Sitting of 18 December 1961

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

    Ashington
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour how many young people are on the books of the Ashington Junior Labour Exchange; what action is being taken to assist them in finding employment; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): Twenty-nine boys and 23 girls were registered as unemployed at Ashington Youth Employment Office on 11th December, 1961. The youth employment officer is making every effort to place them in suitable employment.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to stimulate the policy of apprenticeship, especially by means of local consultations.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): A principal function of the Youth Employment Service is to stimulate apprenticeship and the local youth employment committees throughout the country give much help in this task. The Industrial Training Council is continuing the valuable activities which have contributed greatly towards the substantial increase in apprenticeship this year and is now engaged in a special study of apprenticeship and training methods. Last June, the Council set up regional committees which contain representatives of both sides of industry and other interests, and are serviced by
    910
    officers of my Department. Their purpose is to keep the regional situation under regular review, to advise the Council thereon and to sponsor local initiatives.
    In addition, I am discussing the general question of existing apprenticeship arrangements with employers' organisations and trade unions in the major apprentice-employing industries.
    Mr. Owen: Does the Minister realise that, apart from the regional work which is being done—which is, of course, imporant—the key to the development of the apprenticeship system is local consultation? Further, is he aware of the work being quite successfully done in this respect by his Department in the Ashington area through personal contact between his own officers and local employers?
    Mr. Hare: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I think he will agree that what we want is both local effort and the good offices of the Industrial Training Council working at national level. These two things combined will, I believe, help us to get some of the results we want.
    Mr. Prentice: We all welcome the increased number of apprenticeships this year, but does the Minister agree that next year there will be an even larger number of school leavers, at the peak of the bulge, as it were, and there is also a very important long-term problem in increasing the quantity and quality of apprenticeships? Has the right hon. Gentleman further plans for expanding the Industrial Training Council and its staff to cope with these problems over a longer period?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to suggest that, although we, have done reasonably well this year, there is no possible room for complacency next year. I am in the closest touch with the I.T.C. and I am discussing the whole problem with the object of seeing that the efforts put into the job this year are carried forward with energy and efficiency next year.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour how many workers were employed in the motor industry and

    911
    other industries associated with it on 1st December, 1961.
    Mr. Hare: The latest figures available are for the end of October. It is estimated that at that date there were 409,300 persons employed in manufacture of motor vehicles, parts and accessories.
    Mr. Edelman: Do not these figures show a substantial decline from the figures up to 1st December, 1960? In view of the fact that in the Midlands there are now 21,500 workers on short time, how can the Minister reconcile his plans for the expansion of the industry with a contraction in the number of workers?
    Mr. Hare: One must keep a sense of proportion in this matter. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the figure I have given is 23,000 lower than the figure a year ago, but it must be remembered that the industry expanded very considerably between October, 1959, November, 1960, and the figure I gave in my Answer is still over 6,000 more than the number employed in October, 1959.

    Motor Cycle Industry
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour how many workers were employed in the motor cycle industry and other industries associated with it on 1st December, 1961.
    Mr. Hare: The latest figures available are for the end of October. It is estimated that, at that date, there were 34,400 persons employed in the motor cycle, three-wheeled vehicle and pedal cycle industries.
    Mr. Edelman: Is this not another case of an industry in relative decline? Will the Minister apply his mind to the fact that certain restrictive practices exist in the motor cycle industry, one example of which is to be found in one of the major firms which now has a prospect of substantial redundancy before it but which is committed to a contract exclusively for French engines for a number of years to come, this being a condition of maintenance of its contract for the assembly of imported parts? Is not the essential problem in the motor cycle industry one of initiative in design on
    912
    the part of manufacturers to revitalise this old and traditional industry?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman had an adjournment debate on this subject on 1st December, when he did, I think, express his views very strongly. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in answer to that debate, explained that he felt that it was for the industry itself to put its own house in order, while indicating at the same time that the Government were prepared to help and co-operate in any way they can.
    Mr. Edelman: What initiative have the Government taken in order to inspire the industry to take the action which they have recommended?
    Mr. Hare: What my hon. Friend said was that it was for the industry to take the initiative to put its own house in order, but he added that if it were prepared to do that the Government would do all they could to help.

    Miners and Railway Workers, Bishop Auckland
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 65 males employed by expanding firms in the Bishop Auckland constituency between November, 1960, and August, 1961, were employed immediately beforehand as miners or railway workers; and how many miners or railway workers became redundant in this constituency during that period.
    Mr. Green: Our local officers placed 66 males with these firms between November, 1960, and August, 1961. Of these, 14 were last employed in coal-mining and three in railways. I am informed that, in the same period, nine miners and no railway workers became redundant in the hon. Member's constituency.
    Mr. Boyden: While that sounds fairly reasonable, is the Minister not aware that the situation is very serious? Will he consult with his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Transport to see whether it is not necessary to stimulate public works in the area by having an expanding programme of council

    913
    house building, road building and reclamation of derelict land, because there is considerable unemployment in the area?
    Mr. Green: I am very much aware of the unemployment problem in the area. But, of course, the whole of south-west Durham benefits from the facilities of the Local Employment Act. It follows that my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends are in fact in constant consultation on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know that there are about 1,300 jobs in prospect in the development district, of which about 840 are in his constituency.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour what is his forecast of the number of miners and railway workers likely to become redundant during the next 12 months in the Bishop Auckland constituency.
    Mr. Green: It is not possible to forecast precisely the number of coalmining redundancies in the next 12 months until the local negotiations with the union are complete. I understand that there may be a very small reduction in railway posts, but it is hoped that most of the men will be offered alternative employment.
    Mr. Boyden: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is having discussions with the director of the local division of the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers and that these discussions are proceeding on a satisfactory basis?
    Mr. Green: The local negotiations are between the Coal Board and the union. We are kept informed of all prospects and, indeed, of all events as they happen, and we shall certainly do our best to see that anybody who may by chance become redundant gets a chance of an alternative job.

    Engineering and Shipbuilding
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour what increase has taken place in the employment of skilled engineers in the engineering and shipbuilding industries from 1957 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Hare: In the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry, workers in skilled engineering trades numbered
    914
    61,824 at the end of August, 1961, compared with 78,111 in August, 1957. Corresponding figures for the engineering industry are not available.
    Mr. Bence: I am shocked to hear that there has been a decrease in the number of skilled engineers employed in the shipbuilding and engineering industries in the last two years. Is this not an extraordinary state of affairs at a time when the right hon. Gentleman's Department is trying to encourage an increase in the number of apprentices training for the engineering industry? What are we to make of a situation where there is a decrease in the number of skilled men being employed and at the same time we are trying to get more apprentices to go into these skilled occupations?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since 1957 the decline in world shipping and the increase in shipbuilding capacity abroad have resulted in a fall of activities and employment in the shipbuilding industry. I think that he will also be aware that, taking as a whole the shipbuilding industry and all the workers employed in it, this is an ageing industry. Rather than adopting a defeatist attitude in suggesting that the situation is continually declining, it is very necessary to get a new entry of young people to keep the industry going.
    Mr. Bence: That is not a satisfactory answer. We know that there has been a decline in the shipbuilding industry, but surely the function of the Minister of Labour is to help to redeploy the skilled labour out of a declining industry into an expanding one? I am asking a question in respect of the engineering industry. Evidently there has been no redeployment because in the two industries taken together there has been a decline.
    Mr. Hare: That is a slightly different question. We do not want to assume that the decline that has been going on in the shipbuilding industry will continue. I hope that the industry will have a great future, but unless it is prepared to take a proper proportion of young apprentices it will not have a future.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Why is not my right hon. Friend more straightforward?

    915
    Surely the reason for the decline in the shipbuilding industry is the number of demarcation disputes which there have been in the shipbuilding industry. If one looks at what is happening in Ireland one would be gravely concerned about the future of the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Hare: I am being entirely straightforward, but I do not accept that the shipbuilding industry has no future prospects.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes taking to meet the threatened decline in employment in the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde.
    Mr. Hare: I understand that recently shipbuilders on the Clyde have been more successful in obtaining some orders and I hope that this will arrest the decline in shipbuilding employment for the immediate future. There is much that the industry itself can do in the field of labour relations and utilisation of labour to improve its competitive ability, and at a conference I held with both sides of the industry on 14th December it was decided to set up a joint working party under an official of my Department to concert practical measures to this end.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Clyde are getting sick of this continual propagation of the idea that there is delay, through bad industrial relations and lost man-hours through strikes? Messrs. John Brown have just launched a passenger ship and, from its inception, not one man-hour has been lost.
    Mr. Speaker: This is the time for Questions and not for an asserted proposition.
    Mr. Bence: This is important in view of what the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) said. We on Clydeside have very good industrial relations in the shipbuilding industry. Will the Minister see that he and his Government take steps immediately to try to put some pep into the Clyde shipbuilding industry in order to enable shipbuilding interests on the Clyde to keep their teams of workers together?
    Mr. Hare: I should be the last to wish to denigrate the shipbuilding industry, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) is perfectly right in part of his supplementary question to call attention to the fact that there are demarcation issues. The hon. Gentleman knows that, taking the shipbuilding industry as a whole, there are more unofficial strikes in that industry than in most. We have to face the fact that these things are not insoluble and we have to do something about it.

    Factory Inspections
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour what is the average interval between visits by factory inspectors to premises covered by the Factories Acts; how this compares with the frequency of inspection recommended to him recently by the Trades Union Congress; how it compares with the standards laid down by the International Labour Organisation; and whether he will make a substantial increase in the Factory Inspectorate in view of the increasing number of industrial accidents.
    Mr. Hare: The frequency of visits varies according to the requirements of different premises. Factories are thoroughly inspected at least once every four years. Many of them, including the larger ones and those with special hazards, are visited much more frequently. The Trades Union Congress recommend that every factory be inspected at least once every two years, with yearly visits as a long-term aim. The standard laid down in International Labour Convention No. 81 is that workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Factory Inspectorate is to be increased in size and I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) on 11th December.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the increase in the size of the Factory Inspectorate which has been urged on him from this side of the House for many years? Will he not set an objective for frequency of visits to factories closer to that urged on him by the T.U.C. and contained in I.L.O.

    917
    resolutions going back over thirty or forty years? Does he not agree that the rise in industrial accidents is still very unsatisfactory and can be partly traced to an insufficient frequency of inspections?
    Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind that the I.L.O. in 1923 recommended annual inspection where possible. Since then there has been a lot of modern thinking. In 1947 the I.L.O. Convention No. 81, to which I have referred, did not follow that line of thought. Of course, inspection is very important, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that a greater safety consciousness throughout industry is now really the most important target at which we should aim.
    Dr. Stross: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember, however, that as recently as September he gave a Press conference and said that in his view an increase in the Factory Inspectorate is not the best way, or the correct way, of avoiding increases in accidents from which we have suffered in the last year? Will he bear in mind that there are only 320 inspectors in posts who actually inspect and about 300,000 places where inspection has to take place and that the Inspectorate, which is so valuable, ought to be at least double.
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman will not mind if I correct him. What I said was that inspection was not the only way to ensure that greater safety precautions were taken. I said that 65 per cent. of all accidents reported in 1960 were caused through men falling down and stumbling, bad handling, and so on. These are matters of common sense and normal safety consciousness. I feel that a real drive should be made to get greater safety consciousness on the part of all engaged in industry.

    Wages
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Labour what notifications he has received since 6th December, 1961, of increased wage awards.
    Mr. Hare: None have been notified to me, but I am aware of two important increases which have been agreed since 6th December.
    Mr. Hall: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that comparatively recently increases have been given by three out of the four major oil producers? Is it not difficult for private industry to implement the Chancellor of the Exchequer's wage pause policy when the British Petroleum Co. Ltd., in which the Government have a majority holding, is not prepared to implement it?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend knows that the Government, like their predecessors, do not interfere in the ordinary administration of the company as a commercial concern. I understand that the company felt that it was, in some degree, committed to an increase before the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on the pause.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say how many notifications of dividend increases he has had in the same period?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a different question.

    Vacancies
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Labour which region had the least number of vacancies remaining unfilled on 8th November; what was its total unemployment figure; and if he will state for this region and for the Northern Region both the actual and the normal seasonal changes in the number of unfilled vacancies compared with the previous month for each of the last 12 months.
    Mr. Hare: Northern Region, where there were 7,053 unfilled vacancies. The total number registered as unemployed on 13th November was 38,299. As the answer to the second part of the Question contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Randall: The Minister will know that the number of unfilled vacancies in the Northern Region is the lowest in the country. Is he aware that the percentage of jobs to unemployed is also the lowest in the country? Is he further aware that this represents five unemployed men chasing one job? In view of those statistics which he has given me in previous Questions, does not the Minister agree that there should be vigorous action on his part and on the part of the President of the Board of

    919
    Trade to ensure that something is done immediately in the North-East to curb the trend which is emerging?
    Mr. Hare: I quite agree that the situation in the Northern Region is serious, but, as I told the hon. Gentleman last week, the unemployment rate in Scotland is higher—3·2 per cent. against 2·9 per cent. in the Northern Region. Of course, Scotland's working population is almost double. I do not deny that both in Scotland and in the Northern Region there are approximately 100 people wholly unemployed with only about 20 unfilled vacancies. That is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself are doing all we can to ensure that new jobs are provided.
    The following is the table of figures:

    ACTUAL AND NORMAL SEASONAL CHANGES IN TOTAL NUMBERS OF UNFILLED VACANCIES NORTHERN REGION FOR YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER, 1961

    Dates

    Actual

    Normal Seasonal

    (approx.)

    November, 1960-December, 1960

    -478

    -100

    December, 1960-January, 1961

    +383

    -400

    January, 1961-February, 1961

    +127

    -300

    February, 1961-March, 1961

    +1,149

    +1,100

    March, 1961-April, 1961

    +1,377

    +1,200

    April, 1961-May, 1961

    +190

    Nil

    May, 1961-June, 1961

    +1,128

    +600

    June, 1961-July, 1961

    +994

    +1,300

    July, 1961-August, 1961

    -1,182

    -200

    August, 1961-September, 1961

    -2,080

    -2,000

    September, 1961-October, 1961

    -1,375

    -700

    October, 1961-November, 1961

    -901

    -500

    Gloucester
    Mr. Diamondasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to prevent transitional unemployment extending beyond a few days among the employees of the Whitworth-Gloster Aircraft Company's factory at Gloucester, which is closing down.
    Mr. Green: Our local officers are registering those affected before they are discharged and will do all they can to find them alternative employment as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Diamond: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that his local officers will do all they can to find other employment for these people, may I ask him whether he is prepared to go further and encourage the employers concerned to delay giving redundancy notices until other employment has been found for them?
    Mr. Green: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that this is a difficulty which is as broad as it is long. If there is delay in registering people who may be redundant, then we stand to be attacked because we have delayed registering them for work. Either way, there may be some small difficulties. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the level of unemployment throughout the whole region is very low.
    Mr. Diamondasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies existed in the Gloucester area at the latest available date in each of the following four categories, namely, skilled sheet-metal workers, skilled pattern makers, unskilled men over 55 years of age, and unskilled women over 45 years of age.
    Mr. Green: On 6th December, the Gloucester Employment Exchange held 15 unfilled vacancies for sheet-metal workers, but none for pattern makers. There were 66 vacancies for men and 14 for women for unskilled work, but these vacancies were not analysed by age groups.
    Mr. Diamond: Is it not absolutely clear from the figures that the Parliamentary Secretary has just given that there is no possibility whatsoever of there being adequate vacancies for those in these categories who are shortly to be declared redundant at the Whitworth-Gloucester Aircraft Company? Therefore, what steps is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take to reduce this transitional unemployment to the minimum?
    Mr. Green: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said follows. He might like to have a few more figures. There were 1,510 unfilled vacancies for

    921
    men and 787 unfilled vacancies for women in Gloucester and the adjacent areas of Cheltenham, Stroud and the Forest of Dean at 6th December. In addition, there is a considerable number of jobs in prospect in the area. The local unemployment rate in Gloucester is 1·3 per cent., in Cheltenham 1·2 per cent., in Stroud ·8 per cent., and in the Forest of Dean 1·9 per cent.

    Factory Inspectorate, Wales
    Mr. I. Daviesasked the Minister of Labour what is the total strength of the Factory Inspectorate in Wales; and whether any additions are being considered in view of the increasing number of industrial accidents.
    Mr. Hare: There are 20 inspectors stationed in Wales. I recently announced an increase in the size of the Factory Inspectorate as a whole. The needs of Wales will be taken into account in allocating the additional staff as it becomes available.
    Mr. Davies: I appreciate that Answer, but is the Minister aware that works safety committees have played a most effective part in the cause of accident prevention? Having regard to his emphasis earlier on the need for safety consciousness, does not he consider that the Factory Inspectorate should play a greater part in encouraging the establishment of these committees in many factories where they do not at present exist?
    Mr. Hare: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of works safety committees. Certainly my inspectors will do all that they can to encourage their formation and the greater working efficiency of some. I am having discussions with both sides of industry on this problem. I should like the hon. Gentleman's support and that of his hon. Friends as well as of my hon. Friends to see what we can do to promote safety consciousness.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in finding suitable employment and training opportunities for the increasing numbers of school leavers.
    Mr. Hare: In the first nine months of this year 491,000 boys and girls entered employment—31,000 more than in the same period last year. Of the boys, 98,000, or 38·4 per cent., went into apprenticeship or learnerships. The corresponding figure last year was 87,000 or 36 per cent. This shows an increase of nearly 13 per cent. over last year.
    These figures are encouraging and tribute is due to the efforts made by the Industrial Training Council and others to stimulate the expansion of training opportunities. I must emphasise that a still greater expansion will be necessary next year when the number of school leavers will again increase.
    Mr. Mawby: While we all agree with what my right hon. Friend said, that some progress has been made, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think that, next year being a really crucial year, we should approach this matter of the bulge not as a problem but rather as an opportunity which will not he repeated? Will he continue to press for as much progress as possible next year?
    Mr. Hare: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I intend to continue our policy, which has brought tangible results this year, of impressing on industry the real opportunity that the bulge offers for expanding its skilled labour force.
    Miss Herbison: Can the Minister say whether the increase of 13 per cent. is evenly divided over the country as a whole? As he said earlier, we in Scotland have a higher rate of unemployment than anywhere in the British Isles. What opportunities will there be for work, particularly for apprenticeships for our young lads, when we have the bulge next year?
    Mr. Hare: I should be delighted to give the hon. Lady a break-down into regional figures if she would be good enough to table a Question.

    Sub-office, Birmingham
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour why a new sub-employment exchange has been opened

    923
    at Church Hall, Common Lane, Birmingham, 8, which is only 100 yards from the existing main employment exchange.
    Mr. Green: Because of the present number of temporarily stopped workers, it has been found necessary to provide these additional premises for the time being.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this is a permanent arrangement? As I understand, the temporary arrangement which has been used at periods of great short-time working is now being put on a permanent basis and this is causing grave local concern about the prospects in the three factories in the area concerned.
    Mr. Green: Perhaps the hon. Member would like to have a further look at the Answer which I have given him. I must stress that this move was taken to meet current needs only.
    Mr. Jenkins: It was temporary?
    Mr. Green: Yes, temporary.

    Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons of either sex, respectively, in the area covered by the Easington Parliamentary constituency.
    Mr. Green: The numbers were 1,616 males and 593 females at 11th December.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of my repeated requests over a period of years, this area appears to be more neglected than any other part of the County of Durham? Can he explain the reason why? Can I have an assurance that something will be done in the near future to provide employment for at least part of those who are unemployed?
    Mr. Green: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance that this area has not been singled out for neglect. There are 500 jobs in prospect at Houghton-le-Spring, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Tube Investment Company's large project at Washington.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but may
    924
    I have details of where the 500 jobs are in prospect so that if I am asked questions in my constituency, I can furnish a satisfactory reply?
    Mr. Green: Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman would either care to put down a Question on the matter or, perhaps, come and see me.

    Differential Training Levy Scheme
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the studies carried out in his Department on the differential training levy which operates in France; and whether he has any plans to introduce a similar scheme in this country.
    Mr. Hare: I am making a close study of this complex question, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Prentice: Can the Minister give the House any idea when he will make a statement? May I remind him of his replies to an earlier Question about the need for permanent improvement in apprenticeship training? Is he aware that one of the problems is not so much of the firm which gives no training, but of the firm which poaches skilled workers who have been trained elsewhere? Have not the French Government had a scheme for some years which has met the problem better than any alternative that we know of?
    Mr. Hare: As I told the hon. Member in July, these are far-reaching and important issues which will need considerable care and attention before any decisions can be announced. I cannot give any guarantee about when I can make an announcement on the matter. Meanwhile, we should not decry our own system too much.

    St. Helens, Lancashire
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour the total numbers of men, women, boys and girls signing the register of unemployed up to the latest convenient date in the county borough of St. Helens, Lancashire; and what special steps he is taking to provide jobs for these people.
    Mr. Green: On 11th December there were 765 men, 894 women, 14 boys and 3 girls registered at St. Helens Employment Exchange and Youth Employment

    925
    Office. Our local officers are making every effort to find them suitable employment.
    Mr. Spriggs: What special efforts are being made to give the young people a training in industry for apprenticeships or in the professions? If this is not done they will merely join the ranks of the also-rans. Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the older people who probably have been unemployed for many months or, in some cases, even for years? Will his Department consider increasing unemployment benefit for these people?
    Mr. Green: The second part of that supplementary question is not one for me. In reply to the first part concerning opportunities for young people, the hon. Member will have seen replies given on this subject by my right hon. Friend. We are very conscious of the need to increase training facilities for young people wherever they may be.
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the number of workers who will lose their jobs in the glass industry in St. Helens, Lancashire, under the present scheme for the reorganisation of the industry.
    Mr. Green: I am not aware of any general reorganisation scheme for the glass industry. If the hon. Member is referring to a recently announced redundancy by Pilkington Bros., I understand that the number affected will be 238.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend consult the President of the Board of Trade with a view to doing everything in their power to encourage industrialists to take work into areas like St. Helens, because this great county borough could serve as an employing centre for other areas surrounding the perimeter of the borough?
    Mr. Green: As the hon. Member might expect. I have considerable sympathy with the problems of Lancashire in a personal sense. The unemployment rate in St. Helens is 2·8 per cent., which is below the level set for the immediate operation of the Local Employment Act. None the less, the hon. Member will be aware of the substantial new industries going into Merseyside and north of the Mersey.

    Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed in Sunderland at the latest available date; and how this compares with the figure for the previous month.
    Mr. Green: There were 3,848 people unemployed in the Sunderland area on 11th December, compared with 3,923 on 13th November, 1961.
    Mr. Willey: In view of this persistent high level of unemployment, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he was consulted by the President of the Board of Trade before he made his statement the other day? Will the hon. Gentleman call the President's attention to these figures and point out that we still obviously need Government assistance in Sunderland?
    Mr. Green: While I have sympathy with the hon. Member, he will, I am sure, appreciate that there are now 5,000 jobs in prospect for the area. [HON. MEMBERS: "In the pipeline."] Hon. Members opposite must not denigrate the pipeline. It is an essential part of the planning for which they continue to call.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the hon. Gentleman know by experience that the efficiency of the pipeline is only about 20 per cent.?
    Mr. Green: If the hon. Member looks at the figures, he will see that his arithmetic is not right. If he cares to re-do his sums and come and see me, he and I can put our heads together or, perhaps, knock them together.

    Leather Industry
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Labour how many workers are employed in the preparation and manufacture of leather articles using sheepskins; and how long it takes to train a worker in the industry.
    Mr. Green: Separate employment figures are not available for workers engaged in these processes. The normal period of training for apprentices in the leather industry is five years.
    Mr. Prior: In view of the fact that it takes so long to train these workers,

    927
    will my hon. Friend consult the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that we do not have the same number of dumped Bulgarian sheepskins imported into this country, leading to unemployment in this rather highly skilled industry?
    Mr. Green: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom, I believe, my hon. Friend has a Question down.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give details of the arrangements he has made, during his current discussions with the European Economic Community, to make available to the individual Commonwealth Governments the full text of those parts of all working documents which directly affect their individual interests.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the hon. Lady on 30th November.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Prime Minister's Answer was completely vague? Is it not a fact that the Government have undertaken to keep Commonwealth Governments in the closest touch with the negotiations? Since, however, a number of those Governments clearly do not trust the summaries which are given to them of the proceedings which take place, can the Minister say what satisfactory information he will give them except along the lines indicated in the Question?
  Mr. Heath: We are adopting a variety of means of keeping Commonwealth Governments fully informed about the course of the negotiations and to remain in consultation with them, both before matters are raised and after they have been discussed in the negotiations. Concerning the actual working documents, as I have already told the House, in international negotiations these are confidential. There are, however, other means of keeping the Commonwealth Governments fully informed about the contents, and those we are adopting.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Governments have not been satisfied with the means previously adopted to keep them informed? As an exception has already been made to the rule of not giving them the text of working documents, what objection is there to giving them this text in the future?
  Mr. Heath: That is precisely why it was made an exception, and the hon. Lady knows why it was made an exception. The great majority of Commonwealth Government have expressed themselves satisfied with all the information we are giving them. Only at the last meeting of High Commissioners after the Brussels meeting I offered to consider any other suggestions which they like to put to us.
  Mr. Russell: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that there are not further leaks like the one that occurred a week or two ago?
  Mr. Heath: There is another Question on the Order Paper about that.
  Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent in his negotiations with the European Economic Community the strategic and defence consequences of Britain's entry into the Community are being discussed.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent Her Majesty's Government now accept political integration within the European Community; and to what extent Great Britain's entry will involve political and strategic controls over the direction of United Kingdom trade.
  Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made to European Economic Community Governments on 10th October, which has been published as -a White Paper.
  Mrs. Castle: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Gladwyn, in a recent article in The Statist, said that European unity was essential for strategic reasons in addition to many others because it would enable the European Community to produce and control its own atomic weapons; so would the Lord Privy Seal give the House an assurance that the Government would oppose any suggestion for the development of

  929
  nuclear weapons by the European Community and under its political control?
  Mr. Heath: That is a much wider question, but so far as strategic and defence matters are concerned they have not been dealt with in these negotiations, except the one exception in the Treaty of Rome which deals with certain trading aspects of strategy; but otherwise these matters are not being discussed.
  Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Bonn Declaration of last July emphasises the fact that the Common Market is simply a political institution which will use economic means to attain a political end? Whether that be true or not, would he assure us that, if we enter the Common Market, then nothing will be allowed to happen which would impede the growing development of our trade with Russia and the Far East?
  Mr. Heath: Again, that is a much wider question, but it is an aspect of an outward-looking Community which we would, of course, support. As for the Bonn statement, I dealt with that in paragraph 22 of my Paris speech, but it is a separate matter in that this is being considered by a separate committee, the Fouchet Committee.
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal which members of the Commonwealth have been proposed by the European Economic Community members for associate membership of the Common Market; and on what basis their association is proposed.
  Mr. Walkerasked the Lord Privy Seal, in the light of the further Ministerial meetings he has held with the European Economic Community, whether he will now negotiate for protocols, which shall not be subject to a time limit, to be added to the Treaty of Rome for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of Commonwealth and British agriculture.
  Mr. Hastingsasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now make a further statement about the progress of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Heath: Since my statement in reply to Questions on 29th November, I
  930
  have attended a further meeting of Ministers in Brussels on 8th December, at which we reviewed the work done by officials and agreed on their future tasks. As a result, work is now in hand on United Kingdom requests for nil traiffs for certain commodities; on the import of manufactured goods from developed Commonwealth countries; and on the problems of the underdeveloped members of the Commonwealth. Provided that officials make sufficient progress on these matters, a further Ministerial meeting will be held in Brussels on 19th January.
  Mr. Stonehouse: On Question No. 32, can the Lord Privy Seal tell us on what basis certain Commonwealth countries are apparently being chosen to become associates of the European Economic Community? Is it now the case that Europe will be able to decide which of these Commonwealth countries are going to be linked? Would it not be appropriate to have a Commonwealth conference called to discuss this split?
  Mr. Heath: Our attitude to this was set out in paragraph 35—I think it was—of my Paris statement. There I asked that the less deleveloped countries of the Commonwealth should have an opportunity of association under Part IV, and that remains the position. Whether countries wish to take advantage of that is a matter for the individual countries themselves.
  Sir J. Duncan: As one of the items for which a nil tariff was asked was jute goods, according to statements in the Press, can my right hon. Friend say whether that recommendation was made with the concurrence and agreement of the British jute trade?
  Mr. Heath: I do not think I can now go into the details about particular items such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned.
  Mr. Strachey: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in general, Commonwealth countries ought to have not less favourable treatment than that for the dependencies and ex-dependencies of France under this Treaty?
  Mr. Heath: Yes. I think that is made plain in the statement I made.
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared in the event of entry into the Common Market to accept majority decisions of the Commission of the European Economic Community directing the legislative and administrative provisions to be adopted by the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir, to the limited extent that the Treaty of Rome empowers the Commission to take such decisions.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not the case that if Britain joins there will be a unanimous vote needed in the first few years, but, following the first few years, a majority vote in Europe will decide what legislation should be passed in this country to bring our laws into line with those of Europe? Is the Lord Privy Seal making reservations in the current negotiations to retain the rights of this House of Commons to decide in its own due time what laws will be passed here in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Heath: Again, we have set out the whole of this in the Paris speech, which makes very clear our position on this matter. The Question refers solely to the position of the Commission. It is not a decision of the Commission but a decision of the Council of Ministers. The powers of the Commission are severely limited and defined by the Treaty of Rome, and its work is carried out by directives, and those directives bind the conclusions, but not the means by which conclusions should be reached, and that is a matter for national legislation.
  Mr. Diamond: Will the Government also be prepared to accept majority decisions of such bodies as N.A.T.O., and, indeed, under every other such treaty which they make, and which provides for majority decisions? Will they also be prepared to accept majority decisions of the United Nations?
  Mr. Heath: These are all very much wider questions, but the individual international organisations in which we take part have different means for reaching decisions.
  Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that in the Coal
  932
  and Steel Community, where majority decisions are assumed to be the rule, whether they become effective depends upon whether they are acceptable to the countries concerned, and that a majority decision is possible only if there is agreement amongst the countries?
  Mr. Heath: One cannot generalise about this matter because there are different varieties of arrangements in each of the three Communities, which have different powers.

  KATANGA (MEMORANDUM)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, with an English translation, the text of the Katanga Government's Memorandum pour le Government de Léopoldville, offering that Government an economic, customs, monetary and military union, and financial help, a copy of which document, dated Elisabethville, 17th October, 1961, and signed by President Tshombe, his Minister of the Interior, Monsieur G. Munongo, and Foreign Minister, Monsieur E. Kimba, has been sent him by the hon. Member for Chigwell.
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. In this Question a certain Mr. Kimba is described as the Foreign Minister. Is it in order so to describe a member of a provincial administration in a country with which we have friendly relations?
  Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member tabling a Question takes responsibility for apparent statements of fact therein.
  Mr. Heath: As it would not be appropriate to circulate such a document in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am placing a copy in the Library.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that, at least, and ask him if it is not the case that this is a reasonable document which disposes of the charge of secessionism—
  Mr. Warbey: Nonsense.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison:—often levelled against the Katanga Government, and would not the United Nations be better employed in trying to arrange to start peaceful negotiations on some such basis as this rather than in continuing to rain

  933
  death and destruction upon Katanga in defiance of the The Hague Convention and of the canons of military honour?
  Mr. Heath: I should not like to enter into a discussion of the actual constitutional nature of the proposal, but I think that as this document is now available in the Library hon. Members can see the position for themselves.
  Mr. H. Wilson: As it obviously has not entered the heads of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends below the Gangway that a province does not normally enter into customs unions and monetary unions with the Government of the country of which it forms part, and as the whole argument has been whether Katanga is, as some hon. Members regard it, a separate State or is a province, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own clear statements that it is a province and his statements of the Government's view that it should not secede from the Congo, would he perhaps spare a little time, take a little time off, to explain to his hon. Friend's these very elementary points?

  SOUTH AFRICA (DETAINED PERSONS)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will request the High Commissioner for the Protectorates to approach the Government of the Republic of South Africa for facilities for a representative of the High Commissioner to interview Mr. Ganyile and two other refugees alleged to have been kidnapped by South African police from Basutoland on 26th August.
  Mr. Thorpeasked the Lord Privy Seal what further representations have been made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the alleged kidnapping of Anderson Ganyile and others by South African police from the British Protected Territory of Basutoland on 26th August.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): Since the Ambassador addressed his first inquiry to the South African Government on 11th October asking for information that would assist in establishing the facts concerning this
  934
  alleged incident, he has made repeated requests for a reply, including two requests in the past week. The South African Government have not yet been able to provide a reply on the ground that certain aspects of the case are sub judice.
  Mr. Brockway: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court gave a decision last week and that therefore the matter is not now sub judice? Ought we not to insist that in a case which has gone on for four months, of men who are alleged to have been kidnapped from British territory, the South African Government could at least give our representative an opportunity to see them?
  Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Member. An appeal was laid and the Court order reversing the judgment was made on 15th December. We hope that the South African Government may now be able to reply.
  Mr. Thorpe: But since we now know that these men are alive and which prison they are in, is there any reason why a representative of Her Majesty's Government should not be allowed to visit and interview these men? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only matter that is sub judice is that the Republican Government must show cause by 18th January why these men should not now be released? Is this any reason for precluding Her Majesty's representative from visiting these men?
  Mr. Thomas: I think that Her Majesty's Government should await a reply from the South African Government.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since this sub judice excuse has been used to drag this business on for over four months, and since there has been a certain amount of quibbling about whether these men were or were not British protected persons and this kidnapping was done on soil for which the House has responsibility, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will not take the matter a little more seriously than he has done so far? Will he see that a complete investigation is made within the Protectorate concerned to collect, before it gets completely cold,

  935
  all the evidence on this most wicked episode? Would the hon. Gentleman, having done all that, not feel in a much stronger position to talk to the South African Government in the way we think they ought to be talked to?
  Mr. Thomas: Investigation on Basutoland territory is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. We are anxious to find what information we can on whether or not this territory was violated. The matter was sub judice until last Friday, since when an order has been made reversing the decision, and we hope to have a reply from the South African Government.
  Mr. Wilson: But what was sub judice was the application for the release of these men under South African law. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what was not sub judice was the simple question of fact whether British territory was violated by the South African raiders who undertook the operation? Surely, there is nothing sub judice about that and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or some Member of the Government, could have been getting on with the job
  Mr. Thomas: We have been asking for information for some time. Our concern was to find out whether or not this territory was violated. We hope now that we shall have a reply.

  EAST GERMANY (PROPAGANDA)
  Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that political propaganda is being sent in the post from East Germany to this country by the East German authorities to people who have not asked for it and do not want it; and whether he will make representations through the Soviet authorities to put an end to this practice.
  Mr. Heath: Propaganda material is being sent on a considerable scale in the way my hon. Friend describes, and my noble Friend has received a number of complaints about it. I have no reason to suppose that official representations through the Soviet authorities would be effective in stopping it; but I hope that what is said in this House
  936
  will find its way to the notice of the East German authorities concerned.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Has my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal considered the contrast between this form of propaganda used by the East German Government and their own efforts, by the jamming of broadcasts and other means, to prevent their own people from having freedom of access to information?
  Mr. Heath: There is an obvious contrast. The point is that many people in this country do not wish to receive this propaganda in this way.
  Mr. Mayhew: That may be so, but will the Lord Privy Seal make it clear that freedom to receive contentious propaganda both overseas and at home is one of the fundamental rights of British citizens and is not a matter for Government intervention? If the Government want to intervene, perhaps they will take every opportunity to get this Communist Government to give the same access to our views as we give to theirs.
  Mr. Heath: The Government are not making an intervention. I hope that the hon. Member will remember the first part of his supplementary question when he is dealing with other forms of advertising.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Lord Privy Seal make clear what is the Government's attitude to propaganda of this kind wherever it comes from? Will he bear in mind that whilst it is perfectly true that the East German Government have been sending propaganda to a great many people in many places who have not asked for it, it is equally true of a great many other countries? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of Parliament receive week by week a great many malicious and contentious and, as far as we can ascertain, untrue pieces of propaganda from a great many foreign Governments? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government's attitude is and whether all this propaganda is to be allowed or disallowed?
  Mr. Heath: It is not a question of allowing or disallowing. It is a question of people making complaints about receiving it when they have not asked to receive it and of its pouring through their post.

  PANAMA CANAL
  Sir J. Pitmanasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the guarantees under the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1904 under which passage through the Panama Canal was guaranteed to vessels of all countries, and in view of the negotiations now proceeding between the Governments of Panama and the United States of America on the future of the Canal, he will propose in the United Nations the creation of a new authority, answerable to the Security Council, in which those Governments shall be asked to vest their present interests in the Panama Canal, and which would be responsible for the efficient operation of the Canal under a Charter, to be drafted by the United Nations, guaranteeing uninterrupted passage through the Canal to all ships requesting it and prepared to conform with the requirements of the authority.
  Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir. The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 was a treaty between the United States and Panama and Her Majesty's Government consider that the future status of the Panama Canal Zone is primarily a matter for the Governments of those two States. We have no reason to suppose that principles and guarantees similar to those now governing the use and operation of the Canal would not be embodied in any future arrangements that might emerge as a result of the recent exchange of letters on the subject between the Presidents of the two States.
  Sir J. Pitman: In view of the very unsatisfactory experience with small nations when they are activated by high nationalism, as in the case of Egypt over the other great international canal, and in view of the fact that it is perfectly clear that the world will not accept a second Power guaranteeing the openness to world traffic of such a canal, may I ask what other proposal the Government have, in view of the apparently obvious fact that the Panama Canal is about to go the way of the Suez Canal unless some such step as is suggested is taken?
  Mr. Thomas: I am not in a position to forecast what Her Majesty's Government would do in a hypothetical situation.

  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS)
  Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the military intervention of the United Nations in the internal affairs of the Congo, and the fact that this is being pursued in such a manner as to endanger the lives of women and children, he will withdraw Great Britain from membership of the United Nations.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Dr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that representatives of this body, instead of being the champions of order in Katanga, have become the apostles of chaos? In view of the fact that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to obtain a cease-fire have so far been rejected, may I ask whether it is not time to assess our position with a view to obtaining at least a situation in which nations experienced in international affairs carry responsibility for such actions rather than characters like Dr. O'Brien?
  Mr. Heath: We debated these matters fully last Thursday. and the position of the Government was then made known. There is another Question on this subject later on. Our thought on a solution has always been made clear to the House, and I am glad to say that today there have been moves in that direction.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. George Ivan Smith, to whose integrity The Times diplomatic correspondent paid a tribute the other day, officially reported last week that at every stage of the operation the United Nations forces have been handicapped by the fact that
  "mercentaries, politicians and Katangese politicians alike have been trying to shield behind civilians"—
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is momentarily forgetting that one is not allowed to quote verbatim from newspapers or the like during Questions.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: This is not a newspaper. It is an official report from Mr. George Ivan Smith, a principal representative of the United Nations in Katanga, who said last week that Katangese politicians and troops were

  939
  putting civilians in front of them and—
  Hon. Members: Speech.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but the same principle would apply to a verbatim quotation from that document.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not now quoting. I am now asking the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the principal representative of the United Nations has reported that Katangese troops and politicians put civilians in front of them and invariably take up positions beside hospitals or schools?
  Mr. Heath: I have not seen such reports. There has been full coverage in the Press and on television and the radio of incidents in Katanga, and hon. Members can form their own judgement.
  Mr. Mayhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that all the Commonwealth members of the United Nations Committee on the Congo have contemptuously rejected the British Government's appeal to the United Nations for a cease-fire in Katanga? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Government have dealt damaging blows at the United Nations? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to improve our prestige?
  Mr. Nabarro: Marshal Nehru.
  Mr. Heath: It does not alter the fact that the Government believe that they were right in taking the initiative that they did in asking for a cease-fire. Surely today's development that, as far as we hear, Mr. Tshombe is moving towards a meeting with Mr. Adoula, is sufficient proof itself that the Government were right to concentrate on their request for a cease-fire on this matter.

  SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS (QUOTATIONS)
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You gave a Ruling just now which I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to clarify, or, perhaps, with respect, consider again at some other time. I understood you to rule that it was not in order during Question Time to quote verbatim from official documents. As this would be a rather
  940
  severe limitation, I wonder whether that could be reconsidered, and whether you would perhaps give us another Ruling on it after you have given it further consideration?
  Mr. Speaker: The whole process of quoting verbatim is out of order in Questions. I have not the exact proposition at the moment, but it is in the region of page 360 of Erskine May.

SWISS LOAN AGREEMENT
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Swiss Loan Agreement.
The Swiss Loan Agreement, signed in Berne on 20th October, providing for a three-year loan of 215 million Swiss francs, was laid before the House on 15th December. I greatly regret the delay which occurred.
Under the Ponsonby rule it is customary for such an agreement not requiring parliamentary authority, but containing a ratification clause, to be laid before Parliament for a period of 21 parliamentary working days before it is ratified. The Swiss Loan Agreement envisages ratification, however, before the end of the year.
In these circumstances, the Government would propose to follow the precedent adopted on some previous occasions of informing the House that they intend to ratify an agreement, in this case before 29th December, 1961. It is hoped that the debate today on economic affairs and the debate on Wednesday on foreign affairs will give any hon. Members who wish the opportunity of expressing their views upon it.
Mr. Mayhew: But that means that, again, the Government have failed to lay an Agreement at the proper time. If 21 days are required, this Agreement should have been laid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if 21 days are required, this Agreement should have been laid on 10th December? This is another case of incompetence and muddle on the part of the Foreign Office.
May I ask the Minister how he accounts for this? What reason has he

941
for it? Is it that we are now so bankrupt, and we borrow so often from abroad, that the Minister has lost count of the number of treaties? Before the House lets this go by, the Minister should explain how this happened.
Mr. Heath: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new capacity, on the great discontent that he has so readily shown about this incident. I have already apologised for the delay which occurred in the machinery for dealing with these agreements and placing them before the House before ratification. I hope that the House will accept that in these circumstances a valuable Agreement of this kind should be ratified and that hon. Members who wish to express views should be able to do so.
Mr. Grimond: I am sure that the House will not be content with this extraordinary statement. Is it not a fact that the Government have borrowed more for less reason than any Government since the war? Is it not also a fact that the Minister has given no explanation for the delay? Can he say what went wrong with the machinery in this case, as in so many others, that we could not have the Agreement in time?
Mr. Heath: As I have explained, there was delay in the machinery by which the actual Agreement came forward from the time of signing to the time of printing and laying before the House. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will accept this procedure for which there are precedents.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we ask for your assistance? I understand that the purpose of the requirement that there shall be 21 days' notice is so that the House shall have an opportunity of considering the matter within the 21 days and deciding whether it wishes the Agreement to be ratified or not? If we are told only today that that period of 21 days is not being provided, and the right hon. Gentleman expresses the hope that hon. Members will be able to express their views on Wednesday, when we are to discuss foreign affairs on a Motion for the Adjournment, what possible opportunity will the House ever have to come to a decision on the matter?
Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in supposing that the original doctrine on cases of this kind was laid down by Mr. Ponsonby when he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1924, and on that occasion he made it plain that when the Government negotiated an Agreement of this kind they would lay the Treaty on the Table of the House, and that it would not be brought into operation for 21 days to give time for the Opposition, if they so desired, to ask for a debate? Furthermore, Mr. Ponsonby went on to say that if the Opposition were to ask for such a debate the Government would readily agree to it. Am I right in supposing that? Can you confirm that my memory is correct?
Mr. Speaker: I hope it is, because I am not well enough equipped at the moment to support or not to support the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. I have no reason to doubt it. I think that the strict position is that this is a matter not for the Chair, but a matter of complaint as between the two sides of the House, and I must not be involved therein.
Mr. Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, may I he allowed to quote the statement which Mr. Ponsonby made on that occasion? He made his declaration in 1924 and, as I understand it, it has lasted since then without exception. He said:
"It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay on the Table of both Houses of Parliament every Treaty, when signed, for a period of 21 days, after which the Treaty will be ratified and published and circulated in the Treaty Series. In the case of important Treaties, the Government will, of course, take an opportunity of submitting them to the House for discussion within this period. But, as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for a discussion of the Treaty in question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1924; Vol. 171, c. 2003–4.]
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. It confirms my view that this is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Heath: That statement was one of intention of the Government of the day. It has been followed for the greater part of the time since then by Governments, but not for the whole time. There was a certain period when the

943
rule was not followed by the Government. In any ease, there have been to date about nine exceptions to this rule when Governments, for a variety of reasons, have informed the House that they intended to ratify in less than the 21 days which was the intention of the Ponsonby rule.
In these circumstances, in view of the value of this Agreement, I am expressing the hope, which, of course, we are prepared to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, that the House will accept the Government's intention to ratify before 29th December.
In reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman), as I said in my statement, it is hoped that today's debate will also provide an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that the Government adhere to the Ponsonby declaration, that they are not trying to upset that in any way, and that although they should have published this Agreement and given us the opportunity within 21 days after the Agreement to raise the matter in the House, nevertheless they are not withholding that right from us now? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that as there are only a few days before the Recess time will have to be found to debate this matter before we adjourn on Thursday? In the circumstances, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will find time for a debate on this matter tomorrow?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): The position has been correctly expressed by both Front Benches. This was a declaration of intent in 1924. There has been a considerable number of exceptions to this, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal mentioned nine. In view of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, we shall be quite ready to discuss the point that he has just raised—as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said earlier.
Mr. Gaitskell: There is not much time to discuss this, if it is to be taken tomorrow, which appears to be the only possible day. In view of the fact that today's debate is concerned with the
944
economic policy of the Government at home, and Wednesday's debate with Berlin, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree forthwith to allow a debate on this matter tomorrow?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Lord Privy Seal instanced a number of exceptions, the only particular cases that he mentioned were cases where the Government wished to ratify the treaty in a period less than the 21 days of the Ponsonby declaration? Am I not right in supposing that this does not explain the error of the Government on this occasion?
Mr. Macleod: Purely on the point of business—naturally, there are very few days left; that is obvious to all. I am not going to attempt to rearrange business across the Table. I would rather that we discussed it, and I am ready to do that as soon as possible.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask a non-technical question? What do we want the money for? Is this a demonstration of the well-known saying, "You have never had it so good"?
Mr. Heath: This is obviously a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the result of part of the arrangements made in the summer, which are well-known to the House.
In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I confirm that it is the intention of the Government to adhere to the Ponsonby rule, and I have expressed my regret to the House for the delay which occurred in this case, and, in expressing my regret, I hoped that the House, seeing the Agreement laid on the Table, would find itself able to accept the Government's expression of regret and their intention to ratify it.
Mr. Mitchison: In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this borrowing, at a cost of 3 per cent., is additional to the I.M.F. borrowing? The £100 million was repaid out of the International Monetary Fund at the end of October. This is about £17 million or £18 million, borrowed from the Swiss at 3 per cent. Why?
Mr. Heath: I have explained that this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

945
If it will help the House and the hon. and learned Member, however, I can give the reason for the arrangement. It is that Switzerland is not a member of the International Monetary Fund, and, therefore, this was an additional amount. As it was outside the scope of the I.M.F. Agreement, a special Agreement was necessary.
Mr. Mitchison: But why at 3 per cent, interest when the I.M.F. loan is free?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have very much to do today, and I feel that we really ought to get on. Mr. Sandys.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. When we are informed that a large sum of money is to be borrowed from another Government, surely it is in order to ask what the money is required for.
Mr. Speaker: There is no Question before the House, and we have to have regard to the number of hon. Members who wish to speak on business later today. We have other matters before we get to that. That was what was in my mind in attempting to carry out the usually difficult task of trying to find out when the House wants to stop a discussion.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Lord Privy Seal has asked the House, or the Opposition, for an act of grace towards the Government, and I find it difficult to see why, outside any normal procedure—or at least outside the procedure that has lasted for 30 years—we should accept, in a period of two or three days, something that the House has felt, with a proper sense, should wait for 21 days. To the first simple supplementary question thrown to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Minister answers that it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not this generally show not so much ignorance on the part of the Foreign Office—because apologies have already been made for its slip-up—as gross contempt of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I see no contempt of the House.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that,
946
quite apart from any question of the merits of the Agreement, which the House certainly would not be entitled at this moment to debate, there are certain procedural questions arising out of what the Lord Privy Seal said that have not so far been entirely cleared up? Would it not be in order to ask a supplementary question, so as to clear them up? I do not want to abuse the procedure of points of order, but would it not be proper for me to indicate to you the procedural question which I would have liked to ask, if you thought that it would not be debating the merits in any way?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. I do not understand how I can be used as what is now called a pipeline to ask a question of a Minister.
Mr. Gaitskell: In an effort to try to clear up the matter, the Leader of the House has said that he is prepared to discuss with us the question of a very early debate on the matter. That is all right, subject to one anxiety in our minds, which is that unless we have a debate tomorrow it will be too late, because the only other day on which we could have the debate would be Wednesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not Friday?"] If hon. Members opposite wish to take an extra day, so much the better. We are much obliged to hon. Members opposite. No doubt they will bring pressure to bear upon the Government in respect of this matter as they have done in respect of so many others. But how are we to be sure that we shall have an opportunity to debate the matter, in view of the lack of time, unless we get an immediate answer from the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I am not in a position to dictate what the Leader of the House should answer, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I am sorry to be persistent, but references have now been made, by both Front Benches, to discussions between the usual channels on the question whether or not an opportunity will be provided to discuss this matter before 29th December. I am not represented in any of these usual channels and it therefore seems to me that, unless some provision is made for consultations all round, the

947
only opportunity I will have will be to ask my supplementary question now.
But I cannot do that unless you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker. If you do not permit me to do so it means that I shall have no opportunity whatsoever—and neither will my hon. Friends—of taking any part in discussing the question whether there shall be a discussion or no discussion before ratification, irrevocably, has taken place.
Mr. Speaker: Supposing some agreement to be arrived at through the usual channels, an announcement of the substance of the agreement would be made in the House. I assume that the hon. Member would then probably have an opportunity of asking a question about it, and possibly of expressing, by way of such question, his agreement or disagreement with what had been agreed. I am not in a position to help the hon. Member to be more intermingled with the usual channels.
Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Sir, I cannot think that the position is satisfactory for unofficial Members of Parliament—Members who are not represented in what are euphemistically called the "usual channels".
The usual channels are intended to be representative of all bodies of opinion in the House, and they all ought to be included or else this consultation should not take place at all. If there is to be private consultation, those other groups ought to be represented. If that cannot be done, the discussion ought to take place on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: I confess that I had a little difficulty in hearing all that the hon. Gentleman was then saying to me. What I did hear was the answer already given to a question addressed to the Leader of the House. I cannot think that a repetition of the substance of that question would be in order.

GOA, DIU AND DAMAN (ENTRY OF INDIAN FORCES)
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): As the House knows, during the course of last night, Indian armed forces
948
entered the Portuguese territories of Goa, Diu and Daman.
We have long understood the natural desire of the Indian people to incorporate these territories in the Republic of India and their feelings of impatience that the Portuguese Government have not felt disposed to follow the example of Britain and France. Nevertheless, I must make it plain that Her Majesty's Government deeply deplore the decision of the Government of India to use military force to achieve its political objectives.
The attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter has been clearly explained to the Indian Government from time to time, and last week, when the situation reached a critical stage, we made a strong appeal to Mr. Nehru to refrain from a resort to force. Other countries which are friendly to India made similar appeals.
In addition, the Secretary-General of the United Nations strongly urged that the matter should at once be brought before the United Nations with a view to averting hostilities. We greatly regret that these various appeals should have proved unavailing.
The Portuguese Government have informed us this morning that they have asked for an immediate meeting of the Security Council to consider the situation.
In view of what has happened, we have to consider our responsibilities for the safety of the small number of United Kingdom citizens in Goa. Her Majesty's frigate, "Rhyl", which is at present about 900 miles away, has accordingly been ordered to proceed at once towards Goa, so as to be on hand to evacuate British residents should this prove necessary.
The House will realise that the outbreak of hostilities between a fellow member of the Commonwealth and a country bound to us by close ties of alliance places Her Majesty's Government in a most painful position. In addition, we are particularly concerned about the wider repercussions which the action taken in this case may have upon other problems which face the world today.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Secretary of State aware that while we on this side

949
of the House regard the continued existence of a Portuguese colony on the mainland of India as an anchronism which should have been abandoned some time ago, in pursuit of the example set by Britain and France, nevertheless we cannot but profoundly regret that the Government of India should have found it necessary to solve this problem by force? Is he further aware that those of us who have admired Mr. Nehru's staunch support in the past for the Charter of the United Nations, and his great efforts for peace, should all the more regret what has now been done?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman just one question? Was any attempt made to secure what one might describe as a combined Commonwealth approach to Mr. Nehru before this action was taken, and can the right hon. Gentleman say rather more precisely what efforts were made to induce the Portuguese Government to follow the example that France and Britain set so far as their Indian possessions are concerned?
Mr. Sandys: I do not think that it is a case where it would have been suitable to try, so to speak, to get a "ganging up" of all the Commonwealth members. I think that this was essentially a case when each Commonwealth Government expressed their views to the Indian Government. We were not the only one who did so.
We have made our views known—I do not wish to go into it at this stage—to the Portuguese Government on a number of occasions; and, of course, apart from the broader issue, we have, very recently indeed, urged them to avoid any action in Goa which could be regarded as provocative.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further? He said that Her Majesty's Government had made their views known to the Portuguese Government. Do I take it from that that they did, in fact, in so many words, say that the Portuguese Government should follow the example of Britain and France in respect of their possessions in India?
Mr. Sandys: I thought that I had answered that. We have made our views known to the Portuguese Government.
Sir G. Nicholson: I shall shortly be asking your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move
950
the Adjournment of the House so that we can discuss this question. In the meantime, may I ask my right hon. Friend, in the light of what has already been said, to express the deep grief of this country, which has such a profound affection for the Indian people, about what has happened?
Mr. Wigg: When the Minister reflects on the powerlessness of this country to influence events in either Katanga or Goa, does he realise his own personal responsibility for the situation arising from his tenure of office as Minister of Defence?
Mr. Sandys: I am not aware of what the hon. Member is referring to.
Mr. Wyatt: Why have the Government taken such a lofty view about Mr. Nehru's action in Goa? Why do the Government suppose that he would place any more reliance on the ability of United Nations to secure Indian rights in Goa than did Her Majesty's Government themselves place on the United Nations in the case of either Suez or Katanga? Why does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that there is any other way in which India could secure the liberty of many thousands of oppressed Goans? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will repeat. Do not the Government know that many thousands of Goans are in gaol today because they have been appealing for the independence of their country? What else do the Government think that Mr. Nehru could do than use force?
Mr. Sandys: I have no doubt that the hon. Member's words will be favourably received in Delhi.
Mr. Wyatt: Good.
Mr. Sandys: So far as the United Nations is concerned, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the case of Suez, to which he alluded, we referred the matter to the United Nations and patiently discussed it there for many months.
Mr. John Hall: In view of the fact that this is only the latest in a series of acts of aggression by India, and particularly in view of the last question, may we now assume that Mr. Nehru has completely lost faith in the ability of the United Nations to solve any international

951
problem, and anticipate that India will be leaving the United Nations?
Mr. Sandys: I hope that hon. Member will not say things which will unduly exacerbate an already very delicate situation.
Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister make clear to the Indian Government that whatever the precedents and whatever the reasons for the action, it is an action which has profoundly shocked the many friends of India in this country? May we ask the Government whether any steps have been taken to propose a ceasefire, and, also, whether they are either taking any action, or have had any request for action either from members of the United Nations or from the Commonwealth as allies of Portugal?
Mr. Sandys: I think that I explained in my original statement that the Portuguese Government have asked for an immediate meeting of the Security Council.
Mr. Wyatt: Which side will the right hon. Gentleman vote for?
Mr. Sandys: We shall, naturally, support that request and that will be the occasion to consider whether or not it is possible or appropriate for there to be a cease-fire.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this country owes a duty both to Portugal and India to ensure that the rule of law is observed in this area and that, therefore, whatever may be the outcome of the fighting, we should tell India that we shall take the necessary steps to ensure that this matter is decided in the proper way, by reference to an international tribunal and that this act of hypocritical piracy by Mr. Nehru is something which cannot be tolerated by a democratic set of nations?
Mr. Sandys: As I explained, this matter is being referred to an international body, namely, the Security Council of the United Nations.
Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more clearly what he meant by a rather curious phrase he used in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about discussions between Commonwealth Ministers being "ganging up"?
Mr. Sandys: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was sufficiently in touch with the vulgar tongue to understand what I meant.
Mr. Wise: As the dependency of Goa has been in existence for over 400 years, longer than the country of India, and in view of my right hon. Friend's statement that we have been putting our views to the Portuguese Government about abandoning this bit of the mainland of India, could my right hon. Friend now seek a declaration from Mr. Nehru as to where he thinks the mainland of India ends?
Mr. Sandys: I am not expressing a view on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but I have no doubt that Mr. Nehru would say that it ends where the sea begins.
Mr. J. Hynd: While gladly dissociating myself from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), as I think that every hon. Member on this side would, and associating myself with the Leader of the Opposition in deploring this aggression, may I ask whether the Minister will be able to tell the House what effect this situation has on our existing alliance with Portugal? If Portugal suggests that Goa is part of Portuguese territory, will this involve the alliance in any way and, if so, what response would there be to an application for our assistance?
Mr. Sandys: I think that it is worth making it known to the House that we made it clear to the Portuguese Government as long ago as 1954 that it would be impossible for Britain to engage in hostilities against a fellow member of the Commonwealth.
Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member wishes to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House?
Sir G. Nicholson: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Member in due course, but that time is not yet.
Later—
Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing

953
Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
to direct attention to the situation in Goa.
That this matter is definite is, alas, too obvious. That it is urgent is quite clear, and that it is of public importance needs no stressing, for it affects not only the future of that part of India but the future of the Commonwealth and the United Nations. I submit that this covers the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It is for these reasons that I wish to move the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
to direct attention to the situation in Goa.
I cannot accept the Motion. It does not deal with a definite matter and there is no direct administrative responsibility for the Government here.
Sir G. Nicholson: Further to that point of order, Sir. As I have always believed that it is wrong to contest a decision of the Chair in these matters, I bow to your Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for the graceful way in which he sits down.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (RETIREMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received a letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons in the following terms:
"Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that I desire, as from the 31st December, to resign
954
the patent of Clerk of the House of Commons which I have been privileged to hold for the past seven and a half years. Although my acknowledgements must in many cases be retrospective, I cannot lay down my office without expressing to you, Sir, my gratitude for the support and encouragement so generously given to me by yourself, your three immediate predecessors below whom I sat at the Table, and by all the other occupants of the Chair during this period.
To the Members of all parties in the twelve Parliaments which I have known, and to my colleagues past and present of all ranks and grades in the service of the House, I tender my warmest thanks for the many marks of courtesy, kindness and consideration which they have shown me.
I shall never forget the warm welcome which, as a servant of the House of Commons, I received from the Members and officials of many Parliaments of the Commonwealth.
After forty-two years of which nearly twenty-five have been spent at the Table, it is with great regret that I leave the service of the House, but I am proud that my working life has been passed in the service of parliamentary democracy of which the House of Commons stands as model to the world.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
EDWARD FELLOWES."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am sure that all of us will have heard with sincere regret of the decision of the Clerk of the House. I shall not add anything more now, because there will be an opportunity of expressing our thanks to him tomorrow, when a Motion will come before the House.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (RETIREMENT)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [THIRD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  INCOMES AND PRODUCTIVITY
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add:
  "this House deplores the handling by Her Majesty's Government of the Pay Pause, which has undermined the well-established machinery for freely negotiating wage settlements, is grossly unfair in operation, and provides no long term solution to the problem of inflation; and further regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to propose measures that will increase productivity and remove the underlying weaknesses in the national economy"
  instead thereof.
  "The danger of inflation is ever present and will be accentuated by the drive to achieve a balance of payments…
  Our costs of production are of vital importance and they depend to a considerable extent on the amount which industry has to pay in profits, salaries and wages…
  It is essential, therefore, that there should be no further general increase in the level of personal incomes without at least a corresponding increasing in the volume of production. Unless we are prepared to check any such tendency we shall find ourselves unable to fulfil our export task owing to the rise in costs."
  Those are not my words, neither are they those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are those of a great man—Sir Stafford Cripps. He uttered them four Governments, six Chancellors and thirteen years ago, but they may just as well have been uttered last week for all that the Government seem to have learned during the last decade.
  That is exactly what the Chancellor has been telling us about the current situation. We have a right to ask the Government why it is that, since Sir Stafford Cripps made his first attempts, shortly after the war, in the White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, co analyse the situation, place it before the House and the country and to invite support for it, thirteen years later the
  956
  Chancellor of the Exchequer is still putting before the House the same dilemma and in almost exactly the same words.
  When I remember that the Government have had complete control over our economy and over our destinies for the last decade, I say that they must share a heavy measure of responsibility for not carrying us further on the road to a solution.
  Their usual answer is the answer given recently by the Prime Minister, at Sheffield. He turns the question aside. "Ah," he said, "look at the increase in our standard of life. Is that a failure? Of course we have not failed. Look at the number of houses we have built, look at our educational progress and the way in which we are adding to our National Health Service." It depends to whom he is talking. So he turns aside this basic question, which was posed thirteen years ago.
  We have had substantial increases in our standard of life during the last thirteen years, but not very evenly distributed. Many have been left out of the national bounty. But these increases in our standard of life have been bought at a very heavy price. They have been bought at the price of our decline as a major industrial nation. Is there any hon. Gentleman opposite who believes that the standing of Britain in the world today, either as a industrial nation or in terms of the influence which she can exert, is as great as it was at the time when the late Ernest Bevin held Lord Home's portfolio? Is there any hon. Gentleman who believes that the influence of this country in the affairs of the world is as great as it was at the time of the outbreak of the Korean War?
  I think that no objective person studying the situation can deny that there has been a steady decline in Britain's position in the world and in our relations with our neighbours on the Continent of Europe which has brought us to the position where we are now one of a company of equals. There is nothing to be ashamed of in being one of a company of equals, but the Government have held responsibility for ten years, during which our position has slipped from one of industrial pre-eminence in Europe to a position in which we are struggling along trying to clutch the coat-tails of other nations in the Common Market.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: Knocking your country.
  Mr. Callaghan: Well, I suppose that anybody who analyses the situation will be told by hon. Members opposite like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) that he is knocking his country, but in anything I have to say on this topic, as I said during all the time when I was dealing with colonial affairs, I do not intend or wish to knock my country.
  I want, however, to see that the truth is understood and known both in this House and in the country. In my view, this is the mood of a growing number of people. We are not content to shelter behind complacencies. We need a nationally concerted effort to escape from the position in which we are today, and the Chancellor has failed to evoke the mood which is necessary if the country is to gird itself for a move forward now.
  Why has the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to do so? The Trades Union Congress has certainly not extended a welcoming hand to him. Does he blame them for that? I suppose the hon. Member for Solihull would, but I wonder whether the Chancellor does. If he does, let me remind him again of the contrast that exists, not in the analysis of the situation between him and Sir Stafford Cripps, but in the remedies that were put forward. I have read from the White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices. The Chancellor has told us that it is necessary in the national interests to set aside arbitration awards and collective agreements. What was the view of the Government of the day? It was:
  "In the view of the Government it is essential that there should be the strictest adherence to the terms of collective agreements."
  Does not the Chancellor think that he would have evoked a different response from the Trades Union Congress if he had included that passage in his speech, instead of deliberately spitting in the face of the Trades Union Congress, as he has done? What else did Sir Stafford Cripps say? In paragraph 7 (d), he said this:
  "It does not follow that it would be right to stabilise all incomes as they stand today."
  But the Chancellor says that there is to be a wage freeze. He calls it a pay
  958
  pause, when he means a wage freeze. Indeed, it is carried to the level where the Minister of Power can tell the miners, as he did ten days ago, that even if there is an increase in productivity that is not a case for an increase in wages.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, "There is no immediate case for an increase in wages". He added, "It may be that if you increase productivity now, at a later stage that will be a very powerful factor in giving you an increase in wages". Am I not interpreting him correctly? But that is not what was said in the White Paper of 1948. In that White Paper, increases in incomes were directly related to increases in productivity. Under this Government, not only is there a wage freeze but even if one works harder one must get no benefit from it. I will come back to this point later.
  There was a third difference. In paragraph 8 of his White Paper, Sir Stafford Cripps said:
  …if, at some future time, there should be a marked rise in the cost of living the level of those personal incomes which as a result became inadequate will need reconsideration."
  The cost of living has gone up and is going up. So far from protecting the value of wages the Government are eroding it by allowing the cost of living and the retail prices index to rise. Under the measures which were in force during the wage restraint of 1948, these cases merited special consideration.
  I do not know whether the Chancellor has ever refreshed himself by reading Sir Stafford Cripps' White Paper. I hope that I have said enough to make the Chancellor wonder whether, if his approach to the Trades Union Congress had been different, the response would have been different. He must know, because he has met them, of the deep feeling of resentment which is felt by every trade union officer who have been touched by the wage pause, the wage freeze, in the way in which it has been presented by the Chancellor. It operates unfairly, unjustly, unevenly and inequitably. But there are wide areas in which it is not working at all. There are other areas, such as the Civil Service. in which it is working with partial efficiency. And there is a no-man's-land in which it has undoubtedly operated to slow down the settlement of wage claims.

