Sitting of 22 July 1964

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

  SUMMER TIME
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947.
  I Will Comply With Your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Minister Without Portfolio
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will publish in HANSARD a list of his official public and Government appointments and engagements during the month of June, 1964.
    The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): No.
    Mr. Lewis: Why is the Minister so diffident? We do not often see him in the House and when he comes here he does not often have to answer many Questions. There are only two for him to answer today. May I ask what he does with his spare time other than make propaganda for the Tory Party? Can he give us some idea of what he does to earn a salary apart from a political stipend?
    Mr. Deedes: If I had done anything wrong there would have been more Questions put down for me to answer
    454
    than there are today. We had this argument in a debate a short time ago. My duties have not altered specifically from the duties of my predecessors who have been responsible for co-ordinating information services.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the promotion of the general information services and his official help and guidance to the Foreign Press are widely appreciated and very much in the country's interests?
    Mr. Deedes: As to the foreign Press, I accept the fact that the Government information services ought to be made available to the overseas Press as well as to our own.
    Mr. Lipton: If the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for information, why is he so reluctant to give us some information about himself? Is it due to modesty or panic?
    Mr. Deedes: Modesty.

    Press Conferences
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister without Portfolio to what extent, in exercising his responsibilities for coordinating the publicity on the Government's programmes and policies, he holds regular Press conferences; and whether he intends to hold such regular Press conferences during the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Deedes: I meet the Press regularly and I shall continue to be available to them during the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Lewis: That is a little more forthcoming than the previous Answer. When the right hon. Gentleman does this will he stick to purely Government information on facts and figures and not use the opportunity for political propaganda? As it is at the moment we can sometimes get Questions put to him, whereas if he makes political propaganda speeches to Press conferences during the Summer Recess we shall not be able to get at him in that period and, as he ceases his office in October, we shall never by able to question him again.
    Mr. Deedes: I should like to be quite clear about this. In the running of Government information services we take some pains in my office to do this impartially and if the hon. Member had any

    455
    cause for complaint, he would have complained before now. We shall continue to do this during the Summer Recess.

  SCOTLAND

    Herring Industry
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now institute an inquiry into the administration of the herring industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotlanr (Mr. J. A. Stodart): In the light of the full explanation which my right hon. Friend had from the Chairman of the Herring Industry Board following the mistake which was made over the buying price at Stornoway last winter, and of the review of its headquarters management which the Board has been carrying out, he sees no benefit in holding such an inquiry.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware of the figures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given to this House, to the effect that in 1946 there were 622 Scottish boats mainly concerned with herring fishing and in 1963 there were 189, yet in 1946 the Herring Industry Board employed 34 non-industrial staff and in 1963 it employed 68 non-industrial staff and about 114 industrial staff? Even excepting the industrial staff, this represents a rise of double the amount of staff to deal with 433 fewer fishing boats. What is the reason for it?
    Mr. Stodart: These are matters into which the Chairman has been inquiring, and he will be reporting the Board's conclusions to my right hon. Friend very shortly.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will the result of that inquiry be made public so that fishermen and hon. Members have a chance to assess the situation accurately?
    Mr. Stodart: I should have thought that it would certainly be in the Report of the Herring Industry Board.

    Building Industry (Stone)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what encouragement he has given to the use of Scottish stone in the construction of buildings in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Earlier this year my right hon. Friend restated by Circular the recommendation to local authorities that greater use should be made of stone in public building in Scotland and announced a relaxation in the conditions under which subsidy can be paid. Allowance for the use of stone is made in approving tenders, and in certain circumstances extra subsidy can be given when the cost of housing is increased by the use of stone.
    Mr. Hutchison: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that he will not stop public authorities from using stone simply on the ground that it is a little more expensive than other materials? What are the prospects of stone being used in England for this purpose?
    Mr. Campbell: In considering tenders submitted to him by local authorities, my right hon. Friend makes allowance for a reasonable extra cost of using stone. For example, authorities are aware that where the use of stone for school building involves excess over the common cost limits he is prepared to approve the excess as a special cost up to a limit of 1 per cent. of the common cost. We should welcome orders from England, but my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the Ministerial aspect of that.
    Mr. McInnes: Would the Minister indicate the extent of the additional cost where stone is used for the building of houses?
    Mr. Campbell: As I indicated, there is this additional amount, and the Circular explains that it will no longer be necessary to establish that the site of the house is of exceptional historic or architectural interest or of outstanding natural beauty.
    Mr. McInnes: There is no extra subsidy in regard to the ordinary council house building where the house is built of stone.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member has misunderstood the position. There is an allowance for an extra subsidy where the conditions can be satisfied.
    Mr. Rankin: How much?

    Buchanan Report
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to guide local authorities in Scotland in applying the recommendations of the Buchanan Report.
    Mr. G. Campbell: On 21st January a circular was sent from the Scottish Development Department to local planning authorities in Scotland inviting their attention to relevant aspects of the Buchanan Report, indicating the Government's preliminary views on the major issues, and outlining the immediate action called for. Further guidance is being prepared by the joint urban planning group which will, in its future work, draw on lessons to be learnt from studies such as those arranged for Glasgow and Perth.
    Mr. Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the planning procedures of local authorities may not have to be streamlined a little if the work is to be done in time? On the Buchanan Report, will my right hon. Friend say that special attention will be given to the suburban railways, particularly in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Campbell: A change in the procedures would require legislation, but a planning advisory group has been set up on a Great Britain basis to consider, with experienced local authority officials, whether there are ways in which planning procedures can be modified.
    As my right hon. Friend stated when this was considered in Committee last week, the question of the suburban railways is being taken into account in the survey in Glasgow and will be taken into account in future surveys and also in Government decisions.
    Mr. Ross: How realistic can be any guidance given by the Government unless they accept, first of all, the fundamental plank laid down by the steering Committee, the Crowther Committee, which was that the Government should have a policy for the national relocation of population and of industry.
    Mr. Campbell: The fact that the Government have instituted regional studies over the country and regional studies over the whole of Scotland shows that they are thinking along the same lines as the Crowther Committee.
    Mr. Grimond: What is the view of the Scottish Office of the Crowther Committee's Report? This is not what the Crowther Committee recommended. It recommended many things, but not this. Have the Government rejected the recommendations of the Crowther Committee? Would the hon. Gentleman indicate which pieces of Buchanan he has particularly recommended to local authorities?
    Mr. Campbell: In the time available for reply, I could not answer the whole of that supplementary question. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Scottish Grand Committee when I gave a full answer on this matter last week when the question was being discussed. The Government have indicated by circular to the local authorities the important points in the Buchanan Committee's Report and in the introductory Crowther Committee's Report. There is nothing to stop local authorities going ahead with the most important immediate problems of traffic management and parking policies, for example.

    Official Regional Studies
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what areas of Scotland official regional studies are taking place.
    Mr. G. Campbell: In the Highlands and Islands, the Borders, the South-West, and the North-East of Scotland.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Question was tabled long before yesterday's debate? Will he ensure that these studies are completed as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State speaking on this matter yesterday. He said that these studies were being pressed ahead vigorously but that a study of this kind cannot be precisely timed. There is no reason for any departure from the rough estimate which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend on 2nd December last.
    Mr. Lawson: Who does the survey, how many are there and what are the qualifications of the people who are carrying out these studies?
    Mr. Campbell: I could not give such a detailed answer without notice, but it is

    459
    the Scottish Development Group, which represents all the Government Departments most closely concerned, which is working with all the local authorities concerned, which have all been written to in these areas and asked for their cooperation. The Development Group is also asking for advice and suggestions from other bodies which might be able to assist.

    Meat Production
    Mr. Hendryasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage increase in the value of meat production, including beef, mutton, lamb, pork, bacon and poultry, in Scotland since 1951.
    Mr. Stodart: Between 1951–52 and 1962–63 the value of Scottish meat production, as measured by producers' total returns, rose by 80 per cent.
    Mr. Hendry: While thanking my hon. Friend for this special achievement and congratulating him on it, may I ask him to tell me the proportion of meat consumed in this country which is now produced at home, compared with the proportion some years ago? Will he continue to encourage modern methods which, in particular, have been adopted in the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Stodart: While thanking my hon. Friend for his comments on something for which I do not think that I can take personal credit, may I tell him that the answer is that about two-thirds of our total consumption of meat is produced at home.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the shortage of meat caused by a world shortage and by shortage of imports, is it worth while going on with discussing a scheme for the limitation in any way of home supplies?
    Mr. Stodart: Considering that we produce about 75 per cent. of our beef consumption and that the production of beef has risen by 8 per cent. a year over the last three years, I should have thought that some consideration must be given to the regulation of home production on to our markets.
    Mr. Steele: In view of the satisfactory increase in beef production and the production of other commodities
    460
    mentioned in the Question, will the hon. Gentleman say how this has affected prices and how they have moved between 1951 and today?
    Mr. Stodart: Not without notice.

    Technical and Commercial Education (Buildings)
    Mr. Hendryasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of buildings at present under construction or approval for technical and commercial education in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): The value of work under construction at 31st May, 1964, the latest date for which figures are available, was £14·7 million; and proposals have been approved for other projects estimated to cost £15·8 million, a total of £30·5 million.
    Mr. Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I really do congratulate her. After all, it is her Department which has produced these schemes. Although congratulating her on approving these schemes, may I ask for her assurance that she will do everything possible to ensure that agriculture is treated as a science or technology and given its proper place in these schemes?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I thank my hon. Friend for the compliment he paid to the Department for what it has done over the years, which I accept. I will take note of his suggestion.
    Mr. Ross: What is the time lag between the approval and starting and between starting and completion? How does the cost change from the first approval to completion? Is the noble Lady aware that I have just been re-examining in the Library the statement made to me in June, 1955, about the approval of the Kilmarnock Technical College at a cost of £¼ million, and I am still waiting on it being completed in 1964 at a cost of nearly £1 million?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As there are a great many projects involved, I could not give the hon. Gentleman an accurate reply to the first part of his supplementary question. Ten and a half million £S worth of building will be completed in this financial year, which involves over 13 new colleges.

    Solway Firth (Barrage)
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as part of the regional development of southwest Scotland, he will investigate the practicability of converting a major part of the Solway Firth into a freshwater reservoir by the construction of a barrage at an appropriate location; and whether he will consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development to seek their co-operation in the investigation.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Yes, Sir. This proposal is being examined jointly by the Scottish Development Group, in its study of south-west Scotland, and by the north-west England Regional Development Group.
    Mr. Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the technical practicability of a Solway barrage and also the economic fact that it would pay for itself by sales of water within a period of about 20 years has the support of technicians at both Manchester University and Strathclyde University and of the Director of the Water Research Association? In view of these considerations and also of the increased employment and prosperity which such a scheme would bring to the Annan region and the improved communications across the Solway by a roadway over the barrage, will my hon. Friend give the consideration of this matter a greater degree of urgency than has been indicated by the mere fact that it is under study?
    Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the considerable interest in this problem, and particularly the interest shown by Strathclyde University. Although my right hon. Friend could not comment on the merits of it, he is sure that those who are studying the proposal—they are studying it urgently—will take into account what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Dalyell: What consideration has been given to the memoranda submitted to the Scottish Office by Dr. Robert Drew on the subject?
    Mr. Campbell: The Scottish Office is considering all representations which
    462
    have been made on this subject, but it is for the two Development Groups to study the question.

    Technical Colleges (Students)
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places are expected to be made available in technical colleges in Scotland by 1970; and how this figure compares with the number available now and in 1951.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: In 1951–52 there were 9,878 full-time and 19,910 part-time day students attending colleges of further education. In 1962–63 the corresponding figures were 16,274 and 45,941.
    Present plans are on the basis that accommodation will be required for about double the latter figures by the early 1970's.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: I thank my noble Friend for that very good reply. Do the figures contained in the reply include Strathclyde University? In view of its new status, may we assume that additional places will be made available to keep to the figures which my noble Friend has just given?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Strathclyde University is separately considered. I have said that at present the value of work under construction is £14·7 million. Rather more than this amount is planned for the next few years. This should take full account of the numbers needed up to 1970, after which further provision will be needed.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: What increase has there been in the number of students enjoying day-release facilities in Scotland during the same period? Is the noble Lady satisfied with the increase?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I am never satisfied with the increase. I have given the figures of part-time day students, but I think that they are increasing fairly satisfactorily.
    Miss Herbison: Can the noble Lady say that at the present moment there is no shortage of places in technical education in Scotland? Can she give any reason at all why there has been such a constant delay over the provision of the

    463
    technical colleges which were announced more than 10 years ago?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As far as I am aware, there is no shortage of places in technical colleges. The delays, happily, do not seem to have an effect on the accommodation available.
    Miss Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage increase in full-time students at technical colleges in Scotland since 1959.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Between session 1958–59 and session 1962–63 the number of full-time students in colleges of further education increased by 34·s8 per cent.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: May I again congratulate my noble Friend on the good advertisement she has put forward that this number of students has been reached? As I believe that other hon. Members feel that the supply may be running out, could my noble Friend give us some assurance that the curricula of the schools are so geared as to increase the number of those who will be able to fill places at these colleges?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: There was a Question on the Order Paper about the curricula in the schools. Several syllabuses are being revised to take account of these matters.
    Mr. Ross: Could the noble Lady give us a more realistic picture of what is happening, instead of giving us a percentage? Will she give us the actual figures for the two years?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: In 1962–63 the total of full-time students was 16,274.

    Health Service Charges and Hospital Building Programme
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount collected in National Health Service charges in 1963–64; and how much of this was spent on the hospital building programme.
    Mr. Stodart: Excluding charges by local health authorities, the provisional total for Scotland is £4¾ million. There is no direct connection between these receipts and expenditure on the hospital building programme.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill which increased contributions, and which also laid a charge on the patient and others, was introduced and passed in 1961, the undertaking was given in the House that all that money would be spent on the hospital building programme? The figures available to us show that in fact very much more is being taken by way of contributions and charges than is being spent on the hospital building programme. Will the Under-Secretary now give the comparable figures to show whether that allegation is accurate?
    Mr. Stodart: As I have said, the provisional total collected in charges is £4¾ million this year. The estimated expenditure on the hospital building programme this year is £6·3 million.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Would my hon. Friend repeat that figure and tell the House how it compares with the year before or with some previous year?
    Mr. Stodart: No, I am afraid not without notice.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Under-Secretary ensure that the Government completely disregard the shameful suggestion of the British Medical Association that further impediments should be put in the way of patients obtaining medicaments? When this scheme was introduced, the British Medical Association advocated that patients should consult their doctors at the earliest possible moment. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that nothing is done to impede that?
    Mr. Stodart: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that there is any evidence that there is any impediment.

    Local Government (Finance)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the examination of the financing of local government.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Pending the report of the Allen Committee, a working party of the Departments principally concerned is assembling and examining the relevant material.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will it be available to us when we form the Government in October?
    Mr. Campbell: That is a quite hypothetical event, and I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman. The Allen Report is expected later this year.

    Electricity Plant (Sub-contracts)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps, similar to those taken in north-east England, to ensure that main contractors for electricity plant in Scotland subcontract only to Scottish firms, in view of the unemployment situation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. G. Campbell: As the hon. Member has been informed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, the action to which he refers was taken in special circumstances by the Central Electricity Generating Board. In general, the placing of contracts for plant to be erected in Scotland is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Scottish electricity boards, which operate the Government's general contracts preference scheme for development districts.
    Mr. Dempsey: The special circumstance to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a high rate of unemployment in the North-East. Does not he realise that there is a high rate of unemployment in Scotland and that, if these are special circumstances in the North-East, they should be more than special in Scotland? Why should we not receive the same treatment as the North-East? If it is good enough to confine employment contracts to firms in the North-East because of unemployment, why not give Scotland the same treatment?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have said, the preference scheme operates in Scotland, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the letter which he has received, these were very special circumstances in the North-East and something was done, which the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, approve, to help unemployment there. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is keen on helping to relieve unemployment in the North-East as well as in Scotland. If special circumstances arise in Scotland, the electricity boards can, in their own judgment and discretion, take similar action.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Can my hon. Friend say whether any Scottish firms are being given electricity contracts?
    Mr. Campbell: Yes. Scottish firms are also supplying to England. So far this year, Scottish firms have received contracts valued at about £11½ million from both the Scottish electricity boards.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that in Scotland now English firms are getting contracts on a carte blanch. basis, without even competing for them? Recent examples have been the training colleges and, now, the main London Road by-pass outside Hamilton. Is it not fair that our own factories and firms should receive exactly the same treatment as firms in the North-East are receiving, having regard to the need to provide more jobs in north Lanarkshire and other parts of Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: What the hon. Gentleman has said does not follow. There are some components and equipment which are not manufactured in Scotland and the boards have to buy from English firms in such cases, but, as I said a few moments ago, Scottish firms supply electrical equipment to England also.

    Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Work
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many slum houses have been closed or demolished in Scotland since 1959; and what is the number of houses built before 1880 still remaining.
    Mr. G. Campbell: From the beginning of 1959 to the end of March this year about 58,000 unfit houses, together with about 7,000 other houses, were closed or demolished in slum clearance and redevelopment work. The best estimate of the number of pre-1880 houses is no more than 500,000.
    Mr. Millan: Why does the hon. Gentleman say "no more than 500,000"? Is not he aware that most of the pre-1880 houses are either slums or near-slums or are at least lacking in modern amenities and they should be cleared away? Is it not clear from the figures that the programme is quite inadequate to meet the real need in Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman explain

    467
    why, according to the last quarterly housing return, the number of slum houses dealt with in Scotland went down from 10,700 in 1959 to only 8,600 in 1963? What has happened to the Government's wonderful slum clearance programme?
    Mr. Campbell: I said "no more than 500,000" because, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is difficult to get an exact figure. This is an outside figure. We can be quite sure that there are no more than that. The hon. Gentleman would be quite wrong to condemn out of hand every house built before 1880 because to do so would remove from the housing stock in Scotland a number of houses which are sturdily built and still able to give good service, no doubt, with improvement under the arrangements which the Government have introduced. On the third point, the figures I have given include unfit houses dealt with otherwise than by statutory action. The figures which the hon. Gentleman gave covered only those dealt with by statutory action, and mine also included houses dealt with under the planning Acts.

    School Building, Irvine
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional moneys for school building in Irvine and district he will now authorise, in view of the fact that this area is listed as a growth point in the Plan for Central Scotland.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The pattern of major growth in the area has yet to be determined, but, when the need for new school places is established, my right hon. Friend will take it into account in making allocations of capital investment for school building.
    Mr. Manuel: Is it not deplorable that the people of Irvine, who have cooperated so well with their local council in inducing industry to come to their area and who have welcomed and assimilated Glasgow overspill, should now have resentment aroused among parents because of a severe shortage of school places? Will the noble Lady examine the problem again with a view to allowing Ayr County Council to go ahead, that council being able and willing to provide the school places provided that it gets
    468
    extra authorisation from the Government?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I have no reason to think that the education authority cannot cope. There is a new Roman Catholic secondary school under construction at a cost of £503,000, and there is also the Irvine Royal Academy due to start at a cost of £700,000.
    Mr. Manuel: Could the noble Lady accompany me to my constituency this weekend? Is she aware that, each weekend, I have to interview parents who very much resent the fact that there is no room for their children in the secondary schools, and that they have to travel to other overcrowded schools in order to find accommodation, and some are not being allowed to start their education at 5 years of age?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's invitation. Perhaps we can discuss it at some time. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, when the secondary schools are completed, accommodation will be released for primary schools. Therefore, the situation will then be very much better.
    Mr. Ross: The noble Lady will be aware that this town has been hard hit in the past by loss of schools by fire, apart from anything else. The last census showed an increase of population of nearly 15 per cent., and since that time Irvine has adopted an overspill agreement with Glasgow and has received new people. Will the noble Lady look into the matter again, realising that there are pressing education problems in Irvine?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I said in my original reply that we have not yet entirely assessed school needs in the area as a growth point. A detailed technical assessment is being made, and when the report comes we shall know more accurately what is required.

    Housing (Overcrowding)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many families are due to be rehoused because of overcrowding in the houses presently occupied by them.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I regret that I cannot provide this information because it is not available.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he is sadly lacking in keeping abreast of his work by not having this information? Is not he aware that one of the reasons for rehousing people is gross overcrowding? Cannot he even give the figures for houses on which subsidies have been paid? How many thousands of local authority houses are overcrowded, and how many families are there for whom new houses should be provided so that they could move out and allow others to move into smaller homes?
    Mr. Campbell: The local authorities have a duty to consider housing conditions in their districts and to provide houses to meet the need there, but they are under no obligation to report to my right hon. Friend the number of houses in their districts which may be regarded as overcrowded. The local authorities themselves will know what the degree of overcrowding is, but I regret that the information is not available centrally.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Has not there been a considerable reduction in the amount of overcrowding in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: Although we are not able to provide the detailed information for which the Question asks, we have an indication of the position from the censuses of 1951 and 1961. The 1961 census shows that the proportion of people in Scotland living at a density of more than 1½ persons per room fell from 35 per cent. in 1951 to 22 per cent. in 1961.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a very large proportion of the council houses which the Government boast have been built while they have been in office are grossly overcrowded and that in any table of the number of houses built there should be a footnote explaining that a large number of them are already overcrowded?
    Mr. Campbell: No, I would not accept that. The overcrowding is worst in the big city of Glasgow, not in the council house areas, but in areas where we want to reduce the density of population and to redevelop.

    Hill Cattle (Subsidies)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of the subsidy paid per cow under the Hill Cow Subsidy Scheme and what is the amount paid per calf, respectively.
    Mr. Stodart: The rate of subsidy payable under the Hill Cattle Subsidy Payment (Scotland) Order, 1964, is £12 per cow. The rates of subsidy payable under the Calf Subsidy (Scotland) (Amendment) Scheme, 1964, are £7 10s. for a heifer calf and £9 15s. for a steer calf born after 1st January, 1964, or £9 5s. for a steer calf born before that date.
    Mr. Lawson: Since this works out at about £20 for the cow and the calf, will the hon. Gentleman draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, as the maternity grant for a human child is only £16? Does not this rather suggest that the farmer and the farmer's calf are valued much more highly than babies?
    Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conditions of childbirth on the Scottish mountain sides are a great deal more uncomfortable, I think, than in many other instances.

    Teachers (Special Recruitment Scheme)
    Mr. Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many men and women were admitted to training under the special recruitment scheme for teachers in 1964;
    (2) how many people applied for information about the special recruitment scheme for teachers in 1963; and how many thereafter applied, were interviewed, and were accepted.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: In 1963 over 5,000 people asked for information about the special recruitment scheme. Of these 1,539 applied, 1,518 were interviewed and 951 were accepted. In session 1963–64 500 men and 429 women were admitted to training or study under the scheme.
    Mr. Mackenzie: Would not the hon. Lady agree that among the 5,000 people who originally applied we have a pool which would supplement the existing

    471
    teacher force? Can she say from the survey which surely her Department has carried out why many people did not in the end apply? Does she agree that the low grant paid under the scheme is perhaps the principal barrier?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The reason for the difference between those who applied and those who asked for information cannot be accurately assessed. The scheme is well publicised and the grants are adequate. If the hon. Member would like it, I will send him the explanatory leaflet.
    Mr. Mackenzie: I was told the grants which are payable in reply to a Question which I asked on 1st July. Is the noble Lady seriously suggesting that a grant of about £375 paid to a married man with two children is any encouragement to him to give up the job which he has already and enter the teaching profession?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: A married man with two children and no income would get free tuition and a grant of about £10 a week. I do not think that that is unreasonable.

    Court of Session (Appeals)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions during the past 25 years litigants have lost their cases in the Court of Session and later have appealed successfully to the House of Lords; and if he will introduce legislation to apply to criminal cases the same procedure as applies to civil cases in this regard, to permit a majority of Scottish Law Lords sitting in the Court to hear appeals from Scotland, and also to enable such appeals to be heard in Edinburgh.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: In the period 1939–63, the House of Lords gave judgments in 184 appeals from the Court of Session. In 78 of these cases the judgment of the Court of Session was reversed. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not absurd that in all those cases Scottish lawyers had to come to London, bringing with them senior and junior counsel, and there engage to prosecute the case English solicitors who had not previously been concerned with it? Would it not be wiser if the process were reversed and the Law Lords
    472
    were allowed, by Statute or otherwise, to sit from time to time in, say, Edinburgh when necessary? Would not that be a more sensible arrangement than to go on incurring the enormous legal costs which are involved when an appeal against a Court of Session decision is taken to the Law Lords sitting in London?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I understand that the present position has obtained since the Union, and there has been no widespread demand that it should be altered.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In Scottish appeals care is always taken to ensure that at least one Scottish Law Lord sits with the other Law Lords. But, having regard to the great difference between Scottish law and English law, would it not be in accordance with justice if care were taken to ensure that a majority of Scottish Law Lords sat to hear Scottish appeals?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I think that Scots law is well represented in the House of Lords as at present constituted. On the suggestion that the Law Lords should go to Edinburgh, it would be very difficult to separate the judicial and legislative functions of the House in this way.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely the noble Lady will not take up such a conservative attitude to what now is almost regarded as a necessity. Is it not a fact that over the last two or three years the number of appeals to the House of Lords has enormously increased? Is it not true that in far too many cases Scottish Law Lords are in the minority when appeals are being heard in these precincts? Are not these two matters which should engage the noble Lady's attention before her Government finally pass from this Chamber?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The number of Scottish appeals heard each year from 1961 to 1963 was nine, four and seven. I do not consider that excessive. As I said earlier, Scottish law is well represented in the House of Lords.

    Local Authorities (Rate-borne Expenditure)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has

    473
    been an increase or decrease in rate-borne expenditure by Scottish local authorities between 1951 and the latest available year; and if he will state, in respect of all Scottish local authorities, the actual increase or decrease between these years.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on 15th July.

    New University, Stirling
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the University Grants Committee on the siting of Scotland's sixth university.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 17th July to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson).
    Mr. Dalyell: First, I apologise to the noble Lady for misquoting her on Thursday when questions were being put to the Leader of the House by substituting 16th July' for a fortnight later. I realise that I should not have done this. May I ask her on what date the Scottish Education Department came to an agreement with the U.G.C. on the Stirling site?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous correction of what I am sure was a genuine mistake, On the question of the date, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is constantly in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the noble Lady aware of the great dissatisfaction, which is quite widespread, about the manner in which this announcement was made to the House of Commons, thereby limiting the opportunities of Members of Parliament and the Press to seek more information on the policy which lay behind this decision? Is she convinced that the U.G.C.'s criterion that prior to selection the area should have shown evidence of enthusiasm and financial support was observed? Was serious consideration
    474
    given to the scientific educational needs for this new university to be associated with the new science-based industries in Falkirk, or is this merely a surrender to the internal politics of the establishment of the universities?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Any question concerning the manner in which the announcement was made should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One could not go into detail by question and answer on the various matters which were taken into consideration by the University Grants Committee, but I am certain that the Committee took a great deal of trouble to examine the claims of all seven sites, six of which were, naturally, bound to be disappointed.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Is the hon. Lady aware that the site which has been selected is the very best that could have been chosen and has given a great deal of satisfaction, not only to the people of Stirlingshire, but to the people of Scotland? No better decision could have been made by any Government.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I am sure that the hon. Member speaks for everyone when he refers to the sixth university for Scotland. I hope that all those who obviously and understandably were disappointed will now try their best to support this Scottish university.
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Secretary of State for English education, who is our master in these matters, indicated to the House that when the statement was made it would be made in this House, and that this undertaking has not been met? Will the hon. Lady convey to her right hon. and learned Friend the fact that it was not met by answering a stooge Question in written form?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I will certainly convey the hon. Member's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although, however, the announcement was not made verbally, it was made in this House.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gourlay.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Has the hon. Lady noticed that Question No. 76 on the Order Paper was submitted by me to the Secretary of State

    475
    for Scotland, because I believed that it was a Scottish matter, and that it was accepted as such, whereas it has been transferred to an English Minister, who knows—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member rose to a point of order. It is no good addressing it to the hon. Lady, and transfer does not raise any point of order for me.
    Mr. Rankin: But she got the point.

    Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of women awaiting appointments with the consultant gynaecologist at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, the length of time the most outstanding cases have been waiting, and the number of women patients awaiting admission for operations.
    Mr. Stodart: One hundred and fifty-one women have appointments booked or are awaiting appointments with the consultant gynaecologist at the Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy; the longest period patients have been waiting is three months; and the number of women awaiting admission for operation is 263. All patients requiring urgent treatment are, of course, given priority.
    Mr. Gourlay: Does not the Minister consider that these figures reflect a very serious situation in the Kirkcaldy area? Is he further aware that there is only one consultant gynaecologist in the hospital and that while he was on holiday, no out-patient clinics were held at the hospital? Will the Under-Secretary, therefore, take steps to ensure that the regional board has sufficient finance to enable an additional consultant to be appointed to the Victoria Hospital and thus reduce this enormous waiting list?
    Mr. Stodart: It is the opinion of the South-East of Scotland Regional Hospital Board that it would not be of all that practical use to appoint an extra consultant at this hospital until more in-patient beds are provided, which will be the case next year when the second phase of the hospital will be completed.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a case has come to my
    476
    notice this week that a woman patient in London can get this kind of appointment within a week? This shows a great difference between the situation in Scotland, and particularly in Fife, and the South-East. That is one of the reasons why we are in the difficulties which we are facing in Scotland vis-á-vis economic development as compared with the South-East. Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the representations of my hon. Friend and speed up the increased provision in this and in other fields?
    Mr. Stodart: I certainly undertake to do all I can in this field.

    Uncertificated Teachers
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many uncertificated teachers are employed in grant-aided schools; and how many of these are classified as having qualifications seriously below standard.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: At 7th October, 1963, the numbers were 82 and 11.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not astonishing that even in those schools teachers are employed who are officially classified as having qualifications seriously below standard? Will the noble Lady concentrate her attention on this matter and see that at least this type of teacher is eliminated from our education system?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I referred to this matter in great detail during our education debate. Some of the teachers to whom the hon. Member refers are not necessarily incompetent to teach, but we certainly do all that we can to try to persuade them to become certificated.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Lady tells us that they are not incompetent to teach. Can she tell us why they are officially classified as being seriously below standard?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Of the 11 substandard uncertificated teachers to whom I referred, one is an assistant games mistress and one is a teacher in a nursery class. There are 10 of these teachers in grant-aided schools. Eight are in one school—a Roman Catholic school—and all eight are brothers.

    New Houses (Fireguards)
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that every new subsidised house has fireplace fittings for the fixture of fireguards, in view of the evidence in the recent British Medical Association Survey on Accidents in the Home that in 65 per cent. of cases of burns due to fire, fixed fireguards were not in use.
    Mr. G. Campbell: The Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations which are now in force require open fireplaces in all new residential buildings in Scotland to have fireguard fittings.

    East Kilbride (Managerial Houses)
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an undertaking that the rents of managerial houses in East Kilbride will not be further increased before October, 1964, and that the prices of any which may be offered for sale to the present tenants will not exceed £4,500 in price.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Rent and sale terms for these houses are the responsibility of the development corporation, and this is consequently not a matter in which my right hon. Friend can give undertakings.
    Mrs. Hart: May I assure the Under-Secretary that it should be a matter for his right hon. Friend, for the reason that I have received a letter, which is one of many, from one of the most senior managers of one of the biggest firms in East Kilbride telling me that the attitude of the Development Corporation in causing it to be thought—I put it no higher than that—that the selling price of some of the managerial houses which were built for rent in 1950 and 1951 is likely to be as high as £6,000–£7,000 and that this attitude of the Development Corporation—I quote from the letter—
    "is causing a deep feeling of resentment and distrust among company executives and notable people and can only lead to statements and actions which could certainly be detrimental to new industry coming into the town "?
    I claim that this means that the Secretary of State should be interested. I ask him to be interested, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to give me his undertaking
    478
    that nothing will happen before the General Election.
    Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend would seek to intervene only if he thought that the Development Corporation was not acting reasonably. The Development Corporation's policy is to obtain at least a fully economic return on these houses because they are designed for tenants with larger incomes. Standard subsidised houses are available for those who cannot pay higher rents.

    Hospital Beds, Fife
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the bed deficiency which will obtain in Fife for the following categories on the completion of the second extension to Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, namely, orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, general medicine, and medical paediatrics.
    Mr. Stodart: The extent of any remaining deficiences will depend on decisions as to the use of other hospitals in Kirkcaldy. If it is possible to continue the Hunter hospital in use for orthopaedic and general surgery, the residual deficiency will be relatively slight.
    Mr. Gourlay: In view of those figures, does not the Under-Secretary consider that it would be wiser to defer the decision on the existing orthopaedic hospital in Kirkcaldy until after the second extension of the Victoria Hospital is completed rather than to decide now to close the hospital, in view of the position which arises?
    Mr. Stodart: As, I think the hon. Member knows, the question of the future of the Hunter Hospital and whether it is to remain is under urgent consideration between the hospital board and my Department.
    Mr. Gourlay: I was referring to the orthopaedic hospital and not the Hunter.
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, I meant the orthopaedic.

Fire Prevention Legislation (Clubs)
Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce comprehensive fire prevention

479
legislation, which will cover bingo, gaming, and betting clubs' in Scotland.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 18th March and 16th April. The legislation referred to will extend to Scotland.
Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Lady aware that these premises are treated as unlicensed clubs and that, therefore, neither the police nor the local fire master have any power of entry and that this is a rather dangerous situation when fire occurs? Will the hon. Lady look again at this aspect to ensure that the chief constable and the fire master have powers of entry?
Lady Tweedsmuir: Yes, Sir. It is hoped to have comprehensive legislation—I hope, introduced by this Government—in the next Parliament.

Sheriff Courts, Glasgow (Accommodation)
Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the provision of additional accommodation for sheriff courts in Glasgow; and when it will be completed.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Lanarkshire House has been bought for this purpose from Lanark County Council. I understand that work has started on the alterations that are required and that the Courthouse Commissioners hope to bring the building into use by October next.

PROTECTION RACKET, LONDON (NEWSPAPER ALLEGATIONS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. LIPTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will move to set up a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to investigate the extent and operations of the protection racket in London in relation to the owners of clubs and restaurants.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 74.
480
No, Sir. These are matters for criminal investigation by the police. It has been alleged by the Sunday Mirror, on 12th July, and again on 19th July, that a protection racket is being run by criminals among club owners in London, and that there is evidence of an unlawful relationship between a leading criminal concerned in the racket and a Member of another place.
The police are aware of protection rackets alleged to exist from time to time, and they strenuously exert themselves to bring to light and prosecute offences of blackmail, extortion or any other criminal behaviour. They have no evidence to support the allegations published in this newspaper. On 14th July a senior officer of the Metropolitan Police interviewed the editor and the reporter concerned, pointing out that it was the duty of any person who has information concerning criminal activities to bring it to the knowledge of the police, and asking them to furnish the information on which these allegations were based. This they did not do.
After the allegations had been repeated in last Sunday's issue of the newspaper, the Commissioner of Police wrote a letter on Monday to the editor, which was delivered by hand, repeating that if he had information in his possession bearing on crime it was his duty to inform the police of the details, and adding a request to be furnished with a copy of an allegedly incriminating photograph referred to.
As a result of this continued pressure the editor has now indicated his willingness to disclose the material on which the allegations were based, and the police will be making an immediate examination of it.
Mr. Lipton: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for making it known to me that he would answer this Question orally today. May I ask him whether he is aware that the protection racket is now very big business and is now operated on a more ruthless and menacing scale than ever before? Will he, in those circumstances, give a firm guarantee that anyone co-operating with the police by giving evidence will be given the fullest possible protection of the law against those criminal parasites and acts of violence or blackmail or intimidation

481
to which those volunteering to give evidence may be subjected?
Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I will certainly give that undertaking, but I would add that, contrary to the hon. Member's view, the Commissioner of Police advises me that the protection racket situation is less serious in London than it has been on several occasions in the past.
Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people in the country regard with abhorrence this gangsterism in our midst, and that the important thing is that there should be speedy action to stamp it out as soon as possible? Could he tell the House how many of these rackets have been unearthed during the last year, and how many prosecutions there have been?
Mr. Brooke: I could not give information as to the number of prosecutions without notice, but the hon. Lady will realise that the great difficulty here is to obtain information, because people are unwilling to come forward to give it, fearing they may put themselves at risk. I hope that the answers which I have given today will result in bringing forward more information.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice about Question No. 49, which refers to the examination of heavy lorries? In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has made throughout the country alarming statements about the condition of such lorries, and that there is an immediate cause for alarm because of deaths and injuries resulting from them? May I ask whether you will ask the Minister of Transport that he should answer this Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and if not, whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, you would advise that possibly a Private Notice Question could be asked, if the Minister does not answer the Question?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot direct the Minister to answer. If the hon. Member would like to submit a Private Notice Question I would consider it on its merits, but I am not encouraging optimism, in the circumstances.

BILL PRESENTED
  MALTA INDEPENDENCE
  Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Malta of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Fisher; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. M. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to ask, through you, whether the Leader of the House will be making a statement today on business, in view of the rearrangement of the business of the House for the Malta Independence Bill and of the questions which were asked yesterday about the possibility of postponing the Committee stage of the Bill?
I raise the point partly because it was said by the Leader of the House yesterday that this was a short Bill. As I understand, it is a quite considerable Bill. I should have thought that an important question arises for the House, namely, whether it is possible for the Committee stage to be held later. I would, therefore, ask whether the Leader of the House would make a statement on this matter today, because if it were to be left till tomorrow it would be very difficult for the House to alter its proceedings if it felt that they were being unwisely taken.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no intimation of any intention to make a statement on business.
The Lord Privy Sea! (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): May I be permitted to respond, in view of the fact that this is a question which has been asked by some other hon Members? It will be the intention to move the suspension of the rule for the later stages of the Bill.
Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the House on this point? I referred to this earlier in my point of order, but now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that statement I would put it directly to him. Yesterday he told the House that this was a short Bill. I have

483
not seen the Bill. I do not think anybody officially has seen it, but I understand that it consists of two or three pages. It is, therefore, not really a short Bill.
Is it not unprecedented to pass a Bill of this importance, not merely speedily, but by taking all its stages immediately one after another at the same sitting? Would the Leader of the House not seriously consider whether the later stages of the Bill should be taken, say, next week? Will it not be possible for the House to sit another day if necessary? This is not, after all, an insignificant matter. It affects the future of a British territory.
Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I think that we shall have to see how we get on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.39 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  It is an honour and privilege to introduce the Bill to the House. President Kennedy made for himself within an astonishingly short space of time an exceptional place in the minds and hearts of people throughout the world. He was very much an American, but he inspired loyalty in many nations other than his own. He was a dedicated politician, but seemed in many ways to stand out above party. He was young, and he was cut down in his prime, but his challenging spirit remains an inspiration to many all over the world.
  The idealism and the intelligence which shone through his speeches made a universal appeal to people who were ignorant of the intricacies of American politics. People who normally concern themselves very little with public affairs all found themselves moved by the vigour and hope expressed by the young President Kennedy of the United States. His approach to public affairs had a character of its own which we have come to know as the "Kennedy style".
  President Kennedy's resolution in principle and moderation in action not only constituted a fine example of statesmanship in a modern age, but also helped to lead the whole world forward into a new and, I profoundly believe, a more hopeful era in the pattern of relationships between nations. These values of character and of achievement have been given expression in the form of the memorial to President Kennedy in this country which has been proposed by the Committee sitting under Lord Franks and to which the Bill now before the House gives shape.

  485
  The House will remember that I announced on 25th March that on the Committee's recommendation, which the Government, in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, accepted, it was agreed that the memorial should take the form of a plot of land at Runnymede, laid out with a simple plinth or monument and steps, which should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of President Kennedy, and that, in addition, a scholarships fund should be set up to enable young men and women from this country to go and study at Harvard University, the Radcliffe College, or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  I was glad to be able to say, at the same time, that the Lord Mayor of London had most kindly agreed to make the Kennedy Memorial Fund the object of a Lord Mayor's Appeal for contributions from the public. I understand that, while it has already met with an encouraging response, considerable further contributions are needed if the memorial is fully to achieve its purpose in the provision of scholarships. I hope that this Parliamentary occasion will serve as a timely reminder and give the appeal fresh impetus.
  I also explained in my orginal statement to the House that we had invited a small Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Sherfield, probably better known to Members of the House as Sir Roger Makins, former Ambassador to the United States, to supervise the way in which these recommendations should be put into effect, and the Bill is largely the outcome of its rapid and effective work.
  The Committee has suggested that the purposes of the Kennedy Memorial would best be achieved if they were entrusted to a body of trustees, including a number of United States citizens. This proposal has been welcomed by the United States Government and the University of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a trust deed has already been executed providing for the trustees to manage the fund raised by the Kennedy Memorial Appeal.
  Of the 11 trustees, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Lord Mayor of London are to serve ex-officio,
  486
  and six are to be appointed by the Prime Minister of this country. I am very glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), and our present Ambassador in the United States, Lord Harlech, and Lord Sherfield, former Ambassador to the United States, have already accepted invitations for them to serve. Three trustees will represent the British universities, and, besides these eight United Kingdom trustees, three American trustees have been appointed by the President of the United States and by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The trustees will be responsible for establishing the terms and conditions on which the scholarships are to be offered. The details are, quite naturally, not yet determined, nor do they figure in the Bill.
  I have no doubt that the new scheme will attract many keen applicants, and I am sure, also, that the Kennedy Memorial Library and Institute, which, I think hon. Members will know, is the principal American memorial to President Kennedy which is being established in the United States, will be glad to welcome the Kennedy scholars among many other scholars from all parts of the world and that they will benefit from the facilities which are being provided there.
  As to the other part of the memorial. Lord Sherfield's Committee found, after careful examination of the site at Runnymede, that the most appropriate spot for the Kennedy Memorial was a corner of agricultural land which now forms part of the Crown Estate. The Crown lessee has readily agreed to cooperate by surrendering the land required, and arrangements are being made to reach an agreement on the termination of the interests of the subtenant.
  We have had to consider the problems presented by the alienation of a part of the Crown Estate. There is in the normal way a statutory obligation on the Crown Estate Commissioners to secure the best price for any alienation of Crown land, but on this special occasion I am happy to be able to tell the House that Her Majesty the Queen, who has from the first expressed her close interest in the Kennedy Memorial, has signified her wish that the land

  487
  should be made over to the United States as a gift.
  Clause 1 of the Bill is, therefore, designed to give statutory sanction, with the consent of Parliament, to the wishes of Her Majesty, and I have no doubt that the House will readily concur, because I can tell the House that at the same time the Clause provides that the land, though vested in the United States, shall be under the control and management in perpetuity of the Kennedy Memorial trustees for the use and enjoyment of the public in this country.
  Clause 2 gives statutory backing to the position of the trustees in relation to the land. They will be able to manage it consistently with the purposes of the Bill and of the trust deed as if they had all the powers and duties of an absolute owner.
  I feel sure that the Bill will find a ready welcome in all parts of the House, and I am glad to think that we may, by making this small addition to our Statute Book, give a lasting expression to the honour and regard given by all people in all walks of life in this country to a great citizen of the United States and a great President in the late John F. Kennedy.
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I am happy to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Bill whose Second Reading has just been moved by the Prime Minister.
  The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, gives effect to a national effort which has the support of all parties and all sections of opinion in this country. I think that when this country heard the news of the death of President Kennedy, the feeling of every individual was almost of unbelief as well as of loss, not merely at the death of a world statesman we had all come to respect and honour but at the cutting off of a life which was so young and so vital, a life with so much promise and purpose still unfulfilled.
  It is, I suppose, an inevitable corollary of living in a shrinking world, one in which through the magic of modern communications world events and world personalities are brought almost daily to our own fireside, that a tragedy
  488
  which, years ago, would have seemed somewhat remote and outside our own immediate experience took on a reality and a directness which made the loss seem almost personal to every family in the country. There were very few in Britain who had not heard the President's voice and there were very few who, through the screen, had not come to know his features. Dallas may have seemed centuries away from us in the horror of what was done there, but it was as though it were in the next street in the nearness of the tragedy.
  That is why the right hon. Gentleman's initiative in announcing the intention to institute a national memorial was so warmly and widely supported, and I would join with him in what he has said today, in once again commending the Lord Mayor's Appeal to the nation. He is right that much has been done in response to this appeal, but much remains to be done.
  No short speech, such as is appropriate on the Bill today, could provide a fitting tribute to everything which the late President represented, or could even begin to characterise and define the legend which even now, only a few months after that tragedy, has formed around his memory. For some, as the Prime Minister said, it is the mirror to youth, to the vigour and freshness, which he brought in place of the tired clichés of thought, word and action. For others, it was his firmness and courage, his fight for human rights and human dignity. For yet others, it was his ability to see every unfolding event against the spatial background of the whole world, against the temporal background of the entire canvas of history.
  For here was a man who, in his first State of the Union Message, could commend a very detailed and specific programme in terms of a world of neighbours when he said:
  "The hopes of all mankind rest upon us, not simply upon those of us in this chamber, but upon the peasant in Laos, the fisherman in Nigeria, the exile from Cuba, the spirit that moves every man and nation who shares our hopes for freedom and the future."
  The Prime Minister has referred, rightly, to President Kennedy's contribution to the relaxation of East-West tension. I was with several of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Moscow when

  489
  he made his historic speech to the All-American University and I think that we were the first to hear Mr. Khrushchev's reaction to it. One could see the impact on the Russian leadership of a courageous speech which talked in terms of not only co-existence but of positive working for peace.
  We heard from Mr. Khrushchev, at a very critical time in world history, on the eve of the meetings with the Chinese Communist Party and on the eve of the test ban talks, how profoundly he had been moved by the thought that the young leader of America felt that peace was not only electorally popular—as Mr. Khrushchev, perhaps cynically, put forward—but was something that would be supported by all his people. Those of us who remember the past years know the courage that it took President Kennedy to make that speech.
  His life and his death gave an impetus to the coarse which, above all others, will be associated with his memory—the fight for human rights, the assertion of human dignity and equality against the loathsome doctrine of racialism. It was he who provided the inspiration and his successor, in a contribution which history will not fail to equate with that of President Kennedy, has courageously, and with decisive leadership, turned that impetus into an historic act of legislature.
  It has been said of President Kennedy that, in the machinery of Government, he processed all the multi-dimensional data of crisis with the certainty and precision and almost with the speed of a computer. But the inspiration of his decision had a vision which drew on deeper intellectual and moral reserves, which, in his famous Message on Education he expressed in seven words:
  "The human mind is our fundamental resource."
  This Bill, which provides legislative effect to the proposal made by Lord Franks' Committee and endorsed by all of us, in this House and outside, and which, at the same time, recognises in statutory form the generous lead graciously given to the nation by Her Majesty, now enables a national tribute to be turned into a permanent and living memorial.
  It is entirely appropriate that we should relate the form of our proposed national memorial to the joint heritage of our
  490
  two nations in the advance of human freedom, symbolised by Runnymede. But this is only a part. President Kennedy did not live in the past and we cannot. So the provision of Harvard, Radcliffe and the M.I.T. scholarships for our students is that part of the memorial where we invest in the future, where we encourage scholarship and research and where, in the late President's words, we
  "… recognise the value of dissent and daring, that we greet healthy controversy as the hallmark of healthy change."
  We live in a time of anxiety and concern which have been expressed even about the inner cohesion of the Atlantic community. It is fitting that, in honouring a great American, a great idealist, a great citizen of the world, through the abiding realities of Runnymede and the challenging probing into the future which scholarship can provide, this House should today register its confidence in the future of our partnership and its determination, inspired by the life and, indeed, by the death of Jack Kennedy, to transcend the doubts and anxieties that it would be unrealistic to ignore but unworthy to accept as the pattern of the future.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I am happy to support what has been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The late President of the United States will long be remembered for his firm but restrained defence of freedom. For that reason it is fitting that part of his memorial should be a portion of the ground which is forever closely associated with the growth of the democratic freedom of the Western world.
  President Kennedy will also be remembered for the intellectual distinction of Washington under his influence. In his view, politics were concerned with the quality of life. He put a high value on training and ability. He was never afraid of clever men or clever women. He was also sensitive to new and complicated issues with which we all have to grapple and many of which are international. It is, therefore, appropriate that the other part of his memorial should take the form of these scholarships to Harvard, Radcliffe and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  491
  But he will, above all, be remembered by the example he set and by the memories he has left. I support the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment, read the Third time and passed.

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  3.58 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, on the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
  The White Paper which I submitted to the House in November outlined the causes of the deficit from which B.O.A.C. had suffered and gave the background to the reconstruction which I then proposed. I think that there will be general agreement that the new Board has already shown no lack of vigour in the plans it has put forward.
  The Select Committee has given a very lucid account of the past years of B.O.A.C. and I would like, at the outset, to pay tribute to the work of the Committee. Broadly speaking, its Report confirms the views expressed in the White Paper, although there are certain points where the two documents are at variance. There are the issue of detailed financial control of B.O.A.C. and some points with regard to engineering and maintenance. I do not think that any final judgment will be possible until Sir Giles Guthrie's plan has not only been finally determined, but carried out. Meanwhile, I prefer to stand by the views I expressed in the White Paper.
  The importance of the Select Committee's Report is the very trenchant discussion contained in it of two issues: first, the responsibilities of the Government and the Corporation in relation to one another; and, secondly, the relation-
  492
  ship that should exist between the Corporation and the aircraft industry.
  The story of the VC10 illustrates these problems and throws a great deal of light on them. This is important to the whole future of the Corporation and is very much in our minds at the moment, after the Government decisions which I announced on Monday. I will have a good deal to say about the VC10 before I sit down, but, first, I will deal with some of the general considerations affecting the Government's relations with the Corporation.
  The Select Committee was impressed by the uncertainty which it judged to prevail in the Corporation as to what its rôle and duties were, how far it was intended to operate as a commercial undertaking and how far it was a flag carrier and a body which had responsibilities to the aircraft industry.
  It is true that there was no directive laid down for previous chairmen such as I have laid down for Sir Giles Guthrie. This was because, frankly, none was thought to be necessary. In his report in 1952 Sir Miles Thomas, commenting on the year 1951–52, made it clear that he regarded the Corporation as "essentially a commercial undertaking". Lord Douglas, in the long and brilliant years in which he guided B.E.A., plainly took the same view. Sir Gerad d'Erlanger's correspondence with Lord Watkinson stresses on many occasions the importance of not prejudicing B.O.A.C.'s commercial position in a highly competitive industry.
  When asked—in, I think November, 1957—to take delivery of Britannias, which he regarded as not coming up to the standard required by the Corporation, he insisted on receiving written instructions from the Minister of Aviation of the day for doing so. All this suggests that he at least had the clear view that he was intended to operate the Corporation as a commercial undertaking—and when asked to depart from that standard he wished to have the facts recorded. The same thing happened in the case of Kuwait Airways, a matter which has often been raised in the House.
  In 1961, a White Paper was published on the financial and economic obligations of the nationalised industries. This, too.

