It took a very long time to get the Soviet Government to accept that position. We have felt ever since that position became apparent that the only way round it was to get an agreement or treaty covering the area where there could be control, and to have a moratorium in the area where suspension could not be properly controlled. That method has at last been agreed to. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that there are still certain problems outstanding.
The first set of these problems relates to underground tests and the second to the length of the moratorium. I do not quarrel with what he said about that. Perhaps a criterion as to the length of the moratorium might be the length of time that the research programme will take to carry out. We envisage that as that develops we may be able to lower the threshold stage by stage, and eventually we hope to get rid of it altogether.
I now come to the quota of inspections. This again was an idea which we put to Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow. The reason we put forward this idea of a quota of inspections was that it was felt, particularly on the Russian side, that if every single seismic disturbance was to be inspected, there would be continuous inspection going on in almost the whole of the Soviet Union. It was to meet that that we put forward this idea of a quota.
I agree that the quota must be sufficient to deter, whether we calculate it in relation to the number of seismic disturbances or take them into account in fixing it for political reasons. I agree that the purpose is to get a reasonable figure within the bounds of practical possibility, but sufficient to deter a potential wrongdoer. On both matters

651
—they do not seem to be particularly complicated—we might have a fair hope of getting an answer during the Summit meeting.
The second matter with regard to tests, is the problem of the composition of the control commission, of the teams manning the control stations, and of the inspection teams. On that matter there has been a great deal of discussion, and considerable progress has been made. There has been considerable movement by both sides. The Russians' opening bid about control posts on Soviet territory was that there should be only one or two foreigners in each team. Now they have agreed that two-thirds, twenty out of thirty, should be foreigners. From there we are, I think, in sight of agreement on these outstanding matters.
The right hon. Gentleman quite fairly asked why President Eisenhower's announcement about the United States' programme for tests was made. I think it was made because the United States Government had been under pressure to show that they were concerned about the efficient detection of tests. The President began the statement—and the misfortune was, perhaps, that the whole of the statement was not at once known here—by announcing a major expansion of present research and development directed towards improving the capability to detect and identify underground explosions. He announced that the sum of 66 million dollars was to be allocated for this. The whole context of this statement was an attempt to get on with the job, to improve the capacity to detect nuclear tests.
The moratorium covers, as I understand it, all civil tests except those provided for in what we hope will be an agreed article in the Agreement, because it is agreed in principle by the Soviet Union and us that there should be provisions in the treaty for civil tests, so the moratorium will cover any tests outside that.
With regard to military tests, I understand that there will be none during the moratorium, and the only tests, therefore, apart from the civil ones provided for, will be as part of a co-ordinated programme. I do not think that it is necessarily a joint programme, but a co-ordinated one. The President said only yesterday, in speaking of co-
652
ordination, that his view was that the Russians would and should see everything necessary. I hope that that puts the statement into its proper perspective. We warmly welcome it as a constructive attempt to develop the capacity for detecting tests.
Mr. Frank Bowles: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what an underground test is? We have seen pictures of tests in the air, and they are tremendous explosions. Does the same kind of explosion take place underground? What happens to that part of the earth where one takes place?
Mr. Lloyd: I have not actual knowledge of all this, but in all mining operations there are certain explosions underground. In this case case we can have either little or big ones. The whole problem is that a big one can be detected by instruments, but smaller ones below a certain level, cannot, with present instruments, be detected. The whole problem of the degree of control is to perfect the system of instrumentation, so that these little explosions can be detected and would not be assumed to be minor earthquakes or something of that sort.
Mr. Bowles: Is the explosion of a small test of any value to anybody?
Mr. Lloyd: They are of value because they enable the maker of the test to perfect certain processes in the use of the components in a nuclear weapon. They are of military value and the United States has engaged in certain such tests. It was data from these tests which went before the experts at Geneva.
Mr. Denis Healey: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, perhaps he could clear up one or two uncertainties in my mind. Is it quite clear now that any tests carried out, either as part of the research programme or as civil tests, will have to be agreed between the three parties to the agreement?
Mr. Lloyd: I have already said that we hope that civil tests will be covered by an agreed article in the treaty. The terms of that article have not yet been worked out, but there is agreement in principle. The scientists are meeting in

653
Geneva to work out exactly how the research programme can be formulated and co-ordinated.
I now go on to more general disarmament problems. The right hon. Gentleman put forward some of the old arguments about disarmament. He put forward the old 1955 heresy. The Soviet proposal would have meant the dismantling of N.A.T.O. without there being any kind of control. To say that that is the same thing as our proposal is just not the case.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and when the accounts are published he will see that he was unfair. I agree that there is a dilemma about whether to have a meeting completely private or completely public. We would have preferred the meeting to have been completely private, but we found that to be impossible. We have been pressing for the records to be published as soon as possible, and the fact that it has been agreed that they should be published at the end of each month is due to British initiative. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman reads those records he will see that on the whole he has not been quite fair to the Minister of State.
I would willingly accept a shorter period, but we have managed to get agreement, and April's should be published, I think, on 13th May, which is little more than a fortnight since the last meeting.
I think that on both sides there is a genuine desire for disarmament. The United States are spending 45 billion dollars a year on defence, and while that is happening I have no doubt that the Soviet Union will feel that they must wholly, or to a large extent, match that expenditure. That means obviously a tremendous drain on national resources which might be used for other purposes. I believe that both sides are genuine in wanting a reduction in that expenditure to a very much lower level.
Both sides have put forward disarmament plans. I think that the argument is which is the more practical approach. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Western plan but I did not hear him devote any time to criticising Mr. Khrushchev's plan. The point I would put for his consideration regarding the Khrushchev plan is
654
that it contains no clear picture of how the measures which are prescribed in it are to be controlled. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that control is the essence of the matter. For example the Soviet plan says
"The scope of control and inspection shall correspond to the extent of the phased disarmament of States."
It goes on:
"Upon the attainment of general and complete disarmament which must include the liquidation of all services of the armed forces, the destruction of all types of weapons … the international control body shall have free access to all objects under control."
Unless there is access beforehand, how is one to know whether these things have been eliminated? That seems to me to show clearly that this is an unsatisfactory formulation. We must get the process of control going pari passu with a reduction and limitation of armaments. To say that there will not be control in the full sense until after these things are alleged to have been done, is a basis on which no great country will accept disarmament.
There is nothing in the plan about how the peace should be kept except that we should rely on the processes of the United Nations. We know that there is the veto, and regarding the General Assembly there is their voting procedure. In any event, it has no power except to make recommendations. We feel that, within the framework of the United Nations, there must be some peace-keeping authority which will be more effective than the Security Council has been up to now. Otherwise we shall not get complete disarmament. I feel strongly that as part of the peace-keeping apparatus there must be some kind of international force under international control. Otherwise we shall not get people to accept that they will be more secure in a disarmed world than in an armed world.
Mr. Gaitskell: I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not think that I was proposing that he should accept the Soviet plan. I did not make much reference to that plan, nor did I refer to the details of our plan. What distresses me is that we seem to be getting nowhere in the discussions which are taking place at the moment.
Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for that intervention and I am glad that the right

655
hon. Gentleman does not approve Mr. Khrushchev's plan. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is obvious."] It was not so obvious at the time of the General Election.
Regarding the time limit of four years in Mr. Khrushchev's plan, we think that particularly unrealistic. If we look at the plan closely it will be realised that it will not begin to come into operation until every single country has reached agreement about what the level of disarmament of its forces is to be. Nevertheless, having voiced those words of criticism, we welcome the general proposition, and certain features in the plan which have been designed to meet previous Western objections.
We think our plan the more practical because it is based on our experience both at the Nuclear Tests Conference and elsewhere. On one point I want there to be no uncertainty. Please let us have no more propaganda about our not wanting general and complete disarmament. I accept the Soviet statement that they want it at its face value. We have made equally clear and definite statements, and I think there is no more reason for Mr. Khrushchev to disbelieve our statements than for us to disbelieve his.
I accept it as a beginning that both sides want general and comprehensive disarmament, but it seems to me that there must be stages in that process. In any plan there must be a balance between nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament. Neither side must be prejudiced unfairly as the process continues. The reality of the disarmament will be governed by the progress in the establishment of effective controls as the right hon. Gentleman put it, and I agree. We can accept Mr. Khrushchev's thesis that there should not be control without disarmament. The Russians must accept the thesis that disarmament will not be effective or promote stability unless there is control.
We then come to the point—I make no quarrel about it having been raised—of how do we get on, particularly at the Summit? I think we must have regard to the precedent of the Nuclear Tests Conference, because there we have gone on for eighteen months gradually working to reach agreement, slogging it out on the question of what is controllable and
656
how it should be controlled. It seems to me that in the wider sphere of general disarmament there is a similar position. Take, for example, outer space. I hope that one thing on which we shall make some progress at the Summit is to get agreement here and now that outer space should not be used for military purposes. This is a new area of human activity and now is the time to try to achieve that. I should like to see technical discussions on the same lines as we had at the Nuclear Tests Conference about what this means, how we are to do it, what agreements are necessary and what are the technical considerations involved.
In the field of nuclear disarmament we say that we want to stop more fissile material being made for weapons purposes and to convert to peaceful purposes some of the material already made. How are we to do that? What are the technical considerations involved? What does it mean in terms of a control system? There has been no work done between the Russians and ourselves or the Russians and the United States on the matter.
Is the question of the control of means of delivery of nuclear weapons, whether by aircraft, submarine, warship or rocket, suitable for the first stage? I am not so certain. What I am certain of is that it is a matter which needs speedy technical examination. How is it to be done? What does it involve? What kind of control system should there be?
Regarding surprise attack—I am afraid this is the nearest I come to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the question of limited zones—we have always believed, in the context of a surprise attack, that we must get agreement on particular arrangements regarding particular areas and that agreement with regard to any surprise attack measures might lead to some form of inspection in certain areas. Again, this is a matter on which there must be technical discussion and agreement. We hope that the heads of Governments will give specific directions that this matter should be one for immediate study. We shall not reach agreement unless this work is done and therefore in the first stage of a disarmament agreement these matters must be covered.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman chat we must give some tangible

657
proof that we are in earnest about disarmament and go into the question of existing ceilings and levels of forces and, one would hope, and what I think more important, the level of armaments. This is a matter which again I hope will be the subject of discussion. If the Summit Meeting will discuss these realities of a disarmament agreement and make some positive suggestion to the Ten-Power Group to bring down its further talks to more specific matters, it will have done useful work. Experience of the Nuclear Tests Conference shows that if both sides approach this kind of technical discussion with a determination to get agreement there is hope that agreement will be attained. That is the least I should hope for.
The third purpose is that we want evidence of international belief that certain problems can be settled by negotiation and discussion and not by war or the threat of war. We come at once in that context to the problem of Germany and Berlin. In his speeches Mr. Khrushchev tends to refer to the problem of Berlin. He says it is an anomaly left over from the last war. But the position of a divided Germany is an anomaly left over from the last war. If he will not permit the reunification of Germany except on his terms he should not insist on his solution of the anomaly of Berlin. He is trying to have it both ways. However, I think we shall discuss both these matters seriously.
We spent a long time last summer trying to negotiate about the wider problem of German reunification. We made very little progress. We came to the conclusion then that the best thing to do was to try to see whether we could put the problem of Berlin on the shelf for a time and have a kind of standstill agreement. We were prepared to do that on the understanding that such an agreement would be made on reasonable terms—and I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about improving means of access to West Berlin because it is by no means satisfactory at the present time—and also that such an agreement would be without prejudice to anyone's rights at the end of the term of the agreement. The Government have always believed that if one talked to Mr. Khrushchev direct about that last matter it might be
658
possible to get agreement on it, bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman told me about his own discussions with Mr. Khrushchev.
Whether things will develop that way over Germany and Berlin I do not know. We have been over this ground many times and I would say only this, that I think the way in which Germany and Berlin will be discussed will be a test of the genuineness of the desire for the relaxation of tension. The present situation has been going on for a long time without excessive difficulties or tensions, but we are quite willing to discuss these matters again with Mr. Khrushchev, and I assure the Committee that we are prepared to do all in our power to ensure the genuine freedom of the 2¼ million people in West Berlin.
The right hon. Gentleman did not go into many other details. He specifically said that he was not going to, therefore I do not propose to volunteer what may take place during the discussions which I expect will, for a large part, be private.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Foreign Secretary say something about inviting China and India to the disarmament conference?
Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In Geneva last summer I spent quite a long time trying to get agreement with Mr. Gromyko about a body to discuss disarmament. I tell the Committee frankly that this five-five body was all that we could get agreement about. We would have preferred something approximating to what the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It was the only body for which we could get agreement, and I do not think we will advance by trying to alter the position now. I am certain that we will not make real progress on a disarmament agreement without the participation of China. Therefore, we say that at the beginning of the second stage of our plan there must be a world conference. The first stage is to produce concrete evidence that we mean business, and these studies are essential. When we come to the real business, we say that that must start with a world conference in which other countries come in. Otherwise it will be a waste of time for a particular selection of countries to think that they can prescribe for the rest of the world.

659
We have tried very hard to arrange this meeting at the Summit. It has taken a long time to arrange, but now the meeting is to take place. We have never pretended that a single dramatic solution will be found at a single meeting. What is certain is that unless this meeting and others after it take place, we shall not make real progress. I think we must have the meeting. We must have other meetings, and thus gradually reach a better understanding of the reasons for the divisions between us. I assure the Committee that we realise the very heavy responsibility that rests upon us. The responsibility is a heavy one, but I believe that we have behind us the support of the whole country in what we are trying to do.
5.4 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: In following the Foreign Secretary in this important debate, may I start with one or two points that he contributed? First, his brief reference to the recent dangerous incident of the U2. Generally, I agree with the way in which this problem was put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I hope that the Prime Minister when he winds up will say a little more than the Foreign Secretary did.
We are all agreed that, tragically enough, there is a certain amount of spying going on between nations who are suspicious of each other. It is also generally agreed, and it is only common sense, that this can only be done away with after many years of agreement and when people feel that they can live freely without being afraid of each other. But I hope that there is one aspect on which the Prime Minister will be able to reassure the country.
Happily in this case the pilot is still alive, but what will happen if on future occasions other American planes fly deep into Soviet territory, are shot down and the pilot dies? Does the Foreign Secretary believe that American public opinion will remain quiet and accept such loses without demanding further action? What will be the position of the takeoff countries, other than the United States herself? This has nothing to do with intelligence activities and is not, let me emphasise, a continuation of the debate that was started at Question Time.
660
It is an important political point. If the continued policy of the United States Government is to be as stated by Mr. Herter, the Secretary of State, the other day, it will put her allies in Europe and in other parts of the world in an impossible position. From the correspondence that I have received, and from the correspondence received by other hon. Members, it is obvious that there is a grave disturbance in the minds of many people, and the Prime Minister owes it to us to say more about the problem when he winds up tonight.
I turn now to what the Foreign Secretary said about further tests as announced by the President the other day. It is important to read the statement from beginning to end, but the full statement was available quite soon after the first agency messages came across, and in my submission it does not change the situation very much. On Saturday night I was listening to a television broadcast in which Lord Russell engaged in a long-distance discussion with Dr. Teller, who is one of the chief advisers of the President and of the Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. Teller spoke with a sense of triumph. It was clear that his opposition, and the opposition of other people who have important voices in these matters, against the plan, which I am sure the British Government support, of having joint tests in the future—not separate but co-ordinated tests as the Foreign Secretary said—has been successful. His sense of triumph was due to his obstruction of the success of the plan.
I urge the Foreign Secretary to use his influence to see that these tests are continued only for the limited purpose that he has described. The other side should be invited to take part in joint tests and joint experimentation. The President said that there would be experimentation rather than certain specific tests. If that is so, why not invite the Soviet Union to send scientists over for joint experimentation? After all, anybody who has any friends at Cambridge has known for a long time that the basic facts are commonly known by all the leading scientists. In fact, some of the people who take part in the work were together at various universities in the 'twenties and the 'thirties, and Cambridge was one of the places where they worked together.

661
There can be no security objection. The only objection can be on the part of those people who do not want to join tests and who do not want joint experimentation in future. Many of us believe that is the last obstacle to agreement on the cessation of tests at the conference. I hope that we shall hear some more about this when the Prime Minister winds up. Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to use their influence in that way?
When the Foreign Secretary spoke about the problem of détente, he said that it was rather important that there should be some evidence that détente was desired on all sides. Nobody would disagree with that. The Foreign Secretary then went on to say that one of the tests would be the question of Germany. I therefore want to refer to this problem in some detail.
It is quite clear that while the first item under discussion will be the cessation of nuclear tests, it does not follow that other problems will not be touched upon before final agreement is reached on the cessation of those tests. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about the British Government's determination to have a discussion on the Berlin and German problems, and their hope that it will be possible to arrive at an interim agreement on Berlin. That is in contrast with the attitude of the Chancellor of the West German Government, who has indulged in propaganda over the last nine months against any serious discussion of the problem.
I would emphasise the fact that there are two people, running the two Governments of Germany today, who are not interested in agreement between ourselves and the Russians. Herr Ulbricht, the head of the Communist dictatorship in East Germany, is as hostile to any such agreement as the Chancellor of West Germany. But when, recently, Herr Ulbricht applied to the Soviet Government for a supply of nuclear arms he was turned down. One of the few positive outcomes of the Moscow Conference was that the programme that Herr Ulbricht put forward was completely shelved.
This prompts me to raise a few points upon which I hope the Prime Minister will be able to comment later. Important though the cessation of tests and general disarmament are, unless, part passu—as
662
the Foreign Secretary said—we can also reach political agreement, I do not believe for a moment that the danger will be removed. The scientific "know-how" will remain, and if there is a continuation of suspicion for the next ten or fifteen years people will continue to be afraid of surprise attack, and even if war were to start with conventional weapons there would still be the ingenuity of the scientist, the availability of factory space and the ability of engineers for the manufacture of nuclear weapons once again.
Therefore, we must hope that at the conference progress will be made on the difficult German problem. I am profoundly convinced, from many conversations that I have had with members of the Supreme Soviet and Russians in more lowly positions, that Russia's one genuine fear is that Germany will build up an army equipped with atomic arms. They have not forgotten the siege of Leningrad or the fact that they were already in mortal danger of being destroyed by Germany when Germany fought against an alliance. They are afraid that if Germany is built up into a mighty military nation and provided with nuclear arms the time may come when she will again be in military conflict with Russia, and the outcome will be uncertain.
I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to look again at the Labour Party's policy of disengagement. At no time has he produced more than a tactical argument against it. On the last occasion that he referred to it, during our last foreign affairs debate, he told us that to put forward a policy of disengagement would mean disunity in our camp. If the Foreign Secretary were convinced that this policy was a good and sensible one, and was in the interests of the British people, I am sure that he would put it forward, without advance approval being obtained of the other partners in the alliance. When this country was part of an alliance during the war, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was not certain whether everybody else in the alliance agreed with him before he put forward a plan, and it is therefore no answer to say that it would cause dissention among our friends if we did the same thing now. That plan is vitally

663
important. Unless Russia feels free from the danger of nuclear attack, combined with attack by conventional arms, there is no doubt that nuclear weapons will be supplied to both sides.
Here I touch upon a point upon which agreement exists among people in all kinds of Parliaments. In the last debate the Foreign Secretary confronted the House with a quotation from Dr. Kreisky, the Foreign Secretary of Austria, and used it as an example of Socialist opinion on the Continent. What he did not quote, but what is much more relevant, was the opinion of the Social Democratic Party of Western Germany. The Foreign Secretary has referred to the existence of a united German opinion demanding nuclear arms, but recently, in the Parliament at Bonn, there was a Budget debate which lasted for three days, during which one of the official spokesmen of the Labour movement in Western Germany put forward a Motion referring to the Vote of the West German Ministry of Defence and saying that:
"This sum must be spent to acquire conventional weapons only …"
He was saying that not a penny of the money voted to the West German Ministry of Defence was to be spent on nuclear arms; the entire sum was to be spent on conventional arms and on civil defence.
Here we have a representative German opinion—and not the worst German opinion—demanding a policy diametrically opposed to that being forced upon West Germany by a combination of the views of Dr. Adenauer and some of the N.A.T.O. Governments. When the argument is raised as to whether this has anything to do with our attitude towards Germany, it is important to remember that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who put forward this point of view have a pretty good record in the matter of relations with Germany. I remember being stationed in Germany at the end of the war. There were many people who wanted to see a happy future for the German people, and who quickly made contact with them by accepting invitations to give lectures to German trade unions or to undertake lecture tours under the auspices of the office
664
which the right hon. Gentleman now runs. Several of us knew many people in Germany who wanted to ensure that Germany would not become a major militaristic nation again. This is nothing to do with our basic attitude; it is a question of people being disturbed and worried about the way things are going, and wishing the prosperity of the German people to be assured. This is nothing to do with the attempts being made in certain quarters of the Press to revive nationalistic and chauvinistic feelings. This is alien to members of the Labour movement and to decent people everywhere, on whichever side of the House they sit.
A serious and grave problem was touched upon by the decision of the Bonn Parliament. The Socialist Party's Motion was defeated because Dr. Adenauer's Government have a majority. None the less, it can never be said hereafter that the quotation which the Foreign Secretary read to the House in February represents in any shape or form united Socialist opinion on the Continent. The people most concerned want none of it. Further evidence is available in the shape of a report in the Guardian of 11th May. A four-point programme which the Social Democratic Party has put forward expresses their agreement to the renunciation of nuclear arms for Western Germany for all time, if necessary, provided that a beginning can be made to a zone free of nuclear weapons in the heart of Europe.
If when the question of Berlin comes up at the Summit Conference and it seems that there is a chance of an interim agreement being arrived at, the Government will have most people behind them when they argue that free access between the people of West Berlin and their fellow countrymen in the Republic must be improved and guaranteed. The Foreign Secretary will have us all behind him when he says that there can be no question of interfering with the freedom of the people of West Berlin.
Many semi-secret espionage organisations are working in both parts of Berlin, and this makes the situation extremely dangerous. I do not wish the Prime Minister to go into any detail on this point, but I would remind the Foreign Secretary that many of these

665
organisations are playing with fire. They make no useful contribution even to the side which they think they are supporting, and it will be the serious task of the Summit Conference to look into this question and come to an agreement which will curtail the activities of these organisations.
The Government are going to this conference with the good will of all people, but they are also going with the certain knowledge that some people in high places are not too keen on reaching agreement. We have to speak frankly about this. Recently it was stated in the American Press, and also in Congress, that the U2 incident, occurring at this time, may have had something to do with disagreement as between different departments.
The demand toy the Ullbricht Government shortly before the Summit Conference to be supplied with these additional weapons is evidence that there are some people there who do not want agreement. It may well be that Mr. Khrushchev himself faces opposition within his own Government on some of the policies which he is pursuing. The pro-Stalinists and those in favour of the dangerous policy which Stalin pursued may not want agreement either. There is a British interest in seeing that Mr. Khrushchev's policies succeed. They are better policies than some of those pursued by his predecessor. I hope that in the interests of all those who want to safeguard the future of this country we shall co-operate in those policies where co-operation is possible.
It is not always clear whether some groups are not arguing that we must not allow agreement to take place because then the division of Europe and also the influence of the Russians in Eastern Europe would remain for ever. I remember an hon. Member opposite making precisely that point in an earlier debate. He said that it was all very well to talk about agreement but would it not leave too much influence with the Eastern side?
We on this side of the Committee are as much concerned with the reintroduction of democratic liberties everywhere, in Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries. But I am quite certain that the policy of
666
refusing to enter into serious negotiations, the policy of those who want to obstruct agreement, will not bring back those democratic liberties to any of those countries.
If people agree to a plan of disengagement and if they find after two or three years that they are still alive and kicking, making progress and living peacefully together, then, and only then, will the sense of security of the Eastern Powers be safeguarded and only in that way can we hope to see a restoration of democratic liberties, ideologies, and then institutions. It may then, perhaps, be possible to persuade some of our allies at the other end of the Continent to allow a little more democracy into their countries.
If the Prime Minister replies to this debate, it is his bounden duty to refer in some more detail to the new doctrine or policy expounded by the Secretary of State. We hope that he will give us some affirmation that he is prepared to look again at our policy of disengagement as a first step towards peace in Europe.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. Peter Smithers: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made some reference in his closing remarks to the fact that there are people in both camps who have an interest in preventing agreement. I quite agree. I hope in the course of what I have to say to throw a little light on that subject.
I want to begin by referring to the opening speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in which he spoke at some length of the repeated disappointment and failure which had arisen from the disarmament negotiations. I dare say that a good many hon. Members will have read a letter from Sir William Hayter in The Times yesterday. Sir William concluded that letter by remarking that the Russians negotiate not for agreement but for victory. That, if I may say so, is a most profound and penetrating remark.
Sir William, with his experience as Ambassador in Moscow, could doubtless have gone on to illustrate that fact by explaining how it is based in Marxist-Leninist theory. To us, agreement is

667
naturally attractive and almost invariably advantageous. We think of agreement as a means of restoring harmony and tranquillity to the world, which is certainly beneficial to our country. But in the light of Marxist-Leninist theory the agreement in itself means nothing at all.
As Sir William rightly pointed out, the Russians are only interested in victory. Therefore, I do not think that we do ourselves a great deal of good by examining at great length the many disappointments with which we have met in our endeavours to get agreement. The fact is that we are both approaching the problem from different viewpoints, and our adversaries are not interested in agreement as such.
I think that Soviet policy is based upon the work of innumerable groups of seminars studying various subjects in the minutest detail and examining the consequences of every conceivable course of action. This undoubtedly explains a certain curious duality about Soviet policy which seems able in an uncanny way to take advantage of almost every turn of events.
For some years Soviet policy has reaped the fruits of a course of studied military tension. Those fruits have not been all to their liking. Nevertheless, they have been considerable. However, it is beyond doubt that the consequences of what is called a policy of détente, of relaxation of tension, has also been minutely studied in the Soviet Union. It cannot be doubted that the Soviet Government contemplate the certainty that one day, in some circumstances, the policy of military tension will be abandoned and that in all probability a policy of relaxation will take its place.
I want for a moment this evening to contemplate what the Russians' leaders may consider to be some of the fruits which they would obtain from a policy of relaxation. I suggest that the changes that would take place in the structure of world politics, should we succeed at the Summit and should we obtain the military relaxation which we all desire, would indeed be spectacular. Not all of them would be to our liking unless we adequately prepared for the situation which might arise.
First, if a relaxation of tension should occur at a moment when Europe was
668
still divided into two rival economic blocs and when one of them contained a large number of unstable elements, it is perfectly apparent that a continent which has been held together for so long very largely by a fear of Soviet military power would tend to fragment very quickly indeed. That, I think, would not necessarily be disagreeable to the Soviet Union.
Secondly, an urgent re-examination of the position of the Atlantic Alliance would be necessary. It would be difficult to say—and no one in this Chamber can say in advance—whether, in an atmosphere of relaxed tension and in the absence of a direct military threat, the Atlantic Alliance would have sufficient content to hold it together or, indeed, any purpose in existing at all. That, undoubtedly, is a second thought in the minds of the Soviet leaders who must be making calculations on that point.
Thirdly, it is apparent, I think, that unless before a relaxation of tension takes place the Powers of Europe are able to organise themselves sufficiently to embark together on the exploration of outer space and all the vast projects that go therewith, that work will be left to the Soviet Union and to the United States, and there will, in all probability, be no such European participation.
A fourth consequence of a relaxation of immediate military pressure would in all probability be the immediate admission of China to the United Nations. I cite these facts, not as either desirable or undesirable events, but merely to illustrate the dramatic kind of changes which are likely to occur should we succeed in our undertakings at the Summit.
Mr. S. Silverman: Would there be any good results?
Mr. Smithers: I should think there would be many. Whether or not I am correct in these assumptions, the fact is that there would be dramatic changes.
I want now to say a word or two about the nature of the threat with which we are faced. We in this Committee are constantly reproaching our generals for preparing for the last war and not for the next. I personally very much doubt whether the fearful and costly atomic weapons which we are now manufacturing are ever, in practice, likely to be used. Nobody can say that they will

669
not be or that they are not necessary; but that is undoubtedly a calculation that is also made by the Soviet Union, who must be considering whether they are likely ever to be used.
What is, however, absolutely certain is that in the future the economic weapons will be used. Indeed, we see the great economic strength of the United States and the Soviet Union—and, indeed our own as well—being deployed in the struggle for power.
In this matter, I am anxious that in this Committee we as politicians should not be reproached, when people read our debates in the years to come, with having sought earnestly to avoid the last war while failing to notice that the next one has already begun. It must be puzzling for those who go to the Summit to negotiate to make up their minds on the balance of importance between the military and the economic forces which are in play in the world today.
When I speak of diplomacy by power economics, I am not thinking of aid to under-developed territories. I am not thinking of the admirable rivalry in doing good which may arise in that way or of visits like that of Mr. Khrushchev to Indonesia, which may undoubtedly be of great assistance to all of us if it brings some worldly wisdom into the affairs of a part of the world which badly needs it. I am thinking of the use of economic strength as a diplomatic weapon. Mr. Khrushchev and the rulers of Russia are obviously seeking to build up the Soviet economic potential to a point where it exceeds that of the United States.
If hon. Members doubt that these economic weapons are formidable, let them suppose that Russia has succeeded in building up a substantial surplus of what I call economic strength, and let us suppose at the same time that there is mass unemployment in any one of the great Western European democracies. Suppose that in those circumstances the Soviet Union comes forward with an offer and says "We will take all your surplus products. We will pay for them and we will put your men and women in work." What is the impact upon that democracy likely to be?
Mr. S. Silverman: What would be wrong with it?
Mr. Smithers: I am not saying that anything would be wrong with it. I am merely pointing out its great importance. The impact would be very great. The Soviet Union would have in her hands a weapon of great strength.
The point of what I am saying is that we, too, have to consider this problem. We have to consider to what extent the Soviet Union is engaged in seeking to build up within her borders the maximum military strength while we, on the other side of the fence, are seeking disarmament; or to what extent she is seeking to cause us to maintain the maximum burden of armaments, and to what extent she would wish instead to switch her own policy to building up the new economic weapons. She will not tell us when her policy takes a radical change of course. Indeed, she will undoubtedly seek to keep it secret.
We can, however, be quite sure of this. Like all of us, the Soviet Union prizes the fruits of disarmament. We can also be sure that she sees in the possibility of a relaxation of military tension tremendous opportunities to gain upon the West if she can spring upon us a relaxation either by surprise or, at least, when we are in a moment of disarray, or, perhaps, both. It would enable her in those circumstances to seize and to keep the initiative and to arrogate to herself almost all of the fruits of such a relaxation.
I do not fall behind any hon. Member in desiring to see general disarmament and a relaxation of tension, but it is not enough for us to envisage one step. It is equally important that we should ourselves be prepared for its consequences and that before the relaxation takes place we and our allies should be agreed upon how we will meet those consequences. For that purpose, we have to shake off a lot of old habits of thought and stale assumptions.
What is the purpose of the Summit? I believe its great purpose to be this. The history of mankind has been one of evolution from small groups to larger ones, from the family to the tribe, to the large kingdom and, finally, to the super-State. All of us now have our eyes fixed upon the United Nations organisation and upon the day when we shall ultimately arrive at what Mr. Wendell Wilkie called "one world". The question we are asking ourselves is whether

671
we can take this last step from our existing organisation to that "one world" in peace or whether, as so often happens, it must be by the process of conflict, whether military or economic.
I believe, and I think that most hon. Members would agree with me, that the United Nations in itself is not alone able to take this step. It is some mechanism such as that of Summit Conferences which may enable it to do so. I hope, therefore, that little by little Summit Conferences of this kind may seek to lay a firm foundation upon which the United Nations can ultimately build that one world.
In that connection, I had it in my notes to say, but the Leader of the Opposition has taken the words from my mouth, that it is indispensable that China and India be brought to the table before we can take that last step. It is inconceivable that we can reach the goal we seek unless those great masses of humanity, with all their resources of matter and spirit, are brought there.
Therefore, beyond the Summit I see the great issues arising, and the particular tasks which we in Britain shall have to perform when the Summit Conferences ultimately bring success, if we are to like their consequences.
First, we have to make up our minds that there shall be a recognisable European component in the world of the future. If that is to be so, we must achieve European unity before the relaxation takes place. Otherwise, it may well be too late.
Secondly, we have to decide whether or not there shall be any other contribution, except that of the Soviet Union and the United States, to the great exploration of space—which will certainly transform the politics and diplomacy of the world. If we wish to see such a thing, as I certainly do, we have got to get together quickly with our partners in Europe to make sure it takes place. I step aside for a moment to say that we in Europe have always been the great explorers, both in matter and in spirit. We must participate in this, the greatest exploration of all, in which philosophy is combined with science. We must make this initiative before the relaxation takes place.
672
Thirdly, it is urgent to ask ourselves, what will be the impact upon the Commonwealth of such a relaxation? I share Mr. Nehru's misgivings, expressed this week, that the structure of the Commonwealth is beginning to look dangerously vague though its achievements are great. Is there to be a Commonwealth component, recognisable as such, in the structure of the future world? If so, I think we have to look urgently at the structure of the Commonwealth now. Those of us who have at times thought it worth while considering whether or not we need institutions in the Commonwealth, ought not in future to be laughed at for asking that question. I should not like to see events move so fast that the frail structure of the Commonwealth was swept away in the torrent of change which will come over the affairs of the world should we succeed in attaining a relaxation of tension.
Then there is the last question as to the impact of military relaxation on our relations with the United States. I have been a consistent advocate of the Anglo-American alliance. I have been distressed more than most people in this country at the deplorable decline in a sense of common purpose, indeed, in the existence of any common purpose between the two great democracies. Should we succeed in relaxing tension in the world today before we have found a fresh sense of common direction and purpose between ourselves and the United States, then indeed it would be hard to restore. We are relying today all too much upon the common danger of Soviet military might to hold us together. In future that will not be sufficient. Therefore, that is a problem which needs urgent study.
I do not wish to see the initiative taken in this matter of relaxation by the Soviet Union and to see ourselves taken by surprise. We have pushed so long and so hard at the door. I do not want us to find one day that it flies open before our faces and, because we are unprepared, we fall flat in the mud.
We in Britain in a sense hold the key position. In outline, the problems around us in the world are massive; massive in size and frightening in scale. In detail, each one of them is immensely complex. The speed of change in the world around us is immensely great, and will become far greater. The

673
political movements are simultaneous on many fronts.
Each of the problems I have just posed is sufficient food for work and thought for a master mind in whatever Government are in power here today, yet in Britain our material resources are so pathetically small to play the part we have to play. I believe that we are central to all these problems, central to the Commonwealth problem, central to the American problem, central to the European problem. I believe all are joined together. There is no solution of our problems with the United States unless we have first worked out a satisfactory European policy. There is no solution to the structure of the Commonwealth unless the metropolis of the Commonwealth is fortified by a satisfactory European policy, and there is no solution to our relationships with those the other side of the Iron Curtain unless all these problems have been dealt with together.
Therefore, although our resources are painfully small, I conclude simply by saying that our people in the world today are still unparalleled in any other nation in their wisdom and fortitude. They have provided the Prime Minister with the key to this situation. He goes to the Summit to use it. I have one more comment to make. God give him strength.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) has made an extremely thoughtful speech and with much of what he said I think that the whole House is in agreement, especially on the need to look beyond the immediate situation with which we are confronted.
At the same time, I could not help feeling that the hon. Member was putting the cart before the horse. At one stage in his remarks he referred to the fact that while one struggle was ending another had already begun. I cannot help thinking that this is really all part of the same struggle and that we have a long way to go before the cold war, in literal terms as a literal struggle without shooting, is liquidated.
An illustration of this has been the incident which we have been speaking about earlier this afternoon, the spy plane. I do not share much of the sense
674
of shock which many people appear to feel about the spy plane. These things go on. There have been Petrovs as well as spy planes and the Russians have the largest spy apparatus of any country in any part of the world. It is not confined to one form of spying or another.
The world is full of admiration for Mr. Khrushchev's gamesmanship and exploitation of the situation. He is entitled to that because, in my view, the American Government have been guilty of grave irresponsibility for sending these planes scudding across the sky on the very eve of the Summit Conference, and even more foolish to get themselves caught, but, if one examines the matter, one has to be careful to keep it in proper perspective. A salutary lesson emerges from the spy plane episode. The general sense of shock gives one an appreciation of how many people had forgotten that a cold war was still actually on and many other people, some in this country included, have tended to appear to have forgotten on which side they are in that cold war.
The questions I want to pose to the Committee this afternoon stem from the situation which exists as I see it. How did the situation arise in which we tended to allow ourselves to lapse into a sense of wishful thinking out of which we have been suddenly awakened by shock when Mr. Khrushchev revealed an ugly incident? Secondly, where do we —the West—stand on the eve of this very important international conference? Thirdly, what does Mr. Khrushchev mean, over and beyond the Summit, when he talks about competitive co-existence and his acceptance of the present political status quo?
Perhaps I may deal with the second of those questions first. As I said, I do not rate the spy plane as more than gamesmanship by Mr. Khrushchev. When he threw down the Berlin challenge in November, 1958, he did so for three main reasons. First, in 1958 he needed a Summit Conference for internal political purposes. It was only recently that he managed to get rid of Malenkov and Molotov and some of the others who were extremely powerful in the Soviet Union. For internal political purposes it was to his advantage to appear to be doing something about the division in the world because of the very genuine pressures which I believe exist

675
among the ordinary people in the Soviet Union for greater contact with the outside world. That was in 1958. Now, in 1960, Mr. Khrushchev is in a different position. He has had his trip to the United States. His own internal position is very much stronger and, because of this, he is able to be very much tougher when he approaches the Summit.
The second reason why he was anxious to force a Summit meeting in 1958 was that at long last the Soviet Government, after many years, had suddenly found that they were in a position to negotiate from strength, and this is something which always fascinates the Communist mind. Mr. Khrushchev probably looked round the whole perimeter of the Communist bloc. Berlin stood out as the weakest point of the West. This was a point at which he could very easily apply pressure. He is quite right when he says that Berlin is an anachronism in the present situation, but it is a very important anachronism to both sides. Mr. Khrushchev proposed to use his new-found position of strength to force a discussion on Berlin in different circumstances from those in which Stalin precipitated the crisis in 1948. Now, in 1960, Mr. Khrushchev's position of strength is even greater than in 1958, and he is, therefore, in a position to be even tougher.
Thirdly, Mr. Khrushchev wanted a conference to discuss Berlin and the recognition of East Germany because, as I suggested a moment ago, Berlin stood out as a sore thumb when the situation was viewed from the Communist side. It was a shop window for the Western world and it was a symbol of refuge to the 90 million people who live in the satellite countries, very few of whom, even today, after fifteen years of Communist rule, have anything but contempt for the Communist system of Government.
If they were to embark on a new era of competitive co-existence, in Afro-Asia or Latin America, it was essential from the point of view of any Government in Russia that they should finalise the frontiers of Stalin's empire in Europe. This was a very good time for them to do it. That situation still exists today, but it is in that one instance only that Mr. Khrushchev's own personal position and the Russian bargaining position are not
676
better than they were in 1958. It therefore becomes even more important for him to use his strength to browbeat the Western Powers in Paris next week. These are Mr. Khrushchev's aims when he goes to Paris, and these are what I suggest we must be prepared to meet.
I turn to Mr. Khrushchev's longer-term aims beyond the Summit. What does he mean by competitive co-existence? What the Russians mean by competitive co-existence is broadly what we mean by the term "cold war".
Mr. Zilliacus: Rubbish.
Mr. Donnelly: One has only to look at Mr. Khrushchev's own speeches in the last few weeks to see this.
Mr. Zilliacus: Read them.
Mr. Donnelly: I have read them.
Mr. Zilliacus: Then my hon. Friend does not seem to understand what he has read.
Mr. Charles Pannell: He does not sympathise with them in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) does. That is the difference.
Mr. Zilliacus: I am a Socialist.
Mr. Pannell: So am I.
Mr. Donnelly: If the Committee will bear with me, I will read a quotation from a speech which Mr. Khrushchev made on his return from his talks with President Eisenhower, full of the spirit of Camp David, full of admiration for Mr. Eisenhower. Speaking at Novossobirsk, in the Soviet Union, he said:
"Competitive co-existence means the continuation of the struggle without war."
Broadly, that is what we mean by the term "cold war."
When Mr. Khrushchev is discussing the acceptance of the status quo he means, broadly, accepting the present rights to go on changing the world or, to quote from the same speech once more:
"To establish a power which would accord with the interests of the workers."
The great question is: which workers? If it were in the interests of all workers, I should be on his side, but we heard this kind of talk about "the interests of the workers" following the coup d'état

677
in Czechoslovakia, in 1948, and we have to be clear that what he means is the interests of the Soviet Union.
There are only two ways out of this situation. The first is to accept the Russian policies and to capitulate. That is what Mr. Khrushchev means when he calls upon us to stop the cold war. The second alternative is to have sufficient resolution, courage and self-control to go on until there is a Government in the Kremlin which is prepared to abandon its aims of Communist world domination. That is the main task which faces us today.
I have no doubt that this prospect will dismay my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I have great admiration for him. He is the outstanding Bourbon of the Labour Party. In twenty-five years he has forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
This harsh analysis might have alarmed people if it had been uttered in conditions of other threats twenty-five years ago. I accept at once that the parallels do not go all the way, but some of the wishful thinking in the face of a different kind of challenge twenty-five years ago is being repeated today. Some of the public moods, some of the hopes and some of the natural desires are being repeated. The Peace Pledge Union of twenty-five years ago has its counterpart today. The defence plans which were in ruin twenty-five years ago are in ruin again today, thanks to the worst Minister of Defence since Sir Thomas Inskip, twenty-five years ago. There is a good deal of complacency and the atmosphere of Baldwinism about Britain today, except that I call it MacBaldwinism.
I do not personally wish to take issue with all those on the Government Front Bench who are responsible, certainly not with the former Defence Minister, or with the Foreign Secretary. We have the Minister of State to the Foreign Office here today, and perhaps he will convey to the Foreign Secretary my profound admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and particularly for the tenacity with which he retains his post. He has come to fulfil a unique function in the House of Commons, for he is applauded on both sides as a kind of non-partisan figure, rather as the Welch Regiment retains its goat.
678
The blame for this MacBaldwinism which exists lies directly with the Prime Minister himself. We all remember those uncertain pronouncements in Moscow last year, the easy speeches which were made to comfort complacent men during the General Election. I remember the magnificent day when he appeared like Zeus, fingered the globe of the world and told us of the stratospheric adventures which were to come. I can well imagine the right hon. Gentleman writing some memoirs in 1965 in which he says that he was precluded from telling the country the full nature of the challenge because of the state of public opinion prevailing at the time, rather like Mr. Baldwin of yore. One can almost see the publisher of "Sealed Lips", second edition.
What is to be our answer to this malaise? First, we have to be clear that if we face the challenge it is not only a military challenge. It remains a military challenge, of course, while there are military forces on the other side, and we all want to see disarmament as quickly as possible, although it must be accompanied by the appropriate safeguards. But it is also a political and economic challenge, as the hon. Member for Winchester said. The military challenge is nevertheless real. I do not believe that the Russians want war, nor do they have the same glory in war as the Germans had in the 1930s, but they do not exclude war as an appropriate instrument of policy, whenever it is appropriate.
Mr. Zilliacus: Nonsense. That is stupid.
Mr. Donnelly: In that respect, North Korea was a most interesting example.
Mr. Zilliacus: There were no Russians in North Korea.
Mr. Donnelly: There was a certain amount of Russian assistance in North Korea. As I was saying, they do not exclude the military challenge as an instrument of policy where it is appropriate. It remains inappropriate so long as there are Western defences.
I am not now arguing the case for an independent British deterrent, but I think that it is absolutely essential for there to be a Western deterrent. I go further. If there is to be adequate Western defence at all levels through the years to