  959
  I have here a list of industries in which wage increases have been awarded since the pay pause. They are printing and bookbinding—an increase of 5½ per cent.; heating, ventilating and domestic engineering industries—an increase of 7d. an hour for craftsmen; flour mills—an increase of 10s. 9d. a week for craftsmen; the Ford Motor Company—an increase of 1½d. per hour and a reduction in weekly hours; building and civil engineering—an increase of 6d. an hour. These are quite apart from the famous electricity supply industry settlement, the only one which brought a public rebuke from the Prime Minister. I calculate that at least three-quarters-of-a-million workers have been awarded increases of pay since 25th July, when the Chancellor announced his wage freeze.
  As I said, it operates very unevenly. There was the famous case of the baggage loaders at London Airport—960 of them. It is worth putting on record again that they went on strike because they could not get 2½d. an hour to bring them into line with men employed by B.O.A.C. who were working in the next hangar and were doing exactly the same job. It cost the Government and B.E.A. £300,000.
  There was a week of shuffling by the Government—and we know how well they can shuffle; we had an illustration of it last week. And at the end of the week they sent the baggage loaders back to work with a higher rate of pay than they had originally refused and for which they went on strike. They were regraded; they were to be master baggage loaders instead of baggage loaders, which is what I mean by a shuffle. Perhaps it was baggage masters—I do not know the precise title, but I know that the result is that they were doing the same job and that the Government looked as foolish as even this Government can look.
  I have another example from the Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) tells me that because the service is unable to get clerical workers there is a proposal that they should not be started at the foot of the scale, but should be started part of the way up it, giving them two or three increments. That is fine. But the staff side said,
  960
  "What about those who joined just before the pay pause? Will you put them on the same scale?" The answer was, "No, we cannot do that because it would mean breaking the pay pause".
  Serious consideration is now going on in the ranks of the Health Service workers whether these clerical workers who joined before 25th July should resign and rejoin as from a current date in order to get the higher increments. What folly and stupidity the Chancellor has allowed himself to get into. There was the case of the 27 Government car drivers denied raincoats—which were in stock—because of the pay pause.
  The Chancellor pretends that he is concerned with other incomes apart from wages. Now and again, in an almost catalectic whisper, we can hear him speak of dividends and profits. I regret to say that those whispers do not seem to reach the board rooms, or they are drowned when they get there. Not only has he not carried the trade unions of the country with him, but he has not carried some of his hon. Friends with him.
  Yesterday, there was a roll of dishonour in Reynolds News, a newspaper which ought to be read more frequently for the information which it contains. I am all in favour of giving a good paper a piece of advertisement now and again. This paper said that 13 hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were involved. I have the roll of honour here, but I do not propose to trouble the House with it at this stage, although I can read it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it out."] I am always the servant of the House in these matters.
  There are 13 hon. Members whose companies have declared higher dividends since the pay pause than they declared last year. I hope that we shall hear from some of these hon. Members, whose votes were given to the Government in July, how they voted in their board rooms in September. It will be very interesting to know what protests were made by some of those hon. Members who are sitting in the House now when the dividends were increased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the names."] In response to popular appeal, I will read the names.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Remember Caesar.
  Mr. Callaghan: We know that they are all honourable men. There is the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Ashton); the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow); the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher)—I do not think that they need all stand up as I read the names. There is the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low); the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens); the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley); the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith); the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams); the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst); the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore); and—
  Sir Thomas Moore rose—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Flog him.
  Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member has asked me to stand up. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the charge which he has just launched.
  In May of this year, as chairman of a certain company, I announced an interim dividend of 7½ per cent. compared with 5 per cent. last year. I forecast and promised to the public, and presumably to our own shareholders, that the final dividend would be 12½ per cent., making it 20 per cent. for the whole year against 17½ per cent. last year. This was long before the Chancellor announced his pause, or his desire for a pause. After the Chancellor had made his statement I did not increase the final dividend.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Callaghan: That explanation strikes me as being on exactly a par with the Post Office Engineering Union case. It was awarded an increase in pay by the arbitration tribunal before the pay pause in respect of conditions existing before the pay pause. As soon as the pay pause was introduced the Government said, "We will pay them only 8s. and we will keep the extra 12s. back for some future date".
  Sir T. Moore: I must intervene again. I made a promise to the shareholders
  962
  of the company, to the public and to the prospective shareholders of Eastwoods Ltd., and I carried out my word to the public.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member is making my point for me. All I want the Government to do is to carry out their word to the Government servants in exactly the same way. That is exactly my case.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way to the hon. Member. I did not mention him in the roll of honour.
  Here are two different standards of treatment. The chairman of a private industry believes that he must keep faith with his shareholders and that it would be wrong to do anything else, because he had made them a promise. Is there to be a lower standard of morality for the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I have given way twice and I will not give way again at this stage, although I will do so later.
  Mr. Bence: Finish the roll of honour.
  Mr. Callaghan: There is only one more.
  I believe that by now the Chancellor understands the deep feeling of resentment which his treatment has caused. Mr. Charles Smith, secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union, who used to be a Member of the House, put it this way, "If the Government say that they can override agreements and ignore contracts and bargains which they enter into because they are the Government, that is the first step on the road to totalitarianism."
  I remember a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament binding themselves together, some years ago, to hound the Minister of Agriculture out of his office because they thought that one man had been dealt with unfairly by the State. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to realise is that this action of his in breaking long-standing agreements is regarded by the trade union movement as their Crichel Down, and the same feeling of resentment is felt by hon. Members on

  963
  this side of the House and among those of us who have had to deal with these matters for the last thirty years as was felt by his hon. Friends over Crichel Down and all that arose from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "More so."]
  That may well be true. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a disingenuous attempt to deny it, the Minister of Labour admitted to a Civil Service deputation that the Government are in breach of their agreement with the staff side on matters of arbitration. What do the Government say to unofficial strikers? They say, "Get back to work before we negotiate". What do we say to the trade unionist who is in default with his dues? We say, "Get into compliance and then we will act on your behalf". I say to the Government, "Get into compliance. Get back to work. Honour your agreements. Then the T.U.C. will be in the mood to negotiate with you".
  I have never known a situation in which three of the largest and most responsible Civil Service trade unions have announced that they will advise their members to work to rule as from the beginning of next year. I do not understand how such a situation could arise, or how the Government can possibly permit it to continue. I know these trade union leaders personally. I have worked with them for many years. They are not men who are given to "flying off the handle". They eschewed the strike weapon years ago. That is why they are more concerned with the preservation of agreements and arbitration awards. This is their fortress, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undermined. They have now been driven into a position where they believe they can get no justice out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a result of his action.
  I hope that this decision by the Civil Service trade unions will not come into force. I believe that it will strain loyalties very considerably. It will make great difficulties. It has already undoubtedly poisoned industrial relations. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman, even now, to give the union leaders a statement that they can take back to their members which will ensure that their wages claims are to be considered
  964
  fairly and impartially and without the Government's guillotine the whole time.
  I read that the locomotive men at Gillingham are to resume their unofficial strike on 1st January. I can sympathise with and understand their exasperation when they are dealing with the Government in their present frame of mind. I put this to these men. Why should they let the Government escape from their responsibilities by themselves becoming the scapegoat, because that is what the Government will see happens to them. They will use the men as an excuse for saying, "Look how irresponsible these fellows are. There is nothing we can do with them". The Government will divert attention from the very root of the problem and will say to the hapless traveller and the men and women going home tired after a long day's work who are held up by these men's exasperation, "It is the loco men's fault".
  I beg the locomotive men at Gillingham not to fall into this trap. They have two Conservative Members in the House. They cannot expect to elect Conservatives and escape the consequences of Conservative philosophy. I suggest a simple remedy to the men, "You put 'em in. You get 'em out".
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I put this to him? I accept that it is true that a go-slow will result in the men being a scapegoat for the Government, but my hon. Friend must recognise that an alternative to a go-slow is strike action, in which case they will still be the scapegoat for the Government.
  Mr. Callaghan: We have not yet reached that stage. The railway unions are still discussing their pay claim. The executive committees, which are charged with responsibility to the whole membership, have by no means reached that conclusion at this stage. If the army is to move at all, it had better move and fight together and not be picked off singly.
  Mr. Percy Collick: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, because he has already been interrupted several times, but I think that, on reflection, he will agree that he has a little exaggerated the position. I can assure

  965
  him that the locomotive men at Gillinghame did not put the present Government in.
  Mr. Callaghan: I hope that they will work very hard to get them out.
  I have been discussing this afternoon the short-term measures the Government have taken and in which they have failed during the last few months in relation to what was undoubtedly a very real problem, namely, the problem of the £. I readily agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with a very serious problem in July, but I believe that he could and should have handled it very differently. I believe that he could even have got away with his pay pause for a short time if he had said in July, "I call for a pause in all our arrangements, whether they be profits, dividends or wages, for a period of two months while I may have the opportunity of discussing with the Trades Union Congress and with leaders of industry how we are to tackle this situation".
  I believe that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had coupled that with an atmosphere of leadership, which he singularly failed to generate, he would have got a response, because there would have been a time limit. It would have been seen that there was a short period in which everybody had to stand still to protect the position of the £. I believe that he would then have got the response he hoped for, but, in fact, failed to get.
  For the moment the £ is safe, so we understand, although we have heard about borrowings again this afternoon. The need of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to get on to his long-term solution, but he is unable to do that because he cannot climb out of the pit that he has dug for himself. Until he climbs out of the pit the £ is in danger again, or could be in danger. I wish to choose my words carefully. Until that time the £ could be in danger again, because all he has done is to put a temporary stopper on wages. No stopper has been put on either profits or prices. No stopper has been put on rents or dividends.
  If this situation drags on, there is no reason why we should not go through the same dreary round which we went through last July, which we went through
  966
  under the administration of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), my Parliamentary 'neighbour, and which we have gone through on earlier occasions during the last sixteen years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to scrap the pay pause now and start again. He should start again by bringing the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries in at the beginning, before he takes any steps and not at the end. I do not know that he can do this, but he ought to do it.
  In the words of the E.C.E. Report:
  "The chief hope offered by the July measures is that by temporarily restraining increases of wages and of production, time will be given to discover long-run solutions…"
  Ten years after the Tories have been in power we are still trying to discover the long-run solutions. This is what the Chancellor ought to be doing now.
  I do not believe that the official explanation that he is giving productivity time to catch up with wage rates holds much water. There is now a far greater built-in resistance to lower costs when there is lower production than there used to be. Not only are salaried workers kept on, but managements now tend more to hoard labour—weekly paid workers. They are not thrust out on to the employment exchanges at a week's notice as readily as they used to he. Moreover, there is a small decline in the number of weekly wage earners in manufacturing industry. There is also a large increase in the number of white-coated workers, and in overhead costs such as advertising.
  These are all built-in costs. I understand that £500 million is likely to be industry's bill for advertising this year. It may be cut down over a period, but I venture the opinion that the resistance to lower costs today, when we have lower production, is likely to increase the cost per unit of production and not to decrease it. If that is true—and it is at least likely—our exports become more, not less, costly.
  Let us look at our experience. In 1957, when the present Minister of Aviation put his measures into force, the manufacturing production index was 108·3. The following year it had declined—not increased—to 106·9. Let

  967
  us take 1955. The manufacturing production index was 106·4 when the Home Secretary introduced his measures. In 1956 it had declined—declined—to 105·9. What evidence is there, what basis is there for believing that on this occasion, contrary to the experience of the last two occasions, if we follow this short-term economic policy our unit costs will be reduced, our exports will, therefore, increase, and that they will be less costly in the process?
  The signs already are that the pattern of the last two occasions is repeating itself. In June, 1961, the index of manufacturing production was 127. It was the same in July. In August it was 125, in September it declined to 123, and productivity, which we are told is the excuse—the Government say that productivity must catch up with wage costs—was 118 in July and, in September, 114.
  Our economy is rather like a jet aircraft engine. It operates most efficiently when it is operating at a high altitude, and it is most inefficient when operating at a low level. Not to appreciate that is one of the basic mistakes that the Chancellor is making by the short-term remedies that he has proposed. Our exports are showing no resilience. They were exceptionally high in June at £331 million, but the figures in succeeding months have been £307 million, £324 million, £297 million, £311 million and, in November, £305 million. There is no evidence there that, according to the theorists, the cut in home production is releasing exports, or is having any effect at all. Indeed, the figure for November of this year is well below that of November of last year, when it was £329 million.
  When the present Minister of Aviation introduced his measures he had exactly the same experience. Exports declined immediately after he raised the Bank Rate. They remained at a low level for over twelve months, and it was two years before they had fully recovered to the level at which they stood at the time of the crisis of September, 1957. What reason does the Chancellor give the House for assuming that things will be different now? He is using the same measures, taking the same remedies;
  968
  why will the solution be happier this time than last?
  The Government pay lip-service to growth, but their actions hardly bear out their words. Indeed, this concentration on restricting consumption, on driving down the economy, has a most damaging effect on the appearance of Britain in the eyes of the world. Over the last two years I have had the good fortune to do more travelling than have most hon. Members, and I am only too well aware of the image presented abroad by this country—a large part of it entirely misplaced. The accent put on unofficial strikes and official strikes gives an impression in overseas countries that is quite far from the mark when one realises that 20 million men and women are going to work every day and are carrying out their jobs faithfully and well.
  Nevertheless, it is the "image" that matters—to use the popular current word—and what is reported abroad and considered by those who have less desire to help this country than, I hope, have hon. Members is the damage done to our economy by strikes; the damage done to our economy by the high Bank Rate, the damage caused to our economy by constant inflation, and the damage that is done to our economy by constant balance of payments crises.
  The Chancellor is giving additional currency to those who would take this view. Let me quote what is said by the Export Council for Europe—a semi-Government body, I believe:
  "An adverse factor affecting Britain's exports"—
  in this case, to Belgium—
  "is a widely-accepted image of the U.K. as old-fashioned. It is important that this should be corrected, and replaced by a picture of a dynamic, imaginative and forward-looking industrial nation. Germany's widely-advertised industrial recovery has captured the Belgian's imagination."
  It has captured the admiration of others besides the Belgians.
  I know that this picture is misplaced, but as long as the Government persist in adopting short-term remedies without getting down to the fundamental weaknesses in the economy they merely play into the hands of those abroad who have no desire to see this country prosper.

  969
  The Chancellor uses a specious argument—not so much in this House but when making speeches in the country and when broadcasting—that the Government's purpose is to preserve the value of wages. It is doing nothing of the sort. If I may point the contrast, when Cripps introduced the wage-restraint policy the cost of living in this country was held stationary for two years—
  Sir Spencer Summers: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which two years?
  Mr. Callaghan: Yes. That period was from March, 1948—when, I think, the hon. Gentleman will find that the index stood at 108, although I have not the figures with me; I remember them, having looked them up during the weekend—to the autumn of 1949, when the figure was 109. By the spring of the following year it had risen only to 111. The cost-of-living index was held practically stationary during the whole of that period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know why hon. Members should want to take exception to something that the Labour Government did to hold down the cost of living. I know that it destroys their theory that the cost of living constantly went up. The fact is that it remained stationary or practically so.
  What is now taking place is that the cost of living is going up constantly every month. The Government are not preserving the levels of wages at all, but are eroding them. The Chancellor cannot tell trade union leaders that they should tell their members, "What we are doing is preserving the value of your money." It is doing nothing of the kind, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will be faced with a number of claims over the next few months—I do not see how trade union leaders can avoid making them—based on cost-of-living considerations.
  The effective increase in the cost of living this year has already been 4½ per cent. Is the Chancellor to say to men on £10 a week, "There shall be no recompense to you for that?" He may well do so. I am reminded that he has already said it in the case of the laundry workers who are getting about £7 10s. a week, but Sir Stafford Cripps made it
  970
  quite clear in the extract I have quoted that if such a situation should occur he felt that there must be recompense for inadequate personal incomes.
  I am here pointing out the difference in the treatment meted out to the people by each side of the House when in power; and why the Chancellor has utterly failed to understand the psychology of ordinary men and women, and has utterly failed to understand the deep and bitter resentment felt by trade unionists over his acts of folly.
  Incidentally, further to answer the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), I find that I have with me the figures for which he asked. On 13th April, 1948, the retail price index stood at 108; on 12th April, 1949 it was 109—one point up—and by the time of devaluation, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman's pardon, it had gone up to 112 points, not 111. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying "Oh," for the index has gone up more than that in the last nine months. I have been talking about a period stretching over two years.
  Sir S. Summers: Was that not exceedingly unfair? The hon. Gentleman was seeking to argue that for a certain period there was stability. In the course of that argument he failed to disclose details we have now extracted from him; that after the index had gone up by four points we had inflation, which must have increased the cost of living thereafter.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am informed that in the ten months after devaluation, the retail price index went up by one point. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to refute that?
  Sir S. Summers: I do not have the figures.
  Mr. Callaghan: The Chancellor said that he wanted time in which to think about long-term activities. That is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been appointed: to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman time to think. He has taken over control of all this massive expenditure about which he told City of London young Conservatives the other day.
  I speak of the £66 million which went out in beef subsidies last week. I hope

  971
  that an inquiry will be instituted to discover to whose fingers some of that money is sticking. It is clear that the housewife has not had the full benefit, nor has the farmer. Where has it got lost? If the Chief Secretary has control of this massive portion of expenditure, why did he sanction it without inquiring or telling the House where it has gone and who was to benefit from it?
  I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) is not here. He has a sort of gloomy cynicism which befits a retired stockbroker. He has no time for moral appeals or pious aspirations. I want to deal with that right hon. Gentleman because, I understand that some of the supporters of the Government have criticisms to offer and I imagine that he would probably be echoing their criticisms.
  I want to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what they think the Chancellor should do within the limits of their own philosophy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West was clear on this point. Manufacturers were in the game for profits and trade unions were out to get more money, he said. It had to be expected. What was wrong with that, he wondered. That is what that right hon. Gentleman said, and in the circumstances, what would the critics of the Government do?
  I hope that some of those critics among hon. Gentlemen opposite are present today, for they have two remedies within the limits of their own philosophy. The first they followed before the war, when the remedy for a weak balance was unemployment. "We live well at the expense of those who cannot afford even the necessities of life. That will keep down imports", they said. Since the war the second remedy has been used. They have turned the penny over and the remedy which Conservative Governments have adopted time and again in the last ten years has been that of inflation.
  What am I to believe, for I am only going by the indices? I can only believe that the value of money has continued to go down in the last ten years—the life of Tory Governments. What has been the remedy if it has not been inflation? When the Tories have had to
  972
  choose between pre-war unemployment and post-war inflation, they have chosen the latter.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: Would not the hon. Gentleman rather say that at all times we have chosen against a high level of unemployment? That is the important thing.
  Mr. Callaghan: I want to put this to critics of the Government. The dilemma which this Government have failed to solve during the last ten years is how to keep a satisfactory balance of payments, how to pay for what is brought in by increased exports and, at the same time, how to keep industries running all-out and to keep a stable level of prices. Is that not the dilemma?
  Mr. Mawby: It is.
  Mr. Callaghan: Then what are the figures in this equation? We must keep the balance of payments squared. But there are two other variable factors: first, unemployment; and, secondly, inflation. I am saying that the Government have chosen inflation. They say, "We are the party who will protect pensioners and people living on small fixed incomes". They have done nothing of the sort. They have chosen inflation as the remedy.
  The Chancellor has told us just what is his view. He has said that, in his view, inflation is the biggest social evil. He did not say that about unemployment. Thus, he had to decide between unemployment and inflation, and I would be interested to learn what his critics on the back benches opposite think the Chancellor should do. I know that the Chancellor will say that he wants a National Council for Economic Development to be established.—He wants that for only one purpose—to get a guiding light for wages. He wants to be able to give some guidance to arbitrators, to those sitting on joint councils and people working out wages, what is the amount the economy can stand in any one year for wage increases. From all the propaganda that has been put out, planning—according to a speech made by the Chancellor—means
  "…examining together the underlying factors in our situation and exposing some of the obstacles to growth so as to find a significant new area for common action."

  973
  Any idea that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have to plan or fix wages in isolation from planning the rest of the economy is politically unacceptable to the Labour movement and the T.U.C. That should be quite clearly understood. We are not having wages singled out while profits, dividends and all other types of incomes go free. While the Chancellor may believe that a development council will do that job for him, if the T.U.C. serves on it my guess is that he will find that he has unlocked Pandora's Box.
  We are not going to be content with regulations about wages while other sections of the economy go free. This is one nation, and if we must make sacrifices we must share them in the same way, all of us. The Chancellor must choose between a laissez faire type of economy—which has run us into three successive crises—and a planned economy, in which we can go forward as a nation. With all the aid we can get we must, as a nation, single out our objectives to ensure that we have the resources available to fulfil them and to ensure that the objectives and the means to secure them are agreed by the nation as a whole.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but is it not a fact that, as a proportion of capital employed, profits and dividends have been falling this year?
  Mr. Callaghan: As far as I know, dividends have not been falling, although profits have been—at any rate, in certain sectors. We are talking about a long-term solution to our problems. We are not discussing whether profits in the next six months will fall but the type of economy Britain should have. I am saying that the Chancellor cannot have an economy in which he is going to have the benefit of controlling wages while the remaining sectors of the economy escape unscathed. It is all or nothing.
  I have long since come to the conclusion that the only type of economy that can enable this country to escape from this constant round of crises is one in which planning plays a more predominant part than has been the case hitherto; an economy in which public ownership employed at the growing points of
  974
  industry will be able to stimulate much of private industry. I doubt if this Government has the stomach to carry out the sort of economy and reforms that are necessary if this country is to survive. The Times newspaper today asked my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) and myself to produce a blueprint of what we thought the Labour Government should do. I must decline the invitation, speaking for myself. I do not know what my hon. Friend will do. This afternoon I think it is sufficient for us to examine the defects in the Government's administration.
  I should like, however, just to say this. When a Labour Government comes to power—[HON. MEMBERS: "When."] Yes, when, and I tell hon. Members opposite that they have lost the confidence of the country whereas we on this side of the House have two years in which to gain it, and we shall do so. When we come to power I promise this, speaking at any rate as one member of the Labour Party which will then form the Government; we shall govern, I believe, wisely, soberly and fairly. We shall place the needs of those who are in need first. We shall try to secure a dynamic growth in the economy. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] We shall see that the product of industry is fairly distributed. We shall see that there is a proper balance between private and public expenditure.
  An hon. Member asked how we should do it. Over the next two years, do not fear, we shall be able to show the people of this country that not only have the Government failed them but that we have proposals which will be entirely foreign to the ideology and prejudices of hon. Members opposite, and which, if carried out, will enable Britain to recover the greatness from which the present Government have allowed her to slide.
  5.2 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have listened with great interest to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in his new capacity. He spoke with his usual force and clarity. I must say that although the spokesman is new the substance was not so very different.
  The hon. Member said something which I should like to endorse. He

  975
  spoke of the image of Britain overseas and said that he did not wish to knock Britain at all. I want to begin by telling the House that I heard one of those leading the drive for exports, Sir William McFadzean, say at the last meeting of the National Production Advisory Council on Industry that there has been so much denigration of Britain by the British, so much talk of inefficiency, of bad management and bad labour relations, that our exporters have to remove this general impression about Britain before they can begin to sell British goods. I think there is a great deal of truth in that comment, and I do not think it is possible for the Opposition altogether to escape responsibility when they talk about the underlying weaknesses in the British economy.
  Mr. Charles Pannell rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course, there are weaknesses or disadvantages or handicaps about our position. These facts should be known generally. We import half our food. We have to import three-quarters of our raw materials. We spent most of our overseas savings in two world wars. Many of our industrial practices are designed to deal with conditions of mass unemployment rather than full employment. We have heavy defence obligations overseas. We have heavy responsibilities to emerging nations in the Commonwealth. The pattern of our trade has been built up on the export of capital, and within the sterling area we have no exchange control over movements of capital. Our currency is a reserve currency and, therefore, susceptible to movements in world trade or confidence. These are the facts of our position. Not all of them need cause us shame, and most of them cannot be altered whether we like it or not. Because our currency is a reserve currency, we are particularly concerned with international monetary arrangements. I want to mention something which, amid all the upsets and disappointments, is one of the most important events in 1961, and that is the result of the discussions in Paris last week. They resulted in an understanding between Ministers of ten Govern-
  976
  ments on proposals which they would submit to their Governments for supplementing the resources of the International Monetary Fund. Her Majesty's Government are prepared, for their part, to accept the proposals, and we hope that the other Governments will confirm very shortly that the scheme is acceptable to them.
  The action required to complete the scheme will then be taken in the Board of the Fund, and the Government will put legislation before the House to sanction the possible British contribution. I am not going into details today pending acceptance by other Governments, but I think that without impropriety I can say to the House that the figures canvassed in the Press have not been very far out.
  When this all goes through, there will be a valuable addition to the resources effectively available to the Fund, and this should reinforce international liquidity and help to improve the stability of the exchange markets. I think this is certainly one of the most important developments this year. It is something for which we have been working since I spoke on the matter at the Fund meeting in September, 1960, and I am very pleased that we are within sight of another stage in the development of international co-operation in the monetary field.
  Having said that, I come to the part of the hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with what he described as the decline in our economic position. He said that he wished that the truth should be told. We hear a good deal of talk about the poorness of our economic performance compared with that of our competitors, and the "league tables" are constantly quoted against us. I have always had some doubt about these various statistics. In the debate on growth last February almost every Opposition speaker said that Britain was stagnant and that our competitors were leaping ahead. From the statistics now available, it is quite clear that in the first eight months of this year the level of activity of Germany and Holland, for example, was decreasing and ours was growing. Therefore, one has to take these statistics with a grain of salt.

  977
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said in the February debate:
  "I will not quote the league tables again today. I do not think that it is now denied by anyone on either side of the House that our production record is deplorable, corn-pared with the rest of Western Europe or with Russia, or with Japan, or with a number of other countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 38.]
  I read an article that he wrote in the New Statesman on 24th November in which he said:
  "The truth is, of course, that the spurt in Germany. France, Italy, Austria and Japan from 1952–1960 was the belated recovery from the war, helped by United States aid, of the devastated countries, which had not shared in the quick recovery of the victorious ones, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. It is now slowing down. Yet we are being asked"—
  He was arguing against the Common Market—
  "to make great national sacrifices for a reason which will be seen a few years hence to have been a temporary statistical illusion."
  Therefore, I think I should leave the "league tables" with that wise comment upon them. It is not quite the spirit of the debate of last February.
  I agree, whatever the "league tables" may say, that our economic growth can certainly be improved. Economic growth is a phrase frequently on our lips in this House, and I wonder how much it conveys to the man in the street. It is not an end in itself. It is the means of achieving better living standards, better social services and improved capacity to do our duty in the world, particularly in helping the poorer nations. But for us, with our balance of payments position, the growth must take place on the sound basis of an increase in our visible exports. I think the one way of trying to achieve growth which we ought not to follow is to increase the pressure of home demand upon our resources irrespective of what happens to exports.
  With regard to exports, this year we are selling overseas about £3,600 million worth of goods. Therefore, the quality, the prices and the delivery dates cannot be so bad. In Western European countries our exports went up between 1959 and 1960 by £112 million, but our imports from those countries went up by £214 million, and the balance against us, therefore, went up by something like £100 million. But in the first ten months
  978
  of this year our exports to those countries have gone up by £145 million and imports from them by £22 million. That, so far as this area is concerned, is a striking improvement, and those who went to the recent Convention at Eastbourne were, I think, convinced of the determination of exporters present to carry on that progress next year. I should like to pay my tribute to the work being done by that Convention, and I think that the figures I have mentioned are an indication of the success which it is beginning to have in its task.
  I am not going to repeat what I said in the last debate about help for exports. I said then, however, that I thought there was room for improvement in our machinery for the provision of credit. I was thinking both of the availability of credit and of its terms. We have been pursuing those matters with the institutions principally concerned. I had hoped to make a statement before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, but the discussions are not yet concluded. However, I am able to say that progress is being made and I expect to be able to say something to the House as soon as Parliament reassembles. This is an extremely important matter from the point of view of the national interest, and that is recognised by those responsible.
  I believe, therefore, that there are going to be substantial opportunities for expansion of our exports next year. Our purpose has been to put the economy into a position in which full advantage can be taken of those opportunities, and there should be sufficient room in the economy to enable the necessary goods to be produced and exported.
  Because of the action taken—so much criticised—in July, I believe that we are in a better position than we have been for a long time to meet the increasing export demand without introducing inflation. But the level of home demand must be carefully watched and the restrictions on home demand which have produced the slight slackening of pressure on our resources in the last few months must be maintained. As the House knows full well, though not, I think, everyone outside the House, upon this expansion of our visible exports depends the maintenance of our present standard of living and the

  979
  prospect of economic growth. This is the first priority—the expansion in our visible exports—and I hope that there will be unanimity in the House on that.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether, in making the most optimistic assumption about possible exports in, say, the first three months of next year, which may be a period of expanding exports, he thinks we can move back into a period of full utilisation of our resources without allowing the home market also to expand during that period?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is a question of priorities, and that, in fact, our resources will be higher if we take advantage of the opportunities. I believe that there are very great prospects in the export market. This is, of course, a dilemma, but I do not want the increase in the home demand to draw away from the possibility of serving the export demand. One hopes, therefore, that there will be an increase in exports and that that will lead to an increase in home demand. But the increase in exports must come first if we are not to damage our balance of payments position. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, when he talks about the first three months, that I think it would be wiser to look at the year as a whole in that context. The full opportunities may not be realised in the first three months.
  With regard to investment, one of the stock criticisms in the past used to be that we were not investing enough as a country. In the past ten years fixed investment has gone up from about 15 per cent. of the gross national product to 20 per cent. That is for the first six months of this year, and I think it is the first time that this figure has been given publicly. It is an improvement of which we can be considerably proud.
  In the third quarter of this year, the gate of investment by manufacturing industry was 20 per cent. above that of the third quarter of 1960. In buildings it was up 16 per cent., in plant and machinery it was up by 24 per cent., and substantial increases in the public sector are also taking place. I think that that is very satisfactory and, when we are dealing with so much criticism, it is a thing we should remember—the very
  980
  satisfactory growth in investment. I can concede at once that a high rate of investment is not by itself enough. There are many other factors. That is why I have been trying to set up a National Council for Economic Development. I have had several meetings with representatives of trade unions and employers. At the second meeting with the T.U.C. representatives in October they were led by Sir Alan Birch. I should like to pay a sincere tribute to him from my knowledge of him. He was able, wise, firm but courteous in argument, and his death is a sad loss to the trade union movement and to the nation.
  I am disappointed not to have agreement yet from the representatives of the T.U.C. to join in the work of the proposed Council. I am still awaiting the T.U.C.'s reply. I hope that it will be favourable because I believe that we have offered it a great opportunity to exercise influence on economic policy at the formative stage and to co-operate in creating conditions under which the real standards of living of its members can improve.
  I certainly do not regard this body as one whose duty is to negotiate about wages or to seek to enforce a wages policy. Its primary task is to tackle the obstacles to sound growth, to consider the availability and use, or misuse, of resources, the availability of technical skills and matters of that sort, although, of course, I quite agree that it is impossible to dissociate completely from those tasks consideration of the proper relationship between increases in incomes and increases in production.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: I do not wish to embarrass my right hon. and learned Friend, but we can assume that there is a possibility that the trade unions may not wish to co-operate in this new Council. What will be the position of my right hon. and learned Friend in that eventuality? Will he go ahead, as I hope he will?
  Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will wait a moment, what I am going to say now may be a partial answer to him, although I think that I should be very unwise to cross that particular ditch before I come to it.
  As I have told the House before, the work of this Council will take place at

  981
  two levels. First, the Council itself and then the staff, which will be independent of the ordinary Governmental machine. I have decided that it would be wrong for me to delay any longer the setting up of the staff. It can do valuable preparatory work pending the setting up of the Council. I accordingly propose to appoint a Director-General and to proceed with the recruiting of the staff.
  I am glad to be able to inform the House that Sir Robert Shone, who has had a wide experience of forward planning, particularly in the steel industry, has agreed to accept this appointment. He will take it up early in the New Year. So far as the staff is concerned, quality rather than quantity will be the criterion, and full use will, I hope, be made of existing machinery within the Government and elsewhere for the accumulation and examination of statistics. I have no idea of a great new empire being set up to deal with these matters—quality rather than quantity, and a small high-powered body rather than a large one.
  I have spoken of the encouraging opportunities for exports. The trade gap has narrowed since the beginning of the year. In the third quarter of 1961 it was running at minus 35 and in the third quarter of 1960 at minus 146. Therefore, there has been an improvement. But I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. Although on a balance of payments basis our visible trade deficit is now probably quite small, our external payments problem is still far from being solved. Its solution will depend upon sound growth and expansion of our visible exports, which in turn will depend upon restraint on excessive demand at home and also upon the crucial factor of the level of our costs, as well as the vigour of our salesmen. This brings me to the question of the pay pause and a national incomes policy.
  I have noted—what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech confirmed it—that the Amendment does not oppose the pay pause as such. It condemns my handling of it and says that it is grossly unfair and not a long-term solution. The hon. Gentleman seemed rather to indicate in what he said that, had it been for only two months, he might have been able to support it.
  982
  As regards the handling of the pay pause, I had made repeated requests for restraint during the previous nine months or so, starting with the speech I made at the Mansion House in October. 1960. I had discussions with both sides of industry. In my Budget speech, I said that there was reason to fear that inflationary pressure would speed up further, that it was our principal menace then and one which it was impossible to exaggerate. In my view, the increases in the cost of living which have taken place were directly due to the increases in the wage and salary bill which had preceded them. By July, it had become quite apparent that further action was needed.
  The request for a pay pause in increases in personal incomes was only one of several tough and unpopular measures. I am blamed for failing to consult the union leaders. It would have been impossible for me to consult them or anyone else without telling them the full background. That background included the 2 per cent. increase in Bank Rate and substantial increases in indirect taxation. It is obvious that I could not have consulted either side of industry effectively before my announcement.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that a Labour Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, took five months to negotiate with the T.U.C. before he brought in his wage restraint policy?
  Mr. Lloyd: I discussed these matters both publicly and otherwise for a very long time beforehand. I know that Sir Stafford Cripps' precedent has been put before me, but I do not think that it was a very successful one. Considering what happened in 1949 and 1951, I do not think that it can be represented as a very successful precedent.
  As to the pause providing a longer-term solution, this has never been even remotely suggested by me. It is a temporary measure to secure a breathing space. It is the means of carrying out, during a certain phase, a policy of restraint over increases in personal incomes to which so many pay lip-service. Again and again we hear lip-service to the idea of restraint in personal incomes, yet as soon as action is taken, there is immediate criticism on all sides. I have said throughout that I

  983
  should review the position early in the new year. I shall return to this point later.
  The next point made by the hon. Gentleman was as to the unfairness of the pay pause. This allegation, no doubt, relates to what has happened in the public sector. The Government felt that they must carry out in the area where they had direct control the policy which they were advising others to pursue. I admit that there are obvious disadvantages and elements of rigidity and discrimination whenever a line, even a temporary one, is drawn. But I do not accept that it has been grossly unfair or that it has undermined machinery for collective bargaining. In general, I believe that the pause has been much more widely understood, accepted and followed than some would have us believe. I think it has materially contributed to a growing feeling that we are again becoming able to beat competition overseas. It has helped in holding costs and making our resources more nearly equal to the demand upon them, and by doing that it is defending the real value of money, and, in that way, the interests of all those with small fixed incomes. Having said that, however, I say again that it is not a long-term policy.
  With regard to the longer term, I am convinced that we must try to evolve a national incomes policy. The Government cannot impose one without interferences with liberty which would be insupportable.
  Mr. Callaghan: May I put to the Chancellor a question which weighs very heavily on the minds of the Civil Service trade union leaders and the T.U.C.? If he were able to announce that. as from a date, say, 1st January or 1st February, he would be willing to allow cases to go to arbitration, it being for the arbitration tribunals to fix the effective date, he would, I believe, be on the way to solving some of his undoubted difficulties. Can he go as far as that—which, after all, is really bare justice?
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall deal with that point later, if I may. I shall come back to it later.
  I was speaking about the longer term. I was saying that the Government
  984
  cannot impose a national incomes policy without interferences with liberty which would be insupportable. Equally, the Government cannot stand aside, particularly in view of the persistent tendency over a period of years for the rate of increase in incomes to outstrip the increase in production, having regard to the leap-frogging of claims and the extent to which retrospection has become expected in certain sectors. The Government, therefore, in my view, cannot impose and they cannot stand aside.
  As I see it, any policy designed to secure this more realistic relationship between increases in incomes and increases in production would have to include the following elements.
  It must be the Government's responsibility, through their fiscal and monetary policies, to stop home demand interfering with exports, attracting excessive imports and causing inflation.
  A better and much more widespread understanding is needed throughout the community of the distinction between money incomes and real incomes and of the harm we do ourselves when total incomes rise faster than production.
  All who influence or decide the course of wages and salaries, whether by negotiation, arbitration or in other ways, or who determine profit margins, dividends and prices, must recognise that, in the long run, all will suffer if sectional interests are allowed to take precedence over the interests of the community as a whole.
  Appropriate arrangements will, therefore, be needed—this relates to what I said earlier—to make information generally available about the country's economic circumstances and prospects in such a way that not only those immediately concerned with a particular negotiation but also the community as a whole are able to judge what rate of increase in incomes will be practicable and safe. Such information will clearly carry far more weight if it is prepared in a process of consultation, perhaps through the National Council for Economic Development, rather than if it is prepared by the Government.
  The Government would have to recognise that, as part of the incomes policy, appropriate corrective action would have

  985
  to be taken if aggregate profits showed signs of increasing excessively as compared with wages and salaries.
  Finally, a policy of this sort must concern itself also with expansion, for the promotion of sound economic growth is just as much a part of a national wages policy or national incomes policy as the other measures to which I have referred. Again, this is where the National Council for Economic Development comes in.
  I have described this as a national policy rather than as a Government policy because, to be effective, it will need not only action by the Government but also the support of all sections of the community. All must feel confident that restraint on their part will not be exploited by others. It will necessitate the development of new procedures and new attitudes of mind which, in certain respects, will involve a break with long standing traditions. The experience of several European countries suggests that, even with smaller and less complex economies, the evolution of a satisfactory incomes policy is a long and difficult task.
  I believe that there is a growing realisation that a policy along something like the lines I have sketched could transform the economic scene and do more than anything else to secure the rising standard of living we all wish to see. To achieve this within the framework of a free society with a high level of employment is an inherently difficult task and one to be effectively handled, as I have said, only with the fullest consultation with both sides of industry. Inevitably, this will take time, many months, in my view, because there are great issues involved.
  So far, I have had discussions in general terms only. I have been held up by the delay in the decision about the National Council for Economic Development because the two operations cannot be dissociated. If we are making a cooperative effort to expand the economy on sound lines, this must very much change the atmosphere for evolving a national incomes policy.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman talks throughout part of his speech of the limitation of incomes, and I apprehend that he uses that term because he wishes the
  986
  House to understand that the limitation is to apply to dividends as well as wages. If he means that, is it not a little misleading? If we limit wages, the wage increases that are not granted are, of course, lost. But if we limit the distribution of profits already earned, the income is not effectively limited at all, because the only effect of not distributing the earned profit is to increase the capital value of the shares, which can be made into income by selling them and is then additionally not taxable.
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he will study carefully what I said in my speech about profits, which is one of the elements, I think he will find that his point is met. I think that meets what he has been saying.
  I have indicated the sketch of a longer-term policy. In the meantime, what of the immediate future? It would be a negation of policy to bring this phase of the restraint, the pay pause, to an end prematurely. When it does end, we must put something more in its place than just Governmental exhortation. Nor do I think that the pay pause can continue on present lines for the whole period that will be required for the effort to work out with both sides of industry a fully fledged national incomes policy. I repeat that it will take a considerable time, because there are great issues at stake and it is really a novel experiment in this country. What we must now do is to try to devise, for the next phase, an intermediate phase, in consultation with both sides of industry, arrangements for maintaining the necessary restraining influence on the growth of incomes. The broad picture is, I think, by now fairly well known.
  The national bill for wages and salaries is running at about £16,000 million a year and represents over 70 per cent. of the total of personal incomes. National production has over recent years tended to rise at an annual rate of about 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. I hope that, if all goes well, we can do better than this in the future. But it would be most unwise to count on this in advance, and, of course, we have the immediate future already mortgaged to some extent by agreements which have already been made but which will only come into effect during the course of 1962. I am bound to say, therefore, that

  987
  in the Government's judgment the general scope for wage and salary increases in the Doming financial year will be small. There may be room for modest increases in certain cases, but, on the best judgment that we can form, any large increases in wages and salaries would serve merely to add to inflationary pressures; they would be gained only at the expense of other groups of workers and of the community as a whole, and they would weaken our competitive position in world trade.
  I am inviting representatives of both sides of industry to meet me very early in the New Year for consultation about arrangements for this intermediate phase, against the background of the factors I have just mentioned.
  Taking up the point which the hon. Gentleman made about those in Government service, consideration will have to be given to the position of the Civil Service in this interim phase. I shall ensure that there will be early discussion with staff representatives about this problem.
  Mr. Callaghan: Will that include a point about which they feel very deeply, namely, the restoration to the arbitration tribunals of the right to fix dates from which increases claimed can be awarded?
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If one is offering discussions I think that it would be most unwise to exclude anything. I shall certainly not exclude anything from discussions that I may have with both sides of industry, or with the staff representatives about these matters.
  If we want to maintain the value of our currency and to promote growth in real terms, we cannot again risk letting the increases in incomes outstrip the increases in national productivity. In July, 1961, we had to defend this principle by the rough and ready method of the pause, with its admitted imperfections. In 1962, we shall, I hope, be able to devise better arrangements to keep incomes and productivity in balance. But the need to be on guard will remain. It is no good pretending that any of this is easy. It is not, whatever lip-service may be paid to the idea of restraint.
  What are the alternatives to the approach to this problem that I have
  988
  outlined? On the one hand, we could move towards a totally managed economy in which wages, prices, production and consumption—everything is fixed by the central direction of the Government. Not a very attractive prospect. The other possibility would be for the Government to take the steps necessary to produce a large dose of deflation, reduce demand still further, and so to check the growth of incomes. I do not think that this is a very attractive prospect either. It would threaten our prospects of securing rising standards of living and of maintaining the high and stable level of employment which we have achieved since the war. It would also discourage that high rate of industrial investment which, as the whole House recognises, is essential to Britain's competitive performance in world markets. The stakes are very high. But I believe that there is a solution based on common sense and co-operation, and in asking the House to reject the Amendment I say that it is my intention to continue to seek it.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. H. Hynd: I think that we on this side of the House at any rate must be very disappointed by the Chancellor's speech. Towards the end of his remarks he promised us that he would say something rather definite about what was to happen at the end of the wage pause, even, as I understood it, when the wage pause was to end. I did not hear him tell us. He talked about the intermediate phase in not very specific terms, and I am certain that that will not satisfy the trade unionists of the country, or indeed, anybody else. We really must have something a little more definite than that.
  I resent the implications from hon. Members opposite that if we talk about the position of our economy today and point to any defects we are "knocking" the country. No one on this side of the House wants to do that. We all want to see the country prosper. We would all rejoice if the situation were better, but as the situation is as it is we can discuss it intelligently only if we face the facts and bring them out in this House, otherwise we shall get nowhere at all in discussing this problem. So let us discuss

  989
  it without any charges that anyone who mentions the unpleasant side of the affair is knocking the country and being unpatriotic.
  The Chancellor admitted a few moments ago that his policy, in his own words, had "admitted imperfections". That is the burden of our complaints. Let us look at what he is asking us to accept.
  The Chancellor is asking us, on the one hand, to accept the pay pause and he has done his best in the public sphere to introduce and to hold a pay pause. He has gone a little further and descended last week to asking the 10s. widow to accept a pay pause. The whole country would accept a pause if it were fairly applied. But look on the other side of the balance sheet. There is no pause in dividends, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said. He mentioned some of the companies to which reference was made in yesterday's Reynolds News. I have a whole sheet of other companies which have raised their dividends in the last few weeks. It is perhaps necessary for the record that I should mention some of them: Steel Barrel Scammells and Associated Engineers, Telefusion, Dimplex, Cozens and Sutcliffe (Holdings) Limited, Buxted Chickens and the Rank Organisation. Last week the Financial Times published a whole list of companies in a similar position. I will not mention their names but will merely count them. Eleven companies were mentioned in the Financial Times.
  In view of these dividend increases, how can any Government ask the workers to accept a pay pause? How can they ask the trade union officials to get their members to accept the pay pause? The matter goes further than that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said more than once today that he considered it essential to restrict the demand on the home market. Why, then, has he given extra spending money, amounting to £85 million a year, to Surtax payers? No doubt a large part of that will be spent on the home market. Is that restricting the demand on the home market? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be a little more consistent.
  990
  A few days ago we heard about the terrific increase in agricultural subsidies. There is no pause in agricultural subsidies. There is no pause in increased dividends, in the issue of bonus shares or in rent increases. Every day, more and more houses are going out of rent control as tenancies change. Every time that that happens it means an increase in rent. Why should there be a wage pause but no pause in anything else?
  The precedent that Sir Stafford Cripps set has been mentioned more than once. He tried to apply it fairly and to deal with profits by taxation and in other ways. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do something like that, and if there were a fair deal all round, I am sure that the Labour movement and the rest of the country would co-operate with him, as he wishes them to do. The Chancellor knows that his policy is unfair. He talked about "admitted imperfections". More than once he has hinted that he intends to tax certain profits. Those are his promises. We are waiting for the performance.
  We read in the newspapers about the terrific opposition that there is to his policy on this point. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is having a pretty hot time from certain financial interests and, no doubt, from his own back benchers. Does he propose to match his promises with performance? If not, his pause policy will fail. It is already beginning to crack all over the place, and it will continue to do so unless he convinces the country that it is fair all round.
  There is another aspect of this matter which I should like to emphasise. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East mentioned it, but I think that it is worth underlining. I refer to the damage being done to negotiating machinery. It has taken many years to build up the present negotiating machinery whereby both sides of industry can meet round a table or in an industrial court and argue the case instead of merely resorting to strikes and lockouts. We were beginning to think that we had gone beyond the days of strikes and lock-outs, but the Chancellor, by damaging the negotiating machinery, is driving us back to those days. It is no good hon. Members smiling. This is a very serious menace. However wise,

  991
  level-headed and stable the trade union leaders may be, they may not be able to hold their members, even if they wish to do so, in view of what is happening.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to his long-term policy and invited us to consider the possibility of a national wages policy. I should like to see a national wages policy, but I cannot visualise it happening under this Government. I do not think that it is possible in the atmosphere which has been created. How can the proposed National Economic Development Council or anyone else talk about working towards a national wages policy when there is no confidence and no trust in the Government's bona fides? I regret to say that that is the situation whether we like it or not.
  I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the possibility that people will co-operate with him if only he makes the pause fair all round. I accept for the sake of argument that the pause is necessary, but if it is applied, it must be fairly applied. If it is not, we may find ourselves in industrial anarchy and thereby create a position which is far worse than it was before the pause started.
  5.46 p.m.
  Sir Spencer Summers: May I be allowed to make two very brief personal observations? First, I must apologise for my voice, which I hope will survive the ordeal. Secondly, I wish to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour if I am not present to hear the winding-up speeches. I hope to improve labour relations by dining with a trade union friend in another place.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), that it is very unfair to restrain wages at a time when there are self-evidently, he said, increases in dividends, left out of account one very important factor. Dividends which are declared now relate to a period six, nine and even twelve months ago, at a time when wages were increasing. It is, therefore, reasonable to argue that the shareholders, who are the counterparts of this discussion to wage earners, wait a considerable time for their dividend after the time to which the dividend relates. That is something which
  992
  should be taken into account in studying these matters.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) began his speech with some very sanctimonious advice given by Sir Stafford Cripps and indicated that it was still valid and that the Government had done very little about it. He failed to remind us, however, that, first, within a very short time of that advice being given we had devaluation, which could not have been good for this country and that, secondly, the trade unions, in particular, and many others paid very little attention to the exhortations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. It therefore does not get us anywhere to suggest that matters were handled quite differently, with success, from the way in which they are handled now. That is not what occurred.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is a very good debater. However, sometimes he overdoes it, and he overdid it today. He sought to argue that the pay pause was almost a farce because 750,000 people had had increases during the pay pause. Later, he apparently had forgotten what he said said because he argued that it was unfair to put a stopper on wages when people were able to get greater increases in income. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He would be more convincing if he decided which of his arguments he wished to advance rather than arguments which contradicted each other.
  It is said that the pay pause is very unfair because only one side of industry is affected. I referred earlier to dividends. I think that it has been forgotten that the impact of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in July on other people and other incomes by way of a very high Bank Rate should be taken into account. Moreover—I cannot quote the figures, because I do not have them—there has been a very substantial increase in Profits Tax in the last two years, which, again, is a counterpart of the pay pause policy which is criticised.
  Until the speech of the hon. Member for Accrington, I was beginning to get extremely depressed on this point. If there is a disparity, as it is said, between the pay pause as it affects wage earners and the lack of restraint on other forms

  993
  of income, there are two ways of getting equality. One is to restrain the other forms of income to match the pay pause and the other is to take the pay pause off to let incomes of that kind rise. It would not be unfair to infer from what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said earlier that his criticism of the pay pause was that it stopped people getting more wages.
  The hon. Member spoke of the image of this country abroad. Let me tell him that the attitude of the trade unions is giving to thousands of people in this country the image that the only thing they want is more money. If that is an unreasonable image, and not related to the truth, they should try to do something to remove that image if it is a false one in the minds of the public.
  Mr. Collick: The hon. Member is losing sight of a vital fact. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously expected his pay pause to be well received among the trade unions, how does the hon. Member expect that the trade unions could favourably respond to it when, only a few weeks earlier, the Chancellor, in his Budget, had announced his intention to give £83 million a year to the Surtax payer. Until the Chancellor takes that back, I do not think that the Government will get any co-operation from the trade unions.
  Sir S. Summers: The hon. Member has entirely missed the point of what I was saying. It would be much more convincing to the country at large if the criticism was that other people were getting too large an income than to concentrate on the fact that the restraint on wages should be removed. I hope that I have made myself clear.
  There are others who criticise the pay pause on the ground that it is not fair. Any decision which is made or, as frequently has happened in the past, any Act of Parliament, may create unfairness as between those who do business before the passing of an Act and those who are affected by it. Promises which were made in advance of the pay pause must be fulfilled. In all these ways, if one is to desist from a sensible policy on the ground that discrimination would be caused, one would never do anything. I do not think that the degree of unfairness which is to be found in this
  994
  situation is strong enough to suggest that the pay pause should never have been embarked upon.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend reminded us, exhortations to restrain wages, which represent 70 per cent., of the total of incomes, have failed lamentably ever since the war.
  Mr. Callaghan: Wages and salaries.
  Sir S. Summers: I am happy to be corrected—wages and salaries.
  Mr. Callaghan: Salaries are well outside the control of the T.U.C. At a guess, they constitute at least 30 per cent. of the 70 per cent.
  Sir S. Summers: My guess would be a different figure. If wages and salaries comprise not less than 70 per cent. of total incomes, clearly the effect on the cost of living, on our ability to compete abroad and on inflation generally, is enormous unless something is done to relate increases in incomes to increases in productivity.
  It has been said many times that the pay pause as such is no policy, but must be a prelude. I was glad to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon that without any more ado, he is appointing the staff of the National Council for Economic Development without waiting for the top tier to be put in place at a later date. I have known Sir Robert Shone for many years and I am happy to be able to testify that he is an outstanding person to head this organisation.
  There is a danger that people will come to regard the establishment of this instrument, when it is completely developed with both tiers in place, as a sort of patent panacea for all our ills and too much may come to be expected from its formation. We should be careful not to fall into that trap, which others less acquainted with events than we in this House might be tempted to do.
  Nevertheless, the new instrument can have important functions. It can tend to create a public opinion which is given only to instruments which are divorced from the suspicion which is attached to Governments, whatever may be their colour. Secondly, it could enable representatives of labour, speaking of the

  995
  whole field—not only in matters of wages, but also of dividends and other forms of income—to express views in favour of restraint through that instrument which they might not find themselves able to express were it not for the instrument through which they are speaking.
  There is one important thing which, I hope, will be high-lighted in the Press reports of this debate. In the last few years, we have had many requests for the Government to formulate a wages policy. Today, my right hon. and learned Friend used a different phrase, "incomes policy". It is important that the search should be for an incomes policy and not for a wages policy. If that is one of the outcomes of this debate and is recognised as such on the part of the Government, a very useful job will have been done.
  A third advantage which could flow from the creation of the National Council for Economic Development is the ability of experts to make available to the country their opinion, based on such evidence as they can collect, of the state of the country and what ought to be done about it, freed from the scrutiny and censure of Ministers in charge of civil servants. We have some brilliant men in the Civil Service, but they all have Ministers over them. The views of civil servants which percolate to the public are only those which Ministers choose to allow to percolate. It is to be hoped that the experts who study these matters will be freer to get their views across, because in the nature of the case the situation will be somewhat different.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East suggested that it was up to back benchers on this side of the House to make clear what, in their view, the Government should do about the pay pause. I want to express at least my views on what ought to be done. There are two factors to be considered in deciding what it would be reasonable for the Government to take into account. First, if the Government are tough, will there be such strikes as would cause serious blows to the national economy? Secondly, if they are tough, will they be sustained by the back benchers of their party?
  The one way to create trouble under both those headings is to wobble. My
  996
  belief is that whichever of those two possibilities one is talking about the right course for the Government is to be resolute and determined and to make plain here and now our position without delay. Then they will find that people line up behind them because they know the facts and will not seek to influence the Government because they will have made their position plain.
  There have been a number of wages councils awards and, I think I am right in saying, a number of arbitration awards in which the operative settlement was fixed at the beginning of April. I think that it would be very unfair on those who have been through the process of arbitration, and been told they have got to wait till April for their award, if they were to find that in the interval the Government had altered their policy and permitted increases—or no longer criticised increases, shall I say?—which take place before that date.
  I do not think that they can hold it any longer. I think that it would be unwise to try to hold it any longer, and the sooner it is recognised as a piece of policy, with its advantages and disadvantages, which is due to last till April, but not after April, the better it will be for all concerned with this matter.
  In the meantime, there are two very important—
  Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us? If we are to have a fixed date, say, 1st April or 2nd April, for the time when the pause is to come to an end, what is to happen immediately afterwards? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that even those wage applications which are not in the pipeline will be in the pipeline by 2nd April. What is to happen once all the blank cheques become due?
  Sir S. Summers: That is a question which suggests that the longer we put off 1st April the better, because of all the dreadful consequences which will happen when 1st April comes.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member cannot change the date.
  Sir S. Summers: All I am saying is That I think that it is unreasonable for it to be prolonged beyond that date, and equally unreasonable to bring it to an end sooner.