  493
  laid down the Government's view that they should be run by their managements on commercial lines. Certainly, in my experience and talks with Sir Matthew Slattery, I was never aware that he took any other view of the matter than this. Any Minister of Aviation must discuss his problems in the round with the leaders of the aircraft industry and the heads of the airlines. He does so because he needs their co-operation in many ways. I have done it myself and I am having a conference tomorrow with both.
  Industrialists—the leaders of industry—are, of course, limited in the cooperation that they can give by their responsibilities to their shareholders. I accept at once that the head of a nationalised industry is, perhaps, more likely to find it easier to accept responsibility for decisions which he judges to be right in the national interest, even if they are not so directly connected with the interests of his Corporation. And here there is obviously the possibility that responsibilities may become blurred. It was because of this that I issued my directive to Sir Giles Guthrie when he assumed responsibility on 1st January. The Select Committee, as I understand its Report, endorsed this directive and the policy behind it. But I have noted, from some of the remarks made in this House, in another place, and in the Press, that the full sense of the policy has not always been fully understood. I will, therefore, comment on this issue.
  Mr. John Diamond: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he make it absolutely clear whether what he has just said is completely right, namely, that this was a matter of voluntary policy on his part—or was he submitting to a request or demand by Sir Giles Guthrie, which would represent a very different attitude indeed?
  Mr. Amery: I have not dealt with that point yet. I said that I gave a general directive to Sir Giles Guthrie, when he assumed office, laying down the lines on which I thought he should operate. I did not give the directive at his request, but in view of the uncertainty which there appeared to be in people's minds about the rôle of the Corporation. It appeared better to make it clear once and for all.
  494
  It will be recalled that in the debate in December hon. Members expressed uncertainty about the rôle of the Corporation. The Report of the Select Committee finds that there was some uncertainty. In view of this possible uncertainty I thought it prudent to write the letter which I did. It was not done at anybody's request, but because I thought it wise, in the prevailing uncertainty, to make the position quite clear
  I want to explain the exact meaning of the directive, because, although the Select Committee showed a clear understanding of it, I am not sure that it has always been clearly understood. It has been suggested, for example, that there is a contradiction between my having asked Sir Giles Guthrie to operate the Corporation as a commercial undertaking and the Government then deciding not to accept his proposal on the cancellation of VC10s the other day.
  The essence of the directive is that the Government have asked the Chairman of the Corporation and his fellow members of the Board—the members of the Corporation—to run B.O.A.C. as a commercial undertaking, with the aim of securing a return on its capital. The Corporation is owned by the public and the Government have a responsibility to see that due regard is paid to the public interest in the broadest sense. The important point is that there should be a clear distinction and division of responsibility between the Chairman and the Government. The Chairman's duty is to run the Corporation as a commercial undertaking and to make proposals to that end. The Government's duty is to make sure that the public interest, in the widest sense, is taken into account and it is for the Government to take responsibility if they decide to request the Corporation, for reasons of national policy, to take action which is at variance with the Corporation's commercial judgment.
  What we want to avoid—and, perhaps, have not always sufficiently avoided in the past—is either that the Government should interfere in the commercial policy of the Corporation or that the Chairman of the Board of B.O.A.C. should try to determine where the national interest lies. A natural consequence of an attempt to define this sphere of responsibility is that where the Government asks the Corporation to do something different from that recommended on commercial grounds, the

  495
  Government's request should be recorded and, in appropriate cases, the Government should indemnify the Corporation for the consequences of carrying out those Government requests.
  Slightly more difficult is the question of how all this should be presented in the accounts and elsewhere. Plainly, there will be cases where the aim of the Government's purposes would be defeated by premature publicity, but this is something which must be determined according to the circumstances of each case. I will try to apply this general theory.
  Mr. Austen Albu: In view of the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman is now making, why is it that neither he nor his predecessor accepted the recommendation of the 1959 Select Committee, particularly since the same terms were asked for on that occasion?
  Mr. Amery: I am not exactly clear to which recommendation the hon. Gentleman is referring.
  Mr. Albu: To the one concerned with the point the right hon. Gentleman has just been discussing.
  Mr. Amery: I was saying that plainly the Government's advice or request must be recorded and that, where appropriate, there should be some indemnification of the Corporation. I also said that the question of publicity must depend on the circumstances of the case.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to try to apply this rather general statement to the more particular aspect. Let us take, first, the route structure. Plainly, it is the Corporation's duty to determine what route structure is either profitable or potentially profitable. On the other hand, it is conceivable that the Government might wish to ask the Corporation to operate a particular route in the general interest of the promotion of British trade or of Commonwealth relations. If so, perhaps they should pay for the service. It is even possible that the Government might wish to cut out a route. If hon. Members opposite were, by any mischance, returned to power, they might wish, for ideological reasons, to stop B.E.A. running to Spain. If so, on the basis of what I have said, they would be expected to pay for doing so.
  496
  Then, take the question of the size of a fleet. The size of an air fleet must be a product of the route pattern, and not the other way round. I say that because I think that there is some evidence that hitherto B.O.A.C. has under-utilised its aircraft—if I may use that rather disagreeable verb.
  More difficult is the question of the composition of a fleet, and I should like to say a word or two on that In my directive to Sir Giles Guthrie on 1st January, I wrote:
  "The choice of aircraft is a matter for the Corporation's judgment. It has been the aim of the Corporations to buy their aircraft as far as possible from British sources and I trust that this policy will continue. There may, of course, sometimes be occasions (as when Boeing 707s were purchased in 1956) where the choice of foreign aircraft is unavoidable."
  In the Government's view, the national interest calls for the maintenance of a strong aircraft industry, and it would plainly be contrary to this national interest if our national airlines were regularly to fly foreign aircraft when suitable British aircraft were available.
  To this extent, my directive is a limitation on B.O.A.C.'s freedom in that respect, but I think that it also carries with it certain clear advantages. The smaller airlines of the world will, naturally, find it to their advantage to buy the best aircraft they can at the cheapest price off the shelf when they need them. A great airline like B.O.A.C. will find, I think, that over the years its interest is best served by being first in the field with a new aircraft built by its own national industry. We saw the fruits of this in the years before the tragic Comet accident. We have seen it with the Viscount. Air France has seen it with the Caravelle.
  Of course, this element in the letter I wrote to Sir Giles Guthrie posed a serious problem both for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. If they are to be first in the field with new aircraft they will be saddled with substantial introductory and proving costs. They may have to place a substantial initial order, because British industry is not likely to embark on a new development unless the initial order is substantial. Instead of buying extra aircraft as the need arises, they may find themselves having to order more than they would wish in advance, and find themselves in a less flexible position than

  497
  they would wish as the ups and downs of air traffic confront them.
  The industry, too, faces a problem here. The Coporations are its main market, and the requirements of the Corporations are not always what the export market wants. This is a problem I face regularly with our weapon systems; it applies to the commercial side as well. Under the 1960 policy as laid down by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the Government help the industry with the launching costs of transport aircraft. Successive Select Committees since 1959 have also urged that we should help airlines with introductory and proving costs, and I think that there is much to be said for this.
  Turning, now, to the VC10—
  Mr. William Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the policy of building national aircraft to the requirement of a national airline is really practicable in 1964? Have we not to look to some form of international cooperation in construction to get away from this difficulty?
  Mr. Amery: I intend to deal with that point later, so perhaps my hon. Friend will not mind waiting till then.
  Let me turn, now, to the VC10. In 1956, it became plain that B.O.A.C. would need to fly jet aircraft on the Atlantic route if it was to maintain its competitive position at all. It had miscalculated, and it was not alone in this, on both the Britannia and the V1000. It asked the Government for authority to buy 17 Boeing 707s for the Atlantic route. Lord Watkinson, then the Minister responsible, agreed that the Corporation should have 15 of these aircraft, and it was later allowed to buy another three. I have no doubt at all that Lord Watkinson's decision was right—there was no suitable British aircraft available at the time—but he also told the Corporation that if it needed any further long-range jets it must look to British industry for them.
  The Corporation then entered into negotiations with the different firms—and there were many more in those days in the industry—but only Vickers was prepared to develop a long-range jet aircraft on a private venture basis. The VC10 was accordingly designed to
  498
  B.O.A.C.'s specification. It is fair to say that B.O.A.C. was very impressed at this time by the need for short takeoff and landing performance. It had, as it thought, covered its Atlantic requirement by a buy of Boeings, and it was thinking of its southern and eastern routes. It believed that, with the runway conditions of those days, the Boeing 707 would not be suitable for these. It therefore asked Vickers to design an aircraft of relatively short take-off and landing capability.
  As we know, this proved, in the event, to be to some extent a miscalculation; runways all over the world were lengthened, to some extent with United States Government aid. However, the VC10 still has an advantage in that there are airports like Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur and Colombo where it can land and the Boeing 707 cannot. Nevertheless, the requirement to do this has involved some increase in weight, and some marginal increase in running costs. It is only fair to Vickers to say that if the aircraft is in some respects marginally more expensive to operate, that is partly due to the specification to which B.O.A.C. asked Vickers to design it.
  Were the Government right to tell B.O.A.C. that beyond 15 Boeings it must turn to the British industry? I have no doubt that the answer must be "Yes". On balance of payments grounds alone, £100 million was then—and still is today—a very large sum. Moreover, Vickers' decision to develop this aircraft on its own initiative deserved encouragement and support.
  I come now to the question of the numbers of aircraft ordered. Some of the evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government put pressure on B.O.A.C. to buy more aircraft than it needed. Quite frankly, I can find no evidence of this; indeed, the evidence I have found rather points the other way. In 1960, my right hon. Friend the present Commonwealth Secretary was engaged on the rationalisation of the aircraft industry—merging it into groups—and the VC10 order was crucial to the formation of the British Aircraft Corporation. Nevertheless, when, in that year, the Corporation asked my right hon. Friend for permission to buy 10 more VC10s, he questioned the need,

  499
  and did not agree to it until he had been reassured by the Corporation that it was commercially appropriate. He made it clear in writing that, while the new order in his view would be helpful to the industry, he was not asking B.O.A.C. to place it.
  A year later, when B.O.A.C. sought to increase its capacity still further, the Government actually made it cut back the extent of its order and incur cancellation charges on three aircraft because the Government were not prepared to raise the financial ceiling. I have no doubt that Vickers insisted upon a substantial order, and I have no doubt either—and the Select Committee bears me out—that B.O.A.C. in those days was very optimistic about the prospects. Sir Matthew Slattery told the Committee that B.O.A.C. foresaw the need for 30 to 35 aircraft on Eastern and Southern routes alone.
  Evidence has been given to the Committee which suggests that the Corporation was forced to choose between buying too many aircraft or none at all. I can find no evidence that this dilemma was ever put to the Ministry. If it existed at all it surely must have been the first duty of the chairman of the Corporation to go to the Minister of Aviation of the day and explain the problem and ask for help in the underwriting of aircraft for which he could not see the need at that stage. There is no record or evidence of anything of the kind. It is my belief that no serious doubts about the number of aircraft ordered were entertained by the Corporation and there was no strong preference in the Corporation's mind for Boeing 707s against the VC10s until long after the relevant decisions had been taken.
  Mr. John Cronin: This is a serious matter which we ought to clear up. Is not it the case beyond doubt, as shown in the Select Committee's evidence, that Sir Matthew Slatterly and Sir Basil Smallpeice, both reputable people, said that extra VC10s were ordered under pressure from the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that those statements were untrue?
  Mr. Amery: I have been saying what I thought the truth was. I have found no evidence whatsoever of Government pressure in this matter, and I have indicated to the House evidence which seems to me to prove conclusively that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation of the day, the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, declined to approve the buying of an extra 10 in 1960 until he had been assured that there was a commercial need for them. He said in writing that whilst this would no doubt be helpful to the industry he was not asking for it, and a year later the Government cut back the proposal by B.O.A.C. for increased capacity and made it cancel three aircraft against the Corporation's wishes.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would the right hon. Gentleman remind the House that the Chairman about whom he was speaking was not Sir Matthew Slattery? Sir Matthew wrote to his predecessor before he took office imploring him not to place the order for these additional aircraft.
  Mr. Amery: I have been talking about matters in 1960 which concerned Sir Gerard d'Erlanger's time. I am sure that matters in 1961 come into Sir Matthew Slattery's period. In the spring of 1963, in his advice to me, Sir Matthew proposed to cancel—
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to 1963, may I ask whether it was not the case in November, 1959, that the board of B.O.A.C. considered the desirability or not of taking up 10 of this option of 20 and decided that it should enter into no commitment until the last possible date, August, 1962, and within two months of this happening, as a result, so it was said in evidence, of a combination of pressure not in writing but direct pressure from the Minister in association with the project for forming B.A.C., and the fact that Vickers said that unless an additional order was made it could not make the original 35, the B.O.A.C. Board completely turned round?
  Mr. Amery: No, Sir. This is what I am dissenting from. I have seen today—and I have been looking through the files—records of a meeting where the Minister

  501
  of Aviation of the day asked the Chairman of B.O.A.C., Sir Gerard d'Erlanger point blank—I cannot carry the exact words in my head, but the implication was—"Are you convinced that there is a commercial need for these? Are you sure that you can use these extra aircraft?". He was assured that they would be used and would be commercially desirable. Equally, there is a letter from the then Minister saying in effect, "Whilst this order would be helpful to the industry I want to make it clear that I am not asking you to place it." I should have thought that this was conclusive evidence.
  Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted a document and letters—
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Not quoted.
  Mr. Wigg: As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted a document and letters—
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Not quoted.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am paying attention and I want to hear the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
  Mr. Wigg: As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted documents and papers, will you order that those shall be laid on the Table?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My impression was that the right hon. Gentleman was giving a summary of documents and papers and not quoting verbatim.
  Mr. Amery: I think I said that I could not quote the words and that I was giving the sense of them.
  In the spring of 1963, Sir Matthew Slattery proposed to me that the Corporation should cancel 13 Super VC10s. I was very reluctant to agree to this proposal and, on my initiative, a meeting was held between B.O.A.C, the British Aircraft Corporation and the Ministry of Aviation. I think that we had two meetings. As a result, B.O.A.C. asked B.A.C. to suspend work on the last 10 VC10s without prejudice to the contractual position. In subsequent months the views of B.O.A.C. about the number of aircraft which it would need varied
  502
  more than once and I was very glad that I had avoided the cancellation at that stage.
  On 1st January, 1964, Sir Giles Guthrie took over the chairmanship and I asked him to prepare a plan. He began with a routes plan, and I am sure that the Select Committee's Report is right in commending his decision to look first of all at the routes. He proposed to maintain substantially all the B.O.A.C. routes, except for some possible changes on the South American side and possible plans to extend the route pattern over the Soviet Union and across the Pacific. He planned also to maintain most of the frequencies previously flown.
  But Sir Giles Guthrie is convinced that this can be done with 23 fewer aircraft than B.O.A.C. had planned for 1967, and he believes that this can be achieved by higher utilisation of aircraft. He supplied me with convincing evidence of serious under-utilisation in the past, and I see no reason to challenge his judgment.
  If Sir Giles is proved right, then serious miscalculations were made in the past. I am not inclined to be too critical of this—aircraft corporations are still in the early stage of their evolution—but I want to make it clear that the decision of B.O.A.C. on the VC10s was the Corporation's decision. It was taken on commercial grounds and I can find no evidence that the Government were responsible for it.
  After his study of the routes. Sir Giles Guthrie turned to the composition of the fleet. He proposed to cancel 30 Super VC10s, to keep 20 Boeing 707s which he already had and to buy first of all six and later another eight new Boeing 707s. The main reason was that the 20 Boeing 707s which he had in service were already largely depreciated in the B.O.A.C. account and they were therefore considerably more profitable to operate than new Super VC10s would have been.
  Given his desire to keep the 20 Boeing 707s, he went on to advise that the logical next step would be to buy new Boeing 707s as and when he needed them. I think that certain other considerations were in his mind at the same time. B.O.A.C. had built up a considerable expertise in the operation of Boeings. Many of the Corporation's pool partners operated them, so that spares could be

  503
  interchanged to some extent, and it is easier, in the sense of quicker, to obtain new Boeings than it might be at some undisclosed date to get VC10s. All these are valid commercial considerations which I do not dispute. There is no question whatever of the VC10 being in any way technically inferior to the Boeing 707. Indeed, in many ways it is superior. It has a higher speed and a lower landing speed, which is a vital factor in safety. Its take-off and landing is shorter. Its cabin quietness is remarkable, as anyone who has flown in it will testify The standard VC10s are already winning golden opinions from passengers and pilots.
  In its early period of operation with B.O.A.C. the average utilisation time of the standard VC10 has been, so I am advised, about 8 hours a day, which is very high for an aircraft in its introductory period. It is interesting to note that during its introductory period of service with B.O.A.C, the VC10 has lost only about half the time through maintenance trouble that was lost by the Boeing 707, and this despite the fact that the Boeing, when B.O.A.C. first took it on, had already been proved in service with Pan American.
  Let me also tell the House of a tribute from a distinguished visitor from the Middle East where, after all, the magic carpet was first conceived. He told me that he had prolonged his visit to London so as to be able to fly back in a VC10.
  The aircraft, in fact, has very great possibilities of development with regard to both its carrying capacity and its range. It is true that the Super VC10s are substantially more expensive than the Boeings now in service with B.O.A.C. The Boeing, with spares, originally cost £2¾ million to buy, and the Super VC10 cost something like £3½ million. But the new Boeings would cost, including Import Duty, about the same as the Super VC10, so that the economic penalty is not an important factor in this respect.
  In our view, it is not right to ask the Corporation to sell off its old Boeings which are profitable and are bringing in profits at this time. But Sir Giles Guthrie's plan involved buying new Boeings and the Government felt that they could not agree that B.O.A.C. should cancel the Super VC10s in order
  504
  to buy new Boeings. B.O.A.C. might have gained some advantages from having a more uniform fleet, and possibly some marginal saving in running costs. But there would have been a very serious industrial consequence, and a serious and perhaps mortal blow would have been struck at the prospects of what we regard as a very fine aircraft. Our claim is that the VC10 is a wholly suitable aircraft and that, in accordance with the directive which I gave to Sir Giles Guthrie, we think it right that where suitable aircraft are available, and particularly where an order has already been placed, the Corporation should maintain that order.
  Mr. John Rankin: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the characteristics of the VC10—and I am making no criticism; I believe in the machine—may I remind him that there has been some criticism of fuel costs? Would the right hon. Gentleman say a word about that?
  Mr. Amery: Yes. As I explained earlier, B.O.A.C.'s request for a relatively short take-off and landing performance has put up the weight of the aircraft and this, I think, involves marginally increased fuel costs. I have been surprised, in the analysis that I have had made of these things, to find how marginal these are; but there is a penalty there.
  Mr. Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of cost, would he be good enough to give the number of aircraft on which his assessment of the cost is based? Obviously, if 10 aircraft are subsequently cancelled, the cost will be very much higher than the figure that he has quoted. Surely, in all honesty, he ought not to come here and quote a selling figure when the spread-over is over a much higher number than he knows will ultimately be ordered.
  Mr. Amery: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give us credit for having examined all the permutations. Naturally, I have been considering the most extreme cases of operating either a wholly Boeing or a wholly VC10 fleet, which is the fairest comparison. I have also had regard to the consequences of a mixed fleet. My statement is based on the more extreme position if we have all Boeings or all VC10s. It is the

  505
  fairest possible basis on which comparison could be made when thinking in terms of fleets of either 39 or 47 aircraft.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not a fact that as well as specifying the take-off performance, B.O.A.C. specified that it must be in conjunction with non-stop operations between Singapore and Karachi and between Nairobi and London? Whereas it could have achieved full take-off performance by leaving off some fuel, this was not open to Vickers because of the long range specified in association with the short take-off?
  Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend may be right. I was not aware of that point, but I am glad to hear it
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Why is the right hon. Gentleman glad to hear it?
  Mr. Amery: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has a great and intimate acquaintance with the aircraft industry, and there may be some points which should be in my mind and are not. Therefore, I am very glad to be corrected and to be given extra and advantageous advice in support of the thesis that I am making
  Sir Giles Guthrie appreciates the force of the considerations that I have outlined. We have asked him to take 17 Super VC10s and he has agreed to do so. Seventeen is, in fact, two more than his plans require on paper, and it may be that at the time of their introduction into service he would have to sell off two Boeing 707s, but this is all some time ahead. The Corporation in the short-term need seven Super VC10s and will introduce and prove them. Precisely when they introduce the balance of 10 is a matter for them. Their present plans certainly involve some readjustment of the earlier dates of entry into service, and B.O.A.C. and B.A.C. with the help of my Department will consult to see how best to deal with any of the aircraft in the interval between production and entry into service.
  The Royal Air Force will take three Super VC10s in addition to 11 standard VC10s and these three will be to some extent modified to meet military require-
  506
  ments. All 20 Super VC10s now under construction will thus go forward according to plan.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: Would the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the R.A.F. requirements? Little has been said about this. Only a short time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence said that not only did he think that there was adequate provision for Transport Command, but that it was very expensive and he could not contemplate any further expense of this sort. How is it that in the last three weeks the whole situation has changed and the Government are recommending a further three?
  Mr. Amery: I see the force of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He will not be surprised to know that the Royal Air Force has already included provision in its forward costing for another three aircraft which it has for some time regarded as necessary.
  I turn now to the last 10 Super VC10s on order. Work on these has been suspended for over a year, but the contract stands. I mean by this that if there were ultimately to be cancellations there would have to be payment of cancellation charges. I should like to pay tribute to Vickers and B.A.C. for the forbearance with which they have accommodated B.O.A.C. on this point and on being able to hold the work in suspense. I am advised that this is not likely to lead to any redundancy problems. Airline forecasts change very rapidly and the Government hope that these last 10 will not need to be cancelled. How long they can be kept in suspense is a matter for B.O.A.C. and B.A.C. to work out together. I am advised that technically it might be possible to keep work in suspense for a year or so without interruption to the production line, but there may be other factors to be considered, and this is a matter for the two Corporations, B.A.C. and B.O.A.C, to discuss together.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House in rather more detail about the deliveries of the first 17 which the Corporation has agreed to take? It seems that five will be delivered next

  507
  year, two in 1966, and the remaining ten in 1968 and 1969. How can any company possibly have a continuous production line with deliveries phased like that? It does not begin to add up. Can we be given more information, if not now, then in the winding-up speech?
  Mr. Amery: I have tried to say something about this. The Corporation will take seven in the short term, whether all next year, or most next year and some the year after is a matter for the Corporation, and precisely when it introduces the balance is again a matter for the Corporation. Obviously, the Corporation's present plans involve some readjustment of the earlier dates for entry into service, though not necessarily in the production programme.
  B.O.A.C, B.A.C. and my Department will consult to see how best to deal with any aircraft in the interval between their production and their entry into service. We do not have any firm plans on this yet, but I have no doubt that ways and means can be found either of holding or of using the aircraft in the interval between the time they are produced and the time when the Corporation is ready to introduce them into service. The length of suspension is a matter for B.O.A.C. and B.A.C. to discuss together, although technically it can be a year or more.
  In our view, it would be a very great mistake to cancel these aircraft unless and until it became quite clear that they were surplus to requirements and likely to remain so. This will not be clear until some time to come. It is our hope that with their present specification, or with some future development, they may still fly in the B.O.A.C. fleet.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: The three aircraft which are suddenly being given to the R.A.F. are, of course, required by the R.A.F. as transporters for the Army. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Army has been consulted about whether these aircraft are in the least suitable for Army requirements, particularly the carrying of heavy equipment?
  Mr. Amery: Under our Administration the Service Departments have always
  508
  consulted closely, and now that they are under one roof they consult even more closely.
  After my statement on Monday, I was asked the cost of all this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will direct his remarks to that aspect when he winds up the debate this evening. But I can say at this stage that the 1962 Act earmarked the necessary funds for the full buy of VC10s, so that the postponement of work on the last ten can have the effect only of postponing expenditure. When we have Sir Giles Guthrie's plan, we shall bring forward proposals for the capital reconstruction of the Corporation and this, as I have assured Sir Giles, will have regard to any excess capital or running costs of operating VC10s instead of Boeing 707s.
  Mr. Lubbock: Does not the delay in the delivery of the last VC10s mean that the Corporation will have to make some progress payments to B.A.C?
  Mr. Amery: B.O.A.C. and B.A.C. are in touch with each other about all this. The other night I brought together Sir Charles Dunphie, Sir George Edwards and Sir Giles Guthrie. They discussed the general character of the plan and agreed to carry on talks about its implementation. I thought that I had made that clear in my statement on Monday.
  The essence of the problem which the Report of the Select Committee brings out is that the British aircraft industry must regard British airlines, whether nationalised or independent, as their main and initial market, but the British airlines by themselves are not big enough to place the large contracts which would allow long production runs on the American scale with their associated economy. There is, therefore, a certain commercial advantage to British airlines in buying the cheapest aircraft off the shelf where they can get them. This certainly involves less rigidity in planning and greater flexibility, but we would be very wrong to ignore the danger of encouraging any such policy.
  At present, British industry faces a major competitive offensive from across the Atlantic, notably in shipping, aircraft, airlines, weapon systems, computers, nuclear reactors and in many other respects. Unless we take steps to meet this challenge, we could find ourselves

  509
  literally driven out of all these sectors of advanced technology.
  How then should we solve the problem? One possible course would be to specialise and to concentrate on the development of aircraft of a particular type. But this would mean contracting out of another important sector. This, perhaps, is the policy of retreat. The alternative is to join forces with our friends in Europe, pooling our resources and enlarging the market. This is what we have done with the Concord. Here we have divided the investment and doubled the home market. With the E.L.D.O. launcher, five or six of us have joined together. I am inclined to think that this may well be the pattern of the future. As it happens, I am holding a conference tomorrow of the heads of the aircraft industry and of the airlines. One of our first tasks will be to consider these things. In all this we will weigh very carefully the advice of the House this afternoon.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
  "but regrets that the policies of Her Majesty's Government have contributed largely to the difficulties now confronting the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British aircraft industry".
  The right hon. Gentleman did not speak very long to the Motion. Indeed, he did not closely examine the contents of the Report itself; and I am not sure that I blame him for doing that. He concentrated, perhaps inevitably, on his statement and what has flowed from it and merely touched on one or two of the issues raised in the Report as he went along.
  I have always regretted that during the last year or two we have never had a proper opportunity constructively to consider the aircraft industry and the Airways Corporations, largely because the right hon. Gentleman will insist on getting himself into all sorts of trouble, so that every time we have a debate it has to be about either a scandal or a tragedy.
  I agree with him that, quite apart from the issues of the VC10, the British aircraft industry is facing serious trouble. He mentioned the problems of the huge power of the United States. He does not help us much by going to the United
  510
  States for our defence at a time when the British aircraft industry could very well do with orders for weapons of the type which he proposes to get from the United States.
  I do not dissociate myself from the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks when he says that we are confronted with vital problems—the narrowness of our market, the effect of ordering by the Corporations and the needs ' of the aircraft companies for big home orders and the specifications of the Corporations which may well make aircraft unattractive to overseas buyers.
  It is one of the remarkable things of this present controversy that the Boeing, which figures so largely in our deliberations, was not made with any B.O.A.C. contract in mind, whereas the VC10, which was made to the Corporation's specifications, does not now appear to be quite so attractive to B.O.A.C. as it did. On the other hand, the Viscount, which was once turned down by B.E.A., became our greatest success in the export market.
  I wonder whether we can expect a little more co-operation between the Government, the airlines, and the aircraft manufacturers, to ensure that the airlines do not ask for unreasonable specifications which count us out of world markets. The point that I tried to make about the Boeing itself, as distinct from the VC10, at any rate gives us the assurance that planes are being made which are not necessarily to the specification laid down by the Corporations, but which are then great successes, and I mention the Viscount in the opposite respect.
  The outstanding feature brought to light in the Report is the complete muddle between the Government and the two arms of the aircraft and aviation industries. I think that it is essential to our success to bring about a greater degree of partnership between all three. This must be done if we are to overcome the problems which face us all.
  As we go through the mass of evidence of events from the time of the failure of the first Comet and relate it to the issues covered in this Report and the decisions taken by the Government since its publication, it becomes clear that it is impossible for the House to deal with all this in a single debate. As we saw the full extent of the tragedy of B.O.A.C. unfold

  511
  —some of us were watching the position and hoping that that this tragedy would not occur, but fearing that it would—we felt that the Minister was becoming more and more desperate in his attempts to prove that Ministers, past and present, were and are in every way blameless for it.
  It was that attitude which led the right hon. Gentleman, in his White Paper on the B.O.A.C., to make grave accusations of weakness in financial control against those in charge of the airline at the time when the White Paper was written. The Report makes nonsense of the claims of ministerial purity and gross incompetence by the then management. Indeed, on reading through the Report, as I have done a dozen times, one realises that the one man who can accept it wholeheartedly is Sir Matthew Slattery. We are asked to take note of the Report. Why did not the Minister ask us to accept it?
  The right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute, as I do, to the zeal and manner in which those hon. Members who formed the Committee carried out their investigations. I think that they did a great national service in bringing to the notice of the public issues which are peculiar to our aircraft and aviation industries. These issues are now common knowledge among people, but this could not possibly have happened if our colleagues on this Committee had not done their work in such an exemplary manner. I congratulate them on their work.
  The Report deals minutely and sympathetically with the problems which confront both management and the Government in attempting to strike a balance between the interests of the aircraft manufacturing industry and the B.O.A.C, and the Committee's findings are valuable to all those who wish to see healthy, prosperous, industries in both those sections.
  Looking at the issues of the day which now face us, I believe that this problem of our exports, to which the Minister referred, may well determine the size of our industry and whether it can sustain itself against the bitter competition which it is now facing. With the exception of the BAC111, I know of no other project which has big export possibilities. This aircraft was produced, not to the specification of the Corpora-
  512
  tions, but with export possibilities very much in mind.
  I hope that from now on, instead of relying too heavily on the home market, narrow as it is, the aircraft industry will reach out more for overseas markets, and that wherever possible the Government will do everything in their power to assist them. To ensure that that is done, we cannot leave this trinity in its present state. We must ensure that there is a much closer relationship between them.
  Dealing with the Report itself, I turn to the point made in it about the Minister's refusal to let the Select Committee see a copy of the Corbett Report. The House may remember than when the Minister announced the setting up of the Corbett Inquiry we did not object to the inquiry as such, but we argued that there was a relationship between the problems of the B.O.A.C. and of the aircraft industry which necessitated an inquiry into both organisations. In view of the situation revealed in the Minister's statement the other day, I think that it would have been a good thing if we had begun from that angle.
  The Report shows that the Select Committee was hampered by not being able to see the whole of the Corbett Report. The Committee asked to see it on a confidential basis, and we know that documents or statements produced or made on such terms are not included in the published reports of our Committees. At a later date the Committee learned that certain sections of the Report—in my opinion, quite rightly—had been made available to the heads of Departments within the B.O.A.C. The Committee therefore asked that those sections should be made available to its members, but again the request was refused, on the ground that that would constitute a breach of the undertaking given to Mr. Corbett and others. I submit that it is a serious matter when the work of Parliament is hampered in this way, and I should like to feel that if the House were not in its death throes we would pursue this matter further.
  The Report points out that the Committee has power to send for persons, papers, and records, but this is meaningless unless it has the power to demand from Ministers papers which are essential to its deliberations. I exclude, of

  513
  course, documents and evidence related to matters of security and defence. I submit that to refuse to produce documents in this type of case is an insult to the members of the Committee, quite apart from the fact that it prevents the House from reaping the full benefit of the Committee's work.
  Mr. Corbett was engaged in his professional capacity. He did his job in that capacity, just as hundreds of others do in the service of the Government. If he did not wish to undertake the task unless given the assurance that his Report would be kept secret, the Minister should have asked someone else to conduct the inquiry. Surely Mr. Corbett does not have a monopoly in his profession? I have never been certain that Mr. Corbett asked for this secrecy to be maintained, and I therefore ask the straight question: did Mr. Corbett stipulate secrecy, or did the Minister impose this condition, and if so, why?
  Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend can take it from me that there is no chartered accountant who would not regard it as an insult to his professional capacity and integrity if it were suggested that his report would be one thing if made public, and another thing if kept secret.
  Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is an accountant, and I am glad to hear him say that.
  The matter is all the more serious because recently we had the case of Mr. Ferranti who refused to produce certain accounts which were important to the work of another Select Committee. He was then persuaded to show those accounts to the Lang Committee, whose findings we still await. Can the Minister say whether he has received those findings, and whether we are likely to be told them during the course of the next few days? That Committee has no standing whatever in this House. Certainly it has no comparison with a Select Committee appointed by the House. It is very difficult to understand why Mr. Ferranti could be persuaded to reveal these accounts to a committee which has no standing here while nobody could persuade him to reveal them to the Select Committee. It would seem to me that while most of us are agreed that there is a need
  514
  for more committees of the House with wider powers than the existing ones, the Minister seems to be doing his best to emasculate and frustrate the work of those that we have.
  I agree that a summary of certain criticisms in the Corbett Report were afterwards shown to the Committee without the context in which they were made. The Report observes that from what it was shown the Committee was not satisfied that some of the criticisms were justified. It may well be that the Minister felt a little apprehensive on that point himself, more particularly as he based his own criticisms in the White Paper on the Corbett Report.
  In Chapter IX of the Committee's Report, we see that it deals exclusively with financial control. It examines the methods used by B.O.A.C. and compares them with the suggestions of the consultant as to the methods by which it carried out its investigations. The Committee first looked at the day-to-day financial administration. I do not want to go through the details, which hon. Members will have read. The Committee in its conclusions to this section of Chapter IX, paragraph 248, says:
  "Subject to these reservations "—
  that is the provision of a running balance sheet—
  "the replies made by witnesses from B.O.A.C. to the comments made by the consultants on the administrative efficiency of the Financial Controller's department seem genuinely convincing to Your Committee. They are fortified in this view by the opinion of the Ministry's witnesses".
  Later, it says:
  "In general however, the Ministry's criticism was of the Corporation's general financial direction; they agreed that no specific instances of a failure in B.O.A.C's organisation for controlling finance had been given by the consultants."
  So much for day-to-day administration.
  In its conclusions on control of capital expenditure and general financial control by the Board, the Committee made clear that it considers the Minister's criticism of B.O.A.C's annual forecast had been too harsh, but the criticism of financial weakness in control of associated companies related chiefly to the periods 1956 to 1960 and by 1963–64 the B.O.A.C. was making a surplus on the operations of the associated companies.

  515
  The Committee goes on to say that in the engineering and maintenance departments, the B.O.A.C.
  "had undoubtedly made substantial progress in reducing their costs which were now much closer to the costs of other long-haul airlines".
  and other savings are being made.
  The conclusions reached in paragraphs 266–7 are so vital to the judgment which the House has to form of the accusations made by the Minister in his White Paper that I should like to quote them from the Report. It says in paragraph 266:
  "In all these fields, in fact, explanations have been given for B.O.A.C's performance which are different from and independent of the criticism made both by Mr. Corbett and the Ministry of weakness in financial directions. Moreover, on the evidence set out in this chapter, Your Committee conclude that, subject to the few exceptions which have been mentioned, the internal efficiency of B.O.A.C's financial administration has stood up to the criticism made of it."
  In paragraph 267, we read the same thing:
  "The Ministry concede that there have been improvements in the financial direction of the Corporation. They recognise signs of better financial direction in more conservative estimates of revenue and a stronger drive for economies; and they note that this effort is being made in the associated and subsidiary companies as well as in the Corporation. ' All the advice I have had', said the Permanent Secretary (in January, 1964) 'is that the Corporation during the last year has improved in the sphere of finance'."
  It rounds off with the paragraph:
  "Your Committee note, however, that these qualifications were not made by the Minister in the White Paper of B.O.A.C's financial problems."
  Mr. Amery: I want to make two brief points. I have no doubt at all from my own experience and relations with the Corporation that the appointment of Mr. Charles Hardie, a very distinguished accountant, to the Board has already had a very beneficial effect on the financial control of the Corporation. Where engineering and maintenance is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will note that the Select Committee makes an interesting recommendation about the appointment of more senior technical directors.
  Mr. Albu: Of course, the appointment of Mr. Hardie took place after the matters to which this Report refers.
  Mr. Lee: Mr. Hardie had not begun to officiate at the time when the White
  516
  Paper took its recommendations from the Corbett Report. Therefore, Mr. Hardie's appointment did not improve the financial standing of B.O.A.C. This had happened before Mr. Hardie began to officiate.
  Mr. Amery: Mr. Hardie's appointment has, in my view, already had beneficial effects.
  Mr. Lee: That does not answer the point I am making. The point I am making is from the Committee's Report. The Permanent Secretary himself pointed out the improvement that had been made in the past twelve months, that is, the twelve months prior to the Report being written, and it comments that this did not appear in the Minister's statement in the White Paper. I was going to go on to compare the statements made in the Report with those in the White Paper.
  Sir John Eden: Would the hon. Gentleman read the top sentence in paragraph 268? He read out the whole of paragraphs 266 and 267, but paragraph 268 says:
  "Your Committee believe, however, that in one crucial respect financial direction has been defective: the Corporation have not in the past been giving their undivided attention to their strict commercial and financial advantage"
  Mr. Lee: I think this is important, and I do not dissent from it in the least. This point now comes to the failure of a directive by the Government as to what is the true purpose of the Corporation's work. It is a wider issue than either the hon. Gentleman or I have yet mentioned. It is in the White Paper, and I am contrasting like with like. Paragraph 33 states:
  "The report on financial control finds weakness in this aspect of the Corporation's administration. It concludes that financial control has not been accorded sufficient importance within the Corporation."
  The paragraph headed "Management" states:
  "The crucial factor will be the success of B.O.A.C.'s management, in correcting existing weaknesses in organisation and in forecasting accurately its future share of air traffic of the long haul routes".
  It goes on to talk about the associated companies and states that
  "£15·3 million were lost in investments in associated and subsidiary companies."

  517
  It goes on:
  "There is a need for stronger management."
  The point I am making is that on the issues criticised by the Minister in his White Paper that weaknesses in financial direction and control by the management functioning when the White Paper was produced were unjustified and the criticism of unsatisfactory control of the associated subsidiaries was applicable only to the period 1956 to 1960. That is a summary of the conclusions reached by the Committee.
  The Report informed us that in 1962 and again in 1963 Sir Matthew Slattery produced proposals which would have enabled him to go even further with B.O.A.C.'s recovery but was refused permission, first, because Mr. Corbett was already inquiring into B.O.A.C.'s affairs, and, secondly, because the Minister was preparing his White Paper. I submit to the House that it is a little rough to be accused afterwards by the same Minister of weakness in control, and I believe that I should be justified in asking the Minister whether he now intends to withdraw the charge and clear the names of those whose professional capacity was brought into question by him. [Interruption.]
  Surely, if a Report of this type, gone into thoroughly by hon. Members of this House, comes to the conclusion that the Minister mistakenly took the recommendations of the Corbett Report, which he refused to disclose, and based criticisms in a White Paper on them, and finally finished by firing the management of B.O.A.C, and afterwards the Committee proved he was wrong—why should not he withdraw what he said?
  I can give further instances. The Minister's weakness for unfairly criticising B.O.A.C. was evidence in his statement about depreciation made in the House during the Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill on 6th November, 1962, when he said:
  "What I cannot accept so easily is that the depreciation in the value of the Corporation's aircraft fleet has only been fully revealed this year. This is not a situation which has come up upon us in the night. It has been building up for two or three years past; and in any business efficient management must call for a clear understanding and a clear presentation of the balance sheet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 814.]
  518
  Again, hon. Members will have read Chapter V of the Report. The Committee discloses the most fantastic muddle imaginable between the Ministry of Aviation, the Treasury and B.O.A.C. over the question of depreciation, including the refusal of the then Minister to permit B.O.A.C. to write down the value of its DC7C fleet by £6½ million. There was a minute of the discussion between the Minister and B.O.A.C. about this at a meeting on 30th July, 1959—which was held in the context of a larger sum of £23 million depreciation—which minute the Minister refused to show to the Committee. Indeed, it is only on the odd occasions that the Minister shows it anything.
  I wonder why he refused to show the Committee that. This was a vital issue. The Minister met the B.O.A.C. people and discussed the question of depreciation. But depreciation was one of the points that he criticised. In those circumstances, why cannot the Committee be told what transpired at the meeting between the Minister and B.O.A.C. on that occasion? It was following that meeting that a complete stalemate ensued, and the Committee made it clear that all three were partly at fault in not pursuing the matter. No matter how we apportion the blame between the Treasury, the Ministry of Aviation and B.O.A.C, one thing that cannot be right is for the Minister who knew this had been going on for years to imply in this House that he knew nothing whatever about that situation, which had been utterly chaotic for many years.
  I now turn to the Minister's statement of 20th July. Since he made it I have read it again and again, in the hope—as one who ardently desires to see a healthy and prosperous aircraft industry and an equally strong and successful B.O.A.C.—that I could support the contents as a workable compromise. In fact, I believe that it condemns both to the worst of all possible worlds.
  From my own industrial experience I know a little about factory layout, the need for continuous runs and a balanced forward programme, including the components made by other contractors and the need for these to be in harmony during the currency of the contract. I would have thought that delivery dates

  519
  and costing depended heavily on these matters. But under the conditions of the Minister's statement it is physically impossible for Vickers and other contractors to function on such lines. They neither know the numbers which are to be produced nor the delivery dates that they are expected to honour.
  When Sir Giles Guthrie took over at B.O.A.C. he was instructed to run it as a purely commercial proposition, while the Minister continued to enforce policies which made it impossible for Sir Giles to run it in that way. Indeed, the Chairman was instructed to reconcile the irreconcilable. With the possible exception, for special reasons, of El Al and Air Lingus, I doubt whether there is a long-haul airline in the world which is now running as a completely commercial proposition without some form of aid from outside its ordinary competitive business.
  The Committee informed us that the long-haul business throughout the world has never been able to make more than 1 per cent. on its capital after depreciation. We know that a fall of 1 per cent. in the load factor of B.O.A.C. means about £1½ million. Yet B.O.A.C, with a £80 million deficit, upon which it pays about £4 million a year in interest charges, was suddenly instructed to act as a commercial proposition.
  Sir William Robson Brown: The hon. Member has now reached the question of the VC10—
  Mr. Lee: I have not reached the VC10.
  I am trying to show some of the matters which are essential if B.O.A.C. is to be able to function in the way that the Minister has asked. On the matter of interest charges, the Minister who gave that instruction did so while refusing to permit B.O.A.C. to tender for scheduled trooping—one of the ways in which the American Government assist the long-haul airlines of the United States. In answer to a Question raised, the Report shows that Pan American carry the equivalent of five divisions across the Atlantic every year in maintaining the American forces in Europe, which puts several points on its load factor. Also, Air France has
  520
  received £17 million in the last three years; Lufthansa has received £19 million in the same period, and the Scandinavian Air Services in 1961 received £14½ million of new working capital. How can we merely instruct B.O.A.C. or any other commercial organisation to run as a profit-making venture while doing nothing to remove those factors which make that impossible?
  In 1962–63—and this is something which is again within the right hon. Gentleman's purview—independent airlines earned £3–7 million from scheduled trooping to points in B.O.A.C.'s area of operations. Dealing with the charter work that B.O.A.C. could do, Sir Matthew Slattery in giving evidence said that it picked up £8 million worth of business in one year. That figure includes trooping, and I do not know how much was in respect of trooping. While we penalise B.O.A.C. as against all its competitors throughout the world and still insist on huge interest charges on dead money, we surely cannot say that B.O.A.C. should compete with people who are receiving either open or hidden subsidies from their Government, and still ask B.O.A.C. to function as a completely commercial proposition.
  Mr. Paul Williams: The question of trooping is a serious and important one. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that those independent companies which have received trooping contracts are either getting subsidies or are making large and wild profits? If he is, he does not know the difference between the base and the apex of aviation. Secondly, does he agree that if trooping contracts were open to the Corporations in the way that he is suggesting it would be a perfectly reasonable proposition to open to the independent airlines the ability to run scheduled services with an unlimited frequency on the basis that the Corporations do.
  Mr. Lee: I do not know about the apex or the base, but if the hon. Member knew a little more about the 1960 Act he would know that the independents were allowed to ask for licences on scheduled routes. Secondly, if the independents are not making big profits on trooping, why does the Minister refuse to throw these contracts open, not as a

  521
  monopoly for B.O.A.C.—I do not suggest that—but for competition between B.O.A.C. and the independents?
  The Report showed that independents earned £3·7 million from trooping in B.O.A.C. areas. No matter what political line we take on this matter, it is surely not unfair to say that if B.O.A.C. is to be asked to run as an entirely commercial proposition we should give it the facility enjoyed by all its competitors, of being able to tender for trooping contracts along with the independents.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: If I understand the hon. Member's argument, he is putting forward suggestions to improve the profitability of B.O.A.C. But B.E.A. has been in exactly the same position and has managed to turn in a good profit.
  Mr. Lee: So they may. The hon. Member has been long enough in the aviation industry not to confuse the functions of the long haul industry with B.E.A. People who know only the apex and base would know the answer to that one.
  In pursuance of the directive, Sir Giles Guthrie deemed it necessary to cancel the order for 30 Super VC10s. From this the very first commercial implementation of his own directive, the Minister turned tail and fled. I have said that I consider the timing of the directive to have been absurd. I have said that I do not believe that we can turn any business info a commercial proposition merely by throwing out an instruction to it to be commercial. First, it is necessary to take the elementary steps in order to enable a business to be so, after which one would be entitled to expect results.
  In his statement the Minister said that Sir Giles Guthrie
  "has agreed that B.O.A.C. will take 17 of the 30 Super VC10s. This means that he will take seven to meet his estimated requirements to 1967 and subsequently a further 10."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 41.]
  I do not think the Minister went any further today in informing us when these 10 will be taken. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked about that. We require to know what period is covered by the word "subsequently". Can we have quite hard dates by which these 10 are to be made and delivered? Otherwise we may well be left in doubt whether these 10, as well as
  522
  the 10 already left in suspense, will ever be produced.
  I know from my contact with the workers at Weybridge that they are very apprehensive on this point. I am told that design staffs are employed only on modifications and that people have been told that after March there may well be redundancies. Therefore, it is of great importance to the people at Weybridge and other parts of the B.A.C. organisation—because it may well mean a reallocation of work—that we should be given a pretty straight answer.
  I do not know how far one can look ahead, but one reads that the new editions of the Boeing will be far more economic than the ones which exist now; whether they are called the Boeing 800 or 520 is immaterial. I wonder whether we should be looking ahead to a Super-Super VC10 and thinking in terms of a capacity of 200 and that sort of thing rather than confining ourselves merely to the present edition. That, of course, is entirely technical, and I do not pretend to know the answers. But if, as we all wish, we are to see a VC10 comparable economically with the new Boeings, I suggest that we had better look ahead, and to what the Boeing people are doing, if we are to hope to match them no matter when the new Boeings come into existence.
  Let me sum up this point by looking at the facts of the position which the Minister has created. First, the right hon. Gentleman issued his directive, and for the first time the B.O.A.C. Board knew without any doubt what were its terms of reference. I suggest that the timing of the directive was wrong, but there it is. Sir Giles Guthrie responded that the Super VC10 order was "uncommercial" and to obey the directive he must cancel it. If that happened the effect on the aircraft industry would be quite catastrophic. At Weybridge we had other programmes in operation—the TSR2, the BAC111 and the Concord. If anything happened at Weybridge those programmes would also be in grave jeopardy, but that is the business of the Minister and not the Corporation.
  In his directive the Minister used the words, "in the national interest". Given the dilemma in which he has placed us how does one act? I said last Monday

  523
  that we on this side have no responsibility for the position which has been created. I suggested that the Government should make themselves responsible for financing the order. We are often asked what are our remedies for problems created by this Government—heaven knows, finding answers for the misdeeds of this accident-prone Government taxes even our resources—and I should have thought that the suggestion I made was probably the only logical way out of the impasse in which we now find ourselves—
  Mr. P. Williams: That is stupid.
  Mr. Lee: It may be stupid, but perhaps the hon. Member will supply the answer to the problem.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: He produces the problems. He cannot produce answers.
  Mr. Lee: I said and the Report pointed out that during 1956–60 some issues within the B.O.A.C. were not functioning as well as they should. The Report points to the great number of changes in the Chairmen and Deputy-Chairmen and the Board of Management. A constant feature has been that the majority of the Board at any one time has been part-time members. As the Minister elected the members of the Board I take it that this was and still is Government policy. We are told that part-time membership has at the best meant little more than a meeting once a month. During the period 1956–60 we had the utterly absurd situation of a part-time Chairman with a full-time Deputy-Chairman and a Board the large majority of whose members were once-a-month members.
  In Annexe A of the Minutes of Evidence we read:
  "One result of this arrangement which was accentuated by the appointment of my predecessor on a half-time basis, has been that the formulation of policy has been left almost entirely to top management.… The Board has tended to approve policy proposals after a somewhat cursory scrutiny of Board Papers together with some questioning of senior members of management who are normally in attendance at Board Meetings."
  This was the situation during the whole of the period in which the first decision on the VC10s was made and indeed when the 1960 decision to order 10 more was
  524
  taken. It is utterly absurd to suggest, with a board of that composition that we can ask for highly technical decisions such as the ordering of aeroplanes of this type.
  I put it seriously to the House that the plain fact was that there was no real board in existence in B.O.A.C. at all during that period. We know from the Minutes of Evidence that Sir Gerard d'Erlanger, the part-time Chairman, believed that the main purpose of the Corporation was to support the aircraft industry and develop its world routes irrespective of profitability. I believe that the Report of the Minutes of Evidence shows that between 1956 and 1960 a great airline was reduced to sheer chaos by a combination of Ministerial interference in areas of B.O.A.C. work not within their statutory powers, and an almost non-existent Board led by a part-time Chairman who misunderstood his functions. The preservation of the aircraft industry is of the utmost importance in the national interest. But surely this is the job of the Minister and it is utterly wrong that B.O.A.C. should be used for such a purpose.
  On Monday I indicated that we on this side of the House did not accept that B.O.A.C. freely ordered too many aircraft. In other words, I was saying that Ministerial pressure had in fact been exercised. The Estimates Committee in 1959, examining the relationship between the Minister and the Corporations, voiced concern about the ability of the Minister to exercise far wider de facto powers over the Corporations than his statutory powers gave him. In the second part of the Report of the Estimates Committee, 1963–64, we see the matter taken further. The Committee went over the familiar ground, which the right hon. Gentleman has covered today, about the 15 Boeings. In paragraph 98 the Committee goes on:
  "Evidence submitted by B.O.A.C. to the Sub-Committee—but not reported—makes it clear that the Corporation was under the impression that permission would only be given on the understanding that the Corporation would commit themselves to the purchase of British aircraft subsequently… This was the understanding of the Board, who agreed to the commitment, and the Minister in his statement to the House on 24th October, 1956, said that ' this purchase is regarded both by the Government and B.O.A.C. as an exceptional measure to bridge the gap until a new British type is produced.' The Board, at a

  525
  meeting on 27th September, 1956, agreed to accept what they regarded as a definite condition of the Minister's permission to buy the Boeings and to begin an examination of the likely contenders for the new order."
  Throughout the Report the Committee goes on to argue from that point. Paragraph 102 is illuminating:
  "The situation now confronting the Corporation was succinctly summed up by the Chairman in evidence before the Subcommittee.
  'I think I can give you the best picture by referring you to a remark which is always attributed to the late Mr. Henry Ford who said "If you want one of my motor cars, you can have it in any colour you like—as long as it is black…". So [in 1957] we now come to the stage where "you can have any colour as long as it is black". You have got to have a British aircraft, and there is only one possible British aircraft, and that is the Vickers'."
  I do not want to go on quoting and I am sorry to do so in order to prove the case which I am making.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There may have been only one aircraft, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the aircraft was substantially built not to meet a specification determined by Vickers in advance but to meet a specification by B.O.A.C. itself?
  Mr. Lee: I am not arguing about the specification but whether or not B.O.A.C. had any choice as between having a specific aeroplane made for it and having none at all.
  The Minister goes on insisting that there has been no Ministerial pressure. First, they say, "You can have 15 Boeings for the Atlantic run. The condition of that is that you then order British aircraft." The only firm which could possibly cater was Vickers and, therefore, the only plane which the Corporation could have was the VC10. As long as the Minister wants to argue that that was a free choice given to B.O.A.C. then I must quote from the Reports of the Committee that it was nothing of the kind. Perhaps I could give the hon. Member paragraph 105 where, first of all, it is mentioned that the same thing happened with B.E.A. and that the B.E.A. Board threatened to resign unless it got the Trident. Lord Douglas had a way with him in these matters and therefore B.E.A. got the Trident. In paragraph 105 we read:
  "In both these cases Ministers, intervened in spite of the fact that no Government invest
  526
  ment was at that time contemplated in either project. Despite the recent increases in the maximum borrowing powers of the Corporations, the Minister will still possess a strong, although non-statutory power over the Corporation's purchase of new aircraft."
  These are not my words. In both these cases Ministers intervened, that is in the ordering policy of the two Corporations. How often the Minister can go on repeating that it is untrue that Ministers have intervened in the face of reports of this type, I do not know.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman introduced the subject of the DH121. Both these aeroplanes were not originally crystallised entities which the Boards had to buy. In the case of the DH121 the specification was altered most of the way through its development. It was scaled down 30 per cent. In the case that we are talking about, surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that the VC10 is not an unalterable entity forced on the airline but an extremely elastic entity which crystallised in the form determined by B.O.A.C. That is the whole point.
  Mr. Lee: I am not arguing whether it was altered a hundred times. The hon. Gentleman really will not face the issue that there was no alternative to the VC10 among any possible British aircraft at all. This was the condition imposed by the Government. I have also quoted to the hon. Gentleman and to the rest of his colleagues the opinion of the Estimates Committee, that on two occasions, in the ordering of aeroplanes, Ministers had intervened.
  Sir W. Robson Brown: I want to know what we are going to say to the men at Weybridge. That is what I am waiting to hear the hon. Member say.
  Mr. Lee: I say to the men at Weybridge that we would not cancel a single one and I invite the hon. Gentleman to come into the Division Lobby tonight and support us.
  I do not want to go on quoting but I suppose that it is essential in order to make the case. In the Minutes of Evidence in the Report which is now under discussion we see time after time from questions asked that there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that influence was brought to bear by Ministers on a number of occasions in order to ensure

  527
  that they themselves could pre-determine where the aircraft were bought and what conditions they were bought under. In all this I am not trying to say that the Government are wrong to try to support the British aircraft industry. They certainly are not. I want to support it as well, but it surely is not the job of Ministers to palm off that kind of thing on to any nationalised Corporation. The job is surely that of the Ministers themselves and not of the nationalised Corporations.
  I have tried to show that we on this side of the House are conscious of the very great problems which we believe the wrongful policies of the Government have brought to the aircraft industry. It may well be that we shall now have to look at the aircraft industry in a far wider context than in the past. All said and done, it is the industry in which we have the greatest number of scientists and technologists of any industry in Britain. I believe it is possible to use them in a far wider field than in that of orthodox aeroplane work on which they have been engaged in the past. Indeed, if we are to retain an aircraft industry of the proportions which we want to see it may well be that that is the way in which we shall have to look at them in the future—as research exponents and as exponents of those industries nearest to the scientific frontiers, as we call it, rather than to confine them either to the design of aircraft, such as at Shorts and at Weybridge, where they are merely doing work which is not exercising them to the full capacity in design, research and development. This is the kind of thing for which, I think, we can use the industry.
  I will finish on the note of the 10 aircraft which are under discussion this afternoon. The Minister quite unfairly has quoted letters which he has not placed on the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite can split hairs if they wish, but, whether or not the Minister quoted from those letters, he told us of their contents and did not place the letters on the Table. I refer to the 1960 decision to increase the firm order for 10 aircraft.
  Is the Minister saying that the Chairman, who had been frantically increasing his route structure in anticipation of the arrival in the mid-1960s of 35 VC10s,
  528
  decided without pressure, as his last act before retiring, that in the interests of B.O.A.C. he should place a firm order for 10 more VC10s despite the fact that he knew that he had no need to make any decision until more than two years later, in 1962? Does he expect us to believe that Sir Gerard d'Erlanger—who was well aware who his successor would be and the problem which this action would mean for the new Chairman—would, without any pressure, place that order, having said a few months earlier that he had no intention of doing so? If the Minister wants the House and the country to believe that, I can only leave it to their judgment.
  It is worth noting that at the same time the Government increased financial returns to the aircraft industry—which maybe necessary, I am not arguing that—to levels more generous than before, and in return for B.O.A.C. help, passed the 1960 Act giving independents the right to operate on the Corporation's routes. In paragraphs 310, 311 and 312 the Committee shows that there is grave responsibility on the part of the Government for what has happened. As to the past working of the B.O.A.C. which led to a deficit of £80 million, the Committee finds that during a number of years past boards have not conducted policies in the best interests of the Corporation. We accept the criticism of those past boards, but the Committee also finds that because of the Government's failure to define such policy objectives the Government must also accept their share of blame for the grave financial consequences which followed and we for our part accept that obligation as well.
  5.42 p.m.
  Sir Richard Nugent: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) on behalf of the members of my Committee for the kind things they have said about the Report that we have produced. I am sure that all the hon. Members who were on the Committee are glad to think that the Report may have been helpful to the House in considering this very difficult problem.
  It is, of course, inevitable that where we are examining events, some of which took place as long as eight years ago, and in an area where there is inevitably political heat, there should be