679
meet the Russian challenge, we must be quite prepared to say bluntly to the Americans that they must get away from a good deal of their defence insularity. If they persist in their insularity in their defence attitude, they will prejudice the Western Alliance. It will not survive another ten or fifteen years unless they are prepared to change their whole attitude.
We must come to a new decision about the status of West Germany. The problem of Germany today is not the division of Germany. The division of Germany is a fact. It will be with us for probably our lifetime. The problem is the new status of West Germany and what we are to do about it. I share many of the inhibitions and fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), but, at the same time, one must be practical. The art of international politics, just as the art of internal politics, is the art of practicality.
How can we permanently deny a great nation like this some form of equality within an alliance? How can we say to the Germans that they can have an army, but that it must be only a bad one? How can this go on indefinitely for the rest of the twentieth century? It just cannot be done. This raises all sorts of problems which I will come to shortly.
Another thing that we must do is to appreciate what the hon. Member for Winchester said about the economic challenges in Afro-Asia and Latin-America. Western civilisation is on trial in these areas, and what we have to be clear about is that when the people in these countries think of Communism they think of it differently from the way in which we think of it. When we think of Communism, we think of how much we have to lose. When they think of Communism, they think of how much they have to gain. We must be prepared to offer them a social system which gains for them the economic freedom which goes with political freedom, because there is no political freedom on an empty stomach and there is no human dignity living in the gutter.
All this implies that we ourselves have to help. It is no good talking pious platitudes. It means a denial, also, of our own standard of living, and a limitation of our own Welfare State. This is
680
what I call practical Socialism helping people in other countries.
Both new developments which I am suggesting to the Committee mean a new approach to the political control of the Western Alliance. Not only have technologies developed to the point where one has only a few seconds' warning of an impending attack, but there are also all the manifold political problems, such as Western Germany, which have somehow to be resolved within a new form of political control in N.A.T.O. The clear implication of what I am saying is that at some stage we shall have to be prepared to surrender yet larger sections of our national sovereignties to a new form of political control of the Western Alliance.
There is no other way. This is the only way in which we will maintain a working and a controllable alliance which can meet the long challenge down the years. Co-existence is not a 100-yard race. It is a long marathon and it will require a good deal of plain, sober self-control for a very long time to come if we are to keep the cold war cold.
I began by saying that people did not know that there was a cold war on. It is on. It is likely to be on for at least the lifetimes of most hon. Members present. We should all like to see it dissolved. We all fervently hope for a détente, but circumstances at the present are not indicative of that situation happening. In the years ahead the survival of Western civilisation will depend in the first instance on the flexibility of our policy, but in the last analysis it will depend upon our resolution.
6.5 p.m.
Sir Thomas Moore: I am glad to be allowed to take part in this discussion, because I believe that our Prime Minister will embark upon one of the most critical adventures probably in his whole career next week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has asked us all to make our suggestions or views known to him so as to enlighten him as to the feeling of the House of Commons, and, therefore, of the country, and to give him some guidance or help in the discussions facing them next week.
I am also very glad that the temperature in this debate is so different from that in the February debate, when it

681
was difficult to avoid taking up a very party and partisan line. Indeed. I have today scrapped a considerable amount of the speech which I had intended to make on party issues. I shall not say those things, because I think that this is too serious a time to indulge in party insinuations. I think that those who have spoken so far have shown exactly the same moderation and restraint.
One thing has puzzled me. It seems as if, so far, at any rate, hon. Members have sought to establish that disarmament is a name in itself. It is not really. The very basis of our foreign policy as a nation is peace. Disarmament merely happens to be one of the first steps, one of the chief steps, by which peace can be secured. Happily, disarmament, has now ceased to be a party issue. It has ceased to be a party preserve. It has become a national prayer. It is, therefore, essential that disarmament should take priority of place at the Summit discussions.
There are many other subsidiary and not unimportant reasons why some steps towards disarmament are essential. If agreement of substance is not reached at the Summit Conference, it seems almost inevitable that Western Germany will have her nuclear weapon in time. It also seems clear to me that France will persist with her tests in the Sahara.
It is tragic that nuclear armament now seems to be the yardstick by which nations measure their stature. Just as Germany may demand her nuclear power to try to obliterate in world memory the horrors of Belsen and Buchenwald, so France will demand her share in this new power so as to obliterate in world memory her premature submission in 1940 and her subsequent grovel to tyranny in 1941. These things are guiding, inspiring or driving these two nations to establish themselves as nuclear Powers. As the Foreign Secretary said, we must expect other countries to follow suit, though possibly not for the same reasons.
I find it difficult to argue against France and Germany having the nuclear deterrent, much as one may dislike it, because, after all, they are partners in the great Western Alliance and, as such, they must be treated in the same way as the other members are treated.
Speaking for myself—I emphasise that I am speaking only for myself, and not
682
for my party here—I would make no further concessions to Germany. I would not raise a finger to reunite the two Germanies until I had received far more solid assurance that, if reunited, they would never again be a menace to the peace of the world.
As for the Berlin problem, about which everyone makes such a fuss, and about which possibly we of the West and Mr. Khrushchev and his friends, if they are his friends, cannot agree, why not press for the logical solution which seems to me to stand out a mile? Why not treat the whole of Berlin as a free city under the United Nations? Just as West Germany, to ease the difficulty, moved her capital to Bonn, let East Germany be persuaded to move her capital say to Leipzig, which would be quite convenient. I cannot see why that should not prove a fruitful and reasonable solution of all the cantankerous wrangling going on at present, and, at the same time, be fair to all.
I should like to make a few tentative suggestions about the discussions which must take place during the next few weeks. As we know, last September the Foreign Secretary made some very useful and constructive suggestions at Geneva which, if adopted, promised well for further progress on that hazardous road. We must admit that there has been a certain amount of slowness and disappointment about what has happened since, although my right hon. and learned Friend seems to be optimistic. But I still believe that there is a promising end if that progress is pursued.
Then suddenly, out of the blue, came the diplomatic suggestion, from Mr. Khrushchev, saying, as we remember, that there should be complete abolition by stages, first, of conventional and then nuclear weapons, and all within a period of four years. I imagine that that was nothing more than pure propaganda. It was physically impossible. He is sensible enough to know that. It certainly made little impression on the suspicious Dr. Adenauer and the equally doubtful Mr. Herter, not to speak of the unconsulted China.
Next came the suggestion, made a few months afterwards, of an immediate reduction by one-third of all conventional forces and armaments. Although the West has promised full consideration and

683
examination of those suggestions, I wonder whether our leading statesmen have really sought to find out what is behind it all. I admit that it is a difficult problem. Russian foreign policy— and American for that matter—is so predictable in some respects and so completely unpredictable in others that it is difficult for one to catch up. For instance, one expects Mr. Khrushchev to bluster and bully in one speech, and, equally, one expects him to cajole with soft words in another. That just happens to be his technique. But where he is unpredictable is in his timing and his moods. That makes our Western attitude very difficult.
As for the Americans, they tried to discover last week what was behind it all and were so lamentably found out. What everyone wants to know is what is the strength, force, power and efficiency lying behind the threats that Mr. Khrushchev puts across to us. As for America —she does so often put a strain on the trust and faith of her friends while she fumbles immaturely to find some coherent, consistent, logical and resolute, foreign policy.
Indeed, I believe that the only predictable policy of America is that, while she may have hesitations on the way and be somewhat late in arriving at the trysting place, she will always be at our side in times of real danger, just as we shall always be by her side, but, unlike her, without hesitation or delay. The country that gave her birth creates a link between us which, I believe, is unbreakable. Beyond that, her actions are quite unforeseeable and the latest, last week, is so confused and confusing that I think it better not to dwell upon it, except to say that it shows how near we are to disaster while fear, suspicion and nuclear armaments exist and persist.
As to Mr. Khrushchev and what I hope will be our attitude towards him and his proposals at the conference, I believe—and again I am speaking purely for myself—that Mr. Khrushchev is sincere, and means what he says on this occasion. I believe that he is sincere for two very important reasons.
As I see it, Mr. Khrushchev is now the prisoner of his promises to his own people. Owing to the constantly
684
increasing exchanges of scientists, ballet, footballers, businessmen and the like between the Soviet Union and Britain, the Russian people have become more and more aware of our way and standard of life and have become restive. Many of us probably do not know of some of the risings that have taken place in various parts of Russia. They have been kept quieter than the Hungarian one was. Mr. Khrushchev has promised —and some hon. Members have read his speeches—his own people nicer clothes, better food and more adequate accommodation; but the only way that he can fulfil those promises is by putting far more labour than at present into the factories, on to the land, and on to rebuilding sites. The only sources from which he can get those men—and Mr. Khrushchev knows it—is from the massive conventional ground forces of the Soviet Union.
There is another more pressing and more frightening reason for Mr. Khrushchev's overtures to the West. He is looking over his shoulder to China and the position she occupies in the world today. Mr. Khrushchev has been looking over his shoulder and the sight is unnerving. He sees a country of 600 million people, increasing at a rate of 6 million a year, people taught in the use of arms by his predecessor Stalin, when he feared the West. He has seen the tentative use of her new forces in Tibet and their success, and Mr. Khrushchev has become frightened. I am sure that he wants co-existence at least, but he wants more; he wants friendship and, ultimately, he wants, in my view, to be part of a combination with the West, which will be so strong that he can face up with confidence to the menacing challenge from the Far East. It is a menacing challenge.
I well remember in my youth hearing about the threat of the "Yellow peril". It was like the curse of Cromwell— equally frightening. I believe that Mr. Khrushchev is hearing those words and hearing them more loudly, and that we have now an opportunity which, if seized and wisely handled, may bring us eventually to the promised land we all desire— world peace.
I would add one further word, to reinforce what has been said by other hon. Members. We cannot ever secure world peace without regard to China.

685
China is today the most populous country in the world. China is awakening to her own strength and her Government is representative of her people, whether we like it or not. I hope that at the Summit there may be discussed how and by what means, after having perhaps brought Mr. Khrushchev into the commity of nations—I will not say free —we can bring in China.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. K. Zilliacus: I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) will not mind if I say that I found myself in considerably more agreement with his remarks than I had expected, and I am glad to have had the privilege of hearing him. Even when I disagreed with him, I thought that he was far less bellicose and far more realistic than was my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) who reproached me for being what he called "the Bourbon of the Labour Party" for not having changed my views. Well, I would rather be a Bourbon of peace than the last of the Mohicans of the cold war in the Labour Party. I would rather stick to what I believe is true than turn my coat for any reason.
I agree most heartily with what the hon. Member for Ayr said about the position of Mr. Khrushchev. He has staked his political future, and stuck out his neck on a policy of conciliation and peace-making with the West. He has done that for perfectly realistic reasons —because the arms burden is as grievous to the Soviet nation as it is to any of the other nations concerned in the arms race, and because he is quite convinced that if he could only be freed from this arms burden he could plough back the liberated resources and manpower into the Soviet economy and go ahead even more quickly with his efforts to expand production, raise the standards of living and so on.
After that, there comes an element of what one might call illusion. Mr. Khrushchev believes perfectly sincerely that in the ideological and social conflict the workers of the world would be so impressed by the successes of the Communist-run economies that they would turn to Communism. As I think I have explained before in the House, I believe that view to be mistaken. I believe that the result of peace would be to
686
generate an increased demand for public ownership and planning in our economies, in order to take up the economic slack resulting from disarmament and turn the new productive forces to constructive purposes. I also believe that the demand for more political freedom and democracy on the other side of the Iron Curtain, which already exists, would wax irresistibly strong, and spread very quickly in conditions of peace and international co-operation.
The Soviet view of peaceful co-existence is not, of course, a prolongation of the cold war but a very much more positive concept. Of two recent instances, let me mention, first, the proposal of the Soviet Government at the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations that there should be an international study of how to meet the economic consequences of disarmament by international action. I understand that the American Government, with the support of ours, voted against that proposal —for reasons that I hope someone will enlighten us about before this debate is over.
The other proposal was that the Soviet Union should join the O.E.E.C. That, also, was turned down. The whole idea of the Soviet Union is to increase trade, cultural, economic, technical, scientific and other contacts, and my belief is that that is something we should be helping to promote from our side.
I am not afraid of this ideological competition with Communism. I am certain that our ideas of Government, of democracy as a political institution and a way of life are superior to, and have greater attraction than, the concepts worked out under Communism. Therefore, the more freedom of intercourse and exchange of ideas we have, the stronger the attraction for Communist-ruled countries of political democracy, the rule of law and the rights of the individual, as we understand them, although I also believe, and admit it frankly, that peace will bring with it a considerable and growing need to change the existing social order. However, that does not worry me either, because I happen to be a Socialist.
What the hon. Gentleman said about China is also true. It so happens that I have very recently had some inside information about what actually happened when this shooting down of the plane was

687
announced in the Supreme Soviet. The Diplomatic Corps sat in attendance, the Western ambassadors wore poker faces, but the Chinese ambassador was in ecstacy—beaming all over. He was convinced that this had at last proved to Khrushchev that he was wrong and that the only thing to do was to be tough.
China's attitude itself is largely a product of the cold war. If China was recognised and was brought into the United Nations, if the United States was not in a state of chronic cold aggression on Chinese territories, I believe that the Chinese would very quickly evolve on the same lines as the Soviet Union and find that they had a vital interest in international peace and co-operation.
As it is, they are trying to cash in on a nuisance value. There is a bit more to it than that, but it is a very large element in the situation. Another factor is that the revolution there is much younger and rawer—still in its manic phase. Russia is not now a revolutionary but a post-revolutionary country. After all, the Soviet Union is now forty-two years old.
Then there was this recent incident when Khrushchev made a rather violent speech after President Eisenhower had endorsed the curious doctrine that America is entitled to send planes over Russian territory to spy on it. That was censured in the Soviet Press; held up for eight hours as regards our Press. That shows the struggle going on. I know that 24 hours before, Khrushchev, who had already been under fire for saying what he sincerely believes—that President Eisenhower is a man of peace —had again stuck out his neck in the Central Committee of the party by saying, "I am sure the President knew nothing about this. He is a good man". Then, a few hours later, President Eisenhower comes out with his endorsement—which I am sure, in his position, he had to do, but that is one of the subtleties of the West that would escape the Russian mind—and Khrushchev had to let fly.
The Russians do not want to do anything to spoil the Summit talks and are genuinely appalled at what has happened. There was widespread fear amongst the Russian people who asked, "Does this mean war?" They were
688
really worried, and they were also indignant that the incident should occur on 1st May, their day of rejoicing. It was rather out of keeping with the popular mood at the time.
I have always entertained very modest hopes about what we could expect from the Summit Conference. Although we on this side were accused by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary of having talked as though it was enough to have a Summit Conference, I, at least, do not lie under that charge. During the election campaign, in that marathon Granada radio performance we had in Manchester, I said that the concept of what I called "Super-Mac winging his way to the Summit with a beakful of Tory election rosettes in lieu of a policy" was a fairy tale for Tory tots, and that what was essential was not only to have a conference but to arrive at it with a policy for making peace; that this Government had no policy for making peace, but, on the contrary, that they were stuck with cold-war policies which made it impossible ever to reach agreement with the Soviet Union.
We heard a repetition of the dreary and stale platitude that we could only unite Germany on the basis of allowing her to enter a military alliance against the Soviet Union. Nobody has ever yet suggested why the Soviet Union should ever agree to such a proposition. We cannot very well say to the U.S.S.R., "We have to make peace and disarm, and we have to work together to organise Europe for peace—but only on condition that you allow us to go on organising half of Europe for war against you, and recruit united Germany for that purpose."
The Government know that there is no hope of ever getting agreement on that. Walter Lippmann has said that that was the kind of policy one could impose only on a defeated nation alter winning a war. It is certainly not a policy on which one can negotiate peace with a Power which, by this time, has outstripped the United States in rocket weapons and which simply will not accept that kind of nonsense.
I confess that, in the light of the latest incident, my hope for even modest results from the Summit Conference such as, at long last, a banning of tests and

689
perhaps, an easing of tension over Berlin, has turned into a very lively apprehension lest the conference should begin a new round in the cold war. I say this because of the appalling revelation of the power of sinister forces in the United States, in the Pentagon and in the Atomic Energy Commission, which are bent upon sabotaging any approach to peace or any lessening of international tension. They do not want it. They are quite frank about it. They will do everything they can to stop it. They believe in the cold war and in the nuclear weapons race and, thinking that they have now fallen behind, they want to catch up.
The other factor in my pessimism is the complete subservience of the British Government to the United States, their utter incapacity to stand up to the United States. We have recently heard about the American intention unilaterally to resume underground tests, which has been hypocritically passed off as something undertaken in pursuance of the tentative agreement reached in Geneva. That agreement in principle was for joint tests, with Soviet participation, for purely peaceful purposes and to perfect the methods of controlling minor underground explosions and distinguishing them from seismic disturbances. The crucial point was that they should be joint tests, that the Soviet Union should take part.
Everybody knows that there has been tremendous pressure from the Pentagon and the Atomic Energy Commission on the President to go ahead with unilateral tests primarily for military purposes. That, of course, is the reality behind this humbug. I hope very much that at the Summit Conference the President will be induced to hold his hand and give the programme of agreed tests, with Soviet participation, a chance to be set going, by not embarking on the unilateral tests with more or less camouflaged military purposes. The Government have now welcomed the American action as a contribution to the work at Geneva. I am very doubtful whether we shall have any kind of pressure from them on the Americans.
I come now to the fantastic episode of the U2. Various newspapers, including the News Chronicle and The Times, have said, of course, that spying always goes on. That is perfectly true, but it is not
690
the point. The important feature is the entirely novel and quite monstrous and fantastic claim by Secretary of State Herter, endorsed by the President, that the United States is entitled to violate international law by sending planes over Soviet territory for the purpose of spying. Their excuse for doing it is that they must protect the free peoples of the Western World, the free peoples under American protection, their allies, that is to say, ourselves, against the danger of surprise attack, which is supposed to keep us awake at night with fear.
This is the reductio ad absurdum of the whole nuclear deterrent theory. We start with the assumption that the Soviet Union is lying in wait to launch an unprovoked attack overnight on us, for no particular reason, just for the "heck" of it, and can be restrained only by fear of our nuclear power—which, incidentally, does not exist, though I leave that there. Now the Americans take it a step further and, without consulting their allies, say that they will subject their allies to the danger of annihilation without representation by sending planes over the Soviet Union, on the assumption that they must do it in order to preserve the free world whether it likes it or not from a surprise Soviet attack. This is the doctrine of a madman. The idea that anyone in a responsible position wielding these dreadful weapons with such fearful consequences for humanity should put our survival, our very chance of existence, on a hair-trigger because of insane obsessions of that kind, is really, to put it mildly, disquieting.
What makes it even more disquieting is the response of the Government to Questions about it today. I asked the Home Secretary, answering for the Prime Minister this afternoon, whether the Government would forbid any planes starting from this country, and would propose to N.A.T.O., that it should forbid any planes starting from N.A.T.O. countries, carrying out reconnaissance flights over Soviet territory. The right hon. Gentleman told me that the Government would not give any information on matters concerned with intelligence. In a supplementary, I then asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Prime Minister, would at least give an assurance that the Government will refrain from taking any action, such as sending a plane over another country's

691
territory without its authority, in violation of international law which we are pledged under the U.N. Charter to respect. He refused to give that assurance. When I asked the Foreign Secretary the same question, during the debate this afternoon, he also refused to give that assurance.
Is it not obvious that, if the British and American Governments, or, shall I say, the American Government and their humble and obedient servants in this country, intend to go to the Summit Conference making the perfectly fantastic claim that they are entitled to violate international law by sending spy planes over the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union does not accept President Eisenhower's proposal for legalising spying by open sky inspections, the Conference is bound to fail. The Soviet Government could not possibly accept such a claim. We shall be responsible for the failure, and public opinion will hold the Government responsible for it.
There is more, which adds to the completely "Alice-in-Wonderland" nature of the whole discussion. After all, the Foreign Secretary is a lawyer of distinction and he must know that international law forbids the sending of planes over someone else's territory without permission. This is the question I want the Government to answer tonight: Do they claim that international law permits us to send planes for spying or for any other purpose, that is to say, on intelligence reconnaissance or whatever one likes, over the territory of the Soviet Union, or any other country, without the permission of the Government concerned? Are we, in the view of the Government, entitled to do that under international law? Alternatively, are we entitled to violate international law in order to carry out these spying missions? I wish the Government to make their position clear and answer those two questions.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report published in today's newspapers of a statement by Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery to the effect that, up to the time he left N.A.T.O., he was not aware of any N.A.T.O. aircraft flying over Soviet territory?
Mr. Zilliacus: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It shows that the American attempt to generalise and talk as though everyone had been doing it is simply not true. This is a little stunt on the part of the Americans, or, at any rate, on the part of certain elements in the United States, in which they are trying to involve the rest of us.
The extraordinary thing is that at the same time as the Government try to justify this anarchist approach to the violation of international law and the flouting of the Charter the Foreign Secretary repeats what he said in the last foreign affairs debate about the necessity for disarmament to toe accompanied by the establishment of a world authority and the rule of law and an international force.
There is one international law and one code of co-existence already, the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations, as the Secretary-General told the General Assembly in his first annual report, is based on the assumption that the permanent members of the Security Council have a common interest in averting the calamity of war. They may become deadlocked in settling their disputes. They may quarrel. They may disagree. They may have all kinds of difficulties. They may have strong criticisms to make of each other's policies. But, basically, they share a common interest in having their differences settled by compromise and negotiation, in averting the measureless calamity of war.
The Charter was not framed by eccentrics. It represented the greatest concentration of juridical and political authority of the world at the time, in the light of nineteen years' experience of the League of Nations and six years' experience of the Second World War. Since then we have adopted the opposite policy of trying to base our relations with the Soviet Union on the balance of power, on negotiation from strength, on military alliances and on an arms race. This was not all our doing. Stalin, to say the least, was a very difficult customer. We could not get to terms with him, although I do not think that we tried hard enough, and I always protested about that, as the House will remember.

693
There is now, however, a new situation and if we are to have a code of coexistence and a world authority—I very much hope that we shall—the first thing that we have to make up our minds to do is to abandon this, as I see it, entirely unreal and highly dangerous assumption that the Soviet Union is lying in wait to launch an unprovoked attack upon us. The Prime Minister himself repudiated that conception when he was in Moscow. He said that what we fear is not a deliberate attack but war resulting from miscalculation or mistake. In his television speech with President Eisenhower on 1st September, he said that by bluff and counter-bluff we might drift into something nobody wants.
That is the real danger, and the way to meet it is to work out methods for settling differences by meeting frequently at conferences, and by implementing the obligations of the Charter in our mutual relations. That is the basis of the proposal, which is often put forward from this side of the House, for a policy of withdrawing forces and creating a nuclear-free zone, within which Germany would be united, and which would involve progressively winding up the rival alliances as an integral part of the process of disarmament and disengagement, and replacing them with East-West co-operation in an all-European treaty— first, in supervising the agreements for reducing and limiting armaments, withdrawing foreign forces and creating a nuclear-free zone; secondly, in settling disputes and watching over disturbances of the peace; and, thirdly, in promoting our common interests in economic, social, transport and other matters of that sort.
A constructive realistic case can be made for moving over from the balance of power to the Charter in our relations with the Soviet Union. But when the Foreign Secretary talks in this airy-fairy way about a world authority within the framework of the United Nations, which would violate the basic principle of the Charter, namely, that the great Powers must be unanimous in taking decisions through the Security Council on the issue of action against what the Charter calls "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression", one must point out, first, that the Charter cannot be revised
694
without the consent of all the permanent members; secondly, that treaties which are not consistent with the Charter are automatically null and void as between member States under Article 109; and, thirdly, that there are perfectly good reasons, expounded in the Foreign Office Commentary on the Charter of 1945, why the great Powers should be unanimous on this issue, because otherwise the members of the United Nations may find themselves committed by a majority vote to make war on a major Power. Then the balloon would go up and everything would be smashed. The Charter assumes that it is a lesser evil that there should be deadlock between the great Powers if they cannot come to terms than to provide some kind of procedure by which a majority of them could attempt legally to coerce another.
That applies to the idea of an international force. An international force is all right as a small force at the service of the Security Council, which can operate only when the great Powers are unanimously agreed that it should operate. But, as expounded by the Foreign Secretary and the present Minister of Aviation when he was Minister of Defence, that is a conception which I should have thought would be regarded as fanciful even in an essay by a junior member of the United Nations association.
The idea of an international force under the orders of a super State to keep order among the States of the world and strong enough to coerce them ignores first the difference in size between the members of the international community. Professor Blackett pointed out long ago, when dealing with the military uses of atomic energy, that there has to be a preponderance of force of at least three to one before an international authority can be reasonably sure of being able to coerce a country without war. That is not possible with any of the world Powers, nor with a Power like this country which has allies. The whole conception is utterly fanciful as a military proposition. As a psychological proposition it is equally up in the air, because states are not solid entities.
It is not possible to compare the community of nations with the community of individuals within a nation, because

695
within a nation a community is composed of human beings. In the international community States remain separate entities only so long as they retain their sovereignty. When and why the human beings within them feel enough sense of common interest to be prepared to sacrifice some of their sovereignty to a central authority is because their sense of common interest as human beings transcends their sense of separate national interests as members of different States, because they have developed a network of economic transport, cultural, intellectual and other interests which gives them a sense of common loyalty to humanity. Before one can arrive at the stage of talking about a system of world government, the idea of war as a way of settling differences will become as improbable and remote between the human beings in various parts of the international community—in this case on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain—as they are already in large areas of the world.
We do not talk in terms of war with the United States, France or the Scandinavian countries. The first line of advance is to abandon the balance of power and the crazy theory that we have to deter a surprise attack which has been reduced to a murderously dangerous absurdity by Christian Herter, and instead to take the risk of taking our stand on the Charter of the United Nations and its fundamental assumption.
When I discuss Soviet affairs, I know what I am talking about because all my life I have been concerned with studying them. I worked in this field for nineteen years as a League of Nations official, and before that I was for two years in Siberia, as an Intelligence officer during intervention. I know that the Russians do not want war. They are not thinking in those terms. They are anxious to get some kind of relationship with the rest of the world which will banish from the minds of mankind, including their own people, the haunting menace that these dreadful weapons of destruction may go off because some madman talks or acts in a way of which we have seen a horrifying example from the United States.
We have to remove the danger of war by accident, and the more we try to pile up arms and hair-trigger them against the utterly imaginary danger of a sudden de-
696
liberate attack, the more we increase the real danger of these vast defence preparations colliding by accident and burying us all in common destruction.
6.49 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has left the Chamber. I always listen to his speeches on the theory of Communism with great interest, and I think that his diagnosis is always much more accurate than that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke was right when he said that when the Russians talk about co-existence they mean what we mean by cold war.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary wisely warned the Committee and the country against expecting any dramatic results from the Summit talks. In view of all the speculation about the Summit talks—first, whether they would take place at all and, secondly, if they did, what would happen as a result —there was always a danger that the British public would regard Summit talks as a kind of Test match in which one side won and the other side lost.
Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have consistently stressed that their approach to the problem is not based upon one Summit meeting only, but a whole series of meetings spread over a number of years. That is how they wish to deal with the stresses and strains of East-West relations.
To continue the analogy of the Test match, even supposing that in the forthcoming years there were to be five Summit talks, I should be surprised if, at the end of the fifth, the rubber had been won by either side, because, as has been said by the hon. Member for Pembroke, the cold war is with us for our lifetime, for the simple reason that it is a war of ideals and of ideas.
How does the Soviet Union want to play its hand? Russia's interest at the moment is to maintain the tension that she herself has created, up to a point but not beyond it. I have always thought that East-West relations were rather like a piece of elastic. If it is pulled too taut, there is a danger that

697
it will snap, and that the cold war might become a hot war. It would seem that the Russians never pull the elastic too taut. On the other hand, Russia does not want, and cannot afford, to allow the elastic to become too slack, because if there were no tension whatever people might think that they could play around with the elastic with impunity, which would mean that the Soviet Union might be in danger of losing control over the satellite States.
There are two reasons why the Soviet Union wants to reduce tension. First, with modern progress in scientific methods and with modern communications, the Soviet Union has aircraft that can fly from Moscow to London, from London to New York and from New York to Tokio and back to Moscow in a matter of 48 hours, if not less. In addition, Russia sends her scientists and doctors to international conferences, thus to show the world what great advances she has made in science and medicine. If Russia is doing all that, the Iron Curtain cannot be kept as solid and as firm as it was before.
The second reason is the economic one. As has already been said, Mr. Khrushchev wants to improve the standards of living of the Soviet Union. Some people who live in the Soviet Union have seen a little of what happens outside in the rest of the word. If they want some of the things to which the rest of the world has become accustomed, if they want what we regard as necessities but which they still call luxuries, Mr. Khrushchev must wish to reduce the burden of armaments expenditure and to switch as much of it as possible to domestic consumption. Even in the Soviet Union, the purse is not bottomless.
Having said that, I must agree to some extent with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that we must not be too optimistic concerning a settlement about Berlin. I have always thought that the cards which the Soviet Union hold concerning Berlin are too valuable for them —now, I am putting their point of view— to throw away without a considerable quid pro quo.
They can always name a date and say that by that date they will hand over control of the approaches to West Berlin to the East German Government. Having named the date, the N.A.T.O. countries
698
would be bound to react. Then, as we get nearer to the date, we would have all the old arguments about the autobahn versus the airlift, and so on. When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Moscow, in April last year, they did not claim to have solved the Berlin problem. What they did was extremely valuable. They bought the most priceless commodity which can be bought in the cold war. when the elastic is getting rather taut. They bought time to think afresh. I agree that we should improve in various ways the methods of access to Berlin.
We must not on any account consider, nor would my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary or anybody in the House of Commons consider, no longer honouring to the hilt our obligations to the 2 million Germans who live in West Berlin. We must also make a clear distinction in our minds between what is called making a concession and what is called taking the initiative. Too often in the past, when the Soviet Union has provoked a crisis somewhere about something or other, certain Members of the party opposite, no doubt with the best intentions, have accused the Government of having lost the initiative and have told them to regain it. When they speak of regaining the initiative, more often than not they mean that the Government should make a concession in order to persuade the Soviet Union to stop provoking the very crisis which they started. There are times when it is a good thing to take the initiative, there are other times when it is a good plan to make a concession, but we must not confuse the one with the other.
I wish to say a word or two to the hon. Member for Gorton about the U2 spy plane. I do not agree with the hon. Member. This is an honest difference of opinion. I do not believe that this incident is of any great importance. Of all the major Powers, the Soviet Union is the least entitled to throw that stone into the glasshouse. I do not suppose that any country has more often or more deliberately, and, in some cases, more clumsily, violated diplomatic privilege for the purpose of espionage than the Soviet Union. So I do not think that we need take the incident too seriously.
I do not believe that it will make any difference to the course of the Summit talks. If Mr. Khrushchev decides, as,

699
I hope he will, to be amenable during the Summit talks, he will decide to be amenable only because he thinks that it will suit Soviet interests to be so. I cannot believe that he would be deflected from that course by the mere fact that a United States spy plane has made a forced landing, or been shot down when, on Mr. Khrushchev's own admission—whether it is true, I do not know—for a number of years United States aircraft have been doing this sort of thing.
I cannot see that it will make the slightest difference to the course of the Summit talks, although I quite agree that Mr. Khrushchev has been presented with a good propaganda hand which he is playing very well.
Mr. Zilliacns: Is it not the fact that whereas the Soviet Union was prepared to remonstrate only privately and not take extreme action on the first two occasions when this occurred, it has been cumulative and Russia has now decided not to stand it any longer? The Americans have replied by claiming that they will continue this practice in defiance of international law. Does the hon. Member think that the Soviet Union will accept that claim?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not share the hon. Member's intimate knowledge of what the Soviet Union says. My recollection from reading the Press is that all that the United States said was that America still demanded the right to patrol frontiers.
Mr. Zilliacus: To patrol Soviet territory.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Any hon. Member who has a copy of the newspaper can correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Zilliacus: May I do so?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I cannot give way, because I do not want to go on too long.
Mr. William Warbey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is made clear by the reason of the statement issued by Mr. Herter himself, in which he said:
"In accordance with the National Security Act of 1947, the President has put into effect since the beginning of his Administration directives to gather by every possible means the information required to protest
700
the United States. … Under these directives, programmes have been developed and put into operation which have included extensive aerial surveillance by unarmed civilian aircraft, normally of a peripheral character but on occasion by penetration."
It clearly implies that that is to go on.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: That is, in many cases, exactly what the Soviet Union has been doing itself.
Mr. Zilliacus: No, it has not.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I would like to know why. Only this morning I read in the Press of two Soviet diplomats being expelled from the embassy in Berne.
Mr. Zilliacus: That is different from violating international law.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I should have thought that the most likely field of agreement and success in the forthcoming Summit talks would be on the suspension of nuclear tests, but I should like to add one word of warning to certain hon. Members opposite. It is my belief that every Aldermaston march and every sermon by Canon Collins reduces the chances of agreement at the forthcoming Summit talks on the suspension of nuclear tests. I will tell the House why.
To whatever extent a minority, however well-meaning, can give the impression that a substantial body of opinion in this country is in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, to that extent they weaken the Soviet incentive to come to agreement at the Summit talks on the suspension of tests. Why should the Russians agree to something as the result of long negotiations if they think that the other side will concede the point anyway? I therefore think that every Aldermaston march reduces the chance of obtaining agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will go to the Summit talks bearing our very good wishes. If they come back, having achieved a very limited success, if they make even a few runs, we shall all think that they have done very well indeed. I assure them that no one on this side of the Committee or the other expects them to return with a kind of ready-made solution to all the problems of East and West which have so bedevilled the world since the end of the Second World War.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I take up the argument where the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) left off. I have never had great optimism about the result of the Summit Conference, but the Prime Minister certainly goes to it with the good wishes of all parties in this country. If nothing very much comes of it, I trust that the people of this country will not be too disappointed, and I trust also that there will not be too many recriminations, either in this country or between the countries of the Western world, or even between East and West.
I hope that we approach the Summit with the resolution both to maintain what the Western world stands for and also to begin the task of finding a way to peace. What do we hope to get from the Summit meetings? I would put first in the order of hopes some agreement between Russia and America. I would stress very highly that at the Summit the real parties who have to reach some method of negotiation are the Russians and the Americans. I believe that unless they can come to some agreement, or at any rate enter into some negotiations, fairly soon, the situation may become more difficult. At present, they are overwhelmingly the most powerful countries in the world, but that situation is changing.
Many people, including myself, for instance, welcome the development of a united Europe, but I do not delude myself into thinking that the growth of a united Europe will make it easier to make progress with what, to my mind, is the major danger facing the world, which is the danger of war. It is irrelevant to that. It may even make the process of controlled disarmament more difficult, while the rise of China and perhaps other countries will certainly do the same thing.
I believe that it is of overriding importance at the Summit to be clear first that the major advance we may hope for is some progress in Russian and American relations—which are bad. One other point about that. I want to speak later about the spread of nuclear weapons, but whether they spread or not, the means of delivering them may spread, and even with a conventional warhead, a rocket is an extremely unpleasant weapon, as those who lived in
702
London in the primitive stage of the rockets have good reason to know. The spread of the means of delivering even convenional weapons to the Middle East and other places would be extremely alarming, and certainly would not bring peace.
Secondly, I hope that there will be agreement that the Summit talks should continue at different levels and that the talks should be in private. There may be something to be said for open diplomacy, rather than diplomacy by leak, but there is a great deal to be said for private diplomacy, and it seems to me that that is the way in which East and West statesmen at various levels could well build to reach agreement, without nervousness on either side.
Today, if we look round the world, we see that every country is stiffening its position in front of the Summit. We can see it in Germany and very clearly in Russia and in this country. It is only natural that, if one is going into negotiations, one does not want to give away one's position in advance. If one has to negotiate in public one has to put on a poker face, raise one's demands and try to establish some superiority over one's opponents, both for the sake of the negotiations and for home consumption. That is what Russia is doing. Surely, after the first meeting, we should get to a stage when the negotiations could go on much more effectively in private than if there is need for every country to take up a rather intransigent position in public before they begin.
If at the beginning, there could be an accord between America and Russia, the next important thing then would be making war less likely. I have heard people say that if we begin with disarmament, we may very well be let in for an economic war, but I should welcome an economic war as the alternative to the threat of a real one, and I would be perfectly prepared to put up with economic war if we could make progress in eliminating the overriding danger of a major nuclear war.
What we have some reason to look for at the Summit is some form of agreement on the suspension of tests. I understand that at the moment there is a difficulty over the constitutional position of the United States, which affects the length of time for which the present American

703
Government can enter into agreements. This seems to me to be a matter on which we ought to try to be accommodating. It must be inconceivable to people who do not understand the refinements of Western constitutions that this sort of thing can hold up the march towards such a prize as the cessation of tests.
I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary's explanation, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, of the curious announcement from America about restarting tests. It is now clear that these underground tests in America are part of the process of finding out whether there can be a system of control, and are not related at all to the testing of nuclear weapons. The Foreign Secretary nods his head again. I was very glad to see that, but I wish that in private he would have a word with the State Department about their public relations. We have heard some very odd statements lately, and if the explanation is as simple as it has been made out, there is no reason for their appearance in the American papers.
I believe that if we can get as far as that, if we can get the Americans and Russians into negotiations, into a continuing private process of negotiation, and, if we can get a cessation of tests, with the reduction, for instance, of the danger of strontium pollution, we shall have gone a long way, and the Summit meeting will have been well worth while, even if it went no further than that.
The next desirable thing is, if possible, the beginning of disarmament. Mr. Khrushchev did make very sweeping proposals. As I understand it, the West felt unable to follow up his proposals for total disarmament, partly, at any rate, because the West maintained that they must have full machinery for inspection in being before disarmament began. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cleared that up in my speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening.
Mr. Grimond: I do not think that the Foreign Secretary did completely clear it up.
The point I am getting at is this. It appears that from time to time the Russians insisted on—or put more stress on—a continuing process of disarma-
704
ment with different agreements on inspection fitted into each phase of the process. The Western countries felt that it was not good enough and that they must have some clear undertaking about inspection and control before they could agree to what I may call the Khrushchev plan starting.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We have never said that the whole machinery of control must be established before any disarmament begins. It is not so.
Mr. Grimond: I follow that. The area of disagreement lies in the degree of control which is to be established before the process of disarmament begins.
All I am saying—and I am saying this in no spirit of criticism—is that in any process of disarmament we have to get over this different point of view about inspection and control. I want to make it clear that I accept that there must be inspection and control. I do not think anybody on either side of the Committee denies it. But, clearly, if we get over the difficulty of inspection which will be involved in stopping tests, we are going to have the machinery in being. What I urge upon the Government is that if there is a chance of getting progress on disarmament they will start from that position. That is that we are setting up a system of inspection after tests have actually stopped and that this precedent may be developed until the gap between the Western and the Russian attitudes is closed.
Those are my hopes from the Summit. They are limited. Now I should like to say a word or two about some other events which may or may not have an effect upon the Summit.
I feel that one cannot take part in this debate without referring to the U2. I regard the dispatch of the U2 not so much as a crime but as what we all know is more than a crime—a blunder. I agree that no doubt the Russians undertake espionage. There have been reports of unidentified aircraft flying over North Canada. I do not suppose that they are particularly shocked by espionage, but the point about this is, not that it was espionage but that a hostile—or what might have been a hostile—plane got a thousand miles into Russia and might have set in motion the whole machinery which in turn might cause a war. That is the serious thing.

705
I do not believe it will have much effect on the Summit. I believe the Russians; want the Summit, and I do not think they will be deflected from it by this incident, but I think it may have effects in Asia and Africa, effects adverse to the West. We have already seen the Russians taking advantage of this incident to drive a wedge between the Western countries. Therefore, this should be a lesson to the Western countries and a lesson we must learn, and the lesson is that we must get down to proper control of nuclear weapons.
Paramount in this matter is the need to stop the spread of those weapons. A year or so ago I suggested that we should give up our own nuclear deterrent and leave it to the Americans. I was howled down on all sides, but I have noticed that there are now many conversions to my party's point of view, and that it is becoming popular and fashionable. That well-known political character who is often referred to in the House of Commons, that Chinese general who baptised his troops as Christians with a hose, did not achieve greater rapidity than the rate at which conversions are taking place to the Liberal point of view on the need to limit the spread of the deterrent.
If this is to come, I suggest to the Government that for once in a way we should give a lead; that we should not be dragged into this but make something of it, and try to persuade France and other countries now developing their own deterrent to stop doing it by giving an example to those countries and proclaiming that we ourselves propose to drop it.
Another thing is, what do we mean by interdependence? The Government talk about this, but on any particular issue they seem to me to show far too little realisation of what it involves. For instance, I asked them why they did not join Euratom. They reply that it would mean this country's accepting decisions which they might not entirely like. Of course, any interdependence does mean just that. When the Government talk about interdependence, either military or economic, they must clarify their minds and realise that it means accepting decisions which, in toto, one may not always like.
706
The next matter is Berlin. I do not believe that at present unification of Germany is possible nor a settlement on Berlin, but again I think there is something which we can do among ourselves in the West, regardless of what happens at the Summit. It is difficult I admit, but we have to consider what we are going to do if the Russians sign a peace treaty with the East Germans. I am not saying that they will or not, but they might. If they did, what do we do about West Berlin? It was suggested by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) that it should be declared a free city. The objection to that is that the Russians will not include East Berlin in a free city, and I do not myself see why we should declare West Berlin a free city unless East Berlin is included within it.
I believe, however, there are two things we might do. One is to see if it is possible to get any quid pro quo for some recognition, not de jure but de facto, of the East German Government. It would be well worth considering it, because there is now in any case a good deal of intercourse with the East German Government and it might be worth looking into that to see if we can get any exchange for admitting this officially.
Another proposal is that we bring the United Nations into the Berlin situation, for instance, to see if they would be prepared to supervise the pass system on the roads into Berlin if a difficult situation arose.
The Middle East has not yet been mentioned in the debate, but I would have thought that here there could be some chance of getting agreement with the Russians, because I believe that in the Middle East we have a common interest. I do not believe the Russians want this area, which is in a rather dangerous and shaky state, to be filled with arms. I should have thought there could have been some agreement to limit arms going into the Middle East. I do not myself think that the Tripartite Declaration is any longer a suitable basis of policy in the Middle East. It seems to be dangerously vague, and I do not know what our obligations under it now are.
Our interest is to have trade and peace and stability. If that is our interest, then it should coincide with the interests of Russia and some agreement should be possible.