  997
  There are two sources of difficulty to which no reference has yet been made. The first is the coal industry, and the second is the railways. I want to say a very brief word about both.
  It is said how very unfair it will be to the miners if they are denied an increase in wages during the period of the pay pause while, at the same time, it can be demonstrated that they have earned an increase by increased productivity. Unless my memory serves me false, the last increase in miners' wages was given on the strict understanding that it would be followed by an increase in productivity. It is, perhaps, debatable how much of the period since should be backdated in terms of the fulfilment of the promise then made when wages were increased, but at any rate a great deal of the time which has elapsed since then has, in my judgment, related to the last increase and the honouring of the promise which was then made, and only from then—I say that it is debatable—should begin the argument that productivity since that date has justified an increase in wages.
  Let there be no mistake: pay in the coal industry is very good, and that cannot be said of the railways, where, I think, the position is a very difficult one. There, I am advised—in the terms of that very unfortunate word "comparability", which, I hope, will not find too much favour nowadays—wages are behind by about 11 per cent.
  I think that it is most important that we should try to get a settlement one way or the other in the engineering industry and know what that settlement is before we finally settle an increase to the railwaymen, if any. I hope that the outcome of the engineering industry negotiation will be to mark time, and have no increase at all, because I do not believe the facts warrant it.
  If that be so, then I should like to see an increase to the railwaymen of a modest percentage from April, because I do not think that we can indefinitely expect those in charge of the railways to recruit the necessary numbers if the disparity is as great as that—unless one alternative is preferred, and I mention it so as to offer an alternative: to break the principle of uniformity of pay irrespective of where men work and
  998
  authorise increases to be negotiated where there is scarcity of skilled men owing to the competition of counter employment, and have varying rates according to the difficulty of recruitment for the uniform type of skill. That seems to be the only alternative to recognising that a modest increase at 1st April is, in fact, called for.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the locomotive drivers at Gillingham and suggested that they would hold the Government responsible for the actions which they had taken. Let him be in no doubt. The public are holding the trade unionists responsible for the lack of discipline in their own ranks.
  Mr. Loughlin: Nonsense.
  Sir S. Summers: The hon. Member may think that it is an unfortunate situation, but let me assure him that there are thousands of people who are "fed up" with the failure of trade unionists to induce their fellow workers to follow the advice they tender.
  Mr. Loughlin: Thousands?
  Sir S. Summers:Hundreds of thousands.
  These strikes and unofficial strikes are admittedly, as was said earlier in the debate, tending to give Britain a bad name. I think that it is very satisfactory that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour should have made clear—if I have not got the figures exactly right I hope that he will correct them at a later stage—that about 60 per cent. of the strikes last year were about 11 per cent. of the employment of the country.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): Seven per cent. of the working population.
  Sir S. Summers: I am very much obliged—60 per cent. of the strikes were to be found in those areas where only 7 per cent. of the working people were actually to be found. In other words, they were concentrated, and concentrated in the motor industry, the docks, shipbuilding and ship repairing.
  I think that this is an occasion to pay tribute to his work in trying to get the two sides together and to the progress which he has made in those particular

  999
  industries in trying to establish some satisfactory arrangements between the two sides and to iron out the difficulties which exist.
  Mr. Ray Gunter: I am no lover of strikes, official or unofficial, but we ought to keep very clear in our minds what is the actual position. If I remember correctly the figures for 1959—the I.L.O. figures—strikes in this country, including official and unofficial, account for a loss of only one-tenth of 1 per cent. of all the working days worked.
  Sir S. Summers: Well, I hoped that in this company it was not necessary to emphasise the amount of first-class work going on in this country and the extent to which there are good relations, but if the omission is thought to be a pity, I am only too ready to pay tribute to the excellent work which is going on. Nevertheless, we all know that those particular areas leave a great deal to be desired, and it is not only the effect in those areas which we must have in mind but the impact of stoppages in those areas on other facets of our economy.
  I think that this is an occasion also to pay tribute to Lord Rootes and his colleagues, supported by the official trade unions at the time, in smashing the unofficial strike at Acton, because there is no doubt that the discipline which we all wish the unions to exert will not succeed. [Laughter.] The hon. Member laughs, but I am sure that he does not object to wishing for discipline.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am fascinated by the oft-repeated references to discipline in the trade union movement by people who seek to exploit the strike situation for their own ends.
  Sir S. Summers: I do not really think that that interjection carries us anywhere—
  Mr. Loughlin: That is what the hon. Member is doing now; precisely what he is doing.
  Sir S. Summers:—and I hoped that we were to hear something a little more constructive. All I am saying is that here we had a situation in which employers and trade unions deeply regretted the strike which went on for some time.
  1000
  If the employers had behaved differently right hon. Members would have said from the Opposition Front Bench that trade unions had not had a chance to justify their existence because they had been let down by the employers who had negotiated with unofficial strikers. The employers did not do that. The strike cost the company a great deal of money. The blow that was struck for good industrial relations by this firm should be mentioned in the House at the first opportunity.
  I hope that it will not be necessary to charge anybody who finds fault with anything with saying things which make it more difficult to export. One can overdo the criticism and justify that comment, but I do not think that what I want to say need be challenged as seriously as all that. It is hoped that from my right hon. and learned Friend's plans we may find a means to get across to people that how we conduct our economic affairs is important not only to the country's interests, but to those of the individuals concerned. We may succeed in devising instruments and in having planners and wise men here and wise men there. They, no doubt, will be necessary, but unless there is at their disposal a constructive co-operative attitude on the part of the public, be they trade unionists, consumers or anybody else, they will not get very far.
  There is great scope for improvement in this respect on the part of the public. I do not know whether hon. Members saw a film called "I'm All Right, Jack". It was first-class entertainment and it pointed a finger at a great many people who deserved to have fingers pointed at them. Too many of them are still about. There are too many housewives who, when they pick up an article in a shop, have to criticise it by saying, "Shoddy workmanship. It was not like that before the war." We have too many people who abuse expense accounts.
  Mr. William Ross: And too many on expense accounts.
  Sir S. Summers: There are too many people who are not concerned that what they are paid is commensurate with what they give and are only concerned with how it compares with other people's pay. If we all paid more

  1001
  attention to comparing what we give with what we receive it would be better for everybody all round.
  Far too many people are unaware, also, of the dangers of Communism in their own sphere of life. It is incredible that it has taken nearly three years to wipe up the mess in the Electrical Trades Union. It is incredible, too, that despite the decency of the ordinary working man, the stronghold of Communism should be among the general run of members, as witness the changing of the rules so that the general run of members shall say what should happen to the staff. They would be little pleased as ordinary British folk to be told that Communism can rely in any way on their help.
  In trying to iron out these matters, in which it is said that wages are competing with dividends, it should be remembered that there is also another competitor—prices. I have not heard anyone today say that one way to make it easier for labour to restrain itself in not coming forward with wage demands is for a firm to demonstrate that it has reduced its prices. It would be helpful if the notion got around that lowering prices is one way in which firms can demonstrate that they are willing to cooperate in this matter. I have great confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. He is approaching these matters, which are by no means new, in a way which is different from what has been attempted in the past and I hope that he secures all the support that he deserves.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. H. Boardman: We are concerned today with whether inflation is to be regarded as a necessary corollary of full employment. Our problem can be summed up in that question. Fortunately, in this country we have never suffered inflation in the acute form in which many parts of Europe have suffered it. When the Labour Party was in power and I was associated with the Ministry of Labour I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) in visiting displaced persons' camps in Austria to recruit labour for British mines and cotton mills. My right hon. Friend tried to outline to these people the advantages of working in British
  1002
  mines now that they were nationalised. He was giving some idea of the kind of wages that could be earned when one of the displaced persons said, without emotion, "That is all right, but what will those wages buy?"
  This is the whole problem. What will the wages buy? I speak as a trade union official when I say that we are not concerned so much with what the wages packet means in terms of £ s. d. but with what it means in terms of food, shelter and clothing. This wretched man in a displaced persons' camp had learned too well the meaning of inflation, but I doubt whether the present Government, who have given us so many lectures on the subject, know what inflation means. Is it not ironical that the Government stand idly by and say emphatically that they can do nothing about the extortionate increases in land prices and about other matters where they have made it virtually impossible for many local authorities to build houses to let and thus for many people who would choose to buy their own homes to buy them?
  This single instance will form part of the wage agitation in the near future, and I would point out to right hon. Gentleman opposite that applications for increased wages are not cooked up in trade union board rooms. The agitation generally starts in a working-class kitchen when the husband hands over the house-keeping money and the wife recites the increases in prices since she last received a wage packet. Most housewives are well informed about prices and they can work these things out without the help of Treasury statistics. It is obvious that before a Government of any colour can appeal to trade unions it must be regarded as a first, fundamental prerequisite of that appeal that the Government have demonstrated that they have taken such action as will keep prices stable if not reduce them.
  Sir S. Summers: If what he has described is the situation, would the hon. Member explain how it was that when we had stable prices for nearly two years the rate of increase in wages was very much the same as before and after?
  Mr. Boardman: The people whom I represent as a trade union official are people whose wages are considerably below the so-called average wage. The

  1003
  distributive workers have a long way to go before they come up to the so-called national average.
  The second condition—and here I am re-echoing what has been said by two or three hon. Members—is that any appeal must be preceded by the Government making an appeal to all other income groups. It is not only utterly futile, but positively dangerous, for the Government to make appeals and then to find that they apply only to those people who are represented by the trade unions. To do that is to store up trouble, and the Government ought to take notice of this fact.
  Trade union officials are a pretty good lot of people. They are well-informed and responsible. It is not sufficient for the Chancellor, or any of his colleagues in the Cabinet simply to appeal to the Trades Union Congress and say, "Look, we are a bit concerned about this. Things are a bit out of hand. This may be only temporary, but we want you to take such action as will enable the £ to be worth tomorrow what it is worth today. We want to make £1 worth £1".
  That sounds very good. It is not difficult to get a story like that across at T.U.C. level, but what happens in the trade unions? When they hear a speech like that, they report to their executive councils, who probably send out circulars to their area officials, where they are received with less enthusiasm. The area officials in turn send circulars to their branch officials, where the interest is practically nil. Therefore, let us not think that we can solve a problem by convincing the T.U.C. that something has to be done about it.
  There was a precedent for this appeal, and it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He mentioned the appeal made by Sir Stafford Cripps. What he did not mention was something that happened as a result of it. Sir Stafford Cripps met the T.U.C. He told them much the same story as has been told today. He impressed the Council, and there was a period of stability, but the offshoot of that has never been mentioned, and it was this. As I said, the real agitation does not start in the trade union boardrooms but in homely kit
  1004
  chens, and because Sir Stafford Cripps mot members of the trade union leadership and they decided to go steady, we gave the greatest possible impetus to the unofficial element in the trade unions to say, "Hey, boys, it is all right for Sir Stafford Cripps to put this argument to the people who are our leaders. They can afford to accept it, but we cannot", and as a result the unofficial boys moved in. We must at all costs avoid this happening in the future.
  I sometimes wonder whether the Government have any real understanding of the problem of labour relations. I am glad that the Minister of Labour is here, because I propose now to refer to him. He will recollect that when he made his speech at the last meeting of the International Labour Organisation in Geneva he said that there was an acute shortage in the world of people with a knowledge of labour and industrial relations. How right he was if he was thinking of the Government when he said that. The Government have shown a lamentable lack of understanding in labour relations. If that were not so, they would not have taken the action they have.
  I give one example. The Government's attitude to the teachers' pay was well publicised. What was not quite so well publicised was the attitude of the Minister of Labour on the Laundry Wages Council Order. His action in respect of laundry wages was tragic. I am sorry to say this, because I was associated with the Ministry of Labour and have an enormous respect for the work it has done and is doing, but when the Minister refuses to sign an Order of this description for people whose wages are as low as those of the laundry workers, it becomes abundantly obvious that he is becoming nothing more than a tool of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Hare: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to give the House a misleading impression. He said that I would not sign this Order. I signed it, but I adjusted the date.
  Mr. Boardman: For the Minister to talk about signing an Order which has been negotiated through the proper negotiating machinery, and then putting the operative date months ahead, is going a little far. I am not trying to score a

  1005
  point. I have too much respect for the Minister of Labour.
  It used to be the proud boast of many people that our Ministry of Labour and our system of labour relations was a fine example to the rest of the world. A good deal of this stemmed from the fact that the Minister of Labour always showed a certain aloofness and independence, and, above all, that he was fair. It was significant that Sir Walter Monckton generally received the acclaim of both sides of the House for the way in which he did his job. I have many times heard him being paid compliments from my Front Bench. A large measure of his success was due to the fact that both sides of industry had confidence in him. They had that confidence largely because he kept himself above party strife. It is more important than ever now that the Minister of Labour should demonstrate his independence, because we are getting to the point where, whatever we think of a national wages policy, we have to give it serious consideration.
  I do not know anyone who has produced a magic formula to deal with this, but I cannot see how we can avoid inflation under existing conditions so long as we maintain full employment—and not only the British Government, but all Governments, are pledged to such a policy. We therefore must give serious consideration to a national wages policy, and it is in this connection that the Minister of Labour will have to demonstrate his independence and aloofness and an overwhelming desire to be fair to both sides. We will not get it by the refusal of the Minister to put into effect wages which have been properly negotiated.
  Sir Alexander Spearman: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by full employment?
  Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman must take me for a very young bird to ask me that one. I am talking about full employment, not in terms of percentages, but in terms of using every available man and machine to the fullest capacity. It is nonsense to talk about percentages. In his new role the Minister of Labour must play an even more important part if we are to have anything like a national wages policy.
  1006
  I give the Minister a word of warning about this. It is no use thinking in terms of a national wages policy until a lot of wage levels have been elevated to something near the average. I have mentioned the people in the distributive trades, and I am thinking also of the agricultural workers. I am thinking also of the hospitals in this country which probably would not be able to function for another day were it not for the number of immigrants employed in them. People think that the girls working in the hospitals and carrying Florence Nightingale's lamp are doing so for love. We must be prepared to look at the wages of some of these people and bring them up to a much higher level.
  If the Government act sensibly in this matter they will get the active support of almost the entire trade union leadership. They will require it. If the Government do not get this co-operation—and they will not unless they act sensibly—we shall face disaster in labour relations. I therefore want to make a final appeal, quite seriously. It is not too late for the Government to withdraw this wages pause. I know that it will require tremendous courage for the Government to take a backward step. It is an awful thing to lose face. Wars have started because Governments have refused to lose face.
  On the other hand, although the Government may lose some face, and may be criticised in certain newspapers, such action would do more to weld the two sides of industry together than any other single action could, and it would guarantee the co-operation of the trade unions on the bigger and more permanent issue of a national wages policy.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: In spite of the interesting observations of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) I shall have no qualms of conscience about voting against the Opposition Amendment. That is not to say that I am an uncritical supporter of the actions and judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is rather that, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—whose performance, if I may say so without patronage, I find much more

  1007
  agreeable than any that we have had from his predecessor the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that I am in no way tempted to vote to unseat Charles to make James king.
  I was minded to make some observations about the first half of the Opposition Amendment but, in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak, and because I would rather address myself to the second half of the Amendment, I shall exercise restraint and throw away ten pages of admirable notes in which I have no doubt that I would have adequately answered most of the arguments put forward against the pay pause. I shall, therefore, address myself to the second half of the Opposition Amendment, which refers to the need for a
  "long-term solution to the problem of inflation…"
  I do not believe that there is a long-term answer to the problem of inflation. The whole of our economic history shows that there is no answer. If we act as if there were such a solution we shall get into the most awful trouble, and fail to do many of the things that we should be doing. That does not mean, contrarily, that I am an out-and-out inflationist, or that I believe that Governments of the day ought to admit in public that they should not direct part of their policies to trying to restrain inflation. If they admitted publicly that inflation could not be restrained we should have run-away inflation overnight. Therefore, it is towards restraint of inflation rather than a long-term solution of it that the House should direct its attention.
  It is proper that the Government should aim at restraining inflation. The problem is: how do a Government restrain inflation under conditions, first, of full employment and, secondly, of Parliamentary democracy. I am not making any party point out of this. I am a professional economist, and I know of ways in which it would be possible to have expansion, full employment and stable prices under conditions that were not democratic. I believe, conversely, that under conditions of democracy one could have expansion and stable prices, but it
  1008
  would mean surrendering full employment. The majority of the House would reject both alternatives.
  This is a continuing problem. It is not special to Britain. Many other countries face the same problem. But this country has two particular conditions which make the problem more urgent and more acute. The first is the exposed nature of our economy, with its great dependence on imports and exports, and the second is the role of sterling as an international currency. So far, those hon. Members who have spoken have not paid sufficient attention to the basic weakness of our sterling position, arising from the fact that, over many years, we have borrowed short and lent long, which makes our financial position even more exposed than it would be by virtue of our exposed physical trading position. That adds particular urgency to the need to restrain inflation.
  As the House knows, the problem of inflation is not limited to democracies. Even in the glorious planned paradise of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushchev—as readers of the Observer will know—recently had to talk very tough to the farmers of the virgin lands. He has his pay pause, wage freeze, call it what you will. It is interesting to recall what he told the farmers of the virgin lands in the planned economy of the Soviet Union. He said:
  "The question of wages is a big State question. Their level depends entirely on the output of produce, on the productivity of labour in a given society. Since 1953 the output of produce in the countryside has increased. But there is still not enough meat and milk. Why? Because the wages of workers and officials and the incomes of collective farmers have increased. If we raise wages and the total of wages is higher than the total of goods, what happens? You will have a lot of money, but you will not be able to buy meat and milk in the shops, because the output of produce will fall still further behind the population's purchasing power."
  Under the Russian system inflation shows itself immediately in shortages in the shops and poor quality of consumer goods. Under the conditions of our economy inflation shows itself in the sterling crisis or a balance of payments crisis, which is much the same thing. Even the Soviet Union has had to devalue. I hope that the anti-party group will take this into their calculations. The Soviet Union had what was virtually a

  1009
  100 per cent. deflation in November, 1960.
  The Opposition Amendment goes on to seek measures that will
  "remove the underlying weaknesses in the national economy."
  If the Amendment had related solely to that point many hon. Members on this side of the House might have voted in the Lobbies with them—including, I suspect, most of the Government Front Bench. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East put out a challenge to the Government back benches asking how, if we had the power, we would approach these problems. I accept that challenge. I can tell the House how I would tackle these problems. First, as a nation we must get our priorities right. I have said this in Budget debate after Budget debate. We are trying to make our resources do too much in the world. Our first priority must be to strengthen the home front and the home economy. Until we do this successfully all our ambitions to be a world Power are sheer illusions. The French call it Folie de grandeur.
  I have watched with trepidation through succeeding debates the emerging partnership of the new Imperialists on the Left with the old Imperialists on the Right to force Britain into overseas commitments which our economic circumstances, apart from the general climate of world opinion, cannot enable us to fulfil, and can only lead us into bankruptcy and dishonour. To get sense into our affairs we must firmly reject the siren voices both of the commissars and of the Bourbons alike.
  Our immediate priority, as a nation, is to make Britain more competitive in everything she does. Our long-term aim must be sustained growth, but we cannot have growth until we are more competitive.
  What do we need to do to deal with these recurring crises? As a nation I believe that we must realise that many factors contribute both to our failures and to our successes. If we are to be more competitive we have to work over a very wide range of factors many of which may in themselves appear to be marginal. For instance, I am of the opinion that we need an improvement in the teaching of languages in our schools,
  1010
  so that our overseas salesmen can speak the language of the countries in which they are trying to sell. But our problems are not amenable to a sort of gimmick solution, and many good ideas are spoiled by being over-exaggerated and taken out of context. Further, we must recognise that the whole range of economic and social problems which the House is discussing tonight are amenable only in part to action by the Government under conditions of democracy, because in a free society even the most resolute Government cannot ensure prosperity.
  The Government can state requirements and create a climate of opinion and exert some influence. But the rest is up to industry. However, I believe that there still exists a wide range in which the Government could take appropriate action, and I desire to suggest briefly twelve points to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there are moments when I look with envy on Mr. Fidel Castro who can speak for five-and-a-half hours outlining his economic plans, whereas the humble back-bencher cannot without taxing the patience of the House claim more than 15 to 20 minutes.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I hope also that my hon. Friend will not forget the wise Mr. Clemenceau's remark that God had only Ten Commandments.
  Mr. Price: My right hon. and learned Friend may have learned something from experience in negotiating with trade unions. I am putting forward twelve points in the hope that I may be satisfied with six put into action.
  The first point, I suggest, to which the Government must adhere is a sound budgetary policy. While I do not go the whole way with the deflationist argument, if Governments in their Budgets do not so arrange their fiscal affairs that they equate supply and demand, they have no hope of dealing with the situation at all. Looking on past Budgets—my strictures include Chancellors from both parties—there have been only a few Budgets which have been sufficiently tough in their approach to our general affairs. Had we had some tougher Budgets some of the irritating monetary measures which have proved necessary might not have been necessary.

  1011
  Secondly, I believe that we must adhere to the comprehensive use of the monetary weapon. I emphasise the word "comprehensive" because I believe that there are still some parts of our credit system which do not get caught by the measures used by the Government. I am thinking particularly of special deposits and whether there are not other sections of our financial institutions which can create credit just as easily as the joint stock banks.
  Thirdly, I think that we have to have long-term budgeting by Government Departments. I know that my right hon. Friends are trying to do this, and I believe that the House of Commons must get up to date on this matter. We must start thinking of budgeting for a longer term than a year. Here, may I say that I believe that we in this House will not fulfil our traditional duty of criticising the Government constructively until we reform a good many of our procedures. I get very distressed over the obsession which we have for our outward forms of our institutions which causes us to dehydrate and throttle the spirit of our institutions. In no sphere is this expressed more clearly than in the completely inadequate efforts this House takes to control Government expenditure constructively.
  I believe that we must have more long-term planning. If we are prepared to cheer that in this House we must be prepared to have more long-term planning in our own affairs. Notwithstanding my welcome for what my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to do, I believe that he will get into great trouble if he starts using his new planning council to deal with wages stright away. The first rôle which I visualise for this planning council, and on which I shall personally judge its success, is its ability to start modestly by persuading a number of major industries to co-ordinate their future investment plans. In most individual firms this is already being done and it is merely a matter of co-ordinating what already exists.
  We must recognise that planning is not an incantation and that it is harder to plan future industrial development in an open, exposed economy like ours than in a closed economy like that of the
  1012
  Soviet Union, for the simple reason that our problems are not solely problems of production. There are problems of overseas selling, and in fact at the present moment I would say that there are more problems of overseas selling than of production.
  I believe that we must have a complete recasting of the taxation system, and not a little fiddling around with it. We must have a really good new look at it. Our purpose should be, first, to make Britain more competitive. What more foolish tax is there than the fuel tax which adds to oncosts in industry? Secondly, we should tax expenditure more and earnings and savings less.
  I believe that in order to make Britain more competitive we have to lower our tariffs, and I am prepared to see us do that unilaterally if we cannot do it through the G.A.T.T. That to my mind makes the economic case for joining the European Economic Community overwhelming. I wish that the Government would put the broad economic case for going into the Common Market instead of all the time taking the snivellers round the corner and telling them that they are not to be hurt. My belief is that they will be hurt, and I think that it would be jolly good for some of the inefficient people in this country if they had the fear of "going bust".
  Sir S. Summers: When my hon. Friend refers to the people who will get hurt—I agree with his general proposition—I hope he will remember that New Zealand may be hurt.
  Mr. Price: I do not propose to be diverted in that way for the moment. I will merely say that, accepting that there is a responsibility to New Zealand, it makes complete nonsense of the thoughts of my hon. Friends who are worried about sovereignty. Perhaps my hon. Friend will think out that one. New Zealand will not lose sovereignty by our joining the Common Market, but if arrangements to protect New Zealand are not made she will be hurt, and her sovereignty will be of precious little use to her.
  I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend should be working to try to turn the International Monetary Fund into the central bank for the whole of the free world. In my view, the dollar

  1013
  and the £ sterling are being asked to do for the world something for which under modern conditions they have not sufficient reserves. In the short term the solution may be to raise the price of gold, but that decision does not lie within our power. Increasingly, we have to expand the resources of the International Monetary Fund until the day when it is the central bank for the whole of the free world.
  I believe that we have to improve the way in which Governments prepare themselves to do their job. I could detain the House for a long time discussing this matter, but I will throw out one idea. How many people employed in the senior ranks of the Civil Service have a degree in any of the applied sciences or the natural sciences or mathematics? There are precious few. I believe that we must concentrate Government resources where they will help to increase the national productivity most. I believe this to be particularly so in the sphere of education. We must expand far more our facilities for commercial and technical education and the teaching of languages. Here I would declare a policy priority. I regard that as more important than education merely for recreation. People refer to the great problem of educating for leisure. I believe that in pursuing that idea we are drawing on the bank before the money has been put in. We can come to the problems of leisure when our balance of payments position is a little better.
  It is reasonable to ask whether these measures would prevent incomes from running ahead of national productivity. Partially they would, but in wages and salaries there is still an institutional factor, which has arisen out of the developing pattern of social behaviour in this country over the last twenty years, which will not be completely restrained by the kind of measures which I have outlined. There is an intellectually respectable school of thought which says that the only way to restrain the wage-cost spiral is by further deflationary policies, but I believe that the amount of deflation required to prevent that wage-cost spiral would not only be socially unjust but would be economically crippling to the country. I do not believe that such a policy would succeed even with as much as 3 per cent. unemployment.
  1014
  In the long-term we can be helped by increasing production and productivity, but there are limits to this. Although I favour it, I wish that people would not overstate the argument and suggest that these increases would solve all our problems. They would help to ameliorate them but no more. A more extensive use of work study and the use of modern management techniques would help. The Government must take over the problem of apprenticeships, because the biggest single shortage in British industry is the shortage of the really skilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) tried to handle this problem, when at the Ministry of Labour, in the indirect, the gentleman's, way, and he achieved some results. But I do not believe that our present system, if it can be so called—I prefer to call it anarchy—meets the needs of the nation, and I should like the Chancellor to take the opportunity with the trade unions of making a radical approach to our apprenticeship schemes.
  One can see great opportunities for more realistic wage structures, but I do not wish to detain the House on that. I would merely say that the biggest problem with which we shall be left is that between those who are employed in productive industry and those who, broadly speaking, are employed in non-productive industry. I believe that, with good management and reasonable good will between unions and management, we can get a wage structure in productive industry which, in the broad, will not he inflationary. but how do we deal with the increasing percentage of our working population who are not employed in productive industry? If we say to those in productive industry that they shall relate wages to productivity and share in increased productivity, how do we deal with those in non-productive industry? To put it in Marxist terms, for those in productive industry we can say, "To each according to his work", and to those in non-productive industry it would be "To each according to his need". How can those two different approaches live together? I believe that that is the 64-dollar question in a national income policy.
  I suggest that the Government have to pay the going rate for jobs, and I

  1015
  support them in closing down that which is uneconomic, provided that there is adequate costing information to show genuinely what is uneconomic, which certainly is not the case with British Railways at the moment—and that makes the problem more difficult.
  At the end of the day this is a psychological matter. It can be said that all our economic problems are statistically marginal, but if one constantly has a temperature which is marginally 5 per cent. above normal, one feels very ill. Our problem has been marginal for so long that it has taken on the proportions of a crisis. The extra effort required to solve our recurring economic difficulties is well within the nation's means, but to get it we must have a change in attitude. As the famous leader in The Times said in July, fundamentally Britain's greatest ill is the collapse of discipline. It cannot be imposed at one level without being restored at all the others. It is most important that the Front Bench should look at this problem from the different points in the economy which we believe are affected. I do not mean only the obvious points of the man at the work bench and the man on the plant. I also mean the civil servant, the minor official, the people mending roads, the people living on fixed incomes. These problems, which are often so obvious from here, look very different to them.
  With that in mind, I want the Government to introduce, in legislation, some form of workers' charter which will give certain basic statutory rights to people employed in industry and will place certain obligations on management. I should like to see a capital charge introduced for land where there is a change of planning consent. Where land is rationed by the community and where a community decision changes the use value of land, there is a clear case in social justice for the Government, by means of a capital tax, to take back some of the enhanced value which has arisen out of the community's decision.
  I am not enamoured by a capital gains tax, but I will accept it in a package deal. As a quid pro quo our trade union friends must accept some reform in trade union law along the lines of giving the
  1016
  Registrar powers to ensure that we do not have a recurrence of the E.T.U. type of situation. I hope that my friends in the trade unions will see that there must be a package deal with give and take on both sides.
  I have an open mind on other measures which may be necessary. There must be extra effort. We cannot run away from that. It is well within our capacity. But we must cease exploiting the conscientious at every level by raising the general level of effort nearer to that shown by the conscientious. Above all, we must stop blaming everybody but ourselves. The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves. Only when the nation acts by this simple truth shall we get some sense in our economic affairs and thereby fortify our influence in the councils of the world.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. David Ginsburg: Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), I will concentrate on the second half of the Amendment—the country's economic weaknesses. In view of the hon. Gentleman's argument, much of which I accept, I am surprised that he says that he will not follow us into the Division Lobby on our Amendment—and I hope that he will not think me churlish in saying that.
  I begin deliberately with the question of the balance of payments because the Chancellor's remedies can be assessed only by reference to the problem which they seek to cure and because the Chancellor's speeches have consistently shown that he has misconceived the problem. The true significance of the now famous Leicester speech—I am sorry that the Chancellor is not in the Chamber—was not the correction controversy, fascinating though that was, but the fact that the Chancellor justified his July measures on the ground of pressure on domestic resources and stated that he had counted on increases in incomes not materialising. This statement was nonsense, as the Chancellor's Economic Survey of 1961 and his Budget speech show—and I have the references here.
  If we re-read what the Chancellor said earlier this year we see that he had allowed for certain increases in incomes and demand and that, if anything, they were much less than he had expected.

  1017
  What happened—and I draw the attention of the House to this—was that the Chancellor had apparently not reckoned with a crisis of confidence in the £, although he had been given ample warning from these benches. The immediate result of the July measures, especially the increase in the Bank Rate, has been superficially, and only superficially—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh has shown—to restore the position. The gold reserves are being built up, but once more at the cost of attracting hot money to these shores. There is bound to be a reckoning. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh touched on the overriding question which remains, which is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's prestige policies—because we are pursuing prestige policies as an international banker on our scale—are within the capacity of the real balance of payments resources of this country. The answer is that of course they are not.
  I want to refer to the third quarter's balance of payments figures, which were issued last week by the Treasury and on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer commented. They are very disappointing figures, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was very complacent this afternoon. There has been no improvement in the balance of payments. Most of the improvement is hot money coming into this country. After allowing for invisible exports, we still have a deficit in the third quarter of £25 million. out of which we have to finance capital investment overseas. I could say quite a lot about this very disturbing result, the first result after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures. It is fair to say that exports are very disappointing. Secondly, I refer to the imports position, because what will happen to our balance of payments position when imports start rising again? The account has gained from a fall in imports and also in import prices.
  There is a further component of the recent balance of payments accounts which is worth referring to. That is invisible earnings. Earnings on invisible account have fallen. There has been a catastrophic fall in invisible earnings over the past ten years and in the last quarter once again invisible earnings are going down.
  1018
  I should like to hear from the Government speaker something about my plea for the publication of further balance of payments statistics relating to the international earnings of the oil industry. Invisible earnings are decreasing and we are not being provided with any figures relating to the oil industry. This is bound to be a case for concern. It is a very unsatisfactory situation.
  I suppose that the most serious comment on the last lot of balance of payments figures is the Government's failure to earn an adequate surplus on current account to provide for our overseas investment. Every year that passes we have commitments which are beyond our needs. The only year when the balance of payments situation was in balance and when there was a surplus to finance overseas expenditure was 1958, when the economy was working at 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. below capacity. This is the measure of the Government's failure all along the line, and especially their failure to boost exports.
  The Government's answer to this problem is to damp down demand. The Government do this every year or two. As some hon. Members opposite have recognised, this is a counsel of despair because it means, as happened in 1958, putting up not for a few months but year in and year out with a level of unemployment of labour and capital which would be quite unacceptable politically to the country as a whole. There is no doubt that this is the logical conclusion of this policy.
  The Government's record of production resulting from their policy of damping down demand is a shocking one. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that production at last started to crawl upwards in the first and second quarters of this year. Now, as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's squeeze, it is falling back again. I warn the House that it is bound to take several months before production recovers again.
  However, production is not the full story. Consumption has fallen as a result of the Government's July measures. It is interesting to note that the Economic Review of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research

  1019
  says that on the present form the consumption position will not be restored until half-way through 1962. This is a grim outlook.
  But production and consumption are not the full story. Investment in the private sector is tailing off now, and the indications are that there will be a turndown in 1962. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to the figures of the Federation of British Industries relating to intentions for increases and decreases in investment in plant and machinery. These figures show that the ratio of these two intentions has gone back once more to the position obtaining in 1958. It is not surprising to learn, in view of all these figures, that there is a tremendous amount of spare capacity in the country. Many industries are working below capacity at present—the steel industry, the motor car industry, and now even parts of the textile industry.
  Sir A. Spearman: Does the hon. Member agree that there has been no falling off in the consumption of steel, but there has been a certain amount of de-stocking?
  Mr. Ginsburg: I do not dissent on that specific point, but the general picture is of a decline in demand and excess capacity. There is evidence of substantial hidden unemployment in the economy today.
  I want to say a few words about an industry which is most important in my own constituency, namely, the heavy woollen industry. The statistics for clothing and textiles—it is an omnibus figure involving cotton as well as wool—show that net new orders are down by 25 per cent. to 33 per cent. on 1959. This is very serious. In answer to a Question I asked two weeks ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that there was nothing disturbing in the figure I had elicited and that the critical thing was the size of the total order book. It is very easy for the total order book to run down very fast, and the hon. Gentleman's view is short-sighted. It is a pity that we have not the specific figures of net new orders for the woollen industry, but deliveries for certain woollen fabrics are unquestionably falling.
  1020
  It is a matter of very grave concern not only to my constituents but to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), because our two constituencies comprise the bulk of the heavy woollen district. We are not only worried about these developments, but as to the effects of Britain's entry into the Common Market on our local industry, which could be exceptionally serious. The National Union of Manufacturers undertook a survey of the effects of the Common Market on certain industries. Some industries will benefit. Some will not. This is what the Union said about the industry in my constituency:
  "The trade in woollens however has its cheap end, and this is where competition from Italian shoddy manufacturers, based on the largest rag market in the world, a good labour supply and significant weight of low-cost cottage industry, threatens. French woollens have already felt its impact. Not surprisingly, British woollen manufacturers are less keen on joining the Common Market than the worsted manufacturers."
  It may be asked, "Why worry about a hypothetical development". It is not a hypothetical development; it is a likely one.
  The interesting thing is there is already a trend towards increased imports of woollen goods. It is extremely disconcerting to learn from the latest Trade and Navigation Returns that importations of woollen goods from Europe and Ireland and, perhaps, from Japan are up by about 50 per cent. I hope that the Government spokesman will comment on that.
  In my own area and, I imagine, in the constituencies of many other hon. Members, statistics are not of themselves adequate guides to the incidence of unemployment. There is much migration, and much concealed unemployment. I would, in particular, ask the Minister of Labour to consider the numbers of married women going out of employment when closures occur. This very serious form of concealed unemployment is taking place in my division.
  The lack of growth in our economy is a very serious matter, indeed. It means that we, as a nation, cannot discharge our overseas responsibilities in relation to investment, particularly in the Commonwealth. It also means that our living standards are directly affected. Some years ago, the Home Secretary

  1021
  spoke about doubling our standard of living in twenty-five years. I will not argue about whether or not we shall succeed in doing that—although, admittedly, progress is rather slow—but I know that my constituents, who live in what is called a low-wage area, could do with a far faster rate of economic growth. I feel that that view is not mine alone but is shared by my hon. Friends.
  What relevance has this pay pause to our problems? The Chancellor has often referred to excess demand, but on the basis of the arguments I have tried to deploy I suggest that this is really a non-existent disease in our economy today. There is need for substantially more demand; we have had excess capacity now for more than a year.
  I concede, of course, that cost inflation is a totally different problem, but there is absolutely no evidence in any economic doctrine I have read that a squeeze on demand is of any use as a cure for cost inflation. Further, if cost inflation is a problem today, it must be said that the Chancellor's personal contribution of pushing up costs now has been particularly harmful to any attempt to meet that problem. I will give just two figures that bear very critically on the Chancellor's own personal contribution in the last few months.
  If we look at the index of wage rates between the first and third quarters of this year—a six-month period—we find that it has gone up by 1·2 per cent. but that, in the same period, the index of retail prices has gone up by over 2·6 per cent. Those figures leave no doubt that some living standards have already suffered as a result of the Chancellor's policy. If he had really wanted to make a contribution to solving this very difficult problem he should not—quite apart from the way in which he handled the trade union movement—have intervened, as he did, in July—and, indeed, in February—to push up costs still further. Can anyone really be surprised that all this resentment has been generated in the public?
  Another thought on the pay pause is that, in a sense, we have all been here before. I would urge hon. Members opposite and, in particular, the Minister of Labour, if he has not already done so, to read "The Employers' Challenge," by Mr. Hugh Cleggs, Fellow of Nuffield
  1022
  College. It deals with the 1957 dispute between the engineering trade unions and the engineering industry. In particular, it deals with the occasion—and here, I think, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) spoke wisely—when the Government first urged the employers to seek a showdown with the unions and then left the employers high and dry.
  Another moral about the pay pause is worthy of thought. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), who I regret is not present in the Chamber, has said that ethics make bad economics. I disagree with him there because, surely, politics consist of the reconciliation of those two things. But I would agree with him in the sense that a wages policy based on ethics alone brings very great and, perhaps, intractable difficulties in its train. I believe that the Cripps freeze ran into difficulties because, in the end, it just was not possible to influence the whole totality of wages—as the Chancellor is charitably, perhaps, now seeking to do—without dealing with the details, and without detailed bargaining involving intricate questions of labour supply and demand and the whole question of State intervention.
  Up to the present the Chancellor's wages policy has been really half-baked. Some hon. Members opposite may agree with me when I say that up to now there has been no ethics in the matter at all, and may also agree that there has been no economics in the working out of wages policy, either. The problem is immense. The Chancellor is not now present, but I recall that he was a staff officer during the war and it could, perhaps, be said to him that, so far, none of the serious staff work necessary for launching any kind of wages policy has been undertaken. I would also remind the Minister of Labour that it is all very well appointing Sir Robert Shone who will, no doubt, do valuable work, but what studies have the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour made so far of the implications of all these problems?
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh gave the Government twelve points; I am trying to give them a reading list. I suggest that the Minister of Labour and

  1023
  his colleagues should read Sir Roy Harrod's recent article in the District Bank Review. Surprisingly enough, it contains some extremely constructive ideas on what the Government could do towards creating a better and more cordial framework for their relations with the trade union movement. He makes some very unorthodox suggestions. He suggests that restrictive practices are logical and can be understood in their setting; that there should be negotiations, and that, if necessary, compensation should be paid for the abandonment of certain restrictive practices.
  The Chancellor is constantly saying that cost inflation is Britain's greatest problem today. Although one welcomes the right hon. and learned Gentleman's conversion, it is a rather odd new doctrine for a Government who made other statements in 1958 when the Cohen Report denied that there was such a thing as cost inflation.
  If, however, the Government have come to the conclusion that cost inflation must be tackled, it can be tackled only by fairness and co-operation. But, apart from fairness and co-operation, there must be economic growth. It is simply no use the Government and the Chancellor going in for policies that one can only describe as economic masochism, such as that undertaken in July this year. In this connection, I must quote an excerpt from an O.E.E.C. publication, "The Problem of Rising Prices", to which the Chancellor has often and approvingly referred. This is an interesting excerpt on the whole question of pauses and wage policy, for it states:
  "Price stability by itself will not assure adequate research and development, technical education, increasing business and labour efficiency, a skilled and adaptable labour force, a high level of investment, active competitive conditions, progressive and vigorous business leadership, and other real factors that are responsible for economic growth. Economic policy must provide incentives which foster these elements of growth and which assure that the requisite resources and savings are made available. For it is evident that economic growth will itself assist stabilisation efforts in the very important sense that, provided the targets for growth are not unrealistic, the political and social problems involved in price stability will be more easily overcome the greater the rate of growth of the economy."
  Sir A. Spearman rose—
  Mr. Ginsburg: Let the Chancellor ponder those words and bring in sound, positive measures and, above all, end the squeeze.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: It is a problem for me to follow two economists and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) will forgive me if I do not follow closely the remarks that he made.
  One important factor emanated from the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan); the one great problem we must solve is the dilemma of how to maintain full employment and, at the same time, prevent inflation. That question was properly asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, but it appeared from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) that in his view it was impossible to achieve this objective. My hon. Friend's remarks seemed to indicate that one could not have stable prices and full employment, including a high level of productivity, without inflation. I am sorry if that is his view, for I believe that stability in both spheres must be our final aim. After all, we have so much in common in the objectives at which we are aiming.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East quoted at length from the 1948 White Paper. I appreciate that he could not quote the whole document, but one sentence in it which attracted my attention was that which said:
  "It does, however, follow that each claim for an increase in wages or salaries must be considered on its national merits and not on the basis of maintaining a former relativity between different occupations and industries."
  I can see the great similarity in the views held then and those held today. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor pointed out something today which we all realise, that the pay pause can only be a temporary measure tackling a symptom of a disease that has been with us since the war. I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend would even claim that it will do more than tackle the symptoms. What we need is an answer to the disease and unless we find one we shall, from time to time, be faced with these problems

  1025
  which will need palliative and short-term solutions.
  It is obvious, from what we have learned in the past, that this problem can only be solved—regardless of what the economists tell us—by realising that we are in this together. We need to find a point of agreement on which we can get closer together and realise that we have more of a common interest. I urge hon. Members to study a report which the T.U.C. published in 1950. That report stated that the T.U.C. General Council, on 28th June of that year, had approved a statement which read:
  "When, in 1947, the economic position of the country so threatened the maintenance of full employment and created a grave danger of inflation the T.U.C. then directly sponsored a policy of restraint which was overwhelmingly confirmed by succeeding Congresses."
  This was a considerable move forward, but the trouble is that the report went on to say:
  "After the Congress last year the Government's decision to devalue sterling was announced. This, in itself, occasioned some surprise but the extent of devaluation created a profound shock".
  Thus, we see that the T.U.C. was prepared to accept a voluntary wage restraint—and to call on its members to carry it out—but that that was followed by an admission that it had not worked out because devaluation had occurred. It is important to note that when devaluation took place, on 18th September, 1949, it was only on the following 30th November that the voluntary wage restraint principle was broken by the engineers going forward with a claim for a wage increase. It was at that time that the policy of voluntary wage restraint completely fell down.
  The question is whether other measures could have been taken while voluntary wage restrain was operating, and trade unionists and the Government were co-operating, to prevent inflation being brought about at the end of the day. I wonder whether some other action might have been taken so that the situation would not have been spoilt and trade unionists would not have gone back to the old round of wage increases because they were dissatisfied and felt that they had been "sold a pup."
  The question is whether we have learned any lessons from that? Can we
  1026
  not at least appreciate some of the reasons why trade unionists and the T.U.C. do not appear keen on entering an agreement? We must prove to them that we have learned some of those lessons before we can expect them fully to work in harmony with the Government again. It is also important to note from that T.U.C.'s statement the concentration that is placed on the maintenance of full employment. This is, after all, an important matter for the T.U.C. and it is generally agreed that all hon. Members are interested in continuing full employment. I am rather happy to see that no hon. Member has been bandying about the percentage of unemployment that is needed before the country can be in economic balance. If we have to consider that type of argument, if we have to go back to a situation such as there was between the wars, there must be something wrong with us.
  The Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on the Gracious Speech on 31st October, referred to one of our great problems. He said:
  "…between the wars we were all haunted by unemployment on a massive scale. Everybody felt that, if only this could be cured, we could have a sort of paradise. But such is the fate of humans on this earth, we find that we have solved one set of problems, at arty rate temporarily, only to be confronted by another. Full employment has brought with it a new set of difficulties and a new set of dangers…we can preserve what we have won only if no interest presses its case too far or too hard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st October, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 40.]
  This, I believe, poses the major problem that we have to solve. We have to find a way of coming closer together, and prove that what all the economists—perhaps I should not say all the economists, because most of them disagree with each other—what many of the economists say is untrue, and that we can have a stable economy and rising productivity without a high level of unemployment. That is a state of affairs which we might attain providing we can set aside our differences and agree on the lessons that we have learned.
  The principle of comparability is fair; but it is important to ask how far we should go when comparability is judged by a completely changing yardstick all the time. It is necessary to consider that point when we reflect how many people have their wages and salaries

  1027
  decided by comparing them with the wages and salaries of others. Unless we can find some sort of yardstick which is fairly constant, we shall run into difficulties from time to time.
  I do not think that we can blame a Chancellor of the Exchequer for slamming on the brakes if he finds that the economy is gravely affected to the extent that another devaluation may be brought about, with its associated problems. The job of the Government is to govern, and certainly the job of any Chancellor, whenever he sees danger signs looming ahead, is to take the necessary steps, however temporary, to try to put a halt to our race downhill. Therefore, it is necessary to fashion a more reliable yardstick for comparing wages and salaries in order to make certain that we do not run away with ourselves.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury mentioned two types of inflation. To me, inflation is the same, however we separate it into types. When the Cohen Committee was set up it was hoped that it would be able to give some guidance to industry. Unfortunately, very few people took any notice of it, and I doubt whether many people read any more of its Reports after the publication of its first. But in many senses the first Report talked very good horse sense.
  On page 53 of the 1958 Report, among its recommendations is a very important point:
  "In general, we think it important that, in the occupations where productivity is rising fastest, wages should not be allowed to rise in full proportion to the increase in productivity. For if they did, wages elsewhere would tend to rise in sympathy, and the result would be that average wages would rise faster than average productivity, and the rise in prices would continue."
  That is as true now as it was then, and, unless we are prepared to accept the truth of that fact, we shall continue to have a situation in which either incomes will lead productivity or we shall leave behind our fathers and mothers who are now receiving pensions and even the men who taught us our jobs, enabling us to increase our productivity and thus to enjoy higher benefits. This is one of the dilemmas that we have to face, and we have a responsibility in that respect.
  1028
  The Chancellor has given us a progress report on the Council which he suggested should be set up. Apparently, the staff will be recruited and the Council will begin to operate. The question arises: what work will this Council do? I agree with those who have said that if the Council is to be purely a body to lay down criteria to guide changes in wages, then it is not "on" because, in the words of the late Ernest Bevin, "The lads won't have it." The Council must have a wider application, and then it will do a great deal of good. Certainly, if it attracts the type of people whom we hope it will, it will certainly possess a wide circle of interests and will, therefore, have considerable effect. It will at least give some guide to arbitration courts in the decisions which they make.
  People may say that arbitration courts should be free and unfettered in considering the matters before them. I do not disagree with that, but I would ask: is it really in everybody's interest if an arbitration court concerns itself with one small sector, regardless of all the other sectors concerned, and then there follows at the end of the day a claim based on comparability with an award in that small sector? I am not saying that arbitration courts normally consider matters in isolation, but if we can devise a yardstick whereby the arbitration courts, while not losing their rights or impartiality, can obtain some guide on what ought to be the general trend, I believe that this could help. Certainly, it could slow down the queue in which we all follow each other only to find, at the end of the day, that we are very little better off.
  The T.U.C.'s decision on whether or not it should join the Council seems to be tied to the end of the pay pause. In other words, the T.U.C. seems to require to be satisfied on the question of when the pay pause is likely to end before expressing any willingness to join the National Council for Economic Development. Unless there is something to replace the pay pause, we may quickly get back to where we were before. One could not suddenly announce that the pay pause was at an end without being satisfied that there was something to take its place.
  To show how close together we are on this problem, I will quote what the

  1029
  right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1951, addressing the Trades Union Congress, he said:
  "The plain fact is that the cost of living here will go on rising in 1952 even with stable world prices if we go on pushing up our own costs through substantial rises in wages and salaries. This is what we must surely avoid. If incomes go up more than production goes up, then prices will rise. The truth is as simple as that, and I would like to see it hanging as one of the old texts on the wall of every office occupied by anyone, whether employer or trade unionist, who is concerned with negotiations about increases of any kind."
  Would it be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend—it would cost very little—to have some of these texts produced and ask that they should be hung in all offices? It is important to remember that there are many involved on both sides of negotiations who lose sight of such truths, which are just as true now as in the past. Whatever our differences of opinion may be in this matter, we sink or swim together.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) is, I believe, something of a rarity in his party since he is its only trade union Member of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will listen very carefully to what he said not only about the desirability of the trade unions co-operating in the National Council for Economic Development, with which I agree, but about why it may be difficult to persuade the trade unions, in view of past events, to have the necessary confidence to join the Council.
  I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman). Listening to that speech, from someone who is a very respected trade unionist, I thought that it gave an indication of the sort of co-operation which the Government could have from the trade union movement if the movement could be convinced that the wages policy which the Government were following was fair and just. I felt that very strongly as I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Today, I hoped that the Chancellor would give us a good deal of information about the intended course of the Government's wages policy during the next few
  1030
  months. I thought that there might be a stirring call to action. He gave us some information, but not even his most ardent supporters would accuse him of dynamism or his most vitriolic opponents of demagogy.
  We are, after all, considering the wages and production policy of a Government who have been in power for eleven years. We are looking at it in the context of a wages pause which in itself is an indication of the unbalance or imbalance in our economy. On Christmas Day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like some latter-day Scrooge, will be celebrating the fifth month of his pay pause, which he introduced on 25th July last. It is a pay pause which has been consistently breached not only by private firms, but by the nationalised industries and by his fellow Ministers. It stands today as a policy riddled with holes, looking rather like a Gruyèere cheese in a good year.
  There is no clear pattern in the holes. Some agreements made before 25th July have been honoured. Others made before that date have been broken. Some awards are to become operative on 1st January, others on 2nd April, while others will depend upon the Chancellor. It is right to consider the extent of the breach in the pay pause which has taken place in order to see the impossibility of sustaining the present policy. To point the argument clearly, I shall put to the Chancellor several questions, some of which, I must admit, he has attempted to answer in his speech today, and, somewhat diffidently, one or two suggestions.
  On 3rd August, the Industrial Court awarded to 10,000 clerical and administrative workers in the national and private aircraft industries increases of from 8s. to 13s. a week. That was the first breach in the pay pause. The next breach came on the same day, when the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, flatly rejecting a suggestion from the Minister of Education, made a wages award to repairer craftsmen at the Victoria and Albert Museum following a 4 per cent. increase awarded earlier to other civil servants. On 9th August, there was a 7 per cent. increase awarded to electricians in the cinema industry. On 21st September, 50,000 employees in the National Association of Theatrical and Cinematograph Unions were given a

  1031
  4 per cent. increase as from 15th August. These were all part of the consistent breach there has been in the policy which the Government announced on 25th July.
  There have been further awards by the Industrial Court. On 10th October, the Ministry of Labour Wages Council recommended a 3 per cent. increase for 130,000 road haulage workers to be operative on 1st January next, but I understand that already 20,000 in the private sector of the industry have had the award.
  In November, the Government woke up with horror to find that a substantial award had been made by the Electricity Council. The Government suddenly found that not only were they unaware of the award, but they had virtually no power of control over the nationalised industries. If my information is right, the Government, to their horror, heard of the award approximately one day before it hit the general public. It may be that they only read about it in a newspaper. Perhaps the Home Secretary found out during his reading of the Irish newspapers, or the Lord Privy Seal in his gleanings from the Swedish Press. At any rate, the Government woke up and found that a substantial award had been made in the electricity supply industry and they could do nothing about it.
  When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party suggested that the situation indicated the need for a wages policy to relate wages, dividends and salaries, the Prime Minister, in what I thought was one of his more petulant moments, protested that this was advocating a policy of Fascism. All I can say is that if that measure of planning connotes Fascism to this Government, they have a very old-fashioned laissez-faire view of economics.
  So the breaches go on—the firemen on 8th December, the refinery workers, workers in British Oxygen, hosiery dyers and finishers, and many others which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) mentioned. Every time one happens, a shudder goes round the Treasury Bench, waiting for a spine to run down. We are now reaching a situation when, as the pay pause is breached time and time again, the Chancellor will
  1032
  very soon be left only with the unswerving loyalty of the Minister of Education. Whatever else may happen in our economy, he will firmly keep his foot on the head of the teaching profession.
  I believe that the pay pause is grossly unfair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer waived this criticism aside. Of course, it is grossly unfair when the only people in respect of whom wages can be kept down are those who are not organised, who are unlikely to take action politically—the white collar workers, the nursing profession, the teaching profession—while in the nationalised industries, the heavy engineering industries and all the industries in which there is power, the Government, when the "chips" are down, give in. That is why I regard this pay pause as unfair.
  I do not support the view of the Labour Party that it is unfair because profits have risen. I understand that, during the first six months of this year, profits actually went down by about 8 per cent. and wages went up by 9 per cent. But, quite apart from its unfairness, I believe that the pay pause is completely unworkable. It has become a farce.
  In July, the Chancellor said, somewhat pathetically, that the pay pause would give the Government a useful breathing space in which to think out how they could relate production and wages. It seems to me that it is an extremely expensive way of affording a Chancellor time to think. I was hoping that after nearly five months we could have heard a little more from the Government about their intended wages policy. If I may suggest it, in the words of a former leader of my party, Lord Samuel, the Government, in adopting the pay pause, have jumped out of the frying pan into the refrigerator and the economy is suffering in consequence.
  I should like to put one or two questions very briefly to the Chancellor. First, when does he think that the National Council for Economic Development will really get down to work? How much longer is it to be before a national wages policy is hammered out? Does he still set a target of 5 per cent. increase in production whilst holding down wages to within 2 per cent. to

  1033
  3 per cent.? That figure was quoted in the Economist on 9th December, and it would be interesting to know what is the Government's view on that matter. If that is the objective of the Government, how do they intend to stimulate the economy? What is to be the duration and the extent of the pause?
  The Chancellor went some way to admitting that there might be minimal increases in the new year. Is the pay pause to go on despite the fact that it will be continually breached, or are the Government hoping to take powers to shore up the defences? What will be their attitude towards the nationalised industries? Is there to be a total prohibition of increases in wages in those industries where the Government have complete control, among the white collar workers and particularly the civil servants?
  What is to be the effect of the new differentials which will be created as a result of one sector of the economy artificially having its wages held down while other sectors of the economy have increases? What thinking have the Government done about the new machinery which they will have to create now, having flouted not merely the Burnham Committee, not merely the Whitley Council, but the Industrial Court as well?
  The hon. Member for Totnes said that it would be wrong for a reward to be made in total isolation without having regard to the national economic position. With that, I entirely agree. But that is not in itself a justification for rushing around with an axe and hacking at the independence of well-established bodies. I think that the Government would be entitled to claim that they have a right to make their views known at any such arbitration tribunal, that they would have the right to comment on suggested increases within the context of national policy, but they would not be there as a sort of court of appeal which could set aside a judgment or, alternatively, name a date when that judgment could be executed. They would be there as one of the parties to the negotiations. They would have a right to be there, but they would be an equal party and not one with special rights or privileges.
  I should like to make one or two suggestions to the Government. I think
  1034
  that, first, our real problem in this country is a psychological one. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). I wish that the Government could think ahead and try to produce a plan for at least the next five years for the sort of increase they want for our economy. I would suggest something on the basis of 8 per cent. cumulative rate of growth in our annual industrial output. If we could keep up that very high rate of growth over five years it would yield about £6,000 million for private and public investment.
  I believe that the first necessity is a national plan for at least the next five years which could get the genuine support of both sides of industry and of both sides of the House. Frankly, I would prefer to see a Cabinet Minister in charge of the N.C.E.D. rather than a director-general; a Cabinet Minister who stood aside from the Treasury, a Cabinet Minister who was responsible generally—and this has happened in some countries—as a member of the Government, who was largely there to co-ordinate the activities of the other Ministries involved and of the trade unions and of industry as a whole.
  I believe that it is an appointment that a Cabinet Minister should hold, that it should not be an outside person who will not understand the pressures within the Ministry and the political negotiations and questions which are bound to be thrown up. I believe, also, that this policy must be a policy of consistent growth. I am not, as a Liberal, by any means opposed to profits, and large profits, provided that they are profits which are genuinely earned and in a genuinely competitive economy. That is why I was delighted to hear the spirited cry for free trade from the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I felt that he was coming a very long way towards being a reasonable radical.
  I.C.I.—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning it—during the past sixteen years has ploughed back about £535 million out of £410 million worth of profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I.C.I. has ploughed back £535 million. That figure is made up partly of new money invested and partly as profit. The profit section of the total percentage is £410 million. If one takes £410 million out of profits, that is

  1035
  a substantial slice. I.C.I. makes very high profits. I admit that freely. I do not think that there is any sin in making high profits. I am in favour of a firm making high profits provided that it is not in the position of a monopoly capitalist, such as the drug firms which we were discussing in the debate the other day.
  I believe that there may be a case for substantial reductions in the profits tax. I believe, also, that there is a very strong case, which the Chancellor was very anxious not to go into, for generous export allowances, possibly a tax-free allowance of 25 per cent. of the total sum represented by export figures. Taking, as a hypothetical figure, that a firm has a turn over of £50 million, if £10 million of that is export, the gross profits are £5 million and the exports represent 20 per cent. of the total turnover, I should like an allowance of 5 per cent. of the £5 million, which would be £250,000, and which, at the standard rate of Income Tax, would have a tax rebate of approximately £94,000. I believe that this would be a great stimulus to exporting firms.
  I believe that if this is to work fairly we must have, without any more nonsense from the Government, a healthy capital gains tax. We were told that this would be coming in very shortly. Now we are told that we have to wait until April. I wonder why the Government have suddenly run into difficulty on this matter. There is no difficulty about it so far as the Americans are concerned. It has been working in America for years. Unless there is a fair wages policy, unless there is a capital gains tax, and unless the Government will make known their position with regard to economic policy over the next five years and get agreement on both sides of industry I do not believe that we shall get a response from the trade unions and, frankly, I do not blame the trade unions if they are not prepared to participate.
  I believe that the pay pause is not only a farce, but expects the white collar workers to take the "rap" for what has been eleven years of riotous living under a Tory Government. The tragedy is that they are not the pace setters for wage increases. They are the people
  1036
  who always drag behind. What we want from the Government is dynamism and a clear indication of what their policy is to be. Above all, we want both sides of industry to feel that the Government believe in fairness and social justice.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Carr: It is easy to throw stones at the pay pause policy of the last six months. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has just given a list of wage increases over that period in spite of the appeal for a pay pause. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) gave examples of how dividends have been increased and said that this showed how the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal had been ineffective and how unfair this was in a wage freeze. All that these things prove is that in some cases in wages and in some cases in dividends the Chancellor's request for a pause has been disregarded.
  I believe that, putting aside the breaches on both sides, the pay pause has had a considerable effect in the last six months and that that effect has been beneficial to the economy. But it is not, and I do not believe that it was intended to be, a permanent policy. It can only be an emergency measure. if it were meant to be a long-term policy it would be hopeless. It is, of course, unfair, frustrating and unconstructive. Therefore, it can be tolerated only as a short-term emergency measure. I for one welcome the signs which my right hon. and learned Friend gave this afternoon that he hoped soon to emerge into more constructive longer-term developments.
  With all humility—one needs humility in this sphere because it is easy to know the answers when one has not the responsibility of being Chancellor of the Exchequer and having to carry out that responsibility—I wish to suggest what I believe should be the bases of a long-term policy for incomes and productivity. It requires action under three main headings. First, it requires the control of total demand on the economy within the total capacity of the economy. Secondly, it requires deliberate action to increase the total capacity of the

  1037
  economy so that, while keeping demand within capacity, demand can increase and expansion can take place. Thirdly, it requires a reform of our system of wage negotiations. I believe that action is necessary under all three headings. Hitherto, we have had it under one or the other but never under all three headings simultaneously.
  These three headings take in the Government and both sides of industry. Action under the first heading, control of demand on the economy, is entirely a matter for the Government. That is the Government's chief responsibility. Action to increase the total capacity of the economy is something that should be shared between the Government and industry. By "industry" I mean both sides of industry. Action under the third heading, reform of our system of wage negotiation, is almost entirely the responsibility of industry, and the Government can do little more than help and encourage on the sidelines.
  I should like to say a few words under each heading. First, I deal with the control of the balance of demand in our economy, the Government's first job. In my view, it should be the aim of the Government to keep the volume of demand consistently somewhat below the total capacity of the country's economy. I wish to make clear that I am not suggesting that a policy of deflation can solve our problems. Like other hon. Members—for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg)—I do not think that we could solve our problems by deflation except by carrying deflation to an extent which would be self-defeating and would cause far more damage than the advantages which could be gained. I am not envisaging, therefore, that amount of under-employment of our economy.
  I do not believe that the "stop and go" policy which we have had since the war—if we are honest, we must admit that we have had this policy under all Governments since the war—produces steady growth. I do not think that spurts at maximum capacity or at what is above normal maximum capacity, followed inevitably, as they must be followed inevitably, by a reduction in effort to well below maximum capacity, lead to the highest average growth in the long
  1038
  run. If we were to concentrate on keeping the economy running at somewhere between 95 and 98 per cent. of capacity and at the same time concentrate on measures to increase that capacity, we shall in the long run get a higher rate of growth with a lower degree of inflation and a higher degree of useful employment throughout the economy.
  It is futile for Governments to make Canute-like gestures against the current economic tide. What is the good of saying to companies, "Keep down your dividends", when they have a booming home market and can sell everything, even at a relatively low level of efficiency, and make profits in the bargain? What is the good of saying to trade unions, "Do not make claims for wages", when there are far more jobs than people to fill them? Even if the trade unions were to take that advice not to make formal claims for increases in wage rates, in the nature of things employers would, in conditions of such shortage of labour, bid up wages and effective earnings in order to attract the labour that they wanted.
  It is, therefore, no good making appeals for restraint when the tide is running against us. First, we must get the tide running in the direction in which we want the economy to move. I believe that a steady control at somewhere below maximum capacity is what the Government should seek and what Governments have not succeeded in achieving in the post-war years.
  There is not time this evening for me to deal with the methods of control. I should, however, like to say a few words about timing, because this is as much a matter of timing of Government action as of method of Government action.
  It seems to me that since the war brakes have been put on too late and, therefore, too fiercely. Then, because they have been put on fiercely, the pressure to take them off too soon has been irresistible. This is the cause of the "stop-go" policy of which we all complain. Government action has often been out of phase with the ebb and flow of the economic tide. Looking at it from the industrial viewpoint, it has often seemed to me that the Government have been slapping us down when the peak of a boom was already passed and we were going down anyway and then a little later have been stimulating us when

  1039
  trade was already reviving fast enough. It is more a matter of improving the Government's economic visibility, of making their "Bradshaw", which the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, described as so out of date, even more up to date than it is today.
  I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury advisers do not pay enough attention to two of the simplest but I believe most important indicators in our economy from the practical point of view. First, labour supply is one of the things which my right hon. and learned Friend should be considering and acting on more immediately than has happened in the past. Whenever the ratio of vacancies to unemployment exceeds one in any of our major industrial areas, such as the Midlands, the South-East or the West Riding, I believe that we are on the verge of economic trouble, and that that is the time to apply a gentle brake.
  Similarly, I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to look ahead more in forecasting labour supply. For several years, the Federation of British Industries has been undertaking its trend inquiries, which, admittedly, are no more than a testing of people's judgment of industry about what they think will happen in the next few months. By and large, however, the results of those trend inquiries have matched up fairly well with what has happened. Here again, I should like to see action taken when the trend is moving in a certain direction instead of waiting until it has already passed a dangerous point.
  The other indicator which my right hon. and learned Friend should take much more into account is the trend of earnings. I specify earnings because we get far too obsessed with wage rates. What happens when there is an overheated economy in any area is that earnings go up out of all proportion to wage rates, partly because of overtime when people are working at full stretch, and partly because of excess shortage of labour when employers bid up the rates to attract labour backwards and forwards from one factory to another.
  Mr. Loughlin: I hope that the hon. Memberwill not overlook one other factor in the high earnings issue; that
  1040
  is, that many rates are linked to the productivity effort of the work people involved. On the basis of the Government's own statement that wages should be linked to productivity, that is a good thing.
  Mr. Carr: Where those schemes are properly worked out, I would not disagree in any way. Generally, however, because they indicate the spending money in the economy, total earnings ought to be watched much more closely than they have been.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will press the Ministry of Labour to improve the earnings statistics which are provided to him. Unless things have changed since I was at the Ministry of Labour, these earnings statistics are produced only twice a year and are published six months after the inquiries. I know well the difficulties, but I refuse to believe that with the use of modern statistical methods, mechanical computing devices and so on, useful figures about the trend of earnings could not be produced much more quickly and frequently. They are far more important to watch than the movement of basic rates.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What is the purpose of watching?
  Mr. Carr: In order to take action in time rather than too late. My main thesis is that we have had this "stop-go" policy because Governments, the Labour Government as well as Conservative Governments in the last ten years, have tended to act too late and have, therefore, had to act too violently with consequential disruption of the economy. [An HON. MEMBER: "There has not been a Labour Government in the past ten years."] I am going back to the immediate post-war period.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I have great respect for the hon. Member because of his record in industry. Will he, however, bear in mind that the national engineering employers, for example, pleaded with us for many years to accept systems of payment by results? They said that if we accepted those conditions, the sky was the limit. Now that our people are working as hard as they can to get the maximum output, their earnings must be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Carr: I am glad of the hon. Member's intervention, because I should not like to be misunderstood. I am begging that my right hon. and learned Friend should watch the movement of earnings. Of course, he should also watch the movement of earnings in relation to the total movement of national production. As long as earnings are within the increase of production, I for one welcome that. The problem with which we are trying to grapple is the tendency, not only in this country, but in other democratic countries which have full employment, of incomes to rise faster than production. Where incomes rise within the movement of production, I see nothing wrong.
  I, therefore, go back to my first point that the Government must control the total of demand in the economy. In doing that, I believe that the labour supply and the earnings position are the two indicators which they should watch more than any others in order to take action in good time rather than too late.
  To control total demand in the economy need not inhibit growth. Concurrently, therefore, I want to see action under my second heading, namely, the encouragement of growth. I welcome the Government's proposal to set up a National Council for Economic Development. I was delighted that in the original statements, the purpose of the Council was described as being to study and to remove the obstacles to growth. That is excellent. I hope, however—and I was encouraged in this by what my right hon. and learned Friend said today—that it will not be expected directly to settle our wages problems. To ask it to do that would lead to failure and would prevent the Council from doing the things which it ought to do. Equally, we must be careful not to think of the Council as a substitute for other Government action, but rather as an aid to it.
  The other Government action—the policy for increasing the capacity of our economy—must fall under the following three headings. The first is the supply of labour, because the shortage of labour has several times since the war been the limiting factor, bringing expansion to a halt. I hope, therefore, that while the Government control immigration, they will make sure that it is adequate to meet our growing needs for labour. I
  1042
  hope that they will look at the supply of skilled craftsmen, because within the overall need for labour the need for more skilled workers is particularly acute.
  While I welcome the signs that the supply of apprenticeships is increasing, I still do not consider it adequate. More forceful action will have to be taken. The right action will probably be to impose a training levy on industry, giving a rebate to those concerns which undertake an adequate amount of training.
  The Government must also look at the supply of labour from the point of view of its distribution. At a time of inflationary pressure, it is more important to be assisting the even spread of industry and the available labour than in a time of slump. Since the war, we have had tendencies for the Government in time of inflation to go easy on their location of industry policy, only to step it up at a time of recession. That is getting it the wrong way round.
  It is difficult to speed up the distribution of industry when things are hanging back a bit in the economy. It is much easier when they are going forward. The nearer we can get to an even distribution of labour and industry, the nearer to 100 per cent. capacity can we run our economy without any ill effects of inflation.
  Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Member himself, when Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, was chairman of the Committee which dealt with apprenticeships in industry. He is now talking about an adequate source of supply of competent young apprentices. Would he care to tell us his opinion of the Government in view of their actions towards education authorities, school teachers and headmasters, who are the persons responsible for bringing about the opportunity to enter industry?
  Mr. Carr: I would very much like to tell the hon. Member, but I should be trespassing on the good will of the House and I want to keep to my brief.
  The taxation system is the other heading which the Government must watch closely if we are to encourage an increase in capacity in our economy.