  529
  different versions of what happened, but the Report of the Select Committee of experienced hon. Members from all parts of the House may be of help in giving an objective view of what happened. I can assure the House that where we had conflicting evidence—as indeed we did on some matters—we used our collective judgment to reach unanimous conclusions on what was the right version and this is what we put into the Report. I should like to record thanks to the hon. Members who made up the Committee for the generous support which they gave to me.
  Our Report did not set out to be a comprehensive review of the affairs of B.O.A.C. We limited our examination to the deficit and aimed to make our Report in time for the debate which we expected would happen, as is happening in the House today, on the future finances of B.O.A.C. and its relationship with the British aircraft industry. This, I believe, is the central issue which is exercising all our minds. If I do not follow the many interesting points raised by the hon. Member for Newton, that is not because I am not interested in them and would not like to follow them but because many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in the debate and I feel I should confine myself to the central theme.
  Our examination was limited to the deficit, its causes and suggestions for its cure. The first major factor contributing to the deficit is recorded in the White Paper. It is that the Corporation has been flying at some time uncompetitive planes. Sir Basil Smallpeice put the cost to the Corporation at £10 million a year on this account. That part of the Corporation's activities in history we did not examine. It is recorded in the White Paper and is well known to everyone. I only say in passing that in recording that the Corporation was flying uncompetitive planes, and in some respects the wrong planes, one must not forget the very heavy blow which it suffered in the Comet disaster and that it had had more than its share of bad luck.
  Our Report starts with the second major factor which has contributed to the deficit. That in our judgment flowed from the excessive size of the fleet and the over-optimistic route structure. We found, as the Report records, that
  530
  all this stemmed from the VC10 order in 1958. I have seen statements by some commentators that this order was caused by Government pressure and by other commentators that the B.O.A.C. had done this independently and in an irresponsible way. I hope that our Report shows that the truth is a great deal more complex.
  The story starts in the spring of 1956 when the Corporation was looking for a plane to fly its Eastern and Southern routes. The Boeing specification proposed was not considered at that time to be suitable for those routes. In the autumn of 1956 the Government of the day allowed B.O.A.C. to buy 15 Boeings for the Atlantic route and made a condition that any future purchases should be of British aircraft. At that time this was not a restrictive condition because it was then known that the Corporation was shopping around with the British aircraft manufacturers to find a tailor-made plane for these routes.
  During the whole of 1957 discussions went on about the specification of the VC10, the price and so on, and it was not until January, 1958, that the order was finally signed for 35 VC10s with an option for a further 20. By that time the Boeing 707 was suitable for the Eastern and Southern routes and it was known that the Corporation's competitors would be flying it. We tried to understand what was in the minds of the members of the Board at that time when they signed the order for the VC10s. There were two objections. One was an engineering objection. That was overcome after the Board consulted the R.A.E. at Farnborough and the Board decided that the technical specification was satisfactory.
  The other and more difficult objection to the order was—as we now see—the excessive number of 35 to which the Corporation was committing itself. The Corporation had started its inquiries with the number of 20 to 25 in mind, but we found in the papers we saw—some of them, unfortunately, we have not been able to publish—that in April, 1957, the Corporation produced a schedule of routes which would require 35 VC10s with a possible option of 27 more. This schedule was shown to Sir George Edwards of Vickers and he told

  531
  us that to a considerable extent he based the prospect of the order on that.
  Sir J. Eden: What year was that?
  Sir R. Nugent: It was in April, 1957. We concluded that the Corporation must have felt bound by the condition attached to the Boeing order in the previous autumn that in future it must buy British planes. But we expressed surprise—and I still express surprise—that the Corporation did not at that point go back to the Minister and put to him that a new situation had arisen, that the Boeing was now suitable and was an alternative to fly on these routes, that the minimum number that the Corporation could negotiate was more than it wanted, and possibly seriously more than it wanted, and that it would therefore like to order further Boeings. The Chairman's sense of obligation has been referred to by the hon. Member for Newton, and that came out in evidence. Sir Gerard d'Erlanger undoubtedly felt that he had a specific obligation to fly British.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the Boeing could land along the African and Eastern routes. My understanding is that even today the Boeing cannot do this at a number of airfields where the standard VC10 can do so.
  Sir R. Nugent: Substantially the Boeing is suitable for the great majority of these routes, and it would have been a suitable alternative. Nevertheless, the evidence which we had was clear—that the Corporation did not go back to the Minister and that it made no complaint about the numbers being higher than it wanted. The Corporation went as far as to write letters to the Minister expressing its satisfaction with the VC10 specification as it was evolving.
  We have reached the conclusion, therefore, which we have reported, that it was the primary responsibility of the Corporation that it took this decision to order the VC10 and to order this minimum number of 35. We also record that the Government had some responsibility in this matter because at that time they had failed to make it quite clear that B.O.A.C.'s responsibility was solely a commercial one, in the way in which my right hon. Friend has made it clear to Sir Giles Guthrie in his new terms of
  532
  reference. I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the extra 10 VC10s in 1960. If my right hon. Friend dissents from the Committee's view that this was due to Ministerial pressure, I can only record that on the evidence which we received we felt that there had been an element of Ministerial pressure and that the Chairman, Sir Gerard d'Erlanger, had been influenced by it. I trust that I am giving no one the impression that we think that we were omniscient. It is much easier to see these things in the light of hindsight than to see them at the time.
  Mr. P. Williams: Surely in December, 1961, the contract was further amended to read 12 standard aircraft and 30 super aircraft. Surely this cannot have been within the area of political pressure.
  Sir R. Nugent: I have not made the point that it was. I was referring only to the extra 10 aircraft to which Sir Gerard d'Erlanger agreed in 1960. The fact that Sir Matthew Slattery made further alterations to the size and nature of the contract is a completely independent point, and I have no comment to make on it at all.
  Had B.O.A.C. gone to the Minister at the point in time in 1958 at which it was signing the order and said that it was against the Corporation's commercial interests and that it would have preferred to have Boeings, it would have precipitated in 1953 the crisis of B.O.A.C. which confronts the House today.
  The conclusions which we reached out of all this were that a decision to fly a particular 'plane in the national interest is for the Minister, after assessment of the vital commercial interests of the Corporation, on the one hand, and of the manufacturers on the other, and that if and when the Minister finds it necessary to take such a decision, it is for the Government to underwrite it. It is fair to recall that this has been a principle of this Select Committee over the years in which it has been sitting and making Reports to the House. It is referred to in paragraph 218 of the 1959 Report—mentioned by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu)—where a similar recommendation is recorded.
  The fact is that there is no prospect of getting good management and good leadership in the nationalised industries

  533
  unless there are clear lines of responsibility between the Minister and the Chairmen. The Minister must be responsible for the national interest and the Chairman must be responsible for the commercial interest of the industry concerned. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on this aspect today.
  In this context it is perhaps worth referring for one moment to White Paper No. 1337 of 1961, which introduces the new thought of giving the nationalised industries financial targets over a period of five years related to the return on the capital employed in the industry and to the conditions in the industry. This we feel as a Committee, and I feel very strongly personally, was a very valuable step forward in strengthening the financial discipline of the nationalised industries, on the one hand, and in reducing the scope for Ministerial interference on the other. I think that it will ensure the industries against this kind of unhappy affair from happening in the future.
  May I leave our Report for a minute and turn to the Minister's statement about the VC10 and the settlement. Sir Giles Guthrie has announced his wish in regard to the review of the route structure and the size of the fleet, and the consequences which this would have on the VC10 order. He has said that it would be in the commercial interests of the Corporation to take no Super VC10s and to increase his fleet only by an extra six Boeings.
  In passing, I would say that this is not surprising. Naturally, it is less costly to increase an existing fleet than to start a new one. I imagine that in taking his decision the Minister has also had the full information about the manufacturers' interests. I warmly welcome the Minister's decision that the Corporation should take up the bulk of the VC10 order, leaving in suspense the 10 aircraft for which there is no demand at present. I observe that when he made the statement two days ago he said that he will make a financial settlement with the Corporation which will take account of the Corporation's deficit of £80 million and at the same time will take account of the financial implications of flying the VC10 instead of the Boeing which the Chairman of B.O.A.C. wished to fly.
  534
  I feel that this settlement by my right hon. Friend is exactly on the right lines. He has determined where the national interest lies. He has decided that the Corporation should fly British and that the Government should underwrite the financial consequences. I imagine that this cannot be cleared up finally for another six or 12 months, after the VC10 has been flying long enough to see what is the balance between the strong extra passenger appeal of the VC10, on the one hand, and the higher operating costs on the other. I have been fortunate enough to fly in the VC10, and there is no doubt that it is a very attractive aircraft both for passengers and for pilots. Undoubtedly it has a good prospect of being a successful economic venture and there is a good prospect of a successful outcome. Certainly it has my best wishes.
  This, I feel, is the central point of the debate—the relationship between the air Corporations and the air manufacturers. It is clear that the manufacturing industry cannot survive, certainly not with regard to long-distance aircraft, unless the Corporations fly British. But the VC10 incident, which I have briefly recapitulated, shows that the minimum number on which the manufacturers can go into production is more—and in this case was substantially more—than it is in the commercial interests of the Corporation to take. Inevitably foreign sales do not come along until the plane is a patent success. On the other hand, B.O.A.C. cannot alone develop new planes without risking a deficit.
  On this point I agree with the hon. Member for Newton—I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman on anything else, but on this I do agree with him—that new airliner development today can be done only as a national project with Government approval and support. I commend my right hon. Friend to the development of the Concord based on the Zuckerman Committee's investigation. This seems to me to be the right approach, where the cost of the enterprise is snared with our friends in France and we have the prospect of doubling the market at the same time. I hope that it is implied in my right hon. Friend's remarks that he is now reviewing the structure of aircraft development with a view to ensuring that our resources in research and production go in for

  535
  the most promising lines so that we have the best prospect of competing with the giant economies of the United States and Russia. This is an aspect of our national economy where, in the face of this ever-increasing competition, the closest scrutiny is needed of our national resources if we are to get the best out of them and continue to be competitive.
  I conclude by hoping that our Report has been a help to the House. I cannot agree with the Amendment. I hope that the House will support the Motion.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I hope that the Minister will not be away for too long, because in the course of my speech I want to put some points directly to him. I congratulate the right hon. Baronet the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), whom I am happy to follow, on the Report of the Select Committee of which he was Chairman. In association with other distinguished members of the Select Committee, the right hon. Baronet has produced a remarkable Report which has been of great value to the House and, indeed, to people outside the House in considering this extremely complicated problem.
  There are three major issues involved in today's debate. First, where does the responsibility lie for the present mess? Secondly, has the Minister, confronted with this mess, made the right decisions in the recent past? By "the recent past" I mean from the date of the decision to appoint Sir Giles Guthrie up to the statement which he made to the House two days ago. Thirdly, what are the lessons to be learned from this tangled and, on the whole, dismal story, and what is the correct course for the future? I shall say something under each of these three heads.
  First, where is the responsibility for the mess? I do not think that anyone in the House can be in any doubt that it is a mess. The Corporation is left with planes which it will take and operate to the best of its ability but which clearly it would rather not have. I cannot believe that the outcome is a satisfactory one for Vickers. I cannot believe that, if in 1956 or 1957 Vickers had foreseen all the events of the past seven or eight years, it would ever have wished to touch the VC10 project. Further, there' is no doubt
  536
  that, even with the decision announced by the Minister, even with the 17 planes, there is bound to be a compensation element to Vickers for the other 10 if these are not taken up. Therefore, there is undoubtedly a mess.
  The Minister today tried, as I understood it, to put the whole of the responsibility for that on to successive Chairmen of the Board of B.O.A.C. I am very doubtful if the Minister convinced anybody but himself. I am not very certain that he convinced even himself. I take the view that some responsibility rests upon B.O.A.C. and upon its successive Chairmen. I think that B.O.A.C. was undoubtedly, particularly in the period before 1960, guilty of fairly consistent over-optimism. I think that B.O.A.C. also showed some weakness, in the sense of being much too ready to succumb to pressure. Before one can succumb to pressure, there must be pressure to succumb to. This was the point in relation to which the Minister was unconvincing. I believe that the pressure came partly from circumstances, partly from Vickers, acting as the agent of those circumstances, but partly from successive Ministers of Aviation.
  In the course of the discussion and in the course of the Select Committee's investigations and other investigations certain points have emerged as being fairly independent of dispute. First, in order to buy the 15 Boeings in 1956 the Corporation had to give an undertaking to place a large order for big British jets. As Vickers was in practice the only available manufacturer, Vickers made it clear that it would go ahead only at what looked a reasonable price, with a minimum order for 35, and it probably would not have gone ahead at any price with an order of much less than 30. An order of this size in effect, by the condition attached to the ordering of the Boeings, became mandatory upon B.O.A.C. I do not think that the Corporation had any choice but to enter into such an undertaking at that time, though B.O.A.C. threw away this excuse by producing the totally inflated idea that it might in some circumstances need an extra 27 on top of the 35 and put the option for a further 22.
  In a sense one is up against the difficulty of size. One is up against the difficulty in the British aircraft industry

  537
  of any development project for a big plane going ahead on the basis of a single order from a single customer. Any order is almost bound to be either much too small for the manufacturing company or much too big for B.O.A.C. There is a good chance that it will manage to be both at the same time. One wants, as far as possible, to get away from this basis of an order directly geared to a single customer. I hope very much that the BAC111—
  Mr. A. E. Hunter rose.—
  Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry, but there have been so many interruptions that there is a general feeling in the House that we should get on. I would gladly give way to my hon. Friend, as he knows, but I want to take as little time as possible. The BAC111, which is not going forward on this basis, has a better chance of success, and I very much hope that it will be so.
  The third point to be borne in mind is that B.O.A.C. at an early stage put forward its clear view that, if it was a question of producing a big jet such as the Super VC10 has become, it would be better for Vickers or any other English company to copy as nearly as it could the Boeing 707 with the engines in pod rather than make a rear-engined plane. That view was rejected both by the Minister of the day, now Lord Watkinson, and by Vickers, on what seemed to me to be the extremely flimsy and foolish ground that it would be degrading for the British aircraft industry and below its status to make a plane as similar as that to an existing American plane. This is an extremely foolish view. It would be much better for our status to make a highly successful plane with the engines in the same position as the Americans have theirs than a less successful plane with the engines in a different position.
  I come to the question to which the Minister has already applied himself to some extent of the order for the additional 10 planes in 1960. As I pointed out in an interjection, the Board of B.O.A.C. applied itself to this because Vickers raised with the Board the question of the Super with a larger seating capacity and Vickers' need for a larger order. Undoubtedly, the Board expected that pressure to be followed by pressure
  538
  from the then Minister, now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in connection with plans then being proposed for the setting up of the British Aircraft Corporation. However, the Board of B.O.A.C, as I understand it, did an analysis at that stage, in November, 1959, and reached what I have no doubt was the correct commercial decision then, that it did not want to take up any part of the option until the latest possible date, which was August, 1962.
  In the next three months, the Board of B.O.A.C. moved from that decision. Why did it move? I have no doubt that it did so under a combination of pressure from the then Minister of Aviation and from Vickers, the manufacturers. The first pressure was not crudely put in writing but there were meetings, and I have no doubt that the impression left on the mind of the Corporation was that, while the Minister was not ordering it to take the additional 10 planes, taking them would greatly facilitate the plans for the reorganisation of the British aircraft industry. That is clear from the evidence given by Sir Matthew Slattery and, more directly on this point, by Sir Basil Smallpeice to the Select Committee.
  Sir J. Eden: Was it not open to Sir Basil to ask for a direction?
  Mr. Jenkins: There have been many interruptions and I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I went on.
  In addition, Vickers made clear at that stage that it could not undertake to produce the original 35 planes at all unless the additional order was placed. Given the fact that it had been required to order British jets to get the Boeings, the Corporation, if Vickers had not gone ahead with the project, would again have been left in the mid-1960s in the position in which it found itself in the mid-1950s after the original Comet disaster, when it had to scrape planes together in an almost haphazard way in order to stay in business at all. I have no doubt, therefore, that there was considerable pressure at that stage.
  In addition to this, Sir Matthew Slattery, the then Chairman of the Corporation, after he had been in office for. I think, eight or nine months, wrote a

  539
  letter to the Minister, who has now become Secretary of State for Defence, outlining all his doubts about the VC10 in relation to the Boeing—not technical doubts but doubts about economic performance. I think that he went so far as to suggest that, as he saw it, the difference between the economic performance of the two planes was likely to amount to a six point difference on the load factor, a very substantial difference indeed. The Minister of the day, in his continuing capacity in this connection, was given notice as early as the spring of 1961 that that was the view of the Chairman of the Corporation and that he had these considerable doubts at that time.
  The present Minister of Aviation, when he came to office just over a year later, inherited the difficulty but also inherited that clear notice from the Chairman of the Corporation that he was extremely worried about the VC10. What did the present Minister do about it? The sad fact is that the right hon. Gentleman, during his first 18 months of office, did practically nothing about relations with the Corporation except to set up the really ridiculous cloak-and-dagger accountancy exercise, the Corbett Committee, the most irrelevant and time-wasting step he could possibly have taken, using this as an excuse for his attitude. To quote the words which the Deputy Secretary of his own Ministry used in evidence to the Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman put the whole discussion of the long-term policy of B.O.A.C. into purdah for 18 months. In fact, there was a period during which communications were virtually frozen.
  Instead of doing this, and freezing the channels of communication, the Minister ought to have applied himself, as soon as he came to office, to improving communications and relations between the Ministry and B.O.A.C. I have no doubt that one of the difficulties in this picture and one of the causes of trouble has been that, ever since the extraordinary muddle about depreciation in 1959—one of the most difficult stories to understand in the whole history of relations between a Government Department and an outside publicly responsible body—there has been a lack of mutual confidence between the Ministry and B.O.A.C.
  540
  The right hon. Gentleman ought to have tried to improve the situation instead of, as I think he did, making it far worse by the appointment of the secret Corbett Committee, with its still secret report and its generally morale-lowering effect upon the Corporation.
  That is the story, as I see it, to the end of Sir Matthew Slattery's period as Chairman. All four of the Ministers of Aviation who were involved in it bear some responsibility, along with B.O.A.C, for what took place during that period. Quite definitely, there was a good deal of pressure. This culminated in the replacement of Sir Matthew Slattery by Sir Giles Guthrie. Whether or not it was necessary—I have considerable respect for Sir Giles Guthrie, as I have for Sir Matthew Slattery, too—I consider that the way in which this replacement was carried out was, on the whole, very discreditable.
  So much for the past. The past is less interesting, but a good deal of responsibility for what lies in the past rests on the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors.
  I come now to the second aspect of the matter with which I wish to deal, that is, the series of decisions by the present Minister of Aviation, starting with the terms of reference which he set Sir Giles Guthrie. It could have been predicted by any Minister of Aviation with the knowledge at his disposal that, if he set Sir Giles Guthrie these terms of reference, he would inevitably get exactly the sort of plan and exactly the sort of report which he has, in fact, received. I do not believe that the report was a surprise to him, or, if it was, he could not have been at all informed on the subject.
  There were two aspects to the matter then. One was that B.O.A.C. was over-ordering, but, as the Minister of Aviation—this is clear from evidence to the Select Committee—had been accusing B.O.A.C. of being over-optimistic and thinking more about routes than about profits for several years, the Minister should certainly have had his views about this. Second, there was the fact of Sir Giles Guthrie's preference for new Boeings as opposed to new Super VC10s. This also could have been foreseen from the clear statement contained in Sir Matthew Slattery's

  541
  letter in the spring of 1961. There was not the slightest excuse for a Minister of any intelligence at all, and with the facts at his disposal, not expecting that, if he set Sir Giles Guthrie these terms of reference, he would receive exactly this son of report.
  What on earth was the point of setting Sir Giles Guthrie these terms of reference unless the Minister had decided in his own mind that, when he got the report, he would be prepared to carry it out? If he was not prepared to carry it out, or if he had not decided that he was prepared to subordinate the aircraft industry to B.O.A.C. and to cut them adrift as regards the VC10—I think that it had already become much too late, anyway—the terms of reference asking for a public report from the new Chairman of B.O.A.C. represented a certain recipe for getting the worst of both worlds for both B.O.A.C. and the British aircraft industry, a certain recipe for having to overrule the choice of the new Chairman in the planes which B.O.A.C. wanted to fly, and a certain recipe, by also publishing the report—this would be no fault of the Chairman's—for doing great damage to this plane at one of the most vulnerable points in its history.
  This I regard as the major charge against the Minister's present policy. There was no possible point in appointing the new Chairman, with these terms of reference and to produce a report which could have been foreseen, unless the Minister was prepared to carry out the report produced publicly in this way. Also, by the way in which he applied himself to the report and acted upon it, the right hon. Gentleman has acted so as, to some extent, to maximise the damage for both the industry—primarily Vickers—and the Corporation beyond that inherent in the central situation.
  From Vickers' point of view, what is the damage in proceeding in this way? First, clearly a great deal of dirty linen has been publicly washed in the last few weeks. B.O.A.C. has been put in the position of publicly decrying some aspects at least of the plane which it has been strongly advertising. Vickers' own public relations machine seems to have been doing its best to overcome this. That Vickers' public relations officer has been in operation with the Press is clear from
  542
  the statements which appeared one day and then the next. However, I do not blame Vickers for that. There was no other alternative.
  The second point is that the order position for Vickers as a result of the Minister's decisions looks better than it is. There is an element of sleight of hand about the announcement of the order position. It appears that only 10 aircraft—the last 10 of 30—are to be put into suspence, but another way of looking at it, and one which is probably more relevant, is that in the next three or four years, which is the period which one has always been considering and the period during which Vickers were prepared to deliver 30 Super VC10s, the company will be asked to deliver only seven to B.O.A.C. and only three to the Royal Air Force Therefore, it is not a case of the last 10 being knocked off in the next four years. As to the B.O.A.C. part of the requirement, the order is being cut to one-third or even one-quarter.
  In an intervention during the speech of the Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) made the point powerfully that that would make for difficulties in the production schedule of the industry. There again, the period after 1967–68 is a long way ahead for the aircraft industry. I hope that we will have a reply about this from the Minister or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he replies to the debate.
  What will be the compensation position about these aircraft? It is not only a matter of how much work has or has not been done on the aircraft which are not being produced. It is also a question that the Vickers price—and, clearly, this is the starting point of the story—was geared to an order of a certain size. If the order is to be smaller, independently of whether work has been done, presumably there must be substantial compensation.
  I turn now to the difficulty of the present position from the viewpoint of B.O.A.C. The Corporation is not getting the aircraft that it would most like to have. That is inevitable at this stage, What else, however, has happened? Over the next four years up to 1968, a period that we and the Corporation have been considering in our short-term plans, the Corporation will have to operate a fleet of Super VC10s which starts at nil

  543
  today and will mount over four years to seven. The average size of this fleet during that period will be three and a half. I cannot imagine anything more difficult or more uneconomic for the Corporation from the point of view of spares and of pilot and fleet deployment than to have to operate a fleet of this derisory size over that period.
  The Minister may say that beyond 1968 the fleet will get bigger and that the other 10—not the last 10, but the middle 10—or, at least, some of them, will come into operation. Is there not a danger however, that once the Corporation has come up against the threshold of the supersonic age, it will be put in exactly the same position as the Corporation faced as we came up against the threshold of the jet age? That it will have its most expensive subsonic planes very late in the day just before the supersonic age begins is exactly what happened with the DC7C and the Britannia. The Corporation will, therefore, be up against great difficulties for the reason that these aircraft will be far less written down than those of other competitive airlines when we reach the point when, although nobody can be quite sure when it will happen, there is another break-through in air transport.
  The third point about the difficulty for the Corporation is the financial arrangements. The Minister has thrown a shroud of complete secrecy over what he intends to do concerning the financial arrangement with the Corporation. I understood that one of the reasons—it came out in discussions or in evidence—why the Minister's confidence in Sir Matthew Slattery and Sir Basil Smallpeice did not remain as high as it had been was that they did nothing to adjust themselves to the demands of the White Paper to produce a scheme showing how much the Corporation would earn on its capital. They could not, however, have been more reticent than the Minister has been over the past few weeks about how he will deal with the £80 million or what compensation he will give to the Corporation for causing it to fly VC10s when it wants to fly Boeings. Without this, the most vital piece is left out of the jigsaw.
  My view is that the £80 million should be written off. There is no point in
  544
  keeping the £80 million debt, a lot of which arises from mistakes in Government policy, when it incurs interest at the rate of £4 million a year and when it will merely produce a sense of financial hopelessness and demoralisation throughout the Corporation. The Minister's only reason for wishing to postpone action concerning the £80 million can be the hope that another Government will have to deal with it.
  As to the compensation for imposing upon the Corporation an aircraft that it would not ideally choose to fly, my view is that the hardest possible calculation should be made of the difference, both in capital cost and in operating cost, and that a once-for-all capital subsidy on the cost of the 'plane should be given at the time of purchase. I would not give an open-ended subsidy to the Corporation; that would defeat the need for financial stringency throughout the Corporation. Equally, however, it would be quite unfair and totally at variance with the directive given to Sir Giles to proceed without compensating the Corporation in these ways.
  What is the correct course for the future? To some extent, some of these points have emerged from what I have already said. The first step is to write off the £80 million. Secondly, as to routes and the number of aircraft required to fly them, the report of the new Chairman should be fully accepted. Certainly to interfere in any way with his prerogative for the deployment of aircraft would be grossly to interfere with the functions of management in a way that he would find intolerable.
  Thirdly, what sort of aircraft should the Corporation fly? Whilst being, perhaps, a little less optimistic—economically, not technically—about the VC10 than some hon. Members, on both sides, I am inclined to the view that the present arrangement is a hopeless compromise which will not help Vickers or the aircraft industry very much and will leave B.O.A.C. with a tiny and, therefore, uneconomic fleet of aircraft. Accepting, reluctantly, the position into which we have got, it would be better, once the Super VC10 has proved itself in flight to a somewhat greater extent—I would do it reluctantly, but I still think that it would be the better course—to require B.O.A.C. gradually to sell its

  545
  Boeings, for which I think that a good price could be obtained, and to move towards a larger VC10 fleet, so that by that time the schedule of production at Weybridge could be accelerated somewhat. I think that there would still need to be a few cancellations, but it would be possible in that way to move towards a position by the threshold of the supersonic age of having a fleet of 12 Standard VC10s and approximately 27 Super VC10s. Fourthly, compensation worked out in a hard way and given once and for all would have to be provided for this.
  What are the lessons which should be learned from this difficult situation which has been reached? First, I do not think that either the industry or the Corporation should go in for any more projects tied to a single customer. That would be a mistake and would lead to difficulties. Secondly, while I am broadly in favour of enlarging the market and going into partnership with our neighbours, I think that a very hard look should be taken at the Concord project. The costs of that are mounting enormously. It is not certain what the future of supersonic travel is or what the Americans will do. I am not saying that the project should be cancelled, but it should be looked at very carefully because we do not want a repetition of the VC10 story in a few years' time.
  The last detailed point seems to me of overwhelming importance. It is continuity of management in B.O.A.C. Almost any single chairman would have done the job better than the four who have been put in one after the other with bewildering rapidity over the last eight years. I suppose that we cannot expect continuity in Ministers of Aviation. I am not sure that I should want it. But, if one cannot get that, this is an additional reason for having some form of substantial continuity at the other end of the scale. Another essential point is that B.O.A.C, almost at all costs, should be given something like the continuity of management in future which B.E.A. has had in the past.
  One task of the Minister, or the new Minister, should be to try to restore confidence between his Ministry and the Corporation. It is sadly lacking at present. One of the most important ways to try to do that—and I am sorry that the Minister
  546
  is not here for this part of what I have to say—is to avoid deviousness and secrecy. There has been far too much secrecy. There was the Swash Report, which was shown to the Chairman of the Corporation only on condition that he did not show it to anybody else. There was the Corbett Report which was not even shown to the Chairman who was in office while the Report was being made. There was secrecy about the change of chairmanship last autumn. As I say, there has been too much secrecy and too much deviousness, and one's back should be turned on this.
  Secondly, it is desirable that British Airways Corporations should fly British aircraft as far as possible. B.E.A. has done it successfully, but its problems have been much easier. Things have been much easier for short-haul aircraft operating largely in non-competitive conditions. One would like B.O.A.C. to be able to do this, provided the price for it is not too high. We do not want it done at the expense of B.O.A.C. flying aircraft which it does not really want or at the expense of the aircraft industry producing aircraft purely to B.O.A.C.'s specification which have not a real chance of being sold in the world market.
  It is a difficult problem to reconcile these two things. I do not think that it can be done by manufacturing aircraft specifically related to one order from the Corporation. But the Minister, if he is not very careful, will produce the solution, not of saving the Corporation at the expense of the industry or saving the industry at the expense of the Corporation, but of dragging them both down together.
  6.33 p.m.
  Sir Lionel Heald: I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak and, therefore, I propose to confine my remarks to one topic only, namely, the Minister's decision, and to the limited aspect of that decision which concerns the workers and all those engaged in the production of the VC10 at Vickers. I make no apologies for doing this because this is a matter which concerns my constituency. More than 5,000 of my constituents are directly engaged in the production of this very fine aircraft. This is not a political matter in any way. It is a human and industrial question. The people at Vickers have great anxieties.

  547
  and I should like to explain briefly what they are and to ask that more consideration should be given to them than, I think, has been the case.
  I say at once that I supported the Minister's decision in principle, because the first essential was to overrule the demand that the VC10s should, in effect, be scrapped and that American aircraft should be substituted. That was a disastrous suggestion against which we had to protest in the strongest possible way. In principle, the decision which was made was the right one, namely, that work on the 20 aircraft in production should continue and that those in suspense should remain in suspense—in other words, that no new decision should be made—and, above all, that there should be no question of cancellation. As I say, this was the right decision and I believe that we are almost unanimously in favour of it.
  There is, however, very much less certainty, and there is great anxiety, about the way in which the decision is to be implemented. The announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on Monday was in these terms, that Sir Giles Guthrie
  "will take seven to meet his estimated requirements up to 1967 and subsequently a further 10."
  A little later he said:
  "Work will, therefore, continue as planned on 20 of the 30 Super VC10s ordered by B.O.A.C."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 41.]
  As it was made, it appeared that that statement would not cause any grave dislocation, inconvenience or difficulty at Vickers. Now it appears that there is considerable doubt about whether it is true to say that work can continue as planned or, at any rate, that the aircraft when finished will be delivered at the time that they would normally be delivered. That is a very serious matter.
  I regret very much to find that the uncertainty has led at least one newspaper—the Daily Mail—to make the most alarmist statements on the subject. I know from my constituency that this has caused great disquiet. I should like to read what was said in a leading article which appeared last Tuesday morning after my right hon. Friend's statement:
  "Vickers are unhappy because the decision that B.O.A.C. is to take seven VC10s as arranged, ten someday-never, and cancel ten almost certainly is a death blow to the commercial hopes of this fine aircraft".
  548
  That was not even an accurate statement of the decision in principle. It was, However, much worse than that. It was, in effect, a statement that this would be a disaster for the VC10. Today, in the same newspaper, there are observations and a caricature which quite clearly suggest that this will be the end of the VC10. That, surely, was a disastrous statement.
  I believe it is necessary that further consideration should be given to this matter because—and I wish to use as measured language as possible—those at Vickers who are engaged in this great task are afraid of what may be done if it is left to Sir Giles Guthrie and B.O.A.C. to decide when, how and under what circumstances they will take delivery. That is a matter which should be controlled by the Minister in such a way as would have the approval of the House because it is clear that the view has been taken by hon. Members—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), with his great knowledge of these matters, made this clear—that there is, at any rate on the surface, the probability that the whole production system will be thrown out of gear unless Vickers produce the aircraft as planned. So that that is surely a matter which ought to be gone into.
  I should also say that I do not wish to enter into all the controversial discussions about what has happened in the past, but I am bound to say that all those engaged in the production of the VC10 have been badly shaken by the way in which this matter has been handled by the Chairman of B.O.A.C. since he came there. On the day he took the chair first there was in The Times a large photograph of Sir Giles Guthrie standing in front of a VC10 and saying, "This is surely a magnificent aircraft". In March when the proving flights were taking place and many of us had the privilege and the most exciting and delightful experience of flying to Khartoum and back in a VC10, there was a full-page advertisement of the VC10 from B.O.A.C. in The Times, and when the first flight took place under B.O.A.C. auspices there was another full-page advertisement which said:
  "This is the VC10. You can now travel in it. It puts B.O.A.C six years ahead of any other airline in the world."

  549
  It causes grave concern, naturally, when one reads some of the statements that have been made; and, of course, very often the way in which those statements have been reflected by commentators has made the matter much worse, and all over the world people have had their confidence shaken.
  I believe that it can be restored. I remember that when I first went to Chertsey we had the Viscount which had actually been cancelled. It was dead for all practical purposes. Well, that great enthusiast and very fine designer, Sir George Edwards, got into contact with Lord Douglas and Peter Masefield and between them they got it going again. We all know what happened. Within two years 78 had been ordered and altogether 500 Viscounts were manufactured and sold, and I personally have never felt more proud than when I was flying from Chicago to Washington in a Viscount with two American businessmen sitting next to me and one said to the other, "Well, you have got to admit this is the finest aircraft you and I have ever been in. "To have that experience in America was a very remarkable thing.
  I believe the same thing could happen and should happen, and I think we should see that it does happen, in relation to the VC10, but it certainly cannot happen if the VC10 production line is disturbed, if the company loses its fine craftsmen and if it is quite uncertain as to what its position is going to be in five years' time. So I appeal to my right hon. Friend to look into this matter and to insist upon this being dealt with in such a way that is not going to damage the VC10, still less to bring about the terrible results which have been quite seriously forecast in certain newspapers.
  I believe it can be dealt with by various suggestions that have been made. I do not feel that I should delay the House by repeating them. I have no doubt whatever that those who are responsible at Vickers have suggestions to make, and I would ask that they be considered with a completely open mind and that we should not, after what has happened, permit B.O.A.C. to dictate the time at which these VC10s are to be delivered. It is a matter for investigation—a matter for discussion. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stechford was one which it seemed to me ought to be con-
  550
  sidered. I hope that it will be possible to deal with the matter in that way.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) is right to express the anxiety of his constituents, but he must put the blame where it really rests, and that is very largely with successive Ministers of Aviation and also with previous Ministers of Transport and Ministers of Supply. I must say that the suggestion that the Minister should take responsibility for the rate of delivery seems a useful suggestion, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no suggestion about how it was to be paid for. It is really surprising that hon. Members opposite, who tend to consider themselves to be the safeguarders of the taxpayer, seem in these matters to take no interest whatsoever. I think we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) for his very fair-minded speech today which explains the reason for the unanimous Report of the Select Committee, which I hope the House has found useful.
  In the course of my remarks I shall be rather more critical of the Minister than he was, not because I do not recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has clearly recognised, that the Minister faces a very difficult decision but because, in my opinion, he and previous Ministers have refused to admit that the problems have been there and have made no atempt to deal with them. The Minister, in opening, stuck very closely to the record and gave his own view of it, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many parts of his speech showed that he realised that what he was saying was by no means the whole story. Nor was it the whole story in the view of the members of the Select Committee.
  In discussing an industry like the aircraft industry, and in discussing its production, there is a lot of wishful thinking. A great number of public relations speeches are made—in this House as well as outside—and people are unwilling to face the real facts of the situation. What we in this House cannot do is to decide whether the VC10 is or is not a good aircraft. It is simply not within our competence and we have no responsibility for doing it,

  551
  but I think that Members of Parliament have a right to point out that a design is not a good design, not a good engineering design, just because it happens to fly well and pilots like it. It is a good engineering design if it is economic. There is an extraordinary amount of public relations talk which implies that because an aircraft is technically good it is therefore commercially good, but an aircraft, like any other piece of capital equipment, is made to make money. If it does not make money, or as much money as a competitive aircraft does, it is not a good piece of capital equipment and no number of letters to the Press, some of them quite extrordinary, or of speeches, or of wishful thinking, can turn something which is not commercially good into something which is commercially successful. But that is the sort of view which one has come to expect of one of the largest spending Departments with hardly any control in the country, the Ministry of Aviation.
  We have been discussing two main questions. One is, who was to blame for the VC10 order, for the Corporation ordering an aircraft it does not now consider suitable, and in numbers in excess of its wants. Secondly, we are considering whether the airlines should have any special responsibility in assisting with the development of British civil aircraft.
  One thing the Select Committee makes clear is that the full responsibility for the orders, for the quantity and the form in which the orders were made, was by no means clear. B.O.A.C., already confused by the failure of the Comet, undoubtedly under-estimated the speed of the introduction of big jets, the speed at which runways could be lengthened to take those jets and the speed of the growth of newly independent countries wanting to have subsidised airlines of their own. We had no evidence whatever that at that time the responsible people at the Ministries of Supply and Transport thought differently. There is some slight evidence of Vickers thinking at that time that big jets were coming in, but the company did not press the view very hard, and certainly the Government Departments concerned did not think so. In
  552
  1957 B.O.A.C. thought it had a requirement for a medium-sized aircraft for shorter runways and also thought, as has been pointed out several times, that the 15 Boeings it was then being allowed to buy for the Atlantic routes were the last foreign aircraft that the Corporation would be allowed to buy.
  Attempts have been made to blame B.O.A.C. for not proceeding with a previous aircraft, the Vickers 1000, but that was a military aircraft, and it was turned down by the Royal Air Force, which, like B.O.A.C, bought Britannias. B.O.A.C. could not support the development of that aircraft alone and in any case did not think that it was economic.
  When we came to the VC10 requirement, B.O.A.C. was not allowed to have the design that it wanted. It would have preferred an aircraft more like the Boeing which was then being developed, but was forced by the only supplier available in this country to take the rear-engined machine, which, as it turns out, seems likely to be more expensive to operate.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Gentleman is putting this forward as a general principle, could he tell the House why Boeing has adopted it for the 707 and Douglas for the 729?
  Mr. Albu: They are a completely different type of aircraft. We are talking of long-haul aircraft. The hon. Gentleman has referred to short-haul aircraft. In any case, I am not an aircraft engineer. I am only giving the history as it came out before the Select Committee.
  Because Vickers could not start without a firm order for 35 aircraft, B.O.A.C. allowed itself to be persuaded to take more aircraft than it needed. We formed the impression in the Select Committee that it then went out to find routes on which to fly them and produced a report which showed that it could take a substantial number. But it was clear that it never set out to find those routes until it was obvious to it that it would have to take a large number of aircraft.
  If anyone has doubts about the atmosphere in which all these discussions took place, I would remind the House that all these negotiations took place under the chairmanship of Sir Gerard d'Erlanger, who, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, said that the Corporation was there to support the British aircraft

  553
  industry. I will read the whole of the evidence on this point. Sir Matthew Slattery was told by Sir Gerard d'Erlanger:
  "I am very surprised at the argument that is going on, and very upset about it, because I never believed that it was the Corporation's job to make profits. The Corporation was there to support the British aircraft industry, to develop the routes round the world, and so on. My difficulty was to do that without letting the personnel in the Corporation feel that money did not matter, and that they did not have to be businesslike."
  It was some time after that that Sir Matthew, trying to get a clear definition, asked the Minister what the real policy of the Corporation should be.
  I suggest that this view of the matter was confirmed by the later Government decision in 1959 to bring the control of the airlines under the Ministry of Aviation, the same Department as is responsible for the industry which produces the aircraft. Why, if this were not the view generally held in the Government, was it necessary to remove control of airlines from the Ministry of Transport and put them under the control of this very expensive spending Department, the Ministry of Aviation, which is one of the largest lobbies, perhaps rightly, for the aircraft industry?
  I do not think there can be any doubt that the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in January, 1960, brought pressure on the Corporation to help Vickers out of the financial difficulties that it had got into by developing the aircraft and to help him in bringing about an amalgamation of the industry. The evidence is there that Sir Matthew Slattery tried to stop the extra order being placed, but Sir Gerard d'Erlanger told him that it was too late. He was under very strong pressures because of the Minister's plans for amalgamation of the industry.
  It is nonsense to pretend that the Ministries responsible—the Ministry of Aviation and previously the Ministries of Transport and Supply—were not in continuous and close discussions with the Corporation. The Select Committee's reports have brought out how very close the discussions continuously were. There is no doubt in my mind that, as in other nationalised industries, the arms of the Chairman of the Corporation were being continually twisted
  554
  by successive Ministers, quietly and politely no doubt, but still being twisted, and there is no doubt that at that time the Chairman was under very severe pressure from the Minister.
  Then there is the very confused rôle played by the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, a body examined both by the 1959 Select Committee and by the Estimates Committee in this Session. The Select Committee in 1959 thought it was a rather more important body than I think the Estimates Committee did this Session, but both of them drew attention to the fact that its terms of reference were very unclear and it did not seem to be very effective, but it must have played some part in all these discussions, which shows that the choice of the aircraft was by no means that only of the Corporation.
  B.O.A.C. has never behaved, nor I believe was expected by the Government to behave, as an independent airline in a country without an aircraft industry. Successive Ministers have shown an appalling degree of irresponsibility towards the problem that is created by the existence of a large civil aircraft industry in this country, and they have continually expected the airlines to take decisions in support of the industry which should really have been taken by the Ministers themselves. On this point, no notice was taken of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1959, which demanded that the responsibilities of the Corporations and the Ministries should be clearly defined.
  One of the reasons, as has partly been pointed out already, why the Minister of Aviation was able to exercise a much stronger influence on B.O.A.C. than on B.E.A. was the continual chopping and changing of the Board of B.O.A.C. At the relevant time, when these negotiations were first started and brought to a conclusion, B.O.A.C. was under a part-time chairman and had only two full-time members on the Board. When the Board was strengthened under Sir Matthew Slattery by five full-time members Sir Matthew was sacked. The only continuous member of the Board was the managing director, Sir Basil Smallpeice. I consider that he has been extremely shabbily treated. He was a man with very high ideals of public service, and I believe he was sacrificed because he misunderstood a policy which no Minister ever had the courage to define.

  555
  On the question of the nature of the Board, I strongly disagree with the views expressed by Lord Reith, although in his recent letter to The Times there were some matters on which I could agree with him. His view was that there should not be any executive members of the Board. This may be all right for the B.B.C. or advisory bodies, but I know of no large commercial undertaking without a substantial core of full-time executive members within its Board. Unless the Corporation is to be the feeble creature of the Minister, it needs a strong and stable Board with a high proportion of full-time members, some with functional responsibilities.
  I turn to the second question which I think we are mainly discussing—should the airlines consider it as part of their duty to assist the aircraft manufacturing industry? I think that the answer is, "Yes, provided that the responsibility for planning the industry is that of the Ministry of Aviation and provided that the Corporations are recompensed for any financial liabilities which they occur in supporting the aircraft industry in matters which are not strictly within their commercial interest." After all, both airlines have played their part pretty gallantly. But I really wonder whether it has entirely paid them. It may have paid our balance of payments, it may have been in the national interest, but has it paid the Corporations? If it has not, this ought to be made quite clear.
  The only successful commercial airliner that has been produced and has been put in operation by one of the Corporations is the Viscount, and no successful aircraft has been produced in long-range heavy jets.
  I am interested to learn that the Chancellor will wind up; I should have thought that it was about time that he came into the whole picture. Has any Department of the Government or has N.E.D.C. ever made an assessment of the true value of the vast support we give to the aircraft industry?
  It is true that its exports are about £100 million a year and that there is some saving on our balance of payments in flying British aircraft—perhaps worth another £20 million. But two-thirds of these exports are in engines and we do
  556
  not know how much of the balance of £40 million is in civil aircraft. The Board of Trade's figures for the industry include things like missiles and even balloons, but we do not know the value of civil aircraft exports and we are never allowed to know, because, apparently, it is considered to be a matter of security. The figure cannot be very large.
  Since 1960, subsidies totalling £49 million have been given to the aircraft industry to support the development of civil aircraft and the figure is probably running now at a level of £20 million to £25 million a year. In addition, enormous sums were spent by the Government on the analysis of the Comet failure and the cost to B.O.A.C. of that failure is now appearing in its account and will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Then we must add to this the subsidy now to be paid to B.O.A.C. for the higher operating costs of the VC10, for the purchase of aircraft it does not want—and for Vickers for stretching out the deliveries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford referred to the Concord. It is now estimated that this will cost us £140 million—double the original estimate. No one believes that we shall get it for less than at least £200 million each from France and Britain. In a debate on the aircraft industry in July, 1959, I quoted various estimates made at the time, of what it might take to develop a supersonic aircraft. Estimates of the cost then ran from £100 million to £600 million. Mr. Peter Masefield, whose view must be respected, thought that the cost would be about £300 million. I doubt today whether we shall get out at under £400 million to £500 million between us.
  There is no hope of recovering a fraction of this development expenditure within the selling price. The only effect of the development of this aircraft will be to increase flying costs and accelerate depreciation of the subsonic jets. Nor do any of the airlines want a supersonic aircraft. Of course, they are placing orders for them because they must do so. In effect, they are taking out insurance policies. On this matter I quote the opinion of Sir Giles Guthrie himself. I asked Sir Giles:
  "If I may, my point is if from a commercial point of view you would have wanted a

  557
  supersonic aircraft at the time when this one is going to come into operation? "
  Sir Giles replied:
  "No, we would not. On the other hand, you cannot stop progress."
  That is the general view of airlines throughout the world. Apart from the very great technological and sociological difficulties the aircraft is facing, a warning on this matter was given by the Select Committee in 1959. I know the arguments about developing the Concord. I cannot be accused of being unsympathetic to arguments about technological and scientific advance. Certainly there is a case for really advanced large-scale engineering products to encourage our most advanced engineers and scientists and to give them challenging work to do.
  But we have to ask ourselves, in view of the enormously rising expenditure on the development of civil aircraft—and one must include all the subsidies that are to be paid to B.O.A.C, the cost of failures in the past, and so forth—what serious estimate has been made inside the Ministry of Aviation or any other Government Department of the future market for British aircraft. That is not the responsibility of the airlines. It is the responsibility of the Ministry. In my opinion, the question has been quite irresponsibly shirked by successive Ministers and Administrations, during a time when the Government have been pouring money into the industry.
  Now I come to the behaviour of the Minister himself. He has shown all the symptoms of a weak man. He has acted against all the canons of good business and good public administration. In spite of the obvious joint responsibility of B.O.A.C. and the Ministry for the present situation, he has refused to accept his share. He has instituted two inquiries into B.O.A.C. and has refused to show the results either to hon. Members or to those who are responsible in the Corporation. These actions are against all the principles of decent management.
  The attempt which I understand he made to introduce the Corbett Inquiry into B.O.A.C. secretly, without anyone inside B.O.A.C. knowing that it was going on, was, of course, not only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford said, a cloak and dagger operation but
  558
  an example of the worst and most unscrupulous type of business management, and from the managerial and administrative point of view utterly despicable.
  Such completely unnecessary secrecy is utterly damaging to the morale of an organisation. Anyone who has anything to do with consultants in management knows that one cannot find anything out about an organisation or assist in improving its performance unless one works in co-operation with the executive management of the undertaking. Any attempt by directors or anyone else to put in private spies to find out what is going on inevitably leads to failure.
  Now I come to the Minister's attitude to Sir Matthew Slattery. Sir Matthew told him and his predecessors the truth and tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to face reality by issuing clear terms of reference and allowing B.O.A.C. a fresh financial start. Most of the causes of the losses which had occurred were being corrected while Sir Matthew was in office—for instance, those caused by the overseas subsidiaries.
  The Minister refused to make it possible for Sir Matthew Slattery to run B.O.A.C. on commercial lines and then sacked him. Then the Minister gave to Sir Matthew's successor exactly what he had refused to Sir Matthew. I am glad to say that sometimes people get the punishment they deserve. The Minister's behaviour has recoiled on his own head. He is shown up to be shifty and incompetent, but, luckily, he will not be here very much longer.
  7.7 p.m.
  Colonel C. G. Lancaster: If I do not follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), certainly in the latter part of what he said, it is not that I underrate the importance of what he has said. No one who has worked with the hon. Gentleman as long as I have on the Select Committee would at any time do other than give full credit to the knowledge and experience that he brings to bear on the problems that we have to consider from time to time. I want, however, to deal with other matters.
  The question of the VC10 has been fully covered, and I want to talk about the work of the Select Committee and how it bears on the sort of problems we are discussing. This is a unique

  559
  occasion, since it is the first time that we are discussing a Corporation which has had two investigations by the Select Committee.
  When we started this rather short inquiry of six months, we had some advantage inasmuch as we could look back to the work we did in 1959 and this was of considerable help. Additionally, we have had the great advantage of being able to have our Report debated within a few months of presenting it to Parliament. The significance of that can best be illustrated by what happened when, about four years ago, we spent a year on an inquiry into the gas industry. Probably the financial implications of that inquiry were as great as, if not greater than, the matter we are discussing today. It took three and a half years before we had an opportunity to discuss that Report in Parliament. We did so on a Friday afternoon and we were given only one hour to debate it. At least we have had an improvement on that today.
  We began our inquiry at a very important moment in the history of B.O.A.C. There had been two inquiries—the Swash inquiry and the Corbett inquiry, which had just occurred, and Sir Matthew Slattery and Sir Basil Smallpeice had been dismissed and Sir Giles Guthrie appointed. I say at once that we found a complex and in many ways disturbing situation.
  At this stage, I should like to make one or two general observations about the work of the Select Committee. We find that over a period of time we begin to recognise the problems which the great corporations themselves are creating. With the advance of technology, the strains on Departments become greater. Departments have to give advice to Ministers on matters which year by year become more highly technical. Examples will spring to the minds of most hon. Members.
  The Ministry of Power at this moment has to take a decision in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Authority as to the type of reactor which ought to be bought. This is a highly technical matter. Whether we are to take the British gas-cooled reactor or the American water-cooled reactor is a very complex question. Departments in no way fitted to give an opinion have to advise Ministers,
  560
  who in turn have to take decisions which may involve tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of £s.
  Further down the line, Parliament, which eventually has to pay the piper, usually has very few opportunities to consider these matters in any detail. All that is open to the average Member is that he can ask a Question which does not infringe the administrative responsibility of the Corporation concerned. Eight or nine months after the year concerned, he can scrutinise the report and accounts of a public corporation and possible debate the issues six months later. From time to time, he might be able to take part in discussions about borrowing powers. If he feels strongly, he can oppose the granting of these borrowing powers against the advice of the Minister concerned and in the last resort not consent to the additional finance.
  But meanwhile all sorts of things are going by default. We recently investigated the electricity industry, and in that investigation we found that all sorts of matters which ought to have been known to Parliament were being overlooked. It was only by chance that we undertook that particular investigation at that particular moment. I think that it was Lord Reith who said the other day that the relationship of Parliament to these great corporations would require a great deal of thought. Unless something is done, we shall be helpless in the face of these immense expenditures over which we can have little or no control.
  I now come to a contentious aspect of today's discussion, the matter of the Swash and Corbett Reports and the evidence about the amortisation of aircraft which was denied to the Select Committee. K the Select Committee is properly to do its job on behalf of Parliament, it should not be hampered in its work. To say, as the Minister might, that we would draw from these Reports inferences which he himself had not drawn is in some way a reflection on our good sense. We are perfectly capable of drawing sensible and intelligent inferences.
  It may be said that much of the Reports themselves was confidential. But in the ordinary course of our work we get many confidential facts and figures put before us and we have to use our discretion about which of them should come out in our Report. I think that it