707
On the subject of economics, I am not myself in the least afraid of an economic war. I do not deny that it may give rise to difficulties, but I think we could welcome it as an exchange for a war with arms, or even an armed cold war. We have cards we can play. I believe we are immensely strong as compared with Russia, and while refugees pour out of the East into West Berlin I do not think we need fear for our ultimate success in a trade and political war.
Lastly, there is the position of the United Nations. Everyone has suggested that at some point we have to widen these negotiations and bring in other countries. That surely should be done through the United Nations. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) made a very reasonable criticism of the view that one can found an international force at present and expect it to be effective against a major Power. Personally, I think that an international force is needed now for the type of work which it has been doing for instance in the Sinai Peninsula. I want that force extended and made permanent, but before we can do that we must have the techniques of peaceful change developed as well, and that should be done through the United Nations.
The points in the latter part of my speech are things which surround the Summit; but on the Summit, at the top of the hill, the things to go for are some agreement between the United States and Russia, some agreement to stop tests finally, and if possible an agreement to continue with a process which I hope is being begun, and to some extent unilaterally, by East and West of scaling down these arms which the whole world has come to see, particularly after this recent incident, are highly dangerous and a severe burden on our people.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: I will not greatly follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, because I agreed with so much of what he said. But there is a point about the timing of the control mechanism in relation to disarmament which I think important and which I should like to tie up with what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour Party said
708
about disarmament needing to be both comprehensive and controlled.
I think that we all agree with that completely. I want to point out that the Prime Minister said that in the House in 1955, and that recently the Minister of Aviation, when he was Minister of Defence, said it, that the Foreign Secretary has said it, and that we were all very pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) listening to our debate for so long today because he was the architect of that conception of disarmament being inseparable from both comprehensiveness and control.
This question of security being dependent upon a comprehensive disarmament and upon control of that disarmament when it takes place is, moreover, today in a context of insecurity, not of security. We learned from the Foreign Secretary that America is spending 45 billion dollars on defence, and that that is being matched by Russia, each of them out of a sense of insecurity. What are they getting for the money? They are not getting security. Indeed, they are quite incapable of defending America—or of defending Russia. All they can do is to give not themselves security but their potential enemies a sense of even greater insecurity, by reason of all that expenditure.
In many ways it would do us a lot of good in the House of Commons if we rechristened the Defence Vote "The External Insecurity Vote" and if we faced the reality that it is nowadays quite impossible to defend, in the true sense of the word, any territory or persons against modern armaments. For such security we need a new control institution.
This evening, when Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair and when the cry goes out, "Who goes home?" we shall go downstairs to the cloak-room and we shall see there, where we now hang our umbrellas, the tapes on which Members of Parliament used to hang their swords. Wisely we did not give up our means of individual self-defence until there had been set up an institution which gave us a better security than we enjoyed before. Similarly, those of us who have stayed in baronial castles will know that, even if they are not very convenient, they are no longer a means of self-defence, with a standing army

709
and with the molten lead and the rest. We recognise that the prior condition for their changing from military buildings to residential ones was that there was set up a national institution which could give greater security than that which the baronial castles could achieve for themselves.
I am not by any means the only hon Member who has played at Twickenham for England against Scotland, but I assure the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) that the Scots have lost none of their virility and national group psychology. Nevertheless, what has happened is that the bloody wars between England and Scotland were settled here again only by the creation of a new institution, namely, a British Government—not an Anglo-Government plus a Scottish Government sitting as an international committee, but by the creation of a new British institution. Obviously, man has not altered at all. It is not that any of us are any better but that we are all rather luckier because we now enjoy new institutions that give us security.
Let us face it that disarmament is not enough in the international field. There must be this control mechanism. Obviously, as the Leader of the Labour Party says and the Foreign Secretary confirms, disarmament may make at any rate some progress before the whole control mechanism is built up. But, equally, total disarmament can never take place until such a new institution has been fully created. Because unless it has been created, disarmament implies the possibility, indeed the duty, to rearm.
The Prime Minister is going to the Summit in the context of the "Plan for Comprehensive Disarmament" which the Foreign Secretary has put forward for consideration by the Ten-Power Disarmament Commission at Geneva. I think that few people have appreciated the revolutionary nature of the document "Text of the Plan for Comprehensive Disarmament". Section III A reads:
"… to the end that no single nation or group of nations can effectively oppose enforcement of international law."
I emphasise the word "enforcement" of international law.
Earlier, under Section I F, the document envisages what is proposed as the enforcement institution:
710
"7. Means of preventing aggression and preserving world peace and security … by … an organ of, or linked to, the United Nations."
Here then is the beginning of the concept of setting up a fresh institution which shall be a world institution, because it ought not really to be an international institution. If it is linked to the United Nations then the United Nations would be free to continue as an international body doing its advisory functions. The world peace-keeping organisation, as it might be called, however would be an executive organ linked to it, but it would be a world organ, not an inter-governmental one.
We do not now carry swords, not because of any inter-individual institution but because of Scotland Yard. We stay in baronial castles not because of any inter-baronial committees and government but because of a national Government, and we shall have international security only by reason of the creation not of an international organisation but of a world organisation, which, of course, in turn may nevertheless be subject to the United Nations as an international not a world body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) made an extremely good point on the relaxation of tension when he said that that would be carrying on the same war but at a different temperature—still a cold war, and therefore still a struggle. Implicit in what he said is the concept that the struggle would go on in other fields and at other levels but that it would still be the same struggle. He made the valid point that it was essential that there should be built up, as suggested in this policy document, the concept of a "one world".
Why is there this astonishing silence in the nation about that concept? Why have not more people taken it up? Why cannot it be a bipartisan policy? Would it not give the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition a wonderful opportunity to get out of his difficulties if he took advantage of it? Why do we not canalise the idealism of the Alder-maston marchers? The idealism in this country is tremendous. Can we in this Committee not say to those marchers that we at any rate do not want nerve poison gases, a pound of which can put the whole population of the world out? Can we not say that we furthermore do

711
not want bacteriological warfare either? Again, I cannot imagine anything worse than the slow starvation which submarine warfare can bring about. When the Aldermaston marchers drink their soup in kitchens on the way, I hope that they will realise that, to this country, submarine warfare can be as bad a form of human activity as anything of which they can conceive. Then there are the V-1s and the V-2s which the Leader of the Liberal Party mentioned: such modern armaments even with high explosive are not very nice things either. We in this Committee and nation, the Americans and the Russians want to abolish the lot. I am not suggesting that Canon Collins really thinks that only one weapon is bad and that the others are good, but a lot of sentimental people whose idealism is very great have been deluded into objecting to one only of the panoply of weapons all of which are horrific, with little to choose between their degrees of horror. The alternatives are perfectly clear. Either we have to be in the ring having carried out the logic of Aldermaston and divested ourselves not only of the nuclear weapon but also of every single weapon or we claim that we do not want to be in the ring, but if we have to be, and the other fellow is bristling with every kind of weapon—cutlass, pistol and bicycle chain—then we have to have the same kind of equipment, otherwise we go under.
There is, however, yet another and much more acceptable alternative, the alternative in this document, of organising ourselves and all mankind with us out of the ring. It has been done before. It has not only been done as between England and Scotland and it is not only in terms of our own self-protection that new institutions have brought their benefit. The hon. Member for Gorton said that such a new institution was impracticable because we would need a ratio of three to one to provide security and that it would be impossible: but this document provides not for that ratio but for a ratio of three thousand not three and three thousand not to one but to nothing. If all nations were disarmed except for minor weapons Russia would be secure and internally Russia would be able to do what it liked. It could put up its pill boxes and have lots of men with machine guns and have a
712
real defence against any other nation, which lacking major armaments would not be able successfully to attack. But all the armament given up by national Governments would be handed over and used by this W.P.K.O., this world peace-keeping organisation, as the means of guaranteeing Russia and every other nation and thus keeping the peace. Just as the police here, with the backing of the Army, keep internal order, so world order could be kept by the W.P.K.O. with its police and its army in reserve.
There was a very interesting article in the Economist which called attention to the astonishing Jack of awareness of this proposal of Her Majesty's Government. The article also raised the question of whether this W.P.K.O. would be "world government". Of course it would not be. The chief constable in Bath does not "govern" Bath, and Scotland Yard does not "govern" London and England. The peace-keeping function is not a governing function. The U.N., like any national Government, would see that the police force, and the peace-keeping organisation, were under proper political control and that they carried out their function properly. It would not however interfere with, nor could it interfere with, their day-to-day duties.
I urge the Prime Minister to ask at the Summit Conference that such a new institution as mentioned in this Plan for Comprehensive Disarmament be set up. He has put a little seed in the ground by that document. Let us see whether it cannot be made to grow during the conference. I believe that the Russians sincerely wish for peace as much as anybody else. If this is the solution they will surely wish to explore it as much as anybody else. Let the United Nations appoint, say, seven individuals from non-committed countries and call them the "embryo world peace-keeping organisation. "They would have only a few fountain pens to begin with, but let them make their proposals to each national Government and ask each in turn whether if their plan were to be acceptable to them and were found to be also acceptable to other Governments they would be willing to give land for W.P.K.O. bases on their own territory.
If we are prepared to give bases on our territory to other Governments in order to provide ourselves with defence by achieving insecurity, how

713
much more would we be willing to give such bases to a world peace-keeping organisation if it were thereby enabled to guarantee our security, as the British Army guarantees security to England and Scotland and an end to their wars. It would then be up to the United Nations to consider the report of these seven men and whether it should form a W.P.K.O. as a suggested organ of its own, and thus to give to each nation the opportunity of deciding whether or not in a comprehensive and controlled world disarmament to disarm in favour of that body.
The only argument I have heard against this proposal is that the Russians would not accept it. How do we know? It is surely our job to put it to them and see if they will accept. I believe that if this is the right plan, as the Government suggest it is, then it is the only plan that the Russians or anyone else will in the end accept.
This concept will take time. It will have to begin, as the Foreign Secretary has said, in small ways with discussion round nuclear weapons, but this institution could also be set up so that the two could grow together. We should be in a position to propose something really sound to the idealists in the Aldermaston marchers and to the peoples of the world. If it became a bipartisan policy and was explained to the country and to the world, the Prime Minister would have a great advantage at the Summit in putting forward such a proposal. The truth is that our leaders are here miles ahead of us: but it is our job to catch up with them, give them support, hope that they will do well at the Summit and say, "God be with them."
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: I am sure that the Committee listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) introduce his view that after disarmament we must move towards the institutions about which he spoke. While the hon. Gentleman was speaking I recalled, also, the words of the late Lord Keynes, when he said that in the long run we are all dead. In this context, those words are perhaps truer than in any other. Unless, in the short run, we concentrate on the beginning of disarmament and on the reduction of friction and armaments in
714
the world, the probability is that we shall all be dead; and I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will forgive me if I concentrate on the shorter view rather than the long view which he put so clearly and sincerely to the Committee.
I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary marred an otherwise interesting speech by implying at the beginning that we on this side of the Committee had expressed the view that once we got to the Summit everything would be all right and that all the problems would be solved. Certainly, that is not my point of view, nor, as I understand it, the point of view advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends. But at least it is indisputable that until we get to the Summit negotiations there is no possibility of settling anything at all. At this time we must not only consider the topics which we expect to be the main items on the agenda at the Summit, we should have a general review of our foreign and defence policies. I am quite sure that we cannot have special policies for the Summit negotiations and quite different policies in between.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will know that they go to these negotiations carrying with them not only the aspirations of the people of this country, but of ordinary people all over the world, that at last some steps towards disarmament will be taken. Irrespective of party and country, ordinary people realise that apart from their danger, the cost of armaments stands between them and the houses, schools, social services and higher standard of living which otherwise would be available to them.
It is undisputable that permanent peace, as distinct from the uncertainties of the present balance of terror, can be achieved only by the development of mutual trust and disarmament between the two parts of the world. While we must approach the Summit with sober optimism and not expect too much, I think that we shall be extremely disappointed if some advance is not made in the general direction in which we all wish to go.
I do not wish to develop the point about the recent spying incident, which was dealt with so well this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I appreciate the difficulties

715
about giving the kind of assurances that were demanded, but I hope that at least the Prime Minister will find himself able to give an assurance that we have not, and shall not, in any part of our policy, do anything to prejudice the successful outcome of the Summit negotiations. In this connection, we have a special responsibility. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have a special responsibility, because, unhappily, the optimism which I think is shared by all hon. Members is not so evident in other parts of the world.
I was very shocked when, in recent discussions with members of all parties from other European Parliaments, I noticed quite a cynical approach to the possibilities of success at the Summit. And we all know that in the United States some influential sections of opinion there, not the mass of the people, are by no means enthusiastic about disarmament or its possibilities. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, we have had to wait a long time for these talks. To be very frank, I think that that was partly due to the disregard by the Government of world opinion and the need to consult our allies at the time of Suez. It took time for that difficulty to disappear. Secondly, it was because we showed a complete indifference to the forces of European unity.
Therefore, I think that we have a special responsibility to try very hard to achieve some success at the Summit meeting. Whether we succeed or not, I hope that at least it will be evident to the world that any failure to achieve what we want will be through no fault of Britain. I hope that it will be evendent that it is not the fault of the West as a whole. Obviously, no one wants to use these negotiations as a form of propaganda, but it may well be possible to try the old trick of suggesting an idea or a plan to some of the people with whom we negotiate, and, when they put forward the same proposals as their own idea, to congratulate them on their originality. We do not want propaganda credit; we want to achieve the beginnings of a new epoch in world relations.
As is so often said, it is impossible to separate defence and foreign policy con-
716
siderations. A good foreign policy is by far the best defence policy. Therefore, not only in our attitudes to these negotiations, but in our policy direction, we should, in my view, try to fit in these principles. First, we must always retain the objective of unilateral and comprehensive general disarmament with, of course, an adequate safeguard of inspection and control. I fear that it may well happen that the biggest stumbling block to making a beginning towards such an agreement may be not the Soviet Union, but because we in the West cannot agree among ourselves upon a formula and a means of approach.
Secondly, we should do everything possible to resist the spread of nuclear Powers. The logic of the failure to create agreements and an interdependent policy is, of course, that a country is faced with the alternative of having a national independent nuclear deterrent or of becoming a neutralist. Both of these alternatives are wrong. What we need is interdependence and the political control of nuclear weapons.
Of course, in formulating our disarmament and defence plans we should be less concerned with how to fight a war, should one take place, than with the principle of how a war can best be prevented. I think it necessary to say that until we succeed in getting disarmament agreements we must maintain effective defences in the West. It is impossible for this country alone to provide an adequate defence for our people. Clearly, we must be part of a co-ordinated defence system. If we are to get disarmament we must show that we have already an effective defence system. It would be no attraction to the Soviet Union to enter into disarmament agreements if it was believed that already we were unilaterally disarming ourselves or, by division between the allies and N.A.T.O., we were reducing our effective defence, possibly even to a greater extent than we should by a mere reduction of men and weapons. So I think it essential to have an effective defence, and that must be on a collective basis.
I have been much inspired in my thinking in these matters by a short but very wise observation by the Prime

717
Minister, when he was on his way back from America in October, 1957. He said:
"The time has passed when any country, however strong, can have an independent policy"
In terms of defence, that to me means that we must look wholly to N.A.T.O. in our defence thinking, that we must disregard any aspect or possibility of having a national, individual, independent British defence policy, and that we must judge our defence effort in terms only of what would be the most efficient British contribution to N.A.T.O.
This is not the time for a detailed discussion on defence. For a considerable period I have not been in favour of a British independent nuclear strategic force and it is necessary to stress that if we are to have interdependence in defence we must recognise that the consequence of that is that we must have an interdependent, and not an independent, foreign policy, and that in our general thinking we must be international and not national.
This is more than a matter of a change of policy. For the British people it involves a change in our attitude of mind, because we have all been exceedingly insular and parochial in our thinking on these matters, in particular with regard to our attitude to our European neighbours. We have undoubtedly left things extremely late. Ten years ago, when the Prime Minister was making such wonderful speeches in Strasbourg about European unity, we could have led Europe in almost any direction we wanted it to go. Our standing in Europe today is such that the people there demand action and not merely words.
The Foreign Secretary made an excellent speech on this theme in Strasbourg on 21st January last, but all the Europeans who heard it said, "It is very fine, but what are you going to do to justify it?" Today, we must be concerned with the political rather than with the economic consequences of the division of Europe between the Six and the Seven. This has great relevance to the possibility of the successful outcome of the Summit talks.
One of the prime purposes of our policy ought to be to seek a permanent association with the Common Market countries. As we always say, this is
718
extremely urgent, but I believe now that if, before the end of this year, we do not succeed it will be impossible to pursue this task. Although the Wigny-Hallstein proposals have now been postponed, or it seems probable that they will be postponed, until 1st January, we have the G.A.T.T. conference in September, and at the moment negotiations are taking place to set up an organisation to replace the O.E.E.C.
A British initiative is necessary. Suggestions have been made that we should join Euratom. I strongly endorse that. I never understood why we did not join it when it was first formed. I should like to think that we could join the Common Market and bring the Commonwealth in with us, but we know that as we are now part of the European Free Trade Association we cannot act unilaterally in this matter. I think that it should be possible to get a satisfactory political and economic association with Europe, possibly without going to the full extent of joining.
The members of the Community, particularly the French, have often described their economic community as a club. We should accept that proposition and put the proposal to them that there is room in the club for both full and associate membership, and that we understand that if associate members pay less than the full subscription in terms of economic and political integration they will get less than the full benefits. I think that it would be possible for agreement to be reached along those lines if the proposal was made as a result of British initiative.
Why, for example, should it not be possible for us to be associate members of the Community and levy upon their exports to us half the tariff that we levy on the rest of the world, and they in their turn halve their external tariffs in respect of the associate European members? This is a European idea and the stumbling block is G.A.T.T., but if we are to choose between association with Europe and G.A.T.T., my instinct, politically and economically, is to choose Europe, because, as I see it, the proposals of the Committee of Four for the reorganised O.E.E.C—O.E.C.D.—will make the Community self-contained, and the non-Six European countries, in their relations with the Six, will be treated on the same basis as the South American Republics

719
on any other country in the world. Any possibility of a United Europe, which the Prime Minister did so much to promote ten years ago, will go if this new O.E.C.D. comes into operation on the lines at present proposed. For both economic and political reasons, that would be a disaster.
It was because I had in mind the need for interdependence of foreign policy, more effective defence, and political control of nuclear weapons, together with the desire for a British initiative, that I produced my personal heresy when I suggested last December that there should be a form of European strategic deterrent within the general framework of the modified Brussels Treaty and the Western European Union. My purpose was not in any way to increase the defence or striking power of the West. It would not have involved an additional nuclear bomb. We all know that on the military side today the problem is not the provision of more warheads, but the means of delivery. On the political side, the problem is how to control the use of nuclear weapons within the Western Alliance. My proposal was made before the French developed their bomb and it was that we in Britain—because we still have, and will have for one or two years, an independent nuclear strategic force of V-bombers and their weapons—should place our independent deterrent within the general control of the Western European countries.
I do not mind whether we do it within the aegis of N.A.T.O., but it seemed to me that, because of the existence of the Western European Treaty and the existing provisions for controlling the production of nuclear weapons, that would be a useful organisation within which to begin this idea. For us, it would mean only giving up our sovereignty and control over the use of our own nuclear weapons. It would not mean sharing atomic secrets or the common production of nuclear weapons. If we accept the principle of sharing in that way it might be possible to advance later towards the collective manufacture, not of the nuclear weapon, but of the means of delivery. It might also be possible to get a common research programme.
It certainly would not mean that Germany would be allowed to make or possess nuclear weapons. It would mean
720
only that Germany, as a member of W.E.U. or N.A.T.O., would participate in the decision to use nuclear weapons. That is the emphasis that we must put on this matter. In the N.A.T.O. alliance as it is at present there are first-class and second-class members—those who have nuclear weapons and have some say in the policy concerning their use, and the rest, who have no feeling of participating in the really vital decisions involved. Until we can take steps in this general development of foreign and defence policy—which we can begin to do without waiting for Summit Conference decisions—we shall not be in a collective frame of mind to make the best use of the negotiations that are coming along.
I conclude as I began, by wishing the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary well in their negotiations next week and in the months to come. I am never quite sure what is meant by wishing a person or country well, but the expression is frequently used by Foreign Office spokesmen, and thus it is probably the oppropriate thing to say. I hope that not only next week, but tonight, the Prime Minister will reiterate the principle of interdependence which he expressed so well in the single sentence that I quoted from the speech he made at London Airport when he came back from the United States in 1957.
There are great possibilities of achieving disarmament, because the challenge of the future will lie in technological competition and the conflict of ideologies, and possibly, also, in a trade war between the Communist countries and the West, especially in Asia and Africa. Unless we can agree to the principle of interdependence between the countries of the West we shall fail in our objectives at the Summit Conference and in connection with the trade, technological and other considerations which are becoming increasingly important. I know that the Prime Minister will go with the full backing of the British people if he makes it clear that if the conference fails it will not be the fault of Britain.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: After the excellent, interesting and far-ranging speech made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), I fear that what I have to say will be regarded as

721
covering only a very narrow front. Many speakers have mentioned the question of spying and the flight of the U2. I should like to say a few words about spying, because it is important to damp it down before the Summit Conference takes place. I was a spy for a short time during the war. I was a very bad one, and I did not do much, but I have had a little experience, and I have always been interested in certain aspects of the subject. I thought that a word to the Committee on the matter might be of some interest.
The U2 incident is being exploited by Russia, probably quite fairly. She is seeking to divide the West and create a certain amount of hatred on the matter. It is, therefore, essential to place this espionage game in its right perspective. Looking back at my experiences, they seem very funny. One must regard spying with a sense of humour. I can assure hon. Members that that is what spies do. We need not get quite so steamed up about it. Great Powers, in order to be great, must have their own secret services.
Mr. John Stonehouse: Would the hon. Member have a sense of humour if a Russian aircraft were flying over Surrey at this moment?
Mr. Marten: I do not know that I would object to it, but in any case I was referring more to the traditional type of spying. Every great Power has to have its own secret service, as part of its defence mechanism. We accept radar, which is a technical spy which looks at enemy countries. Air flights like that of the U2 are part of the defence mechanism of the West. A responsible Government must get all the knowledge it can of the war potential of the country which it fears might become its enemy. If it does not do that it is failing. I therefore reiterate that the great Powers must have their secret services.
Spying is a great industry, employing large numbers of people on both sides. Spies are employed to go out and obtain information, and that makes the opponent set up counter-espionage organisations to catch them. There is a doubling up of every spy, and a great deal of money is expended. Spying is said to be one of the oldest professions. Prostitution is regarded as the oldest,
722
and I believe that spying is the second oldest.
Mr. C. Pannell: I believe that anti-Semitism is the second oldest.
Mr. Marten: On that point we differ. There is a certain similarity between prostitution and spying, in that much of the work is done on street corners—or used to be—and furtive payments are made, upon which no Income Tax is paid. There is also a lot of double-crossing among the people engaged in the business. Prostitution had the Wolfenden Report and was driven underground, but attempts to take action with spies have forced them above the ground. They started off underground and they have now had to go above the ground and into the air, taking part in the kind of aircraft flight upon which the U2 was engaged.
More seriously, the Russians regard the shooting down of the U2 as part of the great game of spy catching. It is a question of "one-upmanship"; the side that catches the most spies is the winner. The incident must be seen in that light, and I hope that the case of the shot-down U2 will in no way upset or affect the deliberations at the Summit Conference.
The other question that arises in this connection is: what use is the country Which has caught the spy going to make of the fact? I do not blame Mr. Khrushchev for playing the cards as he has done. He has done it very well. I find it amusing to watch him play his cards, because I regard spying as amusing. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) found an American spy in the Ministry of Defence he would derive much enjoyment from playing his cards slowly. That is the way we must look at the matter.
The first point to remember is that this affair is a victory for the Russians in the cold war. The uncommitted countries look to the major Powers for a code of behaviour. I believe that, thinking over this incident, they will say, "That is not a very good code of behaviour". If the Russians are clever they will probably cash in on this and it will be regarded as a victory in the cold war. Secondly, the uncommitted countries will probably regard it as a victory for technical skill. We are told

723
that the aircraft was shot down by a missile. I do not know whether that is true, but I believe that the uncommitted countries will say, "The Russians have shot a rocket to the moon. If they can do that there is no reason why they should not shoot down an aircraft with a rocket." The uncommitted countries could, therefore, regard this as another feather in the Russian cap, showing the technical skill of the Russians.
I do not think that we should attach too much importance to all the technical points which have been brought out and the arguments to show whether the fighter was either shot down or crashed. We can leave that to the technicians to decide. Nor should we be too holy about all the equipment which was found and which has been laid out, such as the seven ladies' gold rings, the notes in cellophane, the French gold coins, and the poisoned pin. The poison was only for the pilot's self-destruction and was not intended to poison anybody else. When I did my spying I carried poison, and I still have the little container, which I now use to carry indigestion tablets. The poison was for one's own self-destruction. We should, therefore, keep that in perspective, too.
The Russians will try to create the maximum disturbance among the N.A.T.O. and C.E.N.T.O. Powers by shaking their fists, as it were, at Norway, Turkey and Pakistan. I do not think that that matters very much, except that it rather strengthens the anti-Americanism which is latent in those countries. That is the danger in this operation.
During the debate hon. Members have said that the flight should not have taken place and that it was the wrong timing. That may be so, although it is very much a question of opinion. If it is a question of wrong timing, the next question is, ought they not to have stopped these flights earlier and, if so, how much earlier? How far back ought they to have gone in stopping these flights? Ought they to have stopped them when the Summit meetings were first under discussion? If not, when ought they to have stopped them? It is easy to be wise after the event.
What perhaps we can do is to draw a distinction between actions in espionage which are provocative and other actions
724
which are non-provocative. Surely non-provocative actions can continue, presumably even during the Summit Conference, but I agree that provocative actions are in a different category. In this Ministers ought to have a little more control over their secret services than has been apparent in this case.
I have read the reports in HANSARD of the debates on the Crabbe case. This, too, was an action which I think was provocative and which should not have taken place. It was a provocative action by rather naive people who had a sickening unawareness of politics. I will say no more about that.
We have had the Crabbe case and the U2 case. Hon. Members may say, in tennis terms, that that is 30-love to the Russians. If they think so, I must remind them of another case which I believe makes it about 30-all. This was a case in Frankfurt, West Germany, on 18th February, 1954. A Russian emigré, Mr. Okolovich, was living in Frankfurt. Somebody came to his front door and said, "I have been sent by the Russians to kill you but I do not intend to do so." There is a certain similarity between this case and the other two. I looked up the details yesterday in The Times of 23rd April, 1954. There was a certain similarity which I thought it as well to point out.
The man who came to the door was Captain Kokolov of the M.V.D. and of the Ninth Odtel, which is the Russian terrorist organisation. He had been chosen to kill Mr. Okolovich, who was a Russian emigré leader in Frankfurt. He was sent by Soviet plane to Vinna, which was in a neutral country, on 14th January, 1954, under the name of Joseph Hoffbauer, using a false passport. In other words, he was using another country, as is alleged in the case of the U2. He was supposed to knock at the door and to see Mr. Okolovich and to say, "I have come to meet you". He was to hand him a cigarette. When he opened the packet of cigarettes, Captain Kokolov was to squeeze the packet of cigarettes. Inside was an electrical device which would discharge a pellet containing enough potassium cyanide to kill a man a hundred times over.
To my mind this is a grave abuse of the use of poison. It is the sort of thing which the Russian secret service is

725
capable of doing, and I believe that it is going a little beyond the rules of the game. An interesting feature of this story is the timing; it was shortly before the Geneva Conference on Korea and Indo-China. There is, therefore, a certain similarity with the U2 incident, and because it was going a little beyond the accepted rules of the game, I will give the West 30 points for that incident, and I reckon that the score is about 30-all in this game of "spymanship" and "one-upmanship."
In my view, when we approach the time of a conference all countries should exercise more Ministerial control over their secret services. That is probably the lesson which has come out of this incident. I have tried to give the background to this spy game and I have tried to damp the incident down, because I think its importance becomes very much inflated when people do not know the background. I hope that this case will not become a factor, as it should not become a factor, in the Summit negotiations. The Summit is far too serious to be affected by the comic-tragedy of these spy games. It might also give an opening for us to examine again the "Open Skies" proposal, for, if we had had open skies, this would never have happened.
I conclude by wishing Godspeed to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I believe that the Prime Minister will have not only the good wishes but also the prayers of the country throughout the whole time of the negotiations.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. William Warbey: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has given the Committee an account of his experiences and their bearing upon the recent incident of the U2. He has agreed that, although, in his view, such incidents should not be taken too seriously, nevertheless this was an occasion on which there ought to have been Ministerial intervention to prevent the possibility of such an incident occurring on the eve of the Summit Conference. In other words, he is surely agreeing that this is an incident which is capable of having a very serious effect at this time.
Now that there has been released the uncensored version of Mr. Khrushchev's speech, we find that Mr. Khrushchev has
726
taken an extremely serious view of the matter. The Soviet Union propose to raise this alleged act of American aggression at the Security Council. Mr. Khrushchev has made a violent attack on Mr. Herter, United States Secretary of State. We ought to realise that the U2 incident went a good deal beyond the ordinary spying which, unfortunately, takes place on all sides when we have a state of affairs such as we have in the world today, with armed camps in rivalry with one another. This, after all, is an act of violation of the national sovereignty of a country with which, from the diplomatic point of view, we and the United States are still in friendly relations. It is a violation of international law.
The American Government have seen fit not merely to take responsibility for this incident, but to go, further and pro-claim quite openly that they regard it as justified and intend to go on with this kind of thing in the future, unless they can get their own way about their proposal for open skies.
This attitude is extremely dangerous. I hope that when the Prime Minister replies to the debate we shall hear from him a rather more serious statement about this matter than we heard from the Foreign Secretary, who seemed to view it with extreme complacency and made a rather glib remark about it being fortunate that it happened before the Summit, rather than after it.
It is extremely unfortunate that it happened before the Summit Conference. It is, in itself, one indication among many others of the kind of forces which are at work in some countries today and which can very seriously hinder the objectives which we all hope will be realised by the Summit Conference. The conference, after all, meets at a critical time in world affairs. The hopes of a good deal of humanity will be on the conference, expecting that it will make a real start on a new approach to international affairs.
Although we believe that great things must indeed be started by the Summit Conference, we must also be very aware, as we enter upon this new level of international negotiations, of the obstacles which lie in its way and the factors and tendencies which are at work in international affairs today, which may

727
be of either a negative or a positive character.
I should like to refer to what I think are some of the more significant of those factors, starting with the negative ones. To mention what may seem a small one, but one which may have considerable repercussions, there is, first, the discovery of the inability of this country to have an independent nuclear deterrent.
Secondly, there is the tendency for there to develop in Germany a régime which seeks again the revival of military power in order to be able to assert a settlement of Europe and of European affairs and boundaries in the interests, or supposed interests, of Germany. It is a very dangerous tendency, and nearly every hon. Member realises that the tendency exists and is one which we now have to take quite seriously. It can no longer be regarded as simply a bogy put up by those who used to be opposed to the rearmament of Germany.
Then there is, on a much wider level, the failure of the whole policy of negotiation from strength. When the West did have some relative strength, it refused to use the opportunity to negotiate. We have now reached the situation where the balance of strength is passing away from the Western Powers. If we do not negotiate soon, the prospect of negotiation with any kind of success from a Western point of view will disappear rapidly.
Further, there is the failure of the whole policy of trying to save the world and human freedom from the Communist threat by military opposition, by a military alliance. Looking round at what is supposed to be the free world today, one finds that about half of it is composed of countries in which there is rather less political freedom than there is in many Communist countries and where there is certainly a good deal more exploitation and social inequality.
In South Korea, we have just had the lid taken off. Although the United States felt that it should intervene because a revolutionary situation was developing, President Eisenhower felt it necessary to send a telegram of warm greetings to Syngman Rhee in his honourable retirement.
In South Vietnam, there is a state of political repression, corruption, inequality and lack of political freedom
728
under American protection which is just as bad as anything which has prevailed in South Korea. In Laos, there have just been rigged elections under American protection. In Turkey, while N.A.T.O. has been meeting, the police have had to be on the streets to prevent demonstrators showing their opposition to a régime which again denies the rights of the opposition and of the Press.
To come further into Europe, Spain, which is a kind of indirect member of N.A.T.O., is still a Fascist country. Portugal is a Fascist country. In Western Germany there are tendencies which certainly are not developing in the direction of our conception of Western democracy.
Therefore, it is time that we dropped this humbug about a free world and recognised that the Communist challenge cannot be resisted by military means. That attempt has failed, and the attempt to continue it in the future will certainly go on the rocks, because this challenge is taking on a new character in itself. It is a character which cannot be resisted by military means. I will refer to this again later, because I regard it as one of the positive, and not one of the negative, factors in international affairs.
Among the negative factors, there is, further, the appalling momentum of the arms race. As the arms race gains momentum, we find that the political objectives towards a peaceful settlement of international affairs tend to become submerged, and even thwarted, by the activities of the military planners. We have seen some dangerous indications of that in the United States. We have seen how some of them have tried to sabotage the possibility of an agreement on the ending of nuclear tests. We are not at all convinced that they have yet finished their efforts.
We have had the incident of the U2, and we have had quite open declarations by some military leaders, both in the United States and in Europe, which are hostile to the conceptions of disengagements, and even to serious disarmament. There is the danger to which other hon. Members have referred and which, I think, has to be regarded as a negative factor at the moment. That is the potential danger, at least, of the development of an intransigent China, a country with a population which is already nearly one-quarter of the world's total population

729
and which before many years will be one-third of the world's population. I believe that that intransigence in itself is very largely a reaction to the relentless hostility which has been shown to Communist China by the United States. There is a possibility of the correction of that danger, but it is certainly one which has to be kept in our mind.
What is there on the credit side? On the credit side, there is—I believe everybody recognises it today—a growing realisation in all countries that the continuance of the nuclear arms race and of the cold war presents a deadly menace to the whole of humanity. This feeling is being more and more experienced by ordinary human beings throughout the world. It is beginning to exert pressure on the statesmen of the world, and that pressure is at last beginning to have some effect upon their rulers.
Secondly, there is a very important development in the Soviet Union away from what can be summed up in the word "Stalinism", with all that that implied—a certain ruthlessness and oppressiveness, both internal and external —towards a position in which the people and the rulers of the Soviet Union are confident that they can achieve their objectives, both internal and external, without resort to force, and indeed far more certainly in a world of peaceful co-existence and general disarmament.
This I regard as one of the most encouraging and helpful developments in international affairs, though some people seem to regard it with a certain fear. One can understand the reaction, for example, of those American capitalists who so deeply fear the success of Communism within the Soviet Union alone that the realisation that the Communist system in the Soviet Union may succeed in proving to be an economic and, eventually, a social success, is the kind of challenge they feel unable to meet except by the old-fashioned methods of force.
The third positive factor is the growth of independent countries in Asia and Africa and, to an increasing extent, in Latin America. Those countries take an independent line in world affairs. They give a certain balance to international affairs, and they constitute a growing body of world public opinion of which it is quite clear the great Powers have to take
730
increasing note, and which cannot be dismissed because it does not possess a large number of divisions or nuclear weapons.
There are six negative factors and three positive ones, but if we are willing to learn from our mistakes, some of the negative ones can be turned into positive ones. In any case, there is a fourth potential factor, which depends very much on the British Government and the Prime Minister—the kind of rôle that this country at this time could and should play in international affairs. I believe that there is an opportunity for us to make a decisive intervention at this stage which could really put us on the path towards a stable peace and international co-operation.
There are signs that the Prime Minister is feeling his way in the right direction. There was his visit to Moscow, his appreciation of the positive developments in the Soviet Union, and the understandings with Mr. Khrushchev that were embodied in the Moscow communiqué. There has been what I consider the very satisfactory intermediate rôle played by this country in the discussions on a ban on nuclear tests, and from what we have heard of the discussions between the Prime Minister and Dr. Adenauer, and the Prime Minister's conversations in Washington, there have been some indications that he is aware of some of these possibly dangerous tendencies in international affairs, and, also, that he recognises the need for a more independent British foreign policy.
I have to admit that, on the other side, there have been, unfortunately, some very bad signs. There has been the fact that Her Majesty's Government have, for example, embarked on a policy of promoting the development of the German armaments industry, and even the production of weapons at present forbidden by the Brussels Treaty. There is the fact that Her Majesty's Government have not protested openly against the continuance of the American policy of hostility towards China, and have not sought actively to secure her acceptance into the United Nations. These and other indications are less favourable.
I believe, therefore, that a great deal now depends on whether or not the Prime Minister goes into the Summit Conference really prepared to give a lead

731
for this country; on whether he goes into it not with one hand tied behind his back by Dr. Adenauer and the other tied behind his back by the American Pentagon, but as the spokesman of Britain, of the Commonwealth and of ordinary people throughout the world. If he will do that, I think that there are some things that he will be able to achieve.
I am sure that there are some things that can be achieved with British insistence. There is the finalising of the nuclear test agreement, to which a great deal of reference has been made, and on which I shall not say any more now. There is the giving of a new directive to the Ten-Power Disarmament Commission. Here I say that it is time Her Majesty's Government took an adult view of these matters, and said quite plainly that we are not going on with these time-wasting, futile, verbal skirmishings, but want to get down to brass tacks and seek the basis of an agreement.
I cannot understand the objection of Her Majesty's Government to accepting the Soviet Government's general goal of total disarmament to be achieved by continuous stages over a defined period of years. If one really means business in disarmament it is very important to have a timetable, otherwise one is unlikely to get down to really serious reductions in armed forces. It is very important, also, that we should put forward a plan that involves a beginning of real disarmament at the first stage. We should recognise, also, that the control system must be adapted to the various phases and we cannot have the whole of the control machinery in its full panoply of force established from the very beginning.
There is something else very important which could be achieved through British initiative. I mean the beginning of a settlement of the problems of Europe and an approach to the particular problem of nuclear weapons. Together with many of my hon. Friends who have spoken, I do not believe that there is any hope of reaching a settlement of the political problems of Germany, including Berlin, until we have solved the military and security problem on a reasonable basis. This means that we must make an approach to what we on this side call
732
disengagement—I do not insist on the word if the Government do not like it.
I believe that the best way to make a start would be to propose a kind of extended Rapacki plan to cover the whole of Europe from the Atlantic to the Soviet frontier.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Why not to the Urals?
Mr. Warbey: If it were to go to the Urals, it would have to embrace half of the United States as well, and I think that that would be a little difficult to achieve in the first stages. We must approach the matter by stages.
In this area, we should agree upon the freezing of nuclear weapons at the level existing at the opening date of the Summit Conference, to be followed by the withdrawal of nuclear weapons entirely from the whole area. We should, of course, include a system of control and inspection of conventional arms and forces which should be reduced together with the abolition of the nuclear weapons.
We can do more than that. I believe that we can do much to make this proposal succeed if we take an initiative of our own. It would be magnificent if the Prime Minister went to the Summit Conference and put the British H-bomb on the table, saying, "We have finished with this thing ourselves. We propose that we finish with it throughout the whole of Europe". If we could bring ourselves to make that gesture and turn to positive advantage the fact that we can no longer effectively have a British nuclear deterrent, we could transform the situation in Europe and begin to-transform the situation throughout the world.
Finally, a word about China. In my view, it is absolutely indispensable that we take as a matter of urgency the admission of China—I would certainly add India, of course, but I refer, first, to China for the specific reason which I and other hon. Members have given— into all these discussions on international problems and into the United Nations. It is surely absolutely obvious that we shall not have, and cannot possibly hope to have, a disarmament agreement, we probably cannot have a continuing ban on nuclear tests, and we certainly cannot achieve a real lessening of international

733
tension on a global scale unless and until China is brought into the discussions. Mr. Chou En-lai said in Cambodia the other day that China will not participate in a disarmament conference so long as she is excluded from the United Nations. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable and logical attitude to take.
I should like to put this question to the Government, and I should like an answer to it tonight: are they prepared to propose at the next Summit Conference —we all agree that there must be more and that they must be held frequently— that China and India should be invited to participate and that global affairs should be discussed? Further, are they prepared to say that China must be admitted to the United Nations at the next meeting of the General Assembly this year? I believe that we have to say that now, and to say it quickly. If it is not said quickly many of the things that we want to achieve will be very difficult to achieve indeed.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. Gilbert Longden: Apart from the last few sentences of his speech, I do not think that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) will be surprised to be told that I disagree with almost every word of it. He tried to make our flesh creep about German rearmament. I do not believe that at any period of German history has German youth been less militarily inclined—
Mr. Warbey: I agree.
Mr. Longden: —and less nationalistically minded.
There are many reasons why the state of Germany today differs from the state of Germany in the 'twenties and 'thirties. First, in the 'twenties and 'thirties German cities had not been partially destroyed by enemy action and at each election in Germany the totalitarian parties gained in strength, whereas in the fifties they have steadily decreased in strength. Moreover, in the 'twenties and 'thirties Germany was not roped in to a Western alliance under the terms of which she undertakes not to reunite herself by force, not to make certain kinds of weapons, and to limit her forces to a ceiling.
Mr. Zilliaeus: Might I interrupt—
Mr. Longden: No. I have not much time. The hon. Member made a very long speech.
The hon. Member for Ashfield also never seems to be able to find anything good in the Western world nor anything bad east of the Iron Curtain. He spoke about Turkish police being in the streets of Istanbul and Ankara for a fortnight, but did not say a word about Russian soldiers in the streets of Budapest for the last several years.
Mr. Warbey: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is totally misrepresenting what I said. If he had listened, he would have realised that what I said was that in a number of countries of the so-called free world the suppression of political freedom was as great as it was in any of the Communist countries.
Mr. Longden: Yes, I heard that, but I would welcome occasionally a little more criticism of things that go on east of the Iron Curtain as well.
The hon. Member criticised the British Government for negotiating from strength, but it is just because we have negotiated from strength that we have arrived at the Summit. He said that we cannot resist the Communist challenge by military means, because the character of that challenge is changing. Why is it changing?—because of our military strength. He asked why we do not accept the Soviet proposals and timetable. The reason is that they are hopelessly vague and, although vagueness might have been excusable when Mr. Khrushchev first put them forward at the United Nations General Assembly on 18th September, they were not particularised in a single detail at the recent Ten-Power Disarmament Commission at Geneva.
It is to disarmament that I want to confine the few remarks that I have to make. I assume that it will be topic No. 1 at the Summit. I am very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has categorically stated in the House of Commons' that we want comprehensive disarmament.
For myself. I want comprehensive disarmament quite as much as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) wants it and I cannot say more than that. But I do not want