  1043
  Whatever the total burden of taxation may be, it is important that we should reform the structure of taxation.
  The objects of doing this should be quite clearly the following—to encourage new investment; to do something which is very similar but not quite the same, to encourage the scrapping of old plant and its replacement by new, more modern plant; to encourage economy in the use of labour; and to level out profitability between home and export business.
  One could make a speech about each one of those factors in relation to taxation, but I would say to the Chancellor that he really must look, regardless of the total burden of taxation, at our structure of taxation and see what its effect is on those factors, and compare them with what is the case in other countries. I suspect that if we look at some of those industrial countries which seem to be getting ahead faster than we are we shall find that, regardless of the relative burden of taxation, they have a structure of taxation which is less impeding to their growth and efficiency than is ours in this country.
  There are other factors, too, which I cannot go into tonight, about how we might encourage growth in the productive capacity of our economy. But what I want to stress is that it is only when we have demand consistently controlled within the total capacity of our economy, and when we have also set in motion policies to increase that capacity that we can hopefully turn to reform of our wage negotiating system. Our wage negotiating system is one of which we are proud, and rightly proud, but we should be foolish if we were to allow our pride in it to blind us to the fact that it is growing increasingly old-fashioned and out of date in the light of modern needs. It was built up in entirely different conditions. We have to meet new problems today.
  I do not know how these changes which are needed can be brought about, but certainly it cannot be done by direct Government action: it must be done, in the end, by industry. But, with respect, equally to both sides of industry, I doubt whether the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation can do this on their own. They are too
  1044
  enmeshed in the working of the system as it is today, and I do not feel hopeful of their bringing about the necessary changes. I believe that this is a field in which an inquiry is necessary.
  I think that the membership of the committee of inquiry ought certainly to be composed to a considerable extent of representatives from the T.U.C. and the British Employers' Confederation. We need the best brains of each on such an inquiry, and in that connection I should like to underline what the Chancellor said about the great loss which the trade union movement and the country have suffered in the early death of Sir Alan Birch, probably one of the most imaginative and creative thinkers we have had for some time, about the changes which are needed. But we also need some independent brains as well to stimulate and help those experienced in the working of our existing system to consider what changes might be made.
  I think the main subjects of that inquiry should include the following. First of all, the problem of leap-frogging. What is the good of settling the anomalies in one industry, as we settled anomalies, at least to a large extent, in the railway industry last year, if the system then allows everybody else to leap-frog over them, so that we are once again back where we were when we started? This question of leapfrogging is vital and must be looked at closely.
  Related to that is the question of how we find room in our economy for giving fair wage increases for those in the non-productive services such as the Government service and the like. Here I come on to the question mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) in an interruption. Thirdly, the inquiry must look at the role and methods of arbitration. I think that is essential. I think it should also study the merits—and there are pros and cons—of fixed-term agreements and legally enforceable agreements which are the practice in some other countries but have never been the practice here. I think that the inquiry should also look at the advisability of having sliding-scale arrangements for automatic adjustments with changes in the cost of living.
  1045
  This should either cover all wages or none. That is a subject which ought to be looked at.
  I think that the inquiry ought to look—and this is one important reason why we need outside help on the inquiry—at the structure of both the trade union and the employers' organisations. They grew up when industry was quite differently divided from the way it is now. Both organisations need some changes in structure. I think this inquiry ought to look at new definitions of sectors of industry for which wage negotiations take place. Is it sensible to negotiate about, say, the engineering industry when the engineering industry comprises all sorts of different industries which are not all prosperous at one and the same moment?
  I think that the inquiry ought to consider whether there is some way of providing both sides to a negotiation with factual, independent information about the effects of a claim. At the moment we have employers saying that a claim would be disastrous—that order books and competition do not permit an addition to the wages bill. Trade unionists tend not to believe that but to think it partial. They, in their turn, make their claim which seems partial and incredible to the employers. I think that both sides to the negotiation would be greatly helped if some machinery could be found to provide them with a factual assessment of the position about orders, the cost of the claim under consideration, and so on.
  I would conclude by saying that unless we change—evolution, not revolution—our present wage negotiating machinery, we shall not solve the problem which is before us today, and that before we can do that we have got to get action under the other two headings I have mentioned—namely, regular control of the economy, so that demand is kept within total productive capacity, and steady, consistent measures to increase that capacity.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I rise to support the Amendment. I should like to say immediately that I believe that in doing so I am supporting the broadest interests of the economy of the country.
  1046
  Before I give the reasons which, I hope the House will agree, are practical I should like, first, to answer a question which was not put to me, but which remained unanswered. The question was: how many unemployed would you like to see?
  There was demur, but I will give the answer to that question. Not one. I have myself been unemployed and I know what it means both in the financial sense and also in the industrial and social disintegration which is involved. I would say that if the hon. Member on that side had suffered unemployment himself he would not ask such a thoroughly un-Christian question.
  I believe that the question can be answered in a strict economic sense if there is a planned economy. I do not know that we need fear full employment, or the dangers of inflation which are undoubtedly involved in it. I want to make myself quite plain on this issue. Having had experience of unemployment, I would certainly not legislate for one man or one woman who desired to work to be prevented from thus doing so.
  I say again that I speak on this issue of the pay pause almost exclusively as a trade unionist. I think that I can say for those trade unionists whom I have met, not all of them trade union officials but quite a number of the rank and file of our movement, that we hold to the opinion that when the pay pause was introduced it might have been in the interests of the country if a dividend pause had also been introduced.
  I have here an A.E.U.'s journal, which circulates among 1 million of our members and is read by an even greater number of people. The facts given in the journal are taken from the Stock Exchange Gazette, which is not a periodical that tends to support the trade union movement. The facts show that 1,138 quite sizeable companies with profits after tax of more than £100,000, have increased their distributive dividend by over 200 per cent. during the last ten years. The market value of the ordinary shares of these companies has risen by about 312 per cent. Judged by any standard that is not bad going.
  The Ministry of Labour Gazette shows that during the same period wages increased by 87 per cent. to a total of

  1047
  £8,630 million but its figures show equally clearly that there has been an increase in the working population and that the real increase in wages during that period was 67 per cent. One could be forgiven, therefore, for coming to the conclusion that employers have done very much better than trade unionists during these ten years. Some reliance ought to be placed on these figures coming from two reputable sources, neither of which owes any allegiance to the trade union movement. I therefore believe that the trade union movement was right, at the time when the demand was made that it should accept a wage pause, in saying that a dividend pause would have served the interest of the country much better.
  The figures in the A.E.U. journal will be read and understood by millions of working-class people. During the third quarter of 1961, after the demand for a pay pause had been made, and despite appeals from the Government, 546 companies have increased their dividends by 10 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) mentioned the names of hon. Members who should owe some loyalty to the Government, but who have taken it upon themselves to ignore entirely the Government's appeal for some measure of restraint. One hon. Member opposite justified what he had done on the ground that he had promised it.
  The Government have made promises which they have chosen to break and in the process of breaking them they have injured one of the finest safety valves in the country, that is, the safety valve of arbitration. Speaking without any bitterness, but with a certain amount of righteous indignation, I say that when it comes to consolidating their own interests some hon. Members opposite take absolutely no heed of the Government's voice, but they take steps in the House to consolidate the iniquitous pay pause for the working classes.
  Sir John Barlow: The hon. Member said that 546 companies had increased their dividend by 10 per cent. Can he say how many have not done so?
  Mr. Jones: I am not at all certain that that is the point. It may well be true
  1048
  that some have honoured the Government's request, but I am saying that 546 have not done so, and that is a substantial number.
  As to the condition of the working-class, a great deal is said about alleged financial affluence. Last week some of us met a deputation of shop stewards in the Central Lobby. One of our more elderly Members wisely took them to a Committee Room rather than have them make a nuisance of themselves in the Lobby. A number of them had come from Tothill Street, where they had heard that an application for increased wages by certain engineering workers had met with a blank refusal. A skilled engineer receives £9 15s. 2. a week, a labourer gets £8 4s. 10d., and a woman operative £6 13s. 6d.
  I know perfectly well that some hon. Members will argue, as indeed the Government and employers argue, that these are not total earnings. As a trade union official who has negotiated these earnings over a period, I know that that is the case and that there are such things as overtime and piece-work. But I would never be prepared to regard those two factors as anything like decisive in adjudicating the standards of working-class people, because trade unionists, shop stewards and the workers generally have no control over those two factors. They can be snatched away from them at a minute's notice without any question of a right to protest.
  Are the House and the Government asking trade unionists to negotiate standards of wages for workers on the basis of factors over which they have no control and which are frequently removed? I have in mind a man who said to me, "I am buying my house. I am not working overtime. I get no piece-work and I find that the interest rates are simply overwhelming me." Interest rates are another instrument which the Government have used. They have increased them, yet they expect skilled engineers, who are doing a far finer job for the country than some of the people to whom the Government have given £83 million, to live on this wage.
  Another person who made an impact on me was the young girl of 27, earning £6 13s. 6d. a week. She said, "I would get married tomorrow if you found me a man, Mr. Jones". Of

  1049
  course she would. It is only natural. She is a human being, and has a right to live a full life. The tragedy is that she has to live it on that meagre wage. I suggest that if the people who are imposing this wage pause had to live on the money that she receives, there would soon be a change of policy.
  Sir E. Boyle: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. When he is considering distribution of the national income—which is what he has been doing with great eloquence—surely it is relevant to remember that social expenditure under Her Majesty's Government has gone up by 48 per cent. in real terms. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that the distribution of national income, taking everything into account, is less fair today than it was in 1951.
  Mr. Jones: That is not the point that I am seeking to establish. Does that help a man who is earning £9 15s. 2d. a week?
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes, because of the increase in social benefits.
  Mr. Jones: But the woman to whom I referred has no children. I do not think that that is a fair point, and I did not expect the Minister to make it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Surtax payer also gets those social benefits to which the Minister referred, and that in addition he has had two or three rebates on his Surtax payments?
  Mr. Jones: I am very much indebted to my hon. Friend, but I was contenting myself with the fact that skilled engineers receive these low wages. Their position would not be materially affected by the observations of my hon. Friend.
  I say this by way of warning to the Government. In the coming year they will be faced with the allied might of the engineers, the railway workers, the Post Office workers and the miners. The Government are making the greatest mistake of their lives if they think that they will out-manœuvre these people as easily as they out-manœuvred the teachers. I do not say this with any relish. I would much rather have industrial peace, so that both sides of
  1050
  industry could contribute to the economic well-being of the country. The Government have brought about this state of affairs, and it is now not so much a question of what responsible trade union officials will want to do but what trade unionists will demand that they should do.
  If the Government are not prepared to consider their policy, the workers to whom I referred might bring the country to a situation which I think every non. Member desperately wishes to avoid. However, this is a matter more for the Government than for hon. Members on this side. I believe that if the Government allow arbitration to function once again, and put a pause on dividends, they have a fair chance of winning peace with the great trade union community and solving our economic problems.
  8.43 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to follow very far the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones). Obviously I do not agree with many of the things he said. I disagree with him when he says that the distribution of national wealth since the end of the war has been grossly unjust to certain sections of the Community.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seemed to lay great stress on the use of inflation by the present Government when they get into difficulties. I think that he said more than once that the remedy used by the Conservative Government for industrial ills had been that of inflation. I am surprised that he did not remember the Question asked a short time ago by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) about the value of the £ in terms of 20s. in 1914. If the hon. Gentleman refers to that Question, he will get a pretty good idea of how inflation has worked since the war.
  The £ that was worth 20s. in 1914 was worth 7s. 7d. in 1946 and 5s. 9d. in 1951—a diminution of Is. 10d. in five years. In the last ten years its value has fallen from 5s. 9d. to 4s. 6d.—a difference of 1s. 3d. It would therefore appear that the rate of inflation was higher in the five years of Socialist Government than in the ten years of Conservative Government. I agree that imported commodities have in some cases fallen in price, but the fact remains that in general terms

  1051
  there has been less inflation in the past ten years. Hon. Members will find that fact emphasised in other statistics if they look for it.
  I now turn to the question of costs of production and our difficulties in exports. There is no doubt that we are getting out of step with other countries. We are finding difficulty in maintaining our exports, let alone increasing them. We all deprecate the stop-start method used by all Chancellors since the war—and the present Chancellor has been one of the worst in this respect. If a person drives a car with one foot hard down on the accelerator or the brake, it does not make for good driving. The same consideration applies in industry. If we can anticipate difficulties as they come along, and coast along at a reasonable speed, we can get a far better job done in industry, as we can in driving a car. I hope that in the future our Chancellor, with the greater amount of information and advice at his disposal, will be able to do that. It will be a great deal better for him, for industry and for the nation.
  We have largely priced ourselves out of many world markets, apparently because our wages are too high, and because our overheads, materials and profits, will not allow us to sell abroad at a profit. That is quite apart from the large amounts which the Government take out of profits—and sometimes do not spend too wisely.
  It is suggested that vast profits are made by selling abroad. That is not very often the case. It does happen, but I know only too well that certain industries have been completely priced out of world markets because they have found it quite impossible to sell at any figure approaching world prices. In many cases firms have gone bankrupt or have gone out of business before going bankrupt.
  We are often told that our salesmen and sales organisation abroad leave much to be desired. In my younger days I did a certain amount of selling abroad, and I know the difficulties. If a salesman has a good product and is backed by a manufacturer, he can sell reasonably well, but if he has something which is virtually priced out of the market he finds it absolutely impossible to sell. No amount of organisation and no
  1052
  change in the method of approach will enable him to sell those goods.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Member has been talking about wages. Does not he agree that one of the determining factors is that not enough of the profits being made are ploughed back, and that another factor is that our firms are competing with new and modernised industry, such as exists in Western Germany, which makes it virtually impossible to sell?
  Sir J. Barlow: I am all for ploughing back profits and modernising plant and machinery in every way. That is of vital importance. But if we examine the figures we find that wages and salaries have increased considerably more than have profits. The Economist of 9th December says:
  "On the latest official count of the national income figures at mid-year wages and salaries were 9 per cent. higher than a year before and profits 8 per cent. lower than a year before."
  If one examines the reports of profits and losses appearing each day in the Press one finds ample indication that profits have been falling rather than rising. Obviously, in those circumstances there will be a lowering of dividends rather than an increase. The time lag also has to be taken into account. Many companies end their financial year at the end of December, and their accounts are not available until March or April. We must make allowances for that time lag.
  Similarly, if we take the U.K. Index of Retail Prices as standing at 100 in 1956, we find that it has risen only to 115·7 in October of this year. On the other hand, the index of weekly wages, excluding overtime and all other similar factors, shows that these wages, in respect of all workers, have increased to 126·2 in October, 1961. In those five years the level of wages and salaries has risen much more than the level of retail prices.
  I want to give a third illustration to show how dividends have suffered in comparison with wages, and I take the figures from the Economic Survey. From 1938 to 1960 the percentage of change in dividends was 180 per cent., whereas the percentage change in wages and salaries was 438 per cent. If that is translated into real money value, ignoring taxes completely, the increase

  1053
  in dividends from 1938 to 1960 was 2 per cent. and the increase in wages and salaries was 96 per cent. That shows in terms of real money how wages have gone far ahead of the real return from dividends. Unfortunately, it is often the rather old and poor people who suffer most from the loss in the real value of dividends. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite have not found that, I am agreeably surprised, because I know many people who saved enough to retire before or after the war and who, owing to the change in the value o' money, are having a very thin time indeed.
  One sees in the pipeline demands for wage increases in many industries. There was a list in the Financial Times in November. At that time workers in the engineering and the shipbuilding industries, the mineworkers and the railwaymen and workers in half-a-dozen other industries had put in for increases on behalf of about 6 million people. Obviously if all those people got anything like the amount they were requesting, or even a little less than that, it would put us completely out of the export market. As hon. Members opposite know well, without exports we cannot buy raw materials and about half the food which we require in this country.
  We have a limited cake to divide among the various sections of the community, including wages and profits, out of which the Government take a big slice. It is up to the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, to see that the cake is reasonably well divided. If different sections of the community demand more than is reasonable it will bring us to the unhappy state suggested a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Burnley, in which there might be very serious incidents in the country. We all want to avoid that, but it is a question whether each section thinks that it is getting a fair deal.
  In wartime the people are willing to fight and die for their country but apparently in peace time—and this applies to both sides of industry, and I do not pick on any one section—they cannot agree on a division of the cake. They will not work for the country. It appears that many people are willing to see the country sink economically and
  1054
  industrially because they cannot divide the cake in a way to satisfy themselves. That is an extraordinary situation.
  We all wish to see people paid high wages for high output and efficient work. I believe that greater encouragement should be given to people who do good work, rather than minimum wages, with a large number of people receiving them. There ought to be more incentive for hard work.
  Output in this country is not going ahead nearly as fast as in many other European countries. If we take the index of output per man-hour as 100 in 1953, Germany now has a figure of 156, France 151, Austria 145, the Netherlands 140 and the United Kingdom 125. Without adequate output we cannot pay high wages and maintain our exports, which are vital to the country.
  The Chancellor told us of the large new sums which the I.M.F. is to have at its disposal shortly. I am told that this new fund, amounting to 6,000 million dollars, may have strings attached to it of which we have not heard before. It is suggested that severe terms may be imposed which have never been imposed before by the I.M.F. I hope that that is not true, because it might be very serious for Britain. We in Britain have got away from the gold standard but we are under gold standard discipline. If the Continental financiers think that we are not productive and efficient they will sell sterling a bear, and that will be very embarrassing for us. We must show that we are working properly and convince them that we are—they are on the look-out the whole time—because unless we convince them that we are productive they will harass sterling all the time.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Gunter: May I, first, thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much for his kind reference to an old friend of mine and of the trade union movement, namely, the late Sir Alan Birch. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we shall miss his integrity and wisdom very much indeed.
  I do not know that the Financial Times is a very appropriate place to go to for a text, but I was reading it the other day. In the last Annual Industrial

  1055
  Review issued by the Financial Times, Dr. Barna wrote:
  "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that British industry has failed to adapt itself rapidly enough or fully enough to new conditions."
  Behind all the statistics which have been produced and behind all the arguments of the economists and industrialists this afternoon, our basic trouble is that the nation as a whole has not adjusted itself to a new world. We were the founders of the first Industrial Revolution. We gave the world its strength in an economic sense. Perhaps it is something in the nature of a tragedy that in what is sometimes called the second industrial revolution the springs of the initiative of the British people have not been released. The great task of the Government and of the House is to ensure that circumstances are created in which the native genius of our people is restored and the dread world of apathy and inertia in which so many of them live today can be relieved.
  I believe that there is something wrong with the nation. I began to wonder during the first half of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech whether there was. He seemed to be painting a rosy picture. He seemed to be giving the impression that only a trifling thing was wrong with the people ant with the nation. I believe that there is something wrong, and that it stems from the absolute lack of leadership on the part of the Government.
  I have spent many years in industry. Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his plans, and before we can settle down to solve the problems now confronting us, it is essential that we turn our attention to industrial relations. We are going through a period when new techniques are being introduced and when all the products of our technicians and scientists ought to be available to industry. We are in a period when our great basic industries are contracting. These are the great basic industries which gave rise to the conditions under which our trades unions were created. They are contracting. We are now facing a new world.
  Within this setting it is essential—imperative—that our industrial relations
  1056
  should be not only good, but better than they have ever been before. There should be much better industrial relations, so that employers and men can together face the problems of the emerging revolution and together grapple with the problems of redundancy and similar problems which arise from new techniques. The first thing we should be considering, more important than all the arguments about economics, is how we can get the right spirit back into industry. That is the spirit that has been so brutally multilated since 25th July last.
  Many of us have tried for many years to improve industrial relations. There are many like myself who have always felt that there might come a time when the argument that there must be two sides to industry would disappear. I have always felt that there might come a time when employers and trade unions would have identical objectives. We never believed that the total harshness of industrial relations would disappear, but we believed that an atmosphere might be created in which men and employers would work together.
  As the Chancellor, and as, in particular, the Minister of Labour, knows, over the last few years many learned books have been written on joint consultation. We have written into Acts of Parliament and into national agreements the relationship that should exist between employers and men, but we may as well face the fact that in large areas of industry today the machinery for it is there but the spirit to work it is absent. In them there is not that feeling and purpose.
  Our objective should be to restore that identity of purpose, and to restore good will so that the plain facts of the present situation may be faced together. I believe that, in reality, there is no resistance from the trade unions to the using of modern techniques. The introduction of work study methods has been successful in many areas of British industry, but its implementation in others has been equally unsuccessful.
  The introduction of modern industrial techniques, upon which increased productivity depends, is related to the good relationship that exists within an industry. It should be a primary task—and I shall address the Minister of Labour

  1057
  on this in a moment—to sow such a spirit in industry that the best and most modern techniques are used in order that productivity may rise and prices may be reduced. Instead, as we all know, our trade unions are attacked from every quarter. Indeed, if our newspapers spent half as much time analysing the real problems of industry instead of so venomously and viciously attacking the trade unions they would render a far greater service to the nation.
  We are confident that the country could emerge from its difficulties with not even too great an effort if there was a better spirit abroad in industry. One of our dilemmas, as I am sure the Minister of Labour will appreciate, is the rigidity existing within the present system. That, again, is allied to the fact that we have not faced up to the revolution swirling around us. One of the best things that could occur today would be greater mobility of labour, with quicker movement from contracting to expanding industries. But what is the position? The old fears of redundancy and unemployment are there—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And no houses.
  Mr. Gunter: I am coming to that in a moment.
  As I say, there is still fear of redundancy. Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has just said, mobility of labour is retarded as a result of the Government's housing policy. If the Government want to arouse a new spirit and a new energy in industry today, the best thing that they can do is to turn their attention to these problems, and to accept the responsibility for the social consequences that flow from some of these great changes.
  The mining industry is an outstanding example. Here, we have a contracting industry. It is one in which men are redundant in one area and labour is short in another, yet all the Government can do, time after time, is to say, "The responsibility for redundancy, for replacement, is not ours. It belongs to the National Coal Board." In all these matters I submit that the Government must accept a great measure of responsibility. I firmly believe that if we can engender a new spirit into industry—if, together, we can
  1058
  appreciate the real problems—we can get out of our difficulties. But I repeat: it is a question of good relations in industry and I must, therefore, urge hon. Members to consider what the Government have done to these relations in the past few months.
  I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would sometimes realise that the trade unionist, the average working-class man, knows very well that he cannot spend more than he earns, or that if he does it will not be long before he gets into trouble. That is elementary. Anyone who has heard the rent man's tap on the front door knows what it means if the rent is not ready for collection. I believe, therefore, that the trade unions—formed of ordinary working-class men—understand the idea of the back ground of the problem, our need to ensure that we earn sufficient to maintain our standards of life.
  The Government have, in a sense, frightened the trade unionist. They have destroyed his confidence. There is nothing sacrosanct about the present system of collective bargaining. I have argued for a long time that the way in which some of our wage structures have been created were worthy of the 1870s, but are unworthy of the 1960s. There is nothing sacrosanct about our wage structures, but, nevertheless, this system of collective bargaining has been created over the past century. It has been the foundation, the strength, of the trade unions to know that through the processes of negotiation and collective bargaining they could—even though at times they have had to use their strength—arrive, generally speaking, at satisfactory conclusions.
  There was, therefore, a direct and brutal interference with that machinery of negotiation and system of collective bargaining before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made up his mind what he intended to put in its place. The Government could have carried organised labour and the trade unions with them—and, as I say, these men appreciate the anachronisms there are in certain methods of bargaining—if they had been clear in their mind about what was to take its place.
  Responsible leadership in the trade unions—and I am not talking of wild men of the Left, but of the most

  1059
  responsible trade union leaders—has been dismayed at what has occurred since 25th July. These men have grasped the implications of the 1960s. They have not believed, and do not believe, that the weapon of the strike—of brutal force—is any good to themselves or to the country. These men have deplored unofficial strikes and have sought, by every means in their power, that the trade unions should play a responsible part and should never jeopardise the economy of the country if it could possibly be avoided. These people have been affronted by the Government, since their strength and preaching to their members has always been based on the machinery of negotiation.
  Agreements are sacred to these people and it is their faith that has been destroyed. It is the brutal injustice of the pay pause that has been uppermost in the minds of these responsible men. I make it clear to the Chancellor that when he argues that the nation's overriding interests must be paramount, that whatever agreements may exist, whatever system of collective bargaining there might be, the peril to the nation is so great that they must be overridden, I would agree with him. Nevertheless. in the circumstances which have prevailed since July, he has not appreciated the delicacy of his task and has not understood the attitude of mind of the trade unionists.
  A pay pause can be imposed only with the greatest delicacy. If, at a time which cannot be called a time of great national peril, the Government wish to interfere with agreements and with long-established machinery, they have got to impress upon the workers that they are being dealt with in equity. We can do it with the workers if they feel that there is equity and that the objectives which the Government have in mind are right, proper and in the national interest.
  The Chancellor almost went out of his way to offend these people, putting forward the excuse that he could not talk to them because he was afraid that he would have to mention the rise in the Bank Rate. Consultations ought to have taken place. The Chancellor ought to have called together the leaders
  1060
  of the trade unions and put before them the position bluntly and frankly. He might then have been surprised at the response, because the trade union leaders, despite what is said about them, are a responsible and patriotic body. They would do nothing to injure the country's economy. What they are afraid of is that such disillusionment and suspicion have been created in the minds of the men whom they lead that greater and greater difficulties will arise.
  May I say a word to the Minister of Labour on this aspect of the situation? I do not know what consultations took place between the Chancellor and himself before the latter's statement of 25th July. It sometimes appears to me from the way that history has unfolded that consultations did not take place. I sometimes think that the officials of the Ministry of Labour were never asked to prepare a memorandum on the consequences flowing from the Chancellor's statement.
  I remind the Minister of Labour that he holds a very high office indeed, in the minds and hearts of the trade unions. It has already been said in this debate that for many years we have been accustomed to having an occupant of that post who, in a way, is aloof and above party strife. There have been some great names in the Department. We have had the feeling on the trade union side, if I may say so, that we may have some "daft" Ministers but that. on balance, when we are in trouble and we go to the Ministry of Labour, there is always an honest endeavour to do justice.
  I do not know what the conciliation officers of the Ministry will say in the next few months, when they are faced with problems arising from wage negotiations in January and February. I do not know how they will handle the situation. Conciliation is impossible. Negotiation is impossible, because the answer has already been given by the Chancellor. Therefore, many of us feel that the Ministry of Labour has lost a lot of the honour that it held in the minds of prominent trade unionists over the past few years. I only hope that the present Minister will exert any influence he can in the next few days to see whether the position can be retrieved.

  1061
  It has been argued from the Government side so speciously that there has been no interference with the machinery of negotiation. The Prime Minister has said, "Only in a totalitarian State could we interfere and control." What else he has done I do not know. He has said to the miners and to the railwaymen, "You can go to 46 arbitrations if you like, but you ain't getting the lolly". That is what he has said, in effect. There has been direct and brutal interference with the machinery of negotiation.
  I turn now to the proposed National Council for Economic Development. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented us with a vision of a new kingdom, the sudden discovery by the Conservative Party that there may be something in planning. He has invited us all, trade unions and employers, to come to the pearly gates with him and walk through. He is a bit surprised that some people want to know what is inside before they enter. They want to know just what he means by this kingdom.
  I thought the other night of one of old Sankey's revival hymns. The Chancellor will remember it from the days when we were pure and young, though the orthodox, of course, will not:
  "Not far, not far from the Kingdom,
  But still under the shadow of sin—
  See them all coming and going,
  But few there are entering in".
  Can the Chancellor wonder that we are a little hesitant? I declare my interest at once and say quite frankly that I want us to go in. I believe that it could be of tremendous importance, if the Chancellor means what we mean by planning. I believe that it could do only good if the trade unions and the employers went in. Nevertheless, I think that it only right to put to the Government tonight what is, generally speaking, the attitude of the Trades Union Congress upon this matter.
  Recently, Mr. George Woodcock wrote:
  "We"—
  that is to say, the T.U.C.—
  "do not regard economic planning as a gimmick or as one more expedient to meet a temporary economic problem. We take it very seriously indeed, more seriously perhaps than the Chancellor realises or than he takes it himself. It is our view that all the parties to a joint endeavour of that sort—trade
  1062
  unionists, employers and the Government—must be prepared to enter into mutual commitments where it is proper for them to do so, and to carry those commitments back as commitments to the bodies they represent—to the trade union movement, to the employers' organisations and to the Cabinet itself. We shall have to face the fact"—
  this is what I hope the Chancellor understands by it—
  "that this means, for each of us, putting some limit on our unilateral freedom of action. Bargains will have to be struck and honoured. It is impossible to define in advance with any precision what the nature or even the subject of those bargains will be, but the fact that bargains and perhaps compromises will have to be struck means that there will be no function in the planning council for people who represent no one but themselves."
  That is our attitude.
  Sir William Robson Brown: That is statesmanship.
  Mr. Gunter: Yes, that is statesmanship.
  A Council of that sort would, we hope, have some teeth. Our difficulty is that other people with different ideas will be invited to join the Council. The chairman of one employers' federation says very loftily that, of course, the prime objective of such a Council must be educational. Anyone who thinks that the Trades Union Congress is likely to attend a series of night classes had better think again.
  I believe that the Trades Union Congress will enter a planning council which means something and which will do something. Moreover, we are not afraid of the Chancellor being tough about it.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: When I met both sides of industry I said that I realised, in making this proposition, that each of us—the trade union movement, the employers and the Government—would have to lose something of our sovereignty. That was the basis on which I was asking them to come in.
  Mr. Gunter: I should be quite happy to accept that. I only wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's public relations were better and that the country understood what he said. However, that does not detract from the point I have made about what the employers were thinking. I trust that we shall be able to take part in the Council when the circumstances are right, but I must emphasise again that everything that

  1063
  could have been done to make matters difficult for the T.U.C. has been done.
  I hope that tonight the Minister of Labour can tell us that the Government will think again on the pay pause. I am not asking them to open the floodgates at all, but to say to the T.U.C. and to the public, "We have had second thoughts about this interference with the machinery of negotiation. We want restraint, but we want it done in the spirit of co-operation and good will, and, therefore, we are starting again by calling the trade union leaders and the employers together to see whether a better policy can be worked out."
  I would say one last word on the fear that we have about the Council. There has got abroad the idea that its main purpose is to impose a wages policy on the trade unions. I accept the Chancellor's assurance that that is not his purpose. I believe that the most thoughtful of the trade union leaders are quite prepared to think deeply about wage policies and structures. I was gratified that the Chancellor used the phrase, "income policy". That, in fact, covers everybody. If that covers everybody, there will not, I think, be a great deal of difficulty—but it has got to be everyone.
  I say to the Chancellor that one of the things that bedevils good relations—one of the things that gets into men's bellies—is that a man can spend forty-five years driving a main line railway engine, and retire on a pittance after working responsibly and with ability for all that time, while a grubby little land speculator can make more in a week than the engine driver can earn in the whole of his working lift. Therefore, when we talk about an income policy, let us remember that it embraces the whole.
  I conclude by saying that if we can have a new spirit, a new identification of purpose, and, above all, if we can have leadership at last from the Government, we may be able to get somewhere. I appeal to the Government to stop exhorting. The British people have never been very good at responding to exhortation in peace time. They respond better to tough talk than to exhortation, and I therefore hope that we shall have no more of the flabby nonsense that we have had for the past ten years. I appeal to
  1064
  the Government to give the nation leadership, but, of course, that is impossible; they cannot give us leadership, so I leave it there and invite the House to support the Amendment. I have a deep and profound faith in the ability and initiative of the British people. If they are given the facts and the leadership, we can not only survive; we can restore much of our diminished glory.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I know that I shall be following the wish of the whole House when I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) on the speech that he has just made. We were deeply impressed by his knowledge and his sincerity. We wish him well in his new job—not too well, but very well.
  This has been, I think, for anyone who listened to it, a really constructive and thoughtful debate. We have listened to a number of very notable speeches. I have had the good fortune to hear most of them, but I am sorry that I was not in my place when my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) made his contribution. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have not only concentrated on the vexed question of the pause but have wished to deal in addition with the basic problems of our economic situation and of how we can work out ways and means together of securing a better future.
  The Amendment does three things. It deplores the handling of the pause, states that the Government have undermined negotiating machinery, and accuses the Government of having failed to provide the key to the future.
  The pause is what I should like to describe as phase one of a three-phase operation for securing a generally accepted incomes policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised throughout that the pause was a temporary expedient designed to deal particularly with the adverse situation which we faced in July. The hon. Member for Southwark referred to times of national peril. In some ways, we were in a condition of national peril in July. I believe that our hopes of increasing exports would have been shattered if the Chancellor had failed to take the drastic steps which he took in July. The prospects of arresting a

  1065
  further deterioration in the purchasing power of money would have been lost in the course of this winter. The Chancellor has promised to consult the unions and employers very early in the new year.
  As the pause ends, we shall move into the next phase—
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I should like the Minister to be specific on a particular case. It will be within his knowledge that there are very serious difficulties pending in certain sections of the Post Office and that these are to come into effect on 1st January. I was wondering whether the Minister of Labour will ask the Postmaster-General to invite the leaders of the trade unions concerned to discuss the situation with him in the light of the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. If he does not do it between now and the beginning of the year, there will be great difficulties, and it is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility as Minister of Labour to prevent those difficulties.
  Mr. Hare: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke.
  Mr. W. R. Williams indicated assent.
  Mr. Hare: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he wished to have consultations with the staff side of the Civil Service.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a specific promise here and now?
  Mr. Hare: I cannot give a specific promise. The Chancellor was perfectly clear in what he said earlier.
  Mr. Callaghan: What does that mean? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some of us are trying to avoid industrial trouble. What the Chancellor said this afternoon was that he would arrange a meeting with the staff side of the Civil Service. What my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) is putting to the Minister of Labour is this. There is a danger of industrial trouble in the Civil Service on 1st January. Is it not possible for the Minister of Labour to say to the Postmaster-General that, in view of the
  1066
  Chancellor's declaration, it would be wise and advisa1ble if he were to meet the leaders of the Union of Post Office Workers and the other unions concerned before 1st January?
  Mr. Hare: My right hon. and learned Friend made his position quite clear. He is willing to have talks with the staff side, but I think that the hon. Member would make a great mistake if he tried to press this, so to speak, under threat of a strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  As I was saying, as the pause ends, we shall move into the next phase which inevitably must be a period of continued restraint. The object of this will be to ensure that we do not lose during 1962 the very considerable advantages we have gained since July, particularly in the strengthening of our competitive position.
  Meanwhile, we shall be laying the foundations for the third phase in which we propose that the Government, employers and trade unions will combine to plan for increased growth from which larger incomes can be afforded. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear to the hon. Member for Southwark, this would be a real partnership in which each of us would be prepared to part with some sovereignty. This is the background against which we should assess the results of the pause. In spite of the spate of criticism, much has been achieved. The facts are these. The £ is firm, our rising costs are levelling out and our competitiveness has increased. We move into 1962 with a much better chance of being able to seize the great opportunities of increasing our export trade than could have been thought possible six months ago.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in a very able opening speech, as well as the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) and the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), all stressed that the pause policy had not worked with equal fairness. It is true that all temporary policies designed to deal with an emergency do not work with equal fairness. Certain groups have been hit harder than others. The decision was obviously bound to affect negotiations on pay and conditions which were in progress or pending at the time.

  1067
  As a major employer, the Government clearly had the heavy responsibility to set an example to others. If the Government had not practised what they preached, why should anybody else have taken our policy seriously? Therefore, it is true—I admit it openly—that the first sections of the community to be affected were those whose wages and salaries are directly controlled by Her Majesty's Government—the civil servants and, as far as the date of increases is concerned, the workers covered by wages councils, In the case of lower-paid workers, some decisions have been particularly painful, but much less painful than if inflation and rocketing prices had been allowed to run their course.
  Although this has been a debate moderate in tone, a great number of charges have been made about the damage that is being done to free negotiation and arbitration. I assure the hon. Member for Southwark that I do not want to make any specious excuses. I feel that I should declare the position of the Government in this respect. Given the primary need to sustain the pause in the Government service, the Government have taken the greatest care to do as little damage to negotiating and arbitration machinery as possible. Pre-pause commitments have been honoured. Consideration has also been shown in a number of cases where it could be maintained that, although no full commitment had been entered into before 25th July, there was a clear element of commitment.
  In that category are a number of instances that were given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and the hon. Member for Devon, North. They cited examples of pay increases after 25th July which were pre-pause commitments. One very big one was that for the building industry, affecting hundreds of thousands of work-people, which was negotiated in January to come into effect on 1st October.
  We have endeavoured not to prejudice the position of arbitrators. The withdrawal of the date from the terms of reference to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal helped to protect and preserve the position of arbitrators. The House would, I think, agree that arbitrators would have been put in an impossible
  1068
  position had they received terms of reference in which the Government asked them not to give an operative date and, at the same time, the unions asked for a date. They would have been faced with the need to pass judgment on what the Government consider to be an issue of major public policy. Therefore, within the temporarily limited scope of the present terms of reference, arbitrators have freedom to act as they think fit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"]
  Nor have I in any way infringed the independence of wages councils. I arranged for the Chancellor's statement on the economic situation to be brought before those councils which were considering wage increases. Other Ministers of Labour, both Labour and Conservative, have thought it right to ask wages councils to take account of the general economic situation. I think this is a perfectly proper and sensible thing to do.
  During the pause, councils have continued to make proposals to me for wage increases. I have continued to make orders giving effect to them. I have imposed some delay before wage increases come into effect, but this question of the operative date is entirely one for the Minister of Labour himself. Wages councils are not concerned with the date, and my action on date is clearly, therefore, not undermining their independence.
  The Government have not interfered with the negotiating arrangements or the terms of reference to arbitration in the private sector where they do not have direct responsibility as the employer and where they have no statutory responsibility for the enforcement of wage rates. Joint industrial councils and other negotiating bodies have continued to work freely. There is no evidence that this machinery of negotiation has in any way been undermined.
  We all of us recognise the great merits of the present system of collective bargaining and arbitration. I accept entirely what the hon. Member for Southwark said on that, and I appreciated also the fact that he was not rigid. But to many of us—I think he will agree with me on this—one particular weakness stands out: all too often the public interest is left on one side, and the effect which one particular wage settlement would have on the rest of the economy can

  1069
  be, and sometimes is, ignored. Here is a problem which requires the attention, not only of the Government, but also of both sides of industry.
  Free negotiation and independent arbitration are great assets as long as the public interest is not jeopardised. Again in the spirit of the hon. Member's speech, I think we should work out means of preventing their results from running counter to the national interest. The Chancellor has this afternoon invited both sides of industry to meet him early next year to examine the arrangements which can be made to enable us to move into the next phase.
  The problem is to ensure that inflation does not break loose again in the period between the end of the pause and the working out of the new partnership growth project, which I described as phase three. We clearly cannot afford to put up costs at the rate we were doing earlier this year and throughout 1960. There will be little extra either for profits or dividends, or for wages and salaries, till productivity really goes ahead. Considerable restraint by both sides of industry, and indeed the Government, is an absolute prerequisite if we are not to throw away the advantage we gain from the pause and retain our competitiveness in exports.
  I think the Daily Mirror has seized very well on this point. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the Mirror can hardly be described as a pro-Conservative paper, but on matters of great international importance it can often take a completely non-party line. This is what it said on 30th November:
  "But whatever you may think of the Tory record, the harsh economic fact is that something must be done to keep prices from rising, to expand Britain's production and to make our goods easier to sell in the world markets. That goes whatever the political complexion of the Government in power. It would still he true if a Labour Prime Minister were to move into Downing Street tomorrow."
  Therefore, during this phase two we shall have to rely for success on the good sense of everyone. The only alternative open to the Government, and this has been recognised by speakers on both sides of the House, would be to use harsh deflationary policies which would certainly threaten full employment and would impede the very growth that we are all seeking to encourage.
  1070
  I agree again with much of what the hon. Member for Southwark said about the need for improvement in industrial relations. I agree entirely with him that there are a large number of things within my own Ministerial field which would make a considerable contribution towards increased growth and productivity. The position here is very much better than many of our denigrators wish to make out. I agree with what he and other hon. Members have said about how the only news we read of industrial relations is news of sensational things, of strikes and incidents of a disturbing nature, and how we never seem to get reported the vast number of agreements which go through day in day out throughout the year and the large amount of excellent work done by the unions and employers working together.
  I welcome the response from leaders on both sides of the motor car industry and the shipbuilding industry in sitting down together to tackle their respective problems. I also welcome the report, which has been hardly mentioned in the Press, from the port transport industry. This was signed by Mr. A. J. M. Crichton for the employers and Mr. Frank Cousins for the workers. If the recommendations of this report are urgently followed up we shall see a major step forward in relationships in the docks which would also include arrangements for greater efficiency of working.
  In addition to the specific items I have mentioned, which are all encouraging and working in the direction which both sides of the House want, my National Joint Advisory Council is doing a great deal of work in endeavouring to secure improvements in communications and joint consultation, in redundancy arrangements, and in action to remove harmful restrictive practices.
  I am also heartened by the interest which has been shown, not only by hon. Members but throughout the country, in the importance of the growing need for more apprenticeships and industrial training of all kinds, together—and this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham—with a growing appreciation of the need to look at the quality and scope of our training arrangements. In all this, both employers and union leaders are thinking more and more in

  1071
  terms of the 1960s. It would be unfair to say that the prejudices which we know have existed in many people's minds are to be found throughout industry. I am certain that many progressive leaders of industry on both sides could not be accused of some of the outlooks of which the hon. Member for Southwark complained, which are based on prejudices and experiences derived from the 1920s and 1930s and from even before the 1914–18 war.
  There is a growing realisation of a need to get away from past prejudices and to look to the future. The great problem is how to secure that this modern thinking exists throughout industry from the top down to the level of the factory floor. This will take time. It will not be easy, but I am certain that with good will and determination it can and will be done.
  I turn now to the final objective of our policy. I have called this phase three. We have asked both sides of industry to join us in planning together the best ways and means of securing real industrial growth. This can be done only if costs can be controlled so that expanding exports may provide the essential basis for growth.
  It was very satisfactory that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to intervene as he did in the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark to show that the Government most certainly and most sincerely mean business in what they are saying about planning. My right hon. and learned Friend has made that abundantly clear to both the employers and the unions. I am certain that unless, in going into partnership, there is a preparedness on both sides to accept responsibilities on which it may be difficult for them to carry their constituent members, planning will be of no avail. But that is not the spirit in which we intend to approach this problem.
  Mr. Gunter: I am following closely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does not he appreciate that when he talks about good will and co-operation he must remember the poisoned background which has been created by his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. Hare: I cannot accept that allegation. My right hon. and learned Friend had an unpleasant, harsh, and difficult duty to do, and he did not hesitate to carry it out. I have endeavoured in my speech to show that, painful and harsh though some of the things were which my right hon. and learned Friend had to do, the results have benefited the national economy.
  In moving forward into this planning project, we must realise that the problem is not purely statistical; that it is not purely economic; but that it involves vital human factors. I think we all realise that the one question we have to answer is, how can we maintain full employment, stable prices, and a free society? Few of us believe in dictatorial methods, and few of us believe in totalitarian control.
  The way in which we wish to go is not entirely uncharted. In Holland and Sweden systems of partnership have been worked out over the years—somewhat differently in each country—which have brought economic gains to both these countries. But basically both these systems have relied on the mutual agreement of employers and workers. Without that agreement neither system would work.
  Our traditions are somewhat different. As the hon. Gentleman said, they have grown up over many decades, and our whole industrial system is far more complex than it is in either Sweden or Holland. But I do not think it impossible that we here at home can work out in agreement methods suited to our own circumstances and national outlook.
  It has been said that the trade unions will not join the partnership we seek. I cannot prophesy, but I know—and the hon. Member for Southwark was frank enough to say that he was one of these—that many trade unionists feel that to shirk this responsibility would not accord with the standing and importance of the trade union movement in our national life. I am certain that they would ponder long and hard before rejecting this opportunity of playing such a vital part in the nation's future. As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we would wish to consult at every step.
  I have mentioned the trade unions, but everything I say applies equally to the

  1073
  employers, and indeed to the Government themselves.
  The essence of this plan is partnership between Government and industry as a whole. I have no doubt about the opportunities that lie ahead for us in world trade if we are prepared to grasp them. Are we sufficiently determined, sufficiently sensible and sufficiently self-
  disciplined to succeed? I believe that the answer is "Yes". I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 214.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES

  [9.56 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Deedes, W. F.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Aitken, w. T.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, M.

  James, David

  Allason, James

  Doughty, Charles

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  du Cann, Edward

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Duncan, Sir James

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Barber, Anthony

  Eden, John

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Barter, John

  Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Batsford, Brian

  Emery, Peter

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bell, Ronald

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kirk, Peter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Fell, Anthony

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Biffen, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Foster, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Birch, Rt. Hon Nigel

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lindsay, Martin

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gammans, Lady

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gardner, Edward

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bossom, Clive

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfleld)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Box, Donald

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Brewis, John

  Gryn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Brooman-White, R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  MacArthur, Ian

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gough, Frederick

  McLaren, Martin

  Browne, Perey (Torrington)

  Gower, Raymond

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Bryan, Paul

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

  Buck, Antony

  Green, Alan

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Bullard, Denys

  Greeham Cooke, R.

  Macleod, Rt. Tn. Iain (Enfield, W)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gurden, Harold

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Butcher, sir Herbert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray A Nairn)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maddan, Martin

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Chataway, Christopher

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Marshall, Douglas

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hay, John

  Marten, Neil

  Cole, Norman

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mathews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cooper, A. E-

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Cooper-Key, Sir Nell

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cordeaux, Lt-Col, J. K.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Mills, Stratton

  Costain, A. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hobson, John

  Morgan, William

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Morrison, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Holland, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Critchley, Julian

  Hollingworth, John

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. Sir Oliver

  Hopkins, Alan

  Neave, Airey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Noble, Michael

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Dance, James

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Roots, William

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Russell, Ronald

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  St. Clair, M.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Partridge, E.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Turner, Colin

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Peel, John

  Sharples, Richard

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Peyton, John

  Shaw, M.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Shepherd, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Walder, David

  Pott, Percivall

  Smithers, Peter

  Walker, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J, Enoch

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Webster, David

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Speir, Rupert

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Whitelaw, William

  Prior-palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stodart, J. A.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Francis

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wise, A. R.

  Ramsden, James

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Rees, Hugh

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Rees-Davies, W, R.

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Woollam, John

  Renton, David

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Teeling, William

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Temple, John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Roberts, Sir peter (Heeley)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Mr. Chichester-Clark.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Ainsley, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, George

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Awbery, Stan

  Evans, Albert

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Bence, Cyril

  Finch, Harold

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Fitch, Alan

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Kelley, Richard

  Benson, Sir George

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Manuel, A. C.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Blackburn, F.

  Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Lawson, George

  Blyton, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Ledger, Ron

  Boardman, H.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Bowles, Frank

  Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Boyden, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Grey, Charles

  Lipton, Marcus

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  MacCott, James

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  McInnes, James

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gunter, Ray

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Callaghan, James

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Chapman, Donald

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mahon, Simon

  Chetwynd, George

  Hannan, William

  Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Manuel, A. C.

  Collick, Percy

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mapp, Charles

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Healey, Denis

  Marsh, Richard

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Herblson, Miss Margaret

  Mason, Roy

  Cronin, John

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Crosland, Anthony

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Millan, Bruce

  Darling, George

  Hilton, A. V.

  Milne, Edward J.

  Holman, Percy

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Holt, Arthur

  Monslow, Walter

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Moody, A. S.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mort, D. L.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hoy, James H.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Deer, George

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Neal, Harold

  Dempsey, James

  Hunter, A. E.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillip (Derby, S.)

  Diamond, John

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Oram, A. E.

  Driberg, Tom

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Owen, Will

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Padley, W. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Paget, R. T.

  1076

  1077

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wade, Donald

  Parker, John

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Warbey, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Weitzman, David

  Peart, Frederick

  Small, William

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Snow, Julian

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Whitlock, William

  Prentice, R. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Wigg, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Probert, Arthur

  Steele, Thomas

  Whitey, Frederick

  Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Randall, Harry

  Storehouse, John

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Rankin, John

  Stones, William

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Reid, William

  Stress, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Rhodes, H

  Symonds, J. B.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Woof, Robert

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Robertson, John (paisley)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Rogers, C H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ross, William

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Short, Edward

  Tomney, Frank

  Mr. McCann.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Sir Henry Studholme rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Committee Tomorrow.

  SEA FISHERIES (GRANTS)
  10.8 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move,
  That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
  It would be convenient to the House, Mr. Speaker, if we discussed with this Scheme the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) (No. 2) Order, which also stands in my name.
  Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, so be it.
  Mr. Soames: When we discussed, on 14th July, the subsidy rates for the fishing fleet for this year, there was a body of opinion on both sides of the House, which reflected what the industry had represented to me in discussions before the debate, that owing to the decrease in the catches off the Faroes the subsidies which the Government proposed to allot to vessels which traditionally fish for a considerable part of the time off the Farces were insufficient.
  1078
  Figures were quoted to show how the catches had decreased considerably since November of last year.
  As you will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the figures which we had before us then were for the year 1960. During 1960 the middle water fleet, as a whole, including those ships which had been fishing wholly or mainly off the Faroes, had not been doing too badly. It was only in the first five months of this year, for which we had figures only for catches and not for profit and loss accounts, that the picture had begun to look bleak.
  We felt that before acceding to a larger subsidy it was right to see what the longer term effect would be. Was this a temporary phase, or was it something with which we would evidently have to live as a permanency, or, at any rate, as a semi-permanency? For this reason, in our debate on 14th July I asked the House to accept the fact that we should agree to the subsidy figures as I put them before the House at the time, with the assurance that we would look again as the year went on at the figures of the Faroese vessels of the middle water fleet to see how they had fared.
  We have been watching this month by month. We thought that it was necessary to get figures over nine months of the year before reaching a conclusion. We have had the figures from the fleet for the nine months from January to the end of September of this year. They show a considerable decline over the equivalent figures for

  1079
  the same months of 1960. They show also a significantly worse position for vessels which fish off the Faroes than for other equivalent middle water vessels fishing in other waters.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I appreciate some of the difficulties about giving the fullest possible information to the House on matters of this kind, but as the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to approve additional subsidies, coming so quickly after a full discussion on the pay pause, would it not be convenient to the Minister and to the House if he gave us the precise figures to which he has just referred?
  Mr. Soames: Yes. In round figures they are as follows. For the first nine months of 1960 the vessels showed an average profit of £800 per vessel. For the first nine months of this year they showed an average loss of £6,400 per vessel. So we have decided that it is right to increase the level of subsidies to vessels fishing largely off the Faroes. The figure we have decided upon is an increase to £13 a day for these vessels. According to the length of the vessels, it will mean an increase varying from £3 10s. a day to £8 a day to bring them all up to £13 a day.
  There are a number of points of detail which I want to make. First, I think that it was understood by the House—it was inherent in the assurance I gave to the House in July—that this figure will count as from the beginning of the subsidy year, that is, as from 1st August of this year. Secondly, these increases will be for all motor vessels and all oil burners built before 1952. Thirdly, we will pay this to vessels which have fished for 30 per cent. of their fishing days on Faroese grounds.
  We had originally intended to make the payment to vessels that had fished for 50 per cent. of the time, because we thought that would be about the right proportion. We found, however, that a comparatively small number of mainly Scottish boats that had fished for between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of their time off the Faroes had suffered very badly. It was decided to include them. Therefore, as an exceptional con-
  1080
  dition for this particular Scheme, we have reduced the time to 30 per cent.
  The next point is that we intend to pay this subsidy for all the voyages of those vessels that have fished more than 30 per cent. of the time off the Faroes. It will be paid for all the voyages, whether the vessels have been fishing off the Faroes or otherwise. We believe this to be fair, as it will avoid penalising those people who, realising the difficulties existing off the Faroes, chose to go to other grounds to try to improve their difficult circumstances.
  The next point relates to gross proceeds for the purpose of determining crews' earnings. Normally speaking, when increased subsidies of this kind have been given they have come about as a result of increased costs, and where this has been so, they have not been included from the point of view of the determination of the crews' wages because the owners have had to bear the increased costs. Here, however, we have a different circumstance. The cause has not been increased costs, but a fall in catches and in receipts, which has been felt by the crews as well as by the owners. That being so, we have decided, and the owners have agreed with this, that the whole of this extra determination should count towards the crews' settlement—
  Mr. Loughlin: I am very sorry again to intervene, but the Minister will realise that I am trying to get information. As this is based on gross receipts, what arrangements have been made in those ports where the earnings or poundages are paid on net receipts?
  Mr. Soames: I cannot answer that off-hand. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will answer it later. I can only say that all this money that is to be paid has been agreed by the industry, and I have no doubts that, whatever may be the situation in the different ports, a way will be found. As I say, it has been agreed with the industry that this extra money will count towards crews' settlement.
  The cost of this will be £170,000 for a full year. That will take us over our present authorisation; hence the Order to increase the money available for this

  1081
  purpose by £250,000. The purpose of the Order is to get the money to enable us to make this increased settlement. We realised last July that this might come about. We hoped that it would not, that the better fishing of the earlier days after the Faroes agreements would return, and that the bad catches that our vessels had made since November, 1960, would prove to be only temporary. But that has not proved to be the case.
  We feel that this is the right figure on which to settle. It is agreed by the industry to be, shall we say, an acceptable figure, and I hope that the House will agree that, in the circumstances, we are taking the right course.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: When this subject was debated in the middle of the year my hon. Friends argued that the case was sufficiently bad for something to be done at that time. The Minister will remember that because we did not get a promise as firm as we thought it should be we divided the House on this issue.
  The middle water fleet was going through an exceptionally difficult time and figures were produced showing that the section of the fleet fishing at or adjacent to the Faroes was making considerable losses. It was estimated that for boats fishing from Granton and Aberdeen the average loss was anything from £4,500 to £5,500 a year. I am not surprised, therefore, at the figures produced by the Minister tonight. The middle water fleet felt that something more should be done for it in view of the fairly substantial sums that were to be paid to the distant water fleet, which was to receive a subsidy without any returns having been made.
  Thus, it is only fair now that the Minister should be as good as his promise, because he said during that debate that he would have a look at this again before the end of the year and that, if the figures proved to be of the order of those produced at that time, he would deal with the matter. It is for that reason that these provisions are now before us. To those who think that there is a fortune being made out of this, I would say that it is nothing of the kind. It will not even look at the losses at present being made.
  1082
  Unlike agriculture, this is not a support price. We will not be faced with a bill for some millions of pounds in the near future, but it is hoped that this will tide this section of the industry over the period the fleet now faces. Therefore, I believe that this is a right step to take. The Minister was right to extend this provision to the sailings of the fleet and not to confine it to the Faroes waters. These vessels tried their utmost to find grounds where fish could be found and it would have been penalising them if the subsidy had not been extended to them as well, because the considerable amount of fishing at the Faroes was bound to have an effect on the remainder of the fleet.
  It is important, when these sums are being paid out, that particular attention should be paid to the men who man these vessels. Obviously, when there is a fall in the earnings of the boats, this is reflected in the earnings of the men. It is only right that if moneys are being made available to help meet the losses that the fleet is making, a certain proportion of those moneys should go to the men whose earnings have dropped as well. It is right that they should be covered to this extent.
  I do not suggest that this will be a solution to the difficulties that confront the middle water fleet. Far from it. But, at least, it is a step in the right direction and it is helpful. Further, the Minister has fulfilled the promise he made in the debate earlier in the year. For that, we are grateful. In the future we might have to take a broader look at the middle water fleet, because the difficulties of this section of the industry will be greater than the others. My hon. Friends and I certainly agree that these provisions should be approved.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) in congratulating the Minister on fulfilling the promise he gave in the debate last July, and I also thank my right hon. Friend for the attention he paid to the hon. Member for Leith and myself when we came to see him just before the debate took place. Although at that time we were unable to extract a promise from him, he subsequently made the promise during the debate. We are most grateful to him now for fulfilling that promise.