  561
  can be shown that we have never exceeded our discretionary powers. Indeed, it is only Parliament itself which can give us the right to see these reports and, if we were not a discreet Committee, Parliament itself could withdraw those powers. Meanwhile, Parliament should give us these powers if we are to bring out reports which provide an opportunity to consider a matter in its full context.
  We were shown some part of the Corbett Report. We gave it a mixed reception, mixed not in the sense that our views were divided, but in the sense that we agreed with it about maintenance and engineering costs and so on and disagreed in other respects. These costs had been reported very effectively by Sir Matthew Slattery three years before and we had reported on the subject five years before. What the Corbett Report did in that respect was merely to confirm two previous reports.
  We were sceptical about its financial recommendations. It may not be altogether fair to criticise the Corbett Report in this respect, because we were shown only a part of it, but that part was both flimsy and superficial and we thought that it reached a number of conclusions on very slight premises. If the rest of the Report was no better than the part we saw, the Minister got very little value for money.
  Beyond that, I do not want to go very far. The matter of the VC10 has been fully covered. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and I should like there to be a decision before too long to sell the Boeings and to concentrate on the VC10s. I am not an expert on aircraft, but I have had the opportunity to fly in the VC10 and I must say that it was most impressive. It took off and landed very quickly and it was very smooth, quiet and comfortable. It has the ingredients of a first-class aircraft. It is deplorable that it should have had this adverse publicity, both political and in the Press, and, like every other hon. Member, I wish it well.
  I hope that it will not be thought invidious if, as the senior member of the Select Committee, I pay a genuine tribute to the work of my right hon.
  562
  Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who was Chairman of the Select Committee during the time when it produced its last two Reports. He has worked immensely hard himself and has given a first-class lead to those of us who have worked with him. He has been patient, sensible and helpful, and if we have brought out a good Report, a great deal of it is due to his work.
  I should like finally to comment on the evidence given to the Select Committee by Sir Matthew Slattery and Sir Basil Smallpeice. It would have been understandable and perhaps natural for some rancour to have shown itself in their evidence. There was none whatsoever. They comported themselves like men, and it was enormously to their credit that they should have done so.
  As we all do, I wish the VC10 well. I hope that it will go from success to success and I hope that its success will be followed by an improvement in the standards and results of B.O.A.C. itself.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). I agree with every word of his speech. Those who did not have the pleasure of being on the Select Committee have had only a very short time in which to study the fascinating evidence which was published last Monday.
  We still do not have the full facts, and we never will. This is partly because it is clear that a number of witnesses engaged in an exercise of self-justification, and partly because of the refusal of the Government to come clean, and in particular their refusal to publish the Corbett Report. I fully agree with all the criticisms which have been expressed on this subject, and it seems to me that in doing this the Government have shown a contempt for this House and for the Select Committee which ought not to be allowed to pass. Nevertheless, enough has been revealed in this evidence for us all to be able to say that we agree with the general conclusions reached by the Select Committee, and with its strictures both on the Corporation and on the Government for the vacillation, muddle, and confusion which has resulted in this mess, as my hon. Friend the Mem-

  563
  ber for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) described it. There is no doubt that this mess has bedevilled the Corporation's operations over the last 10 years, and I fear may have done great harm to our aircraft industry. I should perhaps declare a constituency interest in this matter because many of my constituents, like those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), are engaged in making the Rolls-Royce engines which power the VC10.
  Having examined the evidence, in my view the greater share of this blame should fall on the Government, and should be laid at their door and at the door of the series of inept Ministers of Transport who have been dealing with these problems. The present Minister is the last in this sad series, but I do not think that we can even pay him the compliment of saying last but not least.
  It appears to me that these Government failures fall broadly into three categories. First, and most important, the failure by the Government to give any adequate policy directions to successive Chairmen, especially on the question of the extent to which the Board should be governed by purely commercial considerations. In reply to Questions after his statement last Monday the Minister said:
  "What I have always sought is that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. should give us his judgment of what is the commercial solution and that he should not seek to determine what the national interest is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 48.]
  That may be admirable advice, but I am unable to find that either he or his predecessors ever told that to any Chairman before his letter of 1st January of this year. Indeed, I think the Minister agrees that no such guidance or direction was ever given, and he seeks to defend that by suggesting that it was unnecessary, and by quoting one or two phrases by various Chairmen saying that they had in mind the importance of commercial interests. The point is whether any one told them that they were to be guided solely by commercial interests, and that they were to put out of their minds what they might think were national interests and not have regard to them, because apparently this
  564
  is what the Minister is suggesting they should do.
  Sir Matthew Slattery's memorandum of August, 1962, to the Minister, which is published with the evidence, says in terms:
  "The Chairman's view is that it will not prove realistic for the Corporation to be purely commercial in its outlook."
  In my view that is obvious common-sense, and to ask the Corporation to try to put national interests out of its mind and adopt a purely commercial approach is in itself unrealistic. The point is that the Minister was told this in writing in August, 1962. In those circumstances, how can he pretend that there was no need to correct that view on the part of the Corporation?
  Sir Matthew's predecessor—and this has been quoted already—told him:
  "… I never believed that it was the Corporation's job to make profits. The Corporation was there to support the British aircraft industry, to develop the routes round the world, and so on."
  How could the Chairman of the Corporation have got that idea into his head if there had been proper, full, and frank discussions between him and the Minister, and successive Ministers, and they had made it clear to him that he was to be governed in his thoughts solely by commercial considerations?
  The second head of criticism against the Government is that they have failed to make up their own minds, let alone give adequate guidance to the Corporation, on the vital questions of national policy involved in the Corporation's affairs. I shall develop this theme later, but to illustrate it I point out that as recently as 1st January, in his letter to the new Chairman, the Minister said:
  "The choice of aircraft is a matter for the Corporation's judgment."
  He went on to make the qualification which he read to us earlier this afternoon, that the Government hoped that the Corporation would buy British, but asserting that the choice would lie with the Corporation. The events of last Monday show quite clearly that the Minister is not bound by his own directive. I am not suggesting that he should be. All I am saying is that that illustrates a lack of clarity on the part of the Government in making up their

  565
  own mind as to what their approach should be.
  Thirdly, the Government have failed to give the Corporation an effective Board. By constantly changing the Chairman they destroyed continuity, and by having far too many part-time members in the early stages—what Sir Matthew Slattery called the once-a-month members—they ensured that the Board would be incompetent to evolve a properly thought-out policy.
  These failures are not merely the result of personal incompetence on the part of successive Ministers of Aviation, but spring from the inability of the party opposite to give consistent and wholehearted support to a nationalised industry, particularly when it is performing a vital, but not inherently profitable, service in the national interest.
  The problem here arises from the £80 million deficit over a period of 10 years. This problem sprang from the tragic development of metal fatigue in the airframe of the original Comet. We should get this sum into its proper perspective. As Sir Matthew Slattery said to the Select Committee:
  "The two Corporations "—
  that is B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—
  "have created the British civil aircraft industry in this country; but for them there would be no civil aircraft industry, no Rolls-Royce engines selling all over the world, no VC10s, no Comets, no Britannias, no Viscounts, none of that. If you look at the earnings you will find, I think, that if there had been no B.O.A.C. over the past few years our balance of payments would have been £65 million a year worse, because that is the amount which is earned in foreign currency."
  That is by B.O.A.C. alone.
  Apart from the £65 million which B.O.A.C. earns in foreign currency, the aircraft industry has earned enormous sums in exports. The total exports of aircraft and engines over the last 10 years exceed £1,000 million, and of that more than £500 million represent engines and spares. I cannot give the figure of civil aircraft separately, because it is not published separately, for security reasons, but I suppose that it must amount to at least two-thirds of the total.
  In the light of that, let us suppose that we had to face the drain of an annual deficit on the part of B.O.A.C. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should.
  566
  On the contrary, it is my view that, given proper direction, proper management, and proper support, B.O.A.C. once again can become a profit-earning nationalised Corporation like its sister Corporation B.E.A. and like the fuel and power nationalised industries.
  But suppose that we did have to face that drain. I suggest to the House that it would not be a national disaster of itself. Indeed, the alternatives, which would be either to wind up B.O.A.C. or else let it abandon the British aircraft industry, would be far greater disasters for us to face. I suppose that is what hon. Members opposite like the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden)—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—would want us to do. Last Monday, he told the House that he considered that the basis of the present trouble was nationalisation. I suppose that he would prefer a purely commercial approach to that of a national corporation acting in the public interest.
  If Sir Giles Guthrie's proposals, which have received such unwelcome publicity recently, are an indication of what would be the free enterprise approach to the problems of B.O.A.C, I suppose the result would be that we would cancel the VC10 orders, pay the penalty and buy American. I think that we have heard this policy enunciated before rather succinctly—"It may be anti-British and derogatory to sterling but it makes sense to me."
  Mr. P. Williams: For the sake of accuracy—I suspect the hon. and learned Gentleman may not have told my hon. Friend that he was going to refer to him—when my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) referred to this issue he was referring to the aircraft industry and not to the operating industry.
  Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the passage which I have here. What he was referring to by that phrase was clearly B.O.A.C. He said:
  "The Labour Party has only one solution for the British aircraft industry, which is nationalisation, which is the basis of the present problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 47]—
  the "present problem" being the £80 million deficit of B.O.A.C. He was suggesting that was the result of nationalisation.

  567
  My constituents who make the Rolls-Royce engines for the VC10s are, I am sure, very thankful that B.O.A.C. is a nationalised corporation, even under the Tory Government, and will not be subjected to these purely commercial considerations.
  I should like to develop for a few moments this question of the relationship between the Ministry and B.O.A.C. and the extent to which B.O.A.C. should be governed by commercial considerations. In my view, it would be utterly misleading, and dangerously misleading, to suggest that B.O.A.C, in all circumstances, can and should be governed by purely commercial considerations. Of course we all want the highest efficiency. We want a hard, tight, financial analysis of any proposal put forward and of all the implications that are involved, and the decisions that are taken should be in the light of a hard, tight, financial analysis.
  I think it is quite clear from the Report and the evidence that there has been serious failure in this respect in the past. I should have thought that it was desirable that the financial comptroller should be on the Board. It is clear also that where Government policy and national policy require purely financial considerations to be overridden, proper financial compensation should be paid to the Board. But we would be living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we thought that B.O.A.C. could be left to decide on purely commercial considerations matters which are of vital importance to our national economy.
  Take, above all, the vital question of whether B.O.A.C. should buy British. On 2nd December last in the Second Reading debate on the Bill then before the House the Minister said:
  "Of course, Ministries are right to use their influence to try to persuade the corporations to buy aircraft which Government policy wishes to see bought, but there is no obligation on them to yield."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 905.]
  I wonder: does the Minister in the light of the events of the last week really believe that? Of course, there is no legal obligation on the Corporation to yield. Indeed, there is no legal power in the Minister to give a direction to the Corporation to buy specific aircraft, but as the Corporation has to come to the Government to borrow capital it cannot in prac-
  568
  tice buy any aircraft, British or foreign without Government approval. That was recognised as far back as 1959 in the Select Committee's Report. These decisions have to be taken by the Government. That was shown quite clearly in the events of this week.
  On 8th July this year the Minister said in the House:
  "No advice or instruction was given to B.O.A.C. with regard to the VC10 order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 396.]
  Again, can the Minister really believe that? Does the Minister deny Sir Matthew Slattery's evidence, which was adopted by Sir Giles Guthrie, that it was a condition of the Government's permission for the Boeing order that any future aircraft we required must be British, or does he deny Sir Basil Smallpeice's evidence that at the time that B.O.A.C. was considering the VC10 order—I quote Question 1200:
  "we had been told quite flatly by the then Minister that if we did not order British aircraft we should not get any, and there was no other aircraft on offer other than the VC10. It was a question of the VC10 or nothing."
  Again, Sir Matthew Slattery's evidence in Question 1194 about the design of the aircraft when B.O.A.C. specified for a copy of the Boeing 707
  "But it was ruled on, as far as I know, political grounds, and maybe on Vickers' commercial grounds as well, that Britain would not copy an American aircraft."
  Consequently, it was forced off "the optimum economic design" and compelled to have a less profitable rear-engined plane.
  I am not saying that any of these decisions by the Government was not a right decision. The point I am making is that they are of necessity decisions of the Minister—in this last case supporting the aircraft industry. It was summed up by Sir Matthew Slattery again in Question 1196 in these words:
  "As far as the VC10 is concerned, with which I was intimately concerned, we were not allowed to have the type of design which we would have liked, and so we had to make do with what was produced."
  The House will hardly need reminding that when Sir Matthew Slattery was about to take over from his predecessor and asked him not to commit himself on the additional VC10s, the answer he got was, "Oh, I am sorry but it is too late. I have been under very strong pressure to

  569
  do this. It is necessary for the Minister's plans in connection with the formation of the British Aircraft Corporation. "Again, do the Government deny that? I fear that if they do it is a denial that will not carry very much conviction.
  I repeat that I am not criticising the Ministers when they interfere in this way with the decisions of the Corporation. I think it is right that they should and it is their responsibility, but I criticise Ministers when they try, as the present Minister does, when things go wrong, to pretend that they do not influence the decisions and run away from their responsibilities both morally and financially.
  I am also criticising hon. Members opposite—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is back in his seat—who try in these circumstances to make political capital out of the Government's own failures by saying that the basis of the present trouble is nationalisation. It is this necessity for Government decision that, in my view, makes the Minister's letter of 1st January this year, of which he is so proud, in itself misleading. The Minister says to Sir Giles Guthrie that it is the immediate task to get the break-even point after meeting interest and depreciation and then adds:
  "How this is done is a matter for you."
  He says that there is established machinery under which the Corporations seek the Ministry's approval for the ordering of new aircraft
  "but the choice of aircraft is a matter for the Corporations' judgment."
  We are given to understand from the Press that Sir Giles himself had a hand in drafting this letter. He certainly seems to have thought, when giving evidence before the Select Committee, that that sentence meant what it said. In answer to Question No. 1296 he said that he would expect a written directive from the Minister requiring him to take aircraft which were not of his own choice on commercial grounds. Those are brave words. But we have not heard of any written directive having been given to Sir Giles by the Minister over the decision which was taken last Monday. I strongly suspect that no written directive was given.
  I have been left with the impression that all this talk of leaving the Cor-
  570
  poration free to reach these vital decisions on purely commercial grounds was a mere sop to the anti-nationalisation Cerberuses in his own party. The serious aspect of all this is that these manœuvrings and wranglings between the Corporation and the Minister have been carried on in the full glare of publicity in this way. It has done the maximum damage to the British aircraft industry. I wonder what response B.A.C. will get when it tries to sell the VC10 to other airlines. One can imagine the answer, "Why, your own B.O.A.C. would have cancelled them if they could, and would have paid the £200,000 penalty on each aircraft of the first type, and much more on the present type, and then bought Boeings."
  On 2nd December last the Minister said, of the VC10:
  "I think that experience will show that this remarkable aircraft, the quietest in which I have ever flown, will prove a very great commercial success in a very short time from now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 905.]
  I sincerely hope that that prophecy proves correct. It is a prophecy which would have been shared at the time by the highest and most knowledgeable members of the management of Rolls-Royce, which supplies the engines. Those men had— and I hope they still have—great confidence in their ability to sell this aircraft all over the world, and to achieve with it a success similar to that achieved with the Viscount. But it will be almost miraculous if an equal success is achieved after the way in which it has been publicly pilloried in this unending feud between the Minister and the Corporation.
  The question is: what should be done for the future? First, I suggest that the Government should make quite clear—and the Minister went a long way towards making it clear today—that the Government's policy for the Corporation is that it should in all circumstances buy British unless it can produce overwhelming proof that the British industry is unable to meet its requirements. I do not think that the Corporation ever had any real doubt about this.
  The antics of Sir Giles Guthrie in publicising his unrealistic plan to buy Boeings were merely a manæuvre to strengthen his hand in the battle with

  571
  the Ministry over the review of the Corporation's capital structure. I use strong language in this respect because the memorandum of the Corporation, published at page 263 of the Minutes, puts forward by way of discussion the possibility of a similar scheme of cutting drastically the number of aircraft and cancelling the VC10 order. Its own comment—and I assume that this is Sir Matthew Slattery's document—is that
  "a drastic remedy of this sort is just not on."
  Sir Giles Guthrie must have realised it too, and the Minister also.
  Secondly, the Government should accept full responsibility for their own decisions where these run counter to the commercial interest of the Corporation, and should foot the bill honestly. I entirely agree with what has been said about the need for the Government, at an early date, to wipe off the £80 million millstone hanging around the Corporation's neck.
  Thirdly, Government decisions in these matters should not be kept secret. They must be publised, but the time at which they are publicised is vitally important. If they concern matters such as the recent dispute over the VC10, which are vital to our aircraft industry, publication should be deferred until the time when the decisions will take effect and when it will not damage the selling prospect of the aircraft. I agree with what has been said so forcefully, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford, that the present order for VC10s should be honoured in full as soon as possible, and B.O.A.C. restored to a fully British fleet. The important thing is to restore confidence and real, free communication and co-operation between the three elements which can give us a really thriving and prosperous industry, that is to say, B.O.A.C, the manufacturers, and the Ministry. Given this, I think that we can put this sorry 10-year story behind us, learn lessons from it, and produce again an aircraft industry, on a world-wide scale, second to none.
  7.46 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. and learned Member for
  572
  Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) did what many hon. Members opposite have done this afternoon; he tried to whitewash B.O.A.C. and attack the Government, only to finish by saying that we must have a British fleet. I appreciate that it is getting near election time, but the hon. and learned Member's constituents will not draw much satisfaction from what he had to say. He skated over the £80 millon loss which came about as a result of the Comet disaster. He did not say that at one time there had been 2,000 or 3,000 surplus engineers in B.O.A.C. He did not say that many of its associated companies overseas were losing millions of pounds every day. B.O.A.C. was warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House to get rid of this liability, but only recently has action been taken in this respect.
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) suggested that the Government should buy the 30 VC10s. I agree that we should have the 30, but that would be quite the wrong way to go about it, because B.O.A.C. is a self-accounting organisation. Occasional exceptions have been made, but it should operate as far as possible like a business concern.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said that this is a mess. It certainly is. It is one of the worst messes I have seen in the House for many years. It is a sad mess—that a great British leader industry should have got itself into this position, for a number of reasons. Americans who have travelled in the VC10 recently have said that they cannot possibly understand how we have allowed this situation to come about, in which we are denigrating an aircraft which I am convinced, after 40 years' experience of flying and manufacturing, is a winner. Later I shall say why I think it is a winner.
  Over the years B.O.A.C. has never been a happy organisation. There have been far too many changes in the top executives. It has had too many overseas commitments. It has run Bermuda Airways and other airlines all over the world, losing sight of the fact that its main objective was to run a circular route round the world for Great Britain. It has been dabbling with too many different objectives. The engineering staff has been much too large. Relations with the unions have not been

  573
  as good as they might have been. A few years ago some of the top executives had never gone near the hangars and workshops, and certainly never inside them. If one is running a business today, whether one is a manager or a director one has to be among the men and know how they feel about their problems. B.O.A.C. has ordered practically every type of aircraft since the war, whether American or British—six of this, 12 of that and 18 of the other.
  Until recently they did not have what could be termed a project-planning team, a number of backroom men, scientists, dons and others equipped to do research into route values, project requirements and equipment needed for fifteen and twenty years ahead. I am told that Pan American has 300 men doing this work. I doubt whether B.O.A.C. has half-a-dozen, with the consequence that over the years it has been a question of hit or miss. Hon. Members opposite should not think—after nineteen years—that one is resentful of a nationalised industry. We should be the first to give credit for the success of B.E.A. I should like to see B.O.A.C. do the same.
  I have said that I welcome the fact that Sir Giles Guthrie has become Chairmen of B.O.A.C. That took a lot of courage. Heaven knows why Sir Giles took on the job. Anyone who takes on the chairmanship of a nationalised industry ought to have his head attended to. He is liable to be "shot at" every Wednesday during Question Time in the House of Commons by Parliamentarians—some of them mischievous—and there are debates on the aircraft industry three or four times a year. He has a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary helping to run the business. That is a terrible outlook for any man, and I think that the nation ought to be grateful to Sir Giles for taking on the job. I have had the privilege of knowing him for a great many years. Lord Douglas, when he was Chairman of B.E.A., thought highly of Sir Giles, who was on the board of B.E.A. for a number of years. Sir Giles is highly recommended and is of the right age. He has had a great deal of experience, and I am sure we all wish him well. Let us hope that the troubles will be cleared up.
  574
  The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North did not refer at all to why B.O.A.C. has too many aircraft. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the Corporation's weekly news sheet, he will see that Sir Giles has admitted that 23 too many aircraft were ordered. Pressure may have been brought by the Government to accelerate orders at a time when the marriage was brought about between the airframe manufacturers. But if a chairman of a corporation is put under undue pressure—after all, he is a man of some calibre—he can say, "Hell, I am not going to do this. I am not going to be forced into this situation." One hears of resignations occasionally, even in this House—
  Mr. Wigg: Even in the Government.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I will come to my right hon. Friend in a moment. I think that he has battled extremely well against the Treasury to get the result which we have today.
  The Opposition cannot lay this problem at the door of the Government. The fact that 23 too many aircraft were ordered is entirely the responsibility of B.O.A.C. It is not the responsibility of the Government. The trouble goes back several years to the VC1000. Six prototypes were ordered for the Air Ministry and it was mainly the responsibility of the Air Force. B.O.A.C. was brought into the technical discussions. In fact, the diameter of the fuselage of that aircraft was altered to suit the requirements of B.O.A.C. I am sure that had B.O.A.C. taken more interest in the project and known a little more about the capabilities of Rolls Royce, and that where the airframe weight increases by the time an aeroplane is built Rolls Royce invariably increase the output of power—had that problem been understood, we might have had the VC1000 on the Atlantic route before the American Boeing That did not happen, and it was a great loss to Britain.
  When the Boeing first came into service five years ago I well remember that one landed in Paris minus an engine which had fallen out over French territory. A number of crashes have occurred on take-off owing to the excessive length of take-off. There was one in Paris last year, and there was the DC9 crash at London Airport. They

  575
  average about one a month. I have met a number of Americans who confessed to being simply petrified at the idea of travelling over 2½ miles of concrete before the aircraft "gets unstuck". This situation should be taken into account when assessing the real efficiency of the VC10.
  Make no mistake about it—this is common knowledge in Western Europe—the Americans are out to take over the whole of the Western European aircraft industry; not only the British industry, but the French, the German and the Dutch. They are out to capture the electronics market generally. We must win this fight. The value of the technical knowledge gained in the building of modern aircraft cannot be assessed. Sir George Doughty, who has had great experience in building aircraft, is now producing hydraulic pit props, among other things. We cannot allow ourselves to get out of this business. If it has to have Government support, that support must be forthcoming. I am all for getting the situation cleared up once and for all, and providing Sir Giles Guthrie with the support needed to allow him to get on with the job.
  I do not think for a moment that Sir Giles is trying to bring about some smart move by using the threat of the Boeings. I think that there is a hard core among the B.O.A.C. technical staff and management which is pro-American. That feeling goes back to the war years, and exactly the same situation is apparent in the Qantas airline. We cannot altogether blame these people. They have been brought up to appreciate American methods and the provision of a good supply of spares. But this attitude must be broken. I believe that the former technical director of B.O.A.C. is now a Boeing representative in London and that is something which wants watching. I do not blame him for getting the job, it is probably a good job, but the situation is one that should be watched carefully. Quite apart from changes on the Board of B.O.A.C., I think that there should be some changes among the senior executives. Men from the middle ranks should be given positions of responsibility.
  When the idea of the VC10 was first mooted it was suggested that it should
  576
  be a joint aircraft for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C, but B.E.A. decided on the Trident, a smaller aircraft. We do not hear Mr. Milward complaining to the Press about what a dud aircraft he has. He was confronted with problems which he has overcome and he will make profits. Relatively speaking, Mr. Milward had just as big problems with the Trident as B.O.A.C. has experienced in introducing the VC10. When these aircraft were ordered B.O.A.C. knew perfectly well that even if the aircraft came up to the full specifications depreciation charges would have to be met. But now it is said that a large depreciation bill has to be coped with.
  I do not begin to under B.O.A.C. reasoning in respect of these normal commercial matters and that is what shakes my confidence. Whatever may be said today I am prepared to believe that in eighteen months or two years' time, based on orders now being placed, B.O.A.C. will be short of aircraft. The Corporation has been wrong so often in the past and has underestimated the growth in traffic, and so on. The VC10 was envisaged as enlarged to become the super VC10 by a 28 ft. stretch of the fuselage. At the request of B.O.A.C. that was shortened to 12 ft. Had B.O.A.C. left the length as it was, and with the new engines and called it a super-super VC10—or something like that—we might have had an aircraft to match the new Boeing.
  It was not the Minister who shortened the length of the VC10 fuselage. Hon. Members opposite must get it out of their heads that this is a question of the Government making technical suggestions. The situation is that B.O.A.C. has made so many mistakes that one could almost make a filibustering speech on the subject. We must get the situation cleared up. I consider that the VC10 is a remarkable aircraft. With a specific range margin of 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of nominal figure it actually got to within 1 per cent. Because of that penalties of £20,000 per aircraft have been paid. The extra performance is in fact over and above specification as laid down by B.O.A.C. There are several thousand pounds of payload extra. The take-off is well below the original figure and all the other figures have been improved on. There is sophisticated refrigeration even when the aircraft is on the ground.

  577
  Unfortunately I have not been able to fly in one of them. I was asked to go to Lagos in one, but unfortunately on the same day we had the debate on the Ferranti affair. I went down to London Airport, however, to see one go to Nigeria. It went off with a full load of passengers, freight and fuel, flying straight to Lagos. There was no wind whatsoever, but it took off on less than half the runway like a Spitfire. It was a thrilling sight. Runways have been lengthened in many countries and this aircraft has abundance of stretch. The payload will go up. A new Boeing is being brought in.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member can put all this to the test. How many Super VC10s does he think we shall sell abroad?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I should have thought after what has happened in this House and in British newspapers in the last fortnight, none. But, looking ahead of the immediate future, when this aircraft has proved itself on its routes and when the Super goes on to the Atlantic route next year, it will do what the "Queen Mary" did. It will collect the traffic because it has so many features which are better than those of the Boeing. I am told—probably the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows this—that there is a very firm inquiry by Middle East Airways and that inquiries have been received from the Argentine, possibly Egypt, and other countries. I believe that when it has proved itself other airlines such as S.A.S. and K.L.M. will have to buy the Super VC10, for they will want to carry the traffic.
  However well the Concord project is going—no one knows very much about it—it is bound to be late; perhaps four years, because the problems are so great. The Americans may prevent our landing it in America at all if they have not got a supersonic airliner of their own. There should be eight or ten years' run for the VC10.
  Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member holds the view that as memories of the Government's handling of this problem fade the aircraft will sell on merit, why does he not advocate that the Government should take the whole 30, not for B.O.A.C. to take more than they want, but to put
  578
  them in store, phase them out and sell them?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am coming to the point about deliveries. I do not think it is the job of the Government to set up trading in aircraft. We have aircraft Corporations. I have no doubt that the hon. Member would go much farther than we are going now if his party were unfortunately successful in coming to power, but I do not expect that. I think the Government should arrange for the Corporation to take the 27, but I wish to ask my right hon. Friend about deliveries.
  We must be told more about deliveries because if seven aircraft were delivered in nearly four years I wonder what the Bill will be for the remaining 10 in the latter three years. The building is to take place at Vickers and subsidiary manufacturers and there will be an enormous bill. The more of these aircraft that we can get into service on the Atlantic route and elsewhere the more likely are we to get orders. We cannot stretch the programme out in this way. I tell my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor that I am far from satisfied about the phasing of these deliveries. The remaining 10 are in suspense. I do not quarrel with that, but the existing 17 should be built and delivered as rapidly as possible to B.O.A.C. If the taxpayers are footing the bill, B.O.A.C. must fit in with these views. The Corporation cannot have it both ways.
  In reviewing this matter, let the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember that, apart from what the industry hands over to other industries, 300 auxiliary companies are making parts of some sort for the VC10. I suppose that 90 per cent. of them are paying to the Treasury in Income Tax. Enormous sums come back to the Treasury every year in taxation. The men in good jobs are paying tax on this. What the cost to Britain would be of buying American would be catastrophic. To niggle over £15 million to £20 million is very short-sighted.
  Mr. Wigg: What about the postmen?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I wish the hon. Member for Dudley would control himself. He goes on for an hour when he speaks. I hope that before this Parliament ends, next week or whenever the House rises, we shall be told—because it

  579
  is very important that the country and the people in the industry should know where they stand and how their jobs will fare in the months ahead—a little more about deliveries. If that is not possible tonight I hope it will be done before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.
  I have the greatest admiration for Sir George Edwards. The Americans envy us for possessing such a man. He is not only a great designer and technician, but he is a commercial man and a good salesman. He is everything in one. He works himself to death. I do not know why; I have never seen such a worker. Cannot he and Sir Giles, who are both technical people, be compelled to work out a formula of costings and to get on with the job as rapidly as possible to speed up deliveries and get B.O.A.C. redundancies corrected? Where there are redundancies there must be proper compensation. By doing that I think we may have a great aircraft industry because I am convinced that, barring terrible things happening, the VC10 will be a world beater in three or four years' time and with it we can have a great airline.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: There are some things about which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) have spoken with which I gladly agree. I gladly agree about the value of the Select Committee's Reports. But for this Select Committee's Report and the previous one of the Ferranti affair, this House would have had no opportunity of considering the Ferranti affair and getting at the real facts or of getting at the real facts with reference to the VC10. The facts are not given by the Government Front Bench, but have to be extracted, and then inadequately and with difficulty, and barriers are put in the way of a Select Committee going into the matter in great detail.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that we are in a mess. That is what we are here to examine. I shall not do what he suggested everyone on this side of the House would do—whitewash B.O.A.C. I am much too interested in the success of B.O.A.C. to try to cover
  580
  up any defects which may exist in it. The only way of avoiding a repetition of this sad, disastrous situation is to make sure that one knows how it has arisen—not for the joy of having an inquest but for the important reason that if one knows why something has arisen one can take steps to avoid it happening again.
  I realise that I am the only hon. Member on this side of the House who so far has said that the Select Committee had insufficient evidence to come to the conclusion which it reached. I do not let out the Minister by this. There are so many good reasons for which one could condemn the Minister of Aviation that there is no cause to search for an unnatural and artificial one to add to the score. There does not seem any real evidence from the Report and from what the Minister said this afternoon, and more particularly subsequent actions by B.O.A.C, to suggest that the B.O.A.C. was compelled—I repeat, compelled—against its judgment and perhaps against its wish to take such an excessive number of planes.
  This is the main point which we are considering and we still, at 8.10 p.m., have no idea of how this fantastic situation arose. I do not know whether the House realises the extent of the mistake. We are told that the 1967 target for B.O.A.C. planes is 38—and the Corporation has ordered 62, which is 24 in excess of 38, over 60 per cent. more than the Corporation should have ordered according to its present views. If we take into account three which have already been cancelled and for which £200,000 each has been paid in compensation, we get a figure of about 70 per cent.
  I find it impossible to believe that a board could take these two decisions. I find it impossible to believe that a reasonable board, on objective grounds, could reach the conclusion that 62 were needed for 1967 and then that the same company, carrying on the same business, largely with the same management, although perhaps with some different people at the top level, could come to the conclusion in 1964 that the figure should be not 62 but 38. One of these two things is not right, and we have not had an explanation. It may be—I do not know—that the current estimate is

  581
  more at fault. It may be that 38 is a hopeless under-estimatc. It may be that 62 was a hopeless over-estimate.
  But I cannot believe that the same board, with the same information available to it, carrying on work in the same field, in which there has been a more or less anticipated rise in traffic and in which it has planned for certain routes and does not propose materially to alter them, could have reached these two decisions. These two statements do not go together, and I invite the Minister to obtain the true information for us. I am thinking of what might be involved if this happened again with supersonic travel. We do not know the figure which may be paid for cancellation in this case. We have been told that it is 30 planes at £1½ million each, which is £45 million, but I have heard a figure of £70 million suggested. All this will be chicken-feed by comparison with the trouble into which we shall run if we do not find out what went wrong and if we repeat the mistake in relation to the Concord or similar aircraft.
  I know that the Government Front Bench do not like compliments from me on aviation matters, but I nevertheless say that I am not satisfied that the fault was wholly with the Minister's intervention and that he pressed the Board to take such a decision. What would be the attitude of any managing director who was asked to take such a decision as was made if both these statements are correct—such a decision as to order 60 per cent. more aircraft than he needed, knowing that aircraft are vital to his industry, that they represent 80 per cent. of his capital commitments and that he was sinking his ship by ordering them? Any managing director who knew his job and who was asked to do that, would resign rather than do it.
  I am therefore nothing like satisfied that we have heard the truth of this situation. All the explanations and the indications given by the Select Committee are, with the greatest possible deference, not sufficient to satisfy me that both these things are right. There comes a time when one's commonsense revolts, and one has to stick to one's commonsense until one finds out the true facts.
  I turn from this to the other main aspect which we are considering—the general commercial attitude with which
  582
  we wish the Corporation to be run. I fear that, as often happens, a difficulty has arisen and because it has arisen the pendulum has swung completely from one side to the other. Instead of having a Corporation which had no commercial guidance at all, we swing completely the other way and we are to have an airline run in an exclusively commercial manner. This is not my view of a national organisation which is a flag carrier for the country. If we want a plain, commercial organisation, we have the independent airlines. There must be some difference between the independent airlines, being run purely for profit with an entrepreneur risking his capital, and the kind of organisation which we should see in B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. There is a difference.
  It is not right to say, as the Minister said, that we can have an exclusively commercial attitude on behalf of B.O.A.C. I do not know what he means by "commercial attitude", and I refer to his letter to Sir Giles Guthrie. I imagine that he means something comparable with the normal situation in private industry in which somebody takes the risk with his money in order to seek a gain in competitive circumstances.
  If this is to apply to this organisation, may I remind hon. Members that the method by which we measure the success or failure of a commercial undertaking is well defined but is defined in very narrow limits. Certain items are revenue and certain items are expenditure, and they refer to particular attitudes to a particular business. They take account of their narrow commercial interest, and they do not take account of all sorts of other factors which may be relevant from a national point of view but which, according to habit and custom—it is nothing more—are not considered to be relevant to the carrying on of that business.
  Let us see how this attitude is applied, for example, by the Minister to Ferranti. In Ferranti there was no competition. The order was simply placed. There was no risk-taking. The price was agreed after 84 per cent. of the labour costs had been incurred. It was nearly at the end of the job before the price was agreed. This is not taking a risk. I would not go as far as to say that in

  583
  the Ferranti case there was no private reward. It was a case of two civil servants going along and taking the Treasury bag, and inviting three gentlemen with the name "Ferranti" to dip their hands in up to their elbows and to take everything out of it—which they did. Ferranti is part of the aircraft industry.
  Let us see how this applies to the airlines. I do not know who has left his senses, Sir Giles Guthrie or myself. Because it is told to conduct its affairs on a commercial basis, the airline feels entitled to cancel contracts without considering the cost of cancellations one iota. No one has told us what the cost of the cancellations will be. No one has told us that it has even been taken into account. In the present situation we cannot calculate the compensation, for nobody knows how many planes will be taken up. All this is left in midair. And yet somebody tells us that a commercial attitude in running an organisation is interpreted by making a decision without regard to the cost which may be involved—and which may be up to £70 million. The decision is, "I want to cancel all my contracts because I prefer to run another aircraft which is £1 million or £2 million a year cheaper to run ". I am unable to understand all this. The Minister has offered no suggestion of what the compensation may be, nor has Sir Giles Guthrie made the slightest comment on what it might be.
  Mr. Lubbock: In a paper submitted to the Corporation by the managing director at the Board meeting on 12th July, 1962, he gave an estimate at that date of £30 million to £40 million for cancelling the whole of the VC10 fleet.
  Mr. Diamond: Yes, I understand that—at that date. Since then it has risen. I gave a low estimate of £45 million and a top estimate of £70 million. I may not be absolutely right. Nobody knows for certain. My estimate is sufficient to show the size of the problem. Here a Chairman and a Board are saying, "We can either carry on with VC10s, in which case we pay no compensation, but it may cost a little more to run each aeroplane, a matter of perhaps £1 million a year each. Alternatively, we may cancel the whole lot, running to £70 million. But I,
  584
  Sir Giles Guthrie, the Chairman and all my Board"—including a chartered accountant who has recently been brought on to the Board, the Minister said this afternoon—"will pay no attention to that. We shall not consider that".
  I tell hon. Members opposite that businesses are not run in that way. Decisions are not taken without considering the alternative costs. Of course there are alternative costs in running a Boeing fleet or a VC10 fleet or a mixed fleet. Both must be calculated, and one must decide which will cost more and what the net result is. That is a commercial approach. I do not know if somebody has taken leave of his senses. Because the Minister has written a letter saying, "You must go on a purely commercial approach", the suggestion is now made that the whole of the VC10 order can be cancelled without the cost being taken into account. The cost must be taken into account on somebody's books. If it is not on B.O.A.C.'s books, it is on Vickers' books. It is carried by the nation in one form or other, and that is what really matters.
  These are two attitudes merely to show that the Minister is not aware of what a commercial attitude is. He does not know, and he applies it in a ridiculously overstretched sense to one part and does not apply it at all to the other part of the empire over which he rules.
  We should take much more than a commercial view. Of course we must first take a commercial view. Of course one must measure what we are doing in an accepted commercial manner. That must be done, but that cannot be the only thing which must be done. We must then take into account many other considerations. It is not right to say that the chairman and the board of a nationalised undertaking should stand firmly and exclusively for a commercial point of view and should all resign if they are asked to do something which is noncommercial. Of course that is not right. They must understand that, although their first responsibility is to have regard to a commercial outcome, their further responsibility is to carry out the will of the Minister, if the Minister as the depository of the national interest tells the board, "What you have suggested is all right on commercial grounds, but commercial grounds are too narrow to be the sole deciding factor for a nationalised undertaking. You must do something

  585
  different on national grounds, in terms of the national interest".
  If a board were wholly married to a commercial approach and were unwilling to bend and be flexible and take a wider approach, there would merely be resignation after resignation after resignation. That is not the way to go about things. Of course the Minister must say, "If you are going to do something which is not commercial, I am prepared to pay you the established cost of doing it'' What I want to see in the accounts of B.O.A.C. is, in addition to all the usual items, an additional one—"To contribution to the national interest, £70 million ", or whatever it is. This item—"contribution to the national interest"—would arise from something which B.O.A.C. is doing, not because it is within the narrow commercial interests of B.O.A.C, but because it is in the established interest of the nation as a whole as laid down by the Minister, who is our safeguard in these matters, who is the representative of the nation in these matters.
  Let us see this item in the accounts, and then we shall be able to see what it is. It will be £x million. We will know. Then we can compare it with the other hidden assets we know about—the exports; the lead given to the engineering industry; the employment in various areas, particularly in Northern Ireland, which might not otherwise exist; the improvement in our balance of payments position; the new industry, such as electronics, which has been created. Those items cannot appear in a profit and loss account or in a balance sheet. I am an accountant. I know how narrow the scope of a balance sheet and a profit and loss account is, quite properly. All these other considerations must be taken into account in the House. We must take them into account. Therefore, let there be on the debit side the additional cost which a nationalised undertaking is carrying as a contribution to these undefined but very real assets which we create by having a nationalised undertaking.
  There must be one further thing, if a success is to be made of a nationalised industry. This may sound like a speech from a street corner, but it is not. It is the sort of speech I made from street corners in the early 1930s and 1940s. It is something I now know to be true for a fact. There will never be a successful nationalised industry management until
  586
  there is at the top somebody who believes in running a nationalised industry. I speak as an ex-managing director. It is part of one's daily thinking. Everybody who has had a job like this knows that one's door is continually being pushed open by people coming to ask such questions as, "What do I do about this? What do I do about that?" One is asked questions about small points of daily management to which people want to know the answer. A business does not stand still. It moves every hour.
  People asking such questions can have answers only in relation to a general policy which the managing director or chairman, in conjunction with the board, has established and which he has kept forward looking, because it is only by reference to that policy that he can give sensible instructions which tie up with other instructions. It is only in that way that he can communicate. It is only in that way that he can impart enthusiasm from top to bottom.
  That is why Lord Robens is making such a success of a nationalised industry. That is why B.E.A. is so successful, because for 15 years a Socialist has been at the top. I do not make any point about his being a Socialist, but there has been somebody in charge who believes in State industry and State enterprise playing its part. It is because he believes in it that his instructions have been passed on all down the line, that this philosophy has been proved in practice, that his enthusiasm has been got over to all employees, and that the profit and loss account at the end of the day shows the result expected from it.
  It is because there has been this changing of management, having people none of whom, as far as I am aware, understands or attempts to understand the real purpose of a nationalised industry, that we are in this general mess to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred and which we cannot precisely define in any other way. We must have continuity of management, but for heaven's sake let us have continuity of management which is sympathetic to nationalised industries and State enterprise and understands the purpose of it.

  587
  Finally, may I in a very few minutes say why I think that the Government are to be wholly criticised on the present situation and on the situation as a whole. I have listened to or taken part in every debate since 1957. The Government have failed the whole time to attempt to understand what a nationalised industry is about. The latest reminder I can give the House is the debate we had recently on nationalisation. I ask hon. Members to recall that debate and remember the heat, the chortling and the points of view which came from hon. Members opposite. I ask my hon. Friends to ask themselves whether there can be any doubt that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who gave vent to those feelings in the free attitude which was shared on both sides in that debate have no fundamental, profound sympathy or understanding for State enterprise. This is the kernel of it. How has it been demonstrated in the aviation world?
  From the word "go", there has been hostility towards the two Corporations as the flag carriers. Instead of being proud of having them as our flag carriers and supporting them strongly, the Government have been niggling at them in every possible way. They established a licensing system under which others could compete internally, a ridiculous attitude because there is external competition as hot as can be the whole time, and the board of B.O.A.C. have to spend all their time swotting the little flies which trouble them and are prevented from concentrating on their real job.
  The two-tier licensing system has produced a situation in which one one knows where he is. The great achievement of this Government has been to introduce uncertainty in every part of our lives. No one knows, not even the private operator, whether he will be able to get a licence or not, or whether, if he is refused one this year, he will be able to come back next year and get one. This is why we had the Gilbertian situation over Cunard. The Cunard licence was granted by the licensing authority and turned down by the Minister. Cunard did not know where it was, and B.O.A.C. did not know where it was or what might happen in a year. So they got together in the interests of competition. They merged, in the interests of competition, which is
  588
  supposed to be the whole basis of the licensing system.
  This ridiculous situation has its application today. The Minister began by telling us about the route structure and what number of planes would be required for a given route structure. I agree that that is a reasonable way of arriving at the number of planes; one establishes one's routes and draws the conclusion that so many planes are needed to run them. But, if I were managing director, I should not know how to work out the calculations. I should not know whether it was worth while starting now, with the chance of losing money on the routes, in the hope of getting profit later on when traffic expanded. I should be perfectly well aware that, the moment traffic showed signs of expansion, some private airline would have the right to apply to the licensing authority, show that the traffic was expanding, and on that ground come in on my monopoly which I had built up out of my losses.
  Mr. Dan Jones: It is being done.
  Mr. Diamond: It is being done the whole time, and it is the stupidest irrelevancy for the Minister to say that this has no connection with present problems. Of course it has.
  I have stated my criticism of the Government. I add now my criticism of the present Minister, the last and greatest of a line of incompetent Ministers, more incompetent than any who preceded him—and, my goodness, that is saying something. He has reached the almost impossible achievement of keeping every possible problem in the air. He is like a man in the control tower who, when told that there is a plane coming in to land, decides that it is much too difficult to take the necessary steps and keeps it circling round.
  Problem after problem is still circling round in the air waiting for—[An HON. MEMBER: "For Godot? "]—no, not for Godot; Godot is not the French for 15th October. Here are some of the problems still waiting and circling round. First, there is the £80 million accumulated loss of B.O.A.C. The arguments were settled long ago. We debated them thoroughly long ago. The

  589
  loss will be written off. The Minister and the Chancellor know that it will be written off. They both know that, if it were an ordinary public company, the Corporation could go to the court on a commercial application and get this lost capital written off. He wants it to be treated as a commercial organisation. We know that it will be done, but it is not done. It is not done in the interests of the nation, the interests of B.O.A.C. or the interests of Preston—1 do not know which—but, for one reason or another, it is not done. The problem is carefully kept waiting until after the General Election.
  The next item is the B.O.A.C. amortisation muddle to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) referred. I have no need to go over that ground again, though there is this further connection which my hon. and learned Friend did not mention—he is too much of a gentleman to mention it—that this crisis was reached in the middle of 1959, a few months before the election then. What was wanted, what the accountants and the board wanted, namely, the writing off of proper depreciation and the production of true and honest accounts, was prevented by the Government before the election which followed soon after, just as we are being prevented now from having the £80 million loss dealt with until after the election.
  There is the overpayment to Ferranti. What has happened about that? We hear nothing more about it. It is being held in the air, and we do not know whether Ferranti is to stick to its 100 per cent. plus profit or not. What is to happen about the VC10 compensation? We do not know about that.
  I realise that the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) wants to speak, so I will finish very quickly. Those are several items which are circling round without any opportunity to land, being kept in the air until the time comes when a new Government, of whichever colour it happens to be, will have to deal with them. Therefore, I reach the conclusion that the situation will never be satisfactory until we have a Government who understand what a nationalised industry is about and who
  590
  try to make it work sympathetically and until we have a Minister who is courageous and prepared to tackle problems and who is not anxious the whole time about what may happen back home at Preston.
  8.35 p.m.
  Sir William Robson Brown: I followed with a great deal of appreciation 99 per cent. of the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) until he finished with an observation with which I am never likely to agree. My own intense interest in this debate on a constituency matter is obvious to hon. Members and I have no need to enlarge upon it. I live in the village in which this factory is situated and I see the men who work in it, and sometimes the executive, every day of my life. My interest in (heir welfare and future is intense.
  My interest goes beyond that. I have an interest also in the British aircraft industry as a whole. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech, perhaps he will compliment me also. It seems to me that I shall have to lift my voice to its normal pretty powerful volume. All the speeches today, particularly on the VC10, have been most invaluable. The majority of hon. Members have been unanimous in their view.
  I should like to say how appreciative I am that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spent so much time in the Chamber during the debate. What he has heard, first about the quality of the VC10 and, secondly, the expressions of confidence in its future, are not idle words. The statements about marginal extra cost of operating are strictly accurate. I could put forward many more arguments of the same kind, but I will deal with only one which I feel is completely and absolutely convincing.
  When there is the opportunity of choosing between two aircraft on the same route which cost exactly the same money, it is inevitable that one will choose the aircraft which is safer, more comfortable and more acceptable in every way.
  Mr. D. Jones: And it is all the better if it is British.
  Sir W. Robson Brown: Let us take not only British passengers but international passengers. As has been said, many Americans pay tribute to British aircraft for the best of reasons.
  Let me come to the commercial argument that I wish to put forward. The extra cost is only fractional. All this talk about amortisation, and so on, is unintelligible to me as a man of business. It appears that some accountant has been let loose in B.O.A.C. to say, "Damn this thing somehow", and he seems to use the argument about amortisation as one with which no one can deal.
  We have an attractive aeroplane which will bring in additional passengers. The remarkable thing which hon. Members probably know but which the public does not know is that it is not necessary to get 10 or 20 more people in the aeroplane. At a reasonable estimate, five more passengers in the VC10 would turn the scales financially and would justify it. The aircraft has only just come into service. The praise of the passengers has been unprecedented. B.O.A.C. knows all about it. It is not necessary to look at the advertisements. The best advertisement is the man who says that he likes the plane and that it is the best that he has been in. There is no exaggeration about this.
  People may say that the pilots are no judges. But they are jolly good judges. I am very much happier when I am with a pilot who is happy with his plane.
  There is another aspect that worries me. I said on Monday that I could only express restrained relief at the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. I did not want to appear churlish. I had got a good deal more than at one time I thought we would get, and for that I am intensely grateful. I am not Oliver Twist coming back with his bowl the second time. Before I put my supplementary question, I had made some calculations and I said that I did not know at what rate the aircraft would now be accepted; I did not know what would happen to the economics of B.A.C. I think that in these unfortunate and exceptional circumstances, everybody will get the worst of all possible worlds. I will explain why.
  592
  Vickers now have to sit with damp towels around their heads and somehow make the figures fit into a timetable. They will not be able to do it and keep their costs right. Their costs inevitably will increase. Talking through this House to the men in the works at Weybridge in my constituency, I want to tell them that the so-called suspension of the final 10 aircraft is only suspension and cannot be cancellation. It is a firm order which cannot be cancelled without permission and without compensation to the British Aircraft Corporation.
  I now address myself to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like him to turn his mind to the second worst of all worlds and that is B.O.A.C, which is to operate a number of Boeings. The argument which is used about this is so extraordinary that I now turn it back upon B.O.A.C. The Corporation says that amortisation has gone very well and is now half complete. Is not that a sound reason why we should now change our policy and, in a phased programme, sell the Boeings in the world markets at a good price, show no loss and bring in the VC10s and put them into service instead of into mothballs? The final result for Sir Giles Guthrie and his colleagues would be better than having a bastard organisation with, on the one side, Boeings foisted upon him by his American pressure group, which we all know about, and, on the other side, this small handful of VC10s to try to fill the gap.
  There has been far too much pessimism about the future of VC10s with B.O.A.C. The Corporation has got the potential of this aircraft all wrong in what are called the route calculations. I will explain my reason for saying this with argument and not with emotion. I have spent a great deal of the last four or five days seeing as many heads of independent and other airlines as I could in readiness for this debate. They have told me that the one thing they do not understand is the phenomenal increase in trans-Atlantic air travel in particular since the reduction in fares. I could not believe the figures which they gave me.
  As the figures were given to me confidentially I cannot give names, but I have looked at them carefully and I can only say that the figures of B.O.A.C. must

  593
  have been seriously wrong. I believe that with the quality of an aeroplane like the VC10, the Corporation's figures will be proved even more wrong than ever before and that within another two years the Corporation will be wanting every aircraft that it can lay its hands upon. In the meantime, however, we have thrown over this aircraft a cloud that a very great deal of optimistic talking, salesmanship and public relations will be needed to dispel. What worries me is that Sir Giles Guthrie, for what reason I do not know, and probably never will comprehend, made that release to the Press last week, which virtually made an absolutely straight declaration, "I do not want to fly British". That is what he said: "I do not want to fly British. Please, I want to fly Boeings. "Imagine the impact of that on the world. He said he wanted to cancel the other VC10s.
  Mr. John Hynd: He did not say he did not want to fly British.
  Sir W. Robson Brown: Of course, not bluntly, just like that, but that is the way the whole world read it. Let me make my speech in my own way. If I go wrong hon. Members can correct me, but otherwise let me proceed.
  He having made that statement, we have to try now, between us, to recover lost ground. I do not want to make a windy speech, but I should like to say to the Minister that I sympathise with him in this because he has had a lot of worries put on his shoulders, matters for which he had not responsibility at all. We have got a world beater. So let us get the closest co-operation now between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and the Government. Let my right hon. Friend the Chancellor consider what so many Members, not only this Member, have said, including my hon. Friend—my very gallant and honourable and distinguished Friend—the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) who has so much experience in these things. Let my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acknowledge what the House has said, including Members of the Opposition. Perhaps he cannot do it tonight—he could, but he probably will not—but let him say that he will postpone a decision.
  I have a measure of sympathy with Sir Giles Guthrie in this problem. I censure him for what he has done, but I acknow-
  594
  ledge that he has taken on a back-breaking task of reorganisation requiring a superman to accomplish it. I repeat what I have said before, that he has got to battle with the American lobby in B.O.A.C, and he has to deal with the problem of surplus staff throughout the organisation, and I was impressed by his human approach to the problem of redundancy, for he has assured us that he will deal properly, indeed generously, with his men. That is the only sort of satisfaction I have got out of this business.
  It has been said before, and I shall not labour it, that he himself has put the most convincing advertisements in the Financial Times about the plane. Now I say to him, "Let us stand behind what you have said. Let us turn over a new leaf. Let us enter on a new phase." Instead of having the worst of all possible worlds, let us get the best of all possible worlds.
  It seems to me that the financial experts of B.O.A.C. went up into the upper stratosphere when they started to tear down the performance of the VC10. I do not think that any one of us has had an opportunity really to examine the basis upon which they damned it so severely and cruelly. It has come out of this debate that what we are really discussing is a fractional difference.
  It seems to me that I might compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister for anticipating what I wrote down as a note this morning, for he has said that he is going to call a round-table conference with B.O.A.C. and the independent British airlines to see exactly what they can do between them and together. I have sufficient information to believe that something quite convincing and remarkable will come out of this. I believe that we can recover from this situation, and do in this situation rather what we did when the Viscount was first condemned.
  Mr. D. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that last Monday's statement is likely to be withdrawn?
  Sir W. Robson Brown: I am asking the Government Front Bench to modify it in a number of ways as I have explained and, in particular, to rephase the production of the VC10. The Government should not stop its production but should let it go on, and in the meantime phase out the Boeings. This

  595
  is what I am asking the Government to reconsider, and I believe that the meeting which has been suggested may well move in that direction.
  A most distressing factor would have arisen had the Government acceded to Sir Giles Guthrie's request on a commercial basis. I must say that I very much agreed with my right hon. Friend about this, and I could enlarge considerably on it, because this is my life. This is the assessment on a commercial basis. It seems to me that in respect of a nationalised industry of this kind, a flag-carrying service, we should say, "You must be British unless there is absolutely the most convincing reasons why you should not be, and you must convince us before you take any action. "We cannot give any chairman of any board a blank cheque with regard to policy or finance—certainly not with regard to policy. He must believe and understand that the chairman is not the final authority and that the final authority is the Minister.
  I think that at this moment of time, for a while until more VC10s get into the air and more passengers travel and the news gets around, we have had a setback. But I am also worried that this debate and the last couple of weeks of sad recrimination have damaged other British aircraft and their prospects. I do not know what the effect will be on the orders in the United States for the BAC111 and what orders will be lost. The public do not generally understand that the competition in the international field of aircraft is about the fiercest in the world.
  The American aircraft industry holds all the aces all the way. It has massive Government orders for military aircraft on which civil designs are based. It has a large internal market. There is also the size of the United States airlines. The orders which they place, by their very size, are four times what we can achieve at any one moment. Also, the postal contracts are a form of subsidy to the American aircraft industry. There is also the very size of the aircraft industry itself, and its production facilities and the quantities that it can bring off the line. These are the things that we are asking Sir George Edwards and his team of men at Weybridge to accept, fight against and beat, and the Government must give them
  596
  every assistance that they possibly can. I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said about Sir George. He is a man who is quick of mind, humorous in his approach and human in his attitude, and he is beloved by his men. He has had to carry a cross in the last few weeks the like of which I would never have wanted to bear.
  Finally, having mentioned the terrific competition with the United States of America, I would ask whether it is not feasible that we should consider not only European co-operation but international co-operation. Cannot the Governments of the United States, Great Britain and Europe sit at a round table and say how stupid this all is? Let them all agree—
  Mr. D. Jones: We should never get agreement from the U.S.A.
  Sir W. Robson Brown: I am making the suggestion in all sincerity and will give my conclusion in the event of our not succeeding. First, we should work out reasonable solutions to design problems. Instead of competing with one another we should be united. The design problems would be easier to solve. There would be a better distribution nationwise of the aircraft themselves. In relation to the size of the various companies, the operating costs would be lower. Fares could be reduced. Huge increases would result in air traffic. The whole thing would be an economy by thousands of millions and we would all move in the right direction.
  If that is not possible, then we have to say that we must stand behind our own national organisations—behind B.O.A.C. if it stands behind the British aircraft industry. I have the belief, faith and confidence in the factories that produced the Spitfire, which enabled us to win the Battle of Britain. They may, after all, again be required. What a tragic thing if all these techniques and skills were dispersed. A good deal of it would go to America.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) has made a fine electioneering speech and his constituents are fortunate that October is coming so soon. He has also prevented me saying a lot of things that I intended to say and asking a lot of pertinent questions of the

  597
  Government. I wanted to refer in some detail to the proposals made by Sir Matthew Slattery in August, 1962, which the Minister did not even bother to mention today.
  Most of the proposals made by Sir Matthew in his memorandum were sound common sense. Some—including the directive that the Minister gave to Sir Giles Guthrie on his appointment-have been implemented. Others, so far as I know, have not been referred to in any detail since the memorandum was submitted to the Minister. I will refer to two examples.
  First, Sir Matthew asked for Government action to limit fifth freedom rights. He pointed out that K.L.M., Sabena and S.A.S. carried 7,049, 3,296 and 13,810 passengers respectively from British airports in 1963. This was a total of 24,155, amounting to over 11 per cent. of the total traffic.
  Since then the Minister has taken steps to limit the fifth freedom rights of S.A.S. to Prestwick, but what has been done in this respect about K.L.M. and Sabena? We should not wipe out fifth freedom rights altogether because we ourselves benefit from them. The "Bermuda philosophy" to which we have subscribed, is summed up by Stephen Wheatcroft in his book "Air Transport Policy". He says:
  "It is recognised that the economical operations of long-haul carriers necessitated carriers having rights to carry traffic on intermediate sectors, and this so called ' fifth freedom' traffic is allowed to them providing that total capacity operated is reasonably related to the end to end potential of the route."
  That is not the case with the operations of K.L.M. or Sabena and it is time that the right hon. Gentleman placed restrictions on them as well as on the S.A.S. rights.
  Another matter on which B.O.A.C. has asked for direct help from the Minister is in the failure of the I.A.T.A. to enforce its traiff. Sir Matthew Slattery said that malpractices were becoming more widespread and he wanted the Minister to take a much tougher line with the countries whose airlines are known to cheat. If this knowledge is shared between the Ministry and B.O.A.C., what action did the right hon. Gentleman take?
  598
  Sir Matthew Slattery was completely vindicated by the Report of the Select Committee and I agree with those hon. Members who say that the Minister should make a personal apology to Sir Matthew for the shabby way in which ho has been treated. The only criticism I would perhaps make of Sir Matthew is that he should have insisted on his proposals being made public when he first submitted them to the Minister in August, 1962.
  I want to say something about the cancellations of the VC10 proposed by Sir Giles Guthrie and the fleet requirements he has been left with. I do not understand how it can be that the order placed for 42 VC10s can now be reduced by such a substantial amount. Surely the calculation could not have been so wildly out. I have done my own sums on the basis of traffic carried in 1962–63 when B.O.A.C. produced 931,100 capacity ton miles, of which 487 million ton miles were produced by the Boeing 707. The Corporation had an average of about 18 aircraft in use during that time and with 20 could have produced 541 million capacity ton miles.
  Assuming the VC10 to have the same essential output—which is not true because, of course, the standard version is smaller than the Boeing 707—the 29 aircraft which Sir Giles Guthrie has now agreed to take would produce 784 million capacity ton miles, giving the Corporation a total carrying capacity of 1,324,700 capacity ton miles by the time all the aircraft were delivered.
  In the last issue of the B.O.A.C. "News Letter", Sir Giles Guthrie says that he is planning on an expansion of 10 per cent. on the passenger side and 20 per cent. on the freight side in the next four years. I have applied that 10 per cent. cumulative rate of interest to the 931 million capacity ton miles produced in 1963. With all these aircraft in use and fully utilised, by 1966–67 total capacity would be 1,324,700 capacity ton miles, assuming the utilisation at the same rate as now, which is nine hours a day for the Boeing 707. Sir Matthew Slattery said in the memorandum of August, 1962, that he did not think that any improvement on that utilisation was possible, because B.A.O.C.s utilisation of aircraft was already a good deal better than that of its competitive airlines.