735
unilateral disarmament and I do not want disarmament unless three conditions are fulfilled. The first is that it must be universal or comprehensive, whichever word one likes to use. Secondly, it must be enforced by foolproof controls and, thirdly, it must be succeeded by a system which will effectively ensure the enforcement of an international rule of law.
First, then, it must not be unilateral. It is worth saying a word or two about this just at this moment of time when unilateralism, I am sorry to say, is gaining ground. I do not take the view, which, I am ashamed to say, was recently uttered by a British intellectual, that
"In the terrible context of nuclear war even the vital differences between Communism and Western freedom become almost unimportant"
or that the West should negotiate whatever it can, even though the upshot might well be
"the total domination of the world by Russia within a few years."
I am not as tender as was my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) towards the Aldermaston marchers. I deplore the Aldermaston marchers. They are at best pacifists, at next best wishful-thinking ostriches and, at worst, the willing dupes of the Communist conspiracy. Let no one in this Committee underrate the Communist conspiracy. Yet as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) so rightly said, many people in this country have forgotten which side they are on.
A century ago, slavery persisted in some parts of the world. Today, the whole of mankind is threatened with subjection to a new and insidious form of slavery under which human personality would lose all its individuality. Those who seek to combat this threat by moral rearmament have my respect, but until human nature has markedly changed in our potential opponents, or until we can achieve universal and effectively-controlled disarmament, we must be prepared to defend ourselves, if necessary with arms and men.
I, for one, am not prepared, like the Liberal Party, to abdicate my responsibilities—indeed, as I believe it to be, my duty as a Christian—by leaving it to others to preserve my freedom and my way of life.
736
I said "Until we can achieve disarmament". I believe that the Western plan means business. I believe that it is eminently practicable, fair to all and, if agreed, would satisfy my three conditions. The first is control. The Western plan states that
"All measures of disarmament must be observed and verified by an appropriate international organisation"
and proposes
"The establishment of an International Disarmament Organisation by progressive steps".
The Soviet Union has all along objected to the immediate establishment of an international disarmament organisation. Can the trouble be semantics—the curse of Babel? I was recently in a small way engaged in negotiating at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference with the Russians and others on this subject, and I came to the conclusion that we are metaphorically as well as literally talking different languages. They said that "the key to the solution was total and general disarmament". That, of course, is begging the question. " If we can get total and general disarmament", they said, "the problem of control will solve itself". Then, we spent a whole afternoon arguing whether the control organ would supervise disarmament by controlled stages, agreed at each phase of disarmament, or on each phase of disarmament. So that will be one of the difficulties—the question of control.
Secondly, what is to happen after disarmament? The Western plan envisages an international organisation to be an organ of or linked with the United Nations. Disarmament of itself will not put an end to disputation. The point is that all disputes must be settled by a rule of law, backed by sanctions. We could call that an international police force, if we like, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) missed the point, because, ex hypothesi, this organisation will not be set up until after the other nations have disarmed: this organisation will come into being only when disarmament has taken place, but the Russians have always said that it would be a tool of the imperialists. The suggestion might be made that the permanent

737
members of the Security Council should not contribute men, but only arms and money.
Thirdly, and this is where I come to some kind of agreement with the hon. Member for Ashfield, what about universality, which is so essential? The Western plan caters for that, and in paragraph I 8 F, it is suggested that a study should be immediately undertaken on the
"Timing and manner of extending a disarmament agreement so as to include other States having significant military capabilities, with the view to the holding of a disarmament conference."
So far as France is concerned, General de Gaulle told us in Westminster Hall the other day that as soon as those who now have the means have divested themselves of those means, France will follow suit; but we are surely fooling ourselves if we think that anyone is going to act on any disarmament agreement which may be arrived at unless and until they can be sure that the People's Republic of China will agree to it too. Can they be expected to join such a disarmament conference unless they are first admitted to the United Nations? I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and many people on both sides of the Committee—including, I believe, the Government—that they must be admitted to the United Nations.
I know that the Chinese people are now being subjected to one of the most appalling tyrannies which even they have ever known. I know that the Chinese Government are in breach of many United Nations resolutions, but so are other Governments. I know all that our American allies have had to suffer from the Chinese, but I also know that that great country has 600 million people, and the sooner they are brought into the councils of the civilised nations the better.
My last word is about Germany and Berlin. One thing I think is absolutely certain, and I think I can say it is agreed by every member of this Committee. It is that we cannot throw the West Berliners to the Communist wolves. The word of the Western world would be worthless in all the uncommitted nations if that were to happen. What, then, is the solution? It seems to me that the key to the solution is free elections, but there is no immediate or even remote
738
hope of free elections if the resulting Government in the Eastern sector were to be free to join the Western alliance. But what if the Eastern sector were to become another Austria? We could do that with a nation of 17 million, but not with a nation of 70 or 80 million. Berlin would become its capital. It would be neutralised by guarantee of all the Powers; and if their kinsmen in the East were free to choose their own Government, would that not reconcile the Federal Republic to the loss of the Eastern sector?
After all, we are approaching an era when, whether we like it or not, the whole concept of sovereignty means much, much less than it did once. What will it amount to when we have signed the document envisaged by this White Paper?
That brings me to my last word, which is about Europe. I very much agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) and by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). What are we doing about Europe? Whatever it is, we must do it now. We have always been told that there are objections to entering into the Six, one being the Commonwealth, the other sovereignty. I have said what I personally believe to be the validity of the second objection. As to the first, we have the Commonwealth Prime Ministers right here in London now, and I hope they will be asked what their views are.
To conclude, like every other Member who has spoken in this debate—everybody else, I am glad to say—I, too, would wish the greatest possible good fortune to my right hon. Friends in Paris next week.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: In the few minutes that remain I must go very quickly over my points. I want only to say that in approaching the Summit next week I hope that we do not make too much of the unfortunate incident of the U2. I regret it. I deeply deplore it as, I believe, every Member of this Committee does, and not least the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We deplore an incident of that kind, and just at this moment, but probably it reflects the degree of ineptitude of the present United States Government

739
and the Pentagon. However, do not let us deceive ourselves about what has been done in this country.
People are political innocents if they believe for one moment that this has been the major spy incident with which we have met in our lifetime. I would ask hon. Members to read the book by Isaac Don Levine, The Mind of an Assassin. Trotsky was pursued through Norway, a friendly country, to Mexico, and his assassination was plotted by the agents of the Soviet in that country. That was far more nefarious than anything done during the last week or two.
We can remember, of course, the Canadian spy ring and the intrusion into Canadian integrity. We can remember Petrov, and all that happened there. We can remember the protests from the extreme Left. These things were done on the ground, and they were not less evil, not less nefarious, because they were not done thousands of feet up in the air. Further to that, we can remember what happened—not in the air—in the pursuit by a Russian trawler of the nuclear submarine as it surfaced.
These are elements of international espionage, but closer, nearer home, anyone who has been in the trade union movement and who has worshipped at the shrine of social democracy in the last forty years will remember the names of Glading and Springhall, who were sent to prison because they were spies of the Soviet Union—from an organisation sister to our own great movement. We have seen incursion into our trade unions.
Do not let any of us be deceived. This is an element in international affairs. It is an element in the cold war. I could have hoped that President Eisenhower would have had enough "know-how" to stop it this time, but it has happened and we might at least face it with a sense of proportion. Today Khrushchev has said that he will destroy the bases from whence these aircraft come. I should like to hear a word or two of condemnation from either side of the Committee. I condemn that statement on the eve of the conference. The steps which statesmen should take to ensure the peace of the world are rather more important than this isolated incident, and if people keep a sense of
740
proportion they will realise that the fate of thousands of millions of people in the future is far more important than what one madcap airman may do in one flight.
Mr. Stonehouse Mr. Stonehouse rose—
Mr. Pannell: No, I have no time to give way. I have listened with interest though not very much sympathy to a lot of silly statements during the day, but I did not interrupt them because I thought that this audience was adult enough to take them at their own value.
I have recently come back from Berlin, and I know what is going on all over Germany and what the name of Berlin evokes among peaceful West German people. It has been the Western alliance that has fathered arms on the Germans. They approach the rearming of their country with a great deal of reluctance, but I have no doubt that any attempt to" interfere with the present status of Berlin might well be the flashpoint of another war.
My immediately previous foreign visit had been to Poland, and equally I know what the Polish people think on the other side of the Oder-Neisse Line and of their terrible fear that the frontier with Germany will be altered. As the idea of a united Germany recedes from reality there is a romanticism creeping into Western Germany with the belief that the land beyond the Oder-Neisse Line might be regained. That cannot be, but we must impress upon the German people some idea that they might attain a united Germany once again.
An Opposition is not in the same position as a Government. An Opposition should always be critical, but by virtue of being only the Opposition its proposals can only be tentative. Therefore, it will be the Prime Minister and the people with him who will have the responsibility of talking for this country, and I am sure that in all parts of the Committee we wish the Prime Minister well when he goes to the Summit Conference.
It is not political parties but the things for which men stand that matter. We are but the instruments of mighty forces, and I remember the words of Sir Norman Angell when he said that wars are not instituted by bad men on one side and good men on the other but by good men

741
on both sides passionately believing that they are right. That is the difficulty. It is the extreme righteousness with which people talk at international conferences, but I hope that we who sit and judge will in the last resort not expect too much from the Summit talks.
We should not expect too much from the Summit Conference because the keystone of Soviet policy is its timelessness. This Summit Conference next week is not the be-all and end-all or the last gambit in the great international game of politics in which the stakes are the lives of men and women. It is an incident in the great forward march of the Soviet Union towards the Marxian principle which has at its end nothing less than the capture of the material part of men's minds throughout the whole world.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Denis Healey: This has been a very interesting and constructive debate, and at least one novel feature is that all Members who have spoken on the subject on both sides of the Committee have pressed very strongly that Communist China should be admitted to the United Nations. This is now, I think, the unanimous view of the Committee and I hope that the Prime Minister takes note of it and finds it possible at the Summit and afterwards to press our American allies in this direction.
We must agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that this Summit Conference will not solve all problems at once. None the less, perhaps he did play down its réle a little too much because, certainly on this side, we hope that it will be a turning point in the post-war history of the world and it is for that reason we have pressed so long and continually that it should be held. We must not, in the privacy of our own Chamber, be unconscious of the tremendous and passionate concern of people outside that the conference should produce real, positive results and do something to reverse the juggernaut which seems to ordinary people throughout the world to be dragging us willy-nilly into the abyss.
We want to see the conference at least begin to end the cold war. We want at least to see it begin to stop the arms race, because we feel very powerfully
742
that, unless a start is made very soon indeed, the chances of making a start at all may soon be lost. Nothing brought this home more clearly to ordinary people in this country than the recent incident of the U2 aeroplane.
I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was right in saying that so far the Government have treated this issue a little too lightly, because what to me is important about the incident is not so much the incident itself, but some of the things which have followed it. In particular, it is quite impossible to justify the statement made by Mr. Herter—I hope without consideration—in which he asserts America's determination systematically to violate international law for her own strategic convenience. This is a new and very dangerous doctrine. Without going so far as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in treating intelligence operations as a kind of humorous game, it must be recognised that they do form a part of Governments' operations which must not be allowed to interrupt the normal course of diplomatic procedures.
By claiming the right to violate international law for intelligence purposes to meet certain, perhaps temporary, strategic needs, Mr. Herter is challenging the rather precarious framework of world order at its very foundations. Moreover, since it seems very unlikely that America could continue these operations except from bases provided by her allies, if she persists in the course to which Mr. Herter appeared to commit her the other day, then she is creating very great risks to the solidarity of all her alliances, including N.A.T.O.
The solidarity of N.A.T.O. is a precondition of any agreement between Russia and ourselves. And until agreement is' reached, N.A.T.O. is the only basis for British security. I hope that the Prime Minister, at the Summit Conference, will take the opportunity of pointing out to his American colleagues the very dangerous course to which they appear to have committed themselves during the last few days.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I see the hon. Member's argument, but surely all espionage is illegal in the technical sense whether one is in an aeroplane with a camera, or on a bicycle with binoculars.
Mr. Healey: The hon. Member is, of course, quite right but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), whose illness we all regret, once said, there is no difference between the Atlantic Ocean and a cup of water except that it is possible to drown in one but not in the other. The problems posed by the systematic and continuous violation of a country's air space are quite different from the problems posed, as my right hon. Friend said, by normal espionage activities.
On the other hand, I fully agree that one must accept the American argument that the possibility of surprise attack with megaton missiles poses strategic problems of the greatest possible concern not only for the United States, but the whole of the Western alliance. And it is quite natural that during the period of the missile gap the United States should concentrate the main bulk of its intelligence operations on trying to prevent a surprise attack; just as, during the period of the atomic gap, when the United States was the only country in the world which had atomic weapons, the Soviet Union concentrated all its intelligence operations on trying to obtain the secret of atomic weapons by espionage.
The point I want to make here is that, as was said this afternoon by my right hon. Friend, the fact that this incident took place and the arguments used to justify it, reveal, as nothing else possibly could, the extremely precarious nature of the balance of terror on which world peace now rests. It has shown us all the fact that so long as a technological arms race goes on between the United States and the Soviet Union the temptation for one side or the other to take advantage by means which involve the risk of war may sooner or later plunge the world into a war which nobody really wanted. Nothing could have been a stronger argument than the incidents in the last few weeks for some attempt at the Summit Conference by the United States and the Soviet Union to reach agreement on this issue.
If I may say so, it seems to me that the U2 incident also reminds one of certain problems which are inherent in the very concept of Summit diplomacy. Without aiming any remarks whatever at the Prime Minister, I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that if heads of Governments are to take continuously a
744
leading rôle in international diplomacy they must learn to behave like diplomatists. It is very dangerous when the future of mankind is put in the hands of four individuals, because the state of mind of those four individuals during a period of ten days comes to acquire an importance of an absolutely terrifying magnitude.
I do not blame Mr. Khrushchev at all for yielding to the temptation to make a great propaganda victory out of the U2 incident. But I wonder whether, when he started this operation, he reflected on the consequences it might have on the state of mind of President Eisenhower at the Summit Conference, and the difficulties it is certain to create in having a serious discussion on the serious issues facing mankind when he confronts the American President. Looking through the newspapers in the last few days, and reading the repeated speeches, first of President Eisenhower and then of Mr. Khrushchev, I could not help feeling that both the American and Russian heads of Government have, during the last week, missed several wonderful opportunities to keep their mouths shut.
On the other hand, I think that there is something very encouraging about the Soviet reaction to this incident, because Mr. Khrushchev has tried, with more or less success, to draw a clear distinction between the propaganda use he is making of the incident and his personal view of the way in which it need affect Summit agreement. It is a pity that in reporting his speech to the Supreme Soviet the Western Press missed many of the extremely conciliatory phrases he used about the subjects due to be discussed at the Summit Conference.
To me, one of the most encouraging things in the last few weeks is the fact that the Soviet Union is now trying to persuade the Chinese Communists to revise Communist doctrine to justify the Soviet policy of trying to seek lasting co-existence with the capitalist world. I personally have always felt that Mr. Khrushchev was sincere in seeking a lasting modus vivendi with the non-Communist countries, but I confess that the first solid evidence of this is Mr. Khrushchev's attempt to change the Communist doctrine in order to justify his policy. I cannot believe that he would have gone to these lengths had he not been absolutely sincere in his diplomatic aims.

745
I think that we have a real chance of making progress at the Summit, and the important thing is that we should get started, even in a small way, because any form of co-operation now between Russia and the West will start to break down the wall of mistrust which has kept us apart for so long and will, I hope, help to develop habits of co-operation which may grow stronger as time passes.
Here I must take objection to one or two implications of what I thought the Foreign Secretary was saying. He seemed, naturally, a little sensitive about the odd phrase in the communiqué he signed in Istanbul, which stated that there could be no relaxation of tension anywhere in the world unless there were relaxation of tension everywhere in the world. I was surprised that the only way he could justify that statement was by telling us what he thought those who drafted it must have meant. Surely he knew what they meant when he signed the statement.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It was drafted after I left.
Mr. Healey: I am glad to hear that the Foreign Secretary was not personally involved in that statement, because it seems to me quite impossible, especially for Governments like our own and their allies, who say that one must have partial disarmament agreements if one cannot get total disarmament, to say, at the same time, that one must reject partial political agreement unless one gets political agreement about everything.
I well understand that we in the West must deplore consistent attacks by the Soviet Union on some of our allies like Persia and the Federal Republic of Germany, but, after all, there are continued planned propaganda attacks by the Federal Republic on the German Democratic Republic, and there are continuous attacks by American propaganda on the Communist Government of China, which is allied to the Soviet Union, and certainly nobody could claim that the flight of the U2 into the heart of the Soviet Union was a Western contribution towards relaxation of tension.
It seems to me that one can make the same objection to the Foreign Secretary's own proposal for some sort of code of behaviour which would regulate the conduct of Russia and the West during the period in which we are moving towards
746
co-existence because how could we define any such code of behaviour? Even if we succeeded in defining it, how could we hope to agree on interpreting particular incidents in the light of it?
The Foreign Secretary spoke about trying to get agreement against intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. It would be nice if we could, but we must recognise that it is the natural habit of Governments when anything goes wrong in their own territories to blame foreign agitators. The Russians did it in Budapest. The British Government did it for years in Cairo. We were told that Nasser was a stooge of Moscow, and no doubt the British Government genuinely believed that at the time, but the plain fact is that we will never get enough agreement between Russia and the West as to what constitutes nonintervention in internal affairs to be able to base any lasting co-operation between the two on that. Indeed, it seems to me that one of the most dangerous enterprises on which we can embark when dealing with the Soviet Union is to try to reach agreement on the basis of general concepts which require that both sides should share the same political assumptions.
We know that we and the Russians do not share the same political assumptions. We sincerely and genuinely mean absolutely different things when we use words like "democracy". "free elections", "non-intervention", and "social change". To attempt to reach agreement with the Soviet Union along these lines is to make the problem more and not less complicated. At the Summit Conference, and in the next few-years, we must concentrate upon practical measures to meet recognised common interests. This is the only way to consolidate any sort of co-existence with the Communist camp.
I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party that possibly the most important question of all is one on which Britain can have comparatively little influence, in the nature of things, namely, some agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States to stop the mutual arms race between them and to stabilise the terrible balance of atomic power at something like its existing level.
I also agree with the Foreign Secretary that the next most important thing —and possibly the problem upon which

747
we are most hopeful of agreement at the Summit Conference—is an agreement for a ban on atomic tests. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee welcome such a ban not only because it will stop the poisonous rain of strontium 90 from dropping on our children and hinder the further development of atomic weapons in the three countries concerned, but because, above all, it will help to stop the production of these atomic weapons by other countries. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary associate himself with hon. Members on this side and with General de Gaulle in admitting that to stop the spread of the production of atomic weapons has now become the major concern of all the world's Governments.
I was very glad to hear the Foreign Secretary agree today to a suggestion which was made from this side of the Committee in our last foreign affairs debate, namely, that the scientists should now begin to study the possibility of preventing the production of fissile material for military purposes before attempting to reach agreement in a multilateral treaty, and I was also very glad to hear his suggestion that scientists should get together to discuss the technical feasibility of controlling the means of delivery of atomic weapons. Hon. Members on this side give him our strongest support in pressing this idea on his American allies and on the Soviet Government at the Summit Conference.
But both these problems involve extremely difficult scientific questions which, like the atomic test controls, may take months, if not years, to work out. It seems to me that the biggest immediate danger in the spread of atomic weapons is their distribution by countries which now produce them to other members of their respective alliances. In this connection, I would make a suggestion to the Prime Minister, upon which I hope he will comment.
At the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly a resolution proposed by the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Aitken, and passed by 68 votes, with no opponents, asked the Ten-Power Disarmament Commission at Geneva to consider an agreement whereby all Powers producing nuclear weapons would refrain from handing over control of them to any nation not possessing
748
them, and Powers not possessing such weapons would refrain from manufacturing them. An agreement of this nature, which already has such tremendous support and no open opposition whatever in the United Nations, is a suitable matter for the British Government to press upon their allies at the Summit Conference.
Britain is in a vitally important position here. We are the first of the ordinary Powers to have started the production of atomic weapons, and we have now had to give up the production of an independent delivery system for them. I hope and pray that the Government will use the collapse of their attempt to produce an independent British deterrent to reappraise the whole of their defence policy in the light of their declared diplomatic aims—in other words, to stop the spread of atomic weapons.
I urge the Government seriously to consider now the proposal which we have often pressed on them in the past, namely, to make a public offer that Britain will renounce her existing atomic weapons if other countries in the world, other than the Soviet Union and the United States, will agree not to produce them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If such a proposal were accepted—and remember that 68 countries in the world have already voted for it at the United Nations—then we must also do something at the Summit Conference to try to reduce the danger of small wars, as well as of the global war which is the main concern of the Soviet Union and the United States.
Here I suggest that we must start in the areas of the greatest political tension by trying to organise the control and inspection of armaments. I was most encouraged this afternoon by the fact that the Foreign Secretary, after many months of tergiversation and of double-talk, has agreed that the British Government will put forward proposals for the control of armaments in Central Europe as a means of preventing surprise attack. I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "It has been our policy for years". The Committee will remember how often I have tried to get him to define his policy in those terms in the past and how often I have failed.
I do not blame the Foreign Secretary for stealing our policy. I am delighted.

749
Nor do I blame him for following the natural practice of a car thief of putting his own number plate on the car when he steals it. The trade name is not important as long as the product is the one we want.
I look forward to the time when the Government will formally adopt our whole policy for disengagement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—under the Conservative trade name of redeployment. I also suggest that Central Europe is not the only part of the world where an attempt should be made at the control of armaments and forces by agreement between Russia and the West. The Middle East is equally vital and perhaps even more urgent at present. I believe that there is now a better chance of agreement with Russia on the Middle East than there has been for many years. The West can no longer deny, as it denied a few years ago, that Russia is a power in the Middle East. On the other hand, the Soviet Union can no longer expect the easy gains inside the Middle East which she might well have expected a few years ago.
I recently had the good fortune to tour most of the Middle Eastern countries on a very rapid visit, during which I had every possible assistance from the Foreign Secretary. It seems to me that the Russians have burned their ringers very badly, at least in Cairo and Baghdad, and are also very conscious of it. I think that the Russians must also be aware that the instability which is the main characteristic of the Middle East is a threat to them, in the long run, as much as it is a threat to us.
Believe me, the Middle East today is very unstable indeed. I will go so far as to say that in most of the Middle Eastern countries violent revolutions are likely within the next five years and that in most cases violent revolutions could lead to wars between the Middle Eastern States, as they so nearly did in 1958. For this reason, I think that there is every possible ground why the Western Governments should propose to the Soviet Union at the Summit Conference a general agreement about the Middle East which would include at least three main principles. In the first place, they should propose that if trouble develops inside the Middle East, or between Middle Eastern countries, the great Powers will
750
be neutral. In the second place, they should propose that the great Powers should declare their support for the existing frontiers of the Middle Eastern States and state that if they intervene it will only be to stop the violation of frontiers by armed attack. Thirdly, some attempt should be made to control the supply of armaments to the Middle Eastern countries.
The idea of controlling arms supplies to the Middle East is at least ten years old, but we learned to our cost that it was impossible to succeed in this task without Soviet agreement. The United States Government have accepted the desirability of trying to control arms supplies on their own doorstep in the Caribbean. I hope that the Prime Minister will make it a major objective at the Summit Conference to discuss this question with the Soviet Government and with our Western allies. So often in the past we in the West have refused to take any action on an issue until the crisis has actually begun. The crisis has not yet begun in the Middle East. We have time to concert our policies to prevent it breaking out. I hope that the Prime Minister will make this one of his main aims.
My impression during my brief visit to the Middle East was that the Arab countries and Israel could be persuaded to agree to such a Great Power agreement on the Middle East. Even Iran would consent to enter into such an arrangement if Afghanistan, its main opponent in the area, was also included.
In the field of regional arms control, I suggest to the Prime Minister an idea which I know has been floating around Whitehall for some time, namely, some attempt to explore the possibility of agreement on freezing arms supplies to the new independent States of the African continent. Africa, too, is an area where, if we act now, we can produce a basis for orderly and peaceful development. However, if the visible tensions now developing between the African States have added to them all the additional strains of a continental arms race, the prospect of achieving any stability on the African continent will be almost lost.
I hope that at the Summit Conference we will not be content simply to ask the Russians for co-operation on questions

751
of negative control, such as disarmament, regional arms control, and atomic test bans. I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in suggesting that we should put forward at the Summit Conference two or three proposals to the Russians for co-operation on positive, constructive, work in the under-developed areas of the world, so that we can prove not only to the Communist world and to the West, but also to the peoples of the under-developed areas, that we are capable of working together and that this is our major aim.
When the United Nations was formed in 1944, all of us on both sides looked upon it as the framework for a new world order. Our hopes so far have been disappointed for one reason, and one only, namely, that the Great Powers of the world, which, rightly, were given a veto in the Security Council, have failed to agree on the general shape of world development.
We on this side of the Committee, and I am sure the overwhelming majority of hon. Members opposite, look upon the Summit Conference as the first great chance for the Great Powers to reach agreement on working together in the United Nations so that the United Nations can perform the function originally intended by those who drafted its Charter. It is because we on this side have some confidence that the Prime Minister himself shares our aims that we wish him Godspeed in his journey to Paris this weekend.
9.39 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I should like first to apologise to the Committee for my inability to attend any but the last stages of the debate. We have had a full day at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and I am sorry that I have not been able to hear the many interesting speeches of which I have been given reports. However, I have heard enough to realise, and to acknowledge, the broad non-partisan approach of hon. Members. As always at a great and critical moment, they try to adopt such an approach on a subject of this kind.
Whatever the differences between parties, or sometimes within parties, there is, I think, a broad unity on this. We hope for some success to come out of this
752
Paris meeting. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in a most interesting and comprehensive speech, has put forward a large number of ideas. I thought that he was a little unfair to the Foreign Secretary in twitting him for adopting some of the policies on disarmament or defence. Really, there is such a wide variety to choose from that it would be rather curious if we did not sometimes do that.
I, at this moment, should like to recall to the Committee for a very few moments the history and the hopes. The Summit meeting is not an end in itself. The hon. Gentleman said that its object is to achieve certain agreements if we can. All the same, it has some advantages even in itself. The 1955 meeting did not achieve much, but at least something was done: certain contacts were made, certain friendships were made. Visits were made from one country to another. It did something; it did no harm anyway; it did some good.
To this new meeting the path has been slow, painful and subject to many disappointments and, in the long time, some crevasses have opened right at the last minute. I had hoped for it to have been earlier, either last year or early this year. Nevertheless, the delay has had some advantages. There have been these meetings between all the statesmen concerned, between President de Gaulle and Mr. Khrushchev and between Mr. Khrushchev and President Eisenhower, and these visits and exchanges of view have done good and perhaps made a better broad foundation for our meeting
It is only about fourteen months since the Foreign Secretary and I decided on our visit to Moscow. Sometimes it seems much longer, but it is, I think, about that. We went at a time which caused me the gravest anxiety—what appeared to be something like an ultimatum on Berlin. We went, of course, not to negotiate—we had no right to negotiate on behalf of our allies—but to meet and talk and to see whether some way out could be found. This visit itself had its ups and downs, its difficult moments, but I think it did good.
I was glad to find in the speeches made a general agreement not to exaggerate the effect of recent troubles. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West

753
(Mr. C. Pannell) made, I thought, a very sensible contribution on this subject. Espionage is not a cause. It is, alas, an effect of suspicion and tension between the Great Powers.
Nevertheless, if the Summit comes in a bit like a lion, perhaps it will go out like a lamb, and it is sometimes better to have a little of the trouble in the first stages of these discussions. I am reminded of a famous phrase of the great Queen Elizabeth:
"Winds, a little before their fall, are ever most boisterous."
Well, we are to meet. I think that it was Mr. Disraeli who once said that the most successful conferences were those that began in a "healthy state of mutual suspicion." I think that that is going too far, but I also think that it is better than just unbounded optimism with no grounds—all sorts of vague feelings of good will. What we must try to do, as all speakers in this debate have said, is to face the facts as they are.
There is, of course, danger in meeting in an atmosphere of crisis and threat, but there is an equal danger in meeting when vital urgency is not there, and there is a temptation to let things slide and to be content with an agreeable meeting with no particular result. I have felt a little that we have oscillated in the last six months sometimes between being too optimistic and too pessimistic. There are grave issues to be faced, and we must try to face them.
I remember speaking in this Chamber some time ago on the method that we were to adopt—which I believe to be of the greatest importance—and I was trying to describe a meeting we had in 1955, when we met in a vast room—400 or 500 people for four people to speak to each other, with all the machinery and apparatus and every speech being broadcast; not a discussion, not a negotiation, but a series of propaganda speeches.
I was most anxious to avoid that, and I am happy to say that it has now been agreed that we shall not repeat that method; that there will be small meetings, sometimes only of the heads of Government and their interpreters, sometimes of the Foreign Secretaries, sometimes of both together, and, of course, separate meetings of the Foreign
754
Ministers to carry on any point that might be reached by the heads of Governments.
But I hope that the Committee and the public will feel that the purpose of this method, for which I have striven so much, is not to conceal, not to do everything secretly, but to get the basis on which any ordinary talk or negotiation must be conducted. There will be publicity afterwards as to what we have said or done, but we will never make any progress in the previous atmosphere.
Let me turn to our purposes. I think that these have been very well set out in the course of the debate, and I agree with much that has been said in the recent speeches on both sides that I was able to hear. The Foreign Secretary has, I think, outlined our general purposes. There is, first, a question which—I must be careful—will not be strictly one raised at the Summit meeting but which we shall take the opportunity of the Summit meeting to raise with the Powers immediately concerned—and yet it is the question that I personally feel to be the most hopeful and most important. It is the question of nuclear tests.
We quite understand the position of the French Government at this time, but they, also, I am sure, will allow and encourage us to have our own meeting during this period to see whether Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom can reach agreement. This nuclear test agreement would, as the hon. Gentleman said, do something to prevent us going on with tests that ultimately, whatever may be the argument, must injure the atmosphere—and certainly cannot do it any good.
But it is much more than that. If reached, it would have a profound influence on the whole disarmament problem, because if we can only get this agreement it will make the first practical instance of inspection and control easier, perhaps, for the Soviets to agree to, because it will not be done in the factories and towns so much as in more distant places. Some of their fears, therefore, may be less easily aroused. These unhappy seismologists will have to stay in distant parts of the world listening to their apparatus but, anyway, they will not be spies.

755
Nevertheless, the principle will be established in a way that we might hope will be easiest for the Soviet to accept, and if once we make a start and get a control commission, with the people actually operating it, we have what we all want, because we all agree, with very few exceptions, that we cannot have disarmament unless we have efficient inspection and control. We hope that it may be the pioneer scheme. That is why I attach so much importance to it, why I have tried myself to do everything possible to further it and why I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on our visit tried to persuade some of our American friends to overcome some of the minor and, indeed, major difficulties. There are important points which we have to settle, but I cannot believe that they cannot be resolved.
I think that the debates among the expert negotiators have gone about as far as they can go. A treaty could quite easily be drafted. But we must settle the actual proportionate composition of the control commission. We must settle the important question of the moratorium. We must settle the number of visits allowed on each side—an idea which I remember throwing out to Mr. Khrushchev during my visit fourteen months ago. If we can make progress with those three decisions, it should not be impossible to draft a treaty within a very few weeks. That is most important, and we shall certainly strive for it.
I ask the Committee to consider what follows. The treaty, of course, cannot become effective unless it is spread to other countries. Many of the questions which are so perplexing now may be reopened. There is, for instance, the position of China, which has been raised by hon. Members on both sides today. These questions immediately present themselves for further progress because, if the treaty is to be effective, we must go on to ensure that people on both sides adhere to it. Therefore, many questions on which we have now, apparently, reached a dead end would automatically be opened up by the process of the nuclear tests agreement. For that reason, I am bound to say that, in my mind, I put it as the most important and the most practical.
756
There are, of course, other important questions with which we must deal. There is the problem of Germany and Berlin. We know our obligations. They are clear, and they are accepted by the Western world. Nevertheless, last year, long negotiations took place between the Foreign Ministers at Geneva and, at one moment, many of us felt that they very nearly reached agreement—not a final solution, of course, but, at least, agreement on something which would prevent this becoming a really dangerous situation. Without going into any detail now, I cannot help but feel that, if the will is there, we ought to be able to find a method of doing at least something on similar lines.
There is an old saying that what is put off is lost. It is a good thing, if one can put off a bad thing long enough. If one can put it off for two or three years, one gains time and, in the end, a new situation may develop and something which was menacing and dangerous, by the mere fact of being put off for a period, can begin to lose its importance. Can we not recall many questions which at one time loomed very large and which then, sometimes, by the mere fact of not having been pressed to the final point, became less dangerous? That, I think, we must remember.
I come now to the vital subject of disarmament. I was struck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), who called attention to the really revolutionary—in the best sense of the word—and wonderfully progressive basis of the policy put forward by the Foreign Secretary and now adopted by the Western Powers. Obviously, we cannot in eight or ten days or even in a fortnight at the Summit negotiate a treaty on disarmament. What we must try to do is to see whether we can reach an agreement on certain simple principles— we believe ours to be sound and sensible —and then give instructions to the negotiators in the Ten-Power Commission, we on our side and the Russians doing the same on theirs, to work out the details based upon some of those principles.
That is the kind of progress we can, perhaps, achieve, and that is the most we can hope to do. We could not go any further than that, but, if we could make that start, it would be a great thing. After all, in spite of all the fear and

757
suspicion, there cannot be any great country in the world, be it America, Russia or any other, that does not long for the prospect of turning some of this vast expense, which will become greater and greater as the years go on, from armaments to more fruitful and useful channels for the happiness of its people.
The third point, which, I thought, the hon. Member perhaps misunderstood or was a little unfair about, concerns what the Foreign Secretary called trying to get some reality into what is called coexistence. It would be fine if we could get rid of the danger of hot war, but cold war is not so terribly attractive either. We have to try to see whether we mean it to be a competition of ideas or a competition of briberies, espionage and all the other methods transferred to another plane.
Practically everyone in this Committee has been to Russia. Many hon. Members have been several times, but I do not think that anyone who has been more than once can have failed to notice the change that is gradually coming about. The truth is that these great idealistic theoretical doctrines do not hold the imagination of men indefinitely. When one first starts one is very keen. Then time goes on and all sorts of human emotions and desires are developed.
I would say that the Communism of China today is far more orthodox than that of Russia. Why? Because it is so much newer; was imposed more recently. Everyone must feel, as he goes about the streets and sees the people, that the ordinary people have the same desires as the people of other countries, and that perhaps the change that is taking place will gradually reflect itself if we can settle some of the major problems between Governments in a different attitude between our peoples. Of course, there are absolutely different theoretical aspects, but what ordinary people want, in spite of the theories, is very much the same thing. They want homes, houses, food, clothing and a better time, and all that pressure is beginning to develop in Russia itself.
I therefore feel that there is something important in the Foreign Secretary's
758
thought that we might be able to get, I do not say absolute written rules of convention—of course, we cannot write them—but some general attitude towards each other which would be more in conformity among nations who, differing as much as they do, nevertheless realise that, in a world as small as this is becoming, they have to live side by side or end up in their mutual destruction.
The final point that I want to make concerns the character of these meetings. I have striven also very long for the concept that the Summit should not be one single ascent of one single mountain but rather a chain and that we should have a series of meetings, make a little progress at the first and then go on to another. There is a great danger in a single meeting, because hopes are raised very high in all the countries of the world. Very little appears to happen and there is a corresponding sense of dismay and people feel deluded. But if they feel after the first meeting is over that, to use our own language, we should adjourn and ask leave to sit again and fix the date of another meeting, that continues the two processes—first, that these meetings are in themselves valuable in preventing too great pressures between us, and secondly, that at each successive meeting there might be the possibility of increasing progress.
I should like to thank the Committee and all parties in the Committee for, as I have been told, their most friendly attitude. Anyone of my age, looking back on a lifetime—ten years of my active life have been occupied in war and many other parts of it in either recovering from or preparing for war— must feel what a chance this is for the world, and what a burden lies on those who have to try to play a part in it. We are correspondingly grateful for the sympathy and good wishes of the Committee.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Brooman-White]—put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS) [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for minimum standards of efficiency and safety in respect of oil-burning appliances, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase, attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
Resolution agreed to.

NEW TOWNS, SCOTLAND (STATUS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
10.1 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart: First, I should like to thank the House for allowing me this opportunity of raising a question of great and deep importance to many of my constituents. It is the question of how the new town in my constituency and other new towns in Scotland, which may in the course of their development approach a similar situation, may obtain burgh status, whether it be a large burgh or a small burgh, that the people decide they want and which, undoubtedly, is exercising their minds.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State will be aware that there is considerable concern in East Kilbride amongst local residents that has gone on for two years about how they are to achieve their democratic rights in the same way that residents in other communities have them.
Developments which are now taking place will increase the urgency of the problem. East Kilbride has a population of about 30,000 and the electorate stands at about 13,000. A considerable proportion of the population is children, many of them in their teens. The likelihood is that we look forward within the next five years to the population increasing to about 40,000 and the electorate becoming a much higher proportion of the population and reaching a figure of about 30,000 in 1965–66—a community of substantial size.
760
The Joint Under-Secretary will also be aware that the community in East Kilbride has imposed upon it the local government structure which existed before the new town was begun. It has the local government structure of a district council, or part of a district council, which was appropriate in the beginning when East Kilbride was a village of only 2,000 inhabitants, but it can no longer be held by anybody to be appropriate for a community of 30,000. East Kilbride does not even have its own district council. It elects four representatives to a district council which includes other areas. It elects two county councillors to the County Council of Lanark. In other words, it has a very small number of local representatives.
In the nature of the creation of the new town there is the problem that the development corporation which takes over so many of the functions which are normally those of the local authority has no direct representation upon it from the local community. However good a development corporation may be, inevitably it takes on the flavour of benevolent paternalism and creates among local residents a feeling of considerable frustration when they see their community growing around them without having any say in what is being done for it or for them. It is this voice that they have a right to expect to achieve by the time that the community reaches a substantial size.
When we examine the provisions that may enable them to achieve burgh status and change their local government status to go beyond that of the district council to that of either a small or large burgh, we find that the facilities which are available to them for achieving small burgh status are quite clear and are quite clearly understood. When it comes to the method by which they may be able to achieve large burgh status, there seems to be confusion, and I wish to draw the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary to the conflict which there seems to be between a letter which I received from him on 15th March and the Answer given by the Secretary of State to a Question which I put to him in the House on 12th April.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to clarify the position and

761
to say whether I am right in believing that the Secretary of State had misunderstood the position on the second occasion. On 15th March, the Joint Under-Secretary wrote to me:
"In order to create a large burgh, it would, in the absence of any enabling provisions in general legislation, be necessary for the town council of a small burgh which had already been formed, or the electors, to promote a Provisional Order under the procedure prescribed in the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936."
The 1956 Act is clearly the pivot for any action for large burgh status which a new town could take.
On 12th April, when I asked the Secretary of State about the possibility of a change being made in that Act, he replied:
"I think that the amendment the hon. Lady has in mind would have to be to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 1066.]
So there is clearly some doubt here as a result, and I believe that the inhabitants of the new town would be very grateful to have the point clarified for them.
It may be that we should consider the kind of functions which we want to be achieved for the inhabitants of a new town such as East Kilbride. It is a very difficult matter to decide, and a very difficult decision that lies on the shoulders of the residents of East Kilbride as to whether they should go forward in an attempt to achieve small burgh status, or whether they should aim at achieving large burgh status. It may be that a conflict is not really there. It may be that they could go from the one to the other. On the other hand, it may be that, having achieved small burgh status, there might be greater difficulties in changing their status and going forward at a later stage to large burgh status.
Certainly, it is true to say that when I have consulted any of my hon. or right hon. Friends on this side of the House they have advised me that, in their view, the most appropriate status for a new town of the size of East Kilbride, would, at some point in the fairly near future, be that of a large burgh. I think that large burgh status would mean they would be able so far to extend their powers and their rights as to be able to play the effective rôle in the
762
management of their own affairs that they want to play.
It is interesting to note, and I think that it is very relevant, that no real examination of this question has been made by anyone. Reference was made to local government in the future of the new towns in the second interim Report of the New Towns Committee under Lord Reith, in 1945, in which it said that in the case of English new towns, when the population of the new town readied the level of 5,000, it would be advisable that, whatever the original local government structure there had been, an urban district council should be created. No mention was made whatever of a corresponding provision that could be made in the case of Scottish new towns, with our separate Scottish local government procedure and machinery. If we take that as a basis from which to work, the recommendation made in those early days, when the working of the new towns was being considered, and when a population of 5,000 inhabitants should lead to the creation of an urban district council, we get some idea of the responsibilities which the Reith Committee thought a new town should have when it reached a certain size. The functions of an urban district council are in themselves considerably greater than and go far beyond those of a Scottish district council of which East Kilbride has only part at the end of many years' growth of population beyond 5,000 to 30,000.
It seems to me that there are very good grounds for believing that it is necessary to examine the present status of new towns in Scotland and to examine the opportunities which at present exist to enable the residents of them to achieve a change of status. The method open to a new town of achieving large burgh status under the private legislation procedure, as the Joint Under-Secretary pointed out to me in his letter, and as I have conveyed, to the best of my ability, to the residents of East Kilbride, could involve an expenditure of anything up to £5,000, depending upon the degree of opposition to the order which came from other bodies.
One does not know what opposition there might be, but it is reasonable, I think, to suppose that Lanark County Council might have good ground for

763
opposing the creation of a large burgh in East Kilbride. The County Council is very much affected; it has spent a good deal of money in East Kilbride. It draws in a good deal from rates from the new town, but would probably take the view that what it draws in has been spent and more than spent in the last few years on schools it has had to build, and roads, and so forth. Therefore, one could assume that an order would be opposed, and one should take that as a basis for one's thinking that the likelihood would be that the new town would have to spend up to £5,000.
This is a very large amount of money. It is not easy for a community to collect from amongst its residents a sum of that nature. It is not, I think, likely that they would easily be able to do it within even a matter of years. Therefore, it seems to me that one ought to be prepared to consider enabling new towns to make some sort of short cut to the kind of burgh status which would be most appropriate.
I do not know what this might involve. I know that I have to tread very carefully and avoid making any suggestion which I may have in mind on this question, but what I should like to put to the Joint Under-Secretary is that it would be right if he and the Government were to assume the responsibility, which is theirs, of considering the status of new towns as a matter which arises from the fact that the Government have created these new towns, and have, therefore, in a sense, created the problem of local democracy which is now presented to new town residents; and that the Government should, therefore, consider whether other methods of achieving large burgh status might be opened to new towns by, possibly, the amending of legislation.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be fully aware of the real problem of democracy which arises here. It would not be right if any community were to be deprived of its normal rights of citizenship, of its normal rights of expressing its points of view on matters which concern it and of exercising some powers, as well as having duties, in relation to its own citizens. This is, indeed, what is happening now in East Kilbride.
764
I am quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) would agree with me that Cumbernauld is likely to come into the same category in the future. It is not so certain in the case of Glenrothes, but I am not asking for consideration for one community only; I am asking for consideration to be given to the local government of all those who now, or in the future, fall into the category of residents in new towns. I am asking only that a gap in thinking should be filled, and I hope that the Joint Undersecretary will be able to give me an assurance tonight that the Government will look very carefully at this problem.
I have presented it in as rational and objective a way as I can. It is not in any sense a party problem. It is not a party political question. It is a question of democratic rights. I believe that the Joint Under-Secretary will have a great deal of sympathy for the inhabitants of East Kilbride. I am sure that he will be anxious to say that the Government are as concerned as my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House to ensure that the rights of these people are respected and that an inquiry should be made to ensure the best possible method of seeing that the most suitable local Government structure for these people is created at the most suitable time.
10.15 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I can understand the concern of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) for Scotland's rapidly growing new towns. I am sure that all Scottish Members are anxious that whatever would contribute to the good of these developing communities should be done. The Government are naturally anxious to do everything possible to encourage a sense of community responsibility in the new towns which, as the hon. Lady pointed out, have come into existence not naturally but as the result of Government action. To this extent, therefore, the hon. Lady and I are agreed.
The only question between us is whether for the purpose of encouraging a sense of community responsibility any change is necessary in the procedure for the acquisition by these new towns of