  1083
  When one thinks of the economic situation since July, one is the more grateful to the Minister for having extracted this extra sum of money from the Treasury.
  I think it ought to be pointed out that these losses from which the vessels fishing off the Faroes have been suffering are due to circumstances completely outside the control of the industry. Perhaps when other people who know nothing about the fishing industry read that an additional subsidy is to be given, they do not always appreciate exactly what has happened. We can welcome this additional subsidy, but, of course, it is only a palliative and will not go to the heart of the problem, which is to make the fishing industry more economic. One can only hope that the new Sea Fish Industry Bill will help to do that.
  I must say, however, that the outlook for the middle water fleet is extremely grim. I hope that the result of the new Sea Fish Industry Bill will be to put that section of the fleet on to a firmer footing. It may well mean that it will become either distant water or near water—that is a problem which it will have to work out for itself—but at least it can be satisfied that the Government have fulfilled their end of the bargain and have gone as far as any of the owners would have thought was reasonable in the circumstances.
  I therefore have much pleasure in thanking the Minister for what he has done.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Crosland: It must be nice for the Minister to have this brief half-hour of general thanks and flattery, in view of some of the less favourable Press comment to which he has been subjected in the last few days.
  I also join in thanking the Minister for carrying out the promise that he made in the debate on 14th July. He has made a settlement to which nobody in the fleet could possibly object. It seems to me an absolutely fair settlement and one has no right to say that he should be more generous.
  I feel more sympathetic to the idea of giving this additional pay to the
  1084
  middle water fleet than to the idea of giving subsidies to the distant water fleet. These two sections have one rather marked thing in common, namely that the distant water fleet is dominated by very large firms indeed, which make considerable profits from their ancillary activities, whereas the middle water fleet, although including elements of the large groups in the industry, also includes in Grimsby and other ports relatively small family firms. I have said constantly in this House that it may be that some trend towards mergers and bigger units is necessary and inevitable, but it would be a disaster to the health of the industry if these smaller family firms with from ten to fifteen trawlers were driven out. The effect of assistance to the Faroes part of the fleet was essential to one or two firms that I can think of.
  I am also glad that the Minister has made his explicit statement today that the new subsidy goes onto the gross amount and will be calculated in the determination of the gross wages. The position before was complicated. There were several different methods of making the calculations. But although complicated, the general opinion among the deckhands was that the distant water fleet subsidy was coming into this determination and that the middle water fleet subsidy was not. The position was not as simple as that, but it was widely believed to be the case amongst the deckhands. Therefore, I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that, like the distant water fleet subsidy, it is treated as a payment for loss of receipts and not for an increase in costs and, therefore, is taken into account where remuneration is calculated.
  Like the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), I do not know what the future of the Faroes will be. I think that the fleet will be substantially helped by the new concession on the number of trips they are allowed to make to the distant-water grounds, but I am inclined to share the hon. Gentleman's view and I shall be surprised if in five years' time we have a middle water fleet as we know it today. I agree that this tripartite distinction which we now have will probably disappear and that we shall have a near

  1085
  water fleet on the one hand, and a distant water fleet on the other. However, these wretched people have to get over the transition period, and, because this will be a very disagreeable time, I also am grateful to the Minister for the help he has given.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am glad to see the last-minute conversion of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in regard to the deep water fleet, but, like him, I feel that it would be impossible to oppose the subsidies proposed by the Minister tonight for those who fish particularly in the Faroe waters.
  As I understood him, the Minister said that the loss per vessel in the 1961 period was £6,400. I calculate that the subsidy will give to each vessel roughly for a year. I say "roughly" because the question of sea days comes in, how long it is fitting out, whether it has another skipper during the skipper's holidays, and so on. I am not sure that that is right, but I think it is. It is £13 a day, which, on the sea days of the vessel, would make it about £3,800. If that is so, and if each vessel loses at the rate of £6,400, what effect will the subsidy have on the economic position of the fleets?
  We have to bear in mind, as the Minister said, that the trouble is no fault of theirs. I wonder whether, in practice, the help we are giving on this occasion will be sufficient to enable them to continue in the way they have gone on in the past year.
  I should like to know more about the way the subsidy will be calculated for poundage purposes. While it is relatively easy to calculate it for poundage purposes when the crew are on gross receipts, it seems extremely difficult to arrive at another settlement where the crew are being paid poundage on the basis of net receipts because, if the ships are making a net loss inclusive of the subsidy which we now pay, the crews will not have any poundage at all. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us an assurance that the fact that the remuneration is paid by a different method will not mean that some crews will have the benefit of the subsidy in some ports while some will not in others.
  1086
  Although it may surprise some hon. Members to hear me give approval to what the Minister has proposed, it should not do so. My argument has always been based solely on the deep sea side of the fishing industry. My only regret about the subsidies is that we cannot sort them out. We cannot sort out the amount which is going to Associated Fisheries, for instance, which may well have some middle water vessels in its fleet. But that is a qualification which I am not prepared to make at this point. I make it merely as an observation.
  If the Minister can assure us that the subsidies will make a substantial contribution to the recovery of the middle water fleet from its present position, and if the question of the poundage can be cleared up, I shall give my blessing, for what it is worth, to the Minister's proposals.
  10.35 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: I have no constituency interest in this business, but in the absence of both hon. Members for Aberdeen, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), and as there is a distinct Scottish interest involved, I think I should say one or two words.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) both on speaking from the Opposition Front Bench tonight and on his promotion to the position, as I understand it, of joint shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and I presume that in one sense he was speaking as such tonight.
  I must congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing the Scheme and the Order. I was flabbergasted when earlier this year the middle water fishing people came to see me and disclosed how their position had completely changed through no fault of their own but because of the new international situation. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) talked earlier about the pay pause, but this case has absolutely no relationship to that whatever. It is a situation created entirely by the Faroese and Icelanders themselves. The situation came

  1087
  about so quickly that there has been no time for the middle water fishing people to find other fishing grounds. Now my right hon. Friend has saved the situation till July, 1962.
  What I want to say tonight is that I do not think there will be time before July, 1962, to find other fishing grounds, and that we may, therefore, have to come forward to repeat this sort of provision for a year or two longer till the situation is settled. It is frightfully bad luck for Aberdeen fishermen and ship owners, because for years now we have been complaining about the old steam trawlers in Aberdeen and about how uneconomic they were and so on. Perhaps partly due to the pressure put upon them from here, they modernised their fleet, bought new ships, new engines, and so on, and now they are suddenly faced with a completely new situation which makes it impossible for them to make ends meet. The figures given by my right hon. Friend show the seriousness of their situation—a profit of £880 one year turned into a loss of £6,400 another. I doubt if they can get over their difficulty in one year.
  I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, who has been so sympathetic, will continue to be so, because the hardship this year will continue. I hope that he will keep a very close watch on the situation and, if necessary, bring in provisions similar to this in ensuing years to give adequate time to the middle water fishing folk to make up their minds about other fishing grounds suitable for their vessels to work, or whether to reorganise themselves, to become inshore or distant water fishermen in future. Whatever they decide, it will take some time, and my plea tonight to my right hon. Friend is to give them in years to come the sympathetic consideration he has given this year.
  10.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Generally, both sides of the House have welcomed the Scheme laid by my right hon. Friend and general endorsement has been given to its contents. I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for what they
  1088
  have said, but there are two points which I should like to make. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was right in his calculation that with the £13 payment there is an income of about £3,800 to £3,900 if one takes the whole amount into account. The increase brought about by this Scheme is not as great as that, and, spread over the whole field, will amount to between £2,000 and £3,500. This is a substantial contribution that is being made towards these losses, but I will not pretend that in every case it will necessarily cover the whole loss being made by any particular group of vessels.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West also asked what happens if the crew's settlement is on net proceeds. I am advised that the whole of the subsidy counts as part of the proceeds for the purpose of the crew's pay if that pay is based on a share of net proceeds. The hon. Member asked what happened to the crew's earnings if the vessel is making a loss. I am advised that their net earnings is the difference between gross earnings and running costs, not total costs, and it will practically never be a minus sum. I hope that with these explanations the hon. Member understands the position.
  I was very interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said—
  Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some further clarification of what he means by the calculation which will not be a minus figure?
  Mr. Leburn: As I understand, net earnings is the difference between gross earnings and runnings costs and not total costs, and that figure is practically never a minus figure. If the hon. Member is still in doubt I shall be glad to get in touch with him and explain the position further. I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus that a new Statutory Instrument will be laid in regard to subsidies in the summer and under the Sea Fish Industry Bill, now in Committee upstairs, arrangements are made not only for basic subsidies but also for a special fund which will cover some of the points he has in mind.
  With these comments, I hope that the House will approve the Scheme and the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme, 1961, a copy of
  1090
  which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
  White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) (No. 2) Order, 1961, [copy laid before the House 30th November], approved.—[Mr. Soames.]

  IMMIGRATION (CONSULTATIONS WITH COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Sorensen: On 16th November I asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations
  "what consultations he has had with Commonwealth Governments in order to promote a full understanding by them of the problems facing Her Majesty's Government with regard to the provision of adequate accommodation for immigrants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 646–7.]
  The subsequent Answer to my Question and other replies to supplementary questions which I was able to put leave me a little puzzled. There are some technical oddities about them. For instance, in c. 77 of Written Answers for the same day the same Question is repeated for purposes of Written Answer. I do not know why there should be duality of reply in this case. I would also point out that in my supplementary question, in c. 647, there is the rather strange adjective "assistant" to describe level, which, I assume, should be "subordinate".
  Apart from these technical deficiencies and that slight touch of mystery, my impression when I received the replies, in the House and when I read them later, was that there was a certain amount of evasion—not conscious evasion, but evasion all the same, because I was directing my question to find out, if possible, whether there had been adequate and thorough consultation. "Consultation" and "intimation" are not the same words and must not be taken as synonymous.
  There had certainly been intimation. Indeed, that was made clear, for the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my Question, said:
  "The housing problem created by uncontrolled immigration has been explained to Commonwealth Governments…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 647.]
  Later he reasserted that statement in so many words.
  1092
  I do not doubt that there had been a certain amount of intimation and ex planation to the Commonwealth Governments, but that was not my point. That is why I failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my questions, started discussing the question of
  "special accommodation mainly provided for students."
  Obviously, my Question was not directed at that either. It was directed, as the Question makes it clear, to whether or not there had been consultations, as distinct from intimations or explanations, with representatives of the Commonwealth on the very serious matter of accommodation both for our own people and for immigrants into this country.
  My suspicion that there had been no consultation was borne out by statements made elsewhere. For instance, Mr. Nehru, speaking in the Lok Sabha on 5th December, said, in reply to questions, that
  "to the best of his recollection, when he passed through London last time, he did not discuss the matter"—
  that is, the question of immigration and the difficult housing situation—
  "with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom."
  Earlier, Mr. Nehru said that
  "the first 'intimation' about legislation was received by India in October."
  I know, too, that Mrs. Lakshmi Menon, the Deputy Minister for External Affairs in the Indian House, said:
  "The intention of the British Government to impose these restrictions was first conveyed to us in an Aide Memoire handed over to us on October 14, 1961."
  Yet again, the same lady said:
  "We stressed the absence of previous consultation before taking a decision to impose very drastic curbs which would affect the considerable traffic of persons between India and the United Kingdom…"
  I quote from the speeches of those two eminent Indian personalities in support of the point I am making. Others in the Commonwealth—like Sir Grantley Adams—have complained that there has been no proper consultation. Had there been consultation, the Minister would have said definitely that there had been consultation instead of just intimation.

  1093
  It is my assumption, and, I hope, the assumption of all right hon. and hon. Members, that we evaluate the Commonwealth so highly that there ought to be frequent consultation on all matters of common interest and concern between the members of the Commonwealth particularly, of course, when they affect this country.
  Immigration has been debated in the House and I do not intend to discuss that broad issue now. What I was concerned with was whether what I think is the only valid aspect of the problem had been discussed at a high level by representatives of the Government and the Commonwealth Governments concerned, and apparently that had not taken place. Had it taken place, I believe that a different sequence of events might have followed.
  If there had been proper consultation, thorough and persistent, in which the explanation of our situation had been driven home to our partners in the Commonwealth, I do not say that it would have led to a totally different conclusion, or that they would have refrained from criticising the Bill, but it is probable that they would not feel bitterness and resentment which they now feel, because they believe that this matter has been brought into this House without any proper consultation with them.
  If, for instance, we could have been assured that the representatives of the West Indies, Pakistan and India had been told one or two facts about the incidence of immigration in areas like London and Birmingham, I am certain—knowing them personally, as I do—that they would have been much more appreciative of our real problem than they apparently are now. I noticed that Mr. Manley made a passing reference to the fact that we have our housing problems, but if there had been proper consultations we would have been able to convey to him the real problem that confronts us, and would have been able to assure him that we are interested in the problem both from the standpoint of our own people and of the immigrants coming from elsewhere.
  I should like to give one illustration of this, from my own constituency, which is not affected so seriously as some other London constituencies, since it is in outer London. We have nearly
  1094
  2,000 people on the waiting list for houses, and over 400 on the priority list in urgent need of housing. They often come to me—although I can do nothing about the matter—and I find that some of them have been evicted, directly or indirectly, as a result of the operation of the Rent Act.
  If we could have brought facts like that home to the representatives of the Commonwealth by means of proper, sympathetic and fraternal consultations, I am sure that there would have been a much greater appreciation on their part of what it must mean to people in some areas of London and the Midlands when large numbers of immigrants come here with nowhere to live. Consultations would have enabled us to bring this fact home, not in any spirit of hostility, or because we think that there should be any attempt to blanket out all kinds of immigration, but simply in order that our friends and colleagues in the Commonwealth might appreciate that, just as they have a difficult problem, so have we.
  There might then have been a planned arrangement by which immigrants coming to this country were diverted to the less congested areas. Some principle of dispersion might have been agreed to by the Commonwealth representatives. There has not been any such consultation. That is why it is so lamentable. It has left the Commonwealth Governments and their representatives very sore. They feel that this matter was simply rushed through, with information and explanations given afterwards, but with no proper consultation beforehand.
  I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to give me some satisfaction tonight. Does he think that this is the way to cement Commonwealth relations? Does he think that this is the way to avoid the frictions that arise even in the best-conducted families? Does he really think that the Government are adopting the right approach to this very serious matter? I do not think so, and I must accordingly register my profound regret that we have been lacking in our moral, if not legal, obligations to the Commonwealth in not entering into proper consultation beforehand, so that we might understand the problems and difficulties of our Commonwealth partners and that they might understand ours, especially in regard to housing—and so that we

  1095
  could take steps to help meet their needs while they helped to meet ours.
  That is the spirit in which we should have approached this matter, and because that was not done, and because the Government's attitude has been one not only of indifference but of insensitivity to the Commonwealth Governments, I not only deplore the fact but trust that even now the Government will try to make amends so that they can ease in some measure the soreness felt by our partners in the Commonwealth over this wretched business.
  10.54 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I should, first, like to thank the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) for the great courtesy which he showed me in letting me know some of the points which he intended to raise. Representing the Colonial Office, I cannot deal with the remarks which have been made by Mr. Nehru and others, and if the hon. Member looks at the Order Paper he will see that the debate is restricted to some extent by the reference to the West Indies.
  I therefore hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I address my remarks mainly to that problem, but, in passing, I would say that as a quick proof of the consultation with the Indian and Pakistan Governments there is the fact that those Governments imposed a partial limitation on the movement of Pakistanis and Indians to this country by control of passports. This shows that it was understood by them that there was a problem for Britain in respect of immigration from those countries.
  Mr. Sorensen: But this occurred long before the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.
  Mr. Fraser: I mention it to show that the problem was known to them.
  I should like to make a few remarks about the general question of consultation and then deal with the more specific questions which the hon. Member raised concerning information on the housing problem in this country for immigrants, particularly those from the West Indies. I attach great importance, as we all do, to consulting and giving information to other members of the Commonwealth.
  1096
  Well before the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was introduced there were numerous discussions with West Indies Ministers on the problem which lay before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), bitterly though he opposes the Bill, will agree that in private and public conversations, and in conferences, this problem was discussed.
  When the Prime Minister went round the West Indies in March he pointed out that there was this growing problem which might have to be tackled. Even I, in my humble capacity as Under-Secretary, frequently discussed this with my West Indian friends who are Ministers in the various Governments. It is almost true to say—although this may possibly be an exaggeration—that in certain well-informed political quarters in the West Indies it was understood that the problem facing this country was not so much whether we might have to face the question of the control of immigration, but when we should have to face it.
  In the middle of October we asked for comments on the legislation, and these comments were received. Having said that throughout the progress of the Bill we should keep in touch with Commonwealth Governments on specific points, we went ahead, as we have to do, and introduced the Bill on 1st November. Throughout we have remained in close touch with the West Indian Governments on specific points. I am always ready to see, and I often see, Mr. Garnet Gordon, the Commissioner for the West Indies in London, to deal with specific points which he wishes to put.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is not the gloss which the hon. Member is putting on this process completely contradicted by the remarks of the Prime Minister of the West Indies, a man whose honesty in these matters is beyond question?
  Mr. Fraser: I am saying that prior to the formal statements which we made, there were discussions about this problem. These discussions are a continuing process. They proceeded before the Bill was produced and they are proceeding now, but, clearly, the Government must make up their mind on the action which they think it right to take.

  1097
  I turn now to the more specific points which were raised by the hon. Member for Leyton. If there have been discussions about the general problem of immigration and specific information and discussion about the Bill before the House, there have been even more about the particular point which the hon. Member raised—the difficulties of providing housing accommodation in this country for the immigrants. I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm with all the power at my command that this is the case and that there is no possible doubt that the West Indian Governments have been fully aware during the past few years of our accommodation problems here.
  The House will recall that Mr. Norman Manley, the Premier of Jamaica, and Dr. La Corbiniere, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation, visited this country in the summer of 1958 to see for themselves how West Indians were settling into the life of this country. In addition to touring, these Ministers attended a number of meetings with Ministers and officials here. At a meeting which was held at that time with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Viscount Boyd, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and at which Dr. Cummins, the then Premier of Barbados, was also present, it was pointed out to the West Indian Ministers that one of the main difficulties to which West Indian immigration gave rise in this country was the limited housing accommodation available.
  At the conclusion of these talks, a communication was sent to all West Indian Governments drawing attention once again to the existence of housing difficulties here. It was proposed that, in considering applications for passports from persons intending to come to the United Kingdom to seek work, the West Indian Governments should bring home to each individual the desirability not only of having reasonably confident expectation of a job but also of having suitable accommodation to come to. It was also suggested that such administrative action as was practicable should be taken to regulate the pace of the issue of passports in such cases.
  Further, later that year Senator Byfield, Federal Minister without Portfolio and responsible for migration
  1098
  matters, visited this country to look into some of these problems. It was put to him after he had been round and looked at some of the problems that the West Indian Governments might wish to institute a system of asking intending emigrants from the West Indies to the United Kingdom whether or not they had suitable accommodation available to them over here. It was indicated that, if the West Indian Governments should wish to institute such a system, Her Majesty's Government would be willing to seek the co-operation of medical officers of health under the local authorities to vet the accommodation to see whether it was up to standard and came into line with our public health regulations.
  This information would then be taken into account by the West Indian Governments in making decisions about the granting of passports. It was suggested that some such system might be of considerable help to intending emigrants and certainly would have been of help to both Governments concerned. But it was entirely for the West Indian Governments to consider whether or not they would wish to institute any such system.
  For reasons which I am sure the House will readily understand, the West Indian Governments did not feel able to introduce a system of control on these lines. This was not yesterday, or this month, or last month. This was in 1958. Nevertheless, I must stress again to the House that the difficulties of accommodation over these years have been constantly stressed, constantly seen, and constantly reported to Ministers from the West Indies.
  Also, I must point out that, quite apart from talks with Ministers, whether of an official or unofficial kind, there are two forms of organisation which give, and have given, the full information on this matter necessary to the West Indian Governments, First, I draw the attention of the House to the Migrant Services Division of the West Indian Commission in this country. This is a branch, and a very well run branch, to which I think the whole House would like to pay tribute for the great work it has done, which developed from the British Caribbean Welfare Service, which was set up in 1955 to cope with the problems of immigrants here. In 1958, it was taken over by the West

  1099
  Indian Commission, and this Migrant Service Division is especially concerned with those aspects of housing affecting West Indians here. It employs staff, not only in London but in the provinces, and it makes available very complete information about the conditions in which West Indians are living.
  In addition, the Government of Barbados have their own organisation in London to deal with immigrants—the Barbadian Immigrants' Liaison Service. This, again, does excellent work and, again, is a source of information. I should also point out that since 1958 there has been a Departmental committee of officials for which the Colonial Office is responsible, which is attended by representatives from the office of the West Indies Commissioner and one of the problems most frequently discussed by this Committee has been housing matters.
  I therefore say that there has been a constant flow of information and discussion in relation to this matter of accommodation, certainly since 1958. I have already mentioned the talks that have taken place between United Kingdom Ministers and those of West Indian Governments. I should also mention the great number of visits to West Indian immigrants made by Ministers from the West Indies when they come to this country. In 1961, Sir Grantley Adams made a tour of Sheffield, and Mr. Norman Manley went to Birmingham. Mr. Jonathan Grant, Minister of Labour in Jamaica, visited both London and the provinces in July this year.
  Senator Byfield, of whom I have already spoken, visited London and the provinces in 1961, and the Federal Minister for Labour and Social Affairs, Mrs. Allfrey, whose portfolio includes migration matters, usually makes a point of visiting centres of West Indian immigration when she is in this country, and did so as recently as June, 1961.
  The hon. Member seemed to suggest that had West Indian Ministers been aware of the difficulties of housing accommodation they would have been more prepared to co-operate with us in some planned control of immigration, but I think that it is clear from what I have said that the West Indian Govern-
  1100
  ments have throughout been made fully aware of these accommodation problems. I suggest that it is a little naive to argue that this knowledge would have cause them to agree to impose local controls on the issue of passports to their own people.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise the difficulties which would have faired the West Indian Governments themselves if they had restricted the issue of passports to people who wished to travel to the United Kingdom at a time when those people were aware that the United Kingdom itself did not impose any restrictions on entry into the United Kingdom—
  Mr. Sorensen: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I did not mention that.
  Mr. Fraser: I said that at one moment that seemed to be the tendency of the hon. Member's argument.
  In spite of the information available, and in spite of our requests and suggestions that the West Indian Governments should look at the problem, I think that with all its difficulties the voluntary control of immigration was bound inevitably to fail, and we were, therefore, forced into the action which the House is now taking.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question on information and consultation, I have no hesitation in assuring the House that the West Indian Governments have been fully aware in recent years of the problems of providing accommodation here for their migrants, and that we in the Government have done our best to assist them.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: The House should not adjourn without the Under-Secretary's account of these exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the West Indies being seriously challenged. The Under-Secretary will recall that the Prime Minister of the West Indies, Sir Grantley Adams, came here recently and saw representatives of the British Government. He made it plain in his representations to the Government—and publicly on television and elsewhere—that there had been no real consultation, in the normal definition of that word, between Governments.

  1101
  The Under-Secretary will remember that Sir Grantley and, indeed, all the leading representatives of the West Indies, were in London for a considerable period last summer holding a Constitutional Conference about the future of the West Indies. Both the Under-Secretary and I took some part in meeting them. Although there was plenty of discussion about the problems created by immigration into this country, I do not think there was any suggestion from Her Majesty's Government at that time that legislation of the kind we now have was seriously being contemplated.
  Certainly, no opportunity was taken by Her Majesty's Government to have the kind of proper consultations there should have been before the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was introduced. It is one thing for politicians to meet informally and to state that certain problems exist. It is quite another for Her Majesty's Government formally to inform tie Governments of the West Indies that they are contemplating legislation. Before this fateful Measure was introduced—breaking, as it does, all the Commonwealth precedents and doing
  1102
  damage we cannot foretell to the whole idea of the Commonwealth—Her Majesty's Government should have got round a table with the leaders of the Commonwealth Governments, including the West Indies Governments, and should have tried to have an adequate discussion on the real nature of the problem and to come to some common agreement between the Commonwealth Governments and ourselves as to how this could have been met. This was not done not only in the case of the West Indies, but regarding the other Commonwealth Governments.
  I have just returned from West Africa. The people there were complaining as much as those in the West Indies about this historic step taken by Her Majesty's Government without the sort of consultation we normally mean when we speak about Commonwealth consultation. The answer the Under-Secretary gave tonight on this main point of consultation has been utterly inadequate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  WEST GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  WEST GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  CONGO
  CONGO
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
  SEA TERRITORIES
  SEA TERRITORIES
  QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY
  QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY
  NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS (LONDON AND EAST BERLIN)
  NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS (LONDON AND EAST BERLIN)
  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCE)
  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCE)
  MUSCAT (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  MUSCAT (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  INFORMATION SERVICES (OVERSEAS EXPENDITURE)
  INFORMATION SERVICES (OVERSEAS EXPENDITURE)
  AFRICAN COUNTRIES (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)
  AFRICAN COUNTRIES (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)
  UNITED NATIONS OPERATIONS (BOMBING AIRCRAFT)
  UNITED NATIONS OPERATIONS (BOMBING AIRCRAFT)
  PORTUGUESE TERRITORIES (UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE)
  PORTUGUESE TERRITORIES (UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE)
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Toxic Chemicals
  Toxic Chemicals
  Horticulture (Coal Prices)
  Horticulture (Coal Prices)
  Canned Meat
  Canned Meat
  Leptospirosis
  Leptospirosis
  River Hull
  River Hull
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Pigs (Registered Vaccinated Herds Scheme)
  Pigs (Registered Vaccinated Herds Scheme)
  Sausages (Meat Content)
  Sausages (Meat Content)
  Meat
  Meat
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Old-Age Pensioners
  Old-Age Pensioners
ELECTRICITY
  Supplies, Crook Area
  Supplies, Crook Area
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Leeds and Bradford Airport
  Leeds and Bradford Airport
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Tobacco (Television Advertisements)
  Tobacco (Television Advertisements)
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine, Whitby
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine, Whitby
  National Health Service Charges
  National Health Service Charges
  Spectacle Frames
  Spectacle Frames
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Poliomyelitis, Hull
  Poliomyelitis, Hull
  Doctors' Remuneration (Review Body)
  Doctors' Remuneration (Review Body)
TRISTAN DA CUNHA
  Former Inhabitants (Health)
  Former Inhabitants (Health)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Ocean Weather Ships
  Ocean Weather Ships
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Second World War
  Second World War
EDUCATION
  Latymer Foundation School
  Latymer Foundation School
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Greater London
  Greater London
SCIENCE
  Mental Health Research
  Mental Health Research
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Expenditure, Fife
  Hospital Expenditure, Fife
  Television Sets (Forfeiture)
  Television Sets (Forfeiture)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Onchocerciasis and Trypanosomiasis
  Onchocerciasis and Trypanosomiasis
  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind
  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind
ROADS
  Elevated Roadway, Birmingham
  Elevated Roadway, Birmingham
SHIPPING
  River Forth (Wrecks)
  River Forth (Wrecks)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Workers and Management (Meetings)
  Workers and Management (Meetings)
  Waterhead Funeral Society
  Waterhead Funeral Society

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

MANAGING DIRECTORS AND EXPORTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 with regard to exports they will define the line of demarcation between the responsibility of the managing director of a public company to conserve the finances of his company and the inclination which he personally may have to increase exports at financial sacrifice to the shareholders.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to define or interpret the responsibilities of managing directors of public companies, which are a matter of law. In formulating their export sales policy wise directors will no doubt take into account the extent to which the future prosperity and growth of their company may depend on broadening the base of its operations by taking advantage of the sales opportunities which export markets afford, even though this may on occasion involve some immediate financial sacrifice.

UNITED NATIONS' CONGO COMMUNICATIONS
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: 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 any information as to the direct methods of communication
500
which exist between the United Nations Headquarters in New York and their Representative in the Congo.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I understand that the United Nations are equipped with modern signals equipment and that they communicate with their representatives and forces in the Congo by up-to-date methods. But I have no details of the United Nations' communication system which is not a matter falling within the purviewor responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I thank the noble Earl for his Answer.

ATTACKS ON MINICABS
2.38 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: 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 can say—
(1) How many cases have there been reported to the Police of obstructions to Minicabs:
(2) How many cases have there been reported to the Police of actual attacks on Minicabs, or their drivers, or their passengers.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the latest figures show the Metropolitan Police have received 16 complaints of obstruction of minicabs by licensed taxis and 22 of wilful damage to minicabs. There have been 21 complaints of assault and 3 of threatened assault on minicab drivers.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's Answer, could he tell the House in how many of the cases reported under paragraphs (1) and (2) of my Question proceedings have been taken for driving in a dangerous manner or for driving without due care and attention or for attemping to cause bodily harm?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, there have been certainly no cases of attempting to cause bodily harm. There have been 3 cases of driving dangerously.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether he can tell me, after that answer, how many cases of injury to drivers or passengers as a result of obstruction or attack have been reported?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord the answer to that question, but I will see whether I can find out and let him know privately.

"WORK-TO-RULE" RAILWAYMEN'S OVERTIME
LORD MOLSON: 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 overtime pay was given to railwaymen on days when they were deliberately going slow.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the British Transport Commission have informed me that the railwaymen who were recently working to rule were paid for overtime actually worked.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. I should like to ask him this further question. Was there some clause in the wage agreement which placed the Transport Commission under an obligation to pay this overtime, or was it done at their discretion?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that the payment of wages and overtime are matters of management coming within the jurisdiction of the British Transport Commission rather than that of the Government. Accordingly, I cannot give a categorical "Yea" or "Nay" to what the noble Lord has asked, but I should have thought that if a man worked overtime, even if it were as a result of working to rule, his employer could hardly avoid paying him.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the railways are running at a heavy loss and are being subsidised by the taxpayer, is it not really an intolerable state of affairs that when the workers are attempting to bring pressure
502
to bear upon the Transport Commission by working to rule and deliberately going slow, they should be recompensed for working overtime as a result of their action?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can give only my personal view of the matter. I think there has to be a distinction drawn between working very slowly and working to rule. It really seems to me that if men were working to rule—and, as I understand it, in this case a small minority only were working to rule—no offence was committed. No doubt many men who were not working to rule were affected as the system slowed down. It would be extremely difficult to sort out the sheep from the goats, and if overtime were not paid, for whatever reason, a good deal of hardship and unfairness could result.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if working to rule means observing the rules and if observing the rules is demonstrably contrary to the public interest, is it not time tm change the rules?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I understand that the British Transport Commission have this matter constantly under review and have had for a good many years. I believe I am right in saying that they have a revision of the rule book very much in mind at the moment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord say that the rate at which we work in this House could be regarded as working to rule, and not going slow?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it rather depends. There is some variation in what is interpreted as "working to rule".

INDIAN INVASION OF GOA
2.44 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I had given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in regard to the Indian Government's invasion of Goa, Daman and Diu in the light of our obligations to Portugal under the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1899.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it might be convenient if I were to ask a Private Notice Question on the same subject, to which perhaps the noble Earl could reply at the same time—namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make about the safety of the lives and property of British subjects in Goa during the present emergency?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I will answer these two Private Notice Questions together. Throughout the period of tension before hostilities began, Her Majesty's Government made repeated representations to the Indian Government to refrain from the use of force to settle this dispute. They also appealed to the Portuguese Government to avoid all provocation. At the same time Her Majesty's Government informed the Portuguese Government, as indeed they did in 1954, that in spite of our obligations under the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to engage in hostilities against any member of the Commonwealth. We have now been informed that Portugal will appeal to the United Nations. We shall support the inscription of this item on the Agenda. The next step will depend on what the United Nations decide. Our immediate purpose must be to bring the fighting to an end.
As to the safety of British subjects and property in Goa, the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Karachi has told us that there are only about a dozen British subjects there. Some of these have already left. We hold the Indian Government responsible for protecting the lives and property of the remainder, but Her Majesty's Government will certainly take further steps themselves if this should appear necessary.
My Lords, H.M.S. "Rhyl" has been diverted towards Goa, in case any assistance to the British subjects there should be called for.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two supplementary questions? The first is, whether he is aware that the assurances regarding the maintenance of Portuguese sovereignty in all the Portuguese colonies were re-
504
affirmed as recently as June 16, 1943, in a Note from the British Ambassador, the late Sir Ronald Campbell, to Dr. Salazar in connection with our application for facilities for the use of the Azores; and furthermore, that at that time—in fact, in a Note of October 25, 1943—the United States chargé d'affaires, Mr. George Kennan, also sent a Note in which he undertook to respect Portuguese sovereignty on behalf of the United States Government.
Having regard to these facts—I quite appreciate the difficulty in which Her Majesty's Government find themselves—may I ask my noble friend whether, instead of simply waiting for the Portuguese Government to bring the matter before the Assembly, as I understood him to say it would, he would call for an immediate meeting of the Security Council with a view to a demand being formulated for the immediate withdrawal of the Indian forces behind their own frontiers in all three territories?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course I am aware of the terms of our Treaty with Portugal, and of the representations that were made to the Portuguese Government in 1943. In 1954 we explained to the Portuguese Government that we should not be able to assist it materially against another member of the Commonwealth, should fighting break out between Portugal and that member of the Commonwealth. I spent last week in Paris with the Portuguese Foreign Minister, and the Portguese have asked us for diplomatic assistance in trying to convince the Indians that they should not use force; and, as I said in my original Answer, we have made repeated representations to the Indian Government to that effect. So far as my noble friend's last supplementary question is concerned, the Portuguese will take this to the Security Council, and of course it is for the Portuguese to say what the terms of their resolution will be, although we shall keep in close touch with them. We shall make it quite clear, in support of the Portuguese, that we utterly deplore this action which the Indian Government has taken.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, will the noble Earl arrange that similar representations be made to the Indian Government, with a request that it should

505
cease fire (which is the common topic at the moment) pending action by the Security Council?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, an approach was made to Mr. Nehru by the acting Secretary-General of the United Nations. That approach to Mr. Nehru had no effect. Certainly we will make a request to the Indian Government that fighting should cease. I think the noble Lord is right. Of course the place in which to bring the pressure is the Security Council when the resolution is taken, which I imagine will be almost immediately.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I say just one word on the answer to my own question? I should like to say that it seems to me that the action of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the lives and property of British subjects is quite satisfactory. I thank the noble Earl.
LORD REA: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the approach to the Indian Government will be a unilateral approach, or will our other colleagues in the United Nations take part? I apologise for not giving notice of that question.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the forum in which this question will be debated will be the Security Council, and, therefore, I do not know. Of course, I cannot forecast what the voting on any resolution might be, although one might forecast with fair certainty, I suppose, that the Russians would probably veto any resolution, in which case the matter might be transferred to the Assembly. But I should hope that members of the United Nations would have no hesitation in deploring the use of force. After all, the purpose of the United Nations is to prevent force from being used.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, will the noble Earl or his representative make it clear, when this matter goes before the Security Council, that we have in this matter a very special position, as indeed we have as signatories to a Treaty with Portugal, which is now nearly 600 years old and which has endured over that great period?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords, I will.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
2.51 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the international situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last opportunity that we shall have to discuss foreign affairs, before Parliament rises for the Christmas Recess. The world has many troubles and problems, and it is sad to reflect that at this season of peace and goodwill there are two continents with areas of armed conflict.
The Congo crisis has received a good deal of Parliamentary attention and public attention in recent days, because of its special urgency. Here the United Nations has been compelled to use armed force, despite its efforts to implement the policy of the Security Council by peaceful means. But there are other urgent problems which should receive our attention to-day. There is the question of East-West relations, and whether there are going to be negotiations on Berlin and other matters relating to European security. Then there is the question of nuclear tests and also the question of general disarmament. These and many other problems that might be mentioned confront us now, and the way in which they are dealt with and decided will have an important effect on the changing world's life in the years to come.
I do not think there can be any doubt that, on the handling of some of these problems, there is division and disagreement among the Western Allies. We know that they have been disunited on Congo policy. It seems clear that there are divisions on the question of East-West negotiations. Neither the personal consultations nor the formal conferences which have recently taken place has produced the degree of unity of mind and action which is a basic need of the free world to-day.
Therefore we welcome the immediate visit of the Prime Minister and the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, to Bermuda, where they are to have intimate talks with President Kennedy and his Secretary of State. I regard this as of the highest importance. If the meeting succeeds in bringing our two countries to a new harmony of policy and action, and in recording a common view

507
that in the interests of the West and of the peace of the world East-West negotiations must be opened, it may prove to be of historic importance. Certainly, we all hope for productive results.
My Lords, as I have stated, the Congo, and especially Katanga, is the most urgent and also perhaps the most controversial issue of the moment. It has raised strong emotions in some quarters and has led to an outpouring of criticism of the United Nations' action in Katanga. Some of the criticism has been very intemperate; for instance, the statement by Sir Roy Welensky that the record of United Nations' representatives in Katanga
"is one long succession of deliberate distortions and untruths uttered to suit their own purposes."
I can only describe this as an outrageous attack by a Prime Minister on responsible international civil servants, a bald accusation without any evidence to support it.
I am not going to take up time covering the history of the present Katanga crisis. What I will say is that I have read all the reports sent by the officer in charge of the United Nations' operations in the Congo to the Secretary-General since September 24. To me it is clear beyond doubt that the foreign military and para-military personnel, political advisers and mercenaries have been throughout a major, indeed a decisive, influence in provoking violence and frustrating the cease-fire.
In almost the last communication to Mr. Tshombe from the late Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjoeld said:
"The efforts to bring about a cease-fire have failed for reasons which we do not know but which seem to derive from the opposition of those responsible for military operations in Katanga."
When, at a later date, a cease-fire was achieved, it was these same elements who were responsible for its being flouted, time and again. And it was also those same elements whose attacks on the United Nations' forces and their lines of communication compelled the United Nations' forces to take defensive action.
Charges have been made that the United Nations' efforts have been directed to smashing the Katangan forces, deposing Mr. Tshombe and com-
508
pelling Katanga to submit to the will of the Central Government. I regard these as irresponsible charges. Indeed, it seems to me that there are anti-United Nations elements, both in this country and elsewhere, who are becoming quite unrestrained in their denunciation and denigration of the United Nations, and who seem to be prepared to inflict upon it as much damage as possible. This, to me, is one of the most disturbing features of the Katanga issue, but I am quite confident that these elements will make a great mistake if they think that they will be allowed to get away with their campaign to destroy the United Nations.
My Lords, from Katanga itself a good deal of confused and contradictory information has been issued about the way in which the United Nations' troops have acted. They have been accused of firing on non-military targets, installations and civil buildings. It has been difficult to sort out fact from rumour, and to discover—as I asked in a question last week —whether these places have been used as fire positions by the Katanga forces themselves. I believe that there has been a good deal of misrepresentation and false propaganda, with the deliberate intention of discrediting the United Nations. I hope, therefore, that in due course the United Nations will setup a Commission which will make a study of the conduct of the operation, establish the facts and publish a report.
There may, of course, have been errors of judgment made in the conduct of the United Nations' military action; but what is plain to see and understand is that aggression was on the part of the Katanga forces and that the United Nations' command was compelled to take action to keep open their lines of communication and to defend themselves. No political consideration entered into it, and I cannot understand why they should be so severely criticised and denounced for taking action to defend themselves. Throughout, the United Nations' operation has been conducted strictly within the terms of the mandate which they received from he Security Council. The United Kingdom is apermanent member, and, notwithstanding that the Government opposed the provision for the use of force, if necessary, in the Resolution of Novem

509
ber 24, they are committed under Article 25 of the Charter to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Legally, they were bound to co-operate. The Government have not clone so. They did not agree with the use of force as authorised by the Resolution and they have maintained their opposition.
My Lords, this has led me to wonder whether the timing of the cease-fire proposal made by Her Majesty's Government was not dictated by internal political considerations. Was there any prior consultation with the United States, or any discussion with the Secretary-General? We know now that the United States do not agree with the BritishGovernment's call for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire. What is more, The Times Washington correspondent, when reportingthe Acting Secretary of State's statement rejecting a cease-fire until the minimum objects of the United Nations have been achieved, went on to state that
"Anglo-American differences on the conduct of Congo policy are as serious as any since the Suez crisis of 1956".
The British call has already been rejected by the Acting Secretary-General with the unanimous support of his 19-nation Advisory Committee, which includes a number of Commonwealth countries. The Government's single-handed effort has failed. Now there is Mr. Tshombe's appeal to President Kennedy, asking for his mediation in the Congo dispute. He is prepared to meet Mr. Adoula. The United Nations' troops have successfully restored the freedom of their communications and the security of the United Nations' personnel in Elisabethville. A cease-fire may soon become practicable. We must all hope so, because none of us wants to see violence continued in the form of guerrilla warfare and a further deterioration of conditions in Katanga. I sincerely hope that President Kennedy will succeed in his efforts to bring Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe together (perhaps, also, Mr. Gizenga) at a neutral spot, to work out the principles of a political agreement on the basis of the integrity of the Congo. To end conflict and toget a constitutional settlement is, I am sure, what all of us would like to see achieved as speedily as possible.
My Lords, I come back now to Europe. There may be some tempted to think that from the moment that Mr. Khrushchev withdrew the end of the year as the deadline for signing a separate peace treaty with East Germany there had ceased to be a crisis over Berlin. But I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have not lost sight of the fact that Mr. Khrushchev has not changed his decision that a separate peace treaty will be signed with East Germany. If the Soviet Union reached the conclusion that the Western Powers were not prepared to negotiate on Berlin, they would soon go ahead with signing a separate treaty, and the Western position in relation to the freedom of Berlin and access to the city from the West will be greatly weakened, and we shall be faced with the need to negotiate from a position of diplomatic weakness.
This question of East-West negotiations has received a good deal of attention from Western statesmen during recent months. It was a subject of discussion last week, both by the Western Foreign Ministers and by the N.A.T.O. Council. I hope we may hear from the Foreign Secretary as much as he feels able to tell the House at this stage. I am certainly not asking him to disclose any cards. The Press has given the impression that the Foreign Ministers were no nearer agreement at the conclusion of their talks than they had been at the opening. We have also been told that the resumption of diplomatic contacts by the United Kingdom and the United States with Soviet Russia was approved after what The Times Paris correspondent described as
"one of the most fretful meetings ever held by the Atlantic Council".
President de Gaulle remains adamant. The impression has been put about that since Dr. Adenauer's vist to Paris a fortnight ago there has been an increasing tendency to sympathise with the French point of view, and that this negative approach has some support in other Allied countries. It is of course true that evidence could be found for the view that conditions for successful negotiation have not beenhelped in recent weeks. Certainly we must condemn the pressures which the Soviet Union

511
have brought to bear upon the Scandinavian nations—first Finland, then Norway and, later, Denmark. Austria, too, is under severe pressure as a result of her decision to make an approach to the Six to discuss the establishment of some form of association with the European Economic Community. I do not think that it can be denied thatthe Austrian Government has been scrupulous in emphasising its neutral status and its refusal to become committed to any of the political aims of the Common Market. She hardly needs to be reminded by Moscow of the responsibilities of the neutral and exposed position in which she finds herself between the Powers of N.A.T.O. and of the Warsaw Pact.
From the Western side there have also been statements which, to say the least, hardly increase the prospects for successful negotiations. When Dr. Erhard, in the absence of Dr. Adenauer, read the long-awaited policy statement of the new Federal German Government to the Bundestag on November 29, he appeared to adopt a rather inflexible position. The statement gave far more restricted approval to the principle of East-West negotiations than many of us had expected, and laid great stress on German reunification, which none of us regards as practicable in the immediate future. Dr. Erhard said that the problem of European security could be discussed only in connection with the restoration of German unity, and could not be linked with the Berlin crisis. The emphasis was almost entirely on the strengthening of the military capabilities of the West, and left little hope of early and productive negotiations.
On the other hand, my Lords, there have also been some encouraging moves. In particular, I want to pay warm tribute to the admirable statement of policy which President Kennedy made to the editor of Izvestia and which was subsequently published in full in that newspaper. He made it clear that the Western Powers would not fail in their commitments to the people of West Berlin, neither in terms of providing effective guarantees of their freedom and right to choose their own Government, nor of the unwillingness of the Western Allies to retract from their position in Berlin or from their right of access to
512
Berlin. It was a good thing that the Russian people, as well as the Soviet Government, should be left in no doubt about this.
But at the same time the President showed a genuine willingness to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union. He gave an encouraging response to the idea of an agreement between the Power blocs to live in peace with each other in Europe. He said:
"I think it would be helpful if N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact engaged in a commitment to live at peace with each other. I certainly believe that we should take every conceivable step to prevent surprise attack. I believe that if the relations between our two countries can be normalised, there will be less military builds-up by both sides".
My Lords, I feel sure, in the light of the speeches he has made in this House, that the Foreign Secretary must have found himself in pretty close accord with the views expressed by President Kennedy in the interview to which I have referred. It seems to me that Britain and America are in close harmony, at least about East-West negotiations.
I know there are some in this country, and many more on the Continent, who are opposed to negotiations on the ground that, as they believe, they will end in the West's having to make concessions. But to negotiate does not mean to surrender. Negotiations are not successful if one side alone is to make concessions; both sides must do so, otherwise the negotiations will fail. I hope, therefore, that the British and the American Governments will carry on with their diplomatic probings in an endeavour to find an agreed basis for productive negotiations.
In our last debate on Foreign Affairs, I put forward a number of suggestions for the Foreign Secretary's consideration. I am not going to repeat them to-day. I will add only one. We should endeavour to establish some agreement on the limitation of armaments in the whole of Central Europe. Frequently from this side of the House we have urged the Government to undertake the studies which the Prime Minister promised after his return from Moscow in 1959. The case that was put then is even more relevant to-day.
There is no doubt that there is a genuine fear in Eastern Europe of the

513
prospect of a West Germany armed with nuclear weapons; and it is probable that we could not secure from the Germans a willingness forever to deprive themselves of these weapons and to submit to some form of inspection system, unless we were able to secure similar agreement and effective inspection in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. There is never, in such negotiations as these, any point in asking one side to make concessions which are not balanced by concessions from the other, and in seeking such an arms limitation agreement, East and West have something in common.
At the same time as urging that the Western Powers should now seek an agreed position to negotiate, and should in the meantime refrain from actions which would make those negotiations Jess fruitful, I must direct with even greater force that appeal to the Communist leaders. It does not help for Mr. Khrushchev to make threatening noises about nuclear weapons of even greater magnitude than 100 megatons. We shall not be cowed by any such reminders of the destructive forces available to the Soviet Union. It is clear to all of us that each side has the ability to destroy the other. Neither is it helpful for the Soviet Union to insist that, though West Berlin is not part of West Germany, East Berlin is part of East Germany. He should remember that a special form of Government was set up for the whole of Berlin, and building a wall through the middle of the City, and insisting that the wall makes East Berlin part of East Germany, is simply to emphasise the extent to which the Soviet Union has broken previous agreements.
Finally, my Lords, I want to say a word about disarmament. In the field of disarmament there is also a debit and credit side to the balance sheet. On the debit side, we have, of course, seen the breakdown of the tests moratorium and the series of fifty nuclear explosions—one now estimated at fifty-six megatons —conducted by the Soviet Union. These tests, which may have brought some tactical advantage to the Soviet Union, as well as emphasising again the massive weight of her nuclear potential, have led to the American decision also to test nuclear devices. Fortunately, the first five in the American series have
514
been underground, and I sincerely hope that the American Government will not feel it necessary to conduct tests in the atmosphere. For, apart from the danger of fall-out, it is difficult to believe that this would not lead to further Soviet tests and a never-ending round of nuclear explosions.
On the other hand, there has been much that we can welcome. Not nearly enough weight has been attached, in my opinion, to the statement of agreed principles for disarmament negotiations signed by the American and Russian Governments on September 20, and summing up a series of talks which have taken place between Mr. Mcloy and Mr. Zorin. This statement provides a real basis for a renewal of negotiations, and I was glad that the President, in his interview with Izvestia, laid such stress on the importance of the joint statement. There is now, in my opinion, enough common ground to warrant the early commencement of disarmament negotiations. I thus warmly welcome the announcement from New York that agreement has been reached by the Russians and Americans concerning the composition of a new Disarmament Commission—namely, five from N.A.T.O., five from the Warsaw Pact, with eight others to be drawn from the uncommitted nations. We have always urged that it was unreal to set up a Commission with none who could act as mediators, and we feel that the new Commission, which should start its work very soon, should have more chances of success than its predecessors.
My Lords, we are coming to the close of another troubled year, with all its difficulties, disappointments and anxieties. We are now within sight of a new year. I am confident that it is the hope of all of us that it may bring new opportunities to ease tension and to take positive steps toward achieving the conditions of a happier and more peaceful world, and that to this end Her Majesty's Government will play an active part. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I confess that when I decided to take the liberty of addressing your Lordships this afternoon, I did so with both trepidation and doubt. The world situation is so tense, as the

515
noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, that it is really a matter of opinion whether it is wise to air all our views at this particular time. However, we are scattering for the Christmas Recess and it might be wise that we should, I hope rather shortly, make clear how we stand, so that the Government may at least know the views that are held by the various Parties. This debate also gives us an opportunity to wish the very best luck and good success to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when they go to Bermuda.
I hope that pressure will not be put upon the Government in this debate to say more than they want to say, because we appreciate the delicate position they are in. The world picture is in such a state that it is not easy to take a few steps back from the easel and regard the picture, to see what our contribution has been, artistic or inartistic, helpful or unhelpful. Since we cannot tell the Government what they should do and not do, perhaps I may give them a little idea of particular warnings in certain directions with examples of thingswe have perhaps approved and others of which perhaps we have not always approved.
It seems to us on this side of the House that one of the grave dangers in which this nation stands is that Her Majesty's Government, after ten years of office, are rather losing touch with the people who elected them, the people they were elected to represent—the British people, and not just the Conservative Party or even the best part of the Conservative Party. I have heard it said, not only in the Opposition Parties, not only in non-Party gatherings, but even among supporters of the Government, that it is a dangerous thing to be too long in office, when one tends to regard a temporary tenure of office as a sort of permanent Divine Right to impose the opinions of the few on the acceptance of the many.
Were we, as a country, living in isolation, as we used to do, this fault would be less serious, because in the course of time, by our rather clumsy electoral system, which not all of us support, we should probably come to some answer in the end. But in these days no country lives in isolation and in our prominent and historic position in international
516
affairs we have to be particularly careful that Britain is presented in true terms, without even involuntary slants of opinion. We have to express the wishes and decisions of the British people, not of individuals.
Those who are overseas regard us in some puzzlement about what is going to happen in future on the assumption that the Conservative Government are not everlasting. The people of this country feel that the Government are avoiding responsibility in failing to provide any facilities whatever to ensure that their successors, after they leave office, shall be other than, if I may say so, the equally unwanted Socialist Party. Of course, this is primarily internal politics, but I think that its impact on world affairs is serious, when Great Britain, still influenced in some degree by the heirs of Victorian imperialism, though they have not very much say to-day, vacillates and plunges into decisions and policies that have to be seductively and persuasively justified afterwards to the best of the Government's ability, instead of pursuing lines and giving leadership in accordance with the will of the electorate.
There is, at the moment, such a dominant fashion for what is loosely termed "leadership", which is a dangerous word—leadership in commerce, leadership in politics, leadership in youth clubs, leadership in character, in ambition, in planning British life—that if this goes on, it may put us in the position where nobody is left to be led and everybody will consider it a moral duty to lead in anydirection whatsoever, so long as competitive individuality is the unthinking criterion and leadership in vacuo is considered to be a prime virtue, which I do not believe it to be.
In an atmosphere like this, one cannot blame the Government for not knowing where to improvise next. But it is extremely undermining to national prestige and morale if this should result, in international affairs, in Britain being in danger of being regarded as increasingly unreliable and inconsistent. In the past, it has been historicallya fact that any one nation, believing in its own righteousness, was not automatically condemned for a unilateral stand against majority opinion; for in those days such an opinion was not co-ordinated, as it is to-day, by the pacific ideals of the League of Nations or the United

517
Nations; and, indeed, such an opinion was seldom disinterested.
But to-day, there exists a system of co-ordinated idealism; and when both large and small nations are facing bravely the uncomfortable but essential new theory of diminishing national sovereignty, I think that we must take a different look at this. Those nations which have enjoyed a very large measure of national sovereignty in the recent past are necessarily finding it more difficult to accept this new theory, and for them —for France and ourselves, in particular —the going is hard. But I think that the people of this country at least are prepared to take that course and go towards some relinquishment of national sovereignty. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, it is disturbing to find in Great Britain an element virtually ready to consider contracting out of the Community of Nations rather than ready to make every effort to seek, by negotiation and conference and compromise and good will, some other way out of a position which, as in the Congo, is unpalatable and harsh and brimming over with difficulties of conscience and even of expediency.
On this side of the House, and particularly from the Liberal Benches, we have been troubled by the application of traditional, but what we think to be outdated, Tory methods applied to these problems, which in fact have only been solved or militated by the reversal of these policies and belated acceptance of the advice given by the Opposition Parties. I do not want to recriminate and I do not want to go back to the old word, "Suez". but your Lordships will remember that the position was saved only by a very belated recognition of the strength of hostile public opinion and the policy had to be put in reverse. Cyprus was a festering sore for many years. I am not going to recriminate, but the advice was given to the Government that they must meet these people somewhere on their own ground. The Government refused to take that advice, but in the end they had to come round to it and more liberal counsels prevailed.
The impasse in the situation in Berlin at last, as the noble Lord. Lord Henderson, said, shows signs of improve
518
ment, of approaching an easement through the abandoning of 19th century dogmatism in several quarters. Very recently, it has been interesting to note that the unswerving refusal of the present Government over many years and in both Houses of Parliament to support the entry of China into the United Nations has suddenly vanished into thin air, with no explanation of this sudden conversion to liberal equity. But we welcome it, belated though it be. Now we have the phenomenon of a Conservative Government advocating entry into the Common Market, to facilitate the lowering of tariffs and the freer movement of goods and peoples between the countries of the world. Of course, we very much welcome this adoption by the Conservative Party, after a hundred years of opposition, of the basic and fundamental free trade aims of the Liberal Party.
I am not going to say anything about the position in Goa, because it is too new, too delicate, too fresh. I do not think that anybody, except possibly the Foreign Secretary, can give us much information on that subject which would be of benefit to us.
Just to go back to the Congo and the incident of the cease fire, it seems to me, on the face of it, that to have a cease-fire is a most reasonable object. No one wants to see the present bloodshed continue, nor can there be any desire to see the United Nations become involved in indefinite and prolonged jungle warfare against guerrilla forces. But if the cease-fire simply means returning to the previous state of affairs, where the Katanga side can build up more hostility and more arms, and prepare Ito carry on the war, then I think it is not a cease-fire that we should wish at all. The point is: how are we to get anything better than that? I am glad to see that only two hours ago a message came through on the tape machine that the United Nations' Commander in the Congo said that he hoped the fighting would cease very soon. That, I think, is some of the most encouraging news that we have had for some time.
But as regards the cease fire itself, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to read an Amendment put down by the Liberal Party in another place in the debate on that subject. It

519
is a reasonably short Amendment which says:
"Recognising that it is in the interests of the West and of world peace that the United Nations operations in the Congo should not fail and that Her Majesty's Government should take no step which might contribute to such failure, this House"—
that is, the other place—
"would support a formal request to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to secure a cease fire on the condition that Mr. Tshombe gives assurances acceptable to the United Nations, agreeing to enter into negotiations with the Central Government of the Congo, and undertaking to dismiss the mercenaries at present fighting in Katanga; and further urges Her Majesty's Government to request the United Nations to use its good offices to convene a conference with the object of settling peacefully the future of the congo."
In general terms, I think I may say that the Government will always have the general support of everybody in this country while they pursue a course in international affairs based on what I would call the newly-found practicability of combining material advancement, national and international, with the idealisms of the altruistic religions and philosophies of the past. For at last we are coming to the point where these two could merge together. But if the Government abandon their course, or give an example to the world of backsliding towards nationalistic self-interest, they will find, I am afraid, not only that their tenure of office is even more precarious than it is to-day, but also that they will have performed a deep disservice to the reputation and standing of our country in world affairs.
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I shall try to respond during the course of what I have to say to the questions and the problems which were posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on a wide variety of subjects. The noble Lord made, as usual, a careful review of world affairs. I found it a little more difficult to come to grips with the early part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and perhaps he will excuse me if I do not follow him in a debate about whether there should or should not be proportional representation. I am bound to say that I was intrigued by the idea that a Conservative Government might be ever
520
lasting—a proposition which up to now the Liberal Party have done little to disprove. But I hope that by the end of my speech I shall restore harmony with the noble Lord and be able to show him that the Conservative Government's foreign policy follows the best Liberal principles.
I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I was absent from my place last week, because I should have liked to have been here to take the responsibility for advice which I had given to my colleagues—advice which legitimately caused anxiety in your Lordships' House and caused a debate in another place. I think that, even though I was absent in Paris with good cause, I went through the whole range of the emotions and anxieties which afflicted your Lordships and other members of Parliament. While, therefore, I shall spend some time on the question of the Congo, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, did, I am grateful to him for reminding your Lordships, and, indeed, Parliament in general, that there are other areas of the world where British interests are directly and dangerously involved.
For instance, in Laos (although I shall be able to make a more hopeful report on that) there is still a danger of war in South-East Asia which might involve the United Kingdom and the United States; and the problem of Berlin, with all its difficulties, is still with us.
So far as the Congo is concerned, the noble Lord is always very polite, but I noticed that accusations were made against the Government of bad judgment, indecision, gullibility and lack of foresight. I shall answer these with less emphasis this week on the incident of the bombs, because I think that the bombs were a symptom of the wider concern which Parliament felt about the direction that the United Nations' action was taking in the Congo. Therefore, I will set the bombs in the setting of the Congo operation, and I will try to put the Congo operation in the wider setting of the United Nations and its functions and to draw some lessons for the future, both from the particular case of the Congo and also from Britain's relations with the United Nations.
On one charge I ask that my colleagues and I may be acquitted and that is lack

521
of foresight. In the eighteen months that have passed since I have been Foreign Secretary I have persistently warned the country and the United Nations of the dangers which would result in the United Nations by reason of the fact that the balance of responsibility as it was laid down in the Charter has been upset. I can express these apprehensions and anxieties quite simply. "One country one vote" is an ideal and a very good idea. But if that vote is not used with wisdom, discretion, tolerance and restraint, then the United Nations could become nothing less than a demonstration of power without responsibility. Then, again, if the emphasis is taken off the first duty of the United Nations, which is peace-making and security, and laid on the acceleration of independence and the eradication of colonialism, which is a subsidiary issue, then the United Nations places itself in danger of becoming political and partisan and adopting double standards. If it were to do that, then it would sow the seeds of its own destruction.
I felt it necessary, as your Lordships may remember, to call attention in the United Nations General Assembly in September to these dangers which, if the United Nations Organisation is not careful, might overtake it, and sow the seeds of its own destruction. Therefore, I will put the matter of bombs for the Congo under the wider canvas, because that is where it belongs. One aspect of it is the British Government's attitude towards the United Nations in the Congo, and the other Britain's attitude to the United Nations. It is my duty to put it in the widest setting, and, if I may say so, your Lordships' duty so to judge it.
In every Queen's Speech there is a sentence which pledges the British Government's support for the United Nations. That has been true of every Party, and I have no doubt it has the support of the Liberal Party too. Therefore, loyalty to the United Nations and to the rules of the Charter has been deliberately placed, not by my Government, but by Parliament, in the forefront of British foreign policy. I think that Governments and parliaments have been right, because peace-making or "harmonising the interests of nations", which are the actual words that are
522
used in the Charter, is the first of British interests.
We have at home based our society on law and order, and law and order abroad is a vital British interest. Let us remember that it is no accident that the period of the Pax Britannica coincided with the period of Britain's greatest prosperity. Imperfect though it is, we believe that the United Nations still offers the best prospect of the organisation of peaceful, international order and is the best signpost towards interdependence.
We have another and more selfish reason why Britain should support the United Nations. Western civilisation is challenged everywhere from the East and that challenge is divisive—divisive of man from man and of nation from nation. The Communists deride those things which unite and harmonise. They do not seek what man has in common; they magnify what destructs and divides. By contrast, this country seeks one world, and therefore our response to the challenge of the East must stress and take every opportunity, and use every organisation, which stresses the essential unity of mankind. We seek it consciously ourselves in the Commonwealth; we seek it in Europe and, so long as there is a hope of the United Nations Organisation honestly directing its policies towards the greater unity and interdependence of the world, then it is in the British interest that it should be sustained.
Therefore, the conclusion of this part of the analysis which I make of our relations with the United Nations, which I was almost invitedto make by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is that Britain's interest in the United Nations is threefold: our interest in an organisation which stands for peace and order, our response to the Communist challenge, and our desire and belief in interdependence. All these things seem to me to be bound unmistakably to Britain's support for theUnited Nations, and on the evidence as I have it until now, I could not give to Parliament any different advice.
I detect two attitudes among minorities in this country, and I will mention them, if I may, only to dismiss them as unreal. The first is a certain nostalgia that Britain should continue to dictate

523
world events. I think it is probably unfortunate that we do not. At the time, when we did, we did it, I think we can say without arrogance, with great beneficence. But life in 1961 is not like that. Britain must exercise her influence as one of a number. We are one in twelve in the Commonwealth; we are one in fifteen in N.A.T.O.; and we are one in 104 in the United Nations. That means —and it is essential that we should accept all the implications of this—that our views will prevail in proportion as we attract the sympathy of other people, whether it be in Europe, in the Commonwealth, or in the United Nations as it represents the world. The other extreme seems to think that we have lost total power, that the United Nations is the remedy for all ills, and that we should therefore accept its verdicts, right or wrong. I think that attitude is unthinking and uncritical. The United Nations' operations have been distorted because the Soviet has chosen to make the United Nations a platform for the cold war. In consequence, it has been prevented from adapting itself to meet the changed conditions in modern international society. We must always remember when we are talking of the United Nations to-day that the conduct of its affairs has been made almost intolerable by the way the Russians have misused it. But although we may have sympathy with, and although we may believe in the United Nations, if there is evidence that emotional prejudice is destroying objectivity, if there is a noticeable disparity between the readiness to take decisions and to carry financial responsibility, if there are signs that the organisation is adopting double standards, then it is no service to the United Nations to remain silent.
If there is evidence that some of the countries in the United Nations are deliberately seeking to involve the United Nations in adventures far beyond its strength, then where does loyalty lie? With those nations who deliberately tax the organisation with tasks which they know it cannot fulfil and, in one particular case at least, have gone very near driving it to take the rôle of a colonial power, or with those who say that this infant State (because it is in its youth and on trial) should act within its capacity and always give first place to pacification, which was the main instruc
524
tion of the Charter? No one can say that Britain has not tried to help the United Nations in these difficulties. We have eschewed the Veto, and quite often when it was in our selfish interest to use it, because we did not want the United Nations to be just a petrified reflection of the cold war. We have abstained on resolutions and courted misunderstanding among our friends, even in this country, because we wanted to prove to the new nations who have taken their seats that our motives were sincere and that we had a desire to co-operate with them. Everywhere, every time (I think I can say this) when the United Nations has made mistakes, we have given it the benefit of the doubt, and we have done that because we have thought that that is what Parliament wished to be done. That is part of the answer that I would give to those who would suggest, for instance, in the case of the Congo, that we should cut off our financial supplies to the United Nations, either for the Congo or some other particular operation. If we support the United Nations in the greater things, then we must support them in the lesser, although our support must not be uncritical.
I will give two more reasons for continuing our support. First, we regard our payments, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, as legally assessed under the rules of the Charter and, secondly, if we withdraw from the particular operation, of course we lose all influenceon events. Indeed, I hope I shall be able to say later on that we have had some success in this matter of the Congo in this particular situation. I must say that matters could come to such a pass that we would have to withdraw our support, but I say equally. that that would be a melancholy and desolate day, both for the United Kingdom and for the United Nations.
I am going to spare your Lordships most of the Post mortem on the actual events of the "bombs for the Congo", but I must again ask your Lordships to acquit us of one accusation. I have heard it suggested that we were gullible and that because the Indians had 4,000 bombs, or something of that kind, they ought to give them for the Congo operation. I am not passing any comment on that, but what I am saying is that we could not pass the buck to the Indians.