  599
  I promised to sit down by nine o'clock. All I will say in conclusion is that if John Bloom had been Minister of Aviation, he could hardly have got into a bigger muddle than the Minister. Instead of a frank admission of failure, he has smugly tried to justify his actions since he has been in his present office. His speech was an absolute insult to the intelligence of the House and the people of the country as a whole, and he will pay for it in October.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: I should first like to thank the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for truncating his speech on my behalf and for the courteous way in which he did so. Both sides of the House will agree with me if I say once more how much we owe to the Select Committee for this admirable Report, one of the finest reports produced in this Parliament. It has been of the greatest help to us. I want particularly to thank the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), for his help in this matter. It is particularly unfortunate that the Minister was so unco-operative with the Select Committee. It is very surprising that he would not allow the Select Committee to see the Corbett Report, particularly as it has been drifting all over Fleet Street for the last few months. This is part of the obscurantism which is clearly now a fashion at the Ministry of Aviation.
  The principal topic of debate this evening has been the VC10. Those of us who have flown in it are bound to make a few remarks about it. It really is the most advanced, the most admirable, long-range jet aircraft in existence. It is quiet and comfortable and, on account of its lower approach speed and other advanced systems, it is the safest aircraft in existence. I am sure that it will have a good deal of passenger appeal and that there will be enormous developments of it—that it will be "stretched" as the expression goes and become a bigger and more economic aircraft. It is particularly unfortunate that this very fine product of British engineering should have had this utterly deplorable publicity. The Minister's part in this is equally deplorable. The VC10 has certainly not had a fair trial.
  600
  Excellent as this plane is, one cannot escape from the fact that it is unwise to order too many planes for any airline. It is always bad to have too much, even of the best things, and in this case the results could be financially disastrous. Although it has great advantages in passenger appeal, there is no doubt that the VC10 has certain marginal economic difficulties. It may well be that if B.O.A.C. finds itself using VC10s in excess of its requirements it will have to pay a considerable financial penalty.
  Sir Giles Guthrie in his well-publicised statement in B.O.A.C. News said on Saturday that seven Super VC10s would cost an extra £15 million in the course of their lives. As we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, he can work out that 17 would probably cost an extra £37 million. The financial effects of an excess order of VC10s would be very disagreeable in many ways.
  It might have been better in the long run if there had been some modifications in the design of the VC10, because one gets the impression that B.O.A.C. is not completely happy, to say the least, with the design of its VC10 order. It might well have been possible to modify it so that it could compete more effectively with the big American jets. This was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in his admirable speech.
  The dominant factor in this debate is how the Minister has denied all responsibility on the part of the Government. He has rather suggested that B.O.A.C. has been entirely responsible from start to finish for the VC10 order. This seems to me to be an extraordinary rejection of Government responsibility. Under the Air Corporations Act the Minister has a duty to loan the money to B.O.A.C. to purchase these aircraft, and he in turn has to make a case to the Treasury to obtain the money. The Minister has the right to give general directions to the Board. He appoints and now dismisses the members of the Board. The Ministry admitted in a memorandum which was supplied to the Estimates Committee for its report on transport aircraft this session—this appears at paragraph 12 on page 3 of its Memorandum—that it advises the

  601
  Corporation as to the future type of aircraft and it has to give its approval for any aircraft orders that are placed. There is no doubt that the Government have a clear responsibility in the matter, and the Minister does not do himself justice by trying to thrust that responsibility entirely on past Chairmen of B.O.A.C.
  We know that in April 1957 B.O.A.C. agreed to place an order for 35 VC10s, with an option for 20 more. This could not have been done without the consent of the Minister at that time, because he had to find the money, and he had to give his consent. One wonders why the Minister gave his consent so easily without inquiring into the matter further, because it was common knowledge in those days in aviation circles that this order was rather excessive.
  Fligh of 7th June, 1957, said:
  "The order for 35 Vickers VC10s alone represents a very large amount of capacity—equivalent to about three times that of B.O.A.C.'s total fleet in 1956. The VC10 fleet may not be in full service until 1965; but add the traffic potential of the other aircraft on order and it appears that, even assuming a truly prodigious increase in business, the Corporation will have too much equipment on its hands in 1965."
  That was common knowledge in the aircraft industry at that time, and the then Minister had every kind of expert to advise him. Why did not the Government query that order? Why do they now try to avoid responsibility for it?
  Towards the end of 1957 B.O.A.C.'s engineering department expressed doubts about the economic potential of the VC10. The Minister at the time must have known this. There was a conflict between B.O.A.C.'s engineering department and the Royal Aircraft Establishment, and in view of that conflict it was suggested that Vickers should guarantee that the VC10s would have a performance equivalent to that of the American jets, but Vickers declined to give that guarantee. Again I ask: why did the Minister with that warning completely ignore the possibilities that lay ahead?
  We know that in 1960 B.O.A.C. ordered a further 10 VC10s in addition to this already large order. We know from the Select Committee's helpful Report that when Sir Matthew Slattery the last Chairman of B.O.A.C. queried
  602
  the order he was told by the outgoing Chairman, Sir Gerard d'Erlanger that it was too late, that he had been under severe pressure, and that it had been necessary for the Minister's plan for the formation of the British Aircraft Company. We heard also from Sir Matthew Slattery in a Report made by the Estimates Committee on Transport Aircraft exactly the same thing. I should like to emphasise that at the time Sir Matthew Slattery made that statement he was no longer in any way responsible for the affairs of B.O.A.C. and had never had any responsibility for the ordering of the excess of VC10 aircraft. So he was the last man who had any motive at all for distorting the truth in any way.
  We heard from Sir Basil Smallpeice, the last managing director of B.O.A.C, that pressure had been put by the Government to make this excess order for VC10s, and we also heard from Sir Basil Smallpeice that the design had been changed on account of political pressure. The Minister has given no answer to this. Here is a direct confrontation of evidence between the Minister and the former Chairman and former managing director of B.O.A.C.—a clear confrontation of completely different versions
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say who changed the design and what to? It was made to a specification of B.O.A.C, with penalty clauses none of which has been invoked.
  Mr. Cronin: I said that Sir Basil Smallpeice said that political pressure had been applied to change the design.
  One has to face this basic question before the House: who really was responsible for the ordering of VC10s greatly in excess of the requirements. According to the Minister, it was not the Government. We have the completely opposite version that it was due to Government pressure. Hon. Members will have to think this out for themselves. I must say that in the dealings that we have had with the Minister over the last two years he has not treated us always with competely luminous candour. My own feeling is that this rather scandalous crisis that has arisen has been a direct responsibility of the Government. I think that the Minister is playing a rather shabby part in denying all responsibility.

  603
  I want to be fair to the Minister. There is no doubt that when he took over in 1962 he had some very disagreeable problems in front of him. Nevertheless, his actions since then have hardly contributed helpfully towards B.O.A.C's affairs. When the Minister took over in 1962 that was the year when B.O.A.C. had its worst deficit—it suddenly rose to £64 million. There was no time when B.O.A.C. needed more help, leadership and positive guidance from the Minister, and, according to the Report, it had none at all—there was complete and absolute inertia. We know that Sir Matthew Slattery tried to remedy it and pointed out to the Minister the deficiencies in B.O.A.C's Board's composition and its methods of work. He wished to make some improvement, but the Minister, according to the Report, declined to discuss the matter.
  Again, Sir Matthew Slattery raised the possibility of reducing the size of the fleet and making some modifications to the order, but again the Minister completely refused to discuss the matter. In fact, the Deputy-Secretary said that the whole matter was put into purdah. Hon. Members will notice that in every attempt that B.O.A.C. made to reorganise in this critical period of its career, it was completely thwarted by the Minister, and he himself was in purdah for 18 months.
  B.O.A.C, as some hon. Members have pointed out, had considerable difficulties in that they lost revenue consistently to other airlines picking up passengers in Great Britain and taking them to other countries. E1 A1, Sabena, K.L.M. Air France and S.A.S. deprived B.O.A.C. of about £3 million in revenue each year. This was put to the Minister from the beginning of his taking over office by B.O.A.C. and by numerous of my hon. Friends, but no action was taken until a few months ago. Then action was taken only in respect of S.A.S. about 2 months ago. There has been a loss of millions of pounds revenue simply because the Minister refused to take appropriate action.
  Hon. Members have drawn attention to the way in which the Minister has refused to allow B.O.A.C. to do any chartering for troop carrying. This has meant a loss of several millions of pounds each year.
  604
  Why has the Minister consistently refused? This is something that I hope the Chancellor will tell us tonight.
  The Minister's first positive action was to appoint the Corbett inquiry and, as a consequence, we had the White Paper. But the Corbett inquiry caused a serious deterioration of relations between the Ministry of Aviation and B.O.A.C. The Select Committee said:
  "As a result, B.O.A.C. and the Ministry have sometimes appeared to your Committee as contenders primarily concerned with self-justification, rather than as partners".
  This is a terrible indictment of the Minister, whose duty it is to co-ordinate aviation. It is in paragraph 283 and while the Minister is looking it up I will move to the White Paper.
  The House has never had such a misleading and disingenuous document out before it as the White Paper on The Financial Problems of B.O.A.C. The White Paper refers to the losses made by subsidiary companies of B.O.A.C, but it is only when we read the Select Committee's Report that we learn that in the case of West Indian Airways the subsidiary company was formed at the request of the Ministry; that in the case of Bahamas Airways the Ministry again intervened, and in the case of Middle East Airways the Foreign Office intervened. In all these cases there was direct Government intervention. This has emerged from the Select Committee's Report, but there was nothing about it in the White Paper.
  The White Paper referred to the failure of the Corporation to present in its accounts the real value of its aircraft until the 1961–62 accounts. But we know that in March, 1959, B.O.A.C. decided to write down the value of its aircraft to their true figure, and we know that the Minister declined to allow it to do so. It is very difficult to get to the truth of the matter, but on the face of it it looks as though the Minister was suggesting that B.O.A.C. should cook its books.
  We shall never get at the absolute clear truth because the whole matter was decided at a meeting between the Minister and the Chairman of B.O.A.C. on 30th July, 1959. They discussed the whole question of the suppression of the true figures. The present Minister has absolutely refused to allow the Select

  605
  Committee to see the minutes of that meeting. What has he to hide? Why should he have declined to allow the Committee to see the minutes, if something rather shabby was not taking place?
  In the White Paper the Minister said:
  "Nevertheless the rate at which B.O.A.C. continued to expand its capacity and frequency was unduly optimistic."
  But when we read the Select Committee's Report we learn that this expansion was forced upon B.O.A.C. by the excessive number of aircraft it ordered as a result of Government pressure. This was not mentioned in the White Paper. I can give the Minister all the quotations that he wants.
  After the publication of the White Paper the Minister came out of purdah and took action. He dismissed practically the whole of B.O.A.C.'s Board. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably agree that the Select Committee's Report shows one thing very clearly, namely, that Sir Matthew Slattery and Sir Basil Smallpeice—Chairman and Managing Director—were treated very badly indeed. There is no doubt at all that the recent figures show that the accounts of B.O.A.C. are about £9 million better off as a result of the actions of those gentlemen and they were treated very shabbily.
  The Minister had his famous luncheon party at the Stafford Hotel and appointed Sir Giles Guthrie to be Chairman of B.O.A.C. This is the time when the Minister's affairs took a turn very much for the worse. Not only did he appoint Sir Giles Guthrie, but he gave him the directive of 1st January asking him to run B.O.A.C. entirely on a commercial basis. Sir Giles took this quite seriously and, apparently at the Minister's request, published his findings. The principal finding was, of course, that VC10s had been ordered greatly in excess. The Minister, who has adopted an obscurantist attitude with regard to the Corbett Report and other papers helpful to this House in these matters, really went wild and let publicity get completely out of hand so far as the VC10s were concerned. As a result we have had all this dirty linen washed in public, very much to the disadvantage of the British aircraft industry. If the Minister had really taken some steps to co-ordinate matters between his Ministry and B.O.A.C. this very dis
  606
  agreeable publicity would never have occurred.
  Finally, on Monday we had the statement of the Minister's decision on his action to remedy affairs regarding the VC10 order. The first thing which occurs to most of us is that we have heard today nothing about the financial effects. These are of the utmost importance and will cost the country tens of millions. The Minister's friend, Mr. Chapman Pincher, referred to £50 million or £80 million. These are very alarming figures. It is particularly sinister that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to wind up this debate for the Government. It suggests that the financial effects will be very disagreeable. I should like to know why hon. Members were not informed of the true financial effects at the beginning of the debate so that we could have discussed them. Why are these figures locked as secrets in the capacious bosom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why must we wait for the speech from the Chancellor before we know what are the financial consequences of the excessive VC10 order.
  The effects on B.O.A.C. have been of a very serious kind. There is now no longer any pretence of B.O.A.C. operating on a commercial basis. There has been a complete reversal of the Minister's January policy of running the Corporation on a commercial basis. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the future relations to be between the Ministry of Aviation and B.O.A.C, bearing in mind that both now have completely different views about what kind of fleet should be employed. There is complete and absolute disagreement. How is the Minister to cope with the situation? He has not shown such tact in the handling of affairs that this promises well now.
  Nearly all major policy decisions in respect of airlines centre on aircraft procurement. Here we have a situation in which the aircraft procurement policy of B.O.A.C. is completely at variance with that of the responsible Minister. I suggest that this is a substitution of in-built chaos for co-operation, and that the Minister is completely responsible.
  The morale of B.O.A.C. has probably now reached its lowest ebb. It declined when there was that heavy deficit in

  607
  1961–62. It declined as a result of the Minister's tactless Corbett inquiry. It probably declined even more substantially when he made his wholesale dismissal of the Board of B.O.A.C. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of the Minister's statement on Monday the morale of B.O.A.C. has now reached bottom. The 22,000 devoted men and women who have served B.O.A.C. and the interests of Britain all over the world do not deserve this shabby treatment.
  I ask hon. Members to consider the effects on the aircraft industry. It is hardly necessary to emphasise the severe damage done to the prospects of the Super VC10 in regard to foreign customers. Who will order the VC10 after the Minister has announced that work on the last 10 will remain in suspense and no further work will be done on them? Who will order VC10s after Sir Giles Guthrie's widely publicised report—widely publicised presumably with the consent of the Minister—which indicates that he is prepared to pay about £50 million rather than have the VC10s? There was no need for this to be produced in public. The Minister has dealt blows before to the aircraft industry and he is doing so now.
  At this moment he is in negotiation with the United States to re-equip the Fleet Air Arm with Phantom fighter aircraft and with the Italians to re-equip the Army with light helicopters. The Minister is doing his worst for the British aircraft industry. It is not merely a question of the VC10s. B.A.C. will be affected much more widely. We heard today that T.W.A. has decided to reject the excellent BAC111 and to take instead the DC9 a completely inferior plane. This loss of a valuable export order is largely due to the Minister's statement. The fall-out of this unhappy affair will affect not only B.A.C. but the whole British aircraft industry and many subsidiary industries. The country will have to pay a high price for the Minister's irresponsibility.
  The way in which the VC10 matter has been handled shows that the Minister is incapable of taking any really effective decision. This is a situation which applies not only to this Minister. None of the Ministers are at present
  608
  able to take decisions, because they are all looking over their shoulders at the approaching General Election. All the Ministers now are being manipulated by the Conservative electoral machine. They are being manipulated like puppets. The Treasury Bench is now occupied by the zombies of the Conservative Central Office. We have to wait another three months for a change of Government and the return of life and vigour, not only to aviation but to the whole country.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I thought that the concluding passages of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) were getting a little off beam. To suggest that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation was responsible for the loss of the order of the BAC111, announced in the paper today, was as poor an argument as could possibly have been put forward.
  There are several things which the whole House has had in common in the debate. The first is a desire to congratulate the Select Committee on a clear and excellent Report which has provided a basis for a very constructive and considerable debate. The second is that we all agree that B.O.A.C. is a fine airline with a magnificent record of safety. It is a very fine airline by which to travel. We all seek to travel by B.O.A.C. when we can, as do many people in other countries.
  Next, we all accept that the VC10 is a fine aircraft, with great passenger appeal and great technical qualities. All these are facts which we accept. At the same time, we must accept the other facts that B.O.A.C. has piled up over recent years a very large deficit which must be dealt with, and that the chairman of B.O.A.C. feels that to operate the VC10 involves a financial penalty, either on capital or current account, of a considerable character, offsetting, in his view, the great technical qualities and the passenger and crew appeal of the aircraft.
  This is the situation which we face in the debate. My right hon. Friend who moved the Motion dealt, I thought conclusively, with the argument about the VC10 in particular and why we have taken the decision which he.

  609
  announced. I intend, with the leave of the House, to come back a little later to some of these arguments and to deal with points which have been made in the debate.
  First, however, I would deal with the Amendment which the Opposition have placed on the Order Paper and which would add to our Motion,
  "but regrets that the policies of Her Majesty's Government have contributed largely to the difficulties now confronting the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British aircraft industry".
  No evidence whatever has been produced to support that assertion. I will go through one or two speeches which have been made.
  What have been the accusations made against us in the speeches of the hon. Members for Newton (Mr. Lee), Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), Loughborough and others? I have made a note of the arguments put forward. For example, we have been told about the difficulties in respect of depreciation charges. I agree, and I accept on behalf of the Treasury that probably we should have pursued this matter more vigorously, but this is a question of the Government not having pursued B.O.A.C. vigorously enough to make a change from what the Corporation was doing: it cannot be an argument for saying that Government policy was inhibiting what the Corporation wanted to do.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Loughborough, the reason why we did not agree to B.O.A.C. writing off a substantial amount in its accounts was that we felt, as the Select Committee felt, that writing off capital of that kind should not be permitted without the authority of Parliament. I should have thought that on this matter the Select Committee vindicated us entirely.
  The hon. Member for Newton and others raised the questions of the independent airlines, and of trooping, as if they were a substantial handicap to B.O.A.C. I cannot accept that. I do not think that it is supported by the logic of the Report or the evidence. Indeed, it seems quite clear from reading the Report that whatever rights the independent airlines have to apply to operate in competition on B.O.A.C.'s main trunk routes, they have been very unsuccessful in getting permission to do so—so unsuccessful
  610
  that I believe that I am right in saying that the Select Committee did not even refer to the competition of the independent airlines in the conclusions at the end of their Report.
  I should have thought that the position in trooping is fair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) mentioned in his intervention. We believe that the independent air companies can and will make a very valuable contribution to this country's economy. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) talked about B.O.A.C. swatting the flies. I do not regard the independent airline operators as flies to be swatted. I regard them as people who should be given a good opportunity. We have explained in debate after debate how we regard the trooping arrangements which we have as part and parcel of the development of independent airlines in the general interests of the economy. It is fair to say that while they are so restricted in competing against B.O.A.C. on its main trunk routes it is not unreasonable that B.O.A.C. should be restricted in competing against them in these trooping contracts.
  Mr. Cronin: While the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the subject of the independents, will he clear up one point? We heard from Sir Giles Guthrie last Saturday that he will cut out completely the South American routes. We heard in the Minister's statement on Monday that he is hoping to sell VC10s to British Eagle Airways to operate the South American routes. Will the right hon. Gentleman throw some light on that?
  Mr. Maudling: Quite right. There is a proposal from Sir Giles Guthrie, as I understand it, to cut out these routes. It is at present a proposal. I have heard that some other operators have suggested that they might operate those routes. I should be interested to look at their proposals, because if one could find an independent operator who would run a useful service for this country without costing the taxpayer money I, for one, would be prepared to allow it. These are proposals we must consider.
  Another criticism made by hon. Members is the position of the aircraft fleet of B.O.A.C. This is a matter at which the hon. Member for Newton and others have hammered a good deal, arguing

  611
  that we have pressed B.O.A.C. to take too many aircraft and that we have pressed B.O.A.C. to take the wrong aircraft—in other words, to take British aircraft. I find this argument, apart from being inaccurate, rather inconsistent with the attitude of hon. Members who say that they would not cancel a single aircraft but would keep the whole contract going.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation dealt very fully in the course of his speech with the argument that we pressed B.O.A.C. to take too many aircraft. It is not true, as I see it on the evidence, that we have pressed B.O.A.C. to buy an excessive number of aircraft. It is certainly true that, on present showing, B.O.A.C has ordered too many aircraft It was a fault of optimism. That is the truth of the matter. It was a fault of over-estimating the growth of air traffic, which the Select Committee said in parts of its Report may not prove in the long run to be quite so unjustified as some people think. There was a short-term setback in the development of air transport, but that short-term setback may not prove to be lasting.
  As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the decisions of B.O.A.C. to buy aircraft on this scale were decisions taken by B.O.A.C. in the exercise of its management responsibilities and not under the directions of Ministers. I thought that the hon. Member for Stechford rather helped us in this matter, if I am quoting him rightly, when he talked about B.O.A.C. placing a big order with Vickers because Vickers needed a large order. This is one of the points—the need to have large orders to give an economic basis for production in this country. The hon. Gentleman went on to say afterwards that B.O.A.C. then threw away its excuse by taking an option on a further large number of aircraft. In other words, the hon. Gentleman rather supported our case that B.O.A.C. by its order and by taking that further option made it clear, if excuse is needed, that it was its own management's judgment that this quantity of aircraft would be required.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I also made it clear that, in my view, it is plain that B.O.A.C. would not in fact have put part of that
  612
  option into operation without pressure from the Ministry and, to some extent, from Vickers two years later.
  Mr. Maudling: I find the attitude of the party opposite to pressure rather odd. "Pressure" is a word which carries a pejorative sense in Parliament sometimes. Is there anything wrong in trying to persuade B.O.A.C. to buy more British aircraft in order to support the production and development of overseas sales? What I am saying is that in fact these decisions were taken on the responsibility of B.O.A.C.; but, if it were true that they were taken under pressure, would that pressure be particularly wrong?
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Pressure may be wrong or may be right, but what is wrong is for pressure to be applied and for the Minister then to devote most of his speeech to denying it.
  Mr. Maudling: I said categorically that pressure was not applied. But, if it had been, would it have been such a bad thing? I take the other example of what is regarded as pressure on B.O.A.C, the suggestion that the Corporation was put in the position of having to choose British aircraft "or else". I suppose that, in a sense, that was a form of pressure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Albu: Even if the taxpayer pays?
  Mr. Maudling: The Government made clear at the time of the purchase of the Boeings that they would put a limit on the number of American aircraft they would allow B.O.A.C. to purchase—for very good reasons—and the corollary of that was that if the Corporation wanted to buy any more they would have to be British aircraft. If hon. Members opposite like to describe that as pressure, they can. Surely, it was the right thing to do. Would they have preferred the Corporation to buy American?
  Mr. MacDermot: The Chancellor is making an unfair debating point. When I dealt with this very matter, I said in terms that I was not complaining or criticising in any way the intervention by the Government. The only complaint was that they pretended that they did not so do.
  Mr. Maudling: I have not referred to the hon. and learned Member because, I

  613
  much regret to say, I was not here when he made his speech. I was referring to the hon. Member for Newton who made this particular point, which was reinforced somewhat by other hon. Members subsequently.
  Mr. Lee: I made the point that, having agreed to 15 Boeings, the Government made the condition that the next order must go to the British aircraft industry. I want the aircraft industry in Britain to be looked after. But this is not the job of B.O.A.C. The job of B.O.A.C. is to look after its own interests. It is for the Government to look after the national interest, not palm off responsibility on to the Corporation.
  Mr. Maudling: Precisely what my right hon. Friend said. That is exactly the point of the operation.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Answer the question.
  Mr. Maudling: I answered it fully. The Government made perfectly clear that they would not allow B.O.A.C. foreign exchange to purchase more than a certain number of American aircraft and that, when it had done so, the Corporation would have to turn to British sources for further aircraft. I think that that was absolutely right. Were the Opposition against our doing it at the time?
  The argument has been that the deficit of B.O.A.C. arises from Government policy in one way or another. The Report of the Select Committee refers to a number of things, to the fact that, as hon. Members have said, airline business throughout the world is not particularly rewarding and shows little return on capital. It refers, as few speakers today have done, to the growth of airline nationalism in various parts of the world, particularly affecting the operations of B.O.A.C. It refers to amortisation, and I have dealt with that. It refers to the losses incurred on the associated companies, and to engineering and maintenance costs. None of these points made in the Select Committee's Report seems to me to be a matter of Government policy, yet we are told in the Amendment that it is Government policy which is responsible for the losses and difficulties of B.O.A.C.
  The main causes ascribed by the Select Committee to the difficulties of the Corporation are that too many aircraft were ordered, of the wrong types, with the
  614
  result that B.O.A.C. tried to operate too many routes. The argument of the Select Committee is that the trouble arose from a confusion between the Government and B.O.A.C. as to the purposes for which they should be operated.
  We must recognise that in this country there is bound to be a genuine conflict of interest between our international airline operators and the aircraft industry. There are bound to be these interests in conflict, and the aim is to reconcile them. The purpose obviously is to have a fine airline which is part of the modern world, internationally competitive, earning foreign exchange and paying its way. This is the thing that we want of the airline.
  On the other hand, we also want to see an aircraft industry contributing, as it can and does, very substantially both to out economy and to our exports. But inevitably we must recognise that these things can and do conflict. The situation in aviation is really quite exceptional. It is certainly very different from the situation in sea transport. For example, throughout the world, as we know very well, it is the general practice of Governments to subsidise aviation and aircraft production in a big way, often out of military contracts. Then there is the small home market—a very small home market indeed—in this country compared with that in America or Russia or in the countries of some of our other possible competitors. There is the fact that the sterling area markets which we enjoyed before on a privileged basis no longer afford us the security that they did. There is often the need to establish home sales for an aircraft and to prove an aircraft before we can expect many overseas orders—a particular problem of the aircraft industry.
  Then there is the conflict between the need of the aircraft industry to have orders in large numbers to make it economic, and the clear desire of an airline operator to be able to order the aircraft which he wants at the last possible moment, off the shelf, and flexibly for his own requirements. The Select Committee's Report shows very clearly that the desire in this country to give as much support to the aircraft industry as possible by spreading orders forward to give a sound production base

  615
  is bound to conflict with the normal commercial desire of an airline operator to leave ordering as late as possible and to remain as flexible as possible.
  Finally, a matter which has tended to be overlooked is this. There have been the shifting technical developments and the shifting requirements. I remember very well when I was at the Ministry of Supply for a little while how the views of B.O.A.C. changed very rapidly between its support of the turbo-prop aircraft for long-range operations and the decision that it would have to have long-range jets for the trans-Atlantic route. We have seen an example of this in the VC10: in particular, how the comparative advantage of operating from a shortened runway, which carries with it an economic penalty, is less than people expected because of a lengthening of runways throughout the world which people did not foresee.
  These are examples of the difficulties in this country of getting a right balance, which we must seek to get, between the interests of the airline operator and the aircraft industry.
  Of course, we have to study very carefully where we are going in the aircraft industry in this country. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) referred to the very large resources going into the aircraft industry. Frankly, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot disguise my concern sometimes at the way that these sums seem to mount up.
  I think, as my right hon. Friend said, that there are two ways of development for this country's aviation industry. What I do not believe we can do is to try to compete with the giant American industry in our own home market across the whole range of types of aircraft. But we can do two things simultaneously. We can produce a range of aircraft—medium-sized aircraft, for example, the range in which we do best—and, by co-operating with other people, as in the Concord project, we can provide the wider market, wider requirement and wider financial and scientific basis which will enable us to compete with the Americans in the largest and most up-to-date aircraft. This is, I believe, the future of the aircraft industry, and this is how we must see it develop.
  616
  If I may, I will talk shortly about the VC10 story, both past and present. I believe that the orders were justified at the time that they were made and that they can be quite fully justified. It is fair to say that a certain amount of the criticism is made with a degree of hindsight, as, of course, arises on these occasions. Certainly the VC10, in its original conception, offered qualities which the Boeing 707 could not offer by way of flexibility, for example; and, on the evidence of the letters from the Corporation, it was the aircraft which the Corporation wanted for its eastern and southern routes.
  As I have said, what happened in practice was that the position was altered both by the changing airfield position throughout the world and by the speed of development and spread throughout the world of the Boeing. As for the numbers concerned, I am sure that B.O.A.C. was right, bearing in mind that in order to get aircraft at an economic price it must place an adequate number of orders.
  It may be that in retrospect the Corporation's estimates of the growth of traffic throughout the world were optimistic; but it was probably wise for the Corporation to err on the side of optimism and it is by no means proved, at least yet, that the long-term growth of aviation will be slower than the enthusiasts believe that it can be.
  The trouble with the aviation industry is that these fluctuations in the rate of growth fall particularly heavily on an industry which is so highly capitalised and on an industry in which production schedules have to be fixed so far ahead and where developments which take place in the course of designing and making an aircraft can be so completely disturbing to original plans. Past orders for the VC10 have clearly been vindicated in the debate as being justified at the time on the commercial judgment then taken, although subsequent events have shown, as Sir Giles Guthrie's Report indicates, that the number of aircraft actually ordered by B.O.A.C. is excessive.
  The hon. Member for Stechford asked why my right hon. Friend asked Sir Giles Guthrie to make his report when it was known that the answer would be that Sir Giles would not want to have the

  617
  VC10s. The purpose of the report and the sequence must be as follows. The first thing was to decide what would be the best route and operations pattern for B.O.A.C. The second thing to decide was what would be the aircraft best suited to carry out that pattern of operations. The third aim, with which we must now proceed as soon as possible, was to settle the financial structure of the Corporation which is appropriate to the aircraft which it possesses.
  To answer one or two of the points which have been raised, I do not think that it would be possible to settle a new financial structure for the Corporation which was realistic and which gave it an opportunity and incentive to operate on a commercial basis until we had settled the pattern of the Corporation's fleet for the future. Now that we know what the fleet is to be, we can take into account these two factors: first, the accumulated deficit, which must be dealt with in one way or another, and secondly, the penalties which arise for B.O.A.C. from the higher cost of the VC10 as compared with the Boeing 707. Both these factors must clearly be taken into account in arriving at a new and logical capital structure for B.O.A.C. when the route pattern for the future and the aircraft pattern which is appropriate for that route pattern have been settled.
  Faced with the fact that too many aircraft had been ordered, the alternatives before us were fairly clear. We could either agree with Sir Giles Guthrie that all the Super VC10s should be cancelled or tell him to get rid of all or most of the Boeings and have a complete Super VC10 fleet, or there could be a mixed fleet in the proportions which the Government have decided are right.
  In deciding which alternative to choose, certain factors must clearly be borne in mind. The first is the position of B.O.A.C, the desire of the Corporation to operate economically and commercially, the need for incentive, the position of the new Chairman and the new people running B.O.A.C. and the necessity of giving them all the support possible in the carrying out of their tasks. A second factor is the effect upon the British aircraft industry and its prospects for the future in
  618
  exports and employment. A third factor to which I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, must pay attention is the financial factor. We took all these into account in reaching our decision about the number of VC10s that we would wish the Corporation to take.
  Mr. Cronin: One follows the points about the importance of the inquiries, but why was Sir Giles Guthrie allowed to conduct the argument with the Ministry of Aviation in the blaze of publicity, which has been so damaging to the prospects of the VC10?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the prospects of the VC10 have been damaged as much as all that. I do not think that the future will show that they have been damaged at all. One thing of which I am certain is that today's debate, with what has been said on both sides about the VC10, will be a considerable encouragement to Vickers in their efforts for the future.
  The first possibility would be to accept Sir Giles Guthrie's recommendations. We regarded this, although it was quite consistent with the objective that he was rightly given of working on a commercial basis, as being quite unacceptable because of its effects upon the aircraft industry. I gather that the entire House accepts that although Sir Giles Guthrie was right to propose what he did, in accordance with the terms of his directive, for national reasons we clearly could not go along with his proposal.
  Another alternative would have been to say, "You must take all the VC10s and get rid of a number of Boeings. "But there are several arguments against this, I think, apart from the very strong argument that it would have been going very much counter to the views of the Board and the Chairman of B.O.A.C, which is a very important consideration. The fact is that we should be disposing of Boeing aircraft long before their full life had been taken up—long before—and inevitably would be disposing of them at a very poor price—because they are a special type of Boeing, with special engines and so on—and there is in particular the question of cost.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester asked if this had been costed. I can assure him that it has been costed.
  Mr. Diamond: How much?
  Mr. Maudling: I am coming to that. The various schemes have been costed at the Treasury, and our calculation is that over the next few years our proposal will be by far the cheapest. To retain the whole VC10 order, including the 10 in suspense, bringing them forward and abandoning the Boeings, which is the other alternative, would cost something like £20 million to £30 million more over the next few years. This, I think, is a very formidable figure indeed. We are facing, as the House is aware, over the next few years a very large total of Government expenditure to which we are committed, and to add this on top of it would, I think, have been a very large item to undertake. [Interruption.] The additional cost of taking either Sir Giles Guthrie's proposal, or the whole of the VC10s, would be in the nature of £20 million to £30 million additional expenditure over the next few years.
  Taking account of the sale price of the Boeings, the cost of the VC10s, production expenditure, possible cancellation charges—taking the whole thing into account—the best calculation we could make in the Treasury and the Ministry of Aviation, where we have gone into it very thoroughly and in great detail, is that what we are proposing will save the taxpayer between £20 million and £30 million over the next few years, and that seems to me a pretty formidable consideration to bear in mind.
  So we feel that the proposal we have put forward is the best solution for B.O.A.C. and for Vickers and for the British taxpayer. We are not now agreeing to the cancellation of any VC10s. We do not agree to the proposition that the VC10s should be cancelled in order that more Boeings should be bought, although on the commercial judgment of the Chairman of B.O.A.C. this would have been the right thing to do; but we are saying that it would be wrong not to give notice to Vickers that we shall not force B.O.A.C. to take more aircraft than it has need for at the present moment.
  Then there will be the complicated question of deliveries of the next 10. We must go into that; and then there is the question of the timing of production and the timing of the absorption into the fleet, and the question of that gap in timing.
  This is the solution we put forward. There is a clear conflict here between the interests of a British airline operator and the interests of the aircraft industry. Both those interests should be the concern of the Government and of the House, and we believe that the solution we have put forward is in the best interests of both.
  Question put. That those words be there added:—
  The House divided. Ayes 202, Noes 268.

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Ainsley, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Albu, Austen

  Cronin, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Alldritt, w. H.

  Crosland, Anthony

  George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Ginsburg, David

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gourlay, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grey, Charles

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llaneliy)

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Blyton, William

  Deer, George

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Diamond, John

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Doig, Peter

  Hannan, William

  Bowen, Doderic (Cardigan)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Harper, Joseph

  Bowles, Frank

  Driberg, Tom

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Boyden, James

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Evans, Albert

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Finch, Harold

  Holman, Percy

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hooson, H. E.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Houghton, Douglas

  Callaghan, James

  Foley, Maurice

  Hoy, James H.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Collick, Percy

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Forman, J. C.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Snow, Julian

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Srank

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Neal, Harold

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Steele, Thomas

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Jeger, George

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stonehouse, John

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Stones, William

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Will

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Padley, W. E.

  Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Paget, R. T.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Taverne, D.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Parker, John

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Lawson, George

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Peart, Frederick

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Lipton, Marcus

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Thornton, Ernest

  Loughlin, Charles

  Prentice, R. E.

  Wade, Donald

  Lubbock, Eric

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Probert, Arthur

  Warbey, William

  McBride, N.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Watkins, Tudor

  MacColl, James

  Randall, Harry

  Weitzman, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rankin, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mclnnes, James

  Redhead, E. C.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Rhodes, H.

  Whitlock, William

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wigg, George

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Willey, Frederick

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

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

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Briggs)

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Manuel, Archie

  Ross, William

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Mapp, Charles

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mason, Roy

  Short, Edward

  Woof, Robert

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Silkin, John

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Millan, Bruce

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Milne, Edward

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Monslow, Walter

  Small, William

  Mr. McCann.

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&Stones

  Allason, James

  Chataway, Christopher

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Anderson, D. C,

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Calbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Cammans, Lady

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Gardner, Edward

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Cooke, Robert

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Clyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

  Barter, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Batsford, Brian

  Coulson, Michael

  Gower, Raymond

  Bell, Ronald

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm.)

  Crawley, Aidan

  Gurden, Harold

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Critchley, Julian

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Biffen, John

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Curran, Charles

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Dance, James

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hay, John

  Bourne-Arton, A,

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Box, Donald

  Doughty, Charles

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

  Hendry, Forbes

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Braine, Bernard

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Eden, Sir John

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Emery, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Bryan, Paul

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hollingworth, John

  Bullard, Denys

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hopkins, Alan

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Farr, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Fell, Anthony

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Campbell, Gordon

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Seymour, Leslie

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sharples, Richard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morgan, William

  Shaw, M.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shepherd, William

  James, David

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Jennings, J. C.

  Neave, Airey

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Speir, Rupert

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Stainton, Keith

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Kirk, Peter

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kitson, Timothy

  Partridge, E.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Peel, John

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

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Percival, Ian

  Teeling, Sir William

  Leavey, J. A.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Temple, John M.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Pitman, Sir James

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

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

  Pounder, Rafton

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Longbottom, Charles

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Turner, Colin

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Pym, Francis

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Walder, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Walker, Peter

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maddan, Martin

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Webster, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's & S'th'ld)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Marten, Neil

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wise, A. R.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Roots, William

  Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Woollam, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, on the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords] and on the Statute Law
  624
  Revision (Scotland) Bill [Lords. may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords.]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committee to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peel.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords] for England has been passed with little or no discussion, but that for Scotland is so much more voluminous that it requires a little explanation, and the only Minister I can see who is likely to give it to us is the English Solicitor-General. There may be some other legal expert who will tell us exactly what some of it means. It is a voluminous list of Statutes starting in 1424 and continuing at the rate of two or three a year down to at any rate the Act of Union and a little beyond.
  These Statutes deal with matters which are of great current importance. For instance, one of them deals with the common good, and I should like to know what the effect of repealing a Statute about the common good is. I understand common good to be a Scottish institution for assisting the pleasures and enjoyments of the representatives of Scotland in local government, and no doubt for other good purposes connected with Scottish local authorities. What happens if the substratum of the common good is removed, as it appears to be removed by the Bill?
  In addition to that, there is a variety of Statutes about horning. What will happen to horning if half-a-dozen Statutes about it are repealed? There are a number of other matters some of them a little difficult for any mere Englishman to understand but which no doubt have a perfectly clear meaning.
  Other Statutes are being equipped with short titles. These are very interesting. We find that the Confession of Faith Ratification Act, which appears to date from the time of John Knox and about 1560, is being continued and equipped with a Short Title. Perhaps it is just as well, because it appears to have had an uncommonly long one before.
  626
  The question which occurs to me is where all this comes from. What is the original source which suggests these alterations in the law of Scotland? Are we sure that we are repealing enough and not repealing too much? Last year there was an equally extensive list of somewhat incomprehensive titles, some of which were repealed in whole, and some in part, while others were assured of immortality by being given a Short Title.
  Whatever they were, I think that the House is entitled to know what steps are taken in preparing a list of this sort, and how it is that when we have one long list one year, and a year or two afterwards we have another long list. After all, successive Governments have had since 1424—plenty of time—to consider the whole Act that is called "Of crufis and yaris". It has not been repealed before. What sudden impulse—is it the General Election?—is causing the Government to repeal "Of crufis and yaris" this year of all years? The next but one after that has a title only in Latin, to make it more difficult.
  One wonders what is the process of statute law revision in Scotland. The English Bill—and I mention this only for comparison—contains a comparatively intelligible and understandable sort of list. It is true that it contains something about repealing the Act about the American colonies, which given the existence of the United States was somewhat obviously out of date, but it does not contain this extraordinary selection of incomprehensibilities dating back for centuries.
  I therefore wait with some anxiety to hear how it is that the law of Scotland has received this belated attention now and not previously, whether the Government can assure us definitely and for certain that there is not another packet coming next year and the year after, and whether they can give us the number of obsolete statutes relating to Scotland which are not dealt with by this Bill, but will be dealt with by a subsequent one.
  I had considerable difficulty in finding the Acts of Scotland. I brought in only one volume. I do not propose to read it, but it is pretty formidable, and to an Englishman—and oddly enough this Parliament contains quite a number of

  627
  English Members—quite incomprehensible.
  It is in the nature of the political situastion that there is no Scottish Law Officer in the House competent to explain in any detail why this selection has been made and not any other. I hope that the hon. Lady, who looks as though she is going to reply to the debate, will give an answer as graceful as it is comprehensive to the questions that I have asked.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: Will the hon. Lady tell us the authority for the selection and verification of this list so that we can be sure that no important law is being repealed or cancelled? The Bill is merely a blunt statement. Some authority must have considered this matter.
  When a Consolidation Measure is passed, we get some sort of certificate that it is not really interfering with the law as it stands. Which authority has certified that in this long list, which nobody can possibly examine without years of study, something that is valuable is not being repealed? Has this list been drawn up at random, or has it been produced after consideration by an authority which the House can accept as justification for this list?
  10.19 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): The authority is the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, whereby a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons is appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills, and Bills presented under the Act to which I have referred.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) comes from South of the Border. I imagine that he finds it a little difficult to decipher some of these enactments, but they have been considered by a very distinguished Committee, which included Lord Guest, who comes from North of the Border.
  The purpose of the Bill is to repeal obsolete, spent, unnecessary, or superseded enactments of the pre-Union Scots Parliament. One of the objects of the Bill is to facilitate the inclusion of the old Scots Acts which are still in
  628
  force in the Chronological Table of Statutes and in the Index to Statutes in Force with which the hon. and learned Member has armed himself. This will be of considerable convenience to practitioners and others, and I am informed that the Bill simplifies the old Acts by assigning short titles to each of those which remain.
  Mr. Mitchison: Why does the hon. Lady assure us that these are pre-Union Acts? I notice, on page 13, an Act
  "Ratifying and approving the Treaty of Union".
  which apparently is being repealed. What is to happen to the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland if the Act ratifying it is repealed? There follow three other Acts, ending up, appropriately enough, with an
  "Act for preserving the Game".
  I am not sure what kind of game this is. Is it a sporting game, or is it some obscure joke? Why are all those in, if this ends at the Act of Union?
  Mr. Woodburn: On page 5 the Bill repeals an Act
  "For punishment of the committaris of disordouris in the kirk in tyme of divine seruice…".
  Is this a retrospective condemnation of Jennie Geddes or the suffragettes, or is there some other law that takes its place?
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Union will be quite happily preserved, despite this provision. The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) need not worry. I am certain that nothing in the Bill would do anything against the women of Scotland.
  Mr. John Robertson: It seems to me that there are one or two rather important matters that have not been considered. We have been told that a very distinguished Committee met to consider this matter, of which Lord Guest was a member. Am I to believe that he was the only Scottish member of the legal profession who gave the matter consideration? We all know that much of the Scottish common law is based on these old pre-Union Statutes. Before Parliament thinks of passing the Bill it should have the opinion of a Scottish legal body on the matter.