765
a new status within the Scottish local government structure. The procedure whereby an area can change its local government status is fairly complicated and the hon. Lady invited me to explain the apparent difference between my letter to her and my right hon. Friend's Answer in the House. I will endeavour to do that, but before doing so I should like to explain the present position in the new towns in relation to local government.
At present the local government business of the areas comprising East Kil-bride—the oldest "new town"—and Glenrothes and Cumbernauld is administered by the county councils and district councils of the areas in which the new towns lie. The development corporation for a new town has no responsibility for local government services. Thus the position of a development corporation would not be affected by the creation of a burgh. It would have neither more nor less to do. I think that some people, including the hon. Lady, at least judging from some of the words she let drop from her lips, are inclined to regard a development corporation as if it were some sort of highly specialised local government authority with the drawback that it is not democratically elected.
Mrs. Hart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the development corporation, as a quasi-local authority, exercises some of the functions normally exercised by the county council, for example, that of planning.
Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady, but planning is the responsibility of the county council and not of the development corporation. In fact, the corporation is rather in the nature of a large-scale property development organisation. Therefore, if a burgh were created in a new town area it would no more automatically take over the physical assets of the development corporation in the way of houses, shops, factories and so on than it would if these assets had been created by some private enterprise venture.
As the development corporation therefore is not a part of local government nor a substitute for it, the creation of a burgh would make little or no difference to the building of a new town which would continue to be developed in accordance with Government policy and to be paid for by Government money. In
766
carrying out this development, the corporation naturally works in close association with the local authorities concerned, but it may well be, as the hon. Lady suggested, that the citizens in the new town feel that the existing forms of local government do not meet their need, either because the functions of the local district council are in their opinion too restricted or because they feel that the county council is too remote.
I can understand this attitude and the feeling that the creation of a burgh would stimulate a sense of civic unity and might possibly improve the physical and social characteristics of the town in the many ways which are open to an active town council. But if this is what some of the residents in East Kilbride feel, there is nothing to prevent their taking action to achieve their desire, for there are two roads open to them if they wish to change their local government status.
First, there is the Scottish Local Government Act, 1947, which lays down the procedure for the creation of a new burgh. This is that any twelve or more persons, being local government electors for the "populous place" concerned, may apply to the sheriff who, after due advertisement and inquiry, may fix the boundaries of the proposed burgh. A meeting of the local government electors within the proposed boundaries is then held to consider whether the area so defined should be formed into a burgh. If the meeting decides to proceed with the proposal the sheriff then issues a deliverance declaring the area to be a burgh from a specified date.
The hon. Lady will notice that there are two important stages in this procedure. First, there is the determination by the sheriff of the question whether an area is suitable for burghal status, and secondly, and most important from a democratic point of view, the decision by the electors themselves whether the step of forming that area into a burgh should actually be taken. Thus the whole initiative for deciding whether to seek burgh status and—after the sheriff's decision has been made known—whether the step of forming the area into a burgh should actually be taken, rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of these local people.
This seems to me to be an eminently satisfactory and democratic way of allowing a locality to grow up into

767
burghal status. The hon. Lady suggested that the people who are living in this area were being deprived of something. They are not being deprived of anything. The procedure is there. It has been tried recently and has proved to be effective. It was used by Stevenston in 1952 and by Bearsden in 1958, and I see from Press reports that at this moment some of the inhabitants of Strathaven, which is not far from East Kilbride, have an application before the sheriff under the 1947 Act.
None of these areas, of course, has a population anything like the size of East Kilbride as it stands today, and because of this it may be that the hon. Lady considers that it should be possible for a new town which is not already a small burgh to become a large burgh by a procedure similar to that which I have just described, whereby a "populous place" may become a small burgh. But "large burghs," as I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, were the creation of the Local Government Act, 1929, and that Act contained no provision for the creation of other large burghs. That is why my right hon. Friend referred to the need for legislation in respect of that Act.
It follows that the status of large burgh can be acquired only by special legislation. This is, I think, what the hon. Lady objects to, but is it so unreasonable? Hon. Members will recollect that the 1947 Act was based on the Report of the Jeffrey Committee. The Committee considered a suggestion —which is the same as the hon. Lady has just made—that the omission from the existing local government law of any provision for changing a small burgh into a large burgh ought to be remedied, but it decided that
"The questions which must arise in connection with a proposal to add to the number of largh burghs will be so complicated and so important that it would not be appropriate to include provision on the subject in our draft Bill. The matter is one which can be dealt with satisfactorily only by special legislation."
The Committee thought that similar complicated and important questions would arise if a "populous place" wished to become a large burgh. Accordingly, the Jeffrey Committee recommended that the granting of the status of a "large burgh" should be a
768
matter for special legislation and should not be dealt with by an extension of the provisions for creating a "small burgh".
I must admit that this seems to me to be sound common sense. It is usually a good thing to proceed one step at a time. Nevertheless, for residents in a particular area who wish for a change of status and who consider that the creation of a "small burgh" would not adequately meet their case the door is not closed. As the law stands today it is open to any ad hoc committee of residents within the area of a new town to promote a provisional order which would give the area the status of a "large burgh". This committee would, of course, have to depend on voluntary contributions for meeting the cost of this action under the Private Legislation Procedure Act, 1936, whereas, if such an order were promoted by a town council, once the new town had established itself as a small burgh, the cost of the order would fall on all the ratepayers.
Because of my right hon. Friend's statutory functions under the Private Legislation Procedure Act, it would be improper for me to express any view on the merits of such an order. But I think it only right to point out that practical difficulties would be experienced in promoting it and dealing with any opposition to it, by movers, who might be entirely inexperienced in burghal administration and who were not supported by a team of qualified officials. This difficulty the hon. Lady may consider a reason for changing the law. Alterations in local government status, are, however, an important matter and it is one which should not be lightly undertaken or granted without the full scrutiny and safeguards which special legislation provides.
The hon. Lady seemed to suggest that new towns were worse off in Scotland than in England. Comparisons are always odious, particularly where the structure of local government differs, as it does between England and Scotland. Nevertheless, taking these differences into account, I do not think that the road to civic independence is any harder in Scotland than in England. Today only two new towns in England have, as such, achieved independent status comparable to that of a small burgh in Scotland.

769
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Lady trod very delicately and with great skill in an attempt to remain within the rules of order by not making a request for legislation—which I suspect is what she really wants—and as an alternative she suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might consider an inquiry into the status of new towns.
For the present, at any rate, my right hon. Friend would not wish to arrange for such an inquiry. He is not of the opinion that the procedures whereby the area of a new town might acquire small burgh or large burgh status are other than satisfactory. Furthermore, even if it were shown to him that some new procedures were required, my right hon. Friend does not think it advisable that this matter should be considered in isolation. If, for instance, there were to be an inquiry into the structure of local government in Scotland within the next few years, it
770
might be that this matter of the status of new towns could be considered then. The position therefore is that I must refuse the hon. Lady's request for a special inquiry, but I do not think that either she or those she represents should be unduly downcast about this.
As I have explained, full scope exists in the procedures which are at present available for the wishes of the electors to be made known and to be given effect to. As I have said, I am fully sympathetic to the desires of those living in new towns like East Kilbride who think that they should have greater independence in local government. But I am not convinced that the present law is not fully adequate to enable them to achieve this, if they like to make the necessary effort.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air-raid Shelters, West Bromwich
  Air-raid Shelters, West Bromwich
  Juvenile Courts
  Juvenile Courts
  Police Stations and Magistrates' Courts, Durham
  Police Stations and Magistrates' Courts, Durham
  Women's Prisons
  Women's Prisons
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Evicted Persons (Police Assistance)
  Evicted Persons (Police Assistance)
  London Transport Property (Malicious Damage)
  London Transport Property (Malicious Damage)
  Housemasters, Approved Schools (Senior Appointments)
  Housemasters, Approved Schools (Senior Appointments)
  Consumer Protection (Report)
  Consumer Protection (Report)
  Air Guns and Pistols (Children)
  Air Guns and Pistols (Children)
  Metropolitan Police (Fraud Squad)
  Metropolitan Police (Fraud Squad)
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (MISS STANTON)
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (MISS STANTON)
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  EUROPEAN TRADE
  EUROPEAN TRADE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS Information Officers (Duties)
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS Information Officers (Duties)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution
  Constitution
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Administration
  Administration
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Workers' Study Tours)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Workers' Study Tours)
  Teachers, Derbyshire
  Teachers, Derbyshire
  Schools (Radioactive Substances)
  Schools (Radioactive Substances)
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Atomic Energy Authority (Contract)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Contract)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Capital Expenditure
  Overseas Capital Expenditure
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Electric Plugs and Sockets (Standardisation)
  Electric Plugs and Sockets (Standardisation)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Scientific Manpower
  Scientific Manpower
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  United States Aircraft, United Kingdom
  United States Aircraft, United Kingdom
ROYAL NAVY
  Admiralty Court (Sexcentenary)
  Admiralty Court (Sexcentenary)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Small Farmer Scheme
  Small Farmer Scheme
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (South-West Sussex)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (South-West Sussex)
  SOMALILAND PROTECTORATE (CONSTITUTION)
  SOMALILAND PROTECTORATE (CONSTITUTION)
COAL
  Smokeless Fuels (Report)
  Smokeless Fuels (Report)
  ADMIRALTY COURT (SEXCENTENARY)
  ADMIRALTY COURT (SEXCENTENARY)
SCOTLAND
  Dulnain Bridge (Accidents)
  Dulnain Bridge (Accidents)
  Fort Augustus (Traffic Congestion)
  Fort Augustus (Traffic Congestion)
ROADS
  Speed Limit (Whitsuntide)
  Speed Limit (Whitsuntide)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

BRITISH RAILWAYS AND COASTAL SHIPPING
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken steps to ensure that the Advisory Group appointed by the Minister of Transport to examine the structure, finance and working of the organisations controlled by the British Transport Commission in making their recommendations will take into account the need to provide effective arrangements for consultation between British Railways and coastal shipowners in regard to rates on those traffics for which coastal shipping can cater economically.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the terms of reference of the Advisory Group are wide, and they have already expressed their readiness to receive representations from interested parties. I am sure that they will take account of all relevant factors. I think it is for the Advisory Group themselves to decide upon the form and content of their advice to my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I cannot say that I feel very satisfied with it and I wonder whether I may ask him two questions arising out of it. Am I to understand that Her Majesty's Government are still adhering to the policy which is embodied in the Transport Act, that there should be consultation between the British Transport Commission and coastal shipping, rather than
734
cut-throat competition. And if that is still the policy, would it not be right to make this clear to the Advisory Group, so that, in any advice they give, they do not give advice which is contrary to that policy?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, I would say that the present position as to the consultation that has to take place is a statutory one under the Transport Acts of 1947 and 1953, and any departure from that would require legislation. Therefore it is for my right honourable friend to consider, in due course, whether he should do anything about changing the position or not in the light of the advice which is given to him and of other representations which have been, and which no doubt will be, made.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

THE CORFIELD REPORT ON MAU MAU
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the text of the Corfield Report on Mau Mau will be available in this House; and whether any summarised version will be circulated.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Report will be published as a Command Paper, which I hope will be available by the end of the month. Copies will be placed in the Printed Paper Office. I understand that Mr. Corfield has summarised his conclusions in the last chapter of the Report.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any truth in the rumour that this Report has in some way been censored or bowdlerised by someone dealing with the Report?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, no; there is no truth in the rumour that it has been censored. What happened

735
is that Mr. Corfield himself thought it advisable to do some editing in relation to matters of public interest which are not generally disclosed, such as intelligence work and that sort of thing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, are we to understand from that reply that the policy has been settled? Would the Government have approved of the statement which appeared in two columns of The Times on Tuesday?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think that the statement to which the noble Viscount is referring, which was a statement of the Governor, has anything to do with the Corfield Report. At the same time, I would certainly say that the general lines of what has been said by the Governor are obviously the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

INTELLIGENCE FLIGHTS OVER FOREIGN TERRITORY
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, by leave of the House and with the consent of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I beg to ask the following Question by Private Notice:
"Whether Her Majesty's Government accept the policy set out by President Eisenhower as to intelligence flights over foreign territory; whether this policy would affect our duties under treaties of mutual defence, such as N.A.T.O.; and, further, whether Her Majesty's Government would approve the consideration of President Eisenhower's statement by the Security Council."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, your Lordships' House will remember accepting the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, which dealt with Private Notice Questions. The relevant recommendation of that Committee was that the decision as to whether a Question
"is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply should rest in the first place with the Leader of the House and ultimately with the general sense of the House."
I felt that I ought to take what advice I could as to whether this was a Question justifying the Private Notice procedure
736
within those words, and I am bound to say that I came to the conclusion that it was not; and if the House would support me, I would ask them to say that, too. On the other hand, in view of the nature of the Question and of the attitude taken by my right honourable friends towards somewhat similar Questions in another place, I felt that perhaps the noble Viscount might have a legitimate sense of grievance if I told him to put the Question down on the Order Paper and then, when he had done so, he got the kind of Answer I expect he would get.
In those circumstances, and without treating this as a proper use of the Private Notice Question Procedure, I thought that perhaps the House would desire me to give the Answer to-day, notwithstanding that it was not a proper Private Notice Question. As I am sure the noble Viscount is well aware, it has long been the accepted practice of successive Governments from both sides of the House that matters relating to intelligence are not discussed in public. Furthermore, I cannot believe that on reflection the noble Viscount would expect me to comment in your Lordships' House on statements made by the Head of the United States Government.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I pass over the procedural point. I am sure that the House would support the Acting Leader in any action he asked. But my Question is this. Here is a case in which two American planes have been destroyed in what is now really enemy territory. The Government are asked what is their policy in this matter, and they give the reply which has always been given in these matters—namely, that they cannot deal with this private inquiry business at all. That we understand. But there is a vast difference between sending a man to try to collect information in a country and sending an aeroplane, which might be armed, over the other person's country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, is the noble Viscount asking a supplementary question or making a statement?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am obliged. But this is an important matter—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All the more important then to keep in order.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If the noble Viscount objects he has the remedy in his own hands, and I will ask him to use it. If he thinks I am going too far he has only to ask the House that I be no longer heard and I shall be stopped. But until that happens I intend to make the point—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would ask the noble Viscount, with respect, whether he intends to ask a question or make a point. If he intends to disregard the Rules of Order of the House and make a point and not ask a question then I shall think of taking the remedy into my hands which he has invited me to do. It is, after all, for Members of the House to observe the Rules of Order of the House. The noble Viscount asked a Question which was out of Order, and I thought I was stretching a point in giving him an Answer. He now, instead of asking a supplementary question, seeks to make a speech to the House, and I shall ask the House not to hear him if he persists.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: When the noble Viscount sees fit to move that Motion I will accept it. In the meantime—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move that the noble Viscount be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Viscount be no longer heard.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I would suggest that perhaps the House would agree with me in saying that as the Leader of my Party is opening a debate on Foreign Affairs to-day in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister is to engage in that debate, it would be a pity if we got a wrong atmosphere here at the moment until we have heard from more authoritative sources.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am not clear whether my noble Leader is supporting the Motion that I be shut up or not.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only say that the last thing I would desire to do would be to create any atmosphere of heat, but it is my duty,
738
standing in this place, to ask for the Orders of the House to be observed. Of course I am in the hands of the House as to whether it supports me or not. But, as I understood it, the noble Viscount, after having been asked whether he was going to ask a supplementary question, made it quite plain that he was not and was proceeding to make a point. I hope that the House will support me in saying that the Orders of the House in matters of this importance ought not to be lightly disregarded and intentionally flouted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 13:
Valuation of security
13.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Building Societies Act, 1939 (which imposes on every director of a building society the duty of satisfying himself that proper arrangements have been made for valuing security to be taken by the building society) a director or the manager or secretary of the building society shall not be qualified to assess the adequacy of security to be taken by the building society in respect of any advance.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved to add to the clause:
"() Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section, a director or manager or secretary of a building society shall be qualified to make a valuation and report on a property and to assess the adequacy of security to be taken by the building society in respect of that same property if the said director or manager or secretary is duly authorised to do so by a special resolution passed by the members of the society at an annual general meeting of the society, such authorisation to last for a period

739
not exceeding fifteen months, and to be renewable in like manner. Any such authorisation must be reported by the society to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and reported in the annual report of the society."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. I am not attaching any great importance in the actual wording of the Amendment or to the position in which it stands. At the same time, if the Government look with favour upon the Amendment, then I say they will give satisfaction to a large number of people. This is a last ditch attempt on my part to move the stony heart of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, and if I do not succeed, nothing will be left for me to do than to withdraw and drown my sorrows in the appropriate manner. I have said on two previous occasions, like a gramophone, that I am utterly opposed to surveys or reports for a building society being made by an unqualified or inexperienced person, whether he be a director or otherwise. Furthermore, I am utterly opposed to a report for a building society being made by any director in respect of a property in which he has an interest. But, subject to those qualifications, I think it would be disastrous to shut out any directors who are qualified and experienced men from making reports on property in respect of which their own society make advances of money.
We cannot live in an imaginary world. We live in this world, and we all know that in the past year certain events have happened which have rather shaken the faith in certain building societies. Therefore I am prepared to go as far as this—and I do so with pleasure: that a director of a building society should make a report and valuation for his society only if he
"is duly authorised to do so by a special resolution passed by the members of the society at an annual general meeting of the society, such authorisation to last for a period not exceeding fifteen months, and to be renewable in like manner. Any such authorisation must be reported by the society to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and reported in the annual report of the society."
I feel that those safeguards are sufficient and will shut out anything in the way of improper practice. On the last occasion the noble Viscount blasted me about coming here with the big battalions. I do not know whether they are here or
740
not, or whether there is a phantom army here. I understand that there are Members of your Lordships' House who are directors of building societies and are placed in the same position in which I am placed, and I hope that they will support the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Meston.)
LORD JESSEL: If Her Majesty's Government do not accept this Amendment—and I think it is highly unlikely that they will—the position will be that a director, manager or secretary of a building society is disqualified from reporting on the value of any freehold or leasehold. If Her Majesty's Government think that is right, I suggest that they ought to go further and disqualify a permament member of the staff, because I can well imagine the situation where a building society has what I may call a "tame" surveyor on their staff and tremendous pressure being put upon him by the manager to give the kind of valuation which was required. If you are going to be consistent and require an independent valuation, I think permanent members of the staff should not be allowed to do it. I should like to hear what Her Majesty's Government think about that point.
LORD LATHAM: Without, I hope, appearing to be a Simon Pure I support the proposals submitted by the Government in the Amendment which was under consideration the day before yesterday. I am sorry that in that respect I may be in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Wise who, as he told us on Tuesday, is a chartered surveyor. I think the situation is misunderstood. When submitting his Amendment the noble Viscount said that the procedure in regard to advances consists of two functions. One is the valuation, and the other is the determination as to the advance that will be made and the adequacy of the security in relation to that advance. Now the first, the valuation, is a matter largely dependent upon ascertainable facts. The second stage is not; it contains quite a number of imponderables. For instance, the board have to consider the financial position and the employment of the borrower, the number of his family and the relation of the property intended to be

741
bought to the number of the family. Because nothing can damage a house or flat more rapidly than to overcrowd it; and overcrowding the security would be to reduce the value of it.
All those factors must be taken into account, but the main factor will always remain the value of the property. In that connection and in that respect, the board are entitled to be free of any embarrassment which can so easily issue from the circumstance that the valuation has been done by a member of the board, and his colleagues are perhaps unwilling to criticise him or the valuation which he has submitted. Under Section 161 of the Companies Act it is provided as regards non-exempt companies and public companies that a director or servant cannot be an auditor, nor any partner of any director or servant of the company; and as regards the audit of the accounts of the building societies dealt with in the Bill now before your Lordships' House, those provisions are repeated in Clause 43.
The point is not the competence of valuers who may be directors also of a building society, but the independence of the advice which the board as a whole receive in connection with the value of the property. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, suggested yesterday that the provisions as they now stand would shut out the little societies. But the provisions do nothing against societies except to require them to conform to a certain and, as I think, proper administrative régime. The societies themselves will not in any way be damnified. There are plenty of outside valuers who can give the small societies, like the large societies, the valuations which are required. The situation is that to some extent the director who also values will in fact be advising himself; and that is, I think, an undesirable procedure.
As regards the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose forays at times we all enjoy, it really offers no protection. A special resolution would be put down by the board and, if it is to be successfully opposed and defeated, it means that a member who objects to the proposal that a director shall be entitled to value as well as to assess, will be required to circularise all the other members of the society in order to defeat this resolution. That means that this proposal with regard to a special resolution will need to be included as one of
742
the reasons entitling a member of the building society to inspect the register of members and, indeed, to have copies of the names and addresses. It seems to me that it is a little undignified for the director in question, who is also the valuer, to have a resolution down asking the annual general meeting to consent to his acting in a way which otherwise he is not entitled by law to do. It seems to me to be not only undignified as regards the director, but also undignified as regards the society. What is needed is that there should be an absolute independence both in the valuation and in the assessment of adequacy. Not only should there be independence hut, to paraphrase a somewhat hackneyed phrase, that independence prevails should be seen by all. In those circumstances, I hope that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will be rejected and that the proposals as already approved by the Committee of your Lordships' House will remain.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should like to support what the noble Lord who has just spoken has said. I think this Amendment is a real mistake. In effect, it nullifies the whole purpose of Clause 13. It is true that a number of societies—mainly, I think, small ones—do in practice have valuations done by members of their boards, and of them as individuals I think there is no criticism. Very conscientious and honest people work in these societies, and they do it very well. But the point of this Bill, I think, is to protect the whole of the building societies against the ill-repute from which they might suffer by a few societies' getting into the hands of unscrupulous people, as in fact we know has happened. If that is the purpose of the Bill, it would seem to me to be completely right and proper that there should be no loophole from this provision, which is a provision to protect the good name of societies.
I should like to refer to a point made by Lord Jessel when he said he thought that a surveyor employed whole-time by a society perhaps should not be allowed to make valuations either, because of undue influence from the secretary or manager or whoever it might be in the office of the society. But in practice I think the way the matter works is that, in the case of a society which employs independent professional men to value

743
for them, there is constant and daily communication between the staff of the society and the professional men of independence who are doing the valuation, very much in the same way as there would be constant to-and-fro between the senior staff of the society and the whole-time valuer employed by them. Many societies do that. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be totally unjustified to prevent a society from employing a whole-time staff surveyor, which is in fact a very common practice.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was perfectly right. It is a question of independence that is important here. There is a requirement of building societies, by convention, if not by law, that they may not lend more than the actual amount recommended by the valuation of any particular security offered to them. As I see it, the function of the board of directors is to receive this valuation and to decide, not only on the basis of the valuation but taking into account all the circumstances such as the position and means of the borrower and the security he himself can offer, what is the proper amount to lend. That seems to me such a clear definition of functions that it would seem to me right the clause should stand as it is, and I hope the House will not approve this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I think there is a point here, and I think it is very important we in this House should examine it. After all, it was a minority opinion of the Building Societies' Association, as Lord Elton said.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
LORD OGMORE: Lord Elton said it was a minority opinion.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think a very minor one.
LORD OGMORE: He did not describe how minor.
LORD ELTON: I think I said a small minority. I have not any figures.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I can quote the figures: 340 were against this Amendment and 40 in favour; that is to say, 340 were in favour of the clause as it stands.
LORD OGMORE: Forty out of 340 is a substantial minority. It is a far greater one than we usually get in this House on this side, and we often think we are in the right.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I should like to interpolate that the Council of the Building Societies' Association were unanimously in favour of the clause as it stands.
LORD OGMORE: I said the Association. On this side we are not so perturbed about that sort of figure as noble Lords on the other side; we ourselves suffer from that. The point is it does affect the small society, and it affects it in this way. When any organisation gets big, whether it is an industrial organisation or a trade union or anything else, although at City dinners and the like it pays great lip service to competition, in fact one of the things it does not want, and will seek to prevent at all costs, is competition. The capitalistic type of society in which we live tends more and more to become a society of the big battalions. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, who a few years ago used to be a strong supporter against the big battalions, always ready to criticise and, indeed, to vote against his own Government on doctrinaire points, is now supporting the big battalions.
In fact this clause will affect the little societies. It will affect the societies who are starting, who are trying to get into the building society world, who are impinging upon the business of big societies. Those are the ones it will affect; and the reason, of course, is that very often it is through the interests, the influence and the assistance of the surveyors, the valuers and so on, who are associated with the building society, that it develops. So far as I am aware there has been no objection; it has not been proved at all—again as far as I am aware; I have not heard of it—that there has been any misconduct on the part of any of these effectors who are also valuers. In fact the noble Lord opposite said only a moment ago that through the years these directors who were also valuers have performed yeoman service to the societies; and as I mentioned the day before yesterday—not yesterday, as the noble Lord Lord Latham said—left to themselves the big societies become

745
more and more, as it were, frozen in their outlook. They were the ones that would not give any mortgages to Poles; it was the little societies that started to give mortgages to Poles. Now, of course, when everyone has realised how good Poles are, how excellent their creditworthiness has been, other people are going to do it.
The big societies have failed to take into account the sort of life which we live in London—the flat, the apartment; and they would not give any mortgages to people who lived in flats. It was a little society that started doing that. Therefore, if you want a society in which free enterprise takes its part, if you want a society in which there is competition—which we on these Benches do—then you should not make it more difficult for the smaller societies to get up and to make a really worthwhile contribution. And that is what is behind this clause.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, could he tell us how the Bill as it stands makes it more difficult for smaller societies?
LORD OGMORE: For this reason: that they will no longer have on the boards of directors valuers and accountants and surveyors, and people like that. It is often through the influence of these people that the small society is able to get a foothold. Noble Lords may like it or not, but that is the fact; that is how a small society comes into existence and grows, through the fact that the board of directors include people who are also valuers and surveyors and can enable them to get business.
Quite apart from that fact, there are certain localities in which it is very important that some of the directors shall have a personal knowledge of the kind of conditions of the particular locality. In some ways I just cannot see the point of this Amendment to Clause 13, because what is it expected the director who is a valuer is going to do? Presumably he wants to give a correct valuation. Presumably he does not want the resources of his society to be imperilled in any way. He is not less likely to give a correct decision because he is a valuer as well as a director. I should have thought he is more likely to give a correct decision
746
on values—he has in fact a double realisation of the necessity to give a correct decision. In this matter I feel that we are not looking at the practical effect on the small building society. We are once more looking at the interests of the huge societies, of the big organisations, who more and more in this country are running our show and whose interests we alone in Parliament are, in my opinion, far to much inclined to regard without any proper regard for the young, struggling people whom we ought to be considering and whose interests we ought to be fostering.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Towards the close of the debate on Clause 13 on Tuesday, I asked my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal four questions. I understand that I asked them rather fast, and for that reason, if for no other, I am afraid I was not altogether satisfied with the answers I received. I received an answer to the first question, but I thought that the remaining three questions were not sufficiently answered. My Association would like more guidance by way of answer to those questions. I think they are as relevant to Clause 13 as they are to the Amendment to Clause 13 which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I therefore intend to ask them again. I received an adequate answer to the first question, but since the other three remain I will ask the first one again. I hope that this time I shall not ask them too quickly.
They are, first, if a director is in partnership as a valuer with other persons who are not directors, are those other partners disqualified from making valuations? Secondly, if the other partners are not so disqualified, should the report be signed by the partner who makes the valuation or in the name of the firm? Thirdly, where a director is in sole practice—that is, without partners—as a valuer, can valuations be made by competent members of his staff? If so, who should sign the report? Lastly, where a director is also a director of a limited company which undertakes valuations, who is disqualified from making a valuation and who should sign a report?
LORD SALTOUN: I think that most of us on this side, and most people in the building societies, are behind the

747
Government on this Bill. I quite see that Lord Meston's Amendment will not do, because it would permanently affect the Bill. On the other hand, this is a far-reaching reform, even if it is most timely, and I am told that there are directors of small building societies who for long have practised valuations for their societies. They are not young people, but old people who will find their position and income violently affected by Clause 13 as it stands before us to-day, and will possibly come down in the world very sharply, while there is absolutely no insinuation or suspicion about their integrity.
I think that legislation that proceeds by breaking eggs in such a wholesale fashion is rather a pity, and I wonder whether it is not possible to allow people who have been doing this work for a considerable number of years to continue to do it for a certain time, by licence from the Registrar, or under some such arrangement as that, which will gradually disappear and will inflict no sudden and great hardship on innocent people but will, at the same time, not in any way qualify the great reform that the Lord Privy Seal has in hand at present. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, who spoke most ably on this matter, seemed to me to suggest that there ought to be an impartial person to assess—I have forgotten what he called it—the personal security as well. I always thought that that was a most important function of the directors appointed to the board; and I have always understood that it was far more important really—if things must be measured in terms of importance—than the actual value of the premises. Therefore, if that is correct, it is a subsidiary function that is being taken out of the hands of the board by this clause. I think that if it were possible to continue if for a few years in regard to a man against whom nothing could be urged, it might mitigate the hardship caused by the passage of this Bill and really be for the benefit of everybody.
LORD SILKIN: This is a matter to which I have been giving thought, and I find it rather more difficult than a good many noble Lords who have spoken seem to do. One thing is certain—namely, that this Amendment as it stands will not do, for the reasons, among others, which my noble friend Lord among gave. Apart from that, if you are going to
748
retain directors as valuers you must have it quite clear in the Bill itself that they are properly qualified to make these valuations. There is nothing in this Amendment which requires the directors to have any particular qualifications at all. I should have thought that if they were to remain in a position to make these valuations they ought to be valuers duly qualified, and that those qualifications should be contained in the Bill itself. Nor do I regard the discussion as between the large societies and the small ones as particularly relevant to this question.
I think that this is a broad question which is worth considering on its merits. The simple question is: should directors who are properly qualified be in a position to undertake the work of valuations? I myself find that question exceedingly difficult. In the case of most companies—certainly this is so of the larger ones—there are full-time directors who are specialists in particular jobs. There is a sales director, a works director, and so on, whose sole job it is to look after particular aspects of the functions of the company, and there seems to be nothing inconsistent in that as between having directors whose sole job or main job it is to carry out valuations. What one wants to ensure is, as I have said, first of all, that they are duly qualified to carry out these functions, and secondly, that they are independent and will be giving independent advice. If that could be secured I should not feel strongly against permitting directors of a building society to carry out a pure valuation.
Of course, the other functions which my noble friend referred to are, having got the valuation, assessing the security. The valuation is only part of the question of security. The valuation having been obtained, then these questions arise of the possible use of the premises, the creditworthiness of the proposed borrower, the general policy of lending on flats or houses, and so on. These are certainly matters for the board as a whole. As I have said, why this Amendment will not stand up is that it makes no provision for securing that directors who are going to carry out the valuation are properly qualified; nor does it give a proper safeguard merely by requiring the consent of the annual meeting. Those

749
who know and have had experience of annual meetings will realise that this is not a safeguard—it is a paper safeguard, but not a real one. If something could be devised which would secure the interest of the shareholders and lenders of a building society and which, at the same time, would retain the services of fully qualified and independent directors of a building society, then I myself should feel that that would be worthy of consideration.
3.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: First, I must say that I cannot support the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has moved. I do not think it will meet the case at all. I want to say a word or two on something I mentioned two days ago. I should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would have another look at this particular clause. I believe that before we adjourned this debate on Tuesday last we passed the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal, and in that there appear the words "competent and prudent person"; but I feel that some better definition should be laid as to who should carry out valuations. Also, there is nothing in the new subsections to show whether the valuer should make a written or a verbal report and I feel that that matter should be made quite clear.
My main point, however, is that in those new subsections there is invidious discrimination against chartered surveyors and valuers. As has already been mentioned, the board of a building society may consider other matters of a legal, financial, or constructional nature; and on the board there may be lawyers, accountants and architects. These professional directors will be in a position to make a report, either written or verbal, to their fellow directors. They are not prevented from doing so by this clause. If members of other professions are allowed to report to their board on their own particular matters, I see no reason at all why properly qualified chartered surveyors or—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to make a false point here, and he is not correct in what he has just said. I
750
should not like the Committee to be misled. If the noble Lord will look at column 543 of Hansard of Tuesday last, where the new clause is printed, he will see that he is not correct in his statement.
LORD WISE: These particular directors will have to deal with the adequacy of a security and may be called upon by directors to make reports on particular matters; and as I have pointed out, within this clause they are able to do so. Having made that point, I hope that as there is a difference of opinion on both sides of the Committee Her Majesty's Government will think about this particular matter again and come back at a later stage with something else.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know what would be for the convenience of the Committee, but I was asked some particular questions by my noble friends, the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Jessel, which really have little immediate relevance to the Amendment under discussion. However, I believe both would want to have what answers I can give, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I first answered the specific questions and then addressed myself to the arguments on the Amendment.
I must first apologise to my noble friend Lord Jessel. He asked me the same question privately and I misunderstood him, with the result that I gave him a wholly misleading answer. I hope that he will now forget the answer I gave him privately and will attend to the answer (a quite different one) that I am giving publicly. My noble friend suggested that if it was wrong for a director to carry out a valuation, it was equally wrong for a member of the society's staff to do so. I had thought he was asking about an employee—and incidentally, my answer, even on that supposition, was wrong. I would say to my noble friend that this raises two points to which I will refer at greater length when I come to deal with the merits of the Amendment.
First, if a valuation is carried out by a director it is difficult for the board to criticise it and still more difficult for a member of the staff to do so; but the converse is not true. Secondly, the undesirability of valuation by a director

751
rests largely on the fact that the director has a share in the responsibility for the final decision on whether or not to make an advance, and for assessing the value of the security. This responsibility lies with the board, even if, in some cases, they may delegate their functions to senior members of the staff. Obviously, if my noble friend desires to pursue this matter it will be considered again; but I would not have said that the argument he presented—that if it was wrong for a director to carry out a valuation it was equally wrong for a member of the staff to do so—was necessarily a good argument. That is not the view I take at the moment. If my noble friend should desire to discuss the matter further I would entertain such discussions with great friendship.
With regard to the questions of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I would say, first, that he is quite unaware of the speed with which he utters his questions, and, secondly, that both I and those advising me were in exactly the same difficulty. If I may say so with great respect, it would be a great help if we could have notice in advance of questions to be put—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I had understood that notice had been given.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Notice in advance had been given of the first two questions but not of the second two, and as it was the first two questions that I had written down I was in great difficulty; so if all four questions could be put to me next time I will try to do my best. As I told the Committee when we last discussed this Bill, the answer to the first question, whether the partner of a director of a building society could give the report for the purposes of paragraph (b), was "Yes"; the partner may do so. The answer to the second question (which, again, I gave last time) is that the report must be signed by the person who has done the valuation; that is to say, by the partner in the firm. It is a personal report.
The third question was: could an employee of a director do a valuation? The answer I have received is "Yes", and again, of course, the report would be signed by the person making it. It is a personal responsibility. The fourth
752
question was: if a director is a director of a company making the valuation, who should sign the final report? The answer, again, is that the report should be signed by the person who actually makes the report and not by the legal personage, the company of which he is a director. I hope my noble friend will feel that I have now given satisfactory answers to his questions, and I am sorry that I did not do so the first time.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I now address myself to the subject matter of the Amendment? Most of the arguments have been put so lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and my noble friend Lord Ridley that I really could do little better than comment on some of the things they have said and perhaps expound them further; because it was perfectly obvious to me that the only thing in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with which I could agree was his comment: "I just cannot see the point of the Amendment"—because it was quite obvious that he did not do so.
LORD OGMORE: I am sorry if I misled the noble and learned Viscount, but I should explain that the Amendment to which I was referring was the Amendment he made to Clause 13; and had the proceedings not been so unfairly truncated by the noble and learned Viscount we should have been discussing all this together, and what I meant would have been quite clear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I quite understood that the noble Lord meant that he could not see the purpose of my new clause. I had understood that error of diction. And I still agree that he cannot see the point. I am now going to try to explain the point, for I think the third or fourth time of asking.
LORD OGMORE: I have not asked the noble Viscount to do so, and the noble Viscount really must not lose his temper all the time. We are very few in number on this side. We come here often at great inconvenience. If the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite do not want us to come here, and if they want this to be a Reichstag, we

753
will not come; but while we come we expect to be treated politely. If noble Lords opposite think they are going to intimidate me, they are not. While I am here I am going to say what I think, as a Member of the minority.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am delighted to see the noble Lord here, and if anybody has lost his temper in this Committee it is certainly not I.
LORD OGMORE: What the noble Viscount said to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, showed an appalling loss of temper.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not propose to bandy more words with the noble Lord except to say that I do not think he understands the point. If he will allow me to say so, even if he does not want to hear the point I believe the Committee do, and I hope be will allow me to proceed to explain the matter as I see it.
The new clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has proposed an Amendment really says that there are two functions which have to be discharged in relation to a security. One is the function which is fundamentally a function of a board; although it can be delegated it is still a function of the management of the society in the shape of the board. It is to ascertain the adequacy of the security. This, of course, depends upon a number of different factors, including the personal value of the promise implied, and a number of other factors which I will not enumerate because some are highly technical. That is a function of management. It is said in the clause that there is a separate duty which has to be performed in order to enable the directors to carry out the first function, and that is the issue of a report, which it is certainly (may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wise) intended, and I think implied, should be a written report. If I am wrong I shall be corrected. But the second function is the delivery of a report made available by the person who discharges the first function, valuing the property. That is a separate thing, and the policy of the Government in the clause is to ensure that the second function is carried out by an independent person: that is, independent in the sense defined in subsection (2) of the new clause.
754
Of course, there is not the smallest truth whatever, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, in the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that there is a difference between small societies and big societies in this regard. Still less is there the smallest value in his suggestion that if this clause were carried it would no longer be useful for a building society to have a valuer on the board of the society. On the contrary, the view of the Government is precisely the opposite. What the Government would think is wrong, and do think it is wrong, is that the professionally-qualified gentleman who, very properly and rightly, is a member of the board of the society should act in two separate capacities in relation to the one society. This we do think is wrong. But to suggest that there would be no more value in building societies having qualified gentlemen on the board, is, I should have said, the precise opposite of the truth.
I would say this. We are dealing with an important question of professional ethics in relation to this matter. I recognise that a number of perfectly reputable societies and a number of perfectly reputable people have been doing this thing for years past. I do not mean to say that everyone who has been doing it is perfectly reputable, but there is not the slightest criticism to be attached to people just because they have been doing it. It so happens that recent experience has made us believe, and has made the great majority of building societies believe, too, that this thing is intrinsically an abuse; that fundamentally these two functions should be discharged by different people; and this is an important question of professional ethics about which we hold this view. It is also, I would say to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, a question of principle; and I would say, quite frankly, that it is just as important from the point of view of the policy of this Bill that a small society should be run in the only way we consider to be reputable now as that a large society should be run in the only way we consider to be reputable now. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, two days ago described his view as sentimental. I am bound to say I agree with him, and I do not think that on a matter of

755
professional ethics, when we have formed a view which happens to coincide with the largest and, I believe, the better opinion inside the profession, we ought to yield to what is admittedly a sentimental argument.
Of course, it is true, as my noble friend Lord Saltoun says, that in some individual cases it will cause hardship. It will not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, persists in thinking, cause any hardship whatever to the societies—large or small. It will cause hardship, not to the societies, but to the individuals who have been, without moral blame to be attached to them, pursuing this practice and have been paid for it. But if this thing is a question of principle, and if we think it is a practice which ought to stop because it is inherently not a proper practice of professional ethics, then I think we ought not to make exceptions. I would say to my noble friend Lord Saltoun that I think the case for hardship can be overstated and was overstated by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in his speech last time. Our evidence does not suggest that people will, as he put it, "go out into the night" or be irreparably ruined by this, although they will be, as professional people, deprived of fees which, like other professional people, they were no doubt glad to receive. But I hope I have made this thing plain; and I really do not think there was cause for the noble Lord's suggestion, which was directed personally at myself, that I was in some way guilty of an inconsistency in supporting—as I do, and as all members of my Party do, rightly or wrongly—the principles of competition and private enterprise and supporting this clause, which has no more to do with principles of competition and private enterprise than it has to do with the man in the moon.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to say one word to the noble Viscount, and that is that I do not altogether follow him on this question of principle. I have always been terrified of the wrongs I do when I am frightfully good; and I will put this case to him. Suppose he lived in a community where every man had two wives and he suddenly found it was a matter of principle that the community should be monogamist. It would be very hard to
756
send every second wife "out into the night" just because it was a matter of principle. I think it may be possible to make provision for cases of proved hardship and that the Registrar might give licence for the procedure to go on, provided the building society was agreeable, until people had finished their time.
LORD MESTON: I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his reply, but I remain quite unmoved. I have many opponents to this Amendment, but they appear to be dealing with the matter in a purely academic and not a practical way. I know that I look an idiot, but I am not as big an idiot as I look. For some years I have had in a building society experience of people who are highly qualified and competent surveyors and who have given actually first-class reports upon property and then have placed those reports upon the table; and all the other directors have been free to criticise them exactly as they liked. There is no question of running the building society as a mutual admiration society, or as an "old pals' club": it is run as a business; and I feel myself that there are a great number of societies which are run in the same way. However, most of your Lordships appear to deal with this matter in an academic rather than a practical way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when he points out that this actual Amendment is not sufficiently well worded, and I think that it is essential to alter the wording so that only a qualified and competent person could make a survey of a property in respect of which he subsequently sat on the board which accepted that property as security for an advance. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on that point. But, subject to that, I am in total disagreement with everybody else—except, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.12 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 13. The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down as a result of the unhappy incidents which led up to the termination of the debate on Tuesday last. I felt, and I think a good many noble Lords felt, that it was unfortunate that the Government thought it necessary to push Clause 13 through without what we regarded as adequate consideration, and especially without giving the

757
noble Lord, Lord Meston, an opportunity of having his Amendment discussed. I personally have no particular objection to Clause 13, and it is not because I object to Clause 13 in its terms; but I do think that it is unfortunate that we terminated the proceedings as we did, and I should like to remind the Committee of what actually happened.
It had been agreed through the usual channels that we should finish the discussion on this Bill at 4.15, and I hope I am not wrong when I say that that was particularly for the convenience of the noble Viscount, who had another engagement. We all agreed to that, and we were prepared to finish at that time; but we went on until 4.30. Then the noble Viscount decided that we had got to get this clause through, although there were a number of people who wanted to comment on it and to make speeches. In fact, we got it through by a Division of the House. I think it is exceedingly unfortunate. I do not want to make any personal attack on the noble Viscount, for whom I have, as he knows, a very great admiration, but it was a pity that we had to finish up our proceedings in that way. Having said that, I have no particular desire to leave out Clause 13, and, unless—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say something.
LORD SILKIN: Of course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 13.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to prolong this business at all, but I think the noble Lord has completely misunderstood both what happened factually and why it happened; and I should Like, if only to remove the sense of grievance under which he evidently genuinely labours, to tell him what at any rate my version of the events certainly is. Of course, it was agreed that the proceedings should terminate at 4.15. As I understand the practice of the Committee, that does not mean that when the bell strikes everybody goes away, or goes on to the next business: it means that we conclude whatever we are doing as soon afterwards as we conveniently can. The noble Lord is quite
758
wrong in saying hat we went on until 4.30, as he will see if he looks at Hansard. It was certainly before 4.20 when, nobody else rising to speak, I proceeded to answer the debate, which was on a manuscript Amendment of my noble friend Lord Saltoun. Nobody else rising, I answered the speeches which had been made, including the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who had spoken rather out of order but still to the point of his Amendment, which he has now moved this afternoon. It was, of course, well within my knowledge—although, from what he has just said, it does not yet appear to have fully been borne upon the noble Lord opposite—that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was going to move his Amendment to-day, whatever happened on the manuscript Amendment of my noble friend Lord Saltoun; and, therefore, he could not, and should not, be shut out from further discussion of some kind.
When I had sat down—I would not have got up but for the fact that nobody had risen to continue the debate—I naturally concluded (and I am as absolutely certain now as I was then) that the new Clause 13 and my noble friend's manuscript Amendment would be disposed of (and it would have been, without a Division) when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, got up and suggested that we should proceed to our next business without having come to a conclusion either on the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Saltoun or on my new Clause 13. What was carried to a Division was carried to a Division, not by the Government, but by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; and what was carried to a Division was not the suggestion that the clause should be passed (which passed thereafter without a Division) but the suggestion that we should go on to our next business without having come to a conclusion on that clause at all.
The last thing I should ever desire your Lordships to do would be to pass over anything without an adequate discussion. I would only say that we have had a very adequate discussion this afternoon on the very same point, and that we should have had one, whichever the way in which the proceedings terminated last time, and in very much better order, if we had not, with respect, spent half an hour of the time of the House

759
discussing the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we should proceed to the next business without concluding the business under discussion—which, in fact, was already concluded.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount has given his version of the matter, and I am very much obliged. I will not take up the time of the House, because it is within the recollection of a good many Lords as to what actually happened. I think a good many of us felt a sense of grievance, that we were being unduly rushed over this matter; and I think that, on reflection, the noble Viscount will realise that it would have been wiser not to have pressed this clause to its conclusion on Tuesday last. However, I have said what I wanted to say, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Classes of additional security which may be taken into account]:
4.19 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that a guarantee given by a local authority under any Housing Act or any Housing (Scotland) Act—

(a) is, and always has been, authorised additional security for an advance, under section two of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Building Societies Act, 1939, notwithstanding that the guarantee may not extend to the full amount by which the advance exceeds the assumed normal advance for the purposes of any Scheme of Guarantee agreed between the Minister of Housing and Local Government (or the Secretary of State for Scotland), the local authority (or county council) and the building society, and

(b) may be taken into account by the building society in making the advance as though the guarantee did so extend."