525
If we were asked directly and publicly to supply bombs it would have been despicable to hide behind the Indians, and we had to give an answer for ourselves, Yes or No.
Nor was the decision, when we gave it, undecided or ambiguous. It was perfectly true that we hesitated whether or not to give the bombs. My Lords, who would not do so? Bombs are not a weapon which you give without very carefully weighing the consequences of giving them; and we concluded that if bombs were to be used at all there was one purpose and one purpose only for which they could be justified and that was the use against aircraft on jungle runways—aircraft which, so we were told by the United Nations, were being used against United Nations' troops and Commonwealth contingents who had no defence against that form of attack. That was the only purpose for which we considered bombs could be used and our decision was not a hazy decision. On the contrary, it was clear and exact. We said we would give the bombs for that purpose. We told the United Nations Secretary-General that they must be restricted to that purpose and that orders to that effect must be known from the top of the command down to the pilots who had to fly on any particular sortie; and, what is more, we required the Secretary-General to give us an assurance in general that the United Nations' operations were conducted only in self-defence and, in this case, that there would be obedience to his instructions right down the whole chain of command. That is not an ambiguous decision.
Where the ambiguity comes in is in this way. It came in first in the Resolution of the United Nations on November 24, when, I would remind your Lordships, the Russians vetoed all the paragraphs dealing with conciliation and therefore left a Resolution on the Paper unbalanced as between the use of force and the use of conciliation. We said so. We felt so strongly at the time that we dissociated ourselves from the Resolution as it stood because we felt it left too much to interpretation. The second part of the ambiguity arose from evidence, which became apparent in September, of the appalling bungling on the spot which followed the operations of August 28; the evidence that United Nations officials on the spot
526
were putting their own interpretation upon the Secretary-General's orders.
Thirdly, our anxieties were fed by the course and character of the fighting itself which seemed to us—and, after all, we have had some experience of these kind of Colonial situations—to exceed by far the limits of force that were necessary to maintain law and order and for self-protection. What did we do? We expressed our anxieties most forcibly in New York and through diplomatic channels and we required a cease-fire. I do not have to apologise for one moment for asking the United Nations to organise a cease-fire. That has been held by some people to have been done because we wanted to sabotage United Nations' operations in the Congo. Quite the contrary: it was done to swing the balance back to conciliation from what it ought never to have departed in the Resolution of November 24.
I have expressed to your Lordships before my fears that the United Nations might find itself bogged down in an endless war. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned the mercenaries. If there are soldiers of fortune from outside, it is quite right and proper that they should be got out of the Congo. But the United Nations' operation was in danger of doing something else. Where there were 100 mercenaries in the Katanga before, last week there were probably about 1,000 or 2,000 Europeans who had armed themselves and lined up with the gendarmerie. The United Nations were in danger of creating a situation where Katanga would go nationalist and they would be bogged down in an endless fight, with the people feeling deeply in their souls that the United Nations were their enemies, and that we wanted at all costs to avoid.
I believe our action has had some effect. More and more countries, I believe, in the last few days have come to recognise—and I believe the United States is coming to this point of view, too—the danger of the United Nations' being involved in a war which will spread out over the months and over the years; and more and more people are beginning to agree that there are two things that ought to be done—I do not mind if you call it a cease-fire, but that the fighting

527
should stop and, concurrently with the fighting stopping, that Adoula and Tshombe should be brought together to meet. I can hardly countthe times when I have said to your Lordships that a meeting between Adoula and Tshombe was the only foundation upon which the unity of the Congo could be restored, and indeed the reasons for it are overwhelming. It is the only way in which we shall get any agreement amongthe Congolese on the Loi Fondamentale and therefore on their constitution, and it is the only way in which we may be sure that Gizenga, who is the real secessionist, will be brought into a confederal or federal Congo under proper control.
We have been working very hard in these weeks and days with the United States on a plan to achieve a meeting between Tshombe and Adoula. It was our hope, and we worked for this, that Tshombe would be willing to meet Adoula and that, concurrently, the fighting should stop. Mr. Gullion, the United States Ambassador, is flying to Ndola to collect Mr. Tshombe for a talk with Mr. Adoula and I hold in my hand a telegram saying that
"it seems likely that Mr. Tshombe will leave Ndola about 4 p.m. to-day on way to meet Mr. Adoula".
I profoundly hope that that is true because it may be the beginning of a happier chapter in this terrible story of conflict in the Congo.
What then are the British interests in the Congo? The Congo should be independent and there should be no danger of a take-over from outside by Communist Powers. I would want normal and good relations with the Congolese, to trade with them and to get to know their people better, and the sooner that happens for us the better it will be. Therefore I do trust that the Congolese will succeed in settling their own political pattern, and I believe, too, that we must be patient with the United Nations in all its errors because when passions have cooled it will have a useful part to play in the building of this new nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, reminded me that there are other parts of the world, apart from the Congo, where British interests are directly in danger and engaged and where the choice is starkly opposed between war and settlements of disputes by negotiation.
528
The situation in Laos could have resulted, and could still result, in conflict in Asia. We have been very afraid of that and we have been working for months to avoid it. I am very glad to report that of the forty points of difference between us and the Russians at Geneva only two remain, and those cannot be settled until there is a national Government elected in Laos to represent that country at Geneva. If there is a national Government, I think we can sign an Agreement in Geneva; at least that would be my strong hope. It depends on the meeting of the three princes. It seems whether it is in Africa or in Asia we are always trying to bring together people who refuse to meet each other, and this we have been trying to do with the three princes for months. But I trust again that they are now meeting in Vientiane or some other part of Laos. This is perhaps in a small way a demonstration of how, if you take it patiently and have a purpose and goal to go for, it is possible to find an area of agreement between the Russians and the Chinese and ourselves.
Finally, I would respond to the noble Lord on the question of Berlin. I know it is the wish of this House that this dispute with Russia should be peacefully resolved. If that is the hope it must mean negotiation. The contacts which Mr. Rusk and myself had with Mr. Gromyko in New York may have been described as a probe or as exploratory. But the line between a probe and negotiation is extremely thin, and they could equally well be described as the early and tentative moves in a negotiation. These contacts enabled us to discover more of the Soviet's intentions and to tell Mr. Gromyko of the very serious consequences which would follow any attempt by the Soviet Government to get their own way by unilateral action, and in particular to sign a peace treaty with the East Germans handing over all the responsibility for the access routes to Berlin to Herr Ulbricht, who is the one person in Europe who has the greatest vested interest in seeing them extinguished.
It was clear that after we had talked the Soviets had a better understanding of the dangers than they had before. But the gap between what the Russians publicly demand and what the West is

529
prepared to contemplate was very wide and it could not be said that a basis for negotiation had really been found. Then came the series of Soviet actions in Berlin, the interference with Allied access through the Friederichstrasse crossing point, and again, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, statements by Russian politicians and others designed for public consumption which certainly did not improve the prospect of successful negotiation.
However, the House will have noticed that the N.A.T.O. Council communiqué, in spite of all this, contained a passage approving the intention of the Powers mainly concerned to resume contacts with the Soviet Government. This resolution definitely enables a fresh initiative to be taken, and the contacts, if they are to provide the basis for negotiation, must entail talks about the substance of the matter to be settled. Much work has already been done by the Allies on agreeing on establishing agreed positions for the day when we get into actual negotiation. I think the method most likely to be adopted will be contact between Ambassadors, but I do not want to commit myself to that absolutely, because we will adopt any means of contact which seems likely to lead to success.
I cannot forecast the result. If you take the Russian speeches at their face value, then the chances of agreement are small, particularly the speech made by Mr. Menshikov, who need not have asked for publicity for it but did, in Washington, when he went out of his way to emphasise all the Soviet demands which he knew, and must have known, could not be accepted by the Allies. By contrast, we have President Kennedy's interview, which I agree with the noble Lord is a masterly presentation and a reasonable presentation of the point of view of the Allies. I do not know—I suppose nobody knows—whether now that Mr. Khrushchev has buil; the wall across the city he is less interested for some reason in a settlement with the West, or whether his tactics are the time-honoured Russian technique of raising the "ante" before the game starts. We shall see. But what I want your Lordships to know to-day is that it emerged from the N.A.T.O. Council unanimously among the Allies that while we were not prepared to abandon the rights and duties and our responsibilities in Berlin and we would agree to no arrangement which
530
would not ensure the freedom of the people of West Berlin to live the life of their choosing, nevertheless we still wanted to make contact to establish a basis for negotiation and we still look forward hopefully to a peaceful settlement of this problem with the Russians.
As the noble Lord ended his speech, this is a melancholy end to the year 1961. I described the state of the world earlier on as one of international anarchy. Here and there, for instance in the Laos Conference, for instance in the resumption of disarmament talks on an agreed formula between the Americans and Russians, here and there there is light; and all I can say is, whether it be in the Congo where we want to see the fighting stop or in Goa where we feel that the fighting must stop before further grave injustice and harshness takes place against the Portuguese in that area, whether it is there, or whether it is in the larger questions of Germany and the future of Europe, I can pledge that Her Majesty's Government at any rate will enter the New Year with the determination to do all they can to secure peace and honour.
4.8 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I am very well aware that in choosing to address your Lordships' House for the first time on the question of foreign affairs I am being very brave, because I am well aware of the stern tradition of your Lordships' House that those who stand up to address it should know what they are talking about. Well, there was a time when if I spoke on Germany I might have claimed to know what I was talking about, but not now having access to the Foreign Office despatches and other secret documents I clearly cannot make that claim with the same assurance. I am also under the handicap that on the Benches about me, and indeed quite close to me, are noble Lords who have spent their whole career immersed in the German question. My aim will be a very modest one, and that is just to make a few comments on this situation against the background of my own experience and of a couple of visits paid recently to West Germany and to Berlin. I shall speak only on that, though 1 know that you are perhaps mainly interested this afternoon in the Katanga problem. I do not under-

531
stand what is going on behind what is going on in Katanga, and I think I had better leave it alone.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Germany has been clearly stated in this House on the last occasion when we debated it and again to-day by the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, and, so far as I know, that policy has been generally accepted, without serious dissent, both within Parliament and without, and it has been reaffirmed in the gracious Speech. Yet I think your Lordships will agree that here and there are voices asking some insidious questions about this policy. Is Berlin really as important as all that? Is Berlin worth a nuclear war? Can you expect the British to fight for a German city? Are not the Germans, anyway, leaving Berlin and taking all their money out? Will there be anything left to fight for?
Your Lordships will, I think, agree, that these questions are being asked and, lest they should cause misunderstanding in the minds of the Soviet leaders, or of the Germans, or of our Allies, or even of our own people, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will go on repeating and restating their policy and giving the reasons behind it. I think your Lordships would agree that it is a good axiom of public relations that you must never weary of repeating your story, nor be ashamed of repeating it, over and over again.
As to these questions, there are just two on which I should like to make a comment. The first concerns the statement that the Germans are quitting Berlin and taking their money out. It is a coincidence that only last week, I think on December 12, in the Daily Telegraph there appeared a letter from a noble Marquess, a Member of your Lordships' House, on this very subject. It is not difficult to get at the facts because the Regierende Burgermeister, Herr Willi Brandt, has made a full statement in which he gave facts and figures. He said, indeed, that on the average the number of people leaving Berlin during the week —it fluctuates a good deal—exceeds the number coming in by approximately 1,000; but 1,000 in a week is, I think, a little under 2 per cent. in a year, which is not very consequential.
Moreover, Herr Brandt has said in private conversation to more than one
532
person that 80 per cent. of the population of the city either could not or would not quit the city in any circumstances. That, I think, shows that the proposal that has been put forward in some places, that one might evacuate everybody out of the city and build them a new city elsewhere, is not one that would work. As to money, there was a bit of a scurry after August 13, but the business of the lending institutions in Berlin has long since returned to normal and savings are satisfactory, deposits regularly exceeding withdrawals.
The other question on which I would venture to say a word or two is, can we expect the British to fight for a German city? As the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said in his memorable first speech to your Lordships' House, the future of Berlin is not the real issue. In any case, the question is put in a highly tendentious way and I would not attempt to answer it. But I would dare to make one or two remarks about the attitude behind it—not, I am afraid, original remarks, but perhaps they are worth re-saying at a point of time such as this. I think all your Lordships would agree that in framing our foreign policy we should be guided by the head rather than by the heart. I say that because, that there should be many people in this country who in their hearts are unable to forgive Germany for what she did to the world in two terrible wars is readily understandable, but surely in their heads, reason must tell these people that we need the co-operation of Germany in these days. We need her co-operation, not only for the defence of Western Europe as a member of N.A.T.O., but in the organisation of Western Europe to enable it to stand up to the political and economic threats which come from the East and which, in some people's minds, are more imminent and threatening than the danger of nuclear war.
Then, again, I would suggest that in one's head reason and reasonableness say to one that, since the Germans received their new Constitution at the hands of the Military Governors in 1949, they have shown evidence of a desire to conduct their own internal affairs in a democratic manner, and as regards their external affairs, to behave as a fully responsible and indeed co-operative member of the comity of nations. Of course twelve years is not a long time,

533
and it is not of itself a guarantee that things will go on like that for ever. Much of the credit belongs to Konrad Adenauer—and he, unfortunately, will not live for ever. But a great deal of credit also belongs to other men who occupy leading positions in the German political Parties, both the Government and the Opposition Parties, and I suggest that reason tells us that it is right and wise to encourage the present leaders of Germany, who have led her in this way during these twelve years, and to discourage the German people from looking for other leaders with other ideas.
But to go back to the question, we do not of course want to fight for Berlin—we do not want to fight at all; we want peace. Therefore, we want a proper agreement on Germany in general, and on Berlin in particular. That is why most of us, I am sure, will be very glad if these probes are deep probes, and if they evolve into full discussions and conversations at which all the Allies are present. The only proviso one might make about this policy is that one hopes that, before they attend, our representatives will equip themselves with a very long spoon.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when he says (I forget his exact words) that we should not pester the Government at this time to tell us what cards they have in their hands, nor how they are going to play them. To turn to the concessions which we might make, I would feel, and I think that probably most noble Lords would agree, that to talk of the concessions which we might make at this time is not at all helpful. It is not at all appropriate. It only whets the appetite of the Soviet leaders and discourages the Germans. The only concessions which I think are worth talking about at this time are the ones which we should like the Soviet to make. Nor is it a concession merely to say that in future you will honour obligations which you have steadily dishonoured in the past.
That said, I will, with much diffidence, offer two small suggestions. They are not very important ones, but I hope they may be a little helpful. I do not in the least expect that any member of the
534
Government replying to this debate will comment on them. The first concerns the re-unification of Germany, including the re-unification of Berlin. I think that the two will probably have to go together. President Kennedy has said that the re-unification of Germany is impossible without the agreement of the Soviet. Of course we are deeply committed to work for re-unification, but if we have to accept what President Kennedy has said—and may be we have —then, my suggestion is that our representatives in these discussions should insist firmly that more liberal and humane pass regulations should be agreed to facilitate the movement of Germans across the border between East and West, and in particular the border between East and West Berlin. I think it really takes a visit to the City of Berlin to appreciate the full horror of that beastly wall.
My other suggestion concerns the future arrangements for the security of Berlin and its communications. Herr Schroeder has said that he favours a continuation of the present arrangements which stem from Allied military government. I myself wonder whether that is a very wise suggestion, and certainly I doubt whether it is acceptable to the Soviets. Far more attractive, it seems to me, is the idea that the United Nations should locate some of their organs in the city and should guarantee the security of the city and its communications.
On the assumption that something of that sort may be agreed, I venture to suggest that, even so, the actual instrument for security in the city should be German, just as it is to-day all along the border of East and West Germany, and as it is on the Eastern side of the Berlin wall. Of course, there will have to be some Allied troops in Berlin, but I hope that their number may be kept small, because to lock up large and powerful Allied forces in Berlin does not seem to me to be politically necessary or even desirable; and militarily I am sure that it is highly undesirable. Until talks can be started I suggest, my Lords, that our attitude in the city of Berlin should be extremely firm, and that we should react very smartly and quickly to any encroachment by the East Germans or, indeed, by the Soviets.

535
In our last debate the Foreign Secretary said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol.233 (No. 122), col. 340]:
"ô when a hostile system begins to encroach upon us the moment to stop it is at the beginning ".
I very much agree with that statement, particularly because it applies to Berlin. I am not, of course, suggesting that we should embark upon ill thought-out ventures which will only cause us embarrassment, but I am sure that we should be extremely firm.
I think that there has been some quite unnecessary anxiety about some recent American actions in Berlin. I do not think that it is at all necessary that we should go about the streets of Berlin on tiptoe. Of course we should be sensible, but the situation is dangerous and we shall not make it less dangerous by appearing to be nervous about it. Having said that, one feels bound to say that the longer this game of "dare" continues to be played in Berlin, the more dangerous it becomes. One has great respect for those who say that we should insist upon good conditions before talks are held on Berlin, but one may also hope that they will remember the situation in Berlin and bear it well in mind. Another thing that one is perhaps justified in hoping for is that if, alas! due to delaying the start of talks on Berlin or for any other reasons, we should find ourselves right up against the buffer stops, these people will then be equally tough.
4.24 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I come to the main subject of the debate I should like, if I may, to offer very warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, on the remarkable maiden speech which he has just delivered in this House. As I think we all know, the noble Lord is one of our greatest and most devoted public servants. Over a long period of years he has taken on job after job, outside and inside this country, all of them arduous and responsible, and none of them always altogether pleasant. He has always shown himself to be wise and patient in all of these various spheres; and, as the speech to which we have just listened shows, he is just the kind of man to whose membership your Lordships' House always attaches the greatest
536
value. He showed in what he said just that quality of wisdom and balance to which I referred earlier. I congratulate the noble Lord most warmly, if I may, on what he said in his thoughtful speech and I can assure him that we shall all look forward with the greatest desire to hearing him again in the near future.
Now I will come to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. This is, of course, a general debate on foreign affairs. It covers all events of importance which are occurring in all parts of the world. But, my Lords, we meet under the shadow of two savage blows against international morality—at least, some of us feel that—in Katanga and in Goa. It is perhaps natural at this moment that, in spite of all the other thorny problems which are at present darkening the international sky, our eyes —at any rate the eyes of many noble Lords—will be turned specially on those two places to which I have referred; and it is to them that I propose to confine myself.
First, a word about Katanga. I suppose that Katanga, perhaps even more than the Congo as a whole, constitutes for Her Majesty's Government—or did until this morning— the most perplexing problem which they are at present facing. What is more, it is a problem that seems likely to involve us in more embarrassments with every day that passes, until we face fairly and squarely the ultimate cause of our own present difficulties.
That cause, my Lords, I suggest. is this. The Government have claimed from the start—and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, repeated it last Thursday —that there is no difference in the ultimate aim between us and the United Nations. That has been the constant plea of the Government. Both we and the United Nations, the Government have constantly pointed out, want a federal, or a confederal Congo. As to that, they say, there is no difference between them. Whether this is actually true of all members of the United Nations, I beg leave to doubt. I believe that there is a substantial minority, and maybe even a majority, of member States who are not really interested in bringing a prosperous Katanga, under President Tshombe, into a federal Congo. What they want is the destruction of Katanga

537
under its present leadership. They want Katanga and its mines put out of action, wiped out of existence, as the essential prerequisite to the ejection of the white man and of Western influences from Africa. That, I believe, is the real genesis of the shocking events of the last few days, which have filled all of us, whatever our views, with such horror, and some of us, at any rate, with such shame.
But even if we accept the thesis that we and the United Nations have the same broad, long-term policy, the fact remains that where we have nothing in common, and where we never have had anything in common, is as to the means by which it is intended that that purpose should be achieved; and in matters of policy a difference as to methods may lead to as deep a cleavage as a difference as to the ultimate aim itself. I will give your Lordships just one very simple example of what I mean. It is the question of capital punishment, which causes some of the bitterest divisions in this country to-day.
We should all, I imagine, like to see a reduction in the murder rate. That is an aim on which we can all entirely agree. But that does not prevent us from disagreeing most violently as to the means which should be employed to achieve this common end. Some believe in the capital punishment of murderers as being the strongest deterrent to others which could possibly be devised; others are equally violently opposed to capital punishment because they regard it as barbaric, and seek to apply what they regard as more civilised methods—imprisonment, re-education of murderers, and so on—so as to bring them and others to a better frame of mind regarding this terrible crime. As between those two schools of thought, which I hope I have described quite fairly, there could not be a greater unity as to aim, nor more total disagreement as to means. As I see it, that is rather like the present situation which exists over Katanga. There may be the same unity as to the ultimate goal, but there certainly is complete disagreement as to the right way to get there.
My Lords, it has been, I suggest with all deference, the unwillingness of Her Majesty's Government throughout to face that cardinal fact that has got them
538
into most of their present troubles. They may well have persuaded themselves at first that the gulf between these two points of view was not unbridgeable. It may well have been that which decided them to support the United Nations' resolution of February 21. They may even have managed to persuade themselves that Dr. O'Brien's egregious activities this autumn were the product of his own unaided genius and were as embarrassing to his superiors as they were to us. But can anybody really hug that illusion now? For Dr. O'Brien has gone, and thepolicy is still being carried through—carried through, actually, more ruthlessly and more efficiently even than before.
Do the Government not know, in their heart of hearts, that what we are seeing now, at this moment, is not defensive action? It is capital punishment applied to Katanga as it exists to-day. And, my Lords, on what grounds? Because President Tshombe seeks a limited measure of independence. As the noble Earl, Lord Avon, pointed out two days ago—and I feel we sorely miss his wise guidance at the presenttime—a desire for independence may be an error, but it is not a crime. Yet that is the reason why the United Nations are at present engaged, with all the forces at their command, in wrecking this country, economically and politically. That is the meaning of the bombing, of the mortaring, of hospitals, of railway stations, of marshalling yards and of mines, not only in Elisabethville but for miles around. Those, my Lords, are not preventive measures; they are not defensive measures: they are punitive measures, and they are meant to be.
No doubt even those in the Afro-Asian group, who to-day to a great extent control United Nations' policy, may argue that they want a cease-fire; but they do not want the cease-fire to take place now. They show no eagerness for that. They do not want to bring President Tshombe and President Adoula together as two statesmen acting each on behalf of his own people and seeking, on a basis of equality, an agreement satisfactory to both. That is not what they want. They want a cease-fire to take place on the basis of surrender, when the last Katangan soldier has laid down his arms. That is the difference between the aims of this country and the

539
aims of those other members of the United Nations. Our policy is a policy of conciliation. Their policy at the present is a policy of blasting Katanga to Hell. That is what is happening now, my Lords; that is exactly what is happening at the present moment: and nothing that happens in Parliament here will alter that salient fact.
The Government were reported in the Press, I think on Friday last, to have had an excellent day in the House of Commons on the preceding Thursday, the day before. With the aid of a Resolution which, if I may be forgiven for saying so, evaded all awkward questions and mentioned only the desirability of a cease-fire, on which everybody was agreed, they routed the Opposition, they routed the Conservative rebels and they emerged from the debate with a splendid majority of 94.My Lords, that is a notable example, I think, of successful Parliamentary stage management or staff work, or whatever you like to call it, which I feel reflects the highest credit, both on those who drafted the Resolution and on the Government Whips—and, indeed, on the Prime Minister himself.
But do not let us forget this: that while that great victory was being achieved at Westminster, at the very moment when the Prime Minister was making his most successful winding-up speech, what was happening in Katanga? I quote from the report of a Daily Telegraph correspondent in Jadotville the same day, who came by secret bush paths to check himself the Katangan claim that the hospital had been shot up by United Nations' planes and that children had been killed. My Lords, I commend it to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who I thought threw some doubt on these reports, because this man had seen these things for himself. This is what he said:
" The claim is entirely true. To-day I saw two wards which were wrecked in a thirty-minute attack by four United Nations jets, picked up cannon shells beside tiny cots in the maternity ward, and saw pools of blood where three children died, one of them in its mother's arms ".
He went on to give other instances of indiscriminate shooting by United Nations' jets. I will mention only one,
540
which I commend to your Lordships' particular attention.
"In the hospital here"—
that is, at Jadotville—
"I talked to a mother with a six-year-old son, who was shot through the stomach. The mother and son said they were both wounded in the attack on Shinkolobwe Hospital, in which 13 women were hurt. In the next ward was a man with machine-gun bullet wounds. He was shot when his car was attacked on the road from here to Elisabethville. Two other men and women in it escaped, but a six-year-old girl named Dekuku was burned to death as the car caught fire".
My Lords, those are the operations which the United Nations have described as "purely defensive". These are the operations which have been paid for with our money. And, so far as I know, those operations are still going on, and will continue to go on if the military have their way, until the United Nations attain their "minimum objectives", whatever they may be.
The Government may feel that all this is inevitable, however much they dislike it—and I am quite certain they do dislike it intensely—but I confess it seems to me (and, I believe, to other noble Lords in this House, and many people outside) intolerable that we should have continued to condone and, indeed, financially support such an abuse of everything for which the United Nations stands as this ruthless assault on a peaceful and hitherto happy people by the United Nations' forces which are now engaged there. Of course, the Prime Minister is right in working for a cease-fire, and he will have the support of every one of us in trying to get it; but if he knew, and if the Government knew, as I think they must have known, how strong were the forces in U.N.O. which were working for a policy of trampling Katanga under foot, when that was not our policy, surely they would have done better to do what General de Gaulle did, and refused to have anything to do with this atrocity. In the meantime, my Lords, one can only pray that this new move for a meeting between President Tshombe and President Adoula will bear fruit; and I wish, as I am sure we all wish, Her Majesty's Government all good fortune in furthering that.

541
But if this attempt fails—and I hope that it will not fail—I do urge the Government most strongly that the least we can do is to refuse any longer to assist financially the carrying through of a policy with which we violently disagree. I do not suggest that we should withhold our statutory contribution to the general budget of the United Nations. We all know that there is a good deal of valuable work which the United Nations can and does do in other spheres, work with which, I imagine, nearly all of us would be in full agreement. But we do not agree with them in this—or a great many of us do not; and I think the great majority of the British people do not—and in those circumstances it surely would be right to withhold what is, after all, only a voluntary contribution for this particular operation in the Congo. I would plead most earnestly with the Government: do not let us compromise any longer with our convictions for reasons of expediency. That would not only seem wrong in itself, but it could well be fatal to our whole position in the world.
That, my Lords, I think also applies to our attitude to the Indian invasion of Goa, which shocked us all so much this morning. Do not let us try to pretend that it is not really so bad just because it has been done by a member of the Commonwealth. It is, in fact, a classic example of naked, unprovoked aggression, on a true Hitlerian model, against a small, peaceful country which was in existence long before India became a nation at all; a country which has done, so far as I know, no harm to anyone at any time, and which, what is more, is also a dependency of a country which has been our ally, and a faithful ally, for nearly 600 years. My Lords, I hope, and I have great hopes, in view of what the noble Earl has already said, that we shall make it clear in no uncertain terms, when the Goan problem comes before the United Nations, that that is our view. I hope that we shall not merely "deplore it", as one Foreign Office spokesman did yesterday; I hope that we shall condemn this flagrant breach of international morality. If we can give no physical support to our old ally, Portugal, which I understand is the Government's view, I hope that we shall assure the Portuguese Government that
542
it will be our continued object in the United Nations to secure a cease-fire and a withdrawal of Indian troops from the Goan country.
My Lords, I realise very well—I am sure we all realise—the dilemma in which the Government is placed with regard to both these problems. They do not want to find themselves at odds with the United States of America over Katanga. They do not want to find themselves at odds with other members of the Commonwealth, such as India, over Goa. We can all appreciate their anxieties in this respect; they are very real. But, my Lords, what is the truth? In trying to please everyone, we may be trying the impossible, and it might very well be better to recognise that now. Indeed, for us there is something more important, I think, than mere expediency, or the dictates of expediency. It is our support of the fundamental principles for which we have always stood, and by which alone we can retain our position as a great nation. All those things are at stake in relation to these two problems of which I have been speaking this afternoon.
Moreover, my Lords, it is surely pertinent to reflect that, when we were trying six years ago, at the time of Suez, to uphold what we believed to be the principles of the Charter—I am not begging that question; noble Lords opposite can disagree as much as they like, but we thought we were doing that —neither the United States nor India showed any marked reluctance to speak against us, and indeed to vote against us, in the United Nations. They did it again and again. Why, then, should we show any excessive tenderness in speaking our own mind now?
My Lords, I think there can be no doubt—and this was much what the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, said very much better than I could—that we are reaching a fearful crisis in international affairs. And this, I agree strongly with him, is no time for expediency, for trying to be clever; this is a time for standing firmly upon principles to which we owe our position in the world. In his speech this afternoon, he gave a thoughtful and most eloquent analysis of the proper functions of the United Nations and of our relationship with it. It was, if I may say so with great deference, a very fine and moving

543
analysis. But I could not help feeling, as I listened to it, that it was in one respect rather academic. It was concerned so much with what ought to be the position, at the expense of what is the position.
The noble Earl said that one of the reasons why we should not get away from the United Nations was that one of its main purposes was to maintain international law and order. And so, my Lords, of course, it is. But in fact the United Nations is not maintaining international law and order. Take Katanga. There, U.N.O. itself is taking the lead in utterly destroying law and order. Before the United Nation's troops went there, law and order existed, and it is only since they arrived that it has been utterly destroyed. The noble Lord said, if I understood him aright, that the time might well come when we should be obliged to withdraw our co-operation. But, my Lords, many of us believe that that time has already been reached. It is our money, as I have said before, that is still subsidising what I believe Her Majesty's Government themselves regard as an indefensible extension of United Nation's action. It is this repetition of splendid words in the mouths of members of the Government, and no action, which I believe is disturbing the British people more and more with every week that passes.
My Lords, let us face the facts. The survival of the United Nations, the existence of Western civilisation itself, is today being threatened by nations who have not the same traditions or background as our own—nations still immature in many respects, nations to whom it is physical power, and physical power alone, that really matters. They are the nations which, I am sorry to say, to-day dominate U.N.O. That is one of the great tragedies of our time. In such circumstances, it is not to be expected that always our view will prevail. But we must have a view—the British view —and we must not hesitate to express it and act on it. For on that, as I believe, at any rate, our very continuance as a great nation must surely depend.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess has spoken, as always, with a tremendous sincerity, and that alone is moving; and I am sure
544
that those who agreed with him to start with have been moved additionally. I am bound to tell him that, when dealing with Katanga, he seemed to me, and I should think to many others, to have such a complete distortion of outlook that it is hard, at any rate without long reflection, to continue the conversation with him. From his remarks, one might think that Tshombe was some peace-loving, pacific figure who had never caused any provocation at all.
The House wishes to pass on, but if your Lordships wish to know what that may mean, perhaps you would turn up the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal in another place, when he described the events following the resolution of November 24, Mr. Tshombe's speech calling to Katanga troops and the incidents, of which we did not hear from the noble Marquess, although in the past he has usually been a strong supporter of British citizens, in which Mr. Smith and Mr. Urquhart were seized and beaten up. Is it not to be mentioned by the noble Marquess, who is regarded all over the world as an outspoken champion of British citizens, that a British citizen has been seized by Mr. Tshombe'smen and beaten up for several hours?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think my answer to the noble Earl would be this. I think it is generally agreed by people who know Africa well that if you remove European officers from African Forces they become out of control, as has happened on both sides and in many parts of Africa. I think that the United Nations should share a part of the blame for insisting that all Belgian officers should be removed. They must not be surprised if African troops behaved as they did.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Marquess appearing to condone the behaviour of the troops.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not try to condone them. I said that they were out of control. I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that they did that on orders. I think that they did it against orders. But it is what will happen if you loose African soldiers of any kind on a country without European officers to control them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we were told by the noble Earl, Lord Home, earlier that there are a good many more Europeans fighting with Katanga than there were some months ago. Perhaps the noble Marquess would accept that for an answer.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, surely there is a great difference between some junior troops getting out of control and beating up an adult, and 'planes of the most modern description "shooting up" hospitals, with modern and destructive weapons, quite deliberately, hour after hour.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, no doubt the noble Viscount will intervene, later, if he wishes to make a speech. He is well aware that there has been a battle going on at Elisabethville, and surely he would not say that everybody who gets hurt is a victim of atrocity. One of us must keep quiet, otherwise progress will be slow this afternoon. At any rate, I only make the point that the noble Marquess has given what to us on this side seems a grossly distorted account of events in that part of the world. But I am anxious to say that there are one or two things in his speech with which I agree.
I can restore at any rate momentary harmony by joining him in a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, a tribute in which all will join, particularly my noble friend Lord Henderson, who, like myself, tried to assist the noble Lord from what I might call the home base. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, praised the Germans who had done so much to build up their country; and those tributes were well earned. But if Dr. Adenauer were allowed to be with us in any capacity to-day, he would single out the noble Lord as the Englishman who had done most for Germany since the war—and who had done more than most Germans. Certainly the noble Lord, who spoke in such distinguished style to-day, is better equipped than anybody to speak about firmness in Berlin. I think that I was the first British Minister who went to Berlin and said that we intended to stay there. I said that I liked Berlin and had no intention of leaving. But, of course, I was leaving by an early train, and what I meant was that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of
546
Oakridge, had no intention of leaving; and that was much more consoling for the Germans. As the noble Marquess said so well, we shall listen to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, with exceptional attention always.
The other point on which I agree with the noble Marquess was his reference to Goa. I am not speaking for my Party: I am not qualified to do that, because there has not been time, and I do not know what their view is. But I agree entirely, so far as one understands, the situation, that this is a flagrant breach of international morality.
The third point is the noble Marquess's passing reference (taking it all round, the reference was not very violent) to what he called "the egregious activities" of Dr. O.Brien. Rather unworthy references have been made to this civilian. Perhaps I have been the only Member of your Lordships' House to speak to Dr. O'Brien in the last week. I found him to be a man of passionate integrity, exceptional intellectual force and a certain reluctance to keep quiet when he considers that the issues of truth and justice are concerned. If I may say so, with great respect, he is an Irish version of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I cannot pay him a higher tribute than that. Whether that is a great recommendation or any consolation to the noble Marquess, they must settle for themselves. I am only saying what I think about Dr. O'Brien.
The Foreign Secretary may have become rather bored by the compliments thrown at him in your Lordships' House, by myself among others, and therefore I hope that he will be cheered if there is no nonsense of that kind this afternoon. As I have said in his presence—and I certainly meant it, and mean it still—the Free World has had no more spirited and gallant champion in the last year in the world struggle against Communism. Speaking as one who is preoccupied to the point of obsession with the Communist menace I do not hesitate to say that personally I am glad that we have in charge of our foreign affairs one who is also preoccupied by that menace: one who is so strong, in courage and nerve and who can voice so effectively the determination of the Free World to resist.

547
But my Lords, I have before now felt, as some others have done, doubts, which we have ventured to express here, rather mildly perhaps, as to how high a priority the noble Earl gives to the establishment of a world peace system. Those doubts have certainly been underlined in recent weeks. When he states the record of the Government in the Congo in recent times, I am bound to say respectfully to the noble Earl that some of his admirers —and he has admirers in all parts of the House—will feel greatly saddened; and I hope that there will be an opportunity of clearing the record in the not distant future.
The Foreign Secretary will be the last to deny, I am sure, his central responsibility, though not the highest authority, for Government policy. I sympathise with him in not running over all the details threshed out in your Lordships' House and in another place last week, but he gave an account this afternoon which must be accepted as correct, although he would hardly offer it as a full account. Before this debate, I was looking at The Times of last Wednesday to refresh my memory as to what was said by the political correspondent of that newspaper, who seems to be a well-informed gentleman. He had a paragraph headed: "Stand on Principle", and he told us that on Thursday night—that was when the Cabinet were faced with the crucial decision whether or not to send the bombs—
"Lord Home is understood to have taken a stand on principle."
Then, on Friday, there were rumours of what Dr. Linner had said. I realise that the noble Earl could not tell us everything to-day, but it was rather curious that he did not mention Dr. Linner, though great significance was attached to the change of policy and to what was supposed to have been said (of course it was not said) by Dr. Linner. But, apparently, according to The Times:
"Lord Home now took his stand once again on principle."
Unfortunately, it was a different principle. We cannot understand how one can take a stand on two contrary principles within a comparatively short space of 24 hours and still be credited with taking a stand on any principle
548
at all. At any rate, the Foreign Secretary did not tell us anything about Dr. Linner, and I do not want to pursue that subject now.
But in the same column of The Times we were told
"The pressure of opinion of the Government Back Benches had become so strong that the Government were obliged to manœuvre their business so that they would get virtually full support.
"That is not to say that they yielded to the Katanga lobby in fact, the Cabinet have been determined not to give ground to Lord Hinchingbrooke and his men. More precisely, they found their own doubts reflected in the thinking of a broad section of the Party."
When I first read that, I thought it was the most fatuous sentence or comment I had ever read of a great newspaper. But I realise now that it must have been profoundly ironical. This reference to "finding their anxieties shared" was clearly a rather biting form of irony. And the Sunday Times (I am quoting only from Conservative newspapers) made the real point with brutal frankness yesterday when it said:
"Make no mistake about the political reality. It was the Government which adjusted course to follow the Party's compass bearings."
That is a statement which I think we can take as fairly authoritative, coming from the Sunday Times. I am not going to quote newspapers such as the Daily Herald, the Observer or the Guardian which might be thought to be favourable to my point of view or the point of view of most of us here.
I would give only one more quotation, and it is from the Sunday Telegraph of yesterday. The first note was headed "Truth pays"—and here I find myself in a good deal of sympathy with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, though coming, so to speak, to the Government from different angles. With reference to the purposes of Government, the very Conservative Sunday Telegraph, with whose policy I do not agree, says:
"In everyday life hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
Hypocrisy is attributed to the Government by the Sunday Telegraph, of all papers! It goes on:
"In politics it is the tribute that men without the courage of their convictions pay to their opponents and the marginal vote. It will, in fact, convince neither."
I must say that I cannot remember a phase of Government policy which was

549
so universally and so contemptuously condemned, in this country and abroad, whether one comes to it from the angle of the noble Marquessor from the angle of those who sit on these Benches.
However, it would be dishonest for me to talk as though it were all quite easy and as if some extraordinary dispensation were delivered to me, and others on these Benches, which would enable us to do so much to clear it all up if only we were in power. The difficulties of the situation are very great. First of all, they are inherent in this present very early stage of the evolution of an International Police Force. There at least I can sympathise with something that was said by the Prime Minister, in his winding-up speech last Thursday. He said:
"The United Nations is through the Security Council trying to act as a kind of political director of what is now a military operation, but it has no Chiefs of Staff as we understand it".
And he went on to explain it has "a very loose chain of command". Those are real difficulties, which would exist whether we were dealing with the Congo, with Goa, with Sinai or whatever we were dealing with. Therefore that, quite apart from the Congo, is a very important issue.
I am sure that the real moral is the one that was pointed out last Thursday in The Times, both by a Labour M.P., Mr. Mallalieu, and by Colonel Tilney, a Conservative M.P. who has given a lot of attention to the question of an International Police Force. I quote Colonel Tilney, who says that:
"… the major requirement for the United Nations… is a force…consisting of individuals owing allegiance to the United Nations"—
and therefore not coming forward as national forces—
"and directly recruited by it as a proper disciplined international body. Such a force could and should be permanent… If such a force had been in existence neither the Suez problem nor the Katanga impasse would have occurred."
He added, with considerable prescience:
"It might even by now have been sufficiently strong to hire off a brigade to supervise a plebescite in Goa."
Those are the views of a Conservative Member of Parliament who has given a great deal of attention to this subject for a number of years. That seems to me
550
the real moral, and if we were to think of a properly organised permanent international force many of these difficulties would not arise.
My Lords, this House has heard me calling monotonously for a number of years for the establishment of an International Police Force, small to begin with; and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has also given particular attention to that idea. Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me for mentioning once again the report of an all-Party Committee under my chairmanship, which in 1957 published a detailed plan for such a force. I happen also to be chairman of another committee which is trying to carry that thinking further forward. This 1957 plan for a permanent force was, if 1 may say so, highly praised in this House, and was treated in a very friendly way by the Foreign Secretary of the time, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. But that is all four and a half years ago. The question is: what have the Government done about it? Since that time we have had various developments, including the Congo crisis; and we have had the highly significant statement (as I hope it is) of the Commonwealth Premiers on March 17 this year in favour of an International Police Force. I repeat: what have the Government done about this question of setting up a permanent international force?
I have often asked (I am afraid that 1 have sometimes pressed the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, rather hard on the subject) what the Government are doing. I have been greeted with charming words (they were bound to be charming words, coming from the noble Marquess), but, so far as I could judge, meaningless words. The charm belonged to the noble Marquess, and the "meaninglessness" came from my old Department the Foreign Office but that has been the resulting blend—charm and meaninglessness. I cannot resist the conclusion that the International Police Force, like full world government itself, belongs in the Foreign Office official thinking to those things about which polite noises can be made, but about which it is not intended to do anything in the foreseeable future. If that is not so, can we be told that something is going to be done? Let us hear it to-day.
I would only say that the urgent need is to see that the present crisis in the

551
Congo is used for pressing, publicly and passionately, the movement towards the establishment of a permanent force. If we gave that sortof lead from this country—and it would only be carrying out the decision of the Commonwealth Conference—then I should feel that some good had come out of evil, as it does quite often in life, and as it did, on a small scale at least, from the horrible affair of Suez—on which I need hardly say I take a different view from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But in the few moments that must remain I should like to return to the Congo as we find it.
In reading through the debate in another place I was struck by a statement made by the Lord Privy Seal that there was
"a complete difference of opinion in the House about the purpose of the United Nations' operation."
He felt that it was that difference which was responsible for the criticism of the Government. I am sure that if the intentions of the Government are as they have been stated the right honourable gentleman is wrong. The Lord Privy Seal then went on to set out what he understood to be the four objects of the United Nations' operation in the Congo. I must not stop to quote them now, but they seem quite unexceptionable, though rather ambiguous.
But one thing at least emerges from that statement by the Lord Privy Seal in another place of our purpose in the Congo, and that is that the Government believe that a United Nations' presence and a United Nations' military force are in principle of the utmost value in the Congo. That must be the Government attitude. When I say, "a United Nations' force", I do not mean some ideal force which might exist some ten years hence; I mean the sort of force the United Nations, being what they are, would be bound to send their. If the Government really did not desire to use forces of that kind, then, of course, they had no right to support its going. But I take it that they welcome the presence of the force in the Congo.
Then the Lord Privy Seal said what has been said by Ministers on many occasions—and I am not quite sure
552
whether the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, supported this point of view or not. He, as it were, took it as a Government view, and then argued from it. But I am not sure whether he supported it. The Government, through the mouth of the Lord Privy Seal, have announced that it is in the interests of world peace, in the interests of the Congo, and also in British interests, to see that the Congo is united and stable within its present frontiers. In other words, it is the official policy of the Government to try to bring about a united Congo and to prevent secession. No doubt they wish to bring that about by negotiation. I am not sure whether the noble Marquess is identifying himself with that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, does the noble Earl wish me to say? It depends what you mean by "united". I would be in favour of federation, or loosely-knit federation. That is a matter for the parties themselves to negotiate. I do not know that I would be in favour of a very tightly knit federation, entirely under the centre because I believe the country is too big and the inhabitants unable to manage a unit of that size.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not think there need be a very wide difference of principle on that point. The purpose of the Government is to bring about what they call a United Congo, and that conviction is surely as strongly held by the United Nations themselves. What happens then? This is what seems to me a part of the analysis which has not been worked out by everyone. We find ourselves with those two ideas—the idea of seeking a united Congo, and the idea of a United Nations' military force in the Congo. We find ourselves in a situation which is bound to be delicate. Even if we take the statements of the Government at their face value as expressing their real intentions (I know they were when they were made, although they were buffeted about by their supporters), we all join in supporting the United Nations' force in the Congo. That force is supposed to be impartial between the main part of the Congo and Katanga, but clearly those who are running the force share the views of what I call the main part of the Congo, or the views of Her Majesty's

553
Government, and the views of all of us —namely, that there ought to be a united Congo. That is going to make that force far more unwelcome to the secessionists. That, I think, is a fact that is bound to arise with a force whose sympathies are bound to be on one side; it is quite understandable. It would be bad enough anyway—does the noble Earl wish to interrupt?
THE EARL OF HOME: I am not sure.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am ready to give way at a moment's notice, and I am sorry I did not give way to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, because he has now left the House. Perhaps he is preparing a speech to crush me. At any rate, that is the inevitable delicacy of this situation. En addition, you have a large number of Europeans, some of them no doubt people who are going about their lawful business, others soldiers of fortune, all of a somewhat undesirable kind, and others, I am told, fanatical French officers, who are determined to see no united Congo. But it is extremely likely that these forces, which cannot be welcome to the secessionists, will in fact be attacked.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, may I take advantage of the noble Earl's kindness and interrupt? He says, of course, that the United Nations' forces take the same view as Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition, that there should be a united Congo, but it ought not to take a view at all. Under the Security Council Resolutions the limit placed upon the use of force is, first of all, to keep the rival parties apart and, secondly, to maintain law and order. It ought not, therefore, to use force to pursue political ends at all. I agree it is a very difficult thing.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I accept the correction.
THE EARL OF HOME: It is rather an important correction.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am ready to accept it. It does not affect my argument at all.
THE EARL OF HOME: I thought it demolished the argument, that is all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Earl thinks that, I shall have to repeat the argument, which I would not
554
wish to do. If he thinks that the argument has been demolished when it has not been affected, I think it needs repetition. But, of course, soldiers are not supposed to have politics and principles, and I should not have used that phraseology. Obviously, the soldiers in the Congo should not have politics. Obviously, the people who are there are servants of the United Nations. The officials have no politics, either. They are engaged in trying to carry out the United Nations' mandate. The mandate, at the present time, is to try to bring about a united Congo by peaceful means. That is surely understood. The officials are there to try, among other things, to achieve this. To be quite honest, I do not see how you can have what is called complete neutrality between the large part of the Congo and the smaller, because, in fact, Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations and all the outside parties concerned are trying to bring about a united Congo which is just what the secessionists at the moment do not want. So there cannot be complete parity between them.
I must inform the noble Earl that while I am grateful for the correction—he is quite right to point out that soldiers have no politics—I present my argument in the same way, generally speaking, as before. This is not the reason for this pure viciousness on the part of these forces which has led to these brutal attacks. But since the noble Marquess has talked about trying to bomb Katanga out of existence, let me say that, considering the provocations and the brutal attacks, I think the United Nations' forces have been very long-suffering, and I think that is the general verdict of fair-minded people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have been listening with great interest to what the noble Earl has said about the United Nations' forces in Katanga. Having heard him, I am very doubtful whether we ought to be there at all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Marquess did not attach much importance to the words of a fallen Minister of many years past. I hope he will not be guided in his view of the United Nations by chance words of mine. That is the situation as I see it.

555
Of course, we have now reached the position where we must hope that the United Nations will have asserted themselves sufficiently to feel assured that they will not be attacked any more and that peace will come about. It looks as if the United Nations might have now secured the necessary guarantees. I am still not clear whether the noble Marquess feels that, if the United Nations are there, their forces are entitled to defend themselves or not, because he left that point totally obscure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I do not think they have been defending themselves. I think they have been pursuing a policy—and I said so in my speech—designed for "downing" President Tshombe and all that he stands for.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I will not pursue it, but I am glad to have that statement. It is obvious that Her Majesty's Ministers thought they were defending themselves, or else they would hardly have agreed last Thursday night to supply them with large bombs for the purpose of self-defence. So I think the noble Marquess can hardly bring in the Government on that side of his diagnosis.
I have spoken too long and provoked interruptions, and enjoyed them. But allow me to say that we all must agree that this is a very difficult situation, and I would try to end on a note which is not too repulsive, even to the most extreme members of the so-called Katangan lobby, a phrase I hope I may use without offence, because as there are the medical lobby and other lobbies in this House—and we shall soon be having a German lobby—I think we can talk about the Katangan lobby without imputing evil to anybody.
But to-day, we read in The Times—and this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, at the beginning —the point was touched on, that all seven members of the Commonwealth on the Advisory Committee differed from the British attitude about the cease-fire. To quote The Times of to-day:
"Although seven Commonwealth countries are represented on the Committee (Canada, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaya, Nigeria, and Ghana), it is understood that the British attitude was endorsed by none."
556
The British attitude was not endorsed by any of the seven members of the Commonwealth on the Advisory Committee. So when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—I am sorry he has gone —says the United Nations are engaged in a "flagrant breach of international morality" and he places it on the same level as the Indian attack on Goa, I would point out that the whole project is in fact supported by all seven members of the Commonwealth who are on the Advisory Committee. We are told, on the contrary, that there is strong criticism of this attitude of the British Government from several quarters, while the United States came in for praise for its support of the United Nations' actions in Katanga.
Noble Lords opposite vary in the priority they attach to the United Nations; some attach very great importance to it, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, others very little. They vary in their friendliness towards the United States, on whom the whole world depends so immensely at the moment. They do not vary, I believe, any more than we do on this side of the House, in their devotion to the Commonwealth. May I submit to them, most respectfully and firmly, that if in the years ahead the policy of the Government separates us irretrievably from the United Nations, the Government will not only have betrayed the ideal of a world peace system for many years to come, they will have destroyed the Commonwealth itself, and left a great vacuum in place of a glorious fellowship.
5.22 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken will not expect me to agree with large parts of his speech, but I would strongly agree with him when he said that a great deal of the trouble with which we are faced to-day in the Congo is due to the ad hoc, or, if I might say so, almost amateurish, arrangements which existed in the United Nations on the establishment of the forces which went into the Congo. We have had only two previous experiences. One was the case of Korea, where the force was virtually an America-led force, to such an extent that the Commander-in-Chief could be dismissed by the President of the United States without, as I understand, any consultation with her Allies. Then we had

557
the force which went into Egypt. In the Congo we have a much wider and larger operation, and the United Nations went into it without any intelligence staff, without any planning staff, without any logistics staff, and with a very limited number of what we should have called in the war Allied Military Government officers. All this had to be built up, and unfortunately it has been built up, to my mind, very ineffectually.
It seems to me that we are to-day meeting in very dark and tragic circumstances. Particularly I should like to refer to Goa, where we have witnessed an act of aggression against the territory of an old ally by a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations; and this particular member of the Commonwealth is headed by a man who has never ceased to proclaim himself a great friend of peace but whose actions and statements in regard to Hyderabad, Kashmir and Goa scarcely seem to bear out this claim. I hope that when the question of Goa does come before the United Nations we shall not find that double standard to which my noble friend referred earlier in his speech this afternoon.
In Katanga we have the forces of the United Nations, including those of at least two members of the Commonwealth, engaged in bombing, shelling and mortaring military and civil installations in Elisabethville and elsewhere, some considerable distance from the main military sites. This has brought about serious and widespread damage to life and to property; and, whatever the correspondent of the Observer, and I think the noble Earl who has just spoken, may say to the contrary, there has been wholsale bombing and shelling by United Nations' forces of hospitals, mission houses, power-houses, mining establishments and private dwelling-houses. We have seen them ourselves in photographs, on television, and we read them in the reports of reliable Press correspondents.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to me, perhaps he would tell us whether he thinks that the United Nations' troops are so brutal that they are deliberately aiming at hospitals—because really that would be a fantastic claim.
LORD COLYTON: I never suggested that for a moment. They are using far more force in this operation than was required simply to protect their lines of communication.
The avowed object of the present operations is to protect and secure the communications of the United Nations' troops in the Elisabethville area. It does not claim to be an operation for the purpose of removing the mercenaries, nor does it claim to be an attempt to impose a political solution. But having regard to the violence of the attacks, the number of forces employed, the reluctance of the United Nations' authorities to agree to a cease-fire until they have reached a situation where the means of resistance in the city of Elisbethville itself have practically ceased, it does seem to me they have gone far wide of their original purpose of protecting their lines of communciation. They are inevitably going on towards a political settlement which will be imposed by them. This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the resolution of the Security Council of August 19, 1960,which reaffirmed that the United Nations—and I quote:
"will not be a party to or in any way influence or be used to influence the outcome of, or in any way intervening, or to be used to influence the outcome of any internal conflict, constitutional or otherwise."
Let us look back for a moment at the reasons why the United Nations are in the Congo at all. As the noble Earl said, the four main reasons were given very succinctly in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal last Thursday. I think that as he is a Minister we are entitled to quote him. It was first to provide the Congo with assistance, technical and civil; secondly, to provide military assistance to enable the security forces to maintain law and order throughout the Congo; thirdly, to prevent the Congo from becoming a new area of the cold war; and, fourthly, to enable the Congo to settle its own internal differences and make its own political arrangements. This, as my right honourable friend quite properly said, has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government throughout. Let us just look at these categories as they apply to the Katanga.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but would the noble Lord read on, if he has the

559
quotation handy? I believe that the Lord Privy Seal went on to say that the object of the Government was, in fact, to bring about the unity of the Congo.
LORD COLYTON: The Government have constantly made it clear that their purpose was to bring about the unity of the Congo.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in, I think, two supplementary questions on December 14, when, unfortunately, I could not be in my place, stated that the United Nations had gone into Katanga for self-defence. He used that expression, but I presume that he was referring only to the very recent military operations, and not to the original entry of the United Nations into Katanga; because originally they went in for a quite different reason. After the initial rising of the members of the Force Publique against their officers, in July, 1960, the Katanga was the only province of the Congo where order was restored in the course of a very few days, and that was particularly true of Elisabethville and the surrounding area.
We know, of course, that in Northern Katanga there were risings by the Baluba and other tribes coming in from Kivu and Kasai. But in Southern Katanga peace reigned and life was normal, and European men and women, many thousands of them, have been living there side by side in perfect harmony ever since. I believe I am right in saying, though I am not an expert, that the great copper mines ceased production for only two days after the original rising of the gendarmerie, until the recent intervention or action by the United Nations' forces put a stop to them temporarily. Why and how did this change occur when you had a perfectly peaceful situation in the Katanga?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain the significance of the road blocks?
LORD COLYTON: I am coming to that. It changed because the then Government of Mr. Lumumba and some of his supporters in the Afro-Asian bloc insisted that United Nations' troops should be admitted into Katanga to occupy the airfield and other key points so as to provide a United Nations' presence. I really believe that it was simply a sop
560
to the extremists who did not want to see a multi-racial system of government succeeding. This was the origin of all the trouble in the Katanga. To make matters worse, the United Nations' civilian authorities both in Leopoldville and Elisabethville soon showed that they themselves were also determined to bring Katanga to heel.
The noble Earl must forgive me if I refer to his compatriot, but of course the most notorious was Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. In the normal way one would have thought that when a man retired from a public position in these particular circumstances the less he said the better and the less we said about him the better. But he has come out in the open and he has made totally unjustified, unwarranted accusations against the British Government for dragging their feet and has indeed said in some of his articles that we have been giving aid covertly to the secessionist régime in Katanga. That is something absolutely not true, which the Government have denied again and again and Sir Roy Welensky has denied again and again. I have not the slightest doubt that they are completely sincere and that they have carried out their policy.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I intervene? I realise I cannot leap up every time Dr. O'Brien is mentioned, otherwise the House would get bored. But I should like to say once for all that Dr. O'Brien retired from the public service, gave up his career, in order to make his view of this plain. He has made a sacrifice. He has retired from the Irish Diplomatic Service because he felt he had to give his view of the truth.
LORD COLYTON: Obviously he will not complain if we make our views plain to him. Everybody knows that Mr. Tshombe is not one of the easiest personalities to deal with. He is an emotional man, highly volatile, very vain and surrounded by one or two rather tough Ministers. It was absolutely essential if this policy was going to succeed, with the United Nations' troops having to go against the wishes of the inhabitants, that whoever was running the United Nations' administration in Katanga should be on good terms with Mr. Tshombe and should gain his confidence. I can think of half a dozen

561
former British Colonial servants, men like Sir Charles Arden-Clarke or Sir James Robertson, who would have filled the bill and done what was wanted, and brought Mr. Tshombe along in the direction in which we wanted, towards a conciliation and understanding with the Central Government. Dr. O'Brien seems to have done nothing of the kind, in fact the exact opposite. Whatever qualities the noble Earl says he possesses, in Katanga he seems to have shown evidence of being completely lacking in tact.
The United Nations' troops were inevitably unpopular. It was up to Dr. O'Brien and his, I am afraid, still more notorious assistant, Mr.Tomburlaine, to do what they could about it. Yet they seem to have deliberately gone out of their way to antagonise Mr. Tshombe and his Ministers. Then the critical moment came when the United Nations authorities, under instructions from the Secretary-General, set out to implement that part of the Resolution of February 21 last which called for the removal of all Belgian and other foreign military and para-military personnel, political advisers not under United Nations' command and mercenaries.
Personally I have always regarded that as a most unfortunate Resolution and I regret that our Government subscribed to it. It was clearly aimed at Katanga, though it did not say so. At any rate, one must admit that it has never been applied against Mr. Gizenga in Stanleyville, not even when the eleven Italian airmen were torn to pieces; it seems never to have been able to pin the blame for that on the authorities in Stanleyville although Mr. Gizenga was personally present. It is typical of the way these things have been applied by the United Nations. I wonder why we should have voted at all for a Resolution which directed the withdrawal of Belgian political and military advisers when we ourselves encourage Europeans to remain in all our newly independent territories, and when in fact their presence was fully provided for by the Treaty under which the Belgian Government accorded independence to the Congo.
One thing this paragraph did not do, and that was to provide for the use of force, and it was the use of force which
562
led up to the tragic train of events since September 13. In the Observer yesterday I saw that Dr. O'Brien is now rather suggesting that the blame should more properly be laid on his superior in Leopoldville, Mr. Khiari, and he suggests that neither the late Mr. Hammarskjoeld nor Dr. Ralph Bunche in New York knew about these plans for using force. I can well believe that to be true, for I had the good fortune to meet Dr. Bunche this October in New York and had some talks with him on the subject. But as far as Dr. O'Brien was concerned he certainly set about carrying out these instructions with gusto. He spoke to Mr. Tshombe, I understand, late at night about a possible visit to Mr. Adoula, and said good-night to him; then, the next day at 4 o'clock in the morning the troops went in and key posts were occupied, the hospital, the Lido Hotel, the Post Office, with tremendous loss of life.
On September 14 he was reported by The Times correspondent assaying jubilantly that Katangan secession was ended and it was now a Congolese province run by the Central Government in Leopoldville. He also claimed—and this is quite contradicted by his later statements and writing—that the action had been taken to prevent civil war between the Katangans and the Central Government troops which had planned an invasion. That is according to a report in TheTimes at the time. Then he talked about the arrival of a High Commissioner who in fact arrived at Kamina airport, a Moscow-trained Communist, who was shipped back to Leopoldville in due course.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, where had the High Commissioner come from?
LORD COLYTON: I understand he came from Leopoldville, to Kamina, the United Nations' air base. At any rate this attempt to remove the remaining mercenaries by force ended in a fiasco and culminated in a cease-fire following great loss of life and, of course, bringing considerable humiliation to the United Nations' forces. There has been a lot of talk about breaches in the ceasefire by the Katangan forces and I am quite sure that is true. But let us bear in mind that from the beginning the Katangan Government were also accus-

563
ing the United Nations of carrying out similar breaches in the cease-fire, and no doubt there was truth in that too. But certainly after this last Resolution, the Resolution of November 24, tension increased quite remarkably.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, why does the noble Lord say that no doubt there were breaches by the United Nations? Has he any evidence of it? Why does he assume that there must have been?
LORD COLYTON: I have no moreevidence of it than I have of breaches of the truce by the Katangan forces. But after the unfortunate Resolution of November 24, there certainly were such ugly incidents as the attack on Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Smith, and the erection of road blocks, and finally the decision of the United Nations to assert its right of freedom of movement.
I do not propose to comment on the matter of the request for 24 1,000 lb. bombs by the United Nations' authorities, except to draw attention to one rather curious aspect of this incident. From the date of the cease-fire in September until the recent incidents, Her Majesty's Government were concerned with one thing, and one thing only, and that was to bring about a conciliation between Mr. Adoula's Government and Mr. Tshombe. They had been pressing it at Leopoldville; they had been pressing it in Elisabethville and at United Nations headquarters in New York; our Ambassador and our Consul-General have laboured unceasingly to that end. Then, on October 21 came the request from the Secretary-General—I think it was before Mr. U Thant had been appointed—for 1,000 lb. bombs.
If these attempts to secure conciliation were going on, and if at that moment no question had arisen about United Nations' forces seeking to assert their right of freedom of movement, or feeling anxiety about their communications, what were those bombs wanted for? That is the question which, if I had been my noble friend, I should have put to the Secretariat-General on receipt of that request. Moreover, in the light of this request and of our efforts to pursue the path of concilation, I should have been most reluctant, as indeed was my noble friend, to accept the resolution of
564
November 24, which, whatever, one may say, certainly goes further than previous resolutions, in that force can now be used, to expel political advisers and so-called mercenaries.
I am fully aware of all the arguments against using the Veto, particularly when it has to be used in the face of some of our African friends—the members of the Brazzaville group, for example, who are seeking to find a via media. But if the resolution of November 24 was as fraught with danger as I believe it to have been, and as I think it has proved to be, I feel that Her Majesty's Government would have been well advised on this occasion to use the Veto. After all, the Soviet delegation had already used the Veto to cut out the important American amendments which would have made it acceptable to provide, for example, for conciliation and to make the resolution applicable to Mr. Gizenga and his advisers or those in any other part of the Congo. I really believe that there are occasions when, however unpopular and whatever the immediate disadvantages, it is better not only to speak but to vote according to one's principles. I think that in the long run it avoids misunderstandings which sometimes lead to one's being trusted by nobody.
I should like to say one word about the mercenaries. So long as there were regular Belgian officers and N.C.O.s and political and technical advisers in Katanga, the mercenaries were quite unimportant. That situation lasted about up to the end of August, when the mass of the Belgian Officers and N.C.O.s were removed. I think I am right in saying that by September 15 there were only 28 Belgian officers and N.C.O.s left, of whom 11 were employed in repatriation. I would not swear to those figures, but I think that was the situation. As I say, the mercenaries were relatively unimportant; and, indeed, there were few of them. But as my noble friend has said. if you take away the regular soldiers and policemen it is not surprising that you get indiscipline, and the sort of incidents of which Mr. Smith and Mr. Urquhart were the victims. It seems to me that the mercenaries have assumed an importance which is totally out of proportion to the basic political issues involved in this question of the Katanga.