  629
  I do not want to go into some of the rather remote Measures, but the Bill seeks to amend the Act of Union and the Act ratifying it. Therefore, it raises a question of constitutional law. We must consider the right of this Parliament to amend and repeal any part of that Act, except in so far as the Treaty itself permitted that to be done.
  The Court of Session has already considered this matter in relation to a rather famous law case. It came to the conclusion that this Parliament did not have any constitutional right to alter or amend the Act ratifying the treaty except in so far as the Act itself permitted this. As the Bill is presented, we have no opportunity to consider whether or not this is for the good of the people of Scotland. Far too little consideration has been given to the matter. I suggest that someone, somewhere, thought it would be a jolly good thing to get rid of these obsolete and archaically-worded Statutes that seem to have no meaning today.
  I think that here we are tampering with the basis of Scottish law, and I should like better assurances than the hon. Lady has been able to give us about the effects of this. I can tell her that not all the members of the legal profession in Scotland agree with Lord Guest, if he accepted these Amendments. Many are anxious about what is being done. They say that in certain respects, about which I will not go into detail, this could have a fundamental effect on the common law relating to Scotland. If this is so, if there is even a shadow of doubt about which the Government have no knowledge, the best thing would be to refer the matter to a group of distinguished Scottish legal people in order to obtain expert advice.
  I do not think that this has been done properly. There are fundamental aspects of this Bill which I question whether the House has the right to pass. I refer particularly to those parts ratifying the Treaty of Union which it is sought by this Bill to abolish or to repeal. I do not know whether it has any significance now, but I do not know about the future. I cannot look into a crystal and foretell what will happen. It may be that the Government seek to repeal something in the Treaty of Union which may prove important at a future date. What really worries me is that the hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends are, seemingly, not the least concerned, and not
  630
  even properly briefed. They do not bring a reasonable story to the House and they have not taken proper legal advice. I suggest therefore that the Government should have another look at this matter.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. D. C. Anderson: I have to declare an interest as a member of the legal profession in Scotland. I wish to make one observation about the remarks of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) with regard to the bearing of these old Statutes upon the common law of Scotland. When going back in time to the periods dealt with by these old Statutes Scottish lawyers place far greater store on the writings of what we in Scotland term the institutional writers—Stair and Erskine to give two examples. The amount of times when, in considering the foundation of our law, these institutional writers are quoted and relied on is infinitely greater than the number of times the ancient Statutes have to be referred to.
  Mr. J. Robertson: I support what the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. Anderson) is saying; he is an expert. But is it not the case that the writings of the experts to which he refers are based on these very Statutes which we are now seeking to repeal?
  Mr. Anderson: The writings of the institutional writers, although necessarily referring to some extent here and there to Statute law, are based to a far greater extent upon the Roman law and other sources of old common law which their writings were crystallising. I make the point in order that there should not be any misapprehension about the significance of what we are doing in this matter.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I am glad that we have had a certain amount of discussion. There seems to have been a certain amount of humour, too, but we are dealing with ancient Statutes which we should not discard too readily and too easily, and certainly not without examination. I wonder whether someone will rise after Second Reading and move that the Committee stage be taken on the Floor of the House, or whether there is any possibility of the Bill going to the Scottish Standing Committee. How long should we be allowed by the Government to consider these matters? There

  631
  is a wide field for amendment here, and for examination, and I do not think that the Solicitor-General would be any great help to us in these discussions, because so far he has not responded to any appeals to come to help us in very important legal matters and I doubt very much whether he would do so in relation to this.
  This is not the first time that we have seen this type of Statute, because this was due to come before us earlier and was held over because of time. Yet we are in the last gasp of this Parliament, when the Scots have not been the most idle in respect of legislation and subjects for discussion. We were up on Monday until 2 a.m., and we finished our business last night on a Scottish Bill at 11.20 p.m. after we had been all day in the House and all morning in the Scottish Committee. I begin to wonder what the Leader of the House thinks the Scots are.
  This is an epoch-making Bill. Many of these Acts were relatively important in their day. Some were terribly important, although many no doubt were unimportant. In respect of some of the aspects of the Treaty of Union which are being dropped, it would have caused civil war in Scotland had there even been a suggestion at that time that they would ever be dropped.
  As the Bill started in another place, we have not the advantage of the usual explanation, but in the Long Title we read that the Act is
  "to revise the Statute of Scotland by repealing obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments."
  I ask the hon. Lady which of these are obsolete, which are spent, which are unnecessary and which have been superseded. Some of the Statutes could not possibly have been superseded because they contain the words "and for all time". It is not a thing we tend to put in statutes today because we reserve the right to incoming Governments to make changes. But it may well be that there are certain things here which we have not had time to examine.
  Surely the hon. Lady and the Scottish Department could have given us a paper outlining the whole procedure. Is there a report, quite apart from the statute, from the Statute Law Revision
  632
  Committee in respect of this? That might prove to be a little more helpful. The hon. Lady knows that when the first of these Bills came forward there was considerable comment in the Scottish Press about it. It is interesting to go through the Acts and to discover the subjects discussed. There was an Act for winter herding. I wonder whether its provisions way back through the centuries were any better than the winter keep which enrages the farmers in Scotland and led them to come down from the furthest north to interview the Prime Minister when he was a candidate in Perth and Kinross and whose anger he did not entirely remove by what he said on that occasion.
  I am wondering whether the revision is sufficiently up to date. On page 13, there is the Act of 1706—
  "settling the manner of Electing the Sixteen Peers and Forty Five Commoners to Represent Scotland in the Parliament of Great Britain".
  The noble Lady will remember the celebrated poem of Robert Burns addressed to the Forty-five:
  "In gath'rin' votes you were na slack;
  Now stand as tightly by your tack;
  Ne'er claw your lug, an' fidge your back, An' hum an' haw;
  But raise your arm, an' tell your crack Before them a'."
  Every Scotsman should appreciate that when he goes on the hustings and remember that, whatever he says or does, he should carry out his pledges and promises. Those who tend to consider that Scots are at times a little pernickety in examining legislation should remember also that we got some good advice from that same source:
  "Some o' you nicely ken the laws
  To round the period an' pause,
  An' with rhetoric clause on clause To mak harangues;
  Then echo thro' Saint Stephen's wa's Auld Scotland's wrangs".
  I have noticed that sometimes when we do this there is a certain restlessness among the English and we tend to be told that we really should not do it. But this is precisely what we are doing now. We are examining the laws which are to be dropped.
  I take the example of the 1706 Act which refers to the 45 Members. We passed an Act not long ago which enabled us to acquire a Prime Minister from

  633
  another place. Under that Act we wiped out the provision about the Scottish peers, a diminishing number and not to be confused with peers of the Realm. They had to meet at the beginning of a new Parliament and select from among themselves representatives. Now, that has gone. It is not a question of 16; they can all come now.
  Is the extent of the repeal sufficient?—
  "In the title the words from 'manner' to 'Forty Five'"
  and
  "The remainder of the Act, except the words from ' It is always' to the end."
  As the noble Lady knows, we have now removed altogether the need for any reference to the Scottish peers. But what is the effect if we leave in the words "Forty Five"? According to the way I have been taught to prepare Amendments—my Scottish colleagues and I have had plenty of experience of practice at it—when one says "from ' manner' to ' Forty Five'", one leaves in the word "manner" and the word "Forty Five".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The House is in danger of finding itself discussing Committee points which, on Second Reading, would not be proper.
  Mr. Ross: But the difficulty is that we are here dealing with a whole Schedule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The substance of my argument on the principle is that the Government should take it back for examination, giving us time to scrutinise the Schedule. I am giving only one instance—I could give many instances, but I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have no wish that I should—about whether these words "Forty Five" should be left in, because there are now more than 45 Members of Parliament for Scotland. The present figure, I think, is 71. The only thing that is declining is the number represented by the party opposite, and it will be still further decreased in a few months' time. The noble Lady will appreciate that when we make these changes, we are making changes of considerable historic interest.
  As far as I know, no great harm has been done by the continued existence of these Statutes. I gather that there has been trouble concerning codfication and setting them out in new form.
  634
  I have found it of convenience to delve into these Statutes. I have a vested interest, because these things are important in the Committee stage of Scottish Bills, particularly when the Government appreciate the true merits of Scotland and that in the Act of Union we were given the pledge that the Scottish law would remain as Scottish law.
  The result is the reason why the Scottish Grand Committee has become a Scottish Standing Committee. There was a time when every Scottish Member of the House was entitled to sit in the Scottish Grand Committee and deal with the Committee stage of Scottish legislation. In this Parliament, new Members will no longer have had that experience, because we wiped it out during the lifetime of this Parliament and we created the Scottish Standing Committee. That stems from the fact that there being a separate and existing body of Scottish law, certain Acts of Parliament cannot reasonably be welded with English law. There is a National Health Service Act for England and Wales. There is a separate and better one for Scotland. There is a Food and Drugs Act for England and Wales and there is a Food and Drugs Act for Scotland, a very much better Act. That is because we examine legislation in our Committee. It is part of our disputatious heritage that we do so.
  My concern is that over the lifetime of this Parliament, and certainly over the last two years, we have seen a tendency to forget the rights of Scottish law as enshrined in one of these Acts of Parliament that is being tampered with tonight. In the Session of Parliament which is now ending, we have had an important Bill dealing with Scottish housing, a subject on which we have Statute after Statute that is purely Scottish. Now, it has been welded into an English Statute, to the dissatisfaction of my hon. Friends and to the dissatisfaction of their English colleagues, who found that they were dealing with two separate Bills. The same thing happened with the police. We prevailed successfully upon the Leader of the House to extract the Scottish part of that and take it to the Scottish Standing Committee.
  I am showing how Scottish legislation has been dealt with during this Session.

  635
  The other day, we started the Committee stage of a Bill at half-past ten in the morning and finished at two o'clock the next morning.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I find it difficult to connect what he is saying with the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: The point I am putting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that the attitude of the Government to Scottish law is such that we cannot always trust that what they say, especially in relation to a Bill that is completely unintelligible, like this one, is what is being done.
  As I understand it, we are dropping Acts of the Scottish Parliament prior to the Union, Acts which are obsolete, unnecessary, but the way in which the Government have disregarded Scottish law and the rights of Scottish Members, during this Session particularly, is such that we have no reason to rest confident that what they are doing is right or properly related to the Statute. As you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is very difficult to amend a consolidating Bill of this nature, very difficult indeed. Indeed, Second Reading is about the only time one has anything like a proper opportunity to discuss it at all. I should not be at all surprised if the Government were to suggest taking all stages of this Bill tonight. It would be very wrong of them to do so, because since you reproach me with broaching on Committee points I am bound to ask whether we shall have a proper consideration of the Bill in Committee so that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to remove from the Schedule certain Measures which he thinks are important and for which there is certain justification.
  Committees outside do not necessarily prove to be infallible in consideration of these matters, and I sincerely hope that the Government will have taken note, on this occasion, of Scottish opinion when this Bill was first presented and when it was held back, particularly in relation to those parts of the repeal which relate to the Treaty of Union.
  I apologise if I have delayed the House, but this is, from the point of
  636
  view of Scotland, an historic occasion, and we should not do things with our eyes shut or with our mouths shut. I know what the hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman will say, but consider how little interest has been shown in Scottish Bills during the whole of this Parliament by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. On Friday we discussed an important Bill; there was not one of them here. We have gone through whole Bills without a word being said by hon. Members opposite. I had hoped that when we were dealing with an historic matter like this we should have had at least a word from one of them. This may be the end not only of one "auld sang" but of a few "auld sangs".
  10.48 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: The speech we have just heard justifies the procedure which the Labour Government set in force in 1949. The 1949 Act amended the previous procedure on consolidation legislation by allowing on the authority of a certificate from the Lord Chancellor minor alterations of the law, to make sense. As a result of that, a Joint Select Committee was set up in every Session to deal with this sort of Bill, and Members of this House and those of the other place sat together.
  Mr. Ross: Not in this case.
  Sir J. Duncan: On this one, so my noble Friend says. It went through the procedure under the 1949 Act. This applies only to obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments.
  When one joins one of those Joint Committees—and I have done so in my time—and one is faced by a Bill such as this, it has been gone over with a very fine toothcomb by a group of officials, either from the Scottish legal Department or the other legal Department, and the job of the Committee is to look into every recommendation which is made by the officials. There is nearly always a Lord Chairman, and a distinguished Lord Chairman.
  If I might digress for a minute, I remember amending and consolidating the Income Tax law in 1962. We had a very distinguished legal lord, who eventually became the Chairman of the Radcliffe Commission. We had people of that quality. The only job of the

  637
  Committee, which is not really political at all, is to verify and to question the officials as to whether the proposed provisions of consolidation Measures deal with obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments. We go through them with a very fine-toothed comb.
  This is the Second Reading, and I do not think it is the time to mention any of these points. I appeal to the House. If we are to repeat what our own Joint Select Committee has done, repeating exactly what it has done on the Floor of the House in Committee, it will be the end of the consolidation procedure under the Lord Chancellor's 1949 Act. It would be impossible for Parliament to work. Parliament has enough to do without dealing with these things.
  If we are to do ourselves justice and keep up to date with our normal legal and administrative duties, we must trust the Committee which we set up with another place. There was a Scottish Peer on it. It is only a small Committee, with four from the Lords and four from the Commons, I think—I may be wrong about that. It may be a criticism that there was not a Scottish Member of this House on it, but there was a Scottish lord who happened to be a legal lord. If we are ever to do our job in Parliament we must trust the Committee to go through these things, which have not been prepared overnight. The proposals in the Schedule have probably been the subject of consideration for the last five years by a body of legal experts and have been gone through with a fine-toothed comb to make certain that no law is dealt with which has any validity under modern conditions. We must trust the Committee. Otherwise Parliament will be completely bogged down and unable to do its day-to-day duties.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn rose.—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot call him to make a second speech. If he has a question to ask before somebody sits down, that is a different matter.
  Mr. Woodburn: With due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I asked a question but did not make a speech. I do not propose to make a speech now. I merely want to ask a question. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)
  638
  said that these Acts are of great historical interest, which is true, and people would like to know what is happening about many of them. Would the Government consider issuing a White Paper? It could be very entertaining. Several points ought to be cleared up. For instance, my distinguished constituent, the Earl of Mar, is affected by these Acts. I notice a reference to the
  "ratification of the benefite of pacificatioun grantit to Alex Lord Home".
  If there is something affecting Alex Lord Home in these Acts we ought to be told what it is all about. It would be most interesting if the Government would issue a White Paper.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) that it is impossible for Parliament to go through these Acts. Most of us would probably not understand the language anyway. But we ought to be satisfied that the work has been done. It was a mistake on the part of the Government not to give some explanation to the House about how it was done and why it was done and some explanation of the Acts which were being discarded. I remember that during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act we did away with some wonderful Acts about whipping, torture and outlawing. It was interesting to note what was being done.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is trying the limits of the question to the full.
  10.55 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I will briefly reply, by leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  I would like to reassure hon. Members who are concerned, quite rightly, that some Acts which they describe as being of great historical importance to our country should not pass from the scene without their disappearance being questioned, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) put his finger on the point that after all, under an Act of the Labour Government, it was decided that it was necessary to have a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses to go into detail and hear evidence about those Acts which the Bill itself describes as "obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded."
  Mr. Mitchison rose.—
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I do not think I can give way to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) because I am speaking by leave of the House and I wish to reassure my Scottish colleagues in particular.
  As the House will realise, evidence is given by members of the Lord Advocate's Department about these Acts and very many pertinent questions are put to them by members of the Joint Committee. Lord Guest was asked whether there was any question he wished to raise at the end of the proceedings and he replied:
  "No. The fact that I have asked no questions indicates that I am quite satisfied. I have had an opportunity of considering the Bill along with the report of the last proceedings. I am perfectly satisfied as to the form which the Schedule takes."
  It was therefore agreed that a report should be made to this House in the following terms:
  "That the Committee have considered the Bill and have heard evidence thereof. The Bill is confined to the repeal of obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments and there is no part to which the Committee thinks that the attention of Parliament should be drawn."
  I hope that, with that assurance, the House will give the Bill a Second reading.
  Mr. Mitchison: Are we to have a similar Bill next year? What I asked, and what the hon. Lady has not answered, was why this large bunch of obsolete statutes was not included in a similar Act a year or two ago. How many more of these parcels of spent statutes are we to have? Why not deal with the lot at once?
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Although this is a modernising Government, we do not consider that everything can be done at once. I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman no assurance that in the next Parliament, when we again have the authority of Government, we shall not do exactly the same thing again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (MALAWI AND NORTHERN RHODESIA)
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malawi) Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.—[Mr. Green.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Northern Rhodesia) Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.—[Mr. Green.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training (Wool Industry Board) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 907), dated 22nd June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be annulled.
  Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider at the same time the two following Motions standing in my name:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training (Iron and Steel Board) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 949), dated 24th June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 1079), dated 13th July, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): No doubt that would be convenient.
  Mr. Prentice: So far as I have understood the proceedings, for the last three quarters of an hour we have been discussing matters which are obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded. I now want briefly to draw the attention

  641
  of the House to matters which are up to date and overdue, and to welcome at long last the appointment of the industrial training boards proposed in these Orders, boards which would have been appointed long ago if a Labour Government had been in power.
  I should like to say on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends that we wish every success to those who have taken on the challenge of membership of these new boards. I can assure them of the active support of the next Government. We hope that they will make a tremendous success of the great task which they have taken on.
  However, before we accept these Orders, there are certain matters to be explained about the relationship of the Government and the Ministry of Labour, and to some extent the Department of Education, to these boards. It seems to some of us that a question mark hangs over this new development. Certainly there is a question in the minds of people in industry as to the effect upon them of the Industrial Training Act and the new boards. One hears reports from many areas of the reluctance of employers to undertake the expansion of training because of their uncertainty about the way in which this new system will work out. I regret that and I know that the Minister does, and it is, therefore, important that as much clarification as possible should be given as soon as possible about the way in which the new system is to work.
  It is not good enough simply to establish these new boards and say that they are to get on with the job. A tremendous amount of the success or otherwise of this programme will depend on the kind of drive put behind industrial training by the Government themselves. This was one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he made a statement at Durham at the weekend, a statement clearly misunderstood by the Minister of Labour, to judge from his comments. What my right hon. Friend was saying and what we say in connection with these Orders is that the programme will succeed only if there is a much bigger central drive in the training programme than there appears to be. It is relevant to consider whether the necessary preconditions are there.
  642
  What progress has been made in recent months in developing a central team within the Ministry of Labour? It was true only recently, and may still be true for all I know, that the right hon. Gentleman had one technical officer on training who was appointed during the summer of last year. Under the Act, the Minister will have very important powers in relation to the boards and will need a great deal of technical advice. He appoints the members of the boards and has to co-ordinate their work and to be able to check what they are doing. He has the reserve power of dismissing a board in the final analysis, if he is not satisfied with its progress, and appointing a new board. To do that he needs a variety of technical advice which no one person could give him.
  The information we had a few months ago was that other appointments were to be made. It would be valuable if we could be told a little more about that.
  It seems to me that there is a great job to be done from the centre in terms of research into training, particularly research into new methods of training, in terms of public relations, in trying to make the country conscious of the changes envisaged, in trying to make management at all levels training conscious, and in co-ordinating the work of all these training boards. I suggest to the Minister that he might make some comments on that.
  I think that it would be helpful to know what kind of interim arrangements are to be made to help the boards to start their work. To these boards there are being appointed a number of very busy and responsible people, most of them on a part-time basis. They will begin from scratch, without any staff, and without any premises of their own, although it is intended that they should acquire these. What help is being given to them at the beginning? Is Ministry staff being made available to them? Are premises being made available to them? Will they have people with whom they can begin their work? What money is being made available to them as a sort of pump-priming operation at the beginning before they can make arrangements for charging a levy on the firms, which is to be the more permanent source of their funds?

  643
  I suggest that we ought to know a good deal more about the way in which the Minister sees the work of these boards developing over the next year or so. In answer to various questions that have been asked at Question Time from both sides of the House, the Minister has tended to say that decisions, about the levy, the nature of training, and that sort of thing, will have to await the meetings of the new boards. Without wishing to suggest that there should be some sort of tight directive to the boards, it seems that by now there should have emerged in the Minister's mind, and in the minds of his advisers, a certain common doctrine which will apply to the training programmes generally in the next year or two.
  How soon does the Minister expect the first levy Orders to be made, and when does he expect them to begin to bite? This matter to which I referred just now of firms waiting to see how they will be affected is very largely a matter of waiting to see what sort of levy arrangements, and what sort of rebate arrangements, will be made. I hope that some indication will be given that the trainees which people have now, and have had since the Act came into force, can be taken into account for the purposes of levy and rebate. This may be difficult to do, but I think that we are anxious to ensure that firms do not say, "We do not know what rebate we will get. We had better wait a while before taking people on". This matter has been discussed for many years during which things have tended to hang fire, and we all want it to begin to bite as quickly as possible.
  I suggest, also, that we should be told a little more about the Ministry's view of the way in which the boards should branch out into committees, and specialist groups, and that sort of thing. When we were discussing the Bill a few months ago, many of us were aware that there would be something of a dilemma about the kind of appointments to be made to these industrial training boards.
  We are to have on the boards the big guns of both sides of industry who will control things, but we need training specialists on these boards too. Unfortunately, in British industry the training specialist does not go high enough up the ladder. There are very few
  644
  training specialists on the boards of directors. There ought to be more, and we hope that there will be in future. As I read the appointments, the Minister has done what he can to reconcile those two things, but he has naturally and properly tended to appoint people for the knowledge that they have. We shall need to bring people such as training officers, training consultants, and training specialists, on to the committees responsible to the boards.
  It seems that the three Orders that we are discussing will each present a different problem. The construction industry is a large one, spread all over the country, and I would have thought that a lot of the breakdown would have to be regional. At an early stage there -will have to be the formation of regional committees or regional boards in each area.
  The wool textile industry, on the other hand, tends to be concentrated in one area, where, presumably, that pattern will not be necessary. As I understand it, the board's provisional headquarters is being established in Bradford, and it will probably be a welcome development in an industry like that to have its training board centred in the area most concerned. I presume that will apply in future cases.
  On the other hand, in the steel industry at the moment, under its existing training committee system, it has a national committee and seven area committees in those areas where steel is most concentrated. That appears to be a sensible pattern, which I assume will be followed by the board. The Minister cannot assume responsibility for laying these things down in detail, but I ask him whether he agrees that some kind of flexible pattern of this kind, with devolution to the regions in the case of the larger boards, is something that he would support, so that the people making decisions will be making them in relation to an area where they can have some sort of detailed control.
  The other point on which I should like some clarification concerns the rôle of the chairmen and deputy-chairmen of these boards. Most of the members will be part-time, and are not to receive any payment, but the chairman will give either full time or a large amount of time to the work of the board. If it

  645
  were found better to appoint a chairman who could not do that the deputy-chairman would fulfill that rôle. Is that to be the case in respect of these three boards? As I understand it the Construction Board and the Wool Textile Board have deputy-chairmen, but the Iron and Steel Board has not. I assume, however, that in each case one or two people will be giving a great deal of time to this job.
  I hope that this will be the case, because it seems to us that a great deal of the initiative is bound to fall on the shoulders of the chairmen and/or deputy-chairmen. The other people will come to the meetings on a part-time basis. Although we hope that they will take a great deal of interest in the matter, the drive must come from someone giving a large amount of time to the problem.
  There are many other points that I would have liked to raise, but in view of the time I shall not say any more. Our purpose in putting down these Prayers was to have some discussion, however brief and however late at night, which would help to give a Parliamentary launching to the new boards and give the Minister a chance to say something about them. We are glad that the Minister is taking part. No doubt he welcomes this one last opportunity to speak from the Government Dispatch Box before the General Election removes him from office. All hon. Members would want to wish every possible success to those who have taken on this new job, and to hope that they can begin quickly to get to grips with the problem and make some real progress after all the years of delay in these important matters.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I am going to move rapidly to the point I want to raise. In fairness to the Minister I want to be brief. I am anxious that the whole pattern of the scheme should succeed, but I am anxious that the machinery that is there in some parts of the country should be made use of by the training boards which are to be set up, of which the Wool Industry Board is a typical example. There will be four possible sites for training. There is the site
  646
  occupied by a developed major firm, which is already doing a good training job. There are the Government-sponsored factories, or training points. There may be training points by the new boards which they themselves may set up, and there are the existing technical colleges.
  I put it to the House that there is already a little uneasiness whether the boards may tend to be a little inward-looking in their operations and to develop their own boards instead of having, not far away, municipal technical colleges with the right sort of organisation for the purpose of bringing the boffin knowledge in from the industry. I hope that this consideration will be borne in mind and will be advocated inside the Ministry, so that there will not be a waste of energy. We should make the most use of the assets we have and prevent any industry from being inward-looking, and so get a proper cohesion in vocational training.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I plunge straight to the points I wish to make. On the question of membership, I should like to ask what the term of membership of the boards is to be. I should have thought that it would be three years as in the case of hospitals boards and that it was unsatisfactory to leave it vague.
  My second point is in reference to the voting of the industrial members on the levy. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we criticised this entrenched class of members on the boards. In all cases the Orders are more objectionable than the actual Act was itself. For example, paragraph 7. I understood that the Act said that the industrial members would only vote on the amount of the levy, but here it is relating to the imposition of the levy.
  I should have thought that the Orders rather widened the opportunity of the industrial members to increase the spread of their power. I certainly think that the proxy form to paragraph 8 (3) is a little sloppy. It enables a member to appoint a second proxy in the case of the first proxy falling by the wayside. It has a certain legal form, but I should have thought that it needed a witness and also that it is undesirable that after

  647
  the death or insanity of the principal the proxy should still operate unless the death is notified to the board.
  Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this. To the layman and to the educationist these definitions of what constitutes the particular industries are rather confusing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a good deal of publicity to the way in which the particular occupations have been worked out. For example, there is some stress on excluding certain occupations. On the other hand, there is specifically included in all cases people working in the garages of the establishments concerned. Therefore, I would like some explanation, if this is possible, as to the convention by which these sets of occupations are scheduled in particular industries.
  One thing is rather confusing. In the iron and steel industry the quarrying or mining of iron ore is included in the Iron and Steel Board and in the case of the construction industry the preperation of stone—I think it is for building purposes—is included in the construction industry. I should have thought that there might have been a case for including these things in mining operations and not in this particular field.
  The point I make is that it would be helpful to those concerned in working the Act if we could have some indication of the way these matters have grown up and these exceptions are scheduled.
  11.18 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. J. B. Godber): I will do my best to reply to as many points as I can in the very limited time available to me. Unfortunately, we have not the normal time for moving Prayers tonight for reasons which I will not go into. I am grateful, and I am sure the House is, for the opportunity of debating these very important issues. In moving this Prayer the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has given us this opportunity.
  As regards the general question of this legislation, I noted the political point made by the hon. Gentleman in opening the debate. He claimed that this would have happened long ago had there been a Labour Government. I fear that this is not in accord with the facts. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that opinion
  648
  on both sides has matured slowly on this matter and that there are many in the trade unions, as well as on this side, who supported the Carr Committee's recommendations.
  To get down now to more detailed points, I would only say that we really have had a most heartening response from everyone concerned in getting the Act onto the Statute Book, and since then in getting the establishment of the Central Training Council and then the first four training boards.
  These four Orders have now been laid, and all these boards have had at least one meeting. In some cases they had to be informal meetings as they took place in advance of the Statutory Order being laid. Such delay as there has been in getting the Orders laid has been largely due to the very difficult problem of definitions surrounding some of these industries, but I think we have now got a fair solution in each case.
  The boards are getting down to work, and I believe we have been very fortunate in getting some extremely able men to participate. It is going to mean hard work for them and I am very grateful to them.
  The Central Training Council, at its first meeting, considered the priorities as to the industries for which further boards should be set up. The Council's advice on this has been submitted to me, and, in the light of this, I have selected four industries: shipbuilding, cotton, construction materials, and public utilities—that is gas, water and electricity. My officers are now proceeding with consultations which will lead up to the establishment of these boards as soon as possible.
  The Central Training Council is meeting again tomorrow, and I understand that one of the subjects it intends to study is its own committee structure, to enable it to deal effectively on a regional and functional basis with the varieties of tasks which face it. So on all these matters we are pushing ahead as fast as we possibly can. It is interesting to consider that the first four boards we have set up already cover over 5 million workers, so it can be seen that this is a very considerable matter.
  The hon. Member for East Ham, North asked me some specific questions which I will try to answer so far as time allows. The first question related to the

  649
  central machinery in the Ministry. He asked what the position was in relation to the building up of our staff to assist the boards.
  We now have two Branches, each under an Assistant Secretary, dealing with the implementation of the Act. One is concerned with the preparations for the establishment of further boards, and the other is concerned with relations with the four boards already set up, for example in connection with arrangements for the submission of proposals for the levy and for the exercise of the boards' powers. This is the position we have reached, and we are going ahead.
  In addition, we have the technical staff under the Chief Technical Adviser to advise on the technical aspects of training. He now has two assistant technical advisers and a deputy is shortly to be appointed, I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pressing ahead here also, and I should like to take this opportunity to commend the good work being done by the Chief Technical Adviser, Colonel Work.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point was in relation to the help we are giving in regard to funds for staff and premises. We are giving every possible help we can in this field. In the case of the Engineering and Construction Boards we have made available staff and accommodation until such time as they can make permanent arrangements. In the case of the Wool and the Iron and Steel Boards, staff and premises have been made available by the employers' organisations.
  I have also undertaken to make available to the boards financial assistance in the form of grants, within a specified limit, to cover all their costs until they can raise their own funds from the levy. At present the grants range up to £10,000, and we are meeting the needs of the boards in this way. Another important form of assistance which I shall be glad to provide is in compiling the register of firms in each industry. This will be a very heavy task, and I have, therefore, offered the help of my local offices in collecting information about firms in their areas.
  On the question of the levy, we have prepared for the guidance of the boards a note setting out a number of points which they will need to consider in assess-
  650
  ing the levy and working out their levy proposals. It is too early to be able to say much more about this because, among other things, circumstances will vary with the different boards and their requirements. However, we are giving all the help that we can in relation to our knowledge of this subject, and we hope that they will be able to put forward their proposals as soon as possible.
  Another point raised by the hon. Member for East Ham, North was about the chairmen and deputy-chairmen of boards. I can tell him that the Construction Board and the Wool Board will each have a deputy-chairman, in addition to the chairman, but the other two will not. Each board can have a deputy-chairman if it so desires. This is a matter for me in consultation with the chairman concerned. In the case of the Wool Board, we have decided that there should be a deputy-chairman, primarily because the chairman does not come from within the industry. We do not think it is wise always to have a chairman from within the industry, but where he does come from outside, then it makes sense to have a deputy with extensive knowledge of the industry.
  In the case of the Construction Board, the chairman comes from one side of the industry; he is a builder, and it seemed to me appropriate that he should be supported by a deputy-chairman from the civil engineering side of the industry. Neither of these deputy-chairmen will hold a full-time appointment, nor are they asking for payment.
  The Engineering and Iron and Steel Boards both have chairmen from within the industries concerned, and I did not feel, in the circumstances, that deputies were necessary. This was agreed with the chairmen of the boards, and is further evidence of how flexible we are being. We think that this is the best way to move forward.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) raised one or two points but I have, unfortunately, not the time to reply to them. I would tell him, however, that the educational members of the boards will be able to assist in some of the points he raised. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to the period of office of members of boards and the answer is that, generally, it will be for three years.

  651
  I have noted his strictures about voting on the levy but this is a matter for the industrial members on both sides, and we always made clear our intention that it should be handled in this way.
  In closing, I would say that we attach the greatest importance to going ahead in the way I have tried to indicate tonight. I would just remind the hon. Member for East Ham, North that his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said some very strange things at the week-end. For example, he said that:
  "The Ministry of Economic Affairs together with the Departments concerned will work out with industrialists and trade unionists the ways in which they can be helped to play a real part in this training drive and at the same time be protected from those of their competitors who, while avoiding any part in this, then proceed to poach those who their more public spirited fellows have trained.
  I would tell him that the first part is what we are doing and the second part is precisely what we are trying to prevent. So clearly he has quite a lot to learn about industrial training. This Government are pressing ahead, well ahead of anything which the party opposite has any intention of doing in this field. Indeed, the party opposite is trying to jump on our band-waggon. I ask the hon. Member to tell his right hon. Friend just what the Conservative Government are doing, and will be continuing to do for many years ahead, and he will then have the opportunity of learning a great deal more about industrial training than he would appear to know at present.
  Mr. Prentice: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (APPEALS)
  11.30 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  Sir Martin Lindsay: The House of Commons has always been regarded as the guardian of the privileges of our people, and I make no apology for raising tonight the personal case of a constituent of mine in Solihull, Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham retired from in-industry last year, and three months later he took up temporary work. His claim for a retirement pension during the three months between the date on which he retired and the date on which he took up temporary work has been refused.
  Fortunately, neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary—nor I—has to adjudicate on the question of whether Mr. Latham's claim should succeed. We have machinery to decide such questions, and Mr. Latham's case has gone to a National Insurance Commissioner on appeal. It is the procedure for this appeal which is the subject of my complaint tonight. Mr. Latham has asked to be allowed to appear before the Commissioner in person and the Commissioner has refused to allow him to do so, which I regard as a most reprehensible decision.
  The relevant statutory provision is Regulation No. 16(1) of the National Insurance (Determination of Claims and Questions) Regulations, 1948, which reads:
  "If any person to or by whom notice of appeal is given makes a request to the Commissioner for an oral hearing of the appeal, the Commissioner shall grant such request unless, after considering the record of the case and the reasons put forward in the request for the hearing, he is satisfied that the appeal can properly be determined without a hearing, in which event he shall so inform the claimant in writing and may proceed to determine the case without a hearing".
  Mr. Latham's request to appear in person has been turned down and the Commissioner has said that he is satisfied—a rather pompous phrase—that the appeal can be determined without an oral hearing. But surely what is much more important is that the appellant should be satisfied that his case has been

  653
  properly heard. Not many people, however gifted they may be with the pen, can be confident that they can put a case so well in writing as they can if they are allowed to appear in person, to argue it for themselves and to answer questions.
  Mr. Latham's comment upon the Commisisoner's decision not to allow him to appear in person is as follows:
  "I doubt if it will have any more effect than my previous statement, in which case it will prove still further how low British justice has sunk in recent years and the extent to which our public officials will go to defend their staff, even if it means defrauding members of the public of their rights."
  These are certainly bitter words, but I find it completely understandable that my constituent feels so strongly about this matter.
  What should be done about cases like this? I ask tonight that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance should consider either amending the Regulations or writing to the Commissioners to say that he hopes that they will interpret the present Regulations in such a way that only the most extraordinary considerations will prevent their giving an oral hearing when one is requested. This is nothing less than a matter of justice, which must always take priority over administrative conveninece.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not say that the change for which I ask would put too great a burden upon the Commissioners. Last year, they were called upon to give 155 decisions on retirement pensions appeals, and in only 19 cases were they asked by appellants for oral hearings. Fourteen of these requests were granted. One wonders why the remaining five could not have been granted as well.
  I go so far as to say that, in a democracy, no appeal—I emphasise that—no appeal should be heard by any authority whatever in the absence of the appellant if he wishes to be present. There would be an outcry if a man were to be prosecuted for theft or a woman were to be prosecuted for soliciting or shoplifting and the court then said that it was "satisfied" that the case could be decided in the absence of the accused and that he or she had no right to
  654
  appear in person. The principle here is precisely the same. My hon. Friend is a member of the Bar, trained in the law and concerned with the perennial search for justice. I trust that she will not try to defend any proposition other than the one I have put before the House tonight.
  11.37 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay) for raising this most interesting point. As he so kindly said, I was trained at the Bar, as was the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and one knows from one's training that everyone who ever appears before a court is always convinced of the justice of his own case.
  My hon. Friend has compared the procedure in tribunals with that in the ordinary courts. The first point I make is that we have tribunals because the processes of courts are too expensive, too cumbersome, too formal or too slow for the kind of issues which arise between a Government Department and the citizen, Because the processes of the courts are not entirely suitable, we have to have a different set of adjudicating authorities to deal with National Insurance. There are differences in procedure, of course, arising out of the multitude of different questions to be determined, but, nevertheless, I agree that certain parallels can be drawn and comparisons can be made. However, if one is trying to do that, it is necessary to compare like with like.
  I am convinced that one cannot compare the appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner, who is the final appellate authority, with the jurisdiction of a court of first instance in the law. If one is attempting to draw a parallel, one must draw it all the way through. In the ordinary processes of the courts—my hon. Friend mentioned criminal proceedings— one would have a hearing at first instance, followed by a limited right to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal—an absolute right on a point of law and a limited right on a point of fact—followed by an even more limited right of appeal to the House of Lords. So the person may never get the right to appeal, let alone to appear in person at an appeal.

  655
  The parallel process in National Insurance is, first, a decision by the local insurance officer, without an oral hearing. That is followed by a first appeal to a local tribunal—the first appellant process. That is the point for which, for all practical purposes, the person has the right to be heard himself by way of an oral hearing. Beyond that he has an automatic right of appeal to the Commissioner regardless of whether the Commissioner would be bound by, say, an overriding statutory limitation and could not help, perhaps because the claim was out of time. So he has an automatic right of appeal which is not present in the criminal courts of law.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that the process of justice was thought by his constituent to have fallen to a rather low ebb in recent times. There is a case in criminal law where the question can be determined without the person being heard. That arises under Section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which is not the most modern of Acts:
  "If it appears to the registrar that any notice of an appeal against a conviction, purporting to be on a ground of appeal which involves a question of law alone, does not show any substantial ground of appeal, the registrar may refer the appeal to the court for summary determination, and, where the case is so referred, the court may, if they consider that the appeal is frivolous or vexatious, and can be determined without adjourning the same for a full hearing, dismiss the appeal summarily, without calling on any persons to attend the hearing or to appear for the Crown thereon."
  So the question of the right of attending an oral hearing is not peculiar to the National Insurance Commissioner. From time to time various distinguished bodies have commented on the question of oral hearings before the National Insurance Tribunals and those under the old Insurance Acts. The first I want to refer to was by the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers' Powers which reported in 1932. It had not less than five K.C.s as members, one of whom later became Lord Chancellor. The Committee had this to say about oral hearings on page 79 of its Report:
  "The second principle of natural justice is one which has two aspects, both of which are as applicable to quasi-judicial as to judicial decisions. No party ought to be condemned unheard; and if his right to be heard is to be a reality, he must know in good time the case which he has to meet. But on neither branch
  656
  of this principle can any particular procedure by which the party is informed of the case which he has to meet, or by which his evidence and argument are ' heard ', be regarded as fundamental. That a Minister or a Ministerial Tribunal does not conform to the procedure of the Courts in either respect imports no disregard of natural justice. There is, for instance, no natural right to an oral hearing."
  When the National Insurance Act came into operation the set of Regulations of which my hon. Friend spoke was referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which is the body which advises the Minister on regulations and other matters. It considered the proposed Regulations and received representations of all kinds from many people. In paragraphs 54 and 55 of its Report, published on 1st June, 1948, in House of Commons Paper 144, it said:
  "We have received representations that there should either be a right to an oral hearing in all cases or that the insured person should have an opportunity of being heard before his appeal is rejected by the Commissioner. We are agreed that to require oral hearings on every appeal to the Commissioner would cause serious delay. In those cases where the Commissioner on the information before him is prepared to decide in favour of the claimant an oral hearing would be superfluous. On the other hand, we recognise that it would not be possible to provide that the right to an oral hearing should be given only in those cases where the Commissioner had, on the evidence before him, reached a provisional decision to reject the appeal."
  The Committee went on to make certain criticisms, and then proposed, and in fact drafted, the Regulation now current, which was the one which my hon. Friend read out, which said that the Commissioner, if he were satisfied that the appeal could properly be determined without a hearing, could proceed so to determine.
  So that was another authoritative consideration and statement on oral hearings, but perhaps the best known one is that of the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries, which reported in July, 1957. That for the first time recommended that there should be this automatic right of appeal to the Commissioner. Previously it had been only a restricted right of appeal. But having recommended that, the Committee went on, in paragraph 177, to say:
  "The Commissioner should, however, continue to have the right to refuse to grant an oral hearing of the appeal. He would no doubt consider an oral hearing unnecessary where the

  657
  question at issue had already been determined by him in a previous case or where the appeal appeared to be frivolous or vexatious."
  There were on that Committee three Queen's Counsel, one of whom is now a Lord Justice of Appeal. All those bodies considered the point about oral hearings very carefully, with the results which I have stated.
  My hon. Friend has asked me if it would be possible to write to the Commissioner about how he should interpret this Regulation. I am afraid it would not be possible to do so, because the Commissioner is entirely independent of my right hon. Friend. He is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. He has to be a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing and, to give some idea of his status, his salary is in excess of that of a county court judge. So he is a fairly distinguished lawyer, and he is entirely independent of my right hon. Friend, and the way in which he exercises his discretion in this matter of oral hearings is for him and for him alone.
  My hon. Friend referred to the number of decisions which come before the Commissioners for their determination. The Commissioners have to decide questions relating to National Insurance, family allowances and industrial injuries. In 1963 they decided 2,575 cases. In that number of cases there were 575 applications for an oral hearing, five of which were withdrawn, 485 of which were granted, and 85 of which were refused. I have no means of knowing why they were refused, and no influence in
  658
  persuading the Commissioners to the contrary.
  It may give consolation to my hon. Friend to know that the Commissioner is, in fact, hearing a higher proportion of appeals orally than he was in 1960. So that may be some small help to my hon. Friend. I can well understand the feelings of an individual constituent who wants to appear personally, but for the reasons I have given I think that the present rules governing oral hearings are entirely defensible. I do not think that my right hon. Friend could fly in the face of the considered opinions of the three bodies which I have mentioned, all of which endorse the present rules regarding legal hearings, without referring the matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee again or to the Council on Tribunals, which, since the Franks Committee, has had a general supervisory authority over this field.
  I am sorry, therefore, to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I think he will know that no legal question is as simple as it appears at first sight. I would remind him that there is this automatic right of appeal to the Commissioner, and possibly if there were to be a right of oral hearing in every case, that automatic right would have to be reconsidered. I regret, therefore, that for the time being I can give no hope that there will be a change in the present Regulations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Industrialised Building Methods
  Industrialised Building Methods
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Cumbernauld)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Cumbernauld)
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Paisley Medical Officer (Reports)
  Paisley Medical Officer (Reports)
  Initial Teaching Alphabet
  Initial Teaching Alphabet
  Scottish Certificate of Education
  Scottish Certificate of Education
  Elderly and Infirm (Laundry Services)
  Elderly and Infirm (Laundry Services)
  Hydro-Electric Board (Fada-Fionn Project)
  Hydro-Electric Board (Fada-Fionn Project)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Prosecutions)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Prosecutions)
  Scottish Film Library Services (Schools)
  Scottish Film Library Services (Schools)
  Electoral Rolls
  Electoral Rolls
  Tourists (Ski-ing)
  Tourists (Ski-ing)
  Slaughterhouses, Fife
  Slaughterhouses, Fife
  Housing
  Housing
  John Currie and Peter Connor
  John Currie and Peter Connor
  Western Regional Hospital Board (Chairman and Medical Advisers)
  Western Regional Hospital Board (Chairman and Medical Advisers)
ROADS
  Trunk Road Lighting
  Trunk Road Lighting
  Huntingdon Bypass
  Huntingdon Bypass
  Eaton Socon Bypass
  Eaton Socon Bypass
  A.56 (Frodsham and Helsby)
  A.56 (Frodsham and Helsby)
  Redditch
  Redditch
  A.5 (Brownhills)
  A.5 (Brownhills)
  East and West Ridings (Report)
  East and West Ridings (Report)
  Footpath Maintenance (Vehicles)
  Footpath Maintenance (Vehicles)
  Railway Level Crossings (Barrier Gates)
  Railway Level Crossings (Barrier Gates)
  Boothferry Road, Welton (Footbridge)
  Boothferry Road, Welton (Footbridge)
  Road Works, Piccadilly
  Road Works, Piccadilly
  M.5 (Quinton and Great Bare)
  M.5 (Quinton and Great Bare)
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  North West London (D Ring Road)
  North West London (D Ring Road)
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
  Traffic Signs
  Traffic Signs
  Directional Signs
  Directional Signs
  Parking Offence
  Parking Offence
TRANSPORT
  A and B Licences
  A and B Licences
  Goods Vehicles (Inspection)
  Goods Vehicles (Inspection)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Cheap Travel Facilities
  Cheap Travel Facilities
  Driving Instruction (Standardisation)
  Driving Instruction (Standardisation)
  Buchanan Report
  Buchanan Report
SHIPPING
  Merchant Navy (Recruitment)
  Merchant Navy (Recruitment)
  Radio-active Materials
  Radio-active Materials
  Motor Fishing Vessel "Sirius" (Inquiry)
  Motor Fishing Vessel "Sirius" (Inquiry)
  Nuclear Propulsion
  Nuclear Propulsion
  United States Nuclear Ship "Savannah"
  United States Nuclear Ship "Savannah"
  Tankers (Cape Route)
  Tankers (Cape Route)
  Marine Propellers (Transport)
  Marine Propellers (Transport)
RAILWAYS
  Stranraer-Dumfries Line (Closure)
  Stranraer-Dumfries Line (Closure)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Airport Authority, Scotland
  Airport Authority, Scotland
  Civil Flying Clubs
  Civil Flying Clubs
  Scotland (Minister's Visit)
  Scotland (Minister's Visit)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Mixed-Manned Multilateral Force
  Mixed-Manned Multilateral Force
  Spain ("Leander" Class Frigates)
  Spain ("Leander" Class Frigates)
  Spain (Supply of Arms)
  Spain (Supply of Arms)
  Admiralty, War Office and Ministry of Defence Buildings (Use)
  Admiralty, War Office and Ministry of Defence Buildings (Use)
  H.M.S. "Discovery"
  H.M.S. "Discovery"
  Major Macey and Driver Platt
  Major Macey and Driver Platt
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Greenwich Hospital Act 1865
  Greenwich Hospital Act 1865
  Married Quarters, Scone
  Married Quarters, Scone
  Scottish Trawler "Sirius" (Loss)
  Scottish Trawler "Sirius" (Loss)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Professional Footballers
  Professional Footballers
  Prince Muhamed of Zanzibar
  Prince Muhamed of Zanzibar
  Homosexuality
  Homosexuality
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Fishing Boats (Dry Rot)
  Fishing Boats (Dry Rot)
  New Scottish University
  New Scottish University
  Hull
  Hull
  School Places, East Suffolk
  School Places, East Suffolk
  Medical School (Hull)
  Medical School (Hull)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Charollais Bulls (Cross-Breeding Trials)
  Charollais Bulls (Cross-Breeding Trials)
  River Authorities (Fisheries)
  River Authorities (Fisheries)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dr. Nkrumah's Visit (Customs)
  Dr. Nkrumah's Visit (Customs)
  VIETNAM (AID)
  VIETNAM (AID)
HOSPITALS
  Orthopaedic Clinics, Bradford (Out-patients)
  Orthopaedic Clinics, Bradford (Out-patients)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay Award)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay Award)
  Doctors, Hull
  Doctors, Hull
  Migraine (Putney Health Centre)
  Migraine (Putney Health Centre)
HOUSING
  Hornchurch
  Hornchurch
  Hull
  Hull
  Wanstead and Woodford
  Wanstead and Woodford
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Old People's Homes, Hull
  Old People's Homes, Hull
  Sewage Disposal Schemes, Suffolk
  Sewage Disposal Schemes, Suffolk
  Alexandra Road, Hull (Parking of Vehicles)
  Alexandra Road, Hull (Parking of Vehicles)
  Dee and Clwyd River Authority
  Dee and Clwyd River Authority
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Hull
  Hull
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Insurance Scheme
  National Insurance Scheme
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, North Devon
  Reception, North Devon
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas Council (North Sea Exploration)
  Gas Council (North Sea Exploration)
  Continental Shelf Act (Licences)
  Continental Shelf Act (Licences)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Kensington Gardens (Puppet Shows)
  Kensington Gardens (Puppet Shows)

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

VISCOUNT MUIRSHIEL
The Right Honourable John Scott Maclay, C.H., C.M.G., having been created Viscount Muirshiel, of Kilmacolm in the County of Renfrew—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD GLENDEVON
The Right Honourable Lord John Adrian Hope (commonly called Lord John Hope), having been created Baron Glendevon, of Midhope in the County of Linlithgow—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1964, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
"I will comply with your request"

NEW ABATTOIR AT NEWCASTLE
2.28 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: 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 construction has yet been started on the new abattoir in Newcastle, and, if not, when it is estimated that the building will be begun and completed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, it was never expected that building on the new slaughterhouse at Newcastle would begin this year. The Council have every expectation of keeping to the programme they set themselves. They intend that building will start at the beginning of next year and that the slaughterhouse will be completed within two years. This rate of progress reflects credit on the Council and their officers having regard to the great amount of detailed preparatory work needed for a project of this size.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord opposite whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the trade in the Newcastle area has indicated that the charges, which are likely to be raised against them concerning this new abattoir, are high, and high in consequence of the high capital cost brought about by the location of the abattoir? I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us some indication of the Government's opinion on that particular view point?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the location is certainly agreed as between all parties concerned; in fact the location has been available for some time. To the best of my knowledge the charges have not yet been decided, but if they have I certainly have not been informed what they are. I will certainly make inquiries following the noble Lord's supplementary question, but in fact I cannot satisfy him to-day because I do not myself know whether the charges have been decided.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give some indication, then, as to whether any challenge has been made by the trade in the Newcastle area concerning the location of the abattoir?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Not so far as I have been informed, my Lords.

REGROUPING OF WATER UNDERTAKINGS
2.32 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made with the regrouping of water undertakings in England and Wales.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, in 1945 there were 1,027 separate water undertakings in England and 159 in Wales, making 1,186 altogether. By September, 1956, when the then Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a circular asking for more speedy and widespread use of the amalgamation powers, the figures were 884 and 146 respectively, a total of 1,030. Since then, as a result of 198 Orders or local Acts promoted by agreement among the parties, with the Minister's encouragement, and 28 compulsory orders initiated by the Minister himself, the number of separate undertakings has been reduced to a total of 396–306 in England and 90 in Wales.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very interesting information which he has given us, may I ask whether he thinks it is possible to increase at all the rate of progress that is now being made with this regrouping?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in each financial year since 1960 about 100 undertakings have disappeared. This is a steady pace achieved without disturbance of the water supply industry, and without unnecessary increase of the administrative machine. We feel that this is about the right speed of progress. The regrouping operation, which has been in progress, as I said, since 1956 on an accelerated basis, is likely to be completed, we believe, with effect from April, 1966—less than two years from now. However, noble Lords will of course realise that new factors constantly affect water supply, and therefore the organisation must be kept under constant review.