The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As your Lordships are aware, every advance made by a building society is secured on the property mortgaged to the society; and, in addition, on the personal undertaking of the borrower to repay the loan. The society may, however, make a larger advance than it
760
would normally make if the borrower provides one of the eight kinds of additional security which are authorised by the Schedule to the Building Societies Act, 1939. They are composed of four kinds of guarantee and four kinds of charge on money or securities, but the Act does not stipulate that the additional security must be at least equal to the additional advance. That is the practice that is normally required by building societies, I believe, with one important exception, and that is the exception to which this Amendment is addressed.
One of the four forms of guarantee is a guarantee by a local authority, under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, which is often offered as additional security. The terms of that Act require the raising of loans to be shared equally by the Government—the Treasury—by the local authority and by the building society, so that the guarantee does not in fact cover the full amount of the additional advance, but only two-thirds, the remaining one-third being left to be borne by the building society. In those circumstances, doubts have arisen as to whether that form of guarantee, and others specifically authorised by Acts of Parliament, do in fact constitute the additional security which is essential. The object of the Amendment is to remove the doubts, which have been strongly expressed by more than one eminent counsel.
I am not sure if I have made myself clear to your Lordships, and I would give a practical illustration. If a property is valued at £4,000, the normal advance on that property might be £3,000. In fact, by reason of the authority given by the Act of 1939, the building society advance is not 75 per cent., but 90 per cent.—that is, an excess advance of 15 per cent. That excess is guaranteed as to one-third by the Treasury and one-third by the local authority; and the remaining one-third is left to be borne by the building society itself. So that in fact the building society has not a guarantee for that remaining one-third: and the loss, if any, and risk have to be borne by the building society. In the circumstances, it seems to me reasonable to remove doubts of this kind and it is for that purpose that I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Duke.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I intervene now because it may be helpful to your Lordships, and not for the purpose of truncating this discussion in any way. The important words in the Amendment are "for the removal of doubt", and at first sight it might seem rather churlish on the part of the Government to say that they resist an Amendment the whole purpose of which is to remove a doubt which many people would say is a legitimate doubt simply because it had come from a responsible quarter. One of the circumstances in which I would say that that was legitimate to accept such an Amendment would be if the explanation did itself remove the doubt and make the matter particularly clear. I am bound to tell the Committee, in all frankness, that this is not a matter which I understand very well myself. I wish there to be no misunderstanding about this. I do not propose to set myself up as an expert on this topic, but I am doing my best and I am told by those who know these things better that the explanation I am going to give is a good one.
The Amendment purports to remove an alleged doubt in the Acts affecting the powers of building societies to advance money where a limited guarantee from a local authority is taken as additional security. Building societies, in practice, lend money on freehold or leasehold security in excess of the amount which they would consider safe to lend on that security alone, and in that case take additional security for the excess. Under Section 2 (2) of the Building Societies Act, 1939, a building society may, in determining the amount of its advance, take into account the value of any additional security of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to that Act. A guarantee of a local authority given under Section 45 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, or Section 77 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, is additional security which they can so take into account. A guarantee given under subsection (2) of these sections will, however, guarantee only two-thirds of the excess amount advanced by a society. A doubt has in consequence been expressed by societies as to whether such a limited guarantee is additional security which
762
they can take into account when determining the amount of the advance, since the guarantee does not cover the whole of the excess, and therefore whether they have power to make the excess advance on the strength of such a guarantee. As I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment is to remove any doubt there may be on that score.
Under Section 13 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, a building society may lawfully advance an amount equal to the value as security of the freehold or leasehold property to be mortgaged. Under Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1939 a society is expressly authorised to take into account the value of a guarantee by a local authority under Section 45 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, and under the equivalent provision applying to Scotland which includes a guarantee covering only a part of any excess advance. It is the Government's view that there is therefore no doubt that a local government guarantee which does not fully cover an excess advance—that is, the amount by which an advance exceeds the amount which would have been advanced on the security of the property alone—is none the less an additional security which can be taken into account by a society in making an advance, and that, provided the amount of the excess advance not covered by the guarantee is covered by the value of the property mortgaged, the making of the excess advance is within the powers of a society. It is of the essence of these transactions that they do not involve an advance exceeding the amount of the principal security and there is ample authority for the proposition that building societies can lend up to the value of that security. For this reason it is argued that the Amendment is unnecessary. Having explained to the Committee, in all frankness, that this is not a matter on which I could pretend to have any very strong or decided opinions of my own, I hope that this answer will be considered and that in the circumstances, at any rate at this stage, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am not altogether happy about the answer but perhaps it might be well to read it and to consider it. As regards the doubt as to whether it is appropriate or proper

763
to put in an Amendment for the removal of doubt, I would merely say that I think that is quite a frequent expedient and indeed is used in this very Bill, in Clause 12 (4).
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My only doubt was whether it was proper for me to resist the Amendment, not whether it was proper for the noble Lord to put it forward.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. In this very Bill there is a subsection in Clause 12 "for the removal of doubt". It is for that reason that the noble Duke, who is president of the Building Societies' Association, put down this Amendment on behalf of the Association. I am not altogether clear. The noble Viscount seems to rest his answer on his reference to various Acts of Parliament, but eminent counsel, no doubt having all these statutory enactments in consideration, have expressed a different view.
I would ask the noble Viscount, if that be the case, what objection there can possibly be to putting in a clause removing all doubt. It does not affect the Bill in any other respect. Why not accept the Amendment? That seems to be the sensible thing to do. Otherwise we must consider the matter further and possibly put down an Amendment on another stage. As it is merely for the removal of doubts that have arisen, and there is obviously a conflict of opinion between the Government's advisers and the advisers to the Building Societies' Association, why not accept the Amendment for the removal of those doubts, which undoubtedly do exist? I hope that on consideration, the noble Viscount will feel that that is the proper course. Otherwise, as I say, we must consider at our leisure the reasons he has given and possibly put down another Amendment.
LORD ELTON: Before the noble Viscount replies, may I say that, in a sense. I think the noble Viscount has already removed the doubts to a considerable extent. As I understand the position, eminent counsel, as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has reminded us, have repeatedly expressed doubt as to whether in the circumstances we are discussing—that is, where a building society stands to lose one-third
764
and has not a security covering the whole of its loan—it is legally proper for the building societies to do this. No doubt obtaining those opinions has cost the building societies considerable sums. As I understand it, the noble Viscount, speaking on behalf of the Government, has now said that there is no real doubt and that it is proper for building societies to act in this way. I should have thought that we had received a free counsel's opinion, or even something rather better than counsel's opinion; and that is perhaps all we need.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: But the opinion of the Minister or the Government has no effect in the courts, and the building societies may be left without recourse. The opinion of the noble Viscount, as he will be the first to acknowledge, is of no account in the courts.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I agree that "what the noble Viscount says" is not evidence—like the remarks of the soldier in another case. But I should think that there was a good deal of substance in what my noble friend Lord Elton has said. I think the sensible course here, despite the plausible way in which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has pressed his Amendment, would be to take away my answer and study it. Then if those for whom the noble Lord and my noble friend speak think it necessary to come back again, by all means let them do so. But I would say this as a general observation about legislation: that sometimes clauses which begin with the words, "For the removal of doubt", succeed in creating doubts, and that is not a desirable method of legislating.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I do not think this is one of those clauses. However that may be, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:
Additional security: guarantees given in pursuance of continuing arrangements
".—(1) In subsection (4) of section two of the Building Societies Act, 1939 (which provides that where a guarantee given in pursuance of a continuing arrangement is taken

765
as additional security for an advance by a building society, the advance as a whole shall not exceed ninety-five per cent. of the amount of the purchase price of the property which is the principal security, and the basic advance shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of that amount), as it applies in relation to any advance made after the commencement of this Act—

(a) for the words "ninety-five per cent." there shall be substituted the words "one hundred per cent."; and

(b) for the words "seventy-five per cent." there shall be substituted the words "eighty per cent".

(2) Subsection (2) of section six of the said Act (which, as modified by subsection (3) of that section, provides that where a guarantee given in pursuance of a continuing arrangement is taken as additional security for an advance by a building society the period for repayment shall not exceed twenty years or, where the continuing arrangement is a special continuing arrangement, twenty-three years) shall apply in relation to any advance made after the commencement of this Act, and in relation to any agreement made after the commencement of this Act as respects an advance made at any time, as if for the refrence in the said subsection (2) to twenty-three years there were substituted—

(a) where the continuing arrangement in pursuance of which the guarantee was given is not a special continuing arrangement, a reference to twenty-five years, and

(b) where it is a special continuing arrangement, a reference to twenty-eight years,

and the said subsection (3) shall not apply in relation to any such advance or agreement.
(3) Expressions employed in this section to which meanings are assigned by the Building Societies Act, 1939, shall have those meanings in this section."
The noble Viscount said: This is a new clause, and again it is of a highly technical character. Sections 1 and 2 of the Building Societies Act, 1939, permit a society to take into account in determining the amount to advance not only the amount of the principal security but also any additional security that may be given, provided that the additional security is one of the types listed in the First Schedule to that Act; and that is the section we have just been considering. One of the forms of additional security is what is called a "continuing arrangement" under which a third party—for instance, an insurance company or builder—guarantees the "excess amounts" of a series of advances by a building society. In this case the guarantor deposits with the society a sum as security which is usually less than the total amount guaranteed but which
766
acts as a "float" to cover all the guarantees. Because the society theoretically has not complete cover for all the excess advances, Section 2 also lays down certain restrictions on the proportion of the valuation that can be advanced, and Section 6 restrictions on the period of the mortgage if additional security has been taken under a continuing arrangement.
These restrictions were in line with good building society practice at the time when the 1939 Act was passed. But since then, with the rising trend of property values, building societies have tended to increase the proportion of valuation which they are in general prepared to advance and also to grant longer periods for repayment. They have not, however, been able to do this in the cases where the guarantee has been under a continuing arrangement. The Building Societies' Association have asked that the restrictions should be eased to come into line with what is now considered normal practice, and the Government consider that this can be done without risk to investors.
Section 2 provided that the basic advances should not exceed 75 per cent. of the value of the principal security—that is, the property—the excess advance 20 per cent. and the total 95 per cent. Societies are now advancing up to 80 per cent. without additional security, and up to 100 per cent. where there is additional security other than a guarantee under a continuing arrangement. Subsection (1) of the new clause will enable societies also to advance up to those limits where the additional security is such a guarantee.
Section 6 of the 1939 Act provided that where a guarantee under a continuing arrangement was taken as additional security the advance should be repayable over not more than 20 years. The limit was raised to 23 years in the case of "special continuing arrangements", defined in Section 5 of the Act as continuing arrangements under which all the advances were in respect of buildings whose constructional standards were certified by a body approved by the Ministry of Health, now the Ministry of Housing; in fact, the only body at present so approved is the National House Builders' Registration Council. Societies now frequently allow repayment over

767
a longer period, and subsection (2) of the new clause increases the limits for continuing arrangements by five years. The increase in the permitted period of repayment will apply not only to new advances but also to re-negotiation of the terms of existing advances. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Charges on the security of registered land in Northern Ireland
".—(1) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that a charge executed in favour of a building society on the security of registered land in Northern Ireland is, and always has been, a mortgage for the purposes of section thirteen of the Building Societies Act, 1874.
(2) In this section the expression 'building society' means a society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1940, and any such unincorporated society as is mentioned in section seven of the principal Act and also a building society which is, or for the purposes of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, is deemed to be registered in Northern Ireland, or any such unincorporated society as is mentioned in section seven of the principal Act whose chief office or principal place of business is in Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire and of the Building Societies' Association I beg to move this Amendment, which is again an Amendment for the removal of doubt. It would appear that recent legal proceedings in Northern Ireland have raised grave doubt as to whether the form of mortgage used in that country in respect of registered land is one which building societies are in strictness entitled to accept under Section 13 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, which prescribes the mortgage which they can accept as security. This Amendment is designed to remove the doubt which has been expressed. The short point, in a few words, as I understand it, is that in Northern Ireland the practice is to have a charge, and the question therefore arises whether a charge on registered land is in fact a mortgage within the meaning of Section 13 of the Building
768
Societies Act, 1874. This is a matter of considerable importance, particularly having regard to the development going on in Northern Ireland, and the Building Societies' Association plead earnestly that the Government should accept this Amendment. I hope that the noble Viscount may see his way to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again, this being a highly technical matter, it might assist the Committee if I intervened at once. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment is perfectly right that there was at one time a doubt which had been raised in particular quarters with regard to this point. If the doubt had been persisted in, even subjectively, I think it might have been reasonable to introduce a clause for the removal of doubt. But I understand that the original source of the doubt is now persuaded that there is none, and this is also the view of the Government. I propose again to tell the Committee why, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, will again consider the terms of the answer. If those for whom he speaks so well are satisfied with it, I hope that they will accept the answer of the Government that there is no doubt upon this point. If, on the other hand, he feels that the answer is unsatisfactory, of course he must discuss the matter again, either publicly or privately.
The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the supposed doubt as to the power of a society to lend money on the security of a charge on registered land in Northern Ireland. Under Section 13 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, a society can lend only on the security of land, "by way of mortgage". Societies do, and can under that section, lend money on the security of land situate in Northern Ireland. The Land Registry in Northern Ireland will not, however, register a mortgage by demise (which is one method of creating mortgages of land in Northern Ireland) of registered land in Northern Ireland, and, as a result, a society lending money on such land is left with no alternative but to take a charge on the land in accordance with Section 40 (2) of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891.

769
Such a charge is thought by some building societies not to be a mortgage within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act of 1874, and in their view there is a doubt as to whether they have power to lend any money on the security of such a charge. It is this doubt which the Amendment seeks to remove.
If the doubt were a real one, the Government would be prepared to remove it by accepting the Amendment in principle, for it is not intended that societies registered in England or Scotland should be prevented from making advances on land in Northern Ireland by a technicality of this kind. However, the point, if it is valid at all, also applies to advances on registered land in England, since those also can be secured only by taking a charge. The building societies have never expressed any doubt on this in relation to England, but only in relation to Northern Ireland. In the Government's view no real doubt exists in the matter either in relation to England or Northern Ireland.
An advance made by building societies on security taken by way of a charge on registered land is undoubtedly made on the security of the land. Where such a charge is executed in favour of a building society, the society has all the powers of a mortgagee, including the powers to take posession of, and sell, the land. The Government are firmly of the view that an advance made on the security of such a charge is an advance by way of mortgage within the meaning of Section 12 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, and that, in consequence, it is within the powers of a building society to make advances on the security of such a charge. The Amendment is there-for considered unnecessary, and on the clear understanding that I have tried to give to the noble Lord, I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Having regard to the answer of the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. If necessary, we will put it down again after consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17:
Notices to be given where security for advance is taken from a third party.
17.—(1) Section seven of the Building Societies Act, 1939 (which requires a building society making an advance to a member to
770
give notice to the member if it takes any security for the advance from a third party), shall not apply in relation to an advance made to an individual where the only security taken for the advance from a third party is a guarantee, not being a guarantee secured by a charge on any property.
4.45 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "guarantee" to insert given by an individual". The noble Duke said: I shall endeavour to take the advice of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and talk at a rate which is comprehensible to your Lordships. Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the Building Societies Act, 1939, will know that whenever a society takes any form of additional security for an advance other than the house itself, the society has to send formal notice of this additional security to the borrower. In many thousands of cases this additional security is of a purely technical kind, consisting of a guarantee of a wife by her husband, or of a son by his father, or some such similar arrangement. In such cases, no cash or other security is deposited by the guarantor.
The issuing of these forms every year creates a great deal of work for the society and often causes bewilderment and misunderstanding to the borrower, while in point of fact it gives the borrower no additional protection. In that this clause seeks to save a few of these forms in such cases, the Building Societies' Association warmly welcomes it. But the Association feels that the terms of the clause are cast too wide, so that it also covers guarantees of a different kind—guarantees given by insurance companies and by local authorities. The Association feels that for such guarantees it should continue to notify borrowers that such guarantees have been taken. The first of the two Amendments which stand in my name is designed, therefore, to restrict the dispensation of sending notices to those of individual guarantees, while the second stipulates that when a notice of additional security has to be served, it will be unnecessary to mention in that notice any guarantee by an individual. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 19, after ("guarantee") insert ("given by an individual").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps it would be convenient for me to say at once that the Government are very happy to accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am extremely grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There is nothing I need add to what I have just said. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 20, at end insert ("and where a notice is required to be given under the said section seven as respects an advance made to as individual, the notice need not refer to any guarantee given by an individual not being a guarantee secured by a charge on any property").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I say at once that the Government are happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:
Power to admit members who are not shareholders
".—(1) The rules of a building society may allow a person to become a member without holding a share in the building society and such of the rules as concern the making of advances to members need not be expressed in terms which treat a member to whom an advance is made as being, by reason of the making of the advance, the holder of a share in the building society.
(2) The liability of a member to whom an advance is made under rules made in pursuance of the foregoing subsection shall be no greater than it would be if the rules treated the member as being, by reason of the making of the advance, the holder of a share in the building society."
The noble Viscount said: This is an enabling clause. At present, the vast majority of societies' advances are made to members, and under this Bill they would be exclusively made to members. The view has been taken that in order to be a member, a person must hold shares, and this has meant that societies have had to issue shares to most
772
borrowers, some by the device of 1s. or 5s. shares described as "qualifying shares", and others by describing the advance as an "advanced share" for the amount of the advance. These are really unnecessary devices and they can cause unnecessary complexities in rules relating to voting rights, and so on. What is essential is that the borrower should be subject to the rules of the society, and this can be perfectly well done by an appropriate provision in the mortgage contract. The effect of this new clause will be to permit those societies who wish to do so to provide in their rules for the membership of borrowers without making them shareholders.
Subsection (2) defines the liability of a member who is not a shareholder as not being greater than if he had, by reason of the advance, been made a shareholder. Under Section 14 of the 1874 Act, this is the amount still due under a mortgage or other security, or under the rules of the society. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LATHAM: We should all wish to take proper steps to reduce complexity, whether with regard to building societies or other aspects of modern life, but I should like the noble Viscount to explain how the proposed Amendment fits in with the definition clause, Clause 61, where it states that:
"'member', in relation to a building society, includes any person who for the time being holds a share, whether advanced or not, in the building society".
Here we are creating, are we not, members who are not shareholders. I am not saying that that is undesirable but that it is the case, and it would be, I think, helpful, at least to myself, with regard to certain other Amendments, if the noble Viscount could explain how this proposed alteration, this creation of members who are not shareholders, fits in with Clause 24, which is the clause dealing with registers, and Clause 22. If that is not enough, may I add how will it fit in with the noble Viscount's own Amendment, No. 40A, which deals with the qualifications far voting on special resolutions? Perhaps the noble Viscount can help us in that regard.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Latham has got a point and I think there will have to be some consequential Amendments. He has certainly got a point on the definition clause, and I think the effect is that there will have to be consequential Amendments.
LORD LATHAM: Would it not be just as well if this Amendment were stood over until the consequential Amendments were under discussion?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hardly think so. I think it is the practice of the Committee as a rule to take the substantial Amendment first. I am told now that I was wrong in saying there would have to be consequential Amendments on the definition clause, because the definition clause is of the type of definition which says "includes". That is, of course, the answer to the paint which the noble Lord made in relation to that. I think I have made the case for the Amendment in principle. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out there difficulties, which had not occurred to me, and I will certainly consider any consequential Amendments which may be necessary.
LORD LATHAM: It is intriguing to note that the definition clause is not a definition.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is always the case, is it not?
LORD LATHAM: I thought perhaps the word "includes" might be regarded as curing the otherwise apparent defect. However, in the circumstances indicated by the noble and learned Viscount, I have no objection to the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Members or depositors dying intestate]:
LORD MILNER OF LEEDShad given notice of an Amendment in subsection (1), to leave out "one" and insert "two" [hundred pounds]. The noble Lord said: When I put down this Amendment I was under the impression that it was possible to draw £200 from the Post Office savings bank without the necessity of producing probate or letters of administration. I am told I
774
was wrong, and that the figure is only £100. In those circumstances I do not move this Amendment.
Clause 20 agreed to.
4.55 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, after Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:
Investments by trustees
". If a building society—

(a) accepts the deposit of or otherwise borrows any money, or

(b) accepts any payment representing the whole or part of the amount due by way of subscription for an investment share in the building society,

from a person whom it has reason to believe is a trustee, the building society shall not be required to ascertain whether that person is empowered by the instrument creating the trust to make such an investment or is not prohibited by such instrument from making the investment."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move this Amendment. Apparently some doubt has been created as to the power of building societies to lend money to trustees—though, happily, the words "for the removal of doubt" are not included in the Amendment. The building societies have been informed that there is some doubt as to whether a society can lend money to trustees without making itself liable for any wrongful investment by trustees who are not authorised to make it. This clause is designed to remove doubt which is felt in legal circles, as I have said, on this point. There is an analogy, which is perhaps not too close a one, with Section 117 of the Companies Act, which the noble and learned Viscount will know provides that no notice of any trust, expressed, implied or constructive, shall be entered on the register or be receivable by the Registrar in the case of companies registered in England. This applies, of course, only to shares, and not to debentures, loans, advances or deposits. Under Section 117 the effect of that is to free the company from acknowledging any trust. The purpose of the Amendment which I am moving is somewhat different. It is to give a kind of "blanket" legality to societies to receive deposits or other investments from trustees, and it seems to me that in a Bill of this kind this doubt which it is thought exists should be removed. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Latham.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am again advised that this is not a necessary Amendment. From what the noble Lord said, it assumes that where a building society knows, or even where a building society has reason to believe, that an investor is a trustee, it is the duty of the building society, apart from the new clause, to inquire whether the trustee has the requisite investment power to invest money in a building society; and this clause would release the building society from this duty. But I am advised that there is no reason to think that building societies, or indeed any other class of person with whom trustees invest money, are under any such duty. And it would seem that if there were any point to be made like that in the Amendment it is not a particular point limited to building societies but a general point which would not concern building societies alone, and which, if dealt with by an Act of Parliament, ought certainly to be dealt with more generally and not merely for building societies.
The noble Lord quite fairly said that Section 117 of the Companies Act, 1948, does not provide a very close analogy. The purpose of that section is to relieve a company from taking notice of equitable interest in shares, and precluding persons claiming under equitable titles from converting companies into trustees for them. In other words, the purpose of Section 117 of the Companies Act is to prevent a company from having to ascertain whether a disposition by the legal holders of a share is in accordance with the trust to which that holder may be subject. The section, moreover, prevents persons whose titles to shares have not been completed by registration from compelling the society to look to them, rather than to the legal holder of the shares, for directions as to the disposition of the shares. As the noble Lord quite fairly indicated, it appears from this that neither of these objects has anything in common with the question of whether a trustee has power to invest in a building society—and it is this to which the Amendment on the Paper is addressed. For these reasons I hope that the noble
776
Lord will not press his Amendment. Having said that, however, I must add that I am conscious, as I have been in previous cases, that these are highly technical matters about which a second opinion or second thoughts may be necessary. I would therefore ask him not to press the matter now, but to study the reply which has been given and, if it should be found that this is a satisfactory reply, it will conclude the matter. If not we can consider it again.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his explanation and undertaking. He did say that if the point were a valid one then it would have a general application, and that, if that be the case, the appropriate method was for general and not special legislation to deal with that. I gather that sooner or later—it may be sooner—the Government propose to introduce a Bill extending the power of investment of trustees generally. If that be the case, it seems to me that might be a useful vehicle for dealing with this matter. Perhaps the noble Viscount would bear that in mind.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged.
LORD LATHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [New investors to be given copies of accounts]:
5.2 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() For the purposes of this section any subscription for shares to a value of less than one pound made in order that the subscriber shall qualify as a person to whom the building society may make advances shall be disregarded."
The noble Duke said: Following on the new clause which was brought in under Amendment 31A, I am not quite certain whether this Amendment is not now redundant. I do not know whether my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal can give me any guidance on this point. It has to do with those who are not really investors but have a share in the society so that they can borrow. I am more than happy to move the Amendment as it stands, but it may be affected by Amendment 31A.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It may help my noble friend if I were to say that, if he does move it, I shall accept it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: On that consideration I shall move it. I think the Amendment is self-explanatory. Under the clause as at present drafted, many societies will be required to provide to all new borrowers a copy of their accounts. In the case of a large society this will mean a great deal of work and expense. If carried, the effect of the Amendment would be to confine this requirement to actual investors in a society as opposed to those who are borrowers, holding a token share in the society in order to permit them to borrow. The great majority of companies insist that a borrower from a company must be a member of it, and therefore he has what amounts to a token share, one of a few shillings or not more than a pound. My Association feel that there should be no requirement that these people, who are but technical investors in the society, should have a copy of the accounts sent to them every year. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41 at end insert the new subsection.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As I indicated, I am going to accept the Amendment. If anyone else wants to endorse it or criticise it, he may do so; but I am authorised to accept it, and I do.
LORD LATHAM: I rise merely to make the suggestion that it might be convenient for the Committee, and will expedite the business, if Amendment No. 67, which deals with the same point, were dealt with at the same time
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know that it really would, because we have to deal with it where it comes in the Bill. But I will accept it when it is moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Duty to keep register]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved in subsection (1) to leave out "keep at its chief office" and insert "maintain". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 deal with the same subject. Clause 24
778
requires a building society to keep a register of names and addresses of its members, and this register is to be available in certain circumstances to inspection by members of the society. The object of this provision is that certain rights which members are given under other statutory provisions—for instance, the right to requisition a meeting—may be frustrated unless a member wishing to take action can find out who his fellow members are and where they live. Most building societies already keep a central register at their head office, and no doubt they will continue to do so. But attention has been drawn to two practices which we think are not inherently unreasonable and ought to be covered by the Bill, and this Amendment is designed to cover them.
Some societies may find it preferable to keep a register not at the head office but at some other office, for example where all their accounting work is done. In most cases there could be no objection to this. Of course, a society which was trying to evade the law might seek to evade the purpose of this clause by keeping its register in the Outer Hebrides or some other inaccessible place in order to make access to it difficult. For this reason it is proposed in the new subsection (2) to ensure that arrangements of this sort, which are not likely to arise in many cases, should be subject to the Registrar's consent.
Secondly, one or two of the largest societies may find it administratively burdensome to be obliged to keep a central register with the names and addresses of literally millions of members. It may be more convenient to keep separate parts of the register at branch offices, and such an arrangement might be more convenient to members, who would be able to obtain the names and addresses of other members in their own locality with less difficulty. Again, it is necessary to ensure, by requiring the Registrar's consent, that the scope for splitting up the register is not abused, since he might easily find it necessary to require that no part of the register contained fewer than, say, 1,000 names and addresses. The Amendment to line 25 is designed to ensure that in cases where the register is kept in whole or in part in some other place than the head office, members shall be told where it is kept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("keep at its chief office") and insert ("maintain").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, at end insert—
("() The said register shall be kept at the office of the building society except that the building society may, with the consent in writing of the registrar, keep the register, or parts of the register, at one or some of its other offices.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (2), to omit all words from "writing" down to and including "application", and to insert:
"in conformity with subsection (3) of this section".
The noble Lord said: I am not going to move this Amendment, which runs in together with Amendment No. 39. The Council of the Building Societies' Association view this clause with some concern, but further consideration has led them to the view that this Amendment, as at present drafted, would not do, and that at some later stage another Amendment will be put down. But I do not move Amendment No. 37, nor, when we come to it, Amendment No. 39.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment, which I have already explained.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, after ("given") insert "all necessary information as to the place or places where the register or a part of the register is kept and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ELTON: If it is in order for me to ask two factual questions, may I point out that the object of this clause is to require building societies to keep registers? They already do so, of course, and some have addressing machines; and the small technical point involved is this: apparently these machines are constructed to record the initials of members but not their Christian names. Similarly, when there is more than one holder of
780
a security, the machine will record the name of the first holder and after that will say "and another", or "and others". It would be very helpful if we may be told whether in subsection (1) of this clause the word "names" necessarily means the full Christian name and surname, or whether the requirements of the clause will be met by the existing machinery of the societies, which is constructed to record only the initials. We should also like to know whether, when accounts are held jointly in the names of more than one person it will be sufficient to record the name and address of the first holder, with an indication that there are other joint holders.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Questions as to names are always difficult, but on the first point which my noble friend has raised I would say that the intention is that the list should be simply a list of names and addresses which will enable members to be identified and contacted. It is not specified in the clause that full names should be inserted and I am told, with authority, that we are satisfied that the courts would not interpret it in such an unduly onerous sense. I do not think it would be possible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to what particulars of names or addresses should be included, but it is not intended that full names should be given in order to meet the requirement.
Secondly, my noble friend asked whether, when an account is held jointly in the names of two or more members, it would be sufficient for the register to contain the name and address of the first holder only, with an indication that the account is held also in other names. It is perfectly fair to say that my noble friend gave me notice of this question and I am therefore not taken unawares by it; but here my advice is not so clear. I am told that there are complications which I should like further time to consider. Similar points may arise on other clauses relating to members in regard to, for example, the circulation of accounts. I will undertake to examine this point to see whether an Amendment is required at a later stage. I am afraid that that is the best I can do at the moment.
LORD ELTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause:
Special resolutions
".—(1) For the purposes of this Act a resolution passed at a meeting of a building society shall be a special resolution if passed by not less than three-fourths of the number of the members of the building society qualified to vote on a special resolution and voting in person or by proxy on a poll on the resolution.
The members qualified to vote on a special resolution shall be all the members of the building society except that, if the rules of the building society so provide, members who, at the end of the last financial year before the date of the meeting, did not hold shares in the building society to a value of one pound or more shall net be qualified to vote.
(2) In section thirty-three of the principal Act (under which two or more building societies may unite) for the words from 'upon such terms' to the words 'for the purpose' there shall be substituted the words—

'(a) if the terms of the union are approved by a special resolution (as defined in the Building Societies Act. 1960) of each of the societies passed at meetings respectively convened for the purpose, and

(b) if the union obtains the concurrence in writing of the holders of not less than two thirds of the whole number of shares in each society, whether they are present at the meeting or not',

and section nineteen of the Building Societies Act. 1894 (which amends the said section thirty-three), shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section twenty-two and paragraph 4 of section thirty-two of the principal Act (which relate respectively to a change of name and to a winding up) for the references to a resolution of three-fourths of the members of a building society there shall be substituted a reference to a special resolution, and in section five of the Building Societies Act, 1940 (which relates to a transfer of engagements), for the references to a special resolution as defined by that subsection there shall be substituted references to a special resolution as defined in this section.
(4) In any rules made by a building society after the commencement of this Act the expression 'special resolution' shall, unless the context otherwise requires, means a special resolution as defined in this section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause and needs a little explanation. In general, the existing Building Societies Act leaves it to the rules of the societies as to what should be the voting rights of individual members of societies, and, in general, that is also the policy of this Bill. However, these Acts and this Bill, in Clause 26 which we are about to consider after this
782
Amendment, have selected certain issues, such as the winding up of a society, the transfer of its engagements to or its union with another society, or change of its rules or its name, as being of such fundamental importance that the voting procedure should be laid down by Statute. In general, it is stipulated that there shall be a majority of three-quarters of the members voting at the meeting. There have, however, been minor differences, and this clause replaces these requirements by a uniform requirement for a "special resolution" as defined in this clause. The additional requirement in certain cases of written consents—which sometimes exists—is not altered.
Subsection (1) sets out the requirements for special resolutions. They will need a majority of three-quarters of the number of members, and proxies will be allowed. All members will be entitled to vote, with the exception that a society's rules may exclude borrowers. This may deal with one of the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, on an earlier Amendment. The indirect method of describing borrowers as members who do not hold shares to a value of £1 or more is necessary to get over the difficulty of qualifying shares, and also occurs in Amendment No. 34 with which we have dealt. The provision for proxies was first introduced in this Bill as presented, whilst the power to disenfranchise borrowers was first included in the 1940 Act.
Subsection (2) applies this special resolution procedure to the provisions on union of societies in Section 33 of the 1874 Act, as amended by Section 19 of the 1894 Act. Subsection (3) applies the procedure to the provisions on change of name, referred to in Section 22 of the 1874 Act, winding-up (Section 32 (4) of the 1874 Act) and transfers of engagement, under Section 5 of the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940. There are a series of consequential Amendments, notably to Clause 26, dealing with change of rules, and the Third Schedule, dealing with model rules, to which we shall come in due course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: This is a new clause which I believe has been

783
put down since we met on Tuesday last, and I am not altogether clear upon it. Could the noble and learned Viscount tell us for what purpose a special resolution is required? One knows that special and extraordinary resolutions are required for certain purposes in Company Law, but I am not clear why that should be required in a Building Societies Bill. Assuming we have an answer to that, am I right in believing that what is required on a special resolution is that it be passed by not less than three-quarters of the members qualified to vote and actually voting; that it is not a question of three-quarters of the whole of the membership of the society but three-quarters of those actually voting on the particular question, either personally or by proxy if a poll is held? I assume that that is the correct interpretation.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I believe that the cases where special resolution is required are those enumerated in my speech and which are referred to in the new clause. On the second point, the noble Lord is perfectly correct.
LORD LATHAM: I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount one question on his Amendment, from which I do not dissent. Does the noble Viscount realise that it is the case that the limitation to a value of £1 or more will apply as regards voting on a special resolution, but will not apply as regards the right to inspect the register and to ask for a list of members' names and addresses? Is he aware of that distinction and does he know what the reason for the distinction is? The principal purpose of inspecting the register may well be in order to get the members of the society to consider a special resolution. Different persons can do different things. A person with a ls. share can inspect the register and also demand a list of members' names and addresses. But when it comes to giving effect to the purpose for which he asks for that information, namely, the passing of a special resolution, he may be cut out unless he has an investment shareholding of £1 or more.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As I indicated, the purpose of the exception to the general rule that all members could vote is to allow a society, if its rules so provide, to disfranchise borrowers, who have to be defined by the indirect
784
method I have described to get round the anomaly I mentioned on an earlier Amendment of a qualifying share of 1s. or 5s. It is simply a device, therefore, which is required by draftsmanship. The object is to permit societies to disfranchise, for this purpose, borrowers. The noble Lord, I think, is quite right. He is pressing me hard on ground on which he is very familiar and on which I am less familiar, but I think he is perfectly right in saying that, where the society's rules so permit, it would effectively exclude borrowers from taking part in special resolutions, and therefore one of the purposes for which they might otherwise wish to inspect the register would be of no value to them. But I do not think it is the only purpose, and I would say, therefore, that there would be other reasons why they should be entitled to inspect the register on proper occasions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Alteration of rules by special resolution]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment and Amendments 40C and 40D are consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 15, after second ("a") insert ("special").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("at") in line 17.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 22, after ("by") insert ("special").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Rules to be approved by Chief Registrar
".—(1) Any new rule, and any alteration to an existing rule, made by a building society shall be of no effect until it has been approved by the Chief Registrar.
(2) Upon a requisition to that effect signed by ten investing members of a building society, any rule or part of a rule of that society shall be submitted to the Chief Registrar for his approval, and if within a period of two months from the date of the requisition the Chief Registrar has not signified his approval to the society, such rule or part of a rule shall cease to have effect:
Provided that, in any case where, in the opinion of the Chief Registrar, the operation of this subsection would, apart from this proviso, prevent the society from carrying on its business satisfactorily, he may extend the said period by two months only."
The noble Lord said: This new clause is intended to ensure that the rules of the building society already registered with the Chief Registrar may be reviewed in certain circumstances, and that future rules submitted to the Registrar shall have effect only when they have been approved by him. The present position is a little anomalous. Under it, any building society can pass a rule, send it with an appropriate certificate from an official—or, perhaps, of directors or members—to the effect that it complies with the Building Societies Acts, and automatically the Chief Registrar registers that rule. However, during the emergency, as it was called—that is to say, from 1940 onwards—as some members of the Committee will remember, the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was passed which authorised boards of building societies, friendly societies and other bodies to make rules without the necessity of calling meetings of their members. Quite a number of societies, I believe, took advantage of that facility—a perfectly proper one, perhaps, in the circumstances. Of course, it was intended only to deal with matters which were urgent in circumstances of emergency. But a number of the rights of members were affected during that period without their having any opportunity of meeting or voting "Aye" or "Nay".
There is a further practical point. In building society rules, as in the rules of many other bodies, in some cases the remuneration of boards of management or directors is fixed at a certain sum. Sometimes in present circumstances the sum is far too low. Sometimes that remuneration is a percentage, 1s. per £100 of assets, or 6d. per £100 of assets, as the case may be. Of course, in the case of some societies, the assets have grown enormously, by the circumstances of the time: they have doubled or trebled or perhaps have quadrupled since the
786
remuneration was fixed. I know of one society whose assets approach £200 million and whose rules fix the remuneration at 6d. per cent. on the assets. I think, if I am not mistaken, that that would amount, for some eight or nine people, to £50,000 a year in all. That amount is not in fact actually drawn in the case I am quoting but it is permissible to draw it. Some are remunerated by sums which are far too small, and they should be increased or the basis altered. For all these reasons it would seem to me proper that, on appropriate steps being taken by a requisition—and I suggest that it should be a requisition signed by ten investing members—any rule or part of a rule should be submitted to the Chief Registrar, who should approve it or otherwise; and if within a period of two months he has not signified his approval the rule should cease to have effect. The Amendment gives power to delay or to extend the period during which the Chief Registrar is required to act for a further two months. I am not bound by the words—they can probably be improved; but I hope I have made clear the sense of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Our view is that this Amendment puts too much on the Registrar. In the first place, it requires every new rule or amendment of an existing rule made after the coming into operation of this Bill to be approved by the Chief Registrar as a condition of is validity; that is the provision of subsection (1) of the new clause. In the second place, it enables any ten investing members of a society to submit any existing rule for the time being in operation to the Chief Registrar for his approval. If he did not approve it, the rule would become invalid.
The position at present is that the society must submit its rules to the Registrar when it is first registered, and it must thereafter submit for registration any new rules or amendments of existing rules. But these are submitted for registration, and not, in general, for approval. The Registrar's duty is to see that the rules contain all the provisions required to be contained by the Acts, and that the rules are in conformity with the Acts. If the rules or amendments are in accordance with the Acts in these respects,

787
the Registrar has no alternative but to register the rules. Approval is therefore not one of his functions: surveillance to ensure compliance with the Acts as a condition of registration is one of his functions. Indeed, the form of certificate of incorporation which is provided for by the Third Schedule to the Act of 1894, expressly states that incorporation of a building society does not imply any approval by the Registrar of its rules. The Amendment therefore constitutes a change of existing policy as embodied in the Acts.
The difficulty about accepting this Amendment lies mainly in two factors. The power which it confers on the Chief Registrar would presumably require him to scrutinise a rule to determine whether, in the particular circumstances of the case and of the society concerned, the rule was, among other things, equitable and would work fairly and justly. Our view is that this would be a difficult—it might be impossible—position in which to put the Registrar. In many cases he might need to consider conflicting interests in a society, and he might have to come down in favour of one interest rather than another. It might also require the Registrar to consider the relative advantages or disadvantages of a particular course of action, and so accept responsibility for one policy rather than another. Also, we think, at any rate, that approval tends to give a false impression, and perhaps even a false sense of security, to members and to potential investors—which is, perhaps, I should have thought, one of the strongest arguments against providing for it in the Bill.
I think that none of us should forget that, in spite of their great size and complexity, building societies are in the last resort still societies; and, that being so it is for their members to determine the rules. And, subject to their conforming with the general Acts which deal with questions of public policy, we do not think that the functions and responsibilities of members should be inhibited. We think that the responsibility should rest on their shoulders. As a matter of fact, the clause which we have just discussed, Clause 26, does make it more difficult in some cases, at any rate, to alter the rules of societies by including the provisions for special resolutions which we
788
have been discussing, so that anything underhand can be avoided. It is also fair to say that the Chief Registrar has plenty of power in other parts of the Bill to take appropriate action against a society which is acting against the interests of its investors. Indeed, I have heard some criticism in the course of these discussions that the powers might even be considered excessive; and I should think that such powers might well cover a society whose rules were in fact oppressive. At any rate, in our view there is already in the Bill all the power needed to deal adequately with societies which have become a danger to their members; and, on balance, we think that this Amendment would probably do more harm than good, although in many ways I appreciate both the way in which the noble Lord has moved it and the reasons which he has advanced.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I appreciate all the noble Viscount has said, but he has not, of course, dealt with my point about those rules which were passed during the emergency, and which were not put before a meeting of members. I fully agree with him that the members should have control of the society. It is my complaint that in some respects that is not the case. For example, some societies hitherto, prior to this Bill, have given notice of their meetings only by advertisement, and the result has been that only a handful have attended. Most of that handful, in some circumstances, are employees of the society, and it may be not a majority of the ordinary members of the society.
This Bill provides (and I am very happy to see it) that written notice of meetings has to be sent to members, and I hope that that will result in a better attendance. But during the war, when most of us were engaged on endeavouring to win the war, provision was made, quite properly, permitting boards of directors and committees of management to pass rules which did not have to come before a meeting. In those instances, therefore, they were not in fact passed by members, but were passed with the authority, perhaps, or under the direction, of the Chief Registrar by the boards of management or the directors themselves. However, the matter having been ventilated, perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to look at it again;

789
and, if he will so so, as I have no desire to press it unduly, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Annual general meeting]:
5.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (2), to omit "on the application of any member of the building society". The noble Viscount said: Clause 28 (2) provides that if a building society fails to hold its annual general meeting within the first four months of the financial year, as the clause requires, the Chief Registrar may direct it to call such a meeting, and may issue such other directions as may be necessary. As the clause is drafted at present, the Chief Registrar cannot take the initiative in issuing such directions, but can do so only on the application of a member of the society. We think that there is no need to require such an application. In practice, the Chief Registrar will doubtless be unlikely to act unless a member of the society communicates with him, since he will probably otherwise be unaware of the default. But in principle, if the society is in default, we think that the Chief Registrar ought to be free to act on his own initiative. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 21, leave out from ("may,") to ("call") in line 22.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is, I think, little more than a drafting Amendment, as is No. 44, which follows it. As the Bill is drafted, there is some ambiguity whether the references in lines 37 and 41 to an annual meeting held by the building society "for" a year (say, 1960) meant the meeting held in 1960 relating to the business transacted in 1959 or the meeting held in 1961 to discuss the society's business transacted in 1960. In fact it is the former that is meant, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, leave out ("for that year,") and insert ("so as to require the holding of an annual general meeting in that financial year and in subsequent financial years,").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert ("so as to require the holding of an annual general meeting in the financial year beginning in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-one and in subsequent financial years".—(Viscount Hailsham.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Keeping of books of account and office management]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 28, leave out ("that") and insert ("this").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment goes with the following Amendment, No. 47. Subsection (2) of Clause 33 requires societies to establish a system of supervising their cash holdings, and subsection (3) requires them to establish a system to ensure the safe custody of mortgage deeds. It has been pointed out to the Government that there is no corresponding requirement of a system of control over other assets, principally investments of surplus funds. These Amendments remedy this deficiency by including all documents of title belonging to the society—stock certificates to bearer and share certificates—in the system for control of mortgage deeds required by subsection (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 36, after ("of") insert ("all documents of title belonging to the building society and of").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 40, after ("such") insert ("document of title or").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Signing of balance sheet]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the chairman" and insert "two of the directors". The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, I rise to move Amendment No. 48, and it may be convenient to take No. 49 with it. As the Bill is drafted, it requires the balance sheet to be signed by the chairman. The usual practice of a company is that the balance sheet should be signed by two directors. It may be that the chairman is not available or is not accessible, and in these circumstances difficulties might arise. Amendment No. 48 substitutes two directors for the chairman.
Amendment No. 49 deals with the question of manager. Many building societies adopt the title "manager" rather than secretary, and therefore it is suggested that, "manager or" should be included in the clause. Section 155 of the Companies Act prescribes that the accounts and balance sheet shall be signed by two directors, and if there is only one, that it should be signed by him. There is nothing about the secretary or manager. But I have found that with regard to banking, companies registered after 1879 the balance sheet must be signed by the secretary or manager, if any, and where there are more than three directors, it must be signed by at least three, and if there are not more than three directors then by all. I apprehend that the noble Viscount will be willing to accept both these Amendments and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 39, leave out ("the chairman") and insert ("two of the directors").—(Lord Latham.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As the noble Lord has indicated, I am very happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LATHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 40, after the first ("the") insert ("manager or").—(Lord Latham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Auditors' report]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) The report shall state whether the balance sheet and revenue and appropriation account are properly drawn up in accordance with the requirements of this Act and the regulations made thereunder and whether, in the opinion of the auditors, they give a true and fair view—

(a) in the case of the balance sheet, of the state of the building society's affairs as at the end of its financial year; and

(b) in the case of the revenue and appropriation account, of the income and expenditure of the building society for its financial year.