565
My Lords, I have one further point that I should like to make. I have spoken too long, and I have no voice left. Something which has struck me and has dismayed me is the tragic lack of understanding, agreement and, if you like, coordination with our American Allies throughout this affair. I do not think this is an isolated case. We find this same lack of co-ordination so often on other issues, whether it is in the Far East, in Cuba, in Southern Vietnam. Nor is it only the United States; it may be Italy, France, Japan, or Pakistan. Of course, in this case, if I may say so, as a great admirer and friend of the American alliance, it was due partly to the lamentable ignorance by the Americans, right up to the top, of African conditions.
I do not know whether your Lordships read a statement of Mr. Chester Bowles in the newspapers to-day, drawing attention to the danger of Katanga's going Communist if the separatist movement succeeded, because then the central Government would step in and, with its 40 per cent. Communist membership in Parliament, would soon take over power. He went on, in a most sinister way, to say that the Americans might then have to act unilaterally and outside the United Nations. If that was the view of one of the senior advisers to the President on African affairs, why is it that the policy which we have been pursuing,which, after all, has had among other many important objectives, that of keeping the Communists out of Katanga, has not been understood by them? It seems to me to be an almost incredible blindness on their part, and a complete failure to understand our fears and our aims.
My Lords, I was most relieved to hear from the Foreign Secretary that there is now a possibility of a cease-fire, albeit after the United Nations' troops have, as I imagine, attained most of their objectives. I am glad to hear that there is a real possibility of a meeting between Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula, for which I know Her Majesty's Government have been working for at least four months. I hope that both of these things will occur. But there is one final thing that I should like to say. In my view (and this perhaps answers the noble Lord, who asked me whether there was evidence on some of these matters), we know so little, and have so little accurate information, about what has been going
566
on over these past four months that we ought to press strongly for an impartial judicial inquiry into the events of September 13, the intervening period and the current events. I think it ought to be a judicial inquiry—something like the Devlin Commission, possibly under a Judge of the International Court at The Hague, with impartial, non-political assessors. I believe that if we could do that, it might help us a great deal to understand what has taken place over these months; and I think that it would also help the United Nations to avoid for the future, in any action which they may be called upon to take, the sort of mistakes that they have made on this occasion.
5.50 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, it gave me especial pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I served with him for several years in Germany when he was Deputy Military Governor in Berlin, and I know how wise and enlightened was his administration of the British zone, how skilful were his operations in the international forum, and how close and fruitful was his co-operation with his United States colleagues. He is one who can speak to us with special authority on Germany and Berlin, and he has so spoken to us to-day with a grace and a skill which I think most of us would envy.
My Lords, I want to say something to-day about the Congo and, in particular, about the role of the United Nations there. I want, first of all, to deal with one or two questions of administration, the conditions in which and the mechanism through which the United Nations has to do its job. We know how United Nations' resolutions are produced. They are the result of conflict and compromise. Diplomacy, which has as one of its purposes the accurate recording of agreements which have been reached, is now too often used for another purpose; it is used too often to paper over differences which stand in the way of agreements and to give the appearance of agreement when there is no agreement. The Congo resolutions suffered from that fault, but that is only the first stage. If it is an operative resolution, equivocal as it may be, the Secretary-General must carry it out and he must do so under

567
fire from the various contesting authors of the resolution. Then there is a further stage. Instructions have to go to the civilian and military servants of the United Nations thousands of miles away where communications may be precarious, where conditions may be disturbed, and where the situation may be in constant flux.
I know myself what it is like as a junior officer to be left in charge of a distant post abroad. No matter how efficient the system of communications is, no matter how well integrated the professional methods of work may be, no matter how strong the links of sympathy and understanding between the centre and the circumference may be, it is difficult to convey how absolutely alone and unprotected one feels; how hard it is sometimes to guess what effect one's recommendations and reports may have had at the centre; and, what is more important, to understand what can have moved headquarters to send the instructions which one receives and which one has to carry out.
How much more will that be so where the representatives in question of the United Nations do not belong to a single service? They are recruited from here, there and everywhere, of diverse nationalities, sometimes ad hoc on a temporary basis, like Dr. O'Brien. The wide geographical origin of candidates makes it inevitable that there will be widely varying standards of ability and experience. Some, who may be best suited for some particular assignment, will be by their nationality politically ineligible, while those who are politically eligible may not be those best suited for the job. In those circumstances, is it surprising that there have sometimes been unfortunate appointments or that mistakes have been made?
What I have said about the civilians applies just as much to the military. That point has been made both by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. I think that the problems of the polyglot national military contingents serving with the United Nations deserve sympathetic understanding. These men are suffering hardship and risking their lives in conditions of great confusion, in fulfilment of a mandate which it would take the
568
wisdom of Solomon to interpret correctly.
My Lords, there are two general points of administration which I should like to make. The first is that I think it would be wiser if, when matters of this moment are in question, the Secretary-General were to send out a very senior member of his staff to take direct charge on his behalf. That would be better than leaving the conduct of affairs to relatively inexperienced officers. With so much at stake no precautions should be spared. Quite clearly, in the present instance those precautions were not taken. The veil was stripped from the scene in Dr. O'Brien's article in the Observer yesterday. I am not going to attack Dr. O'Brien at all. Dr. O'Brien made his recommendations for action under the United Nations' resolution in the early days of September, and he had a perfect right to do that as that was his job. One of his recommendations, which is quite noteworthy, was that
"if we did have to use force we should not desist until the secession of Katanga, source of all these ills and many others, had been ended."
That was a recommendation made to his headquarters by Dr. O'Brien, and he says that he still thinks his recommendations were correct. That, I think, is a matter of opinion.
But what matters is not the recommendations which Dr. O'Brien made, but what instructions he and his military colleagues actually received. Dr. O'Brien's own evidence on this point is quite startling. Instructions were brought orally on September 10 by Dr. Khiari, the Tunisian who is nominally head of the United Nations' civilian operations in the Congo, but to whom Dr. Linner, the Swedish head of the United Nations' staff in the Congo, had delegated wide political authority. The instructions brought orally by Dr. Khiari to Dr. O'Brien and his colleagues were: to take over the post office and radio station; to raid the Silrete and the Ministry of Information; to arrest the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Finance and the so-called Minister of Foreign Affairs, and, if absolutely necessary, Mr. Tshombe himself. The necessary warrants for these arrests were provided.

569
These instructions purported to be for action under the relevant United Nations' resolutions. From whom did these instructions come? Dr. O'Brien tells us that Dr. Linner, the head United Nations' man in the Congo, did not know of these instructions; that General MacKeown, the Irish Commander of the United Nations' force in the Congo, did not know of them that Dr. Bunche in New York and the Indian General who is military adviser there, did not know of them either; and his final revelation is a statement, which is no more than his own opinion, that it is unlikely that Mr. Hammarskjoeld himself knew about these instructions. Who authorised these instructions? Dr. Khiari, according to Dr. O'Brien, claims to have had a secret line of communication with Mr. Hammarskjoeld. That may well be, but that somehow does not remove Dr. O'Brien's doubts. There I leave the question.
But the moral of all this, as I have said, is that the Acting Secretary-General should see to it that he is adequately represented by a very senior colleague, at any scene of trouble which is likely to create world-wide concern. Someone of the calibre of Dr. Bunche or Mr.Gardiner ought to have been stationed in Katanga long ago. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has gone further and suggested that someone of the type of an ex-colonial Governor would have been best suited to this job, and I agree with him had it been politically possible. That is my first point on administration.
My second point is that if officers of the United Nations do not want to be misquoted or misinterpreted by the Press, they should be especially careful to refrain from making incautious pronouncements of policy "off the cuff". Ministers of the Crown with long experience in the House of Commons learn the hard way how to evade or stonewall the indiscreet, or embarrassing question, and even Ministers sometimes slip up. Civil servants, speaking for their Ministers, by dint of burning their fingers, as we all know, learn how to conform to their Ministers' views. United Nations' officials are in a different category. They have no Ministers to train them day by day in the way they should go. They may lack, shall I say, the keen
570
sense which is sometimes required to distinguish a platitude from an indiscretion. They need, therefore, to exercise an especial care, and I doubt whether that is what they have recently been doing.
Now, my Lords, I turn for a moment to questions of policy. I am in agreement with the line which the Government have taken. Unlike so many other people, they have kept their heads and have fixed their eyes on essentials. They realise that there are some political problems which are not to be solved by violence; that once you resort to violence there is no telling where it will lead you; and that if you go on pursuing it in the quest for a final, political objective, the last state is likely to be worse than the first. They do not subscribe to the view that violence is all right, no matter how it is resorted to nor for what purpose, so long as it is exercised by the United Nations. The United Nations is just as fallible as any national authority, and I think that the Government were wise to see, if they could, that United Nations' action was confined within the limits of the Security Council resolutions. Those resolutions mean different things to different people. All the more reason, therefore, for Her Majesty's Government to fear lest United Nations' forces should exceed their mandate.
They were right to be vigilant, and were right in thinking that the sooner the fighting stopped, the better for everyone, including the United Nations. Too many people nowadays think that violence is the cure for everything. That, I think, is one of the most sinister marks of the age in which we live. You do not build peace by letting the men of blood have their way, whether inside or outside the United Nations. When tempers are high, it is an unpopular thing to speak of patience and moderation. I believe, my Lords, that when events have further unfolded, and when, perhaps, tempers have cooled, the line which the Government have taken, the line which they have counselled, will be seen to have been wise. In particular, I support the view which the Foreign Secretary has stated about the continuance of our financial contribution for the Congo operation. Let us not create a powerful precedent upon one isolated incident

571
only. Here again, patience is the best guide.
My Lords, that great humanist and devotee of the League of Nations, Gilbert Murray, towards the end of his life, expressed the fear that the growing influence of the multitude of new and backward States in the United Nations would produce something which he saw as the shadow of barbarism: an erosion of the law upon which civilisation is based. With events in the Congo and in Goa, would he not, if he were alive to-day, think that that shadow had grown darker? My Lords, the United Nations is approaching one of its crucial tests. Is there to be one law for Mr. Tshombe and another for Mr. Gizenga? Is there to be one law for Great Britain and France and Israel. and another for Mr. Nehru?
6.5 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I am sure there is not any Member of the House here who has not greatly enjoyed the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strang. Almost all the great political crimes of history have been justified by their perpetrators as means of the greatest good, and to-day we have been discussing two crimes: one, the aggression in Katanga, about which I wish to say something and about which I have already declared an interest in this House, and do so again: and the other, the aggression in Goa. The aggression in Goa, I think, is one of the most shocking pieces of international behaviour which has been seen during this century—and at the hands of a man whose pride is, or has been, that he is a man of peace.
Now if I may say a word about Katanga, it is because I think I am perhaps one of the not very many noble Lords who have recently been there. I should like to talk about some of these events which have been puzzling us and, if I can, to try to explain some of them. In the latter part of August, when I should much have preferred to be doing something else, I went to Angola. The reason I went there is because I am a director of a railway which is owned by British capital and which employs 17,000 people, and I wanted to see whether they were all right. That was my reason for going there. After I had travelled all
572
through Angola—about which some day, perhaps, I might be allowed to tell your Lordships—I then went to Katanga for a visit. I was in Katanga for several days. Now during the time I was there I had the opportunity of meeting a good many people.
First of all, I should like to mention, if I may, Mr. Dunnett, our Consul, because the words that Lord Strang used just now about people in far off posts in difficult circumstances made me think of him. Mr. Dunnett, our Consul there, and his gallant wife, have been under fire for the last ten days. Their house is next door to the palace of President Tshombe; and they have been in continuous danger and have been conducting themselves with great bravery for many months. But I should like to tell you about the atmosphere in Elisabethville. It was very unusual. Here was an entirely peaceful city—and I went right through the southern part of Katanga. I am not referring just to Elisabethville; I went through Jadotville and Kolwezi—all these places which have been strafed by the bombers of the United Nations in the last few days. The place was so entirely peaceful that my wife and I slept in a house there without the doors locked at night. To suggest that this was a place where there was disorder is absolutely untrue.
Now the United Nations' soldiers who were in Southern Katanga (for a reason which is very hard to explain, because there has never been any trouble there, but I think to gratify the political wishes of certain people) were naturally not popular. Occupying troops are not always very popular. Apart from Indians, there were one or two companies of Irishmen and one or two companies of Swedes. I talked to many of these, and found that their chief anxiety was that they should be home for Christmas. But no girl in Katanga, whether she was black or whether she was white, would dance with a United Nations' soldier in any circumstances. They turned their heads away, because they felt that the soldiers were an occupying army and that they were there without any reason or justification. There was every justification for the United Nations being in certain parts of the Congo where there was trouble, in certain parts of the Congo where they

573
had to keep one tribe from fighting another, but there were none of these problems there, and I suspect that the United Nations' troops were not at all comfortable in Elisabethville.
When I went to see Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Munungo, with both of whom I had very long talks (I may say that these are both men of considerable ability and great character), they told me that the United Nations were provoking them beyond endurance—remember that at this point not a shot had been fired—and I asked how. Mr. Tshombe's line was: "Not only are they seeking to remove the European officers of my gendarmerie whom I want to keep, because I have no other officers with which to control the troops; they are also removing and putting pressure on me to remove one by one the civil servants who are helping me to run my Administration". On the very day I went to call on Mr. Munungo, I found the place somewhat in disorder. Although I went there with the British Consul in a car with the Union Jack flying, and all that, we were not expected, as we should have been. The place was somewhat in disorder, because just previously the Chef de Cabinet had been removed; and this was happening in one department after another. The United Nations were trying to break down the Administration of Mr. Tshombe, and to break down the control of his gendarmerie. This is one of the most wicked things which the United Nations can ever have done.
Now, why has this happened? The United Nations went there on a crusade. Well, more evil things have happened in crusades before now. as people who have read their history may well remember. Evil things have happened here. The article in the Observer yesterday which the noble Lord, Lard Strang, quoted should be read by every Member of this House. It should give your Lordships a proper assessment of the position in Katanga. This article is written by Dr. O'Brien. I am not going to make charges against Dr. O'Brien: I am merely going to quote what he says, part of which has been quoted by Lord Strang. However, before I do that I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the resolutions of the United Nations. The time to which Dr. O'Brien was referring was September 11—note that date—before the last resolutions were passed. He
574
was acting on directives which were based on the previous resolutions passed in the Security Council dated February 21, which I have here. One of the passages in this resolution urges
"that measures be taken for the immediate withdrawal and evacuation from the Congo of all Belgian and other foreign military and para-military personnel, and the political advisers not under United Nations command, and mercenaries".
Now, there was no authority given by this resolution—and any noble Lord can read it when I have finished my speech—to use force. No authority was given whatsoever. But what do we hear from Dr. O'Brien? On September 10 he tells us of this meeting with Mr. Khiari. A Tunisian official of the United Nations appeared. He said:
"I cannot here attempt a portrait of Mr. Khiari,"
and then he goes on to attempt one.
"His only purpose was to bring the United Nations operation in the Congo to a successful conclusion. Mr. Khiari gave us instructions in the drawing room of my residence in Elisabethville. Those present, as well as General Raja and myself, were Mr. Khiari, Mr. Fabry, Colonel Waern, a Swedish officer commanding South Katanga, Colonel Egge and my deputy, Michael Tombelaine. The instructions were as follows".
As I say, this was at a time when there was no authority to use force. Remember, not a shot had been fired; there was no provocation.
These were the instructions which Dr. O'Brien received. Whether they were the instructions he asked for or not, I cannot say, but these were the instructions he received from Mr. Khiari according to his own words in the Observer yesterday:
"To take over the Post Office, the radio studio, and the transmitter, to raid the Ministry of Information; to arrest any European officials found there and seize their files".
Of course, a great part of the officials of the Katangan Government are European—customs officers, education officers, and so on.
"To arrest Mr. Munungo, Minister of the Interior Jean Baptiste Kibwe, Vice President, and Kimba, so-called Foreign Minister. Tshombe was also to be arrested if absolutely necessary. Mr. Fabry produced the warrants, which bore the Seal".
The Seal of what? The Seal of the Central Government. What was the Central Government doing there? They had no jurisdiction with regard to law and order in Katanga. Katanga was a province under the provincial Govern-

575
ment which had responsibility for law, order and justice. What right had the United Nations' officials to come down to Katanga with warrants sealed by the Central Government?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, might I just interrupt the noble Lord? He has asked a rhetorical question, and that sometimes gives a member of the Opposition the chance to answer it. If he has Dr. O'Brien's article with him, he will see that in fact Dr. O'Brien, according to his own account, had warned Mr. Tshombe in writing that, if he did not immediately desist from various provocative activities, the United Nations might find it necessary to act under paragraph (a) (1) of the resolution of February 21. That is the paragraph which deals with the civil war situation, and with Mr. Tshombe's brutal treatment of the native minorities. Then, later, Dr. O'Brien goes on to explain that there was this murderous incitement from Mr. Tshombe's radio, and from some other people. They are the facts given in the article.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I have here the article which anyone can read. I was in Katanga at that time. I listened to the radio and heard one transmission after another coming from Moscow. There was no possibility of civil war breaking out at that time in Elisabethville—no possibility whatsoever. If they were proceeding under the paragraph relating to civil war, anybody who was there at that time could have told you that there was no justification for it. But they were not. I just tell that story to try to show your Lordships what the feelings were in this country, this country of peace and prosperity, with this occupying army there which had no reason whatever to be present.
Now, there are one or two matters to which I also want to refer. I want to refer to the question of the secession of Katanga. In my interview with Mr. Munungo (and I am reading from a note of it made that day) Mr. Mununao said this. I hope I am not boring the House?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
LORD CLITHEROE: He recalled that there were British in Katanga before the Belgians, and that their record showed that Katanga was a unit at that time.
576
When the Belgians established themselves here, they killed Msiri—that was, his grandfather—and various members of his family, and broke up Katanga. At that time the successor took the view that further resistance would serve no purpose. But still Katanga was not made part of the Congo. Up till 1933 it remained a separate Protectorate under a separate Vice-Governor-General, like Ruanda Urundi. When incorporated in 1933 there was serious trouble, and many chieftains resigned. When the issue of Congolese independence was raised in the last few years there was a movement for declaring Katanga independent. He went on to say—and this has been the position of Mr. Tshombe all the time:
"It is said in one newspaper after another that Tshombe is seeking complete independence."
That is not the case. What was said there was:
"At the present stage Katanga remained ready to have a customs union with the rest of the Congo, to have diplomatic representative abroad answerable to a Central or Coordinating Government; to have the armed forces also under a Central authority, subject to the retention of gendarmerie in the regions, and to make a financial contribution to the Central Authority."
That has been the position of the Tshombe Government. It was the position when I was there in August, and it has been the position of the Tshombe Government ever since. When I came back from the Katanga, I tried very hard to impress upon people what the position was. I did all that I could. Of course, I made representations to the Foreign Office, which were received with their usual courtesy. I think that at that time they paid more attention to the reports they received from the United Nations—and who can blame them?—because they did not then know that the United Nations were misleading people. I wrote to The Times and said:
"U.N. is putting great pressure upon Katanga: it is gradually removing European technical advisers, without whom the administration is impossible at present: U.N. also has 11.000 troops in Katanga and is introducing more Indian troops now. This seems quite unjustified and provocative."
I went on to say:
"It is the policy of U.N. and of the United Kingdom Government and the United States to promote a settlement between Leopoldville and Elisabethville, but there is no chance of an agreement if U.N. continues its present policy, which appears to be going even beyond

577
the somewhat doubtfully legal resolutions of U.N. in February.
"The breaking point is getting near and if there is further provocation, there will be no hope of avoiding bloodshed and guerrilla warfare. All the traditions and worthy objectives of U.N. seem to be ignored in its treatment of Katanga."
I wrote that and sent it to The Times on August 26, before any fighting there. I have been trying ever since to impress upon people what is the cause of this trouble but I find it very difficult to get them to understand.
If I may, I would make one point about the position now. The September outbreak ended happily in a cease-fire, but the recent outbreak, which I hope will end shortly in a cease-fire, has not ended yet, and I am thankful to hear that a meeting has been arranged through the good offices of our Government and the Americans. The position since September is an interesting one. There was a very interesting letter in the Sunday Times, yesterday from Mr. Tom Stacey, who is a correspondent of great power of perception and ability. He said, in this long letter:
"Confined as I am to my sick-bed, my comment on the Katanga situation must be restricted. … there was very little willingness of the U.N. side to preserve the ceasefire once they had obtained their fourteen assault aircraft.
"It seemed to be privately assumed by all those with authority in the U.N. to whom I talked that U.N. forces would have a second shot at eliminating the Tshombe regime. There was, perhaps understandably, an air of frustration and vengefulness throughout the U.N.
"The difference between the civilian and military wings of the U.N. was that the military had come to regard the Katangese—as a people—as their enemies, while the U.N. civilians continued to maintain that it was the remnant 103 (by U.N. estimate) white soldiers in the Katanga army and the Tshombe Government whom they were fighting.
"To support my allegation, I would quote the following. About a week after the cease-fire, I was chatting with the then deputy chief U.N. representative in Katanga about the assault aircraft which the U.N. had just obtained from various nations. He remarked to me: 'If we had had these a fortnight ago, we could have finished Tshombe. But now we shall have no difficulty'.
"A few days earlier—two days after the cease-fire—an Indian major remarked to me in Elisabethville, 'Next time we shall destroy them (the Katangese) completely.' At his Press conference on Saturday after the cease-fire, General McKeown said: For the future, we have had a ready response for fighter aircraft'."
578
I had conversations with many United Nations people when I was in Elisabethville. I had a long conversation with Mr. Tomberlaine, Dr. O'Brien's deputy —I am sorry to say that Dr. O'Brien was on leave at that time. The impression I got from my conversation with Mr. Tomberlaine was that he and all the political people in Katanga were determined to crush the Tshombe regime. I am very sorry for the soldiers out there, for the Irish and Swedish soldiers, the Indian and Gurkha troops, and for the difficulties that officers are in, too. They are in an almost impossible position. But there is no doubt that that was the intention of the political people of the United Nations on the spot. Dr. Hammarskjoeld evidently knew nothing about it: Dr. Linner did not know. But the people on the spot were determined to take this action, and they took it.
I am sorry that I have gone on so long, but there is one other point I want to make before I sit down. There has been a lot of talk about the "Katanga lobby" which, according to the Sunday Times, has
"in barely more than a week established itself as part of the political vocabulary of abuse."
This, I thought, was very good. According to this leader writer, the leader of the Katanga lobby is reckoned to be Lord Hinchingbrooke, for whom I have a high regard, but with whom I have not had the pleasure of talking for many months. I see him standing at the Bar.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, the extremist Press and various gentlemen on the television have named some distinguished Members of both Houses as being in this lobby. If I may take it that this lobby wants to prevent and stop war in Katanga, I am in it. Most of your Lordships, I hope, are in it; and about 80 per cent. of the British people are in it. If it is something else, perhaps I shall be told.
One of the first people to be named is Sir Roy Welensky. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships why Sir Roy Welensky is interested in the Katanga. It has a 2,000-mile frontier with Rhodesia, and the Lunda Tribe, of which Mr. Tshombe's father-in-law is Chief, is in Northern Rhodesia. In addition,

579
30 per cent. of the power which works the Northern Rhodesian mines comes from the La Marinel power station in Katanga, near which a bomb was dropped by the United Nations the Sunday before last. That is why Sir Roy Welensky is interested; and he is entitled to be interested.
Several other noble Lords are being denigrated by people on television and by certain sections of the Press as being associated with companies in the Katanga. I explained earlier in my speech that I went to Katanga for a holiday, but I went there because the railway of which I am a director carries the copper away from the Katanga, and therefore I am very interested. I am interested that there should be peace in the Katanga. All these companies, like the Union Minière and Tanganyika Concessions, Limited, are interested in having peace. They cannot be wanting to have war—they want peace so that they can do their business. Particularly because the Union Minière is a foreign company, I should like to say that anybody who has visited their works, their hospitals, and seen their welfare service, as I have recently done, would agree that they put to shame half the industrial companies in Europe. Many of these people are friends of mine, and I have been hearing so many of my friends attacked that I want to say something for them when they are not in a position to speak for themselves.
Other noble Lords are said to be associated with the Katanga—the names of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, have been used. The noble Marquess has an interest in Rhodesia. I should hope so. Its capital city is called after his grandfather. The noble Earl's father was Governor-General of South Africa. These families have an hereditary interest in Rhodesia and Africa. Some noble Lords have done a great deal of development there and some of them also in the Katanga. I know that they are proud of it. I have heard so many noble Lords opposite say that we must develop the under-developed countries. This is exactly what these great companies have been doing. For many years, with their own money—not the public's money—they have been developing these great
580
industries and bringing prosperity to these lands in Africa, and I think that the abuse which has been shouted at them from the housetops should perhaps be somewhat moderated.
6.30 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, although I cannot agree with the noble Lord on many of his conclusions, I should like to congratulate him on having revealed his interest. As he knows, in another place it is the common Parliamentary practice for a speaker to reveal his interest, and newcomers to this House have observed that speeches are often made by noble Lords who have interests and these interests are not disclosed until pressure is put upon them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but I must say that if anybody does notice anything it is his duty to bring it to the attention of the House. What is not tolerable is that afterwards, when they have not done so, they should make general allegations against Members of the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps the noble Viscount will be a little patient and contain himself. He must not allow himself to leap up at the slightest provocation.
VISCONT HAILSHAM: I am sorry to intervene again, but the noble Lady must remember that noble Lords of all Parties in this House are proud of their sense of honour in the matter to which she was referring. I can do nothing without the consent of the House—I have no authority apart from the consent of the House—but one of my duties so long as I am Leader of the House is to repel charges made in general against Members of the House that they speak here without declaring their interests. I should be very sorry to think that it were true. It is my duty as Leader to see that it does not happen. What I said was that if the noble Lady knows of such a case, it is her duty to the House to reveal it at the time and not to make general charges of that kind.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: The last thing that I thought I was doing was

581
making general charges when congratulating the noble Lord for his courtesy; and, really, the noble Leader must not abuse his position by interrupting continually when somebody is making a speech.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, Oh!
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lady this question: whether she thinks it is seemly for one who has come (as I have) so lately to this House, and has the honour to be among the first Life Peeresses, to appear rude to those who have been here so long and know a great deal more about the rules and regulations of this House than probably either of us.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: This is a most curious development of my courteous congratulation of the noble Lord. Who knows but that those who have replied to me in this way—the noble Lady talks about rudeness—in a grossly discourteous manner during the last two or three minutes, have done so because I have mentioned business interests? In this debate, so far, business interests have not been mentioned. I certainly am prepared to raise this matter, because it is discussed throughout the world and on the radio. The noble Lord who has just sat down asked your Lordships in his last two or three words, "Why should people suspect the Union Minière? They are doing everything possible." Is he not aware that on the radio this morning —and the B.B.C. is reported throughout the world—it was said that U Thant has warned the Union Minière that if they do not stop firing on the United Nations from their installations he will have to bomb them from the air? And the noble Lord comes to this House and says: "Why are you blaming this innocent business enterprise? All they are trying to do is to help their country"!
LORD CLITHEROE: If the nobleLady will—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No; I cannot give way. I have been interrupted three times already, and I really must claim the right to speak without further interruption.
Viscoutsur HAILSHAM: Nobody has that right.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: When the noble Lord turns to the House and
582
suggests that these business houses are absolutely innocent, and their only contribution to Katanga has been a business one which must improve the economic conditions of the people, I must ask him rhetorically, does he then say that the Secretary-General of the United Nations to-day has made a false statment, and is he suggesting that when the Secretary-General has told this colossal corporation (about which I shall say more later) to stop their active attack with mortars and guns on the United Nations, he is indulging in some kind of fantasy, or is it a fact? Does he suggest that the Advisory Committee which sat on Saturday (and the report of the Advisory Committee is in the newspapers to-day), which advised the Secretary-Generalthere is no doubt on this statement—and which consists of six countries of the Commonwealth—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Seven.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: —of seven members of the Commonwealth, also are falsifying the position when authorising a statement of this kind to go out to the world? Really, my Lords, for the noble Lord to repeat that, without recognising what the facts are, makes one wonder whether the statement which he has made is completely accurate in all its details. He obviously has failed to keep up-to-date; he has failed to know what the position is in the Katanga from the latest report from New York. I had no intention of dealing with this in the detail with which the noble Lord has dealt with it; I must confess that as I sat listening to the debate I was thinking more in terms of principle.
Many noble Lords in this House, and when they were in another place, have listened to many debates on Foreign Affairs, and I think they will agree with me that it always stimulates speculation on how the historians will record contemporary events. Undoubtedly, in a contracting world the events, the attitudes, the behaviour of the Government in each country will be assessed according to their performance on the world stage. In the past it was customary for historians to deal with this in a more parochial manner, in more detail. But I would say that the reason why they deal with these matters as they affect nations and not peoples in countries is because

583
the most notable event of this century is the establishment of a world authority to preserve peace and order. And that is precisely why this question of Katanga arouses world interest.
It may be that this question stimulates and provokes people to anger. If I may put in a psychological word here, who knows but that it may be because the super ego (and I appeal to the right reverend Prelate here perhaps to criticise me on this point) is struggling with the ordinary man? Here to-day there is a microcosm of that struggle which is taking place throughout the world. I would say that because of the importance of this subject. The United Nations as an organisation is the finest thing that has been established in this century, and it is a tragedy that successive Conservative Governments have sought to defy the United Nations and thereby undermine its prestige. Suez has been mentioned very often in this debate. Well, it was five years ago that the Conservative Government attacked Port Said and earned the condemnation of the world. The Prime Minister at that time was forced to resign.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is completely untrue.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lady whether she means that the Prime Minister of the day was forced to resign by public opinion or by illness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps the noble Marquess will show me the patience I showed when I listened to him. I did not interrupt him, although he provoked me many times. The Prime Minister was forced to resign, not as an act of expiation, but in order to save the Conservative Party at the next Election.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is an absolute untruth. I can produce evidence—and I will if the noble Lady wants it—that he was seriously ill at the time. Everybody knew he was seriously ill. I will not use the word I should like to use to the noble Lady.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I observe the Leader of the House likes to interrupt on many occasions. Is it an
584
un-Parliamentary term to call someone untruthful?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is not my business to dictate what the House should tolerate or not. I did not notice that the House resented what the noble Marquess said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL:I thought the Leader of the House was here to interpret the rules of the House. It appears that he will interpret certain rules when they do not appeal to him, but not if they do appeal to him.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am hereto interpret the wishes of the House and to do its bidding. There are occasions when it is necessary for the Leader of the House to gather what the feeling of the House is on matters of this kind, and I thought the sense of the House was against the noble Lady. I should be very sorry to think that I was moved in the discharge of my duties as Leader, whatever I may think of what is being said, by any other feeling than a desire to serve the House and to see that its customs are properly kept. Since the noble Lady has challenged me, I must ask her to remember that Standing Order No.29 of the House specifically lays it down that in answering speeches noble Lords, as a matter of custom, do not give offence but answer the matter rather than the person. I could not help feeling, as the noble Lady was speaking, that she was beginning to answer the person rather than the matter, and was beginning to forget that such speeches are against the order of the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount tells me that it is in order in this House to charge another person with being untruthful. I am very surprised at that, because I understood, having been 23 years in another place, that if one Member charged another with being untruthful, immediately the Speaker intervened and asked for it to be withdrawn. I thought that that was elementary.
However, I come back to the question of the Prime Minister at the time of Suez. I am told that he resigned because of ill health. I will only say that I do not think that that is the opinion of the world. But I am prepared, as a doctor, to accept the assurance of the

585
noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But he will agree with me that that act of wanton aggression in Suez came to an end in a very short time. The Prime Minister of that time was urged on by certain key figures who, in the matter of the Congo, have attempted to defy the United Nations. They are the same figures who were urging the Prime Minister on to his aggression at the time of Suez. But again they have failed. My Lords, that is the important thing to-day: they have failed, and there is a gloom and despondency among them. The Prime Minister to-day has not resigned, but has so far managed to extricate himself. The historians, I am sure, will recall his speech and his manner on Thursday in another place as a discreditable spectacle.
As I listened to the Foreign Secretary to-day he had another chance. He had heard the speech on Thursday and he had read it. At this critical time in world affairs, the Foreign Secretary comes here and gives us a philosophical analysis of the United Nations. The United Nations has been in being for many years. The constitution of it was known to the Foreign Secretary and to his predecessors. Is this the time, this urgent critical time, this time of emergency, for the Foreign Secretary to come and devote most of his time to a philosophical analysis?
I would say that the enemies of the United Nations have failed because another high principled, man, U Thant, has followed the trail blazed by Dag Hammarskjoeld. That is why they have failed. And it is significant that at a meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on Saturday (I have already said this in answer to the noble Lord), after the debate on Thursday, the Committee were unanimous in supporting U Thant's point of view. How can that be disregarded? How can some of your Lordships, on the one hand, condemn the United Nations and the direction of the Secretary-General, when at the same time, last Saturday—not weeks or months ago—after the speech on Thursday, after having heard the speech of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, after having read him in New York, seven members of the Commonwealth refused to endorse the British attitude?
586
Should we be swayed by that? Is that not a tremendously important factor? Although we sit here and exchange argument—and I listened with interest to all the details that the last noble Lord who spoke gave me—surely these men who have been on the spot and who have brought back their reports to seven members of the Commonwealth on the Advisory Committee are the men who should know the position.
I would say that the Lord Privy Seal's explanation of events on Thursday served only to highlight the squalid manœuvres of a group of men solely activated by financial interests. It is a very curious thing that we have heard the Foreign Secretary to-day condemn the United Nations with faint praise. He had surely heard the statement on the radio to-day, the warning to the big corporation in Katanga that it must remove its armed installations. Yet the Foreign Secretary did not in one word or one phrase mention this matter—the latest statement from New York. Not once did he mention business interests. Not once did he suggest that there were men who were interested in financial aspects of the Katangan economy, and that they were motivated by those interests. Surely, all that we have read, and all that the Advisory Committee discussed on Saturday must have some basis. Surely, this is factual and it has not just been designed for the purpose of attacking a few men.
I want to refresh noble Lords memories. The real value of the Corporation which is attacking the United Nations—
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, would the noble Lady allow me to say one word, as she has made a specific charge? I always give way to her, and I know she will not mind giving way to me. I have just had this telegram from Elisabethville, timed 7.30 to-day:
"According to Federal Broadcast News who probably quote a communiqué the main centre of Katangan resistance is the installations of Union Minière. This allegation is absolutely untrue. The offices and works of the Union Minière are only occupied by the staff of this company who are gathered there. It is ridiculous to state that the offices and works are used as Katangan stronghold. Same broadcast announced that United Nations are ready to bomb the Union Minière installations if it remains center of resistance. It is noted that since three

587
o'clock yesterday afternoon the Head Office has been bombarded causing heavy damage."
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask who was the author of that telegram?
LORD CLITHEROE: The author? This comes from the Union Minière.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Well of course, I have no doubt that they would like—
LORD CLITHEROE: This is their repudiation from the man on the spot in Elisabethville of what has been said in the newspapers.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I can only say in answer to that, would the Secretary-General of the United Nations tell the world what he has told them on the radio this morning if there were no truth in it at all? Perhaps the people who are charged feel that they must deny it, but I would remind the noble Lord that there are many people who, when charged with wicked acts, quickly deny them.
This is the fifth time I have been interrupted and I must claim the right to speak without interruption. I would remind the noble Lord and other noble Lords here who are not fully conversant with business interests in Katanga that the real value of Union Minière, the Anglo-Belgian mining corporation, is about £145 million. It provides the Tshombe Administration with about 80 per cent. of its revenue. Tanganyika Concessions, the Anglo-Rhodesian concern with headquarters in Salisbury, owns 90 per cent. of the shares in the railway along which most of the Union Minière output passes. The British South Africa Company dominates the Northern Rhodesian economy. The noble Marquess can hit at me as hard as he likes; I am quite prepared to take it so long as it is well-founded, and he will see that I never make a statement unless it is well founded. As he knows, I do not believe in pugilism but I do not mind a little verbal fisticuffs, and I understand that the noble Marquess was a member of the Board of the British South Africa Company until April.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is quite true, I have been a
588
member of the Board of the British South Africa Company, because I have been connected both with the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office and I became immensely interested in Rhodesia and therefore I thought I would continue my interests. When the time came and I found I was the subject of the onslaught of unfounded slander, which the noble Lady has repeated to-day, I thought it better, if I was going to continue to try to take an interest, to see about removing my financial interests, apart from the fact that I have other work to do. That decided me to do so. If the noble Lady cares to form a conclusion that my attitude to Rhodesia was influenced by financial interests she has a right to do so, but I do not think she will find a single supporter in this House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, that is the sixth or seventh interruption. I think when people protest too much one becomes a little suspicious. Far from my arriving at conclusions or slandering the noble Marquess, what I am doing is stating a fact and I prefaced my remarks to him by saying that I am not expressing opinions; I am stating a fact.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment?—for two noble Peers cannot stand at the same time, and nobody has a right to speak in this House except by the permission of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I meant to say is, I think that nobody will interrupt the noble Lady because she is doing us much more good than harm.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, I thought the facts should be put before the House and if the noble Marquess thinks I am doing so much good I find it difficult to understand why all the noble Lords who have spoken before him have not given these facts. If they are of such use to the case they have been putting against the United Nations, why did they not ventilate these facts? Why, in some curious way, has there been a conspiracy of silence? However, if the noble Marquess tells me I am doing the right thing then I am very pleased I am

589
making this contribution; and already the noble Lord who spoke before him has said that there were many representatives in both Houses who had interests in Africa. But I only mention the noble Marquess because he has been, I think he will agree with me, the self-appointed spokesman of the Congo group during the last few weeks and he has apparently been a member of the group which has in the last few weeks been successfully intimidating the Government. This is based not only on my observations and perhaps noble Lords would like to hear this statement made by the noble Marquess's noble friend Lord Hinchingbrooke on television for the world to see and hear:
"When the Conservative Party is united and determined not to have something the Government are obliged to give way."
This is so, when there is a suspicion that a strong group has been formed to bring pressure to bear on the Government and to intimidate them. Surely, here is the evidence, given on television to millions of people by the noble Marquess's noble friend Lord Hinchingbrooke.
Then I remember I was very shocked last week when the noble Marquess came to the House—and I suppose it was with this knowledge of unity which Lord Hinchingbrooke ventilated on the television—and asked how long the Government were prepared to wait for an answer from U Thant to their demand for a cease-fire. That, of course, was an absolutely remarkable statement. Did he realise that what he was really doing was pressing an ultimatum? Already U Thant had snubbed the Government by saying he did not want it. Did he think that this man would fail to uphold his principles because there was a threat that money would be withheld? Some men's principles are not for sale. And I would ask the noble Marquess to refresh his memory before he puts similar questions and ask him to read Article 100 of the Charter of the United Nations. It reads:
"Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character and the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was merely asking for information: how long the Government were going to wait. I see no harm in that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Marquess must realise that when he stands up in this House and talks upon this matter, which arouses such passions, the world reads what he says and it is therefore very important.
Now we come to the speech on Thursday. We had all hoped that the Prime Minister would come to the country and tell us exactly what was happening, and that he would explain in some detail why and how he arrived at his decision. Well, I can only say that the speech of the Prime Minister last Thursday represented a masterly piece of political tightrope walking when, the end of the exercise in sight, he quickly produced his so-called "hopeful first reply from U Thant" to Britain's cease-fire proposal. Since Thursday events have proved his interpretation of the letter was a ruse to extricate himself from a difficult position. There is no doubt about it. I think his friends on his own side of the House complained because after that speech he left the Chamber very quickly.
The Lord Privy Seal sought to protect his guilt and make the charge that the Labour Party were war-mongering. I would remind the House that the Lord Privy Seal was Chief Whip at the time of Suez. Was his conscience asleep then? Again I come back to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who stood there this afternoon and described in detail to the House the conditions of the babies and women and bombed people in Katanga. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was a member of the Government at Suez. Did he also weep the same crocodile tears over mutilated babies there? This afternoon he read out at second hand what he had read about at Katanga. I went into the hospitals at Port Said.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: The noble Lady said she was a Norwegian.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes, I was so ashamed. I went into the hospitals and saw ward after ward of wounded—men, women and children. I think 1,000 were killed in that immoral adventure. Did the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, stand in that place and

591
describe the conditions of those mutilated people at Suez? Did not that touch his heart? Did he not realise that those people died in vain, and that that could have been absolutely prevented? Yet to-day he makes an emotional appeal in order to damn the United Nations. I find that the only hope of establishing world peace is to uphold and strengthen the United Nations. Yet the Government have deliberately injured it—injured it at Suez, injured it during the Katanga affair. They have offended our strongest Ally, the United States. They have besmirched the moral standing of Britain. But more than that: above all, they have given an object lesson to the hundreds of millions in the Communist and uncommitted countries of the uninhibited, ruthless methods employed by international capitalism. It seems to me that those who support the hanging and flogging of criminals to uphold the law in this country are against a world authority using force against an aggressor. I find that a curious contradiction.
Now it seems that the United Nations' objectives may be realised shortly and negotiations started, and, of course, noble Lords on every side of this House welcome those negotiations. However, it must not be forgotten that a cease-fire was also arranged in September. This was regarded as a sign of weakness on the part of the United Nations. I would remind your Lordships that the United Nations' officers were beaten up then, and Mr. Tshombe received more help from his powerful friends in the shape of mercenaries and equipment. And this is the principal crux of the situation: peace can never be established permanently in the Congo so long as there are rival factions strengthened by powerful supporters in and outside the country who are motivated by their own financial interests.
7.4 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, so far as I know. I neither have nor ever have had any interest, however remote, in Katanga. On the other hand, at the University I did study philosophy, and and as philosophical analysis is the main charge, twice repeated, against my noble friend the Foreign Secretary by the noble Lady who has just resumed her seat, I have no doubt whatever that my educa-
592
cation in philosophy entitles me to be grouped with the Katanga Lobby.
This debate has produced some admirable speeches, and none, I think,more valuable than those of my noble friend, Lord Strang and my noble friend Lord Clithcroe. Lord Strang, who speaks with an unrivalled authority on the matters on which he spoke this afternoon in this House and is respected in every quarter, supported Her Majesty's Government. I think Her Majesty's Government, if they were driven to the painful choice of whether they preferred to be supported by Lord Strang or by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, would probably come to the conclusion that there were some advantages in being supportedby Lord Strang. Lord Clitheroe gave us the benefit of knowledge derived from having been on the spot at a most material time. and he spoke at first hand of these events. When I came to this House I had not prepared a word of my speech, and so many admirable speeches have been made that I propose to confine myself almost entirely to putting certain legal considerations before the House, because I think I am almost the first lawyer who has spoken.
But before I come to certain questions of law affecting the United Nations, I should like to deal in passing with a subject in which I am very much interested but on which I shall say very little because it was dealt with, and dealt with so admirably, in the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. Many tributes have already been paid to that speech. I must say my memory went back to my boyhood, because it so happened that the noble Lord and I were at the same preparatory school, though I am so much older than he is that I had already left when he arrived there. But I did pay an early visit to my old school soon after I went to Rugby, and the very brilliant headmaster whom the noble Lord and I well remember told me that he had among his pupils the most brilliant pupil he had ever had, and that was the noble Lord.
As he mentioned Berlin, perhaps I might just say this in support of the considerations that he put forward. I cannot quite remember how Mr. Khrushchev

593
described Berlin; was it "like a bone in the throat?" I think that was his expression. And, of course, that is what it was, because there alone in the free world citizens of a Communist country were enabled to flee from Communist slavery, and they fled in great numbers. That made it a bone in the throat to Mr. Khrushchev. I support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said. Nothing could, of course, be more absurd than to say we should not go to war over Berlin. Of course, if events there eventually led to war, which I hope profoundly they will not, it would not be about Berlin that we should be fighting but about the whole sum of things. Does anybody suppose that, if the West were forced to abandon its position in Berlin by blackmail, that would lead to any lasting relaxation of tension? I know the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to whom we have so often listened with pleasure on this subject, does not take that view, but realises how important a stand there is. I support entirely the view so well supported by the expert knowledge of the noble and gallant Lord, that standing firm in Berlin is vital.
I may say that I visited that city in 1952 and in 1959; in 1952 as a Junior Minister in order to open the British Pavilion at the Berlin Industries Fair, and on that occasion during my stay I had the advantage of discussing matters with such distinguished Socialists as Dr. Reuter who, I know, will have been well known to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others; and on the last occasion, in 1959, I had the honour of leading a Parliamentary delegation which at the invitation of the Federal Republic visited Germany and ended in Berlin.
Now I come to the principal topic on which I wish to speak—namely, some of the problems of the United Nations in this affair, as I see them. I find it quite impossible to adopt either of two views, perhaps not very commonly held but liable to be violently expressed. One view is roughly this: "My U.N.O., right or wrong." If the United Nations does anything at all, it is suggested, we must support it, whether what it does is, by ordinary standards, wholly immoral and disastrous or not. I cannot accept that view. Nor can I accept the view of cer-
594
tain well-known Sunday and daily papers, that the true motto in foreign policy is, "My country always wrong." I think that, too, is an intellectual and a moral error. Holding neither of those views, I believe we should be interested in what the United Nations does. I welcomed the much condemned philosophical analysis of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary whose speech today, as on many other occasions, was both relevant and distinguished.
There is one point upon which I am going to venture to advise Her Majesty's Government. I may appear to be a little critical of one or two actions they have taken in the past. Let me say at once that I think they were faced with a difficult problem—namely, should they exercise the veto in the Security Council, or should they refrain from exercising the veto but make an oral reservation? That is an extremely difficult problem, and nobody can pretend that there are not substantial arguments for each course. Nevertheless, I firmly agree with some noble Lords who have already spoken, that we must not hesitate, if necessary, to exercise the veto.
Here I want to remind noble Lords, since I think I am the first lawyer who has spoken, of some of the relevant provisions of the Charter. I believe that there are a great many people in this country who really believe that the word "veto" occurs in the Charter and that for some obscure reason it is slightly immoral to use it. Actually, the word "veto" does not occur in the Charter, but to exercise what is sometimes referred to as "the veto" is of course perfectly proper. Let me remind noble Lords of the provision. Under Article 27, paragraph 3, most decisions of the Security Council are made by an affirmative vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members. If a permanent member does not concur there can be no decision of the Council. Whether on any particular occasion it is right for a permanent member not to concur depends, of course, on the merits of the matter before the Council when the vote is taken. But to say that it is always wrong for a permanent member not to concur is to say that it is always wrong to be in a minority. Is there any noble Lord in any quarter of this House who

595
really believes that it is always wrong to be in a minority?
I confess that, in spite of much that I thought was terrible in the origins of the United Nations—I have referred to it before and I only do it in passing—.I still support it when I can. I would remind noble Lords that we were not taken by surprise, after the United Nations was formed, by the conduct of Russia. Months earlier, by enticing certain underground leaders of Poland to Moscow, and then secretly imprisoning them, Russia had made absolutely clear how she proposed to use the Yalta Agreement, and how she proposed to use the United Nations. It is a falsehood to pretend that we were taken by surprise. This vitiated the origin of the United Nations in many ways. Nevertheless, I have been one who, for many of the reasons given by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, to-day and on other occasions, has within limits supported the United Nations and regarded it as a valuable institution. But I have never thought that we, while being a member of it, could be wholly indifferent to the immorality or the wisdom of the things it was doing.
On this question of Katanga, the reason I strongly support Her Majesty's Government in seeking a cease-fire is that I believe that the United Nations has been engaged on an aggressive and immoral war against the Government and people of Katanga. The noble Earl, Lord Long ford, to whose speeches I always listen with interest and respect, seemed to think that if any of us approved of the original United Nations' force going to the Congo, we were almost bound to approve of this war against Katanga. It seems to me a complete non sequitur. I approved, as did many noble Lords, of the United Nations sending forces to Katanga. I think it promised various advantages, provided they did not indulge in the activities that they have indulged in, which I think are nothing less than an aggressive war against the Government and people of Katanga.
Take this issue of the bombs. The noble Earl, Lord Long ford, said: how could it have been right, on principle, first to decide to send the bombs and then to withhold them? I should have
596
thought there was no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling those two things. I will not say whether it was wise or unwise, but the original decision to send them was based on a limitation of use, very strictly defined. When events in Katanga showed that they were unlikely to be used in that restricted way, or there was no certainty that they would be, I do not see anything illogical in then delaying their sending until these matters were cleared up. I think that the noble Lady and others have referred scornfully, as though it were a great rebuke to this country, to the fact that Mr. U Thant withdrew the request for the bombs. I am puzzled by that. Does the Socialist Party regret that the request was withdrawn? Are they sorry that these bombs are not in Katanga? Are they sorry that nobody else has apparently been asked to supply them? I must say that I should like this whole matter, both the original request for the bombs and the subsequent events, to be cleared up. But it does not seem to me that it will be this country which will come out worst from that inquiry.
My Lords, I said something about the veto and how, on a proper occasion, it is quite right that we should use it. But, of course, we all know how frustrating it could be to the United Nations if the veto were constantly used by one Power or another so as to make it virtually impossible on many occasions for the Security Council to pass any valid resolutions at all. It was for that reason that in 1950 the General Assembly approved the procedure which was then known, and I think is still known, as the "uniting for peace" procedure which enables an emergency meeting of the Assembly to be held at short notice, and the Assembly can then make recommendations by a two-thirds majority. But, of course, the Assembly has no executive power, and even are solution of a two-thirds majority of the Assembly has very much less legal force than a resolution passed by the Security Council.
Therefore, I am not denying that in many cases there is a really difficult question about whether our country should decide to use the veto, or to make a reservation in a resolution which our Government cannot wholly approve and then allow the resolution to go through.

597
Whichever course they adopt will be liable to the grossest misrepresentation. That is quite certain. But I think there are occasions when it is much safer to vote on the merits of the resolution before the Security Council than to make a verbal reservation and allow it to pass.
May I give one recent example, the proposal that the Pekin Government should take the seat of China at the United Nations? Sometimes this proposal is inaccurately referred to as "China joining the United Nations". That is quite inaccurate, because China is in the United Nations by the express terms of the Charter, and is, indeed, one of the permanent members. The question is: which Government has the right to represent China? we have given de jure recognition to the Pekin Government and that was a decision of the late Labour Administration which personally I never contested. I regretted that the decision was made without a certain amount of consultation and agreement, which I think might have been possible; but the main decision to recognise the Pekin Government as the Government of China was one which, I think, accorded with the general practice and views of our international lawyers. But, of course, many countries took a diametrically different view, and there has always been, although people have not realised it, a substantial majority against the view that the Pekin Government was entitled to represent China in the United Nations.
Until this year a decision had always been avoided by postponing the matter, and people thought that that was an evasion; it was because it was known how deeply the United Nations was in fact divided. But at last this year, for the first time, it came to a vote in the Assembly, and, of course, taking the view which the Government took and which I support, we were bound to say that we thought that the Pekin Government should represent China in the United Nations. I think that we could have made it perfectly clear that for a simple resolution so providing we should have unhesitatingly voted. But that was not the resolution that came before the Assembly. The resolution that came before the Assembly, which was introduced by Russia, was full of crude insults referring to the "Chiang Kai-shek clique", and all that sort of thing.
598
We tried to get that altered but we did not succeed. In my submission to Her Majesty's Government, it would have been perfectly right, having attempted to get the offending words removed and having failed, to say that the resolution as now worded was one against which we should vote on the merits. That might have been misrepresented, and no doubt would have been misrepresented. Nevertheless, in my submission, it would have been perfectly justified and in the ultimate interests of international law.
First of all, in the event of the Pekin Government wishing to take that seat, which I very much doubt, it would have been absolutely clear that the wording deliberately chosen by Russia had, in fact, lost them votes, which I think would have been quite a valuable thing. One of the difficulties, if we are talking about the future of the United Nations and are considering the position of China, and one of the reasons why I think there is so much difficulty in getting our view to prevail, is that there is an erroneous view held—quite erroneous in law and in fact—that any recognition of the PekinGovernment as the Government of China would somehow involve the recognition of Pekin's claim to Formosa. It would do nothing of the sort, but many people think that it would. One of the things which will make them increasingly think that is the terms of that resolution for which we voted. Since that resolution has been passed it will be said: "Whatever your reservations the British have voted for a resolution referring to the Chiang Kai-shek Government in these insultingterms". There is the other difficulty, that Pekin has always made itquite clear that it is not interested in its own recognition unless Formosa is ousted altogether from the United Nations.
Of course, there is the final point which interests many other people, though I do not think it is any final argument against our view that if the Pekin Government is the de jure government it is entitled to take the Chinese seat, and that is that, if China were a new nation seeking to join the United Nations, we should be unanimously of opinion that it was wholly unqualified for that position, because it has rejected almost every term of the Charter, and has been repeatedly aggressive against the United Nations and its members.

599
My Lords, may I say a word about Goa? Here I will try to be moderate, but my patience with Mr. Nehru is almost exhausted. In the recent discussion on Goa in The Times and other papers, nobody seems to have thought even worthy of mention the fact that the threatened attack, which has now taken place, would be an outrage under international law and an express breach of the terms of the Charter. My Lords, I am delighted to know that the Portuguese Government is taking this to the Security Council. I beg Her Majesty's Government, on this occasion, not to try to be clever at all, but to vote honestly on the actual resolution before them. That resolution ought to condemn the Indian Government for an unprovoked aggression modelled, even in its verbiage, on the technique of Hitler—an unprovoked aggression for which there is nothing whatsoever to be said.
I am sorry if I have spoken longer than I had intended, and if, in my general support of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary—and I promise him that I support him, not only generally but with enthusiasm, in his difficult tasks throughout the world—I have concentrated on the one matter where I think, in the light of events, they may think there is something to be said for different action in the future—voting in the Security Council on the merits. Just before I sit down, on a totally different matter I should like to add the missing sentence to the quotation given by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe, which he would have given had the noble Lady been good enough to yield to enable him to complete the quotation. The final sentence in the cable received, which my noble friend Lord Clitheroe read, is this:
"The British Consul in Elisabethville, whose residence is only 250 metres from the Union Minièere offices, can certify the authenticity of our statement."
7.32 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I hope the House and the noble Lord will excuse me from following him in detail in the very interesting speech on the legalities of the United Nations' procedure. I think we should, all the same, not lose sight of the fact that to world opinion it looks, and will always look, as though if you vote for something you
600
are for it; if you vote against it, you are dead against it; and if you abstain it suggests that you do not really care either way. That is not to say that there are not many ins and outs which are better considered by Governments than by legislative chambers.
It is getting on towards dinner time, and I want to make an exceedingly short speech on two points only. First, the Katanga—and let me first of all declare that I have no financial interest in the United Nations. Because of the abstention by the Government on the last United Nations resolution, of November 24, and the story of the bombs, there is, of course an impression that this country is at loggerheads with the United Nations. I want to talk about this very briefly. It is natural enough that it should be so. I think that there is a conflict in this country at the moment between two views of what should be the relationship between Europe and Africa—the Euro-African set-up. The older view, which still hangs on to the tradition of tutelage, is the tradition that the natural wealth of Africa should be developed by Europeans in the joint interest of Africans and Europeans. This view has become very active in this country and Parliament within the last few weeks and has led to this cleavage with the United Nations. For myself, I am clear that it will be a good day when this view has died out of international politics, not only in our country but in many other of the former colonial Powers, and when it is generally accepted throughout the world, as it is now accepted in Africa, that the development of the natural resources of that Continent should be handled by Africans and Europeans together for the prime benefit of Africans. Naturally, the rest of the world gets the raw materials.
My Lords, I would mention one detailed thing before my general observations. The Foreign Secretary, in his opening speech, used the following words, I believe:
"If there are mercenaries and external finance in the Katanga, it is right they should be taken out."
He then went on to make the point that the recent United Nations' operations had led, not to the taking out of the white mercenaries but to the bringing in of 1,000 or 2,000 armed Europeans who were living there and who might not

601
have taken up arms if the United Nations had not been active in that way. What seems to be left out of this assessment of the situation is the United Nations resolution of November 24, which authorised the United Nations forces to arrest mercenaries serving in Katanga without United Nations' approval. The Belgians, and all other Powers, have been repeatedly called on to withdraw their mercenaries, and the mercenaries have been called on to take themselves out. Tshombe has, on occasions, seemed to acquiesce in the taking out of the mercenaries, but they are still there. It is this succession of mounting demands by the United Nations to have the mercenaries taken out which has led to the present action, because there is no other way of getting them out. Yet the Foreign Secretary, on the one hand, says it is right that they should be taken out, and, on the other hand, deplores the violence of the United Nations' action which it has proved necessary to use to get them out.
Now I ask the House to stand back a moment from this whole Congo question, because I think this debate has slightly fallen into the pattern of noble Lords on one side getting up and saying that Tshombe and Welensky are good men and Urquhart and Smith and Linner are bad men, and the noble Lords on the other side of the House getting up and saying the reverse. It all started in the Congo because the colonial Power which ran that country for many years, Belgium, failed to educate enough people to leave a going concern when they left. So they left, and there was the inevitable explosion, and there was the inevitable danger of the Congo's becoming the hot seat of the cold war, or of the hot war. Something had to be done. United Nations' forces were put in by general consent of all Parties in this House and in this country, and of all nations in the world. From that point on, each step has become logically necessary until we get to the present impasse. One has hoped for a long time that it would not be necessary for the United Nations' forces to fight Tshombe, his forces and his mercenaries, but it has turned out to be necessary. There are deaths from the bombardments, there are mistaken bombardments; there are children killed on both sides, as always, in all wars—
602
and this is war. But I do not myself see the justification for the withdrawal by our Government of their support from that logical, necessary and tragic event at a certain stage in the last few weeks rather than earlier. I think that if we were in it at all, we should stay in it.
That brings me to my next point, which is about the relationship of this country and this Government to the United Nations and the feeling that we have towards it. I have been noticing some of the wording used in the public debates in this country and in this House this afternoon, and they teach one a lot. We call the United Nations "it"; we call it "them". I am now quoting phrases which have been used this afternoon in the debate. We may request "it" or "them" to do this or that. We may support "it" or "them", critically or uncritically. We may accept "its" verdicts. We may doubt whether "it" is acting within its capacities, or we may accuse "it" of undertaking adventures beyond its strength. We may deplore the difference between us and "it". But, my Lords, there is no "it". The United Nations is us; it is a collection of 104 States, of whom we are one. It has the capacity that those States grant to it—and in this we have a special position, because we are a highly industrialised and wealthy State. We should grant it much more than other States. It has the strength we give it. We do not request it to do this or that; we move in it that this or that should be done. We do not have to accept or reject its verdicts: we debate the rights or wrongs of the situation. Our view may prevail or it may not. The analogy is not that of a court of law or an irresponsible despot. It is as with this House. We are Members of it. It is, up to a point, legislative. It is, up to a point, executive. We come here and say what we want done, and if we cannot get our view accepted, then so much the worse for us. But we do not thereby become outside it, or oppressed by it.
I wonder what noble Lords here this afternoon would have thought and felt if they had been around in this country in the 1470s, when Henry Tudor was trying to make a unified state out of a collection of feudal territories in very much the same way that the United

603
Nations Secretariat and the more loyal among its membership, among whom I include the United States, are trying to make one world—which is now dictated by the efficiency of transport—out of a collection of independent nation States. I suspect that noble Lords on the other side would have felt that this man Henry Tudor was exceeding his strength, and would have said: "We must reject his verdict; he has undertaken an operation beyond his power; we never meant him to do this". Of course, the State of England was born in war, bloodshed, confusion, muddle and horror. A world government, if it ever is born, will be born by precisely the same means, and this is what we are watching now. But I know which side I am on in this struggle.
Now I want completely to change the subject, if I may, and ask the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, whether he will brief his noble friend to give us further information at the end of the debate about something which he said in Paris last week. According to The Times newspaper, he said that the British people are prepared to go up in atomic dust if necessary. Then he went on to say that they wanttheir Government to do something to prevent it—this was, of course, in the context of the Berlin crisis and negotiations. Now, what are we to make of this?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps I could put the noble Lord out of his agony at once.
LORD KENNET: Please do.
THE EARL OF HOME: What I said was this. I was talking of democracies, not particularly of the British people; that they might have to be blown up in a good cause. But I went on to say this: that they will not face the prospect of being blown into atomic dust unless they are certain that every possible avenue of settlement has been tried and searched, and searched again; and that means negotiation. That was really the context of the whole thing.
LORD KENNET: I thank the noble Earl. He has put me half out of my agony, but there is still the concept—and this I now make as a substantial point, not merely to request further clarification from the Foreign Secretary
604
—of being blown up into atomic dust in a good cause. I hope the Government from time to time ask themselves what would be a good cause; because if the British people, or any other, are blown up into atomic dust, there will be no one left to enjoy the results of the"good cause" having been achieved.
7.43 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to make a very short intervention. I have listened to all speeches with great pleasure and interest. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because we are all much indebted to him for putting down this Motion for us to debate, and I always listen with tremendous interest to his speech. It appeared to me to-day, while he was speaking, that, on the fundamental issues we are discussing, there was very little difference between Lord Henderson's view and that of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. He, too, wants a cease-fire, as I am sure we all want. He wants to see the end of the use of force, if possible; and inheriting the quality, as he does, I have no doubt, from his father, whom I can remember listenening to in the House of Commons many years ago, he is also a very strong man of peace.
But I cannot imagine that Lord Henderson had the slightest idea, when he put down this subject for debate to-day, this day in December, that so many astonishing things would have happened between the time he put it on the Order Paper and the time we are actually debating this Motion. I suppose the most incredible is the news this morning which has been alluded to by a great many Members to-day the extraordinary news of India and Goa. To me, it was so incredible. The reason why I am intervening in this debate is simply because I am one of the few people, I think, in this House who have spent three years as adelegate to the United Nations. Therefore, I can really speak from experience, from interest, and from knowledge of what actually goes on there every year at the Assembly. I have heard Mr. Nehru, for whom I have great admiration, making tremendous speeches from the rostrum of the General Assembly, urging everybody to undertake never to use force. After all, in signing the Charter we all agreed

605
not to use force unless it was absolutęly essential, or impossible to do anything else. Many a time have I listened to Mr. Nehru on such occasions, and when I read the newspaper this morning I found it quite impossible to believe that this was the same man who was ordering this extraordinary action in Goa.
I think enough has been said about it, and I would only support Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Secretary very strongly indeed in the action I am sure they will take when the matter comes before the Security Council. Perhaps even before it gets to the Security Council Mr. Nehru will have taken some action more in keeping with hisgeneral principles, his nature and his speeches, and may have stopped the whole thing; it seems so incredible to me that it could ever have begun.
Again I speak with some knowledge of what goes on at the United Nations when I say that it also seems to me that these very large forces which are now operating in the Congo are also rather out of keeping, in a sense, with the experience, the views and the desires of delegates of nations who attend the United Nations General Assembly. A great deal has been said about it this evening—I do not want to repeat what other people have said—but there seems to be something here which does not exactly fit into the picture of the working of a United Nations World Government, as we hope it will be. I was present in the United Nations General Assembly when the first United Nations force was mooted by Mr. Mike Pearson, the leader of the Canadian delegation in 1956. I remember very well the discussions which took place and when the force was agreed upon. The only people who voted against it, if I remember rightly (it is some time ago) were Russia and her satellites. They did not support it; otherwise, I think it had almost unanimous support from the rest of the United Nations.
Last year I had the opportunity, because I was engaged in another occupation in connection with World Refugee Year, of visiting the Jordan-Israel frontier where this force has been working and operating ever since 1956. That is a very remarkable force. The most remarkable thing about it is that it never fires a shot. If it fired a shot, my guess
606
is that the whole place would probably go up in flames, or anyway there would be grave disturbances. But because the United Nations is there by the will and the good will of everybody concerned, including the two nations of Israel and the Arab States, it works. It seems tome that if we are thinking in terms of trying to operate a United Nations' force —call it police force, or whatever term you will—it can work only if the people it is going to police and over which it will keep law and order are agreed that that is what they are prepared to observe. In fact, it is really a police force. It is a police force keeping law and order and the existing status quo. It is quite true that in that area, as we know, there is no permanent settlement; but I felt very strongly last year, and I think that anyone who knows the area (I do not know it well at all) would agree that, so long as war and shooting has not broken out, so long are we gaining time and the situation is becoming a little more stable.
I believe that the force that went into the Congo was originally sent in with the idea of keeping the peace between the Province of Katanga and other sections of the Congo, but somehow it has not worked out properly, and we now have a large and heavily armed force there. Their request for very large and dangerous bombs is a criterion of their armament. An international force cannot work if, in order to achieve its end, it has to be highly armed and itself engage in fighting. Therefore, I think that the most important thing is to stop the fighting wherever it is, whether it is between the United Nations forces and somebody else or whether it is tribes fighting each other. We shall achieve nothing while there is fighting but general misery and horror. But, as my noble friend Lord Kennet said, once war is embarked upon it is very difficult to discover which side is committing the worst injuries and crimes. I strongly support the Foreign Secretary in his great desire to bring about a cease-fire, because I believe that this large, highly armed United Nations' force taking part in war is a contradiction in terms, and I wish it had never started.
Why should we have been invited to give bombs as our contribution tothis war? I am very glad that we are not doing so. If only, instead of being

607
asked for bombs, we had been asked for people! It would have been much better to supply people of wisdom, knowledge and understanding, who could have taken part in a commission or arbitration to try to help to bring together the two sides. The names of one or two people spring to one's mind as authorities on African problems. After all, we stand in the United Nations in a position in which few other nations stand. We have created several independent African States which are now part of the United Nations. We have a "know how" which I firmly believe to be as great as that of any other country in the world in bringing on these nations so that they can undertake their own independent government and take part in the United Nations. If only we had been asked for people instead of bombs, I believe that we could make a great contribution which would certainly be of great value in the discussions which are going to take place in the near future, if the Foreign Secretary's policy is successful.
My noble friend Lord Strang, who made a remarkable speech this afternoon, has already drawn attention to the question of the international civil service of the United Nations. I would say from the experience of having been a delegate many times at the United Nations Assembly that there are many remarkable people who are part of the international civil service of the United Nations; also many less remarkable people are part of it. As my noble friend told us, it is chosen largely on a geographical basis and not on the basis of the best man for the job. The limitations of that are obvious. I do not happen to have met Dr. O'Brien and I do not know him, but I have met other civil servants of the United Nations who are now operating in the Congo. I am not making any personal comment about these people. I am perfectly certain that they are doing their very best. In point of fact, it would need a Hercules to go into the Congo and take care of the administrative job that has to be done.
Orders are given by New York to somebody in Albertville or Elisabethville. Who knows whether the messages get through straight? The men on the spot have to take enormous decisions.
608
It is a great responsibility, and although I am sure that they do their best, I can only tell your Lordships that I think that in the International Secretariat, or even in our own first-class Civil Service, we should have to hunt for a man to take the kind of responsibility which is asked of people out there. I do not think that the international civil service should have put upon its shoulders the primary responsibility that they are having to take there to-day, because I simply do not think that there are the men capable of doing it. They are dealing excellently when dealing with problems which are commensurate to their capacities, but these problems are not commensurate to the capacity of almost anybody of whom I can think. Here we have one of the weaknesses of the United Nations and of the power that we should like it to have.
It is not so much what happens at the Assembly that we should consider, because one can go on for weeks discussing things and getting nowhere. The test comes when the organisations of the United Nations get down to work. Many of them are excellent, but when it comes to something on the scale of the Congo operation, I do not believe it is humanly possible to find someone in the Secretariat, with the exception of Mr. Hammarskjoeld himself, capable of doing it. The tragedy of his loss is something we shall never get over. He was a magnificent person. I am sure that the others would all say that they are only second best. If we sent Dr. Bunche and Dr. Gardiner, they would be of enormous help, and that should make a difference. But I do not think it is possible to put so much responsibility on a Secretariat, in which they cannot in the nature of things have even as much help and as much training and so on, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said, as the civil servants in this country or in any other country of which we know.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would it be fair to interrupt the noble Lady to ask what she thinks we can do about it, unless it is to strengthen the Secretariat by all the means at our disposal?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I think that suggestion is right. It is a great pity that what I call this geographical distribution of posts is held to so strictly, because it is very hampering.

609
But it is difficult to alter, because once you are out there, there is always lobbying for someone. If it is the turn of an Arab, an African or somebody else, he is pushed on. It is a weakness of the organisation. There is nothing one can do about it, except to hope that in time it will work its way out.
My point in mentioning it now is that I do not see how this can work. Noble Lords have been saying that this Congo operation should be run by the United Nations. Quite frankly, it will not be run by the United Nations; or if it is, it will not be run successfully. I believe that if we want the United Nations to increase in authority and power that will only come about if it does not resort to force and does not have to do the kind of things that we deplore in nations. It must be a supra-national organisation, and not one which is, as it were, using the same sort of methods as we have seen and as have been used in the world for hundreds of years.
I am afraid I do not think the United Nations is going to work if the Security Council is going to put on it the kind of burdens it is being asked to bear to-day, and if the nations of the world are going to take it into their heads that every dispute that goes on must he one into which the United Nations should send a force. I am a really strong supporter of the United Nations. I have worked there, spoken there and done everything I can to make a contribution as a United Kingdom delegate. I want it to work, more than I can say. But if we put too great a burden on the United Nations, and ask it to do things it cannot do, then inevitably it will be crushed; and that would be tragic. Therefore, I think the more we can do to stop what is going on in the Congo at the present time, the better it will be for everybody concerned, and it is the only way the United Nations will survive.
8.4 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lady, and I would say how much I agree with what she has said about the United Nations and the way that they must behave if they are to inspire nations with respect. I, too, have been taught to believe that one has to be a very good Liberal to refrain from doing good by force.
610
This debate opened a very wide field, though most noble Lords have concentrated on one or two problems. I intend to be quite short, but so far Europe has been little mentioned. Our relations with the European Economic Community are under discussion at the present time. I should like to offer congratulations to the Lord Privy Seal for the masterly speech in which he presented our approach for membership of the Community. I am very glad that the United Kingdom Branch of the European Movement has printed this speech in a pamphlet which is now on sale for one penny. On Thursday last in the Assembly of the Western European Union we listened to an excellent analysis by M. Mansholt, who is Vice-Chairman of the European Commission, on the problems arising in the working out of a common agricultural policy whether for the Six or for the wider Europe we are seeking to build. I hope that the European Movement may render a double service to us by making this speech available for study in the same way as they have done with that of Mr. Heath.
On the development of political union, we have had tabled the French proposals submitted to the Fouchet Committee. It is too early to do more than mention these proposals, on which the Six countries of the Community are not yet agreed. I imagine that Her Majesty's Government are not alarmed by these proposals. Presumably, there would have to be unanimous agreement upon any changes made under that plan, if it were adopted, in the review envisaged after three years' operation. If not officially, I assume that Her Majesty's Government will have the opportunity at least unofficially of making comments as the discussions on these proposals for political union proceed. Some information on these two questions would, I am sure, be welcome to Members of your Lordships' House.
I feel also that a word should be said about N.A.T.O., in which our relations both with Europe and with the United States are involved. I am somewhat concerned about the practice of making N.A.T.O. Ministerial declarations the implications of which are not always very clear. This was the case, I feel, with the Ministerial declaration made in Paris in December, 1957, into which Dr.

611
Adenauer apparently reads more than appeared, I think, at the time. I do not wish to become involved in the technical matters which seem to be giving the High Command a good deal of trouble, such as the comparative level of conventional forces and the standardisation of weapons. Standardisation must be faced, and if it is to be achieved the assistance of Finance Ministers will be needed, in addition to the advice of technical experts, as the problem of balances of payment is involved, as well as national preferences.
What I really want to say once again is that, until we are able to set up common political control, the organisation of the defence of Europe will never be satisfactory. This is a European problem, and I believe European agreement must precede any extension to a European Atlantic agreement or an agreement in an Atlantic setting. In my view, this urgent, desirable end has been delayed rather than furthered by the frequent visits of the German Chancellor seeking to make bilateral agreements with American Presidents.
The one asset from the Congo muddle and tragedy, about which so much has been said to-day, has been the bringing of Europe nearer together, chiefly because almost every important European country has suffered from the inexperienced dabbling of the American State Department in territories which owe much to European assistance over a very long period. I think there is in Europe a good deal of suspicion about the motives of some American officials. Should the industrial installations in Katanga be damaged or brought to a standstill and come to be restarted with American aid and participation, an irreparable blow will have been struck, not only at the United Nations, but at the Atlantic community. I hope the meeting of our Prime Minister and the President will set a new pattern of Anglo-American relations, which is very necessary. If the Indian Government will not heed our advice and halt their attack on Goa, perhaps they would not refuse to heed joint representations made by us and the Government of the United States, with the possibility that if they did not do so the contributions
612
being made to India might not be continued.
I have not mentioned our relations with Russia. I have deliberately not done so, as I wish to emphasise that, in my opinion, they can be regulated only when a wide European Community has been firmly established with a common political policy. I hope that this very important matter will not be overlooked as other issues, however important, claim our attention.
8.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, we have always had the saying, "My country, right or wrong" which has a great deal to recommend it. But the Opposition also appear to have the saying, "The United Nations, right or wrong". Of course, you can only achieve the peace of the world either, as in the days of Pax Britannica, by the leadership of one great Power or by an alliance of Powers, or by a really United Nations. I personally favour a really United Nations. To bear allegiance to some empty symbol of words, which some people think the United Nations has become, is completely morally wrong. We cannot keep the peace by words or phrases. I have always thought that the 20th century would go down in history for the blind following of slogans, irrespective of their practical application. During the last few years we have looked on at this pandemonium of the United Nations. We have seen world statesmen banging the table with their shoes. This has brought the whole realm of international diplomacy into disrepute. We have now been treated to this debacle in the Congo. Not only has the United Nations been proved incompetent in the Congo, but the evidence all goes to prove that it has been the aggressor. We all wish the United Nations to be a great force in the world for good, but I honestly believe it will have to be reorganised, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to use all their influence to try to have it reorganised.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had some extremely interesting points to say about this. For instance, I cannot understand how a tiny little country of 2 million people can have the same vote as the United States. Surely the system of voting can be altered. It is also

613
wrong, I think, for a Secretary-General always to have to come from a small country. I should have thought that if you had a Secretary-General from a great country, which had hundreds of years' experience in administration of backward countries, it would be far preferable. We have shorn ourselves of so much of our power in the world that our greatest hope lies in being morally correct. If we really give a lead to the world in the moral things and refuse to be hypocritical, then I am sure our influence will be predominant in the end. When one looks at the United Nations' operations in the Congo, it is obvious why they have failed. I have never been in the Congo, but I have been extremely near it. I cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government did not fight the resolution of the United Nations which sought to drive out all the Belgians and white advisers. because anyone who has been in Africa knows that throughout all Africa, wheresoever you require organisation, you must have white advisers or technicians. The average person probably does not realise that in the Congo, before its so-called "freedom", the Europeans made up almost 40 per cent. of the population.
LORD SHEPHERD: Forty per cent.?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Yes, almost 40 per cent. were Europeans, or so I am told. To drive the majority of these people out seems extraordinary. I should think that the average Congolese would far prefer to work for the white advisers he has been brought up with and come to trust, than to have a great many people brought in with the United Nations, half of whom probably cannot speak French or the language of the country, and the great majority of whom have not had any experience of administration in Africa. We blamed the Belgians for scurrying out of the Congo. It is true that they should have educated the Africans as we have done in Nigeria and Tanganyika. I think there is no doubt that the Americans wanted to curry favour with the Afro-Asians and put pressure on the Belgians, sub rosa, to clear out.
The great trouble with the United Nations is that there is this stigma of colonialism, so that British, French or anyone from any of the great Powers who have experience of administration
614
cannot be employed in the United Nations. But really colonialism ought to have a great place of honour, because it has brought peace and prosperity, cured famine and cured disease for millions of people. To a great extent because of the Press in this country and other countries, it does not get credit for it.
Several noble Lords opposite, I think chiefly the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, have been very derisive of what they call the Katangan Lobby. I understand that a majority of noble Lords opposite probably do not agree with the noble Lady. What the noble Lady has told us is that certain English companies have certain holdings in the Union Minière, but she has not produced any evidence to show that British politicians have been influenced by the fact that British companies have holdings in Union Minière. But we have not heard anything from the noble Lady of the Gizenga lobby. How about the Russians? The only mineral they are short of is copper. We have a surplus of copper in the world at the moment, but it is quite conceivable—I do not say it is correct or fact—that, for instance, the United Nations in the Congo are anxious to get the Union Minière mines under the control of a group sympathetic to Russia. The noble Lady cannot have it both ways. There arc always two sides to this question. I think some noble Lords said the United Nations had been very impartial in the Congo, but I can remember that once or twice the Congolese tried to invade Katanga. The United Nations, so far as I remember, did not step in between and try to stop the invasion. So the United Nations, in my opinion, have not been impartial.
I cannot help thinking that there is some injured pride among the officials taking part with the United Nations in the Congo. I honestly think they have been rather moved perhaps by spite and frustration. We do not want to go into the case of Dr. Connor O'Brien and all that; but it is asking a great deal of people to bring them out to Africa, no matter how brilliant they are, and expect them to administrate for these people. The fault is not entirely theirs if they become temporarily unhinged. I think the United Nations is asking rather a lot of them, and if only, as I said before,

615
they could employ people experienced in administration in Africa it would make a great difference.
The noble Lady also made a great point of the Advisory Council for the United Nations on the Congo turning down Her Majesty's Government's request for a cease-fire. The Advisory Council has, I think, eighteen members, of which fourteen are Afro-Asians. The noble Lady made great play of the fact that seven of them come from the Commonwealth. But India is one of the greatest members of the Commonwealth, and we have heard about Goa, so you cannot, because they are members of the Commonwealth, say that they always act without prejudice. So I think that argument falls down.
We have also heard a great deal about the mercenaries. But the European population in Katanga is, I understand, about 30,000, and you cannot blame the white men who have been in Katanga a long time—some of them all their lives—if they defend their homes and their country. If you are going to talk about mercenaries, the United Nations, of course, has mercenaries. If you are splitting hairs—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt? I rose on this question the other day. There is a tremendous difference between the mercenary, the man who enlists for money, and the soldier who is sent by his Government as a contribution to the United Nations. He is not a volunteer in the strict sense of the word; he is a member of his force, his national force, and he is ordered to that spot. He is not a mercenary, he is a servant. There is a vast difference.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, he is not fighting for his country, and the white man in Katanga is fighting for his homeland. I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord there.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the mercenaries we were worried about were mercenaries who were being recruited in Europe, in Brussels and in France, just before the resolution was passed calling on the mercenaries to be removed from Katanga.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, no mercenaries can make a country fight. They can fight by themselves, perhaps, but the number of mercenaries in Katanga, which is the size of France, is extremely small in ratio to the population. The noble Lord is not going to tell me that one thousand or even two thousand mercenaries can make a whole country fight if the country does not want to fight. That is completely impossible. The other thing, too, that I feel has been very difficult for Her Majesty's Government is that they have really been trying to please everybody; they have been too good natured. In these matters I ask Her Majesty's Government to take one line and to stick to it. Sir Patrick Dean in the debate in the United Nations on November 21 said:
"I must make it clear that the continued full support of the United Kingdom of the Congo operation must depend on the skill and wisdom and the conciliatory manner with which the United Nations carries out its mandate".
In view of that statement, I personally think Her Majesty's Government would be quite justified in withdrawing their voluntary contribution until the United Nations defers more to the wishes of Her Majesty's Government. We do not, of course, want to withdraw our mandatory contribution.
One noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government had not supported the United Nations. If we look at the record we see that Her Majesty's Government have fully supported the United Nations ever since its birth. There are 104 members. They are all in arrears with their contributions, except twelve. We have always paid our contributions up to date. From January up to October this year we have sent over 7½ million dollars. We are also paying £80,000 voluntarily a week. We have supplied all sorts of medical supplies, tents, et cetera. But we are told we have not supported them. What is more important: to support the principle of the United Nations, to act according to the Charter, or to support the United Nations when it does not act according to the Charter? I would think it extremely hypocritical to support the United Nations when it does not act according to the Charter.

617
It would be far more honourable for us not to support the United Nations if they did not act according to the Charter. I cannot understand the argument that we must support them, right or wrong; it means an absolute negation of everything moral. It is extremely late, but I should just like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and when this question of Goa comes up before the Security Council I hope Her Majesty's Government will side with Portugal, because there has been an absolute naked aggression and it is obvious where the right lies. India, after all, and plenty of the Afro-Asian countries, often do not support us, so there is no question that we have to support them blindly all the time. We have to support what is morally right.
8.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, at this very later hour in this very interesting debate I do not propose to keep your Lordships for very long; in fact half way through this debate I recast my notes completely, and indeed I am hoping to be able to dispense with them completely, not out of disrespect to your Lordships' House but out of respect for your Lordships' appetites. Between about 1,100 and 1,200 years ago there was a very rich merchant living in Baghdad who had a favourite slave. He decided one day to free the favourite slave and very generously gave him a present of 2,000 sequins. The slave was overcome and kissed the hem of the merchant's garment. The merchant said to his ex-slave, "Now, Hassan, what are you going to do with that money I have given you?" The ex-slave replied, "Of course, Master, I am going into the market to buy a slave". I think that is a text which still runs true to-day; only the jargon of the market place about buying another slave has changed. It is now "legal and moral rights" I it is "reactionaries" and "lobbies" I it is "mercenaries" and "slogans". But the fundamental fact remains, that nations and tribes, and even supra-nations, still go into the market to buy a slave when given liberty.
I think regarding the Congo that what has not been said or stressed enough is its geographical impossibility, if you are going to leave it to inexperienced
618
people of vastly varying tribes to control. This is something we ought to have seen very long ago. Look to-day at the difficulty—I am not referring to rights or wrongs—of either side being able to keep airfields clear, let alone roads or vast areas of jungle. I know quite a bit of the Eastern Congo Border, and in the palmier days of the 1950's in the Lake Kivu area milk which cost about 1s. or ls. 2d. a gallon in Kenya was being sold there at the same price as petrol—namely, between 8s. and 9s. a gallon. It was merely because the communications were so impossible that that price was exacted, and that was the only place where there were roads.
It is far easier to administer a country separated by wide patches of desert and dry land than one separated by jungle, as witness the lingering of Mau Mau in the forest for years whereas out in the open there was nothing. I think that in future, in shaping our idea of what is possible and what is not possible, we should very seriously think of the geography of a country and the types of people living in it before we give way and say, on the one hand, "You must have a central Government because it is a world dream", or, on the other, You must have complete Balkanisation of an entire country". We must find a compromise, and remember the lessons of history as well as those of geography and ecology.
I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who drew a picture of the plight of refugees and women and children. Ever since I first saw refugees pouring back along the roads in France in 1918 in the spring retreat I have been haunted time and again by this going on through world wars, through so-called peaces, risings and rebellions—the transplanting of population—and I know very well that there is nothing more miserable or heartrending than that. But over and above that I think there is something we must consider as more important still than the immediate plight of women and children pursued by bombs and disorder. It is the long-term livelihood and whether families are going to be able to live together after lands have been broken up, after businesses have been destroyed. It is that for which I think it is urgently and vitally neces

619
sary now to have a cease-fire, because if we forget emotions and all the false things into which they lead us—emotions leading into takeovers which crystallise into the use of force—and if we use reason but use it without a true and human understanding, we can never possibly have peace in Africa or anywhere else in the world.
8.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, reminded us of the season of the year—Christmas. The other Sunday I was at my youngster's school and, as I listened to the young voices singing the carols, the Christmas word came very close to me —"Peace on earth, good will to all men". How hollow, how poignant, are those words to-day when we consider the affairs of the world. My greatest concern is not so much the cold war; it is not so much the Berlin wall or the chaos in Katanga; it is that amongst the Western world, amongst the free nations, there have grown up during 1961 increasing divisions and increasing suspicions towards each other's integrity. I think 1961 may be the crucial year for this country and for the Western world. I believe that time is running short. I do not believe that there is a great time for us to build the foundations upon which peace can be guaranteed to our own children and the future.
As I listened to the debate this afternoon, I could not help feeling, as the criticisms were made of the United Nations in the Congo and voices were raised in its support, that perhaps in this debate we had forgotten the real issue. The issue that still faces the world is freedom or servitude—the freedom of the Western world, which many countries throughout the world also enjoy, and the servitude that lies behind what are known as the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain. I could not help feeling, as noble Lords were attacking the actions of the United Nations in Katanga, that as Ministers were sometimes defending their political decision last week they were damaging perhaps the only weapon that exists in the world to-day upon which universal peace can be created. When those noble Lords look back on what they said, I think they may well regret their words.
620
I wish to say a few words about the Far East. We are pleased to hear that some agreement has been made with regard to Vietnam. We are pleased to hear from the Foreign Secretary that from the conference now going on in Geneva a final agreement is possible and that peace is possible in these two vital areas. I think we should be wrong to believe that, just because an agreement has been made, that area is therefore safe. Whether they are Chinese or Russians, I believe that the Communists will honour their agreements in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; but I believe that the pressure will be placed elsewhere. I believe we shall see it in Singapore or Siam.
We were pleased the other day to see that Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of Malaya, had come to this country and was able to come to some agreement with the British Government for the creation of the new State of Malaysia. I believe that this State will provide us with possibly the last opportunity by which we can use the economic and cultural resources of the West to withstand Communist infiltration and aggression. I do not believe that in Vietnam and Laos we can expect anything more than a neutral position. I wonder whether the Tunku appreciates what he is taking on his shoulders in the creation of Malaysia. Malaya is relatively secure. It has a happy people and has no great social problems. But in Singapore the issue is quite different. The Communists have infiltrated deeply. Therefore, if the Tunku and the Federation of Malaya are to make a success of Malaysia we must prove to the masses, particularly those in Singapore, that the Western way of life, Western resources, the resources of freedom. are stronger and more attractive that those of the Communists.
Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, whether he will press upon his colleagues in the Government the fact that the issue of Malaysia requires a great act of statesmanship. It requires economic aid far beyond that which has so far been given. It requires the development of trade for that country, to raise the standards of living for its people, if it is to make what we call the Western free way of life acknowledged by the people as worth living.

621
There is one stumbling block, as I understand it, to the creation of Malaysia—namely, the question of the S.E.A.T.O. base in Singapore. I hope that that will not stand in the way of the creation of this State, if the Tunku finds himself not in a position to persuade his friends to accept what is a strong but a foreign base in what he would prefer to regard as a neutral State. I believe that the creation of the Malaysian State is far more important than the establishment and maintenance of a S.E.A.T.O. base.
I want to say something about manpower in the Far East. A great deal has been made of the argument that, in view of the serious shortage of manpower in the British forces in Europe, we should cut our overseas forces. My Lords, in the present circumstances I think this would be utterly wrong. I believe that, for internal security in support of the established Governments in the Far East, these forces play a more important part to-day than they have ever done before.
One cannot pass over the news this morning of the attack by India on Goa, and in view of what transpired earlier I suppose that I had better declare an interest in that I believe I have—shall I say, unfortunately?—some very valuable cargoes waiting. to be off-loaded in Goa. I could not support Portugal in its colonial policy. What has happened in Angola is utterly repugnant to me, as I am sure it is to many in this House. Portugal has proved obstinate over the years in its negotiations with India. From 1947, India had hoped that, with the granting of freedom to India and Pakistan by this country, the Portuguese would follow suit; but, due to their obstinacy, all forms of negotiation have failed. But the attack by India on Goa is utterly wrong, whatever may be the provocation. And Mr. Nehru has been, as we have heard, one of the voices of reason in the past who maintained that force was never justified in procuring a solution to a political problem.
To me it is a very great tragedy, and it is a tragedy that perhaps Mr. Nehru cannot yet assess. I have looked upon Mr. Nehru as a voice that Asia could have followed; but how will it follow, now that Mr. Nehru has been a party to what is nothing more than an unprovoked attack upon a colony of Portugal?
622
My Lords, I would make this plea to India. If it is too late for them to withdraw their forces, I hope they will use the minimum of force, and that they will respect property and persons. I believe it is only in this way that India can hope to redeem its good name that it may well have lost through this attack.
I would make a special plea now to Portugal, which has not so far been made in this House in this debate. Portugal has within its territories half a million Indians. Many of those Indians are like those whom we know in Kenya, to whom the territory has been their home, their father's home and maybe their grandfather's home. It is reported that Portugal is interning those Indians and is confiscating their property. I would say to Portugal: "In spite of your bitterness, remember the time of year, remember Christian charity and remember that these people are mere pawns in a very big game. Therefore, treat these people as individuals, with respect and kindness."
My Lords, I now turn to the Congo. I have listened through the weeks and the days to the debates that have gone on about the Congo. I do not propose to say anything on what may be the errors that have been made. I would commend to Her Majesty's Government the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strang. I felt that he put his finger on what might be the weakness of the United Nations in the Congo. The United Nations were called upon, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, to face a nearly impossible task. In many ways I believe that they have performed a formidable task with considerable success. Perhaps in the last few days one could make criticisms of their actions in Katanga, but I think we should be careful how we make our criticisms. I do not think we should criticise the servants of the United Nations, the soldiers, the administrators, who have been sent to Katanga to perform a task.
We talk about our own financial contribution to the United Nations' effort. We should all recognise that some countries have had to pay what is probably a bigger price than pure cash. I know that the Federation of Malaya has sent troops, and I know that the Tunku, the Prime Minister, had the greatest difficulty

623
in persuading his Parliament to send a military contribution. But then why did he send his troops? He said: "We belong to the United Nations. We are called upon to provide a force. Therefore, if we are part of the United Nations we must send that force." Therefore, to those noble Lords who believe that, because things have gone wrong, we should withdraw from the United Nations, I would say that the United Nations has played a very great part in the Congo; and that perhaps its actions in the last few days, with all the bloodshed which we all regret, may well have created the atmosphere in which Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula are now prepared to meet.
We have heard reports of what has happened in Elisabethville. We heard last week from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, a series of reports on the attacks that have been made and the damage done. I hope that it will not go out from this House that the United Nations have carried out a terror campaign in Katanga, because, as I listened to various speeches that were made, it certainly appeared that some noble Lords were saying that the United Nations were using Hitler techniques. I cannot believe that the officers of the United Nations, the soldiers from Sweden, from Malaya and from India, would be party to what is nothing more than a criminal attack upon civilian people and accommodation.
My Lords, I would support the plea that has been made: that Her Majesty's Government should try, through the United Nations, to obtain an impartial report on what has happened in Katanga. I believe it is essential, not only for the good name of the United Nations but for the future. Because we all hope for the best, but we should be wrong to believe that possibly in the future a similar force may not be called upon. Therefore, if there have been mistakes, if there have been errors of judgment, let us learn from them. But, my Lords, if there has been an error of judgment, if there have been mistakes, let us not lose sight of the basic fact of why the United Nations went to the Congo, and what it has achieved. I think that when the impartial report is printed, when the smoke of political
624
battle has gone, we, who are part of the United Nations, will be very proud of its activities.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Salter, whose name appears on the Paper for him to speak at this stage, will not be doing so. I would intervene very briefly to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in replying, to give us a little information about the Baluba tribe, which appears to be suffering very seriously and whose refugees are in a camp which seems to be the scene of great sufferings and in some peril. I would hope that Her Majesty's Government will use their influence with the United Nations and with the parties to the Congo dispute to ensure the resettlement of that tribe.
9.2 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing, as has been done at various stages throughout the debate, our gratitude to my noble friend Lord Henderson for having put down this Motion and so enabled this very important debate to take place to-day. As usual, he made a balanced, comprehensive and unprovocative speech—indeed, in my view, a perfect opening speech for a debate of this kind. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, on an admirable maiden speech, long delayed but, nevertheless, well worth waiting for. We all of us hope that we shall hear him again. He spoke on a subject on which he was well qualified to speak, which is a great example that some of us might follow. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future.
Before I perform the purpose for which I am speaking to-night, I should like to say a word about the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary. We realise the very arduous labours in which he has been engaged, and if I am going to be critical, as I shall be, I hope he will appreciate that this is not a personal criticism. We appreciate what he has been doing; and, realising that in two days' time he is going to Bermuda, we wish him every success in the responsible and important task which confronts him there. I personally am very glad to see him looking so fit and well

625
in spite of the very heavy labours in which he has been engaged.
This has been a long debate, and—I was going to say "fortunately", but, at any rate, it would have been longer still but for the fact that the forces of attrition have lost us one speaker. Nevertheless, I am the eighteenth speaker in this debate, and it would be rather surprising if I had anything fresh to say, anything which had not already been said. But the Government can have had little comfort out of this debate because, apart from the support that they had from the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and a little support from one or two other speakers, they have had very little support for their policy on the Congo, on which the debate has largely turned. They have been very strongly criticised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, by Lord Colyton, by Lord Clitheroe and by a number of other speakers. I am only sorry that they are not here.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I criticised the United Nations, not the Government.
LORD SILKIN: I will come to that in a moment, because I rather thought that the noble Lord was criticising the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Home, made a speech on the functions of the United Nations to which I think none of us would take exception. As a statement of the purposes of the United Nations it was admirable, and we should all agree; but he then went on to deal with criticisms against the Government, and I should like to say a word about those. He referred to four criticisms: bad faith, gullibility, lack of foresight and weakness.
THE EARL OF HOME: Bad judgment.
LORD SILKIN: Is that a fifth or is that a correction?
THE EARL OF HOME: No; that is the first one.
LORD SILKIN: The first one is bad judgment?
THE EARL OF HOME: Amended!
LORD SILKIN: He acquitted himself of all four charges, but I feel that we on this side, at any rate, cannot acquit him of at least two of them. Two of
626
the charges we have never made. I do not remember that we ever accused the Government of gullibility in this particular instance, nor of lack of foresight, and I do not propose to say anything about those. But I want to say a word about the other two.
First of all, bad judgment—or, as I would rather put it, bad faith. In the Question and Answer which we had during the week I suggested that it was generally believed throughout the world that the Government were speaking with two voices: that in their public utterances they supported fully the United Nations and its decisions, but in their actions they were doing what they could to frustrate a number of the decisions of the United Nations. The noble Earl applied himself to that point. He said that we could not accept the position that we had to support the United Nations, right or wrong.
I would accept that up to a point. But when we are parties to a decision, or when we have not objected to a decision, then I feel that we are bound to support that decision of the United Nations. I do not think that we can properly vote for a decision—indeed, I do not believe we can abstain—and then reserve the right to oppose the actions of the United Nations unless, of course, they are going outside that decision. But the noble Earl did not make the case, so far as I know, that the United Nations were in fact acting outside or in conflict with the decisions which had been made; and, in those circumstances, there is a duty on the part of every member of the United Nations to support the decisions of the United Nations. Indeed, it is laid down, I think in Article XXV, that they have to support the United Nations. It is not a question of saying: "We will support you only if we think the decisions are right". If the Government deliberately voted against a decision, then on the Security Council that decision would not have been made at all; it would have been equivalent to a veto. But I submit that if we either support a decision, or abstain from opposing it, then we are under an obligation not to frustrate it.
I want to say a word now about one of the four points on which the Government have been criticised, according to the noble Earl, and that is, their weak

627
ness. In spite of a great deal of discussion which has taken place, I still do not see the answer. I am referring first to the question of the bombs. I think we all know the facts. For some weeks prior to December 8, I think it was, there had been discussions with the United Nations following the request by them for 24, 1,000 lb. bombs. We had been reluctant to agree to supply them, and I make no complaint about that. We had these discussions and we laid down conditions. It is said—and the noble Earl who is going to reply can tell me if I am wrong—that we made the conditions so stiff that we were rather hoping the United Nations would not press the point. Whether that is so or not, I do not know; but we were entitled to make conditions to ensure that these bombs would be used in the way in which we thought they ought to be used, and we were entitled to ask for the necessary safeguards to ensure that the decisions and the promises of the United Nations would be carried out on the spot. I presume that by December 8 we were satisfied as to that; otherwise we should not have agreed. I hope I carry the noble Earl with me so far: that on that day we were satisfied.
Three weeks later we changed our minds. This was not a sudden decision, as I have indicated; it was arrived at as the result of long discussions and negotiations, and at the end of the day we had agreed. But what I do not appreciate is why we changed our minds. I understand what was said. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, explain that, after we had come to the decision, we had information that people on the spot were making certain statements which were in conflict with the agreement upon which these bombs were to be supplied. If that had been so and we had satisfied ourselves that it was the case, then I think we were entitled to make further representations to the United Nations and to say, "Well now, what is all this about?" But we did nothing of the kind. We made no attempt, as far as I know, to check up on these things—none at all. In fact, it has since turned out that those statements were not made at all, and that something else was said. In fact, we had the extraordinary story about things going wrong
628
on the tape, and of a person's statement being entirely reversed, and so on. But the fact is that those statements were not made, and they have been entirely repudiated.
Why did we not go back to the United Nations and ask either for corroboration of the original arrangement, or, at any rate, get further assurances that they were going to carry out what they had agreed to? Instead of that, we just made representations to them. I have not the facts here, but it is stated on high authority that we told the United Nations we would not supply the bombs, or we were not prepared to, because as a result we were in difficulties politically. Here there is a gap in my information which I should be glad to have the noble Earl fill. At any rate, we induced the United Nations to withdraw their request.
The suggestion is made that the true reason for that has nothing to do with the merits of the case at all. The Government had made up their minds on the merits on December 8. What is being suggested is that the truth is that they gave way and withdrew entirely on account of political pressure. If that is correct, I say that the case for charging the Government with weakness has been made out. A Government has to stand up to its rebels, even formidable ones like the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe. If the Government think they are right, they should stand up to them. If they think the rebels are right, they should never have acted as they did in the first instance. But merely to give way to political pressure—and we know that political pressure was exercised on a very large scale—is, I think, utterly wrong, and is an indication of weakness.
The noble Earl said that there was no doubt at all about the loyalty of this country to the United Nations and to the Charter, and I would not challenge that. If the test is that we have paid our contributions, and have even paid our voluntary contributions, certainly. And I believe the noble Earl when he says that we really are desirous of having a strong United Nations, and that we are strong supporters of the Charter. But the impression I had was that nevertheless, under political pressure, we were prepared to go a long way toward sacrificing even the United Nations. That was the feeling I had, and, indeed, in

629
our actions we have gone some way towards giving colour to that suggestion. The noble Earl pointed out that our opinion in the United Nations is a limited one; we have one vote only out of 104. That is perfectly true. But we should be playing a leading part, and we are generally listened to with the utmost respect. I feel that the history of the last few weeks, at any rate, will cause us to be listened to with less respect than that to which we should otherwise be entitled.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is not here, because I should like to say that I agreed with a great deal of what he said. Nobody is more experienced or qualified in these matters to express views on the administration of the United Nations than he, and I hope that the suggestions he made will be very seriously considered andbrought forward by Her Majesty's Government for consideration by theUnited Nations. I had hoped that he would say something about questions of substance. I think the recent experience of the United Nations, certainly in Katanga, has been such as to make us consider very carefully whether the build-up of United Nations' forces is exactly what we should like, or is the most successful way of achieving what is wanted. I agree with my noble friend Lord Longford that what is needed is a permanent international force under the control of the United Nations, with members of the force owing allegiance only to theUnited Nations and not to their separate nationalities. In other words, what is wanted is to convert the force into a genuine international United Nations' force. I hope that the Government will see theirway to supporting, indeed to making, suggestions along these lines. This is nothing novel. The various members of the Government have already committed themselves to the principle and, therefore, it should not be difficult to carry the matter a stage further.
I want to turn for a moment to the critics of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that the noble Earl will not tell me that the Government must be right because they are being criticised on the one hand by members of the Right, and on the other hand by members of the Opposition, and they stand in between. It is possible for both criticisms to be
630
justified and the Government to be wrong all the time. But I am not suggesting that. I thought that the burden of the criticism by nobleLords opposite was that the United Nations had no right to be in Katanga at all. Indeed, I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, actually used that expression at one time. Whether he said that without proper consideration or whether he really meant it, I do not know, but that was the inference I drew from what he said.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I thought that they had no reason to be in Southern Katanga.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not think that we are in disagreement. If we take the view that the decisions of the United Nations do not count or that we are not obliged to take any notice of them if we do not agree with them, then I can understand that point of view; but if we accept the decisions of the United Nations, especially when we vote for them, then surely weare not in a position to complain because the United Nations forces are acting in accordance with those decisions and are there. I suggest that the criticism really is that they are there for the wrong purpose.
I thought that was admirably dealt with in another place by the Lord Privy Seal, when he gave four reasons for the United Nations' forces being in Katanga, all of which were in accordance with the decisions of either the Security Council or the General Assembly. Indeed, the Government wholly support that, because until December 11 they were even prepared to support the action of the United Nations' forces with twenty-four 1,000 lb. bombs. So they certainly cannot complain that the United Nations' forces are not properly there or are acting in a way contrary to the decisions of the United Nations.
But I can understand the noble Marquess and his friends in taking a different view. They do not agree with the whole action, but they have no right to complain of the action of the Government in supporting the decisions of the United Nations for which they themselves voted. I am not going to make any personal imputations against any noble Lord who supported this view. I

631
have never taken the view that, because a person had a financial interest in a matter and voted in a certain way, he was voting or speaking simply because of that personal interest. I do not accept that for one single moment and I hope that it will not go out from this House that that is the view we are taking. But the fact remains that the noble Lords who have taken the opposite view are out of court in objecting to decisions which this Government have made at the United Nations.
I should like to say a word about mercenaries. It has been said that this term has no meaning, or if it has a meaning, what is the objection to mercenaries? The term "mercenaries" has been used in the resolutions of the United Nations and, whatever they may be, the business of the United Nations is to get them out of Katanga—out of the Congo. But I think that most of us, if we were pressed hard, could find a definition of a "mercenary". We know the animal when we see him. I do not think that there can really be any doubt that they are people hired to take part in military activities in one form or another, not because they believe in the cause for which they are fighting, but because they are paid. It might be argued that there are many people like that. In a sense, it is a matter of degree. But there are certain people who stand out as mercenaries. I was under the impression that the noble Lord had no objection to mercenaries and thought that they were a good influence.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord slightly misunderstood me. What I was saying was that it was not possible to control Congolese troops without some experienced officers. The experienced Belgian officers who, under the treaty at the time of independence, were supposed to be left to control the Congolese soldiers were removed by the United Nations. That left a vacuum and in came various mercenaries to fill that vacuum, and if they had not been there, things would have been very much worse. I should have preferred to see the Belgian officers remaining in accordance with the agreement.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord. He is making the best case he can for mercenaries. But the fact remains that on a great many occasions it was the decision of the United Nations that the mercenaries should go; that the Congolese should get rid of them. If the Congolese Government really wanted officers to control their forces, it would have been easy for them to make a request to the United Nations.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely wrong. There was nobody who could have been made available. Not a single man in Katanga would have accepted United Nations officers at any price.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am talking about the Congo. The United Nations resolutions refer to the Congo. not specifically to Katanga. I do not know why Katanga wanted a separate army of their own at all. All the resolutions refer to the Congo and if the Congolese wanted officers no doubt they could have asked for them. I do not propose to say any more about the Congo.
Not much has been said about Berlin to-day and there is little that I need add. We all hope it will be possible to have these discussions with the Soviet Union. The noble Earl, perhaps wisely, did not anticipate what will happen if we are confronted with a further refusal by the French to negotiate, and I would not press him on the subject to-day. I hope that when they emerge the discussions may be fruitful, and perhaps the French will have second thoughts on the matter. At any rate, I do not think it would be wise to speculate too much at the moment.
Goa has been referred to. To a large extent I associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, and there is little more that I should want to say about it. I hope, however, that the Indians may be persuaded to withdraw altogether. It seems to be so inconsistent with all the protestations that Mr. Nehru and Mr. Krishna Men on have made at the United Nations that I can hardly believe what has taken place. I should like to know what they have to say on the subject. Mere provocation does not seem to me to be good enough.

633
We are all at times provoked, but we do not take the law into our own hands, especially when we are members of the United Nations. There is a remedy—it may be said it is not a very effective one—which they themselves have been very ready to refer to in the past: they have always represented that any difficulty should go to the United Nations. I find it inexplicable that in this case they have not done so themselves. I think it would be wise not to judge them completely in advance, but to wait and see what they have to say. After all, we can always judge them when we have heard what they have to say. I hope, however, that the Government will make the strongest possible representations, not only for a cease-fire but for the Indians to withdraw to their own frontiers and to release any prisoners they may have taken.
My Lords, we are coming to the end of 1961. I suppose it has been the worst year, from an international point of view, that we have had since the war. We have had one problem after another to face. And I am sorry to say that the position at the end of the year is certainly no better than it was at the beginning. The whole House will, I am sure, hope that the year 1962 will see better things; and when we come to debate foreign affairs in December, 1962 (if we do have a debate) I hope the noble Earl, if he is still in office, will be able to give us greater cheer as to the international position than we have had on this occasion. At any rate, I should like to assure him that in the immense tasks that confront him he has the best wishes of every Member of this House.
9.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships were all delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, which I think we all recognised as a remarkable speech, filled both with experience and with wisdom, and we hope that we shall often have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord again. I was particularly delighted to hear him say, in speaking of Berlin, to which he devoted almost the whole of his speech, that the only concessions which merited discussion at the present time were concessions which should be made by the Soviet Government and not
634
by the West. That is, I think, indeed true. Negotiations ought not to consist of 50 per cent. of giving away what you have and accepting, in exchange, 10 per cent. of what the other man has stolen from you. That is not what we mean or ought to mean by negotiation.
The noble Lord was equally wise in saying that it would not be an advantage to discuss now what our terms will be; and I am, of course, grateful to him for saying that he would not expect any reply to the two or three suggestions which he put forward. Of course we believe that we must have negotiations; we believe it is the right thing to do. We have agreed this with most of our Allies, and we hope that we may soon be able to enter upon negotiations which may avert what is at the present time the gravest threat to world peace, subject to what we have always maintained: that we must keep the freedom and viability of West Berlin, the presence of Allied troops there, and our rights of access unimpaired and, one might perhaps hope, improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in, if I may so describe it, a statesmanlike and balanced presentation of his case which we are always accustomed to hear from him, covered the subjects of Berlin, the Congo and also disarmament. As disarmament was the only one of these which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary did not have time to touch on in his speech, I will first give what I hope will be a short statement on the disarmament position, and then I will try with equal brevity to make an appreciation—not always a favourable appreciation, I am afraid—of the criticisms and observations which your Lordships have put forward in the debate.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is aware, as most of your Lordships are, that at the beginning of the present General Assembly the United States Government circulated a declaration on disarmament in the form of a detailed and comprehensive plan for controlled disarmament by stages; and before making this declaration the United States Government had consulted us and the other N.A.T.O. countries. We have announced our support for this declaration. As a result of bilateral United States-Soviet talks before that, the two Governments presented to the

635
United Nations an agreed statement of principles which should govern negotiations. The American representative in his communication pointed out that one important thing was not covered in these agreed principles, and that is to verify the levels of armaments retained and not merely the destruction of agreed quantities. It is no good agreeing on destroying armaments if you have no information whatever aboutthe armaments which are left. Both the American and Soviet representatives informed the United Nations that they had not reached agreement on a body in which to resume negotiations.
During the Session, on November 20, the Indian delegation put forward a Resolution urging both the Americans and the Russians to reach agreement on the composition of the negotiating body and asking them to report to the Assembly before the conclusion of its present Session. That was unanimously adopted on November 21 and, as a result of American-Russian talks, agreement has now been reached between the two Governments that negotiations on general and complete disarmament should be based on the principles previously agreed between those two Governments, and that the negotiating body should consist of the original ten powers —that is, five Western Powers and five from the Soviet bloc—together with another eight, which are India, Burma, the United Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Sweden. This Committee is to submit a progress report, not later than June 1 next year. I do not know where or when negotiations are to be resumed, but the American Government are in favour of having them at Geneva at the beginning of April, and that would be perfectly acceptable to us.
May I remind your Lordships of what I think has been stated before, that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Statement on Disarmament of March, 1961, still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government. And, as I think the Prime Minister said not long ago, the latest United States' disarmament plan is on very much the same lines as this Commonwealth statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also mentioned the question of nuclear
636
tests, on which I have not any more to add to the melancholy facts which I put before your Lordships on our last debate on this subject. The Russian destruction of the last Conference was a great blow, in our view, to the future of peace and disarmament, and it has inevitably destroyed, to a very large extent, confidence in what may happen in the future. The only thing with which I did not quite agree in Lord Henderson's very fair appreciation of the position was when he said that a resumption of tests by America might only lead to large outbursts of tests by Russia. Well, my Lords, however that may be, it could not result in a larger number of Russian tests than that which followed American abstention for the last eighteen months.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, what I said was that the Americans were making underground tests. I hoped they would not resume atmospheric tests, because I was quite sure that the Russians would again follow suit. I think I am right in saying that yesterday some declaration to that effect was made from Moscow.
THS EARL OF DUNDEE: But I am afraid that the Russians follow suit, even if the Americans do not have atmospheric tests. As President Kennedy very rightly said: "If you are fooled once, it is the Russians' fault; if you are fooled twice, that is your fault". I do not think we can give any guarantee against doing what both the United States and ourselves think is necessary to our safety in order to provide ourselves with a proper nuclear defence.
The only one of your Lordships who has referred to South-East Asia was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I do not think he would want me to spend a great deal of time in that part of the world. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary has already mentioned our hopes of an early agreement in Laos. I think your Lordships know that the position in South Vietnam is very serious indeed, where the Communists are trying to get control by aggression and terrorism. The noble Lord asked me to say something about the Federation of Malaysia, which has started with the greatest good will from us.

637
He asked me to say that we would not neglect its claim to economic aid. Of course, that goes without saying. But as he mentioned the Singapore base, I think I must make it quite clear that the agreed arrangements about the base have been carefully framed to give us the full substance of what we want with the Singapore base and facilities, and we expect that agreement to be fulfilled by Malaysia. On the one hand, it leaves them totally free from any embarrassing entanglement with S.E.A.T.O. and, on the other hand, leaves us free for facilities for everyone in the Commonwealth and international obligations in conjunction with peace in South-East Asia. I think it is important to make it clear that we are relying upon that.
Nearly all the rest of your Lordships have concentrated mainly on two areas of warfare: in Goa and the Congo. I appreciate and sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said about the incredulity with which we all saw this morning that the apostles of non-violence had committed this act of aggression which, we are afraid, will lower their credit so much in the world, and perhaps set a bad example to other people. But I will not pursue that. I will only give your Lordships a few facts which you may wish to know at the moment.
At the request of Portugal, the Security Council is meeting, I think, now. It met at 3 p.m. New York time, which was 8 o'clock here, so they are meeting now to discuss the Indian invasion of Goa. On instructions from Her Majesty's Government, Sir Patrick Dean, our representative at the United Nations, supported the Portuguese request for an urgent meeting of the Security Council. Meanwhile, Commonwealth spokesmen, such as Mr. Menzies of Australia, have expressed concern at India's recourse to force. This concern .has also been voiced in New Zealand and in Pakistan. Finally, about the question which I think has exercised us more than any other over the last week or more—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before we pass on, might I ask the noble Earl whether there has been any Indian demarche to the Security Council, or simply the Portuguese one?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Not that I know of. Portugal has requested a meeting, which is now going on, to discuss it, and I have given all the information about it which I had.
I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, presented very fully the dilemmas which must confront any Government placed in the position in which we find ourselves in trying to decide what is the right course to pursue in the Congo and in the United Nations at the present time. I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Marquess said about this. The main point, if I may say so, with which I did not agree was in his reference to myself. He said that I told your Lordships last week that, on the long view, the objects of Great Britain and the United Nations were broadly the same. What I said was that the objects of Great Britain and the United States were broadly the same, which is not quite the same as the United Nations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As for the United Nations, I think I told your Lordships that some Members had very different aims from what we have, particularly Soviet Russia, who has, as I have said, a vested interest in disorder in the Congo, and whose purpose all along has been to prevent peace from being established, in the hope that chaos and anarchy may help the ultimate aims of Communism in Africa. And, of course, Russia is supported in the United Nations by a considerable bloc of faithful adherents and occasionally by a much larger number of uncommitted people who are often extremely gullible. The noble Marquess criticised the Government on the ground that he thought we should, in the circumstances, have acted in the same way as the French: that is to say, by not giving any money to the Congo operation and abstaining from taking any part in the discussions altogether. Now, on the assumption that we want to give general support to the United Nations as an institution but that we do not altogether agree with or we do not have full confidence in the manner in which they will carry out their purposes in the Congo, there are several different courses which we might adopt. We might take that

639
which was suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which hasbeen pursued—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say that I did not say we should not take any part in any discussions. I merely said I do not think we should continue our contribution, which is not quite the same thing.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is what the Russians do. They take a great part in the discussions but do not give any money. The French attitude, with great respect to our French friends, although we quite understand it, is different because they have got great experience of African administration and of world politics. They are one of the oldest and most experienced countries in the world and it would be a great help if they would join with us in putting to the Security Council and the Assembly certain points of view which are not always as well appreciated as they ought to be. I do not therefore feel we ought to follow the present example of France.
Then the next course is that we should use the veto. As my noble friend Lord Cones ford, with great logic —he is always a very reasonable and logical person—put it, it is far better, instead of voting for a certain course with reservations and then finding it goes wrong, to veto the thing to begin with; and I of ten sympathise with that, especially when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, telling us that we ought, not having vetoed the resolution on the Congo, to support the United Nations 100 per cent. absolutely in everything they do. And, my Lords, as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary explained to your Lordships earlier this afternoon, the reasons why we have not thought it right to use the veto at all is because we want to co-operate with the United Nations and we should rather, if we think they are going to do a thing which may not be done in the right way, make our own reservations and encourage them to learn how to do it. But, as we have been so bitterly criticised on the ground that we have, as it is alleged, tried to frustrate the United Nations in the courses for which we have either
640
voted, or at least not voted against, it is certainly a matter for consideration whether in future we should not decide to veto proposals which we have reason to think will be bungled or badly and inefficiently carried out. That is certainly a matter to be considered.
It is not a question of agreeing absolutely in this case; it is a question of suspecting for various reasons that the procedure might be carried out in a manner actually contrary to the intentions of the resolution. I should like to remind your Lordships of what I quoted to your Lordships last week—and this, I think, perhaps partly answers the criticism of the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, who I thought in his speech implied that, having not opposed the resolution of November 24, we ought to support it obediently and wholeheartedly in every respect. Let me remind your Lordships again, that after abstaining on the vote Sir Patrick Dean then proceeded to give the reasons why we had not voted for it, and he ended up by saying this:
"I must make it clear that the continued full support by the United Kingdom of the Congo operation must depend upon the skill and wisdom and conciliatory manner with which the United Nations carries out its mandate."
That is quite a clear reservation, and I do not think it is fair that we should be blamed for having acted in accordance with this reservation, which we ourselves took so much trouble to make, when we feel that the mandate is not in fact being carried out in a conciliatory manner.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl has not quite got the point which was made, which was: at what point do we take the action which henow suggests the Government should support? Is it to wait until Katanga is, in effect, completely defeated, which is almost the positionnow? The Government is still waiting for the psychological moment; but the psychological moment may coincide with the defeat of Katanga.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would say that we have not yet reached the point at which we think it would be right to withdraw our financial support, and we have by no means given up hope of bringing about a peaceful solution of

641
this problem. Further, we think that we can do better work in bringing about a peaceful solution by continuing our support than by doing what the French have done, refusing to subscribe anything and withdrawing from the show altogether.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to say one thing? I failed entirely to make my point throughout the whole of this debate and I should be glad of one more chance. The Government supported the resolution in the United Nations to do something which was wicked, and this was to remove the civil servants from an Administration and also to remove experienced officers, which is the very reverse of what we do in all our own emergent territories. That was a wicked thing to do. Why did they not vote against it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I said last week, in reply to a question, that I wished there were a better definition of the word "mercenary", to whomever it is applied. We mean, by "mercenaries", adventurer fighters who go to a country in order to enjoy fighting for money. We do not mean the ordinary civil servants or officers of the gendarmerie who are in regular employment. That is why wish sometimes that the word "mercenary" was more clearly defined and why we think that in September of this year the United Nations' representatives in Katanga apparently exceeded their instructions by removing a whole lot of people who ought not to have been removed.
What we want to get in the Congo is peace and progress, and it is not an altogether simple problem how to do that through the means of the United Nations as it is at present. We are supporting the United Nations for reasons which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary gaveat the beginning of the debate, because we believe that it is the only practical means of working out a system of world law and order. But it is no use pretending that the United Nations is a perfect institution at present. On the contrary, a very large number of representatives in the United Nations are exceedingly irrational and irresponsible and their votes and actions are often dictated by the most foolish, frivolous and selfish motives.
642
The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, in his speech, told a story which I think came from the Arabian Nights, of a man in Baghdad who released a slave and gave him a present of 2,000 sequins; and he said: "You are free; you have got 2,000 sequins. What are you going to do with it?" And the man said "Of course, I am going to buy a slave." When my noble friend told this story I could not help thinking of an even older one about a certain servant who owed his master 200 talents, and when he told his master he could not pay the master forgave him the whole debt. The servant immediately went to a man who owed him 200 pence, beat him up and threw him into prison because he could not pay. I often think of this parable when I watch the behaviour of many of these newly liberated countries and the conduct of their representatives, not only in the United Nations but elsewhere. I am afraid we are having many examples of this unmerciful servant now in many parts of the world.
I should like to say how much I admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who has informed me he is not able to be here because he is not feeling very well. I think it was a most admirable speech in every way. It said what ought to be said rather more fully and frankly, I think, than perhaps a Government spokesman could have said it. I was particularly interested by his account, a very careful analysis based on full information and study, of what happened in the Congo last September, when, as he showed your Lordships, actions werecarried out which were, some of them, rather treacherous actions, all of them totally in excess of the instructions which had been given, totally irreconcilable with the United Nations Resolution; and, so far as one can see, not only Dr. Linner but also Dr. Bunche and probably even Mr. Hammarskjoeld had no idea what was being done. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, for his remarks about the danger of people making incautious pronouncements on policy "off the cuff". I think that applies not only to civilians but also to soldiers. I think some soldiers in the employment of the United Nations have been treated a good deal more leniently than General MacArthur was treated by President

643
Truman when he threw himself into politics.
I am also most grateful for the speeches of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe and my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood, both of whom gave speeches of quite exceptional value, one based on unusual knowledge of the actual conditions in Africa itself and the other on whathappens at the United Nations. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has also very kindly sent his apologies for not being able to be here, said that the British attitude on this Congo crisis in the last few days, particularly in regard to the bombs and particularly in regard to our cease-fire proposal, has not been endorsed by anybody at all on the United Nations Congo Advisory Committee, and he quoted seven members of the Commonwealth on that Committee who had not endorsed our proposal.
It is true, indeed, that we are in a minority; that we and the French, who unfortunately will not take a more active part, and the Belgians are about the only people who are not in accord with what is being done. I think it is not without significance that those countries happen to be the only countries in the world who have a wide and long experience of colonial administration, an experience which occasionally has included the bitter and tragic necessity of having to try to keep order in a territory where the entire local population are bitterly hostile; that is what the United Nations may very easily be letting itself in for in Katanga and that is what we want to try to save them from doing, for the sake of Katanga and for the sake of the United Nations itself.
All those nations which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned, in our view do not know what they are letting themselves in for, and to be quite blunt we think we know better than they do and we think the time has come when we ought not to be afraid to say so. We want to stop the United Nations from becoming involved in a long and bitter colonial war which may very easily lead not only to the discredit but perhaps ultimately to the failure and extinction of the United Nations itself, and we believe that the dangers should be better known than they are. That is why we have done our best to restrain events
644
which have been developing in Katanga and to press for a cease-fire. Although it was not accepted on Friday by the Advisory Committee, none of those people who refused our request has been able to do any positive good with it whereas we hope that now we have been able to do some good.
At about 2.15 local time this afternoon Mr. Tshombe left Elisabethville accompanied by one of his Ministers, Mr. Kibwe, and on his departure from the Katanga capital he ordered the Katanga forces to observe a cease-fire. The latest reports indicate that a general cease-fire is now being observed in Elisabethville, both by the Kataneese and by United Nations' forces. Mr. Tshombe has now arrived at Kitwe in Northern Rhodesia. To-morrow morning he will be travelling to Ndola where he will board an aeroplane to take him to Kitona in the Congo for his meeting with Mr. Adoula, the Leopoldville Prime Minister. Mr. Gullion, President Kennedy's special representative in the Congo, is this evening meeting Mr. Tshombe in Kitwe and to-morrow he will be accompanying him to Kitona. Before he left Leopoldville for Northern Rhodesia, Mr. Gullion received the assurances of Mr. Adoula that he would be present at the Kitona meeting which has been arranged for to-morrow.
We have had so many disappointments and disillusionments that I would not ever think of rejoicing too soon, but we must all pray that at this meeting tomorrow the representatives of the different sides may have enough common sense and enough good will to come to an agreement which may lead at last to peace and prosperity for the Congo.
10.8 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I rise to ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Motion, but before doing so I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I think this is the first time that he has wound up a debate on foreign affairs, and I am quite sure that his chief will be very pleased with the way in which he has done it. I should also like to say that I am sure that all present in the House welcome the last few sentences of the noble Earl's speech. We are all very glad to know that there is

645
a cease-fire in Katanga. We are all very glad to know that the two leaders are to meet to-morrow, and we echo the prayer which the noble Earl made, that on this occasion may peace be the result.
I am very grateful to nineteen other speakers for taking part in this debate. I think it has been a very useful debate. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has been shot at from the right and from the left, but I must say that he does not appear before us in sackcloth and ashes and I have no intention at this late hour of directing another salvo at him. I want to add only one thing. There have been many tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge. I, like Lord Strang and Lord Longford, was a colleague of his in the days when he had such great responsibilities in Germany. I think we all recognise that he speaks with unique experience and authority on German problems. I have been in this House over sixteen years, and I think I am right in my recollection that this is the first maiden speech I have listened to delivered without a single note. I think that is quite an outstanding Parliamentary achievement, and I hope, as I am sure all your Lordships hope, that we shall have many other opportunities of listening to my noble friend. My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION
  LONDON GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION
  OLD PEOPLE AND THE LEWISHAM EXPERIMENT"
  OLD PEOPLE AND THE LEWISHAM EXPERIMENT"
  N.A.T.O. "CONVENTION OF DISTINGUISHED CITIZENS"
  N.A.T.O. "CONVENTION OF DISTINGUISHED CITIZENS"