SEWERAGE IN RURAL AREAS
2.34 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made since 1951 in providing improved sewerage arrangements in the rural areas of England and Wales.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, since 1951 about 400,000 houses in rural areas have been provided with sewerage for the first time, at a cost of some £128 million.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that information, may I ask whether he can indicate what further steps are being taken in this matter?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we have asked all local authorities which include rural areas to let us know in broad terms their estimates of the likely extent of their future programmes. We have no accurate figures available as to the number of dwellings still not yet sewered, because the subject is not covered by the Census. But, as I say, we have asked the local authorities for this information.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that further information. Although he has told us that no figures are available of dwellings not sewered, does he not agree that sewerage and the provision of piped water must be linked? Could he give figures of rural areas that are still without piped water?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, that seems to be a rather different question, but it so happens that I have been studying this matter in general and I know the answer. In fact, figures are supplied by the Census in respect of piped water for rural houses. The houses which did not have it in 1951 were 21 per cent. of the total in rural areas, and that figure has now been reduced, I am glad to say, to 4 per cent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that because of the number of speakers in this afternoon's debate, it has been arranged that a cold buffet dinner will be available in the Dining Room this evening.
SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PORT OF LONDON BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
2.37 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, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It has been our custom for some years to have a foreign affairs debate just prior to the Summer Recess. On this occasion the debate has a rather special significance, as it will in all probability be the last debate on foreign affairs in either House before the end of this Parliament. It is taking place to-day in the aftermath of three important gatherings: the Conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London, the African Summit Conference in Cairo, and the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. There will be an opportunity next week to review the results of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and I only want to say at this stage how useful it was for the Commonwealth African Prime Ministers to have the opportunity of meeting together in London and of considering with their colleagues some of the main issues with which they would be faced at the Summit Conference of 32 Heads of African States now meeting in Cairo. It was extraordinary to be reminded that President Nkrumah had not met Mr. Jomo Kenyatta for 18
640
years until they sat around the Conference table at Marlborough House.
The review of the situation in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa which took place during the Conference last week may have enabled the African Prime Ministers to take both a more constructive and a realistic view of what can be done by other countries in Africa. The breadth of agreement and the increased mutual understanding lead one to hope that a more effective use may be made of opportunities for consultations between Commonwealth countries during the sessions of the United Nations Assembly and other United Nations organs.
My Lords, the third gathering was not a conference of Heads of State and Prime Ministers, as the other two were; it was a political Party convention. It resulted in the selection of Senator Barry Goldwater as the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States and the adoption of the platform of policies on which he will conduct his campaign. It is only natural that there should be a world-wide interest in the American Presidential Elections, but the fact is that the choice is America's own affair and it has yet to be made. I do not intend, therefore, in this debate, to indulge in any comments or to speculate on hypothetical possibilities or implications arising out of the results of the San Francisco Convention. I believe it not to be in the best interests of the Anglo-American partnership for either country to get involved in the controversial issues of the other's election campaign.
I do not think that any noble Lord will disagree when I say that this country is firmly committed to the policy of interdependence of the Western Alliance, to the policy of détente with the Communist world, to the policy of loyal support for the United Nations, to the policy of racial equality and to the policy of general and complete disarmament. These are keystones in the edifice of British foreign policy, and I do not believe that even in the turmoil of the coming General Election the general acceptance of them will be called in question. I say that with some confidence because, apart from the first point, all the others were mentioned in the Commonwealth Conference communiqué as matters on which there was agreement.
It is, I think, extremely encouraging that President Johnson has reached the

641
conclusion that the maintenance of the present improved relations with the Soviet Union should be continued during these months leading up to the United States Presidential Election. It is equally encouraging that Mr. Khrushchev, facing the challenge of extremists in the Communist camp, is showing no signs of being deterred from maintaining discussions concerning possible agreements. The visit of the British Foreign Secretary to Moscow next month fits into this context. I do not suggest that results are in the offing, but I do believe it to be of great importance that Ministerial and diplomatic contacts should not be put into cold storage for the next few months. They should be kept going, both to insulate, as far as possible, current favourable negotiation prospects from any temporary adverse impact by the national election campaigns, and to continue efforts to prepare the ground for new progress after the British and the American elections are over.
We all realise that there are vital issues in the field of disarmament on which there is common interest in working for agreement. This was recognised by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, whose communiqué mentioned, in particular, the need for an agreement to prohibit the further dissemination of nuclear weapons and of knowledge relating to their manufacture and uses. Then there are areas of tension and conflict, such as South-East Asia, where common interest should lead to cooperation to contain present dangers and to restore peace and stability.
I believe there is an improvement in the chances of some progress in disarmament. There are three points that I would make as an illustration of the present mood reflected in the discussions at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. President Johnson, in his message to the Conference in January, proposed that there should be "a bonfire of bombers"—the agreed destruction by both sides of obsolescent nuclear bombers, such as the American B.47 and the Soviet TU16. The Russian reaction was at first a negative one. "All bombers should be destroyed", they said. "It would not be real disarmament to destroy only the vehicles which you did not need". The idea seemed to have been turned down at first, yet Mr. Zorin
642
returned to the Disarmament Conference last month and straightway said that the Soviet Union would now take a more open position, and were prepared to discuss the proposal in detail. This is an encouraging sign, for even though the Soviet objective may be to see the destruction of all bombers, the American plan has the merit that obsolescent bombers will not become available for sale to other countries. The opportunity for negotiation in Geneva may enable us to put forward the idea or broadening the "bonfire" to include some of the missile-delivery vehicles and other weapons which could be defined as offensive rather than defensive—heavy tanks, for example. The important thing is that full advantage should be taken of the Soviet Union's expressed willingness to discuss President Johnson's proposal in detail.
An even more important initiative by President Johnson has been his proposal for a freeze on the number and characteristics of strategic nuclear vehicles. This is an historic proposal. It should be obvious to all of us that if we are to start cutting down on nuclear delivery systems we must first of all call a halt to the present build-up. But the Russian response, as expressed in the statement made by Mr. Gromyko in Izvestia, in March, was a totally negative one. Some of the Russian arguments against the proposal have some weight. A decision now would freeze the situation at a moment of substantial American nuclear superiority. They also felt that it was an American trick so to define the range of delivery vehicles as to freeze the Russian I.R.B.M.s but to ignore the American Pershings. They also opposed the American idea on the ground that, although the characteristics and numbers of delivery systems would be frozen, the idea of one-for-one replacement would enable the Americans constantly to increase the effectiveness of their existing nuclear delivery system. They were also suspicious of the inspection system proposed by President Johnson, which they felt would give far too much freedom for roving inspection teams. They claimed that the Americans were asking for a degree of inspection applicable not to a freeze but to total disarmament.
During his visit to Moscow in June, Mr. Harold Wilson, the Leader of the

643
Labour Party, had long discussions with the Soviet leaders on this proposal by President Johnson. He argued the obvious necessity for stopping the production of delivery systems before beginning the process of run-down, and the tremendous implication of a freeze at this stage in the massive programme of missile build-up both in the United States and in Soviet Russia. He also argued that it would be difficult for an American Congress to accept the drastic proposal to move down to a position of a minimum mutual deterrence—the umbrella proposed by Mr. Gromyko—unless there was a Russian acceptance that, first of all, the build-up must stop. I gather that he used General Burns's argument in Geneva: that there was much sense in stopping a forward-moving car before actually throwing the gears into reverse.
I understand the Soviet Delegation in Geneva is now, at least informally, exchanging views on this freeze plan, and I hope the Minister who is going to reply may have some information for us on this matter. I only wish the Western Powers, for their part, would take a more constructive approach to the Polish proposal for a freeze on nuclear weapons in Central Europe. The so-called Gomulka Plan is a considerable modification of the former Rapacki Plan and ought now to be taken as a basis for discussion. It is clear from the report of the discussions which Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker had in Poland that the Polish leaders are prepared to meet a number of Western doubts concerning this plan. They appear to agree, for instance, that the freeze could be on delivery systems as well as warheads and that the initial area could be wider than first proposed; that it might include areas other than West Germany, among the NATO countries, and areas other than Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and Eastern Germany in the Warsaw Pact countries. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, when he goes to Moscow, will take a more constructive view of this Polish plan than has been taken in the past. It should, at least, be thoroughly discussed with Mr. Khrushchev.
My Lords, in the field of disarmament and peace-keeping there is a third area
644
in which there must be the possibility of progress. The Labour Party, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, has for a long time urged that the United Nations should have a more organised method of meeting the sort of calls which it has had to face in the Suez crisis, the Congo and in Cyprus. In each case a United Nations force had been constructed from scratch. In the General Assembly last year, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and the Netherlands proposed a more practical way of improving the United Nations ability to cope with military emergencies. They offered to earmark volunteer trained units of their national forces for immediate dispatch as and when approved by the national Governments and by the United Nations, and they have taken practical steps to implement this offer. The Scandinavian countries plan a stand-by force of 3,800 men, and Canada offers a stand-by volunteer battalion for United Nations service.
It has for long been our view that more countries should offer trained contingents to the United Nations and that the basis of the force should be developed to include Asian, African and South American States, as well as one or more of the Communist countries, such as Poland and Yugoslavia. This also was a point made by Mr. Wilson on his visit to Moscow. It is therefore most encouraging that the Soviet Union has submitted its memorandum on peace-keeping operations. In spite of its opposition to the United Nations peace-keeping forces in the Middle East and the Congo, and its hesitation over Cyprus, the Soviet Union has now recognised the value in United Nations peacekeeping forces, and has suggested that there should be some Communist participation though not by drawing on troops from the Soviet Union itself. It would also exclude troops from the other four great Powers.
We may think that their insistence that any such force must be instructed by the Security Council, and therefore be subject to the Veto and thus avoid the General Assembly, is a too limited and rigid approach, but at least the new Soviet position is a step forward. We hope that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, during his coming visit to Mr. Khrushchev, will use his persuasive powers to get the Soviet leader

645
to be more flexible in his attitude, and that Mr. Butler will take a similar line. It would be a great achievement if the Soviet Union and the Western Powers could agree on the main principles of such a scheme and then co-operate in securing its adoption by the next General Assembly. It is to be hoped also that the coming discussions to which I have referred may lead to a solution of the problem of the Soviet Union's outstanding financial contributions to the United Nations.
There are therefore three important issues on which discussions are now proceeding between East and West. But there are also three areas of acute danger to which I want to refer. The first is South-East Asia, where a very serious situation exists in both Laos and Viet-Nam. There is no need to burden your Lordships with the events of the last ten years since the Geneva Conference of 1954 worked out a plan to maintain peace and neutrality in the whole of Indo-China. It was a notable achievement, in that it brought together all the great Powers, including the United States and China, as well as those countries involved in the area itself. But we must now frankly admit that both in Laos and in Viet-Nam the agreements of 1954 and 1962 have broken down.
In Laos, Pathet Lao have occupied territory beyond the limits agreed in 1962, and the coherence of the neutralist Government of Souvannah Phouma has been undermined by both sides. The International Control Commission has been unable properly to fulfil its mission, and this has led to the undertaking of reconnaissance flights and even aerial action by United States planes at the request of the neutralist Prime Minister. It has been urged that the 1962 agreement should be reaffirmed; that the Government of Souvana Phouma should be strengthened; and that the International Control Commission should be enabled to fulfil its work in order to avoid the dangers of increasing American involvement. On this point, therefore, we are strongly in favour of the re-convening of the 1962 Conference; but, as a first step, we urge that no time should be wasted in bringing together the more limited conference suggested by the Polish Govern-
646
ment. Britain, as co-chairman with the Soviet Union of both the 1954 and the 1962 conferences has a clear responsibility, and it is important that a new peace initiative should be undertaken.
As for Viet-Nam, where we have a similar responsibility, the situation is, if anything, more grave. Increasing pressure from North Viet-Nam and the growing success of the campaign of the Viet-Cong have led to increased American involvement to strengthen the determination and resistance of the forces of South Viet-Nam. The North Vietnamese and their Chinese backers cannot possibly expect the Americans, who are determined to see that the balance of power in South East Asia is not turned in China's favour, to pull back and thus to see the total overthrow of the Government of South Viet-Nam. If the Communists disregard that consideration, they will, I believe, be making a serious miscalculation. On the other hand, a situation in which an increasing number of American troops are committed to South Viet-Nam and in which the possibility is still held out of pin-point bombing on strategic positions in North Viet-Nam, is clearly one of great danger.
The Indian and Canadian members of the International Control Commission as long ago as June, 1962, ruled that the fundamental provisions of the Geneva Agreement had been violated both by North and by South Viet-Nam. It is therefore, in our view, extremely important that the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, both of whom have an interest in seeing that the balance of power is maintained and in securing improved relations between China and the United States of America, should use their utmost influence to bring the contestants round the conference table. I do not believe that either China or the United States wants to see an extension of the conflict. What is needed is a cease-fire and a resort to diplomatic negotiation. The time may now have come for a re-convening of the old 1954 Conference. It will have to come sooner or later, and the sooner the better, if the risk of a greater flare-up is to be avoided.
Now I come to Malaysia. It must have been a considerable encouragement to the Prime Minister of Malaysia to have

647
gained general support of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers for his determination to maintain the integrity and independence of the newly established State of Malaysia. It was a notable strengthening for his position that the leading non-aligned nations, like Ghana and Ceylon, have been prepared to be associated witih a solid Commonwealth position, and this must have its influence, we hope, on President Soekarno. It is also of great importance that the ANZUS countries—the United States, Australia and New Zealand—have promised assistance to Malaysia in the event of her territorial integrity being violated by Indonesia.
There seems little doubt that Malaysia is to be faced with renewed Indonesian attacks and that the Indonesian regular army is being committed to act on a much larger scale. This is the view of Major General W. C. Walker, Director of the Borneo Operation, as reported by The Times defence correspondent on Monday. The reports he conveyed regarding the inadequacy of air resources, and especially of carrier helicopters, made very disturbing reading. The Indonesians, for their part, have announced that more guided missiles and rocket-equipped warships will soon arrive there from the Soviet Union, and that 58 anti-submarine helicopters would also arrive this year from France and the Soviet Union.
Perhaps the Minister may be able to say something about this official Indonesian announcement. If it is true, it is a serious development. It is to be hoped that both in Washington, where the Tungku is now, and in London, where he has been and to which I believe he is returning, the vital needs of defence resources for Malaysia will be fully appreciated and will be met as fully and as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this urgent matter.
At the same time, it is very much to be hoped that the Tungku will now take the case of Indonesian aggression to the United Nations. It was, after all, a United Nations mission which recognised that the established State of Malaysia was in accordance with the expressed view of the people of Malaysia and it would strengthen the Tungku's position in trying to secure the recognition of Malaysia by Indonesia if it were to achieve the
648
backing and support of the United Nations. In any case, the good offices of United Nations may be necessary to secure a peaceful settlement, now that the result of the Tokyo conference seems to be completely abortive. In default of an early settlement, it would seem that the Indonesian campaign of aggression will drag on indefinitely.
Before concluding, I want to say a word about South Africa. There is a close parallel between the discussions at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and the recent discussions in the United Nations Security Council. Both strongly condemned South Africa's policy of apartheid and both were divided on the issue of applying economic sanctions. As has been made perfectly clear, the Labour Party is not in favour of unilaterally imposed economic sanctions. On the other hand, we know that almost all the Commonwealth countries now stand by the Security Council's decision to end all arms supplies to South Africa.
Yet, in face of the most disturbing events in South Africa and of the rising tide of public opinion, Britain continues to supply her with arms. Where this was done in fulfilment of the Simonstown Agreement, it would not be questioned. That was an obligation. But where it is being done under Article 51 of the Charter, we are doing something that we are not obligated to do. It is something that we choose to do. And it is not surprising that some of those abroad who criticise British actions are pointing out that the main supplier of arms to South Africa is her main investor and her main trading partner.
The Government seem quite unwilling to recognise that there is something special about the trade in arms, as opposed to trade in fruit or machinery or other goods. In our view, there is a very sharp difference, and for us it is a matter of principle. When the Foreign Secretary stated in another place,
"We do not supply South Africa with arms for the purpose of the enforcement of apartheid".
did he mean that he has a guarantee that they will never be used for that purpose? I cannot believe that the South African Government would give any such guarantee. The real point is: could any of these arms supplied be employed for police purposes internally? I think that the answer must be, "Yes, they could".

649
I deeply regret that the Government continue to act contrary to the decision of the Security Council. Their action can only bring help and encouragement to those leaders in South Africa who are almost isolated in the world and who seem determined to forge ahead with their ruthless measures to stamp out the last vestiges of freedom in that unhappy country. I do not believe that that is the intention of the Government's policy, but I think that it is an inevitable consequence. Their continuing to supply arms will go far to cancel out the value of Britain's moral and political condemnation of the policy of apartheid and of the repressive laws which are designed and enforced to sustain it. We urge the Government to think again and act differently. I beg to move for Papers.
3.9 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is a curious phenomenon, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has pointed out, that, as we disperse for the Summer Recess, we seem to have established an annual tradition of debating Foreign Affairs, quite irrespective of the relevance or urgency of that subject. For myself I make no complaint, since the international situation in these uneasy modern times unfortunately gives us no relief and little relaxation from a sense of urgency and anxiety. Therefore I think it is to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that he should so regularly give us his comprehensive lead in initiating these important and necessary debates, and to-day we are again grateful to him. The range of details which this debate could cover is so great that no speaker could hope to review them all, and in my short remarks I am going to confine myself to the climate of opinion, as I see it, in its international aspects. I think that, within that bracket what I say will apply to all the many places, which the noble Lord mentioned, and which others are likely to mention, where trouble is occurring
I suggest, that the whole world is now at the end of a 200 years' era at the beginning of which men of wisdom and imagination realised that the master-element and the servant-element could no longer exist in isolation and largely in mutual hostility. In plainer words the philosophy of "averaging up", in the standards of living and of intellectual
650
enjoyment, was established, with the result, which we see to-day, that many millions have emerged from darkness into (or towards) a large degree of equal responsibility with the older civilised nations, but without the stability and the sense of proportion which are the heritage of a long history. In order to meet on common ground, the "averaging-up" has inevitably involved "averaging-down", in the sense that sacrifices not only of privileges but also of ideals and philosophies have had to be made, to the sorrow and dismay of those who did not clearly envisage the devaluations which must accompany evolution, and who, it seems, had vaguely hoped for a developing Utopia on an ever-upward course with no downward dips.
We seem now to have come to the point where the pattern of the emergence of the hitherto under-privileged has taken a recognised process of development—sometimes with bloodshed and strife, and sometimes with good will and amity—but always on the basic theory of achieving more liberty for more people. Having arrived at this principle, after two centuries of indecision on the part of the less liberal-minded elements, we now face a new stage, not of making, but of guiding this new and established force: an old era has ended and a new era has begun. As a nation, our responsibilities in the past have been great, and we have played well our leading part in them. In the future our status will be different: neither we nor any other nation is likely to be predominant unless some vast catastrophe occurs; and this fact in itself (the fact that predominance now means catastrophe) undelines our necessity to become more and more internationally minded, and less and less nationalistic (as indeed all countries were in the past), if we are to keep our place among the leaders of world thought and world policies.
I think it will be agreed that our Party labels and Party rivalries should not seriously divide us in our national approach to foreign policy: the adjective "liberal" (with a small "1") can certainly be applied with honour to many achievements of both the Conservative and Socialist Parties; and indeed we of the Liberal Party concede that the adoption of many Liberal themes by both the main Parties—sometimes tardily and

651
sometimes reluctantly—has not only maintained our international influence, but also sustained both those Parties in the power, popularity and position which they now enjoy.
It is, as recent history has proved, the struggle between liberalism and illiberalism which is likely to decide the fate of civilisation. We have, in the past week or so, seen two striking examples of each of these forces at work. The Commonwealth Conference of Prime Ministers in London, meeting in conditions of tension and crisis and divergent views, achieved a surprising and most admirable degree of accord and constructiveness by the exercise of nationalistic restraint, of a sense of responsibility and of proportion, and, above all, by a forward-looking approach which triumphed over individual interests. And all this happened under the leadership of a Conservative Prime Minister whose liberal-mindedness and broad outlook at that Conference brought about a success which has given new heart and new hope to those of us who believe that the Commonwealth has a moral basis far more valuable in internationalism than being merely a closed shop for the trade and commerce of certain English-speaking peoples.
But the Conference was not a Conservative victory; it was not a British victory: it was a victory of "liberal-mindedness", and an occasion on which the liberal approach was, for once, in time to anticipate and avoid possible disaster, instead of coming in too late, as it too often has done in the past, trying to save something from some wreck caused by short-sighted nationalistic selfishness. Whichever Party may be in power in our next Parliament, I urge them to press forward more actively and more wholeheartedly than either of them has yet done, with that liberal element (I still mean "liberal" with a small "1") which exists somewhere in their make-up, shining like a small star in the reactionary policies to which they cling. The Tory Party must encourage a new and reviving internationalism, and the Labour Party, I suggest, must adopt one.
The other example—that of illiberalism—which we have recently seen is, as
652
the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the result of the nomination of the Republican Candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I also do not want to say much on this subject, for I do not think that we in this country—or, indeed, those in any other country—are in a position to assess the implications of this unexpected turn of events; nor can we yet know the force or the significance of what we cannot help hoping is merely a symptom of sectional hysteria or frustration. But in the Goldwater concept we have an unmistakable example of illiberalism and prejudice in one of its most sinister forms, comparable basically with Hitlerism and Communism; where prejudice sponsors total intolerance and the philosophies of decency are set aside, ostensibly for a limited period but ultimately with a heavy setback towards barbarity and with generations of leeway to be made up.
It is for this reason, among others, that we view with horror the possibility of the threatened, what I may call potential suicide of America as a civilised Power—for that, I think, would be the result of American adoption of the insular and illiberal intolerance which has been put so regrettably into our imagination in the last week or so. The tragedy to Americans would be shattering; but even greater would be the loss to the civilised world, and the would-be civilised world, of the abstraction from our midst of a great nation to whom we have confidently looked to promote and stand by the ideals of Abraham Lincoln.
Meanwhile, I consider it premature, as the noble Lord suggested, to calculate, and immoral to make British Party capital out of, a hypothetical American situation. Those of us who think (but with sincere appreciation of the contrary point of view) that our independent deterrent is neither independent nor deterrent are reinforced in our view that if one single Western Nation gives signs of "going it alone", the only safeguard to peace is to pursue international disarmament more strongly than ever, and to press on to the first stage of placing the control of nuclear force in a joint Western responsibility, avoiding the nationalistic temptations which the proliferation of nuclear status would inevitably bring about.

653
Finally, despite the reservations and criticisms which are part of our Parliamentary politics, I feel certain that all three Parties are totally at one in wishing entire success in the field of world peace and world prosperity to whatever Party may have the grave responsibility of Government.
3.19 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I would at once join with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for having once again given us the opportunity of debating Foreign Affairs. I do not know how many times he has introduced Motions of this sort in your Lordships' House. I only hope that he will do so for many years to come, and from the position which he now occupies in your Lordships' House. While I am almost certain that this will be the case, I am absolutely certain that it will be the case with the noble Lord, Lord Rea. This, of course, does not make his contributions any the less valuable, and I think your Lordships will have been interested in the analysis he has made as to why we are where we are, and what we ought to do about it. If I may say so, I thought at one moment that he appeared to think he was running a sort of political Moss Bros. and I beg leave to doubt that the only reason there is any virtue in noble Lords opposite, or on these Benches, is that we have stolen the noble Lord's clothes. I think we are even better dressed than he is.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow in detail everything the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Rea, have said, because it would be covering too wide a field. But I shall be touching on a number of things they spoke about. In any event, my noble friend Lord Dundee will be winding up at the end, and will deal with the points with which I have not dealt. I think it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that the questions which have been most preoccupying us are the same as those to which I referred in your Lordships' last debate on Foreign Affairs, in February. I am afraid that this is inevitable, and I only wish that I were in a position to report progress in all these problems.
654
But, unfortunately I cannot. In at least two parts of the world (one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson), Malaysia and Cyprus, to which our efforts and money have been devoted in recent months, the situation now is more serious than when I last spoke to your Lordships.
Your Lordships will expect me to say something about the situation in Cyprus, but you will be well aware of the history of the dispute, and I do not intend to go into that aspect. But it would be idle to deny that to-day, seven months after the outbreak of violence in Cyprus, we are just as far from a solution, the situation is just as dangerous and potentially explosive, and the problem just as intractable. In these last months Her Majesty's Government have had only one object in view: to make it possible for a just settlement, acceptable to all the parties concerned, to be reached in Cyprus and, in particular, to preserve the NATO Alliance in the Eastern Mediterranean, on which the friendship of Greece and Turkey so greatly depends.
Your Lordships will have seen from the communiqué issued last night after our talks with M. Papandreou, that the Greek Government also attach great importance to the maintenance of NATO. Everything we have done has been designed to that end from the moment that, at the request of the Cyprus Government and the other guarantor Powers, we sent British troops to help keep the peace to our support of the United Nations Force and the resolutions which have been moved and passed in the Security Council. We have accepted this responsibility, and accepted it willingly, although on occasion those we have been trying to help seem to have misunderstood our actions and have imputed to us motives so far-fetched which, if true, would have been so dishonourable that they have caused some considerable resentment in this country.
Recently, we have been greatly alarmed to learn of the military build-up in Cyprus, and we have drawn the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to this issue and to the dangers inherent in this development. As your Lordships know, the United Nations mediator, Mr. Tuomioja has been engaged for the last few months in trying to find a solution to the problem and, as well as meeting both communities in

655
Cyprus and the Greeks and the Turks, we have also had conversations with him. He is at this moment in Geneva, where he is holding meetings with representatives of the Greek and Turkish Governments, and where Mr. Dean Acheson is available for consultation, as is Lord Hood, from the Foreign Office.
We have also in the last few weeks had conversations with the Turkish Prime Minister and with Mr. Papandreou, the Greek Prime Minister. We have not considered it right to put forward a particular solution ourselves, since we have felt this to be the task of the mediator, together with the three parties most closely involved. We have always considered that any solution which is acceptable to those three parties would be acceptable to everyone. We have therefore urged on all the parties concerned the need for a lasting settlement. since a continuation of the dispute could lead to armed conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean and all the incalculable consequences that that could bring. We have made it quite clear that, in our opinion, there must be negotiation between those principally involved.
My Lords, in spite of the difficulties, the expense, the misunderstandings which our involvement in this crisis has caused us, we shall naturally continue to do everything we can to help our friends reach a settlement. In return, we can surely appeal to them to negotiate in a spirit of reasonableness and compromise, for a failure to do so will benefit no one but those who seek to destroy the Western World.
We regard our present position in Arabia as a major factor in preserving stability, and naturally British interests and those of the West lie in its progress and stability. It preserves peace in the Persian Gulf, and gives the various states the chance to develop their potential with the minimum of outside interference and distraction. The Base at Aden is part of our contribution to this stability, as well as having strategic importance in other respects and in other areas. Our enjoyment of its facilities is entirely compatible with progress to independence for South Arabia, and we were glad to find that at the recent Conference in London leaders of all
656
shades of opinion appreciated the need for the Base, on economic as well as military grounds.
The Report of the Conference, for which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies should take great credit, shows clearly to the world our intention to lead the Federation as rapidly as possible to sovereign independence. But we must recognise that one of the main hindrances to the establishment in the Federation of the stable conditions necessary for economic, social and political progress has been the continued offensive and hostile activity from across the Federation border. The subversion of South Arabian tribesmen has been made worse by the provision of special training in guerrilla activity, and the large-scale supply of sophisticated equipment for the use of dissidents.
This increased effort is, I regret to say, directly connected with the Egyptian presence in the Yemen. It is true that there has been a decrease in direct attacks on Federal territory from the Yemen, on the ground and from the air, but this seems due more to our defensive measures than to better intent on the other side. There is also a continuous stream of hostile radio propaganda inciting people in the Federation to acts of subversion and terrorism, coming both from Radio Cairo and from Radio San'a. It is against this background that we have to judge the suggestion of United Arab Republic leaders, and, for that matter, Yemeni Republican leaders, that they are seeking some degree of rapprochement with this country, and are particularly anxious that we should accord recognition to the Republican Government.
We are, of course, interested in any proposal which might lead to peace and stability in this area, and our efforts, through the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to reduce tension on the border between the Yemen and South Arabia are ample evidence of this. Cairo and San'a both now say that they want to see self-determination in South Arabia—a shelving of the claim that the Federation is part of the Yemen. We would find Cairo and San'a more convincing if their words were accompanied by tangible steps to

657
comply with the Security Council Resolution of April, 9, which called for both sides
"to exercise the maximum restraint in order to avoid further incidents and to restore peace in the area."
But they continue to encourage violence, destruction and subversion: by vicious radio propaganda, by supplying arms and equipment for sabotage, and by paying and training dissident tribesmen from the Federation to use this equipment. This is not the language of rapprochement as we understand it.
We, for our part, have our main responsibility in South Arabia. The Report of the recent Constitutional Conference shows how we are proposing to discharge it. In Aden State elections will be held in October on a new franchise enacted by the State Legislature. The other constituent States of the Federation will be doing all they can to advance democratic electoral processes so that a truly representative National Assembly for the Federation can be elected.
My Lords, we should note the contrast. While the United Arab Republic speaks of self-determination for the South, but pursues the incompatible policy of stirring up violence, the Federation's leaders and we are taking positive steps to provide for that self-determination. The declared aim is independence not later than 1968, and before that point the Federation intends to negotiate with us arrangements about British Base facilities in Aden. Of course, there are difficulties, notably resolving the problem of harmonising the systems of the politically more advanced Aden State and of the other States of the Federation. This is principally a matter for the people of Aden and the other States to negotiate for themselves, and there is provision for that. The essential thing is that we are doing all we can to provide self-determination for the people of the Federation, and the economic development and stability which are necessary to enable them to enjoy their independence. If the leaders of the United Arab Republic and the Yemeni Republican authorities are really sincere in their recent statements, as I hope they are, about self-determination for South Arabia, the best contribution they could make would be to put an end to their
658
continual efforts to impede and disrupt this process.
For our part we have followed a policy of non-involvement in the internal conflict in the Yemen, and we have exercised considerable restraint in the face of provocation. We shall do what we can to keep the temperature down. We stand by our offers of demarcation and demilitarisation of the frontier, and to accept United Nations observers along it. In that connection I should like to thank the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his efforts to promote reduction of tension and to express our hope that he may succeed.
As I have said, our position in Aden is relevant to our obligations in the Persian Gulf. We have historic ties with the States of the Persian Gulf and a special interest in the stability of the area, owing to the production from British oil companies in the region. We are on terms of special friendship with the Rulers of Bahrein and Qatar and the Trucial States, and have responsibilities towards them in the fields of foreign affairs and defence. We also enjoy the friendliest of relations with the State of Kuwait, which became a member of the United Nations in 1963. In an Exchange of Letters in July, 1961, we undertook to go to her assistance if she so requested us. We intend to stand by our obligations in the Gulf and to do whatever is possible to maintain the stability of the area. Just recently we have been happy to welcome the Ruler of Bahrein to this country as the guest of Her Majesty's Government. If he enjoyed himself as much as we enjoyed having him, then the visit was mutually satisfactory to both of us.
My Lords, South-East Asia, about which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke has always been rich in problems. The two major issues in that region to-day are those created by Communist designs on Indo-China and by Indonesian designs on Malayasia. In each case there is an expansionist force seeking to extend its rule over peoples who want only to be left in peace to settle their own affairs. In each case, Her Majesty's Government have long been committed to seek a negotiated settlement, but we believe that in Indo-China, as in Malaysia, agreement will be forthcoming only if they can continue to show their determination

659
to resist the imposition by force of one-sided solutions.
It is a peculiarly, perhaps a painfully, appropriate occasion for your Lordships to consider the problems of Indo-China since, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, reminded us, it was ten years ago yesterday that Her Majesty's Government joined with other Governments in adhering to the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China. We hoped that this Agreement, the result of long and difficult negotiations, would inaugurate a new era of peaceful progress in Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Nam. In fact, those hopes have been fulfilled only in Cambodia, and even that country, though far more fortunate than Laos and Viet-Nam, has recently had its fair share of troubles.
This is not the moment to catalogue this unhappy history of the last decade in Laos and Viet-Nam. Instead, I should like to remind your Lordships, very briefly, of the latest developments and to explain where we now stand. In Laos, the Communist Pathet Lao still retain the territory they seized from the Neutralists in their offensive of mid-May. This was a deliberate violation of the 1962 Geneva Settlement. It is also a standing provocation to further fighting—fighting that might be very difficult to confine within the borders of Laos. That is why Her Majesty's Government have been doing their best to initiate negotiations to restore the Geneva Settlement. Last month's consultations between diplomatic representatives in Vientiane were one step in this direction. We have also spent many weeks discussing the valuable Polish proposal for a meeting of representatives of the Laotian factions, of the two Co-chairmen and of the three Commission Powers. Many unforeseen difficulties have occurred during these discussions, but if this proposal is accepted it will enable us to negotiate the indispensable conditions for the re-convening of the 1962 Geneva Conference on the settlement of the Laotian question.
In Viet-Nam, on the other hand, there is no immediate prospect of negotiation. Last April I spent a few days in Saigon, and no one who has been there can fail to have sympathy with the people of that tragic country, who have been at war, in one way or another, for over twenty years. But the Communist insurrection
660
in the South continues to be fomented and assisted from the North and the efforts of the legitimate Government in Saigon continued to be assisted, with our support, by the United States. There have been many suggestions that this conflict might be ended by yet another Geneva Conference. Unfortunately, the Communists have made it clear that they would not be prepared to negotiate seriously at such a Conference. Their demands are the neutralisation of South, but not of North, Viet-Nam, and the withdrawal of American aid to South Viet-Nam but not of Chinese aid to North Viet-Nam. This hopelessly one-sided approach offers no hope that a new Conference could negotiate an acceptable settlement likely to be honoured by its signatories.
My Lords, whether we look at Laos, Viet-Nam or Malaysia, the problem is essentially the same: in each case aggression has occurred in violation of earlier agreements. In Malaysia, as your Lordships will recall, President Soekarno undertook, in writing, to welcome the formation of Malaysia if the Secretary-General of the United Nations—the President's own choice of umpire—confirmed that this was what the inhabitants wanted. U Thant did just this; but President Soekarno broke his word, and has gone on breaking it ever since. His latest excuse is to attack the integrity of the United Nations investigators. At the time, however the leader of the Indonesian observer team told the official Indonesian news agency that he was convinced of the impartiality of the United Nation's team's work. Moreover, President Soekarno has now made it clear that he is not prepared to welcome Malaysia on any terms. On July 9 he declared that Malaysia must be split up into its five component States, which could then federate with Indonesia. This really is neo-imperialism, naked and unadorned.
Her Majesty's Government have made it abundantly clear that we intend to go on assisting in the defence of Malaysia as long as Indonesian aggression makes this necessary. It is for Indonesia to make negotiation possible by the withdrawal of her soldiers that have invaded Malaysian territory. And I agree very much

661
with what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said: that the passage about Malaysia in the Communiqué of the Prime Ministers' Conference must have been greatly welcomed by Tungku Abdul Rahman.
My Lords, whenever fighting breaks out, and for whatever reason, a ceasefire and the disengagement and return to their own territory of the opposing forces are the obvious preliminaries to negotiation. Those who will not agree to such conditions, whether it be in Laos, in Viet-Nam or in Malaysia, cannot expect reasonable men to put much faith in the sincerity of their proposals for Conferences and Summit Meetings.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to a report from Djakarta, mentioned in The Times of July 21, which quoted Rear Admiral Martadinate as claiming that 58 anti-submarine helicopters would arrive
"this year, from France and the Soviet Union".
On July 21 the French Government denied that any such helicopters would be supplied, adding that
"France does not supply arms to Indonesia".
The Soviet Union has supplied helicopters in the past, and a communiqué published after the recent visit to Moscow of Dr. Subandrio stated that
"questions of further deliveries of military equipment…were discussed".
I should like, if I may, now to turn to a few more positive elements in the present international situation, and first, since we have not discussed this for some little time, to say a few words about the multilateral force which has been the subject of a good deal of speculation in the newspapers recently. As your Lordships know, the Government agreed, under the terms of the Statement, issued from 10 Downing Street on October 1, 1963, to take part in an objective examination of the project in all its aspects and possible variations. Examination of the seaborne project and of the political arrangements surrounding it has proceeded since that date in the Working Group in Paris, consisting of the permanent NATO Representatives of the countries concerned; that is, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Greece and Turkey. A review of the military aspects
662
of the U.S. proposals was also made by the Military Sub-Group of the Working Group, meeting in Washington. There have also been a number of other subgroups to discuss in detail such things as the administration, financial and legal aspects.
As your Lordships will understand, the idea of a mixed-manned Multilateral Force is a new concept in international co-operation on both the political and military levels, and it is therefore necessary to give full consideration to all the details, some of which raise quite new points of international law. The Government have all along recognised the essentially political motives behind this proposal. If I may put them briefly, I think they are, first, to find ways and means of associating the non-nuclear members of NATO with the main nuclear deterrent of the Alliance, in a way which will adequately reflect their status within the Alliance without infringing the principles of the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons, and to do this in such a way as to enable the Alliance to feel that the non-nuclear powers are making a tangible contribution. The second political purpose is to give a new outward expression to the objective of European integration within the framework of an Atlantic partnership, which represents the view of Europe which we share with the U.S. Government and the majority of our European Allies.
It is no secret that, while recognising the strength of these political motives, the Government have had some doubts about the military way in which they should be fulfilled. In particular we have doubted whether a force of 25 ships carrying 200 Polaris missiles is the best or indeed the only way of giving effect to the idea. We have wondered whether an addition of this size to the existing strategic force is necessary, or indeed whether a mixed-manned element, which would be an integral part of the main nuclear deterrent of the Alliance, needs to be of such a size and shape as to be a viable and credible deterrent on its own. This of course is quite separate from our natural concern about the financial and manpower implications of the matter.
It is against this background that we have recently proposed to our Allies that

663
consideration should be given to the possibility of including other nuclear weapons in a M.L.F. on a mixed-manned basis. Specifically, we have been thinking of the use for this purpose of tactical strike aircraft and certain land-based missiles now deployed or planned to be deployed in support of the land formations. We have made it clear that we are putting these ideas forward on the same basis as the existing discussions of the seaborne project. That is to say, the discussion of them will be without commitment on anyone's part, and they will be discussed in parallel with the discussion of the seaborne proposal. This proposal has been accepted by our Allies and the Military Sub-Group will shortly reconvene in London for discussion of our ideas on this basis.
Of course, many of the arrangements under discussion would be common to a seaborne element or to land-based weapons. This applies, for example, to questions such as administration, finance and the legal implications, and perhaps above all to the political control of the use of any force which may come into being. It is too early to give any categoric statements about the arrangements which will be made on these important issues, but I can certainly assure your Lordships that we ourselves—and in this I feel sure we speak for everyone else—are determined that any M.L.F. which comes into being shall be fully in accordance with the principles of the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons.
All those concerned, and I may say in passing no one more than the present Government of Germany, are convinced that this proposal should be used to prevent the spread of national nuclear forces by producing something which makes national nuclear forces unwanted and unnecessary. Indeed, as has repeatedly been said on behalf of the Government, there will in fact be more fingers on the safety catch of these nuclear weapons, and not more fingers on the trigger. This should be an added factor of stability in Europe and in East-West relations, and I cannot think why anybody should conceive it to be in the interests of the existing nuclear Powers to disseminate nuclear weapons to the national control of other countries. We shall continue, in conjunction with
664
our Allies, to try to convince the Russians and their Eastern European associates that the facts and our intentions are as I have just stated them.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this point, may I ask this?—if it is difficult to answer I do not wish to press it. Could he say whether the new British proposal is seen by the Government as a supplement to the seaborne proposal or as a substitute for it?
LORD CARRINGTON: The proposal they are discussing is of course to be worked in conjunction with the other, not as a substitute but to be worked in with it. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to get on. I do not want to get into too much detail on the M.L.F. The Military Sub-Group will be discussing this in London, and I think it would be better if we left it until we had a report about other aspects of this matter.
Finally, I wanted to say a few words about international peace-keeping, which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned. The recent Soviet memorandum is still under study by the Government. We welcome the concern shown in the memorandum that the capacity of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security should be strengthened and that greater use should be made of the procedures for conciliation contained in the United Nations Charter. At first sight, however, the Soviet memorandum contains no new proposals. It also has one important omission: it makes no reference to the question of the payment of arrears for United Nations peace-keeping operations. As is well known, the non-payment of arrears is having a very serious effect on the financial situation of the United Nations. A number of Governments have put forward proposals in recent months in the field of these peace-keeping operations. We ourselves have put a number of proposals to the Soviet Government which might help things, and certainly we hope that, in consultation with other interested Governments and in the light of our own exchanges with the Soviet Government, it may prove possible to make further progress towards strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to keep the peace. No doubt this and other related matters will be discussed by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary when he goes to Moscow next Monday.

665
My Lords, this is the last Foreign Affairs' debate in the last fortnight of the last Session of this Parliament, and when your Lordships return you will be confronted with a new Government. Despite what may be said in the intervening weeks, I do not think that, even at the worst (if noble Lords opposite will forgive me for the expression) there would be any profound change in the policies and general attitude of a new Government in the field of foreign affairs. But although the situation may be much the same, I think the new Government will find themselves confronted by an intensification of two trends which have already become apparent.
The first of these is the growing discrepancy between the fortunes of the "haves" and the "have-nots". Not the least of the achievements of the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was their decision, recorded in the Communiqué, to take several practical steps for doing something about this. No doubt your Lordships, and possibly I myself, will have something more to say about this during next week's debate on Commonwealth affairs. But quite apart from the human aspects of this question, the problem posed by the tendency, to use the current cliché, of the rich to grow richer and the poor to grow poorer will inevitably claim a large share of the new Government's attention, if we are not to be faced with even greater threats than exist at present to the general peace and stability of the world. To combat these trends we look also to the continuing work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which recently took a most important first step towards the creation of a common prosperity—an achievement to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry made a notable contribution.
The other related question that will, I believe, increasingly engross our attention arises from the Sino-Soviet quarrel. There seems little doubt that the division in the Communist world is leading to increasing competition between the two principal Communist Powers for political, economic and cultural influence in the uncommitted countries. There are growing signs that both the Chinese and the Russians are attempting to involve them in the Sino-Soviet quarrel;
666
and that these countries resent attempts to make them take sides in a dispute which seems to be irrelevant to their needs and their interests.
Our position is happier than that of the Communist Powers; we fully recognise the right of uncommitted countries to pursue, if they so wish, a policy of non-alignment and we do not try to put pressure upon them to change that policy. The growing Sino-Soviet rivalry adds another dimension to the problem of the "haves" and "have-nots". It will be up to the new Government to do all it can to play a constructive rôle and our help will continue to be important, and we should go on taking as the basis for our help a careful assessment of the wishes and needs of those countries.
My Lords, to sum up, we have difficulties and problems—serious problems all over the world: Cyprus, Malaysia, Viet-Nam, Laos, the Yemen, British Guiana, Southern Rhodesia, and we should not underestimate their gravity. But, at the same time, there can have been few periods in recent times when the threat of nuclear world war was less likely. And there have been welcome indications of the realisation by the Russians of the madness of a nuclear war. This is the major prize, and it is a measure of the success of Western policy that we are in this situation. As for the rest, we must continue to try to solve the problems. Intractable and intransigent as they may seem, they can be solved. We shall certainly do our best.
3.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have welcomed the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I must say that I preferred it to the speech he delivered in a fairly recent Defence debate. I can only say that we shall certainly look forward to hearing him when he is seated in the seat now occupied by my noble friend Lord Henderson.
It is a point that my opening remarks were almost identical with those of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I also hope that the present situation is a measure of the success of the broad policies followed by this country and the West, and we certainly take note of the imperceptible way—it has been rather imperceptible, but it is now obvious to us—in which a degree of unfreezing, a

667
partial thaw, has taken place between East and West. This, of course, is clearly a justification—I would agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord here—of the firm policies followed by the West, and should of course suggest, not that we should change these policies, but that we should still maintain the power of the West in the present situation.
But we can take note of many changes. There is at the moment meeting in London an International Geographical Congress. We are welcoming many distinguished Russian geographers, and, indeed, of particular interest to me, a certain number of distinguished Polar explorers, because we know that at least in the Antarctic there have been friendly and warm relations with the Iron Curtain countries. There is, of course, a danger in this "unfreezing" process, that if it becomes too fluid one can see a collapse of an established framework, and while we look forward with hope to the easing and relaxation of policies in the Eastern bloc we must not expect or encourage too rapid a development of independent nationalisms.
We have heard talk of the stress in the COMECON countries. It certainly will be too late to put the clock back on the freedom that has come in this respect, and we must acknowledge not only the resolution of Western leaders, but the degree of courage that has been shown by Eastern leaders, and by Mr. Khrushchev in particular, in facing the hazards of breaking up this monolithic Eastern bloc.
It is remarkable that at the moment there should have been an East German peace treaty, and yet no anxiety is filling our minds; the Press is not now filled with concern about Berlin—indeed, it is almost dropped from public anxiety. And, when we look back, we can see that this is a much greater advance than that original advance when Tito defected from the monolithic bloc. At that time there was an immediate effect on Greece. The Communist rebellion in Greece under General Markos, sustained from Yugoslavia, quite soon collapsed and was brought under control.
This is not the time, of course, to discuss our military attitudes. I was most interested in what the noble Lord
668
had to say about the multilateral force, and I certainly welcome, as we all must, that there is a strong determination which must be sustained, to resist any tendency towards weakening the anti-proliferation attitude on nuclear weapons. I think this is the first debate on Foregin Affairs for some while in which we have not had a discussion on the merits of independent deterrents. I welcome this. If the noble Lord had chosen to follow a path followed in another place, I was prepared to meet this; but in view of his wise restraint in the present situation, I, too, will keep off this subject.
I appreciate that the noble Lord did not have much time to cover it, but I regret that he was not able to devote more time to dealing with China. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is saving it up for his final remarks. I hope not. It is a pity that we have not had an opportunity, and the noble Lord did not have time, to go more into the problem of China. I expect that we shall get some first-hand information from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. But it is striking that, apart from him, really nobody knows anything about China—and we are not entirely inclined to accept those views which he expressed on a previous occasion. But I agree that whatever short-term advantage there may be, the long-term danger of the continued isolation of China is immense.
A country which by the end of the century will have 1,500 million people, a country which is dedicated both to Communism and at the same time to nationalism, can be the most tremendous menace to the world if that country is not brought back into the comity of nations. It is too simple just to dismiss China as a country which is still following the pure stream of revolutionary Communism. There is a strong element of nationalism. If one talks to Chinese, whether they be Kuomintang Chinese or British Chinese in Hong Kong, one finds there is a fairly strong sympathy for the stand which the Chinese Communist Government has taken against Russia. On the one hand, the Russian technicians find the Chinese intolerable to work with in matters of engineering and planning; and, on the other hand, the Chinese, conscious of their long civilisation, are

669
inclined to write off the Russians as barbarians. Every effort must be made—and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue their efforts—to bring China into the United Nations.
It is worth noting that much of the noble Lord's speech was concerned with problems and struggles not concerned with Communist subversion but activity of a more old-fashioned kind; and I am sure that your Lordships will welcome his forthright remarks about Malaysia and Indonesia. This perhaps is the most worrying in the short term of all the situations that confront us. I believe, as do most people, and certainly people who are active in the political Parties of this country, that we have an absolute moral commitment; but we must realise what that commitment may involve. If there is a stepping-up of pressure in relation to the employment of Regular forces, we must realise that Indonesia has a very large air force and it is a matter of real concern that in the conditions which exist on the frontier there should be a shortage of helicopters.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, like myself knows something about the conditions on the borders of Sarawak and Indonesia. It is possible to travel along rivers and possibly to travel without much difficulty through the primary forests at low levels, but once one gets into the mountains at over 4,000 feet one gets into moss forest conditions which are almost impenetrable. It is possible for a man to cut his way through; it is possible to create paths; but in many areas it is not possible to create roads because the land itself disappears under dead forest and under moss. Therefore it is vital that there should be adequate air support. The country will not stand for supporting this commitment unless our troops and those of our Malaysian allies are adequately supplied with aircraft. I am sure the Government accept this, for it is recognised that this may become a serious and painful commitment.
I should like to support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Henderson that the United Nations, should, as far as possible, be brought in to help on this matter. There may have been good reasons why the Tungku was unwilling to refer the matter to the Security Council, but we have a bitter experience of
670
delay in regard to these matters. We do not want at a very late stage to find ourselves confronted, as we were in Cyprus, with a problem too heavy for us to bear. This also should strengthen the position of Malaysia, because their position, however justified I believe it to be, is morally weakened by the continued accusation that they are allowing ex-Colonial Powers still to retain a military presence. Although we are so rightly there at the invitation of Malaysia, none the less the association of other countries and the United Nations would be of real value.
I wish that I were as optimistic as the noble Lord about the South Arabian Federation. He suggested that the agreement which was recently negotiated in London freely brings into agreement representatives of all political parties. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he comes to reply, whether he could give us a further explanation of the new enlarged franchise. We may be confronted with a situation, particularly in Aden, where the political leaders will be those whom not so long ago we imprisoned, and indeed flogged. We have to rely a great deal on the forgiveness of those who have opposed our rule in the past. Although we have been fortunate in counting on this, nothing, not even the maintenance of the base, will be worth the hostility of a people who are opposed to our presence So I hope that the Government are doing what is necessary and that we shall hear a little more as to whether this new Constitution is of a kind which will satisfy the people of South Arabia and of Aden.
I should like to make a few remarks on South Africa. Many noble Lords are going to take part in this debate who have a wider knowledge of that country than I have. Such information as I have comes from close members of my family who have been there and friends—and I may say impartial friends neither of the Right nor of the Left. My noble friend Lord Henderson referred to the military embargo. Here, of course, the Government are committed. We wish that they would enforce their commitment. They told the Security Council in 1963 that no arms should be exported to South Africa which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced. Yet

671
we know perfectly well that the views of the South African Defence Ministry are that many of these arms will be used for internal purposes. I have quotations from the Ministers of Defence which make this clear, but I will not take up the time of the House in quoting them. But we cannot sustain this position when 64 countries have agreed to put a ban on arms and when the United States has lost orders every bit as large as the orders we have got for our Buccaneers and our Wasps. It is weakening our position and the possibility of our giving a lead and achieving restraint in this area if we continue to export arms.
I would make the plea that there should be a really coherent strategy in regard to South Africa. It is a terrifying situation; it is the most terrifying situation in the long run. On the one hand, we see a country with a largely stable society—and let us give credit to the creation of modern South Africa, where there has been a great deal of social progress, where there is a considerable African middle class and where white South Africans have led to a great deal of progress. In the atmosphere of hate that goes on all the time in this matter I do not regard them as wicked men. They are men who are caught in a terrifying situation. My Lords, I do not believe that the white South Africans are bloodthirsty. There has been a great deal of police brutality. Sharpeville was a tragic and ghastly mistake, but we know that the black Africans are forgiving people. But I think we do wrong to overestimate the monolithic nature of the South African Republic. I think we do wrong to think that they are not susceptible to public opinion. Many of them have prickly and anxious consciences. This may not be the right moment to introduce an economic boycott. I am told by intelligent observers that even that little boycott in Aberdeen which people laughed off in this country had a profound effect.
If we are to go on criticising South Africa, I think we must put forward a clear strategy, marked out line by line, as to what we think they ought to do. I do not believe at the moment that without world intervention, in which I hope this country will give
672
something of a lead, we shall solve the South African problem. I do not know myself what the solution can be, but I believe there are only two possible solutions. One is partition, and this will be tragic, but it may well be the only solution, with the Europeans retiring to the Cape Province and a White State being created there. We have had to face transfers of populations in the past, without considering whose right it was to be there and who was there first. The second solution is that increasing pressure will be brought to bear to achieve a multiracial society.
I do not think that the South African Government or the South African people are immune to world public opinion, but world opinion needs to be made clear, and in my view, a time limit needs to be attached to it. It may be that we shall need to threaten economic sanctions, but we do not want to pull down a stable economy at great loss to many people; and I do not doubt that, for a long while to come, the South Africans would be able to survive economically. But what must be made clear is that the world is convinced that the only end to the present policies that are practised in South Africa is disaster and a bloodbath for all concerned. The remarks I am making are an appeal, and I am asking that there should be a lead from Britain and America before it is too late. We should make our opinions absolutely clear and detail the sort of policy that we expect to see. It may be suggested that this involves dictation from outside, but what is the alternative? The alternative, as I say, is disaster to both black and white people.
I think there is still time to solve this problem, but it will not be solved by a sort of weak-kneed approach on arms. It will be for this country and, possibly, the Commonwealth to give a definite lead. I think there is a chance, for instance, that the South West African problem will be solved. I think there is a prospect that Dr. Verwoerd may give in. He is already backing down on the Odendaal report for South West Africa. If Britain and America and no doubt other countries, such as France and the other African countries—and there are still moderate African leaders in Africa—make our position clear, there is still hope that a solution will

673
be found. Mandela was not executed, Luthuli is still there. It would be possible for them to be brought out to help work a compromise. I would only say, knowing that many have much greater knowledge than I have of South Africa, that unless some lead is taken we shall perhaps see some of the worst tragedies and the worst slaughters that the world has seen.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN:My Lords, it is clear from the list of speakers that this debate is going to range over a very wide field. The noble Lord who introduced the Motion mentioned South Africa, and it has been mentioned again by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I should like to speak on only one subject, and that is the place of South Africa in Western defence, leaving aside all political matters. I saw the South Africans at Delville Wood in 1916, and they served under my command at Alamein. South Africa has taken part in two World Wars on the side of the West, and I would suggest to your Lordships that we owe them a very great deal. But to-day we see a growing campaign of abuse against the Republic of South Africa and this disturbs me purely from the defence angle. To me, as a soldier, the question is: where do Britain and the whole Free World stand in all this turbulence? From the purely defence point of view the answer is to me clear: it concerns sea power.
I served from 1948 to 1958 in the Western Defence Organisation. I was Deputy to four Supreme Commanders in NATO and during that time our nuclear strength and defence was built up. During those ten years I studied future war, and the more I studied future war the more I reached the conclusion that in all-out nuclear war movement of any degree—and I would underline "of any degree"—would be possible only in the air and on the sea. Movement by air is very well understood, and it has to be used more and more to increase the strategic mobility of armed forces generally. It is not so well understood that if ever East and West should come to blows—and I would very much emphasise the word "if": I do not say "when"—surface movement on any scale will be possible only on the sea.
674
If one looks at a global map one sees at once the enormous value conferred on the side which has freedom of movement across the water areas of the world. Furthermore, on the seas the effect of "fall-out" is not a serious factor and will not prevent movement. I reached the conclusion in my ten years' study that without the free use of the water areas of the world reconstruction will be very difficult after a war in which nuclear weapons have been extensively used.
We British have always understood the value of sea power. We know very well that, of the three routes between East and West, two—the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal—can be closed without difficulty in war, and even at the whim of a dictator in peace. The third route lies via the Cape of Good Hope. During the Suez crisis in 1956, when the Suez Canal was closed by President Nasser, over 300 ships rounded the Cape daily, and bunkering facilities were available for those ships in all South African ports. Without those bunkering facilities the value of the Cape route would have become stultified, with the most serious consequences to the West in general and to our own country in particular. Clearly, therefore, the ports of the Republic must be protected in war time, together with the seas which surround the southern tip of Africa.
Nelson was always very well aware of the importance of the Cape route to our country, and some years after his death a Royal Naval base was established at Simonstown in South Africa. That brings me to the Simonstown Agreement. In June, 1955—that is, nine years ago—a pact was entered into between the British and South African Governments by which the Simonstown naval base was handed over to South Africa. The pact was known as the Simonstown Agreement. That Agreement guaranteed the unfettered use of the naval base by Britain and her Allies in the event of war, irrespective of whether the Union, now the Republic, was involved or was neutral.
A strategic zone of 5 million square miles of ocean was demarcated to be patrolled by the South African Navy, responsibility for that area, those 5 million square miles of sea, resting with the South African Naval Chief of Staff, and

675
a Joint Maritime Planning Committee of both Navies was agreed and set up. In peace time, the British Admiralty maintains a radio station and an establishment in the base. Under the Agreement, South Africa agreed to buy British arms for her Navy, her Army and her Air Force, and to keep the base in being. Finally, Britain will take operational command of all South African naval forces in the event of war, including maritime air forces, her naval forces coming under the command of the British Commander-in-Chief South Atlantic, who has his headquarters in the Republic in peace time.
My Lords, the Simonstown Agreement outlined above by me is still in being, and the Republic has made it clear that she has no intention of abrogating that Agreement. I believe that it is clear from the Agreement that South Africa considers, as do all sensible people, that she belongs to the West; and her geographical situation gives her a strategic position which is vital to the Western Powers. Another point is that her territory is ideal for missile-tracking stations from Western nuclear Powers. Indeed, the United States of America already has one such station in the Republic, and France is about to ask permission to establish another. Quite apart from the Western World, it seems to me that Britain and South Africa must not drift apart. We need each other, strategically and militarily; and it is therefore essential to study the military importance of the Republic objectively, and not to allow sentimentality and emotional reaction to her racial policies to cloud the defence issue.
The naval advantages which accrue from the Simonstown Agreement are eminently satisfactory to the West, but do not let us forget that if South Africa fell into black hands the naval base at Simonstown would go the same way as has the British base in Kenya—and recent events in Tanganyika and Zanzibar have highlighted that danger. The centre of gravity of turbulence in the East-West conflict has shifted from Europe to East of Suez, and our country, Britain, is committed to fight against Indonesia to protect the integrity of Malaysia. My Lords, if Britain ever had to fulfil her promise to give military aid to Malaysia on any great scale,
676
Nasser would most certainly close the Suez Canal, thereby proving the vital need of the Cape route. Finally, my Lords, we British have retreated on many fronts in recent years, possibly in some cases of necessity; but to abandon South Africa would be, from the defence angle, a calamity of the first magnitude and when other nations press us to do so, I would suggest that we must say quite definitely, "No".
4.27 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the noble and gallant Viscount, who has just sat down, on the subject of the conduct of the next war. I myself have not studied for ten years, as he has, the possible development of such a war: I am a complete layman. But, as a complete layman, I must say it strikes me that if there really is an all-out nuclear war between the Soviet Union, shall we say, and the West, involving this country, there will be not much movement on land, on sea or in the air. So far as this country is concerned, there will be very little movement—I should say no movement at all—either in or out, for the simple reason that this country will probably have ceased to exist. That, I must say, as a layman, colours my thinking on this matter, but I do not intend to pursue it at the present time.
My own theme—and your Lordships will forgive me for pursuing it, but I am the President of the Atlantic Treaty Association, and the thing dearest to my heart is therefore the Alliance of the West—is the Western World. As I see it, one of the main reasons for the recent success of Senator Goldwater (whose remarkable success, whether we like it or not, broods over our debate this afternoon) was the failure a year and a half ago of the negotiations for the entry of this country into the Common Market. I will try to explain to your Lordships why I believe that is so, and, if it is so, what conclusions should reasonably be drawn; and I should like the noble Earl who is to wind up for the Government to say, even if he does not agree with my argument, whether, broadly speaking, he accepts my conclusions.
These negotiations for our entry into the Common Market failed, I think, basically, because the French Government was not prepared at that time to

677
see Britain associated with France as an equal in a confederal and, it must be confessed, rather inward-looking Europe (as the phrase goes) of which France herself would be, or could be, the obvious leader. I myself believe that if we had gone in we should have been far more ready to play the Community game, so to speak, than the French. This, I think, may possibly have been an additional reason for the veto; though it is true, of course, that there was much opposition in this country to our doing or suggesting anything of the kind. But on both sides of the Channel the truth was that nationalism had a large say in the failure of the negotiations.
Now although nationalism may be, and indeed is, up to a point, very good for any individual nation, it is hardly, in this age of the thermo-nuclear bomb, less dangerous than the bomb itself. In our modern international community, with science bringing us closer and closer together every day, nationalism is also highly contagious. There is no reason why inspired leaders, with less real genius perhaps than de Gaulle, but, nevertheless, intent on placing, above all, the interests of their own country first, should not appear in many other countries. There is indeed every reason to suppose, that if we go on as we are, they will. Even here, in this ancient democracy, we are not necessarily immune. I am told that what is called British Gaullism is making considerable progress. It might be defined as "going it alone", on the basis of our Commonwealth and our independent deterrent, and not taking much notice of the views of foreigners. I believe our Gaullists are only waiting for a patriotic leader of real talent who knows how to formulate and give eloquent expression to our frustrations and our subconscious desires. Who knows!, the British leader of the future may perhaps be in your Lordships' House this afternoon—although I dare say he might equally be found in another place. But the point I am making is that it is nationalism which is primarily responsible for our exclusion from the Common Market; that nationalism is undoubtedly catching; and that it may well spread in the Western World.
Even if your Lordships think I am letting my imagination run away with
678
itself, let us consider something which is still more alarming; that is, the effect of recent events on the other side of the Atlantic. Until January 14, 1963, the American nation, under the guidance of its youthful and dynamic President, knew, broadly speaking, where it was going and what its continuing rôle of leadership in the Western world was going to be. President Kennedy, with his brilliant team of advisers, had worked it out. Europe, including Britain, was to be encouraged to unite; and after Britain applied for membership of E.E.C. in August, 1961, it looked, indeed, as if Europe would be united, when the Alliance would rest more and more on the famous two "pillars" and gradually over the years we should build up as a sort of arch, or bridge, the Atlantic Community of our dreams.
It was, perhaps, a gamble for America to pursue this policy, because there was admittedly no certainty that Europe, once united, would not develop an "inward-looking" tendency and become in the long run a kind of "third force". But the reasonable hope was that, once the United Kingdom was in the E.E.C., negotiations could safely be undertaken for the general encouragement of world trade and that, in the vast prosperity which it was thought would follow, there would be no occasion for Europe and North America to develop in rivalry, and still less for one to be considered dependent on the other, since both would benefit so much by co-operation. I know this, broadly speaking, was the American conception, because President Kennedy told me so himself in a long conversation I had with him in March, 1962.
This was more than a genial brain wave; it was a whole political philosophy and, indeed, the only one which made, and I think still makes, intellectual sense, whether regarded from the American or from the European viewpoint. It was to the great credit of the present Government, and notably of Mr. Harold Macmillan, that they understood and accepted it, even if tardily; and I have no doubt they would have been successful in carrying it out had it not been for events on both sides of the Channel over which they had not complete control. Everybody knows that the immediate effect on this country of those events has not been economically disastrous. I

679
have never thought myself, and I have certainly never said, that it would be disastrous. What I predicted for Britain if we were for long excluded from the E.E.C., was slow decline; and that is a prediction which I maintain.
In the Community itself the effects of our exclusion have, of course, not been disastrous either; but even there they have been the reverse of happy, and the disadvantages, perhaps even the impossibility, of gradually forming a genuine European economic and political entity without Britain are becoming increasingly clear. Nobody can say for certain that the progress towards European political unity will not be held up or even reversed by the wave of new nationalism which the breakdown of the Brussels talks undoubtedly encouraged. Should anything now happen to discourage world trade, which is, after all, quite possible, the future of our small and exposed peninsula will be perilous indeed.
All these things must be apparent to the Americans, and, as we of the Common Market campaign were the first to point out, the blow struck on January 14, 1963, was even more dangerous for the Alliance than it was for European unity. It is here that we are in very serious trouble if we do not look out. Let us try to regard the whole thing from the American point of view. The grand design of President Kennedy was, broadly speaking, accepted by a nation which, since the war, has expended no less than £30,000 million in organising and supporting what it was told, and what it believed, were the forces of freedom, with no very great sign of gratitude on the part of those who absorbed the cash and no very great evidence that such forces were being notably strengthened as a result. This huge sum represented aid, military and economic, to such countries as were prepared to stand up to militant Communism, which, after all, and at any rate until the death of Stalin, made direct or indirect efforts to place neighbouring countries and eventually the world under its sole control. Even the genial Mr. Khrushchev, though he seems happily to have abandoned the direct method, is still, as we know, pursuing the indirect one; and I have no doubt he still, as he says, has high hopes of burying us all.
In any case, to induce the American
680
taxpayer to part with all this money, the United States Government had first of all to persuade him that the menace existed and, secondly, that the subsidising of the Allies was the best way to avert it. The task was undertaken with great efficiency by all the American Administrations since the war; and the last example was the great success of the excellent President Johnson in getting the latest Foreign Aid Bill through Congress. But there is no doubt that the collapse of the Grand Design—and this is the point—has left the Administration in a weak position, for the simple reason that since January 14, 1963, there has been no generally acceptable counter philosophy in existence—acceptable, that is to say, both to the United States and to her European Allies—which makes sense to the average American taxpayer. Hence clearly the increasing attraction of extremist solutions, whether they may be of those of "Fortress America" (American isolation) or, more likely perhaps, the pursuit of a tough policy towards the Communist States based on the great nuclear strength, or superiority if you like, of America, and regardless whether the Allies approve of this or not, or possibly a mixture of both.
Both are equally alarming from the European point of view because if it is the one, the United States nuclear umbrella is withdrawn and we are at the mercy of the Soviet Union, and if it is the other, we shall all presumably disappear into thin air if by any chance the Senator's ultimatum fails to work. But there is nothing surprising, I think, in the emergence of such extremist polices in the United States. They are, I regret to say, the predictable outcome of the unhappy events of January, 1963. The chances certainly are that they will not be accepted by the American people next November, but what is possible is that under the stress of the electoral campaign the present Administration may feel obliged to make more concessions to extremist views than would otherwise be the case.
I think that much will depend on whether the Democratic Administration, supposing it is returned to power, will conclude that the whole conception of the Grand Design is now finally dead. If it concludes that it is finally dead it will have to devise, and indeed may have to impose, some counter-project

681
for keeping the Alliance together, in the circumstances of the "thaw", which has some prospect of being accepted both by the American people and by all the European Allies, unless perhaps, which is unlikely and I should have thought myself undesirable, it is a scheme which may somehow be applied without the consent of the Government of France. Any new solution will no doubt contain proposals for a multilateral force, and I was glad to hear the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on that subject. Of course, the moment has not come to discuss this project in any detail because the details are not yet worked out, but I suggest there is one possible weak point from our point of view in the project, and that is that if we come into it, and at the same time remain outside the European Economic Community, it looks as if Germany may gradually become the main pivot of the Alliance from the American point of view. Of course, if we do not come into the M.L.F. and still are debarred from coming into Europe, there is no doubt whatever that Germany will be the main pivot of the Alliance from the American point of view.
There may also be suggestions for reinforcing various Atlantic organs so as to arrive at a rather more unquestioned American leadership. If Europe is not working properly, and more especially if Britain stays out of the E.E.C. for one reason or another, that would indeed be a logical, if not a necessary, development. I remember saying in this House three and a half years ago that if for any reason we could not, or would not, join Western Europe something on the lines of "Union Now" with America was the only likely alternative for us. The famous "Anglo-Saxon bloc" of the General's imagination would then really come into being! But whether we could form some kind of Atlantic Federation embracing the States of the European mainland as well is I think much more open to doubt. If the European Economic Community persists and goes on, obviously we could not do it. If it collapses, owing to the disruptive effects of nationalism, then I feel that only Mr. Khrushchev will benefit in the end.
The point I am making here is that, after the elections, America, as still by far the largest and most important
682
member of the Alliance, will have to come out with a new plan for making the Alliance work, and that will not necessarily be a plan which will be altogether agreeable to this country. We all know that these great issues will not, in all probability, present themselves before the end of the year when our two Elections are over. No doubt Mr. Khrushchev will do his best to see to that. But that they will come out fairly shortly after our Elections few can doubt. What then, in two words, are the likely choices which will probably face Her Majesty's Government, whether it is Conservative or Labour, early next year, and how should we best confront them?
It must be clear—to my mind, at any rate—that it would be fatal for the new Government, whatever its political complexion, to suggest to our friends (and, after all, they are our friends) on the Continent that it has abandoned the European idea and is no longer prepared, as it was prepared in 1961, to accept the economic and political obligations and implications of the Treaty of Rome. Equally, I should hope that it will not be tempted to regard the Commonwealth as in any way an alternative to the European idea. Everybody is delighted by the success, under the splendid leadership of the Prime Minister, of the recent Commonwealth Conference. But that Conference in itself revealed both the possibilities and the limitations of the whole Commonwealth conception. There never was any real conflict between that conception and our joining the European Economic Community.
Such economic difficulties as there were—and they were real enough—chiefly concerned measures necessary to protect certain Commonwealth interests during a shorter or longer period of adjustment. These difficulties may well diminish with the passage of time. Japan is likely to absorb more and more of the primary products of the Antipodes. Nigeria and other Commonwealth countries will probably make their own deals with the Common Market: they are negotiating them now. Our own system of deficiency payments to our farmers may be gradually modified, anyhow. Times change, and we change with them. Maybe it will not be physically possible to get closer to Europe for a time; but you never know. The atmosphere on the

683
other side of the Channel may at any moment be changed. We must be prepared for such a change and disposed to profit by it when it comes, as it will come.
To the Americans, I think it would be important to say that, whatever plans they may have for reorganising the Alliance, we ourselves should prefer to regard them as temporary measures which, however necessary, should at least not conflict with the accomplishment, when that becomes possible, of the Grand Design—namely, the construction of a Union of Western Europe, including Britain, which will be neither a third force nor an appendage of America, but a strong and willing ally in the preservation of those freedoms without which darkness will descend on the West, and possibly on all mankind. We live in dangerous times, and our present prosperity tends to obscure the clouds on the horizon. It was not, I think, just summer lightning which struck the other day in San Francisco: it was the rumbling of a storm which, if we and our American and European friends are not clever, may overturn our whole way of life. The first and elementary precaution is for all the Western Europeans to get together and then for them to form a workable partnership with America. Let us hope that this fundamental truth will soon be recognised, on both sides of the Channel, before it is too late.
4.50 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I want to talk mainly about China, but before I do so I should like to say a word of two about South Africa, which has been referred to already and no doubt will be referred to again. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, said, if I heard him aright, that the South African Government believed that they belonged to the West, and that so did all sensible people. I must claim, therefore, to be very unsensible. It seems to me that any such idea entirely forgets what the West is about—namely, freedom and justice—and that to accept the friendship, alliance and even help of those who are scoring less on freedom and justice than the adversaries against whom our Alliance was constructed, would be a very foolish course.
Just a word about race. I think any man of breadth of view can feel no sym-
684
pathy for those who live in the countries where they have these terrible racial problems—I am thinking primarily of South Africa, but also of the Southern States of the United States—and say they are insoluble and the trouble is bound to come, because they have never been to the countries in the world where these problems have been solved—and I refer to Brazil and Hawaii. First of all, in Brazil there are three separate races—the white Portuguese, the Amerindians and the black African former slave people—living in perfect harmony. In Hawaii there are four or five distinguishable racial stocks—the white American, the brown Hawaiian, the yellow Japanese, Chinese and Korean, and the black former African American—all living in perfect harmony, which they have been doing for many decades. In fact, in Brazil they have been doing it for 400 years. It seems to me that anybody who claims to speak or hold a policy on racial matters without having examined these solutions is not worthy of sympathy. I think the House knows what the solution is, and I will not detain your Lordships by describing it.
To come to my main point of China, I want to start with some words of that great and good man, our former colleague the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on June 17, because I believe that in the language he used he was reflecting a true feeling in the country, and this feeling is misinformed and I should like to say why. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 696 (No. 123), col. 1308]:
"…the Russian leaders have a new knowledge of what nuclear war means… The Chinese still refuse to admit this… Mao Tse-tung still believes that he can threaten with nuclear weapons, but the Russians know better."
He went on to say:
"I believe that they"—
that is, the Chinese—
"in turn, will come to recognise, and recognise before it is too late, that the sole result of a nuclear strike by any nuclear Power is immediate annihiliation by the second strike of another."
I think this is the generally accepted view in Britain, in America and in Europe. We all think that the Chinese are absolutely wild about nuclear weapons; that they are just itching to build one and to drop it any old where, and that this constitutes a great danger for all of us.

685
Let us look into this in more detail and see what actual developments there have been in China on this front over the last five or six years. The history starts really with the orbiting of the first Russian Sputnik in 1957, which was greeted in China with an outburst of applause, delight, even adoration. Nothing could ever touch Communist China again. Mao Tse-tung spoke of
"the steadily growing possibility of preventing imperialism from launching a new war."
Then, for reasons which we do not know, but at which we can guess, there came the dramatic and secret development between April and June, 1958, when the Russians back-tracked on their agreement to supply nuclear weapons know-how, and even nuclear weapons, to China. The immediate reaction was a complete switch in what the Chinese were saying from, "The Russians should teach us. We are protected by their advanced technology. They will keep us safe". They began to say, in the relevant publications, that it is despicable to accept the help of foreigners; that foreign experts patrolling the country constitute a danger of dogmatism; that men count more than weapons and things, and that Chinese senior officers are in error to neglect the possibilities of guerrilla war as the wise Mao Tse-tung proclaimed it. In other words, they were making the best of being deserted by their powerful ally.
During the next year or so, there was the off-shore island crisis when the Chinese were reminded forcibly of the continued presence of an American fleet carrying nuclear weapons patrolling a few miles off their shore, and during that crisis the Russians ostentatiously refrained from rattling their rockets in favour of the Chinese. They must have been extremely scared at that point. In 1959 the Russians cut back on their delivery of aircraft to China, and in 1960 they totally withdrew all their military advisers. It is hard to think of a more naked situation in which any country could find itself.
It so happens that there have recently been published and made available to students some secret military papers in use in China during the first half of 1961; I refer to the Bulletin of Activities of the General Political Department of the People's Liberation Army, which is what the Chinese call
686
their army. These have been analysed in the West; the results have been published, and they show that in these secret papers the Chinese Army were discussing solely defensive plans for fighting on the soil of China. They show a complete realism about the poverty of military material in the Chinese forces. They show an almost pathetic interest in hand-to-hand fighting, close combat, the kind of fighting you have to do when you have no weapons at all. They show a complete realism about the vulnerability of Chinese targets and especially of their air defences. They spoke again, with what appears complete realism to the Western reader, about the fearful destructive power of nuclear weapons and their inability to do anything about it if they were subjected to a nuclear attack. They spoke in a very worried manner about the possibilities of chemical and biological attack by the Americans on them. This was their view of the world three years ago.
Things got even worse for them with the signing of the Test Ban Treaty last year. This was an achievement which was greeted with such universal rejoicing in the West, in the Soviet Union, in the closer part of the East, and in the neutral countries, that we tend to pay no more than passing attention to the Chinese reaction, as though it were no more than a routine propaganda statement that they did not like it. It was a great deal sharper than the French reaction, which was a similar one, largely for the same reasons. The Chinese had repeated demonstrations, public marches, song and dance demonstrations in the streets of their cities for weeks against this Test Ban. A weak country like China cannot get its people to demonstrate for warlike policies. You can get them to demonstrate against what appear to be threatening policies from other people. I think the extent of these demonstrations is probably an indication of their basic attitude in this whole matter.
They pressed ahead yet harder with the development of their own nuclear weapons. You have the famous remark made by Chou En-lai to some Japanese journalists that although Khrushchev had said they would have no trousers if they went on at this rate building

687
nuclear weapons, that did not worry him; they would have the weapons at the expense of the trousers. Throughout all these developments an increasing threat had appeared to the Chinese to be levelled against them from both sides, America and Russia. There were increasing hostility, fear and anger with the outside world.
But there were not pronouncements of the kind that the Prime Minister was implying in his statement in another place. The clearest official Chinese pronouncement on this matter is something which I should like to read to your Lordships. It is an article which appeared in a Chinese periodical last November—and I should remind the House that China is a country in which there are no unofficial publications. If a thing is published, it is Government policy. The relevant parts went like this:
"The leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union claim that by advocating support for people's wars of national liberation and revolutionary civil wars the Chinese Communist Party wants to provoke a nuclear world war. This is a curious lie.
The Chinese Communist Party has always held that socialist countries must not use nuclear weapons to support people's wars of national liberation and revolutionary civil wars, and have no need to do so.… We consistently hold that in the hands of a socialist country, nuclear weapons must always be defensive weapons for resisting imperialist nuclear threats."
Here we come to the real point:
"A socialist country absolutely must not be the first to use nuclear weapons, nor should it in any circumstances play with them or engage in nuclear blackmail and nuclear gambling."
I draw the attention of the House to this wording:
"absolutely must not be the first to use nuclear weapons."
This is a pronouncement which has been made by China and by the Soviet Union. It is not, unfortunately, a pronouncement which has been made by the United States or this country. I think I have said enough to show that the contention that the Chinese—
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Is it not the case that the main reproach of the Chinese Government to the Soviet Government in the last year or two has been that the Soviet Government has
688
been unwilling to run the risk of nuclear war in support of revolutions throughout the world—in other words, that it should assist such revolutions regardless of whether assistance would be likely to result in nuclear war or not? This attitude hardly seems to be covered by the quoted statement of the Chinese Prime Minister.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I understand the Chinese position—and it is hard enough to see clearly through the fog of ignorance and misrepresentation—they have indeed charged the Soviet Government with being backward in supporting wars of national liberation, but they have not charged that the Soviet Government has been unwilling to go far enough towards nuclear war in this respect. I do not know that they have ever made this point.
Let me come on to what it seems in point of fact is what the Chinese really believe. It is important that we should know, because only thus can we construct a workable policy towards them. The Chinese attack on India looms enormously large in all our memories. It seemed terrible at the time, and still is when you look back on it. But I have noticed that the further people study the history of that matter, and the more they know about the difficulties of drawing frontiers in the Himalayas, the less inclined they are to put all the blame on one side. One should also remember that there is no other neighbour of China, and that includes ourselves in our capacity as the Colonial Government in Hong Kong, which has been unable to come to a peaceful settlement with them. The Burmese have done it, the Thais have done it, and the other countries have been willing to discuss this matter with the Chinese. This is what differentiates Indo-Chinese relations from Burma-Chinese relations, and even Anglo-Chinese relations, if you wish to carry it that far.
There is in China a pretty alarming state of insulation. It has already been pointed out that they believe they have everything. They have the oldest culture in the world, and they think they can cope alone with any challenge which may be offered them. It was planned to have two productions of Shakespeare in China this year, in Shakespeare's

689
Anniversary Year. That plan was cancelled by a Government decision that Socialist education must come first. This is an indication of the degree of "-cut-offness" from the rest of the world in which they live.
They really believe—and this we have to accept and decide what to do about it—that Lenin was absolutely right when he said that the capitalist world was living on the wealth extorted from its Colonies. Their insistence on national liberation and getting into Asia and African countries is not simply motivated by a wish to conduct a policy favourable to themselves in those countries. It is based on a genuine belief that if they can get Communist Governments installed in those countries there are going to be Communist revolutions in the capitalist States; not only Britain, France, and the United States, but countries like Sweden and New Zealand. Every capitalist country is going to go that way automatically if it is deprived of the economic underpinning of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
How can they know better? Forty-five years ago Marshal Chen Yi worked for a few months in an automobile factory in Paris. The picture of capitalist society one got from a factory bench in a Parisian motor factory in 1921 is not valid to-day. Chou En-lai himself has actually been to England—he spent one night at Muswell Hill in 1919. The Chinese diplomats abroad are not in a position to do very much to dispel the fog of misconception that the Chinese rulers have about us. One may assume that if they question the dogma, they do not last long. They are too scared to go out and look at our countries, and we hardly tend to seek them out and ask them to our houses. One can hope for little rectification of the errors from that quarter.
I wonder whether it would not be possible to have some invitations to the Chinese rulers—the top 10, 20 or 30 men, or even the top one or two—to come and look for themselves at the capitalist world and to leave them unguarded, unprotected and unguided, to see the best as well as the worst. I understand that Chen Yi, when he came to Geneva for the Laos Conference, was astonished that Switzerland should have a higher stan-
690
dard of living than China, and was appalled at the length of time China was going to take to reach the Swiss level. Perhaps he attributed it to Switzerland's wise policy of neutralism, and believes that poverty and discontent prevail in the NATO countries as they did in the days of Marx. One must remember the last they heard about Western economies was in Marx's own writings. These were based on British Blue Books of the 1850s and 1860s. A good thing, I think, would be to get these people to come and see what really happens; they might then recast their view of the world. Chinese policy might, thereafter, be a little recast. This would enable us to recast our policy towards them, and we might get away from the present endless vista of a division between the white, technologically advanced people, under American and Russian leadership, and, on the other hand, all the non-white, technologically backward people in hot climates, the leadership of whom the Chinese, if we go on as we are now, would be only too prepared to accept.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I should particularly like to debate—because it seemed to me very far-fetched—the lengthily argued thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that what has happened in the United States in recent days has its origin in the repulse given by de Gaulle to Britain when we attempted to join the Common Market eighteen months ago. But as I am only the eighth in a formidable list of speakers, and having regard to the sensibilities of your Lordships in the declining days of this Parliament, I will desist and come straight to what I have to say. In a way, like the utterance of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, though from a wholly different and, I am certain, much lower cast of mind, it reflects on some of the changing relationships of the great Powers as we look around the world to-day.
The greatest mistake, an almost epochal error, it seems to me, that we and the Americans made at the end of the war was to misinterpret the violence of Soviet polemics in the Press and on the radio, and the presence of 30 Russian divisions in the satellite countries as a major threat to world peace. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, a moment ago, I thought, was telling your Lordships the

691
same thing about China. But, of course, as he himself admitted, we know very little about the unfolding of the great Chinese scene, and I say what I do about Russia only because it seems to me that we have had months, and even years, of increasing experience of what was behind their opinions at the end of the last war.
The violence of Soviet polemics and the presence of those divisions were, as is now beginning to be seen, part of a vast defensive operation on the part of the Soviet Union against two things: first a quick befriending of Western Germany by the Allies; and, secondly, a repetition of the expeditionary force that had been mobilised against Russia in the early stages of their Revolution in 1918, but this time with the atomic potential used against Japan in 1945. When the Americans exploded their first experimental hydrogen bomb on Enewitok Atoll in 1954 Mr. Molotov shouted over the ether: "We will have it too."—and the Russians got it eighteen months later, in November, 1955. From that moment on, the dark predictions of Sir Winston Churchill on the future of Europe were falsified. The violent diatribes on Press and radio, the shrieking about Fascist hyenas, and all the rest of it, began to cease. Russia has become, ever since that date, a steady, responsible and established Power. Undoubtedly the hydrogen bomb gave them the confidence they had previously lacked and, so far from making them more menacing, it made them less so.
I believe it is quite wrong to regard Cuba as the high point of change. The change took place in 1956. Hungary was the last exercise, the last despairing throw of the old Stalinists. The Russian presence in Cuba two years ago was, like their presence at Suez in 1956, a gamble in a power-vacuum from which, if pressed, they were prepared to withdraw. And President Kennedy did not have to be any firmer about requiring them to withdraw than Lord Avon had to be at Suez. The actions of both those statesmen removed the Russian presence from the scene.
So much, my Lords—and one has in these debates to skate over enormous topics—for the timing of the change of policy in Eastern Europe. Now, what
692
about Western Europe? It is my belief that the high noon of the Western Liberals (and I may say in passing that I fundamentally disagree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for reasons which I think he will duly note) was reached as late as last year, when President Kennedy went on to a rostrum against the Wall erected by the East Germans and said: "Ich bin ein Berliner". The world thought that that was a marvellous utterance; but may I say, that as a Conservative Englishman I found the phrase almost as shocking as Senator Goldwater's proposal to defoliate the forests of North Viet-Nam with small nuclear bombs. Kennedy produced no military threats, but he set the stage diplomatically for a further American advance into Europe; and that, as I conceive it, is the very last thing anybody in Western Europe wants to see happen.
World liberators, whether they are Hitlerian or Stalinist, are the greatest possible nuisances to mankind, and that goes also for dynamic American leaders, whether of a Liberal or Conservative persuasion. The nations to-day are still exhausted by two appalling wars and are longing for quiet, internal, indigenous recuperation. They are not looking for continental expeditions, whether ideological or military. I believe that the policies of Mr. Khrushchev have completely changed the European picture, and they have left the Americans nearly ten years behind the Russians is coming to their senses on world problems. President Johnson, of course, is doing his utmost to bring his countrymen round, but the United States is a vast society to manoeuvre, and since he has only a short time in which to do it, he may well fail. If he does, then I am quite sure that his successor, Senator Goldwater, will succeed.
Senator Goldwater's home policy has much sense in it—sometimes I wish we could put some of it into practice in our own country here—and his foreign policy frightens us only because radical British newspaper correspondents have taken it from catch-phrases which have not yet been fully rationalised. The Times' Washington correspondent's articles in the last three or four days have been written in an extraordinarily censorious form. They alarm me more than anything I have seen of

693
Senator Goldwater on television in the last few weeks. Then there have been other statements in the newspapers; there have been the B.B.C.'s correspondents' utterances from San Francisco; and, finally, and worst of all, there has been Canon Collins's malevolent sermon in St. Paul's on Sunday. One would expect such sentiments as these, and we got them yesterday, from Russian and Polish statesmen gathered in Warsaw. But when we get them from British sources it only shows how emotionally unbalanced some sections of our society have become since the end of the war.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl to ask him whether he is suggesting that Senator Goldwater's own policy, that is, the Republican platform itself, has not been adequately published in Britain? I think it was in all the newspapers.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: The actual Republican Convention platform speech was certainly reproduced in English newspapers. What I am speaking about is English newspaper correspondents' interpretation in the terms of their own ideas, according to their own natures, of certain catch-phrases which they got from Senator Goldwater's speech.
LORD KENNET: The noble Earl said that we knew of Goldwater's policy only from the correspondents' interpretation.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: I take back the word "only". For my part, I am absolutely sure that either President Johnson or President Goldwater will succeed in bringing the great American people rapidly up to date. As I say, I conceive that they are eight or nine years behind world events.
My Lords, if Europe is to be regenerated, it is best regenerated in restful national terms, and that means an end to the cold war; it means, in due course, an end to NATO and the Warsaw Pact; to the Mixed-Manned Polaris fleet—and I was sorry to hear the new development of thinking of Her Majesty's Government to-day on that; I should have thought that it would have been better to experiment with what has been given to us to experiment with by America, rather than produce counter-designs by the British Government which add to it. It means an end to all that and to all other
694
supra-national schemes which derive from the tide of war, of occupation and counter-occupation, from "Old, unhappy, far off things, and battles long ago".
The emancipating Liberal era organised by the so-called Washington "whiz kids "and sustained by large communities of self-expelled emigrés from Europe must come to an end. World-conquering Marxist-Leninism must also come to an end. We in Western Europe and in Scandinavia must now, it seems to me, go in for nothing less than a gigantic rescue operation, not of belligerency but of appeasement; not of purpose, but of ease. A third force, if you like, but a rock and not a juggernaut. It is really no less a thing than positively making peace.
In this great undertaking the British and the French alone can point the way. It is madness to be quarrelling at this time with General de Gaulle. We and the French are the only two nations which, while retaining our ties of association with the territories we have liberated, avoid transplanting into them a compulsive ideology. We are the only true heirs of Edmund Burke, who, among so many wise sayings, said this, which holds the memory:
"As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, your colonies will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty the more perfect will be their obedience."
It is no accident that all the other world alliances which are informed by ruthless or hubristic doctrines of Right or Left are slipping and changing their patterns. It is no accident, either, that the British Commonwealth of Nations and the French community are the only concourses of States now holding their former subject peoples together. It is done by peace-making in a climate of freedom. Cannot we transplant our success in the Commonwealth, and cannot the French transplant their success in their community, on a world-wide scale? The Prime Minister, in exercising summitry of the highest order, proved all this to be true of the British only last week.
The United States is also a vast federation, or confederation, and I am sure

695
that the great American people are basically of our mind in this. If Senator. Goldwater's victory shows, as I believe it does, that Americans are tired of being world saviours, then let them tire. It is better that they should follow Khrushchev and take a rest from the appalling pres-nightmare.
In Britain we are nervous of American isolationism only because it brought America late into the second German war. There will be no third German war: God-given science has seen to that. I therefore believe that your Lordships' House and Parliament and our leaders of opinion up and down the country ought to take their courage in both hands these days, realising that the sheltered, dutiful but largely ineffective rôle which Britain has played since the end of the war is about to vanish, like the cold war itself, into the forgotten mists of time. Once again I believe that we shall be able to gain for ourselves, for the Commonwealth and Empire and for Western Europe, a place in the sun of history and to deploy our happy society and our strength in the way of magnanimity and peace.
5.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, there have been a number of references this afternoon to South Africa, and I propose to confine my attention to that country and not follow the noble Earl who has just spoken on global matters. South Africa is a country to-day where millions suffer. That most are black-skinned is, to my mind, secondary: they are human beings like ourselves. But we have a situation where 3 million whites try to dominate 9 million non-whites, and try to maintain apartheid by force. I consider apartheid to be wrong. At best, it aims at separate but equal facilities. This you had, or still have, in the United States before integration. But instead of having separate but equal facilities you have separate and inferior facilities for the non-whites. And it is black resistance to inferiority that has forced the Nationalist to be increasingly tyrannical.
I would submit to your Lordships that in discussing South Africa there are four questions to be faced. First, are we morally entitled to intervene when we do not allow others to intervene in our own internal affairs, or even into the affairs of
696
other Commonwealth countries? If we consider that we are entitled to intervene, what methods do we suggest? And whatever methods we adopt, are they likely to be effective? If they are not effective, or if we do not intervene, what will happen to South Africa? I have twice been to South Africa, and I actually taught at the University of Johannesburg some years ago. The situation since then has worsened, and I must confess to your Lordships that I was horrified not only by what I saw but by the fact that it was regarded as normal, by both white and black.
I would cite just two small incidents which will illustrate what I mean. The first relates to the diamond mines at Kimberley, the source of so much South African wealth. You have there white miners and black miners. The black miners go there voluntarily, but once they are there they live in a compound surrounded by a wire fence. Once they are in they may not leave for six months, until the end of their contract, for fear they may smuggle out precious diamonds. No women are allowed in the compounds. Native dancing is encouraged, to enable them to "let off steam"; and visitors go and watch them, as I did. I was also taken to a dog show. They were very fine dogs, but I was not told (I subsequently discovered this) that the purpose of those dogs is to patrol the wire fence to prevent escapes and to prevent diamonds from being thrown over to confederates outside. At the end of the contract, when the miners go home, the fear of smuggling is so great that every precaution is taken to prevent black miners from swallowing diamonds. So they are given a large dose of castor oil and are then allowed to go home. To work under such conditions of indignity is, to my mind, intolerable. Nevertheless, they come from hundreds of miles away; they get good wages; and everybody considers this system natural.
The second incident was in Johannesburg itself, where there are buses for whites and buses for blacks. Incidentally, the black buses have white drivers and white conductors, because these are skilled jobs which have to be given to whites. It is a criminal offence for a black to travel on a white bus, or for a white to travel on a black bus. By mistake, I got on to a black bus, and

697
was told that if I did not get off instantly I should be arrested. But there is one exception. White postmen in South Africa are the only kind of postmen who are allowed to deliver letters; but it is undignified for them to carry a mail bag. In general, in South Africa you are not expected to carry anything: I was not supposed to carry even my own brief case. Behind the white postman walks a black carrier carrying the post bag. When they get on to the bus, they can get on together; the white postman sits down and the black postman with the bag has to stand on the step. In those conditions he travels. He is considered to be under the control of a white man and is allowed on a white bus.
Europeans in South Africa regard this as quite natural. I consider it an affront to human dignity. The first time I experienced this I was horrified; but as the months went on, I found that I began to tolerate it. One soon realises that life in South Africa for anybody with any sensitivity is a constant compromise with one's conscience. Incidentally, since then life has become far worse.
I discussed the reasons for these sharp distinctions with Afrikaner nationalist leaders, with politicians, with academics, with theoretical writers. I gradually realised that we were talking quite a different language, and that they were completely obsessed with one single idea, the maintenance of white supremacy. The problem of white supremacy in Africa increases with the proportion of whites over blacks. The transfer of power to Africans is easiest where that proportion is low. Nyasaland, now Malawi, has only three whites per 1,000. In Tanganyika, where there are 23 per 1,000, and in Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, with 30 per 1,000, the transfer could still be smooth. But in Southern Rhodesia with a quarter of a million Europeans, 68 per 1,000, it becomes a difficult thing. In Kenya, with 90 per 1, 000 we had the Mau Mau rebellion, transfer of power was delayed, and there is still the problem of the future of white farmers. But in South Africa, with three million persons of European stock, with 192 whites per 1,000, the situation is quite impossible. It is not considered likely that there can be any easy transfer of power, nor, in fact, any trans-
698
fer of power at all, if nationalists continue to be in control.
The Europeans have built up a powerful empire in South Africa over the centuriesߞwith white brains, Dutch and British, and black labour. The whites do not want to lose that empire, and they are prepared to fight to the last ditch. They correctly say that the black is unprepared to take over and to run South Africa. Quite true. They have not been prepared for this. There are some educated Africans, but no more are trained than the minimum. Black workers are not allowed to be members of white unions, or to form unions of their own; they can acquire no democratic experience. They are excluded from Parliament, and can get no political experience. Even if transfer were peaceable to-day, the risk would be that South Africa would end up as a second Congo. The whites would be forced out, and where would they go?
The English-speaking South Africans are in a different position from the Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Some of the English-speaking South Africans have gone to Australia and to other countries. Some have not liked it there and have returned to South Africa. But the Afrikaners have nowhere to go. Although of Dutch origin, many families have been there for 300 years, and they feel cut off, with their backs to the wall. They are prepared to fight for the right to their own way of life—and not for the first time. The first rebellion against Western ideas was ended by the Battle of Majuba in 1881. There was the Boer War at the end of the last century. There can be another war, for the third time, if necessary against all-comers, against the so-called native population, or South Africa, against Pan-Africans in Central Africa, and anybody who is allied with them.
Many Afrikaners do not want to use force. If they can preserve their empire by liberal methods they will do so. And I share the view of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, that the Afrikaner as a whole is a civilised, God-fearing man of European stock, quite different from the thugs and criminals who came to the top in Germany under Hitler. But if liberal methods are impossible, the Afrikaner will use force, and more and more force, for, in his view, white

699
control must be preserved. In the eyes of the Afrikaner this is a holy mission. Most Afrikaner nationalists are strict Dutch Calvinists. Many farmers who live isolated lives on the veldt, believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that the black man is predestined to be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, and that any idea of equal citizenship is heresy. The whole structure of their society is built on this fallacy, as was Hitler's.
That structure itself is full of contradiction. The whites depend on black labour. They are in daily contact, in mines, in factories and farms; but the blacks are segregated so far as possible, economically, politically and socially. For example, there are separate post offices so that blacks should not contaminate whites, but white children are brought up by black nannies. No white farmer can exist without black labour. In fact, many Afrikaner farmers look with envy at the Israeli Kibbutz and the "Do-it-yourself" methods there. The Afrikaner farmers have to hire blacks; they even hire convicts. And there is no equal treatment as between black and white. If a black kills his master it means death; if a master kills a black the crime is much less serious.
Now, you may ask, what about the English-speaking whites? They are the people who have big business interests there. Why do they not do something about this? Well, a few accept Nationalist policy, but most support the United Party. It had its chance but it did not take it. It is now ineffective, and liberal ideas are really sponsored by a lone Progressive Party woman. The Afrikaners are now in the majority. Most accept Dutch Calvinist philosophy. They have obstinate minds. They are humourless, they are strictly logical, and they have got themselves into an impossible position—apartheid.
They are now trying to force Africans into Bantustans, with inadequate land and mineral resources and little chance of economic development, and not even free self-government in those areas. They have set up separate universities for Africans with fine buildings; but the products of these universities can work only for blacks, as Jews were allowed in Germany under Hitler to work only for other Jews.
700
This is the exact opposite of the Welfare State. The Government there are not trying to narrow the gap between the classes, which in South Africa are white and black, but to widen the gap. They do not want to bring the black up to the white level because that would be a challenge. The result is a low level of taxation on the white taxpayer, which is ideal for the employer. He also gets cheap labour and the housewives get lots of servants. The white is superior; the black is inferior for ever.
When Africans object to this inequality and lack of opportunity, what happens? They are deprived of their civil rights and are forced to carry passes; they are imprisoned without trial; their passports are withdrawn. There is the pall of heavy censorship over the whole country. Even British newspapers are examined before being released to the bookshops. Anybody who opposes is declared to be a Communist. He is isolated to prevent a united front, and South Africa has already become a police state. The police are tough; there is no Parliamentary safety valve. If Africans demonstrate they are shot down, as at Sharpeville. The result is that the only method of expressing one's discontent is by sabotage, and the answer to that is treason trials. The South African Government have built up a very good army and a police force and behind them, but less publicised, are the white commandos. Every village has its own local volunteer force of white farmers, who are heavily armed; and air commandos are now being started as a last-ditch reserve.
Can Britain stand aside and watch the South African Government treat the majority of its citizens so disgracefully? I say, No. We have at least one right, and that is to say what we think—not that it will change the situation, and it infuriates the Nationalists. There is little more we can do to help. It is no use trying to advise African leaders. It is difficult to get into contact with them, and the point has long been passed when they will accept white advice. We can refuse to sit with South Africans at international conferences; that is not a very effective measure. We can try to disrupt South African airlines, but this is rather difficult to do. If we impose a boycott on goods going to South

701
Africa, South Africa merely produces them herself and is at the moment in process of having a boom. If we refuse arms for internal use, it is extremely difficult to draw the line between what is internal and what is not.
The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has rightly said that the question of South African bases as an outpost against Communist subversion of the whole of South-East Asia is extremely important. It is doubtful whether in long-term policy we should be well-advised to interfere with the present arrangements at Simonstown. We could participate in United Nations sanctions, or in Commonwealth African sanctions, or sanctions by African countries outside the Commonwealth. We have gone along with the African Commonwealth countries to such an extent that South Africa has left the Commonwealth. But the African countries are out for direct action, as one has seen from the recent meeting in Cairo. Pan-African training of saboteurs is in full force, and I am quite sure that later there will be attempts to invade South Africa with regular forces. When I was in East Africa I saw some of the places—I will not say where—where Africans were being trained for work in South Africa, slipping across the frontier.
The central African countries are not yet ready to invade South Africa, which is largely shielded by Portuguese territory. But their activities put Britain into a cleft stick. If we do not support African liberation movements we shall lose the friendship of many African countries. If we do support them we shall be dragged far too far. Hence my suggestion to your Lordships is that Britain must stay out of all action against Africa by the use of force and leave that to the African countries; it is an African problem. But we should give no help or comfort to white South Africa.
The white Nationalists cannot understand this policy. They think they should be admired because they are vigorous and have been successful in preserving their white empire. Money is flowing in and white settlers are being attracted to South Africa from Kenya, from Rhodesia, from the United Kingdom, even from the Continent. Every man who goes strengthens the white hold on South Africa, and in my opinion this is wrong.
702
Before such a situation we stand helpless. We are watching a Greek tragedy, the descent of a pigheaded people down to disaster. Let us not fool ourselves: it is too late to-day for peaceful change in South Africa. There is no white political Party that can unseat the Nationalist Government. There is no alternative white Government for South Africa. Even if the Nationalists were convinced that they must liberalise their régime, the whole country would boil over at once. South Africa is a fine country, but it has gone beyond the point of no return. Its future will be massacre and destruction.
5.48 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, in my young days at the Foreign Office such admirable speeches as those made by the noble Lord who initiated this debate—and once again we are indebted to him—and my noble friend the Leader of the House were known as tours d'horizon. That is what they were again to-day. Yet always there are some peaks which remain unsealed, some vistas unexplored. I should like to touch on two of these this afternoon. The first is the effect of the political detente of the past few months on Communist subversion in the overseas territories. The second, to which I shall refer later, is the Spanish frigates.
The question to which I should like first to address myself is: to what extent has the policy of detente been accompanied by any diminution of the aggressive and subversive Communist activities overseas, and, above all, in former Western European colonial empires? The answer is, not at all. In fact, if past experience proves anything, it must be accepted that the easing of relations between Moscow and the West will generally lead to an intensification of Soviet efforts not only to destroy the remaining colonial régimes but, even more important, to subvert the newly independent countries in Africa and those old-established countries of Latin-America. Then again, as is evidenced by South Fast Asia, the Chinese Communist assault is continuing quite openly at maximum tempo. Indeed, they have now become the major factor in the spread of Communism South of the Sahara. I should like to try to illustrate this argument from the growth of Communism in Africa, because it is in Africa that the establishment of Communism would present the greatest possible threat and danger to

703
Europe. After all, it was Mikoyan who said that Europe without Africa is like a chicken plucked and ready for the pot.
One of the startling things about Communist penetration of Africa is that it is of such recent growth. It can, in fact, be said to date from 1958 which, curiously enough, is also the year when some of the great American experts on African affairs claim that they, too, had discovered Africa. Up till the 1950s the African peoples had been generally lumped together by Communist thinkers with the American Negroes, as a poor and downtrodden group of peoples who, like others of the proletariat masses, would one day rise against their capitalist oppressors.
So it was that the action of the British and French Governments and other former colonial Powers in granting independence to their territories, was looked upon by the Communist leaders with sheer astonishment; it was regarded by them as a sort of imperialist swindle. Here were these much abused colonial Powers freely handing over their territories to self-government and independence, not to a revolutionary proletariat but to bourgeois, and even feudalist, leaders, with no interest at all in Communism.
Something had to be done about it, and the man who undertook this task there was Ivan Potekhin, a most remarkable character, who I think it can be fairly said has been almost entirely responsible for building up the Communist African network, both in Africa and in the Soviet Union, and the European Soviet satellites, since 1954.
The fashion in Communist circles in those days was to attack both the British Government's motives and the motives of such leaders as Dr. Nkrumah and their policies of evolving a democratic system. But once Ghana became independent this whole position changed very radically. The political views and the background of the African leaders were condoned or ignored. No direct effort was made to build up Communist parties, and the general emphasis was switched to financial aid, friendship societies, propaganda and education. The previous hostility to pan-Africanism was dropped like a hot cake.
704
Potekhin and his colleagues saw that pan-Africanism could, in fact, be used as a most valuable weapon against the West, not merely as a factor in political alignment, but also in such fields as trade unionism, journalism, women's movements, youth movements and so on. As a result, Soviet-African friendship societies and solidarity groups were founded all over Africa. Loans were given to the newly independent countries of West Africa, often accompanied by large numbers of Soviet and other Communist technicians. Many hours of broadcasting in English, French and Portuguese, as well as in native languages, were devoted to propaganda. And in some cases—as, for example, in Guinea—military or air missions were provided. Then there was an intensive drive to attract African students to the Soviet Union and its European satellites. With the overwhelming passion for education which is one of the outstanding features of African nationalism, it was not surprising that students from all over Africa flocked behind the Iron Curtain in their thousands. And to-day these fully indoctrinated young people are just beginning to return to Africa to play their appointed rôle.
I would emphasise that, initially, Soviet efforts were concentrated on the West Coast, on Guinea, Mali and Ghana. It is perhaps surprising that they were not more successful, and I believe that to be due largely to the very deep African suspicion of all external influences. So, however much some of these countries may have since departed from the democratic and Parliamentary ideals laid down for them in Westminster, Paris or Brussels, and although Communist methods may have been used to build up dictatorial régimes in certain places, the fact remains that none of these countries can so far be described as a Communist State. Yet, my Lords, these Communist efforts are going on as strongly as ever, quite undiminished by the political detente between the Soviet and the West.
Here I would suggest that, although Soviet and now Chinese policy may be largely concerned with the spread of Communism as such, it is perfectly clear that a great deal of their thinking is concerned with the material benefits of

705
the success of their efforts. I am not now speaking of the strategic importance of Africa, to which the noble and gallant Field Marshal made reference this afternoon, although I entirely agree with what he said. The material prizes, however, are so great that they alone would warrant the all-out effort which Soviet and Chinese Communism is now employing in Africa.
One has only to think of the copper deposits in Northern Rhodesia and Katanga, the diamonds in Kasai, Sierra Leone, Angola and South Africa, the gold mines of Southern Rhodesia and the vast gold mine; of South Africa, to realise what a shattering blow it would be to the economies of Europe, and even of the United States, if these and other resources were denied to them. These are great prizes, and so it is not surprising that the main Communist militant efforts should have been directed towards the Congo, Angola, East Africa, the Rhodesias and South Africa; and I would venture to think that it is also no coincidence that of these territories three are still largely under white rule.
I should like to say one word about the part which has been played by the Chinese Communists. Although after the Bandung Conference of 1955 they established diplomatic relations with African countries, up till 1962, only two years ago, there was virtually no Chinese activity or effort in Africa except in Cameroun. Now within these short two years it is the Chinese who are leading the attack; and I think that Chou En-lai's recent visit has highlighted this fact. The philosophy of the Chinese Communists and their approach is an entirely different one from that of the Soviet and the European satellites. The Chinese are far more reckless and insistent on violent revolution on the Algerian model, as being the only means of attaining their objectives.
Their idea is to secure an immediate break with the established authorities accompanied by insurrection. They put themselves forward as non-white, as Afro-Asians, undeveloped and former victims of the colonial Powers. They emphasise their common background with the Africans, their common enemy and their common ambitions. They have for some time been engaged in running courses in China for Africans, in
706
sabotage and guerrilla warfare and in political subversion. We know all about these things. They have accepted many recruits for training from Nigeria, the former British East African territories, Nyasaland, Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories. We are now beginning to see the fruits of their efforts—that is to say, the efforts both of Chinese and of Soviet Communists in Africa.
In the Congo, where their original support of Lumumba ended in failure, the policy of the United Nations, dictated by the Afro-Asian bloc and backed by the United States, led first to the destruction of Tshombe and Katanga, and then, through the refusal to set up a strong federal system, to the breakdown of authority in many parts of the Congo. To-day the United States' policy over the Congo, and indeed that of the United Nations, lies in ruins. There are outbreaks of Chinese-inspired and financed Communist insurrections in Kwilu, Kivu, Northern Katanga and in other places. So with the last United Nations soldier departed, and the Congolese National Army demoralised and ill-equipped, Moise Tshombe, now appointed Prime Minister, remains the only hope. It is really ironical that this man, who at the cost of millions of dollars was thrown out by the United Nations, should now be brought in to carry out the task of national reconciliation. We must all, I feel, send him our best wishes for success.
In Angola the rebel movement led by Holden Roberto is now seen clearly for what it always was—a Communist inspired movement which unfortunately earned the support of the United States. Now it is seen quite clearly to be Chinese Communist financed. It is hoped that the presence of Mr. Tshombe as Prime Minister in the Congo, where they have their headquarters, will lead to some improvement in the position.
We ourselves are naturally deeply concerned with the events in East Africa. Although, fortunately, all three of the East African Governments survived the attempted mutinies earlier this year without too much damage to their authority, it is no secret that there are men in powerful positions in all three countries, some of them receiving Communist finance, who are seeking to subvert the existing Governments. In Zanzibar,

707
where large consignments of Russian and probably also Chinese arms have been landed, the position since the establishment of the union with Tanganyika is still very far from clear.
In my judgment, in all these matters we must assure the established African Governments of our complete support and give them all the help we can in their resistance to what is, in fact, a wholly non-African form of régime—this Chinese and Soviet penetration of Africa. I was unfortunately not able to be present at the debate on the Zambia Independence Bill on Monday. Had I been here, while wishing the new Government all success in the changed circumstances which have arisen as a result of the dissolution of the Federation, I should have uttered a warning to them as to the great danger with which they are inevitably faced—by the ambitions of the Chinese Communists or the Soviet, or both, to lay their hands on the great copper deposits of Northern Rhodesia. In these matters we must always hope for the best, but with the confusing situation which we see before us it is not impossible to conceive of developments which would lead to a great Communist swathe being cut right across the centre of Africa, from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic.
My Lords, in these circumstances, what should we in the West, and particularly in Europe, be doing about it? In the first place, I think that we and our peoples need to recognise the problem. In the second, we should not, I think, in our reactions to it, be in any way deterred by considerations of the existence of a policy of détente, in the absence of any similar move by the Russians or Chinese. Our own interests, as well as those of the peoples of Africa, are in mortal peril. Thirdly, I believe that this is a danger which our Governments should face together with a coherent policy and plan, in collaboration with the United States and with such countries as Federal Germany, which were never, or not in recent years, colonial Powers. Even now, the aid and activities of our respective Governments in Africa all seem to be carried out independently, without consultation and often in contradiction to one another. We must, I feel sure, work together, and even be prepared to take
708
local risks in order to avoid a catastrophe taking place.
Now I should like to turn briefly to our relations with Spain. I have just come back from a visit to Madrid, when the furore over the cancellation of the frigates negotiations was at its height. The effect had been calamitous. Every Spaniard, from an air-line official at the airport to leading intellectuals, not by any means all of them supporters of the Spanish Government, was unanimous in condemning the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which led to the breakdown. This view was shared by members of the British business community.
Now, why was this feeling so strong? It was because, in a few short sentences, Mr. Wilson managed to say everything that was most insulting to Spain. He described Spain as Fascist, which it is not and which in Spain is considered an insult, as indeed it is over here. He included in his remarks an offensive reference to General Franco himself, which everyone I spoke to considered to be contrary to all accepted standards of international law and behaviour among civilised people when referring to a foreign Head of State. He was also unwise enough to raise the issue of Gibraltar, which had become a friendly dialogue, at a time when the matter had been put on their agenda by the so-called De-colonisation Committee of 24 of the United Nations. It had been scheduled to come up for discussion in New York that very week, but, by a piece of good fortune, had been put off until September. However, instead of what would probably have been a tacit agreement by Britain and Spain not to press the matter before the Committee, it is now clear from a Madrid Press report of July 12 that, as a result of Mr. Wilson's remarks, the Spaniards feel bound to make the most of this issue at the United Nations.
It is all particularly unfortunate because, after years of patient work, the frigates deal had become the symbol of a new era in Anglo-Spanish commercial relations in a rapidly developing market. We were in a fortunate position in this respect because, following our exclusion from the Common Market, Spain had also found herself out in the cold and had turned to Britain as the natural out-

709
let. So, in spite of strong American, French and German competition, we really were "going places". The British Trade Fair in Barcelona this year had been an outstanding success; the Royal Fusiliers Band had beaten retreat in the streets of the town; three British warships in the harbour, lit up at night, had received thousands of visitors; and the Festival Ballet had been a triumph. Now all this appears to have been frustrated by an irresponsible action on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.
Nor was it simply the loss of a valuable contract for the frigate blueprints—which, incidentally, involved no long-term credits. It was a question of modernising the whole Spanish Navy; and whoever got the contract would find great opportunities in the re-equipment of the Navy and in the training of personnel over a period of 20 or 30 years. Then again, the close relations between the men of our Navies would, to my mind, have brought an entirely new relationship between our two countries which could not have failed to be beneficial. There was also a great deal of technical equipment involved. Spain is backward in electronics, and whoever got this contract would at once have got in on the inside of future development. The whole electronics industry in Spain would have tended to become geared to British industry. And so it was with many other technical items.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? The difficulty I have had over all this business is in finding out exactly what was involved. He has referred to an electronics contract and he has referred to frigates, mentioning one. Could the noble Lord tell us exactly what was the business that was on the point of being obtained, and how far the negotiations had got?
LORD COLYTON: I shall be coming to that a little later on, my Lords. There was also the prospect of very large orders in the military field, and also in training aircraft. I understand that orders to the tune of over £100 million are to be placed abroad for the re-equipment of the Spanish Army. We were well in the running for a number of items of equipment, including a large order for armoured cars. That I heard in Madrid. Now these orders, too, will apparently be lost. Many Spaniards
710
asked me why Mr. Wilson had said what he did. They asked: Did he mean it? If so, they said, they considered it a very serious attempt to destroy friendly relations between two countries; and, if not, they said, he had displayed an ignorance of Spanish feelings which was almost incomprehensible.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? Could I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that several of us who were against the rise of Fascism in 1930 are gravely upset and hurt at the idea of the British Government now selling arms to Spain?
LORD COLYTON: I know what a great many people feel on that subject, but it was 25 years ago, and we have got to look ahead.
My Lords, I did not presume to answer that question which was put to me so often in Madrid. While I was there, one British paper published a report of a speech by an honourable Member in another place, Colonel Lipton, suggesting that the whole thing was a put-up job by the Spaniards, and that they had already decided to buy the frigate designs and equipment elsewhere. I think the answer to that was the statement by the Spanish Minister of Marine, Admiral Nieto Antunez, when he said that, while he hoped to be able to maintain cordial collaboration with the British Admiralty—and here. I quote—
"political prudence makes it advisable to cut short a transaction that has been the cause of such uncalled-for and unjustifiable interference on the part of the above-mentioned Mr. Wilson".
In short, my Lords, the financial terms were right the technical designs were right; and the agreement virtually awaited only signature. Of course, it is not by any means the only example of—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us any more about how the news was broken, how the leak occurred, and how far the leak was true or untrue? A good deal of the political atmosphere about this matter has arisen from the failure of the Government to keep Parliament informed on a proper basis.
LORD COLYTON: I do not think that any leak that occurred affected matters in any way at all, as I understood it from my conversations in Madrid.
I was going on to say that this is not the only example of statements by Leaders of the Opposition in another place which have cost this country millions of pounds in orders. In June, 1961, the sale of two Bay class destroyers for our NATO ally Portugal was strongly criticised by Mr. George Brown and Mr. Denis Healey on the grounds that it would give offence to the Afro-Asian bloc. Now we learn for the first time that the Portuguese Navy has placed orders for four frigates and two submarines in France, to be followed by two more frigates and two more submarines. The total value of this order is said to be £47 million. In the past, the Portuguese Navy have always bought their ships in this country. I made some inquiries, and there can, I am afraid, be no doubt that their decision to go elsewhere