(4) It shall be the duty of the auditors of a building society in preparing their report under this section to carry out such investigations as will enable them to form an opinion—

(a) as to whether the building society has kept proper books of account and proper records of the matters referred to in subsection (3) of section thirteen of this Act, and

(b) as to whether the building society has maintained a satisfactory system of control over its transactions and records, and, in particular, whether the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of section thirty-three of this Act have been complied with, and

(c) as to whether the balance sheet and revenue and appropriation account are in agreement with the books of account and records of the building society,

and if the auditors are of opinion that the building society has failed to keep proper books of account or proper records of the matters referred to in subsection (3) of section thirteen of this Act, or to maintain a satisfactory system of control over its transactions and records, or if the balance sheet and revenue and appropriation account are not in agreement with the books of account and records of the building society, the auditors shall state that fact in their report."
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 50 and 52 go together. They are intended to replace the provisions in subsection (3) of Clause 40 about the form of the auditors' certificate on the annual accounts. They have been prepared as the result of further discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants since the publication of the Bill, and on behalf of the Government I must record our thanks for their assistance in this matter. The main effect of the Amendment is considerably to reduce the length of the certificate which will be required in most cases. Under the clause as drafted, the auditors are required to report on seven points, mentioning, all seven irrespective of whether everything was in order or not. They will now only be required

793
to report in all circumstances whether the accounts are properly drawn up and show a true and fair view of the society's affairs. They will be put under a duty to consider the other points and to report on them if anything is wrong.
There are arguments in favour of both forms. The principal argument in favour of the short report is that any adverse report immediately stands out as being longer than normal, and the members' attention is immediately attracted to it. If, however, the report were as long irrespective of whether it was favourable or adverse, it can be argued that members would be deterred from reading what appeared to be a formal repetition of almost unintelligible phrases and might well miss an adverse comment included in the middle of it. An argument for the long report is that it brings to the auditor's attention before he signs it the points which he is under a duty to consider. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, however, have assured us that the shorter certificate will in no way lower the standards of auditing.
The Building Societies Act, 1894, followed the short form of report, and the Companies Act, 1948, followed the long form. Clause 40 as originally drafted was modelled on the Companies Act. However, the Government feel that some different factors apply in the cases of building societies and companies, notably the larger number of people to whom the accounts have to be circulated and in general their smaller experience of financial matters, and on reconsideration have decided that the balance of advantage lies, in the case of building societies, with the short report. Because of the different factors involved, it must be understood that this decision in no way prejudices any consideration which the Jenkins Committee may give to this point in relation to companies. These Amendments also provide for certain minor improvements of detail, which have been incorporated as the result of suggestions by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsections.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can describe this Amendment as drafting; it is certainly vary minor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 24, leave out from ("accounts") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("records and vouchers of the building society and to all other documents relating to the affairs of the building society (including the deeds relating to property mortgaged to the building society,)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 28, at end insert ("; and if the auditors fail to obtain all the information and explanations which to the best of their knowledge and belief are necessary for the purposes of their audit, they shall state that fact in their report.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Commencement of provisions relating to accounts, annual summary of business, directors' report and audit.]
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 41, leave out ("appropriation and revenue") and insert ("revenue and appropriation").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 41, leave out ("annual summary of business").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Making of annual return].
LORD LATHAM: On behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move this Amendment. It deals with a question already decided upon by your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 14, leave out ("the chairman") and insert ("two of the directors").— (Lord Latham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD LATHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 15, after the first ("the") insert ("manager or").—(Lord Latham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Information to be given on unions and transfers of engagements]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment and Nos. 57B and 57c are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 31, leave out ("In a case").— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 31, leave out from first ("of") to first ("the") in line 33.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 33, leave out from ("thirty-three") to second ("the") in line 35.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after Clause 52 to insert the following new clause:
Failure to sell property after foreclosure etc.
".—(1) If a building society contravenes the proviso to section thirteen of the principal Act (which directs that land mortgaged to a building society shall, if the building society becomes absolutely entitled to the land, be sold or converted into money) the building society shall be liable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction to a fine which, on summary conviction, shall not exceed two hundred pounds and every officer of the building society who is in default shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both, and

(b) on summary conviction to a tine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

(2) This section shall not apply to an offence committed before the commencement of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This new clause remedies an oversight in the Bill as presented. Under Section 13 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, a society is required to sell any property to which it becomes absolutely entitled, for example by foreclosure, "as soon as may be conveniently practicable." Failure to do so was an offence under the general offences section, Section 21 of the Building Societies Act, 1894. This latter section is being repealed, as specific provision has been made in this Bill for the other offences covered by it. However, no provision was made in the Bill as presented for failure to carry out this particular duty.
The new clause therefore provides that failure to sell the property in these cases will continue to be an offence, and since this could be used as a device to evade Clauses 1 and 10, the penalty is the same as in those clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Increase of certain other penalties]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 13, which provide for the repeal of Section 12 of the Building Societies Act, 1939. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 30, leave out paragraph (e).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 38, leave out ("section twelve and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after Clause 55 to insert the following new clause:
Time limit for commencement of summary proceedings
".—(1) Notwithstanding any limitation on the time for the taking of proceedings contained in any Act, summary proceedings for any offence under this Act or for any offence under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to

797
1940, committed after the commencement of this Act may, subject to the provisions of the next folic wing subsection, be commenced by the Chief Registrar at any time within the period of one year beginning with the date on which evidence, sufficient in the opinion of the Chief Registrar to justify a prosecution for the offence, comes to his knowledge; and for the purposes of this subsection a certificate, purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Chief Registrar, as to the date on which such evidence came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence thereof.
(2) Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall authorise the commencement of proceedings for any offence at a time more than three years after the date on which the offence was committed.
(3) This section shall have effect in its application to Scotland as if, in subsection (1), the words 'by the Chief Registrar' were omitted."
The noble Viscount said: Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, imposes a limit of six months within which a prosecution for a summary offence must be brought unless another Act expressly provides otherwise. This is not entirely appropriate to the case of building societies. In their case the Registrar has usually to rely on the statutory annual returns and on information from the public to discover an offence. Since the annual return does not have to be submitted to the Registrar earlier than three months after the end of the financial year to which it relates and since further inquiries are usually required before proceedings can be instituted, the six months' limit has proved an obstacle to prosecutions. This difficulty has been overcome in several other, perhaps analogous, Acts administered by the Chief Registrar by providing that prosecutions may be brought within one year of discovery, subject to a limit of three years. The new clause follows these precedents, one of which is the closely analogous case of the Industrial and Provident Societies' Amendment Act, 1954 Subsection (1) provides that the date of discovery of the evidence on which the prosecution is based shall be certified by or on behalf of the Chief Registrar, and imposes a limit of one year from the certified date of discovery as the period during which proceedings may be commenced. Subsection (2) imposes a maximum limit on the commencement of proceedings of three years from the date of the offence; subsection (3) retains the requirement of the Chief Registrar's certificate in the case of proceedings instituted in Scotland, but
798
provides for the fact that such proceedings will not technically be commenced by the Chief Registrar. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 55, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, before Clause 56, to insert the following new clause:
Form of registers, etc.
".—(1) Any register, record or book of account to be kept by a building society may be kept either by making entries in bound books or by recording the matters in question in any other manner.
(2) Where any such register, record or book of account is not kept by making entries in a bound book but by some other means, adequate precautions shall be taken for guarding against falsification and facilitating its discovery, and where default is made in complying with this subsection, the building society and every officer of the building society who is in default shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This new clause has been tabled at the suggestion of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It follows the lines of Section 436 of the Companies Act, 1948. Subsection (1) makes it clear that any register, record or books of accounts, which is required by Statute, may be kept in the form of a bound book or in any other form, for instance, a register of members could consist of the racks of addressograph plates and the accounts could be in loose leaf form. Subsection (2) requires adequate precautions to be taken against falsification and makes default an offence under this Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Before Clause 56, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Proceedings on a petition by Chief Registrar for winding up a building society]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("who were").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Provisions as to regulations and orders]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential to the amendment of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("other than a statutory instrument containing an order under section one of this Act").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 12 leave out ("named") and insert ("name").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential on No. 40A. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 23, at end insert ("'special resolution' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Special resolutions) of this Act").— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This and the following Amendment are designed for the same reason as the Amendment advanced and accepted to Clause 22—namely, that borrowers from building societies are also members of the society, and for this reason are generally required to have a nominal holding. There is one variation from that. In some cases, some societies' borrowers are treated as having a freeholding equivalent to the amount of their advance. These two Amendments provide that the word "shares" means shares held by investors, and any shares issued to borrowers as such shall be disregarded. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 37, leave out ("and").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am happy to say that I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, at end insert ("and any share held by a person to whom the building society has, as the holder of the share, made an advance shall be disregarded.")—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after Clause 63, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of powers of building societies to certain overseas territories
".—(1) If it appears to Her Majesty that there exist in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Ghana or the Federation of Malaya, or in any other sovereign state, laws for regulating building societies substantially similar to the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960, then She may by Order in Council make provision—

(a) for enabling building societies as defined in this Act to carry on business and make advances in any of those territories on the security of land in such territory, subject to any such law as aforesaid and to any conditions which may be specified in the Order;

(b) for enabling, subject as aforesaid, such building societies to create, or assist in the creation of, building societies in any of those territories; and

(c) for ancillary purposes.

Any such Order in Council may also provide that a building society whose seat is in any such territory may exercise similar powers in the United Kingdom, subject to such provisions of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960, as the Order may specify.
(2) Her Majesty may also by Order in Council direct that, for the purpose of enabling building societies as defined in this Act to carry on business and make advances in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory upon the security of land in such colony, protectorate or territory, the provisions of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960, shall extend, with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations, if any, as may be specified in the Order, to such colony, protectorate or territory.
(3) Any Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made, but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This new clause is, in my submission, a most important one, and one which, if approved in principle, can have the greatest possible advantages to the Commonwealth in particular, and also to this country. The short object is to extend or permit the extension of the beneficent operations of buildings societies, their knowledge and their financial stability, to overseas territories, some of which I have mentioned in the Amendment, and especially, of course, to the Commonwealth. Your, Lordships are aware that building societies originated in this country, and there are quite a number of countries which have no building societies at all, or anything analogous thereto. There are countries which have a few small struggling building societies, usually requiring "know-how" and finance. Of course, there are one or two countries in the Commonwealth which have building societies of some substance.
It appears to me, and will, I hope, appear to others of your Lordships, that if we could give building societies help to carry on their operations in other countries of the Commonwealth, as in subsection (1) (a) of my new clause, to carry on business themselves and make advances to any of those territories on the security of land in those territories, or, secondly, to enable building societies to create, or assist in the creation of, building societies in any of those territories, it would be a good thing. My proposal, therefore, is that power should be given to building societies, under such conditions as may be laid down, to lend monies on the security of land or property and, in addition, to permit building societies in this country to help by the provision of finance, "know how" or the actual setting-up of building societies in overseas territories.
Obviously, either of those procedures would be a great advantage to the territories concerned. They would get to know our "know how", and would have the opportunity of investing in building societies set up in those territories, thereby encouraging thrift, which is one of the main assets, I think, of the building society movement in this country. They would also have the opportunity, under laws similar to those of this country, to make advances to persons, either white, black or any other colour, who fulfil the conditions laid down on which advances
802
can be made. Any such procedure would obviously result in funds going out from this country with interest coming back. For example, in the case of Canada, I believe I am right in saying that there are no building societies as such. There is the National Mortgage Corporation, but, as I understand it, it does not fulfil the precise functions fulfilled by building societies so satisfactorily for the most part in this country. British Guiana has already made representations to Her Majesty's Government asking for assistance in the setting up of building societies. One knows something about housing conditions in the Caribbean, and there again I believe that there is a demand for help and, maybe, finance from this country.
Of course it is not only a question of finance, which indeed might have to be provided only in the first instance. I believe that if building societies were set up under the auspices of our British building societies in some of these overseas territories, with a certain amount of preliminary finance the confidence so engendered would result in the local residents investing their money, little by little, in the building society and in turn borrowing that money for the purpose of purchasing or building their own houses. In my submission, this can be a most potent form of propaganda on behalf of the United Kingdom. It would do something to extend knowledge of our British way of life. It is not merely a matter of money. In fact, the general secretary and representatives or members of the Building Societies Association have been out to some of these territories and have given advice and help. But, so far, owing to the operation of the Building Societies Acts, no building society in this country has had power either to initiate or assist in creating, or to itself operate in, any of these overseas territories.
I do not think I need delay your Lordships further. If it is said that there are plenty of houses to be built in this country, and that the funds of building societies are well occupied, that may well be the case. But I cannot believe that for such an object as this it is not possible for one or two of the larger building societies, or a consortium of building societies, or the Building Societies Association, in some form to get together and take steps to extend

803
these magnificent activities to other parts of the Commonwealth. Looking to the future, I feel that the passing of this new clause, or some other clause which may be drafted giving these powers, would render very great service. I therefore venture to commend it most sincerely to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 63, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Milner of Leeds.)
LORD BARNBY: I wish to record strong support for this Amendment. It is a peculiar thing that hitherto these facilities have not been statutorily permissible in the Dominions. All Parties politically in this country have always been very proud of the great achievements this movement has made possible in giving assistance in housing. The noble Lord has given in a few words very convincing reasoning in favour of this Amendment. Surely it is a peculiar gap that hitherto this type of "know-how" and finance has not been made available to the Dominions. We know that there are building societies in the Dominions. We know that there are many other financial fields, prototypes in the Dominions such as were piloted here by long experience in this country, and so one would feel that there can be little reason against it.
On the question of finance there have been arguments that we cannot afford and should not permit any kind of money to go out of this country to build houses in the Dominions when there is such a need for houses in this country. That seems a very poor argument, and I deal with it only in anticipation that it might be mentioned now. Curiously enough, a not similar but analogous form of assistance to finance for those who are less affluent in the Dominions is in hire purchase of all kinds. We have recently seen a tremendous development in all the Dominions and many of the Colonies of the projection of the British experience and "know-how" into these fields in order to assist those who habitually are unable to finance themselves and therefore employ organisations like building societies. It is interesting (perhaps I may have the indulgence of the Committee to mention this) that according to Sir Eric Harrison in the Daily Telegraph:
"The Dutch Government obtained a loan of £3 million from the United States Development
804
Loan Fund. This loan has been met pound for pound by Australian banks and the total sum is being fed into the Co-operative Building Societies but comprised solely of immigrants from Holland. The societies arrange individual loans to members and take mortgages on houses under construction."
It is reported from other sources that the Italian Government also, with the support of Italian banks, are financing to the extent of £2½ million the building of 1,000 homes for Italian immigrants into Australia. It surely is a most peculiar thing that hitherto this privilege and advantage has been denied to all those of adventurous spirit who wish to go out to the Dominions. It seems to me such a large gap that we ought to feel indebted to my noble friend for suggesting that this be included in the Bill, and I naturally hope that the noble Viscount may find his way to accept the Amendment. I strongly support it.
LORD HASTINGS: I intervene with some diffidence because I am not at all knowledgeable about building societies, but I noted that this Amendment concerned Commonwealth countries and Colonies and, of course, that aroused my interest. It seems to me that there is no intention in this Amendment that building societies should indulge in any speculative business in the Commonwealth or Colonies but that they should remain subject to the stringent regulations laid down in this Bill or similar regulations which would be enacted in the countries concerned. It is no doubt well known to your Lordships that the Colonial Development Corporation, part of whose business is of course equities, did in fact start a building society in the Federation of Malaya, and also, if I am not wrong, another in the Federation of Nigeria. The results prove that those societies were very greatly needed; and, incidentally, they have not only fulfilled a crying need but proved extremely profitable business. That is especially so in the Federation of Malaya. I think there is little doubt that in many of these countries named in the Amendment home ownership schemes are going in the future to be increasingly needed and of tremendous importance, both economically and, of course, politically, and that in those countries there now arise, and will continue to arise, difficulties of finding local finance for these building societies. I will not support the noble Lord who

805
moved the Amendment quite to the extent of saying that it is not a matter of money. There are all sorts of other benefits accruing, but I would put it to the noble Viscount that it is a matter of money and exceedingly good business. Therefore I hope he will consider this Amendment very favourably.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course, what has been said has a great deal of attraction in it. I suppose that every one of us would be inclined to agree that there is considerable scope for the extension of loans for house purchase overseas. I am not sure that I quite understand the phrase "know-how" in this connection. It has many meanings, and it seems to me that this connection is perhaps not the most appropriate context in which to use it. But I think we can all agree that British societies can give, to countries which want to start building societies of their own, advice and technical assistance. But as to the first point, that there is room for extension of loans for house purchase overseas, it does not by any means follow from that premise, as I think all three noble Lords who have spoken seem to assume, that the right technique of providing it is that the building societies here, who represent a particular class of investor, should necessarily invest their money by the extension of loans for house purchase overseas. On the contrary, other methods—a State-aided mortgage bank or a mortgage corporation relying on investment of foreign risk capital—have all been tried, and I think with a measure of success. I think it has to be proved that it is a proper use of British-based building societies to engage in this class of business.
Secondly, I would also agree, of course, as I said, that our building societies here can in truth and in fact offer very great help to countries overseas to start building societies over there. But that, I am afraid, seems to me almost the opposite of what is proposed in this Amendment. What is proposed is not that they should help countries in the Commonwealth to start building societies of their own, but that, if Her Majesty is satisfied that they already have building societies of their own, instead of helping them to start building societies of their own, or helping these building societies to indulge in other business—
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Would the noble Viscount permit me? He is quite in error here. What I have said in my Amendment is that:
"If it appears to Her Majesty that there exist … laws for regulating building societies substantially similar …".
Then I mention the territories concerned and go on in paragraph (a) to provide that our societies should be enabled to make advances, and that they should be able to help in the creation of building societies in any of those territories. That is what I intend: that building societies here should be enabled, for example, to put up preliminary capital and to make the first advances when I believe that capital would come in from the territories themselves. I suggest that they should be able to send out, possibly a manager or an official, or a number of officials and staff, to create building societies in these territories. Although I said earlier that it was not a question of money, in the first instance it probably is; but I hope that that may not be necessary for too long. But the technique is also necessary in order to make them a success. I think the noble Viscount was in error in stating that my proposal was not to help Commonwealth countries to set up societies of their own.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not believe that either of us is really in error about this; it is that we take a different view about the same subject. What I was saying was that of course one can concede that it may be a most useful thing—I think it is—for a building society here to give technical advice and assistance for the creation of a building society in the Commonwealth. Perhaps I was going too far in saying that that was the opposite of what is proposed; but it is not the same thing, because the essence of this proposal is that building societies here should invest in house property, not in building societies in the Commonwealth. That is not the same thing at all. I may have overstated the case, but I think I have now stated it correctly. I do not think that the conclusion follows from the premise at all.
The purposes of a building society are defined in the Principal Act as
"making advances to members … upon the security of freehold, leasehold or copyhold estate by way of mortgage."

807
This has a meaning peculiar to English law. Exact parallels do not exist in all overseas territories. Consequently, the provision in subsection (1) that would enable societies to operate in countries where
"laws for regulating building societies substantially similar to the Building Societies Acts"
are in operation, would have to be enlarged to restrict operations to those countries where something approaching English or Scots mortgage and property law applied. Without this provision the building society investor might lose some of the safeguards which English mortgage law offers him.
The main purpose of the Building Societies Acts is to protect the investor from the application of his funds with insufficient security. That is the purpose, and it is precisely because investors in building societies are, and have been proved to be, persons who may be vulnerable in one way or another that this and other Acts have been passed. The Registrar exists in order to see that building societies registered in this country operate in a manner which will ensure a reasonable degree of security; the Bill extends his powers for this purpose. But I must say, frankly, that the operations of British building societies overseas could not be policed in this way so easily. The proposed new clause attempts to avoid this objection by limiting overseas operations to countries where a code similar to our own might exist. This would presumably involve a sort of "Interpol" of Building Society Registrars, exchanging information and returns. I would say that the practical difficulties would be considerable, and the drafting of a suitable Order in Council would be made more complex than the drafting of this enabling provision has been.
It is said that British savings should be used to encourage house purchase in Britain. That may or may not be so, but I certainly see no shortage of outlets for such savings in the foreseeable future. I do not think that there is any widespread demand for such a provision, although obviously the noble Lord would not have moved his Amendment if he had not felt that he could gain a certain amount of support—and he has had able and eloquent support in this
808
discussion. But only the largest societies have sufficient management resources safely to take on overseas business. One can foresee that some societies might be tempted to indulge in it unsuitably, and I must say that I see a certain amount of disadvantage from that point of view.
It is, of course, the policy of the Government to assist economic and social development in under-developed countries in the Commonwealth, but I do not think that this would be the particular chosen instrument to do it. But even if it were, our view is that it is likely that in practice any overseas mortgage business would be channelled into relatively developed countries which are quite capable of providing their own building society movement. Canada has been mentioned in the Amendment. There again, one would think that there were disadvantages as well as advantages in our building society movement investing in this way, and there are certainly investments which would bring more immediate benefit in our balance of payments position than that. I do not wish to appear unsympathetic to the underlying enthusiasm behind this Amendment, but I would question whether this is the way in which building societies over here would be wise to proceed; and the advice I have received is, that it is not considered likely that this is the best way of doing things. For that reason, I would ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I speak with a certain amount of trepidation because the hour is late, and, like my noble friend Lord Hastings, I certainly do not understand the legal phrases of this Bill. But, again like the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I am conscious of the need for assistance in providing houses for people in many parts of the British Commonwealth. I think the noble Viscount will be aware of the feeling of this House generally towards this Amendment. I am quite certain, too, that my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds would not pretend that the words of his Amendment as they now stand should be written into the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Viscount could make a point for us by taking some thought, and by seeing whether it is possible, with his friends, to devise an Amendment to

809
the Bill which would meet what I think is the feeling of the Committee, and would make it possible for building societies, if they wish—I stress the phrase "if they wish"—to operate in certain parts of the British Commonwealth. The noble Viscount made the point, which I think we all accept, that the Registrar would be in some difficulties in regard to investments which are made overseas. But surely insurance companies are in a rather similar position, yet they are operating profitably throughout the world. If the insurance companies can carry on their business efficiently and profitably, I can see no reason why we should deny that opportunity to British building societies.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: While it would seem that there may be no objection to having this clause in the Bill, I can hardly imagine that in the foreseeable future any building society would be likely to want to use it. The type of operation implied here is so utterly foreign to the ideas of directors of building societies on the use of their funds that I should have thought it was really a waste of time. I do not know what may be the attitude of the Building Societies' Association on this question, but the investment of funds in building societies by the public is a continuing operation. It is an investment by a very large number of people of very small sums of money, and loans through building societies are being continually made and continually repaid. The rates of interest involved in those operations are adjusted to the rates prevailing at the time, enabling societies to raise the money they need so as to keep turning it round in that way; and I should have thought it impossible, for example, to keep adjusting the rates on a mortgage in, say, South Africa to suit the conditions of the money market in England, where the movements might be quite different.
It may well be that building societies here could advise and help societies in other countries, but I cannot envisage funds being exported by societies from Great Britain to other countries for that purpose. I believe it is the view of all building societies that their funds are for the provision of homes in this country, to be lent to individuals on the security of a house or a flat; and it would seem odd to export a large sum of money in one piece to some other country to be
810
used through some other agency. I feel it is very unlikely that any building society in this country would ever consider doing such a thing, although the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, says that some may wish to do so.
LORD BOOTHBY: While I can conceive many desirable forms of investment in the Commonwealth and many things which ought to be done in the way of investment in the Commonwealth, I cannot think of anything less desirable than investment there by building societies in this country—societies which were created for an entirely different purpose—in a corresponding scheme in the Commonwealth. I simply do not think it would work. "Know-how", yes—but investment of funds of our building societies could never work.
LORD BARNBY: In another place my noble friend Lord Boothby, with whom I have been associated there, would quickly have got at cross purposes with me in a Committee stage on this matter; but the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill has gone to great trouble to give reasons why, in his judgment, this was not a practicable suggestion under this Bill. As usual, he has supported his view with a generous volume of explanation, and as a result it would seem that there is a danger of a conflict of understanding about this subject.
In his remarks (and it would be difficult to define those without a reading of Hansard) the noble and learned Viscount seemed to make the position complicated, in that on the one hand he referred to actual loans by building societies to householders at the distant point where they would function, as against the possibility of building societies here acting either by the establishment of subsidiaries under statutory provision or by other means which my noble friend Lord Boothby so strongly deplored—though I do not doubt that there are many other kinds of investment in the Commonwealth which he deplores with equal intensity.
The noble and learned Viscount left us in no doubt that he feels disinclined to accept my noble friend's Amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, sagaciously put forward the suggestion that, should the noble and learned Viscount remain immovable at this stage,

811
the question might perhaps be reviewed at a later stage; because it would be a great pity if the facilities on which the noble and learned Viscount laid stress were not available. He dislikes "know-how" but accepts the word "guidance". Those are grammatical distinctions on which I will not attempt to cross swords with him; but he will not deny that there is evidence that there is an accumulation of great experience in this, as in other things. Surely the thought that this would take money out of this country into other parts of the Commonwealth is not something of which we should be afraid.
The noble and learned Viscount laid stress on the possibility of "insufficient security" and suggested that there would have to be a great limitation of operations under that heading. There is a distinction in relation to the carrying out of the noble Lord's Amendment—either starting building societies, or working through existing societies. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has explained that there are several building societies in non-white countries of the Commonwealth. We cannot brush aside the fact that this is something for which there is great need, and I believe that if the noble and learned Viscount were to review this question he would find a possible area in which the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, might assist him.
Before I sit down I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that I am given to understand that until recently the building societies of this country have accepted the statutory position that they were barred from this type of operation, but that recently there has been a marked change of attitude and that they are now in a different frame of mind about it. Although that does not necessarily mean that they will plunge in and pour money over there in a large volume, I feel that this is an important Amendment and one which could greatly affect the Commonwealth; and it would be a pity to deny the privilege of this valuable knowledge we have as a channel of assistance not only to people already in these Commonwealth countries but to adventurous and spirited migrants from this country. The Italian and Dutch Governments have already given such assistance. I pray
812
God that such migrants may continue to go out from this country, for had it not been for them we should never have had a Commonwealth. It is because of the implications of this that I hope that if the noble and learned Viscount finds he is unable to accept this Amendment he will give the Committee some encouragement by suggesting that possibly something may be hoped for at a later stage.
VISCOUNT HASTINGS: In view of the opposition of some noble Lords I should like to make clear that I approach this question from a strictly business point of view. I realise that this Bill deals principally with the safeguarding of small investments of the public in this country, and therefore I suggest that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could pay more attention to subsection 1 (b) of the clause than to any other part; because I feel that the essence of the matter lies in that subsection, which is really concerned to assist in the creation of these building societies. I visualise that with their technical knowledge and preliminary funds, obviously it might be possible for building societies here to assist in the creation of such societies elsewhere. But after that preliminary movement, naturally, the funds upon which a building society would operate in the Commonwealth countries and in Colonial territories would come from the inhabitants of those places; and even the original loan would be repaid to the parent company. In that respect, there might be some procedure which the noble Viscount could look at and consider, and perhaps produce at the next stage.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is right about it, and so was my noble friend Lord Ridley. Noble Lords have really assumed too readily that this would be a popular move in the recipient countries. I do not think that that is so. I must tell noble Lords that this was considered; it is not the first time this has been considered. It was discussed by United Kingdom and Commonwealth officials prior to the Commonwealth Economic Conference in 1958, and, as a result, United Kingdom Ministers agreed not to support any extension of building society activities to overseas territories. I do not think that noble Lords should assume, without further evidence, that it would

813
be an acceptable move at all to other people.
The business of building societies is to provide credit, to lend money. They can lend it to another society, but that is only another way of saying in the end "lending money on mortgage to people who own their own houses". I can conceive very great political difficulties arising if corporations in this country, with millions of pounds of capital which might be at their disposal at some future date—although it is not, so far as I know, available for this purpose at present—invest in owner-occupier houses in another country and foreclose on mortgages, widespread, in the interests of small investors here. And now it is solemnly said that this is imaginative, forward-looking Commonwealth stuff. I do not personally agree. I will report the course that this debate has taken, for and against, to my right honourable friend, and we will see whether the Government view can in any way be modified. But I am not convinced of this and I should be doing an injustice to the noble Lord by saying I was.
LORD BARNBY: May I ask the indulgence of the Committee to ask two points?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BARNBY: This is the Committee stage. Can he give us enlightenment on the change in the situation since 1958? I am informed that there has been a change in attitude on the part of building societies recently. Secondly, would he say something as to the dangers of a subsidiary company of a building society operating in the Dominions with a Dominion façade? What would their position be?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: How can a building society form a subsidiary company? It is not conceivable.
LORD BARNBY: They cannot do it at the moment. We are urging that this should be changed in law. That is the object of this debate.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am greatly obliged to all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and particularly to those who expressed what, in my opinion, is a very forward-looking view in regard to this matter. In
814
the first place, the power proposed is purely permissive. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will not go, in case he is inclined to when one is in process of replying to him.
LORD BOOTHBY: I did not know the noble Lord was replying to me.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: This power is purely permissive. I am not bound in any way by the wording of the Amendment, but my view of the matter is that two or three of the larger societies in this country might well get together for this purpose, as there is capital of £1,000 million or thereabouts invested here in building societies. Suppose that they put up, if you like with the authority of their members in general meeting—a lot has been said about the views of members in general meeting—£1 million for a particular Commonwealth country. That would give a building society or two or three building societies a magnificent start. They could lend money on many houses and it would enable the inhabitants or the residents themselves to contribute. It is not a question of putting up a very large sum in comparison with the sums the building societies have at their disposal here. I would not favour foolish speculation, but I would favour, with due authority from the members, the lending or putting up of money by one or more building societies in this country to enable building societies to be created in Commonwealth countries.
LORD BOOTHBY: May I ask the noble Lord one question?—because this is important. How does he propose that they should do it: by direct investment in the Commonwealth countries concerned—in other words, by giving loans on mortgage for houses, and possibly foreclosing—or by forming subsidiary companies in the Dominions? And, if the latter, how does he suggest that that should be done?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I have known the noble Lord for many years and I do not propose to be involved in the detail for which he asks. It would be perfectly simple. £1 million could be put up in some Commonwealth country to form a building society there, the money being loaned by a building society or building societies in this country to the newly created

815
society or societies there. Provision is made in this Bill for money to be lent for building societies in this country when it is needed. The latest instance of that being done was in the country of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in Scotland, where unfortunately a building society became very heavily involved and another building society had to go to its help. My view is that a similar procedure could be adopted in regard to creating building societies in other parts of the Commonwealth.
In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I would say that there are building societies which are anxious and willing to make these investments or to enable building societies to be set up in the Commonwealth and to assist them in their setting up. The noble Viscount is quite wrong in imagining that that is not the case. I should have thought that the society with which he is connected would, possibly, be very willing, with the approval of their members, to make a contribution to the setting up of a building society in some other part of the Commonwealth.
In reply to the noble Viscount who is speaking for the Government, I would say that it is not true that all countries have adequate building societies or organisations of that kind now. Canada, for one, has not; and we could make investments in Canada, as indeed many other organisations and companies have, which would in due course bring a very satisfactory dollar return to this country and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, enable the monies advanced to be returned to this country with probably considerable interest as well. At any rate, in all these Commonwealth countries we should do something to encourage thrift, to encourage better housing; and in all these countries better housing is required. There is ample scope and there are ample funds in this country, at any rate to give the movement a start; and that is all, in my judgment, that might be required.
I thought that the noble Viscount's reply, if he will forgive me for saying so, was rather a collection of pettifogging reasons for not doing anything at all in a matter in which I should have thought his side of the House would have been very forthcoming: developing the
816
Empire and Commonwealth and so forth. I should have thought that the Government would have said, "Perhaps this is not the correct way of doing it, but we will try to devise words that will give the necessary authority, with appropriate safeguards, to help in creating these homemaking institutions". As to the attitude of the Building Societies Association, I have no authority to speak for them on this matter, but I think I am entitled to say that there is certainly no active opposition to the idea. Indeed, numbers of the executives and chairmen, and so forth, of British building societies attended a Congress in Africa last year on this very subject of building societies. It was a conference which was attended by a number of Commonwealth and other countries' representatives; and I think I am entitled to say that they certainly do not oppose it. My own personal view, though I hesitate in the presence of the noble Duke to express an opinion, is that they probably favour it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think it would be true to say, on behalf of the Association, that they are entirely uncommitted on this question. They had not seen the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, until very recently. It has not gone before the Council, or before members of the Association, and I should not like to commit the Association or its Council in any way to this new clause. I feel certain that in due course they will give it due consideration, but to date they have not considered it.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am much obliged to the noble Duke. I fully accept that that is the position. I am anxious not to delay the House a moment longer than necessary. I do not know whether the noble Viscount can give me any assurance about reconsidering the matter. I understand he is going to report it to his right honourable friend. I do not know which right honourable friend he refers to. Would it he the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Department which is responsible for this Bill is the Treasury; and, of course, I meant my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Would the noble Viscount be good enough to consult also, perhaps, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office? I should have thought that they would have been the appropriate Departments. If he consults the Treasury, will he ask the Treasury whether they have not had representations from British Guiana that this sort of thing should be done? Perhaps he would be good enough to put that to them. What I propose to do, having regard to the time, is to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, while at the same time reserving all my rights with a view to putting it down again at a later stage if necessary. However, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Special terms applying to certain shares]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before I move the next Amendment, may I take the opportunity of asking noble Lords what would be their wish in this matter? Personally, my desire would be to go on and to finish, but I do not wish to incommode the Committee in this matter at all.
LORD SILKIN: I think we should all prefer to see this Committee stage through, although we have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. We had hoped to finish half an hour ago; but, speaking for my friends, I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall not in any way hold up the business.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think we can manage this fairly quickly. Amendment No. 69 is simply drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, Lave out lines 19 to 34.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Standard rules for meetings of building societies]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Both this and Amendment No. 69B are consequential on my Amendment No. 40A, which has already been passed. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
("(7) If a resolution put to the vote of the meeting is a resolution which, under the enactments relating to building societies, will not be effective unless it is passed as a special resolution, a poll shall be deemed to have been demanded by the chairman.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 3, leave out from ("vote") to second ("a") and insert—
("(2) On a poll on a resolution which, under the enactments relating to building societies, will not be effective unless it is passed as a special resolution, every member shall have one vote.
(3) On a poll on any other resolution").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 10, leave out ("More than £25") and insert ("£25 or more").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am told that this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 9, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 71B, 71C, 71D and 72A are all consequential on Amendment No. 40A, which has been passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 13, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 14 and insert ("words from resolution' to 'present' substitute 'special resolution (as defined in the Building Societies Act, 1960) passed'").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 18, leave out from ("the") to end of line 19 and insert ("words three-fourths of the members present' substitute the

819
words 'special resolution (as defined in the Building Societies Act, 1960) passed '").(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, leave out lines 20 and 21.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, leave out lines 33 to 35.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Amendment No. 72 repeals Section 12 of the 1939 Act, and is therefore consequential on Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 38, leave out ("Section four") and insert ("Sections four and twelve").(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 45, leave out from ("words") to end of line 47 and insert ("from 'means' to the end of the subsection substitute 'has the same meaning as in the Building Societies Act, 1960").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Repeals]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment and No. 74A, are both consequential on No. 40A. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 28, third column, at end insert—
("Section nineteen").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment and Amendment No. 74 are minor Amendments to the Repeals Schedule, and, I am told, need no special explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 32, at end insert—
("Subsection (3) of section six as respects advances or agreements made after the commencement of this Act.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 33, column 3, leave out ("Subsection (2) of").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 42, at end insert—

("3 & 4 Geo. 6. c.19.

The Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940.

In section five, in subsection (2), the words 'or by section nineteen of the Building Societies Act, 1894'.")

—(Viscount Hailsham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

B.B.C. AND PUBLIC POLICY
6.58 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will appoint a permanent authority, or panel, to consider the advisability or otherwise of permitting members of the staff of the B.B.C., especially on Panorama, who have no authority or responsibility, investigating and discussing matters which are the concern and responsibility of the Government and Ministers of the Crown, apparently in order to influence public opinion; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who are going to take part in this debate for remaining here so long. This Motion has been down on the Paper for a very considerable time. I tried to get it on before Easter, but I could not manage that; and since then I have done my best to get it debated. I shall be as short as I can, but I am afraid that when you begin to go into the subject of my Motion you find it is impossible to deal with it in a limited and short way. I will cut out as much as I can, but I must get certain points over now, having put my hand to the plough, so to speak.
First let me say, my Lords, what this Motion does not do. I am making no personal attack. The B.B.C. is a model of courtesy in personal dealings. What the Motion does is to call into question

821
the policy of the B.B.C. in their handling of political questions by persons without political responsibility, whatever their other merits may be. I do not suggest that that policy is due to any ambition in the B.B.C. or to a wish to give the appearance of being the "Portland Place Parliament". The airing of different views on matters that interest the public is, in general and in principle, quite right, though not, I imagine, unconditionally desirable. But when it comes to matters which it is the duty and the prerogative of Parliament to handle, the general rule does not always hold. It can be a political embarrassment to have a huge organisation like the B.B.C., with its enormously wide access to the public, maintaining a sort of standing forum. Such a forum, as we all know, can be made very seductive and attractive. It is an agreeable mixture of entertainment and education. It draws into itself, but only by switching interest from something else. The "something else" is Parliament, Westminster, which suffers a sort of diminution.
It may be that in some ways the B.B.C. advertise Parliament, but in my opinion this indirect advertisement, if it exists, falls very short of balancing the diminution of Parliament. I am well aware of a sort of co-operation that is going on between the Houses of Parliament and the B.B.C. Some legislators have a foot in both camps—and no doubt this is of advantage to them but this sort of pluralism seems to me of doubtful value to the State. Perhaps it is a prejudice, but my feeling is that things have come to this: that one should be either a Parliament man of Westminster or a man of the Portland Place Parliament, but should not mix them. That is not only my view, but also the view of many other people. The intervention of the standing forum at Portland Place disturbs the political peace by provoking a sort of malaise in the population, so far as it listens in.
The chosen experts and propagandists on the B.B.C., being irresponsible in the strict sense, talk to masses of people who, like themselves, have no direct or immediate political responsibility. The audiences listen in a mixture of interest, of amusement, of doubt, of frustration. This is the background to the inquiries and the decisions that the responsible leaders in office must make. Background
822
has its uses, but it can be something of a trial for Members of Parliament, and especially for those who hold office. They are probably not the least tough of Britishers, but the question I bear in mind, and many other people are thinking about is: Are they tough enough? I hear that a noise abatement society has been started—a very necessary body. Like many of your Lordships I have suffered severely from noise. There are noises of different sorts. This new society might well set itself to secure more peace, more freedom from all the political background that is going on, for the men who have the conduct of the nation's affairs. That ends the first part of my remarks. I have not been long yet and I am not going to be any longer than I can help.
I am not interested in B.B.C. politics, but I am interested in the result of the General Election, the composition of the House of Commons, from which, together with the House of Lords, the Cabinet and the Government are selected to accept authority and responsibility of office as Ministers of the Crown. The great bulk of our people are also interested in this. I am aware of the up-to-date Royal Charter of the B.B.C. I do not believe that the B.B.C. were intended to operate as they are now doing. I find that great numbers of our people are getting the strong opinion that the B.B.C. are arrogating to themselves the functions of Government and instructing their employees to air opinions and views which should be given publicity to our people only through the Westminster Parliament, which embraces the Cabinet, the Government and those elected by our people, and not through the Portland Place Parliament. In fact, only those who are in these responsible positions can know, through information to which only they have access, what the real situation is in regard to our home affairs and our connections with our Foreign Embassies, Allies and foreign countries.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, is nobody else to be allowed to address the public except those who are in authority over us and who therefore know?
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, there is no indication here that that is so. I think that I shall come to that in a minute. I did not mention the noble Lord's name, but I know that he is implicated in some

823
of the things I have said. What the public generally are disturbed about is the type of the persons who are interviewed, who in many cases are definitely anti-British and in opposition to those trying to help the country in these difficult days. I feel confident that Ministers must be bothered and worried by these B.B.C. activities. In reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, just said in his interruption, I would say that there is no question here of endeavouring to interfere with the expression of opinion by any citizen of this country in a private capacity. But you cannot say that the B.B.C. is in a private capacity; it is in a public capacity and has all the advantages that publicity can possibly give.
Many of your Lordships will remember that at the time of the Nyasaland trouble one representative, in particular, came over here and was permitted by the B.B.C. television to accuse the then Secretary of State, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, of being a liar. I was viewing television and I saw him do it. Is that a proper thing for any organisation such as the B.B.C. to permit? With regard to censorship of all theatres and public entertainments, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Chesham on February 9. I can see no reason why something of this nature should not apply to the B.B.C.'s activities. There is any amount of information about which we all want to hear which is perfectly proper subject for the B.B.C. I could mention them at great length—sport, entertainments generally, ceremonial, theatres, music, athletics, cricket, football, polo and many others. We want to limit, as far as possible, the publicity given to murders, to brutality and to crime generally.
My Lords, the Malayan Prime Minister was on television last Monday, and he was interrogated. He was asked many, as I thought (and one of the chief members of the Opposition was there, and he objected very much indeed) embarrassing questions, but, being a perfect gentleman, he practically told his interrogator that every question he had been asked he could not possibly answer. I was glad that he took that line, and it enhanced my opinion of him.
I ask your Lordships whether, in view of the general activities of the B.B.C.,
824
you are satisfied with the management. It is the Government at Westminster and Parliament who are responsible for determining the broad outlines of policy. The Press can criticise; but, of course, they can be answered. Finally, my Lords, I refer to my noble friend who is going to reply to the debate, and I wonder whether he is still of the opinion he expressed in his final reply to my question on February 9. [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 220 (No. 35), col. 1024.] I shall no doubt have an opportunity after the debate of referring to certain questions that will arise. I beg to move for Papers.
7.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that I may lay claim to being a "man of Parliament", although certainly I cannot lay claim to being a "man of Portland Place", because I have never had the opportunity. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will accept what I say in that matter as being said with complete impartiality. The noble Lord always endears himself to us when he speaks, and he always speaks engagingly; though sometimes, in fact very often, he expresses a somewhat novel and unusual point of view. But I am sure he would agree with me that I should be extremely discourteous if I did not take everything that he said quite seriously.
I want to deal, as briefly as possible, both with what he has said and with the terms of his Motion, to which he did not adhere very strictly. The noble Lord said that he objected to the B.B.C. providing what he called a standard forum which might be regarded as seductive, and said that it provided entertainment by switching interest from Westminster. I think that is absolutely wrong. In my view, the discussion programmes on television and on broadcasting do not switch interest from Westminster but to Westminster, and greatly add to the knowledge in the public mind of the things we do. It would be regrettable in the extreme, in my view, if anything happened to end those programmes. The noble Lord said that the B.B.C. was arrogating to itself the functions of Government and was trying to impose its opinions on the public mind. But in my experience of listening to broadcast programmes and television programmes I have never on any single occasion heard the B.B.C. express an

825
opinion. As such, the B.B.C. has no opinion, and ever since it began it has been sedulously, carefully and strictly avoiding expressing anything like an opinion.
I wonder if the noble Lord saw the leader in The Times to-day, regretting, in a sense, as I take it, the decision that the Nine o'clock News is soon to be no more. Referring to the Nine o'clock News it said:
"It was of even more powerful influence in Europe. Men and women in occupied countries, whose peoples refused to be enslaved, risked their lives—and on occasions lost them—surreptitiously to listen to the nine o'clock news."
Then comes the important part:
"They came to trust all the B.B.C.'s news services, but in a curious, psychological way they felt the news which the British people themselves were hearing had a final authority."
You cannot possibly get a reputation of that kind unless you act with continuing integrity, and resolutely oppose any attempt by any member of the staff to express anything like a personal opinion.
Looking at the Motion, I feel that it is deplorable that to-day, only three months after the Soviet Government ceased to jam B.B.C. broadcasts to the Russian people, the British Parliament should be discussing a proposal to jam B.B.C. broadcasts to the British people. What an advertisement it would be for democracy if Her Majesty's Government were to accept the noble Lord's suggestion! Just think of the questions that Mr. Khrushchev could ask Mr. Macmillan at the Summit Conference—"Why have you closed your Window on the World?" "Is Panorama too revealing?" "Are you afraid of the consequences of putting the facts before the people and letting them form their own judgment?" It will be a sorry day when we cannot give a firm and decisive "No" to all those questions.
Only a few months ago we all welcomed the decision to increase foreign-language broadcasts and to increase the Government money spent on providing cheap books for sale abroad in order that we could tell a more complete story of British democracy and our way of life. We all deplore the sound curtain which has been so firmly clamped down round the Soviet satellites, so that the B.B.C. transmissions in Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Roumanian and German are still being jammed. We all
826
believe that it would be a step towards peace if the B.B.C. could talk without interference to the peoples of those countries in their own tongues. What chance shall we have of ever persuading them to lift the sound curtain if we make it so painfully clear that we are afraid to let the B.B.C. talk to our own people?
For all the noble Lord's careful explanations, and for all his assurances that he meant no personal attack on any member of the B.B.C.—which, of course, we expect: we know that anything else would be impossible from him—what I have said is precisely what his Motion would mean. As he said, he asks for a permanent panel to decide whether the B.B.C. should be allowed to discuss matters which are the concern and responsibility of the Government. But surely any matter which concerns the Government concerns the people. They have a right to be told the facts. I am not talking of censorship on grounds of security, but of questions which are public property, and which are the only questions that Panorama ever discusses. Imagine the outcry the newspapers would make if they had to go to a standing panel to ask for permission to discuss any topic of the day! That does not bear thinking about.
The noble Lord's proposal in his Motion is, in fact, a far greater restriction than the old Fourteen-day Rule of unhappy memory, with its absurdities and humiliations. All of us who took part in such programmes as Any Questions will know that matters of current or pending discussion in Parliament were precisely the things about which the questioners wanted to ask the panel. Fortunately, of course, the questions were not known in advance, and all the answers had to be "off the cuff". I personally cannot remember a single programme in which I took part, or to which I listened, in which the Fourteen-Day Rule was not well and truly violated. Of course, we could do that, taking part in this programme.
The B.B.C., however, were not nearly so fortunate. In order to avoid public irritation and frustration they had to move with the greatest caution, if last-minute cancellations of planned and published programmes were to be avoided. That meant planning always with one

827
eye on the possibility that a debate might be arranged in Parliament. They had to plan their programmes well ahead of transmission, and they were published only a few days before the Parliamentary business was known. Consequently, they had often to shelve important subjects because of the possibility that there might be a debate on them, and they could not deal with them until after Parliament had either debated them or decided not to have a debate. Despite that care, sometimes they had, under the Fourteen-Day Rule, to cancel programmes. The contributors were sent home and the listeners were treated to chamber music. If anyone thinks no harm was done by that I disagree, because every cancellation of that kind was, in my view, harmful and humiliating to Parliament. You do not preserve the reputation of Parliament in that way.
Eventually the Government recognised this, and they abolished the rule. In its place, they accepted an undertaking from the B.B.C.
"to act in a way which does not detract from the primacy of Parliament as a forum for debating the affairs of the nation."
This undertaking, in my view, has been faithfully carried out, and unquestionably Parliament and democracy have been the gainers. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke of the Prime Minister of Malaya being questioned on television the other evening. I did not personally see the programme but I heard several accounts of it, all of which tallied with the noble Lord's. I would submit that the remedy for that does not lie in suppressing the B.B.C.—it lies in making protests of the kind that he has made. Then perhaps the interviewer will get more sense or better manners. Or the B.B.C. might get other interviewers who would not ask such foolish questions and embarrass important visitors to the country by asking questions which they well know in advance cannot be answered. I agree with the noble Lord that that kind of cheap journalism, which is unworthy of a good journalist, and which in fact good journalists never practise, is always a blot. But it does not mean that we must have censorship of B.B.C. programmes simply because one or two interviewers do not know their job and manners.
828
A select Committee on Broadcasting (Anticipation of Debates) has recognised:
"The development of radio and television in Britain and the broadcast discussion of public affairs which has followed it, have done much to encourage an intelligent interest in the work of Parliament."
That is the direct opposite to what the noble Lord thinks. I am quite sure the Select Committee were right. Surely an intelligent interest in what we do is precisely what we want. We should be thankful when the facts are given objectively on the air and in the Press, and criticise only when the facts are suppressed or distorted. If the facts are unpalatable or discreditable, the fault does not lie with the B.B.C. or with the reporters, but with ourselves.
I hope your Lordships will agree that there are only two factors which should determine the choice of a subject to be televised or broadcast. First, is it a matter of concern to the public? And, secondly, are the people justified in looking to the B.B.C. for information about it? Certainly the Panorama programmes that I have seen fully satisfied those criteria. Certainly they influence public opinion—of course they do—but only in one way. They influence public opinion towards enlightenment, and so far as humanly possible they put the pros and cons of every case before the viewers and leave them to make up their own minds. Inevitably, each of us individually regards the presentation as just or partial according to his preconceived notions, or according to his way of looking at things. Inevitably, there are charges of bias. But every public inquiry following these allegations has exonerated the B.B.C. from any intention of bias. Of course we all know that complete impartiality or an exact balance is not always possible. But there can be no doubt that their constant aim is to inform the public.
It is not enough just to give information of world events through the medium of news bulletins. A responsible democracy needs to hear various opinions about the facts, and television makes it possible to see those who hold different opinions and to watch them stating their views and answering questions about them. I think The Times leader again made that perfectly clear to-day, when

829
the writer insisted that it was an important requirement to keep news and comment absolutely distinct. I think that is right. But it emphasises the point that, in addition to straight news, there must be comment and discussion. We all know that television in general, and Panorama in particular, presents opposing views to a mass audience which is not presently possible in any other medium in quite the same way. There is no doubt that since the war public opinion has increasingly endorsed and welcomed the greater freedom which broadcasting has exercised in these matters.
Some years ago, when I saw one of the first Panorama programmes (it was in company with the present Director of Television for the B.B.C.), I felt that from the viewpoint of democracy it was the most exciting and important event in television. I still hold that view. It is a view which I am glad to know the public increasingly share. During the first three months of this year, on an average day some 17,300,000 people watched at least one B.B.C. television programme. That is two million more than a year ago. Panorama has an average viewing audience of 7 million. That compares with viewing audiences for similar programmes of 3 million for Who Goes Home?, 3½ million for Press Conference, and an average of 7½ million for the Tonight programme. These figures emphasise that there is an important audience for these programmes and, of course, for some similar programmes produced by I.T.V., to which, if I may say so, the Motion, astonishingly, makes no reference. I am quite sure the noble Lord is aware that we have commercial television, but perhaps he thinks that their programmes are sufficiently cleaned up by the detergent advertisements which precede and follow each programme. But commercial television does in fact carry a number of political discussion programmes—Free Speech, for example, of which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was a prominent exponent.
LORD TEVIOT: Dr. Banda—
LORD STONHAM: I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said, though I heard him say Dr. Banda. But during his speech he made reference to Mr. Lennox-Boyd, and something about
830
Nasser. I should have thought it was Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Foreign Secretary who was to do with the Suez Canal.
LORD TEVIOT: I never mentioned the Suez Canal. The particular gentleman who made this remark on the television (I heard it myself) was referring to Nyasaland, which is under the Colonial Office.
LORD STONHAM: That may well be so, but the particular gentleman to whom the noble Lord was referring was not a member of the staff of the B.B.C.
LORD TEVIOT: I am sorry, but I never said he was. But what I want to see is that people such as that man should not be allowed to perform among the activities of the B.B.C.
LORD BOOTHBY: Why?
LORD TEVIOT: I do not believe they want it, but some further investigation should be made at the time.
LORD BOOTHBY: Cannot you call a man a liar?
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord's Motion which we are discussing is:
"… to consider the advisability or otherwise of permitting members of the staff of the B.B.C. … who have no authority or responsibility, investigating and discussing matters which are the concern and responsibility of the Government …"
If a politician, Commonwealth or foreign or Dominion politician, comes over here as a visitor, and is invited to take part in a television programme and refers to one of Her Majesty's Ministers as a liar, I think that is very bad taste, something he should not do, whatever he feels. But what is absolutely certain is that you cannot hold the B.B.C. responsible; and therefore it is no part of this Motion.
We have these "free-speech" programmes, these democratic programmes, on all television channels, and I think we should welcome that fact. My own opinion, quite firmly and clearly, is that if a politician, Minister or Back-Bencher, is not prepared to take part in a programme where he has the chance of answering questions put to him, providing that his replies go out uncut, he should retire from politics. Indeed, I think these discussion programmes of this kind are much fairer than interviews for newsreels, because such interviews

831
are often pre-recorded and cut afterwards; and the cutting, being at the discretion of the editor, often gives, as it does in newspapers, a false impression of what has been said. I expect we have all suffered from that kind of thing. My Party always has suffered, and probably always will, from the fact that the Press is mainly Tory-owned. Most political news, therefore, either by suppression or distortion, is slanted against us. That is why our prospects usually improve during an Election campaign, when wireless and television programmes are more sought after and evenly balanced.
We on this side of your Lordships' House have a vested interest in truth and in any media of public information which attempts to tell the truth, but in the long run it is in the interests of us all that the facts should be known, and I believe that is the constant aim of the B.B.C. and of Panorama. For that reason I trust that we shall completely reject the Motion now before the House and in so doing give a clear directive to the B.B.C. to go on telling the truth to the people.
7.36 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships very long. Reference has been made, both in the noble Lord's Motion and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to the Panorama programme, and I should like to say a word or two about a particular Panorama programme shown last January, simply on the ground that I think it would be wrong for me to let the occasion of the debate go by default by saying nothing about a matter which, to us in the City, was a quite notable incident. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I think knows that I am not prepared, as it were, to go the whole way with him. Part of the reason for that is that I was received shortly after the programme by the Chairman of the B.B.C. with the greatest possible courtesy and friendliness, and for that reason among others I should not wish to take any arguments too far. Further, I must admit to being fundamentally opposed to any form of censorship. I am very much against any kind of control or interference, but I do feel that it is a good thing that this subject should be aired in your Lordships' House and I have great sympathy with what I believe
832
are the thoughts which lie behind the idea of this Motion.
What in fact occurred? On January 18, a Monday, there was a programme which was broadcast about the stock markets. Admittedly three days later, on the Thursday, the bank rate was raised, but on the Tuesday, the day immediately following this broadcast, there was quite clear evidence of fairly heavy selling of stocks and shares, almost entirely by small investors. It could quite clearly be attributed to the influence of the programme the night before. This was an episode which caused us considerable concern. I am particularly anxious not to be misunderstood or misinterpreted about the point that I am coming to. I want to make it abundantly clear that it is not for one moment the duty, the function or any part of the job of those of us who administer the Stock Exchange to complain or make a fuss when prices go up or go down. The Stock Exchange is a market place which reflects the activities of investors. The rise or fall of prices in that market is nothing to do with the Stock Exchange governing body. But this particular instance caused us considerable concern.
I am not saying for a moment that suitable warnings to investors, both large and small, are undesirable. Far from it. But the effect of a programme of this kind was clearly to stimulate sales, even to frighten the less well informed members of the public into foolish action. The use of the powerful media of radio and television could very well bring about a considerable scare. I hope that I shall not be thought to be carrying the argument too far if I suggest that it could create a scare in just the same sort of way as it could create a scare on a matter of health.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Would he at the same time deal with the position if an exactly similar state of affairs is brought about by popular newspapers, who give a tip to buy certain shares or even a hint to sell certain other shares? I do not want to name the newspapers. The noble Lord must be aware that they are in the same position, and that it happens virtually every week.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I quite agree with the noble Lord, but I think he has given us a figure of 17 million who look at Panorama.
LORD STONHAM: There are 17,300,000 people looking at some B.B.C. television programmes every day; 7 million look at Panorama.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I do not think any daily paper has a circulation of 7 million.
LORD STONHAM: Many of them claim a readership of more than 7 million.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I still think that the effect of the visual programme is much stronger than reading something in the paper. Furthermore, of those 7 million who may read the paper, I wonder how small a proportion of them ever look at the financial page. I was saying that I think the programmes could be used—I do not suggest that they would be, but they could be—to bring about a scare on a matter connected with health. I am sure we all agree that it would be highly undesirable and would never be done, that such a programme on a matter of health would take place without experts being invited to take part and to give their considered views. But here comes my point. On the programme to which I refer such experts were not invited to take part.
May I make one further point on that, and an even more serious one? We on the Council of the Stock Exchange take every possible step against the manipulation of prices. For example, before we grant a quotation to a company for their shares, we insist that they shall agree to issue early information on their affairs and how they are doing. We in the Stock Exchange are conscious perhaps of a lack of information between ourselves and the public, but quite a lot has been done lately—we have now a public gallery, and we have a film which indeed has been shown on the B.B.C. But there remains one great danger—I am not suggesting for one moment that it occurred on this occasion—that a programme of that kind could be deliberately used to raise or to depress the markets. I would go so far as to say that I believe that if the effect of that programme could have been anticipated beforehand, I greatly doubt whether the script would
834
have been allowed to stand. We welcome programmes on the Stock Exchange, but we think that they should be carefully prepared. Given any kind of reasonable notice, we are always prepared to assist and co-operate whenever we can.
I have deliberately tried to speak with some moderation, but I should like to say that the impact of that particular programme was probably much more violent than had been anticipated. Further, I think that anyone reading the script of that programme now would be surprised at the effect it had. The last thing I want to do is to make any personal criticism of anybody who took part in it or of the organisers of it. The Stock Exchange is in some debt to Mr. Dimbleby. I think we all are after last Friday. Before I sit down I want just to reiterate how courteously and graciously I was received at the B.B.C.. and I think that the outcome of that interview will be that such programmes, on the subject of the Stock Exchange, at any rate, will in future probably be more carefully vetted and considered before being shown.
7.45 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should like to say that I, too, do not think that the charm with which my noble friend Lord Teviot moved his Motion should be allowed to conceal the extreme danger of its wording. I should like, first of all, to correct him on two small points. He talked about the "Portland Place Parliament". Actually, it is in Shepherds Bush, some distance away. He should in future describe it as the "Lime Grove Parliament". Shortly, it will be at the White City. But it has nothing to do with Portland Place so far as Panorama is concerned.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why it was that when I went to see the Director-General of the B.B.C. some time ago on a most important matter with regard to the people of this country, I was told to go to Portland Place, and was shown into a sumptuous room wherein I was received most kindly by the Director-General? I took that to be the Head Office.
LORD BOOTHBY: The Director-General does, in fact, inhabit Portland Place in considerable comfort, but he has little to do with television. He exercises only a general, distant, supervising authority.
That brings me to my next point, that we should not attempt to interfere with the detail of the programmes. The second point I should like to make is this. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, refers in his Motion to members of the staff of the B.B.C., as taking part in the Panorama programme. Technically, that is not correct. Those who take part in Panorama—the interviewers and the interviewees—are not members of the staff of the B.B.C., nor are they in any circumstances directed by anybody as to what they are to say or do in these particular programmes. If a general line is thought to be undesirable, they are, of course, under the supervision of the controllers of the television programmes, as is a free-lance correspondent under the ultimate supervision of the editor of a newspaper. But there is no more to it than that. To suggest, as did the noble Lord, that the B.B.C. in those matters has a policy—a kind of rather nefarious policy, a doubtful, dubious policy, a sinister policy, which they direct their minions on the Panorama programme and other similar programmes to carry out—is, I suggest to your Lordships, a travesty of the truth.
As the noble Lord admitted, I have taken part in a number of television programmes both on Independent Television and on B.B.C. television, and I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that never at any time have I received any direction as to what I am going to say, even if I would have accepted it, nor have I ever known a case in which anybody has ever received an instruction as to what he should or should not say.
Now I come to the actual terms of the Motion itself, which complains of those
"who have no authority or responsibility, investigating and discussing matters which are the concern and the responsibility of the Government and Ministers of the Crown, apparently in order to influence public opinion,"
With all due respect to the noble Lord—I claim his friendship if he does not claim mine, and I admire him greatly—those are the most dangerous words I have ever seen on an Order Paper of either House of Parliament, because,
836
summed up, they amount to what I regard as the negation of democracy. Ultimate power is vested, quite properly, in another place, in the sense that the House of Commons can sustain or dismiss any Government. But to deny to any free citizen of this free country the right to attempt to influence public opinion and, by implication, to reserve that right to those who are Ministers of the Crown, seems to me to be an absolutely monstrous suggestion.
The noble Lord on another occasion suggested that it was an insult to important figures arriving from abroad into this country, or to important Ministers of the Crown arriving at London Airport, to be interviewed on television. My answer to that is that they trip over each other in their hurry to get in front of the cameras. There is absolutely no reason for them to be interviewed if they do not want to be interviewed: and when they are interviewed, there is no reason for them to say anything that they do not want to say. I gather that the other day the Prime Minister of Malaya was careful to say, "No" quite often. But there is no obligation upon those people to be interviewed, and I have found, by and large, that people—even high and responsible Ministers of the Crown—are very anxious to get in front of the cameras if they can possibly do so, in order to air their opinions. They like airing their opinions, especially to a very large audence. I am not blaming them, merely suggesting that they should not be pitied for this. Because, to tell the truth to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, they rather enjoy it.
I now turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I see it. I believe that that particular programme was a great pity—especially as I had bought a very few shares only the day before, and it caused me the usual small but unpayable loss that I always sustain whenever I buy any shares. I believe that the whole thing was unnecessary and I feel that it was perhaps a pity they did not have more expert financiers. I happened to hear the programme, and I thought it was great nonsense from start to finish. But I do suggest to the noble Lord that there is not much distinction to be drawn here between the B.B.C. or Independent Television and the Press. I also suggest to him that there are a very large

837
number of followers of the financial journalists, particularly those who write for some of our more popular Sunday newspapers, who are influenced to a far greater extent than anyone could be by a second-rate, generalised programme on the B.B.C. Because those writers actually tip the specific shares that ought to be bought or sold. The B.B.C. gave just a general moan, or should I say groan, about the prospects for the market and for the future of this country?
Without saying anything to embarrass the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate I would suggest that even in this respect the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a far greater offender than the B.B.C. ever was, because what he said in the Budget debate—
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the proper person to give such warnings.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, he may be the proper person, but his warnings were just as foolish as those of the B.B.C. And it was those vague threats he made in his Budget—the noble Lord cannot deny it—which hung over the Stock Exchange, over which the noble Lord so ably presides, for a month and made the Stock Exchange talk themselves into a totally unnecessary bear market. That is a fact no one can deny. As I said only yesterday, it was because he went droning on about the dangers of inflation without saying exactly what he was going to do, saying only, "If this goes on we shall take you upstairs and wallop you"—which is something that the business community cannot understand. I told Sir Simon Marks yesterday that he, almost single-handed, by the results he had produced a day or two ago, had stopped the Chancellor of the Exchequer from talking this country into a depression. If we are to compare the B.B.C. with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it comes to being a Jonah I believe it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wins every time; and I have good reason to hope that, after all the things that have been said about him in the last few days, he will now stop.
I have only one thing to say, in conclusion. There is, of course, a declining
838
interest in this country in purely Party politics. I am not going into causes, for I do not want to offend my noble friends on those Benches; but that is so. I suggest that there is not a declining interest in Parliament, and for that, I believe, television and sound radio are largely responsible, because they have stimulated public interest in the kind of questions we discuss. I do not say that the public hang breathlessly upon our every word. I do not think they will read with avidity the debate we have had this afternoon about building societies. I frankly confess that I had moments of boredom myself, and I believe that the public may have moments of boredom on that particular issue. But they are interested to an increasing extent in what I would call the broad questions of the day and the hour. That is as it should be in a democracy, and I believe that television and broadcasting generally have done more than any other single thing to stimulate that interest which is the essence of democracy.
We are sometimes apt to deride the democracy of the United States of America, and to laugh at it. But it is very genuine and very real. The United States is a democracy, and a democracy conducted very largely through the instrument of the Press conference—the Presidential Press Conference for one—and television, and the endless discussions they have. No one can say that the influence of Mr. Edward Murrow in the United States has been anything but beneficial. That is a democracy conducted to a very large extent by the Press, by columnists of the highest distinction and by television and radio; and that is part and parcel of modern democracy.
I do not think it detracts from the interest in the proceedings of the Congress of the United States, any more than the development of such a democracy here will detract from the interest in politics. Do not let us become mealy-mouthed. It surprised me that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke in terms of hushed horror about the fact that somebody had called Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd a liar. Why not, if he thought he was a liar? Our Victorian ancestors never stopped calling each other liars: and when the Irish were in the House of Commons the term "liar" was about the nicest and kindest expression they

839
ever used. We are becoming terribly polite and well mannered in this country. A little more robustness, a little more rough language, is going to stimulate interest in democracy still further.
Before I sit down may I say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that censorship of any kind is murder to a democracy. That is really what the whole argument of the modern world is about. Once we start even touching censorship—and this is what the noble Lord's Motion really does: it imposes a kind of censorship—we tar and soil our hands. We are fighting this great public battle against Communism over that single issue. It cuts right down to the deepest issues, the issues of freedom or of slavery. And one of the conditions of freedom is freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom to say to your neighbour what you believe. That is what I think television is encouraging, and that is what I feel it should be encouraged to do.
7.58 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby has given us on this occasion the stirring opinions that we expected from him, and I think we ought not to allow ourselves to be deceived by the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, into thinking that he does not have the most violent views on this subject. I do not want to quote what he said in an earlier debate, but he did except the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, from those who were "tinpot persons". My only regret is that Panorama has not yet invited the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to express his opinions. These things are valuable, stimulating and exciting, and they add to the enjoyment of life.
I am feeling a certain difficulty because the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has objected to Parliamentarians who appear on television. I suspect that recently I have been dropped from The Brains Trust, so I can speak with a clearer conscience; and I would ask the noble Lord to realise that we fully sympathise with his views. Irresponsibility, whether or not it is of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee referred—anything which is harmful—is something to be deplored.
840
It is a question of the price we pay for preventing it. In this issue of freedom to which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, referred we have also to face the very great danger of democracy, which is the danger of triviality; and television is more prone to that danger than practically any other form of public entertainment, activity, or source of information.
I should like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Boothby on his point about the influence of Mr. Edward Murrow. American television is extremely trivial and the tragedy is that Mr. Murrow is being continually pushed away and his programme may very soon go off the air entirely.
LORD BOOTHBY: I am glad to say that he is back. He called the chairman of his company inept and after that was immediately reinstated.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords I am delighted to hear it. But I only hope that this battle will not be fought in this country and that there will be no question of Lord Boothby or Lord Teviot not being freely able to appear, to inform us and to entertain us. I am sure that Lord Boothby agrees that triviality is a danger. I do not want to go into the question of I.T.V. but there is the particular triviality of some of their programmes; and some of those on the B.B.C. The great credit to the B.B.C. in putting on Panorama is due to the fact that they have had the courage to put it on at a peak listening time, in competition with Wagon Train. They have only one channel to play with, thanks to disastrous action taken by the Government at an earlier date, but they have still gone on and got their 7 million or 8 million listeners. The listeners are not just "eggheads", as I think they are called, or intellectuals like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. They are ordinary people who are interested and who are stimulated and turn away from the ever-firing guns of Wagon Train. This is something on which the B.B.C. really ought to be congratulated.
Of course there is a danger in unscripted stuff; there is danger in skilful presentation and showmanship. But this programme would not be playing its valuable part, like other programmes of

841
information of this kind, at peak periods if the B.B.C. were not given a free hand to get people for it, whether they are the Dimblebys or the Kennedys or Kees, or any of them; and if they did not give them a reasonably free hand to show their skills and ability and to draw out of people ideas and interest. Now and again they make a terrible hash of it, and we get the sort of disaster to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, referred, although not everyone accepts his version that this was responsible for the slide in share prices. However, we do not want to start arguing now. It has been suggested that it is a little of a post hoc, propter hoc argument. None the less, there is general agreement that it was not a very good or wise programme. But this is a small price to pay. The alternative is that we have to accept the rule of mandarins in this field; and if we want to live under mandarins then probably we ought to go to live in South Korea or South Africa, or wherever it is. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not want to do it.
I believe it would be a national disaster if we were to attempt to limit in any way the excellent job that is done in trying to produce an educated democracy. Since we have universal suffrage (and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not regret it, even if he is unable to vote) the great majority of people are able to vote; and the more information we can give them, and the more integrity that is brought to bear by independent commentators being given a free hand, not only by the B.B.C.—or "Auntie B.B.C.", as this bold, forward-looking, courageous organisation has been called—the stronger will our Western civilisation grow. It is an important challenge. If we do believe in its value then we have to take some risks and chances. I am sure that on this issue there is no difference between us on any side of this House. We are quite convinced that the maximum freedom should be given. And, so far from supporting this appalling proposal for censorship—it is really appalling—we should, with the determination of all the good democrats that we have in the House of Lords, turn it down, with ignominy, if the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is thinking of taking it to a vote.
8.5 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as for the second time in two weeks I look round the Benches of your Lordships' House at about this time of the evening, I have a future vision of a shambling figure mumbling its way along the pavement and of people saying, "There goes poor old Chesham, talking to himself again." Your Lordships will know where I learnt the habit. I should like, first of all, in replying, to say how glad we are this time that ill health did not prevent the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, from discussing this subject; and, whether or not we agree with him—and I, for one, do not—we certainly cannot fail to recognise his personal sincerity and persistence in the matter. So far, everyone in this debate, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Teviot, has said the same thing. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I must plead guilty to being a form of gramophone, but I shall make no apology for referring to what I have said more than once in your Lordships' House on the question of the attitude of the Government towards programmes and towards broadcasting organisations.
First the B.B.C. The 1952 White Paper—this is the extract I find the quickest; there are longer ones—says this:
"The Government accept the broadcasting committe's recommendation … that the Corporation's current independence in making programmes and in general administration should be continued."
This only endorsed the policy which had been that of successive Governments for a long period of years; and I want to make clear that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I hope it will continue to be, and in that I am very glad to have support from the Benches opposite that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The position, of course, is similar so far as the I.T.A. are concerned. Although it does not enter into my noble friend's Motion, I rather share the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it did not do so.
My noble friend Lord Teviot was chiefly concerned with the handling of matters of a controversial nature and has suggested that there was some desire on

843
the part of the B.B.C. to influence public opinion. Apart from the fact that, I suppose, rather as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, explained to us, there may be on occasion unwittingly an effect which was not anticipated or intended, it is extremely unlikely that the B.B.C., or any other broadcasting organisation, should aspire to influence public opinion, because both broadcasting organisations have specific obligations put upon them by Parliament to be impartial in dealing with such matters and it certainly is not in their interests to try to perpetrate their own views on the public. There are, in fact, safeguards to prevent them from doing so.
So far as the B.B.C. is concerned the prescribing letter to the Corporation says:
"… the Postmaster General relies upon the Corporation to carry on its existing policy of treating controversial subjects with complete impartiality."
I think I might continue to mention the I.T.A. The Act puts a duty on them to ensure that—it is in these words—
"Due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy."
There is also a requirement in the Act that news must be presented with due accuracy and impartiality; and on the B.B.C. side again its principle as regards news is:
"A fair selection of items impartially presented."
I think that deals with that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, indicated the type of programmes, and he picked on Panorama in particular, which he dislikes. He told us that he thought that in some ways documentary and current affairs programmes, and even certain news reporting, interfere with the activities of and embarrass Government Ministers and indeed Parliament as a whole. But, my Lords, surely the objective and, indeed, the legitimate function of the broadcasting organisations is to present to their audiences the background to topics of the day as well as the current facts about them. The B.B.C. themselves describe these programmes as being complementary to the news, and they aim at giving a comprehensive picture of affairs and trying to help towards an understanding of them.
844
No one, I feel, could seriously question this objective and the concept that it is the function of the broadcasting organisations that they should inform and should educate, as well as entertain. In doing this, they include many personalities of the day—and quite rightly so, in my opinion—however objectionable or however sympathetic or statesmanlike the activities of those personalities may be. For the first time in history, it is possible for the ordinary citizens of this country to get some inkling of what the world figures are like as they come and go; and whether they say something stupid or something intelligent does not much matter—it helps to inform the public. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, whether or not they do anything about it is entirely optional. I was interested to hear that so many people enjoyed it so greatly—and, of course, he would know.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, gave us some very interesting views, and I do not attempt in any way to deny the gravity of this matter, as he put it; but the thing that I was particularly glad he said was that he went to see the B.B.C. about it and was received seriously, and also courteously. That, of course, is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do in this case: it is the right thing to do in any other case when any of your Lordships—or, indeed, anybody else—thinks there is something wrong with the programme. It is a matter for the B.B.C., and I think we are very right to keep it that way. That is the way to do it; and I am perfectly sure that what the noble Lord said to them will have been very carefully considered. It helps to build up the feeling that they will be more and more responsible and more and more careful, and that such things are perhaps not likely to happen again. It is perfectly true, as several noble Lords have said, that these programmes are popular in the homes of this country and are listened to by many people. The figure of 8 million for Panorama is, I think, right; and the I.T.A. say that their programme called This Week, which is rather the same sort of thing, probably attracts about 10 million when shown from all their stations.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? This Week gets only about 2 million, according to the T.A.M. rating.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not going to argue about that, my Lords.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think nobody knows, because my information is that the figure is 4 million.
LORD CHESHAM: That is even more reason for not arguing about it. I can never understand how they manage to assess it at all; but there is no doubt that a great many people listen to these programmes, however many the actual number of the millions may be, and there is no doubt that there is a public desire to see these programmes and an appreciation of them, even if my noble friend Lord Teviot does not share that appreciation.
I should like to quote from something that the Daily Mail said in February when talking about this type of programme. They said:
"All these programmes in their different degrees seek to provoke answers to questions of the day. You are not expected to accept what anybody says on them, but at least they leave you with a tingle of disturbance—even of conscience—at having a challenging idea thrown at you".
I think that most of your Lordships will agree that there is a great deal in that which is basically sound. We hear a great deal these days about tele-morons and tele-maniacs, and of the dangers of television stifling initiative, particularly mental initiative and thought; and, without necessarily accepting and agreeing with that view, if there is anything in it surely this type of programme must be an antidote to that sort of effect.
My Lords, is it really true—can it be true—that the independence of the broadcasting organisations to put on these programmes in any way impedes or embarrasses the Government or Ministers? Is it really possible to contemplate that the vital issues that are raised in everyday life are for the concern only of the Government, and not of the man in the street? With the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I should hesitate to predict what might be the future of what we think of as our democratic way of life if we accepted that view. I should hate to have the job of examining our claim to a really democratic Parliamentary Government. I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, claims a vested interest in truth, but he must realise that, though
846
his interest may be vested, it certainly is no monopoly. As far as Parliament is concerned, we have got that assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke of—the one that was given at the time the Fourteen-day Rule was suspended. The words, I would remind your Lordships, are that they, the broadcasting organisations, would continue to act in a way which did not derogate from the primacy of Parliament as the forum for debating the affairs of the nation. I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that they have not tackled that in a most responsible way.
Now a word about the restrictions which I understand the noble Lord would like to impose. If I have got it right, he thinks that important issues should be handled only by those in authority or by experts; that there should be a permanent body of officials who would act as a board of censors to these programmes; and that news interviews with controversial personalities should in fact be banned. My Lords, this, in my view—and I think in the view of most of your Lordships—would be a repellent suggestion, and quite unacceptable. Not only that, but it would in certain circumstances, which are not very hard to imagine, open a very easily-opened door to a political censorship, which would be a far greater risk than anything else—and in this country that would be quite unthinkable. I think the noble Lord is trying to turn the clock back. It is 32 years since March, 1928, when the Government of the day decided that the ban on broadcasts of controversial matter should be entirely withdrawn. Now the noble Lord wants it back on again. He wants to control, not only programme content but the type of person who shall speak on the air. I agree with other noble Lords: why should he stop there? Why does he not carry it to its logical conclusion and apply the same muzzle to the Press? His arguments would apply, as I see it, in just the same way—and, indeed, they would apply also to sound radio. But, in point of fact, so far as I cart see, he wishes to apply this particular brake only to the B.B.C.; and not even, as I have said, to the I.T.A.
What we have to consider is whether actual experience, other than the noble Lord's personal distaste, offers any justification for drastic restrictions of the

847
sort the noble Lord has proposed. My Lords, the Government do not think that it does. I think it is recognised that the development of radio and television in this country, and the broadcast discussion of public affairs which has followed it, have done a great deal to encourage an intelligent interest in the work of Parliament—and I mean the Parliament at Westminster, and not any other form of Parliament in Portland Place. Lime Grove, or anywhere dawn the suburban line. These programmes stimulate interest—there is no doubt about it. They do not take it away.
The question was raised of the desirability of allowing certain people with known views or who hypothetically may have been pressed to take a B.B.C. line, to take part in these programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, explained it clearly and concisely. But the real test is whether they would carry their own or any other imposed political slant into programmes in which they are concerned. The Corporation is there to watch that, and I am sure that they do. I would suggest to your Lordships that anyone knowing that what he has to say on a controversial issue is going to be watched with suspicious eyes, will, in fact, lean over backward to be as impartial as he can.
LORD STONHAM: It may be inadvertently but the noble Lord appeared to say, "if somebody takes a B.B.C. line". Is it not the case that there is no such thing as a B.B.C. line?
LORD CHESHAM: I was dealing with the hypothetical suggestion that the B.B.C. thought to influence public opinion. I do not believe for a moment that it does so, but if it did, the temptation would be to try to conceal it and not make it blatant.
I think we ought to be happy that we live in a country in which expression of opinion is given a free rein and responsible expression of opinion is carefully cultivated. Broadcasting, so long as it is intelligently and impartially handled, and that is how the organisations seek to do it—indeed, they have a duty to do it—plays a good part in informing and educating public opinion. We want informed and educated public opinion. The more there is, the better our work can be done. May I leave one final point
848
with my noble friend Lord Teviot? The essence of what he has urged is that there should be a body of responsible men appointed to vet B.B.C. programmes when they deal with controversial topics. I would suggest that the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that this has already been done ages ago. The Government appoint Governors of the B.B.C. who have the responsibility of watching over these programmes. I think that we can safely leave the broadcasting authorities to carry out their trust with full regard to the important responsibilities which that trust lays upon them.
8.26 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Stonharn. I never mentioned anything about books or about the news. Of course they can say what they like about books, provided they are the proper sort of books, and broadcasting the news is a very proper function of the B.B.C. But there are these questions which have come before Panorama. I am all in favour of Panorama, but I want to see that some of the things that Panorama have done, one of two which I have mentioned, should not recur. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee has shown the sort of thing that might happen.
The noble Lord said something about millions of people. That takes me back to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in regard to some of the programmes put on by the B.B.C. He said, "If only we could know how many people immediately switch off their instruments when this or that comes on!" Of course we cannot tell. There is one thing about which I am extremely distressed. It appears that there is going to be no supervision. This is the same answer. I did not mention the word "censorship". It seems to have got into the minds of some people that censorship is a terrible thing, but we have it with regard to the theatre. Perhaps something like the Lord Chamberlain's office might supervise certain programmes which, in my view, should not be put on the television at all, or even mentioned by the B.B.C.
With regard to my noble friend Lord Boothby, no doubt he had in his mind something I said about Members who

849
had feet in both camps. Of course, we are bound to get that. However, that, is his business and not mine. I am hoping that something I was told yesterday is going to happen, and then we shall see what your Lordships do not seem to appreciate: that there is a tremendous body of people in this country who want something done with regard to these programmes. Every day I have letters and everybody I have asked about this, except for one or two noble Lords, say how delighted they are that I am doing this. One old professor said to me, "If we do not look out we are going to be ruled by Dimbleby and the B.B.C." That is what is going to happen, and I warn your Lordships that if what I call irresponsible management goes on in this sphere of our lives, it will be a great danger. I hope that what I was talking about yesterday is going to come off and then we shall see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL SAINT PETER UPPER THAMES STREET CHURCHYARD BILL
Reported, without Amendment.
  LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
  LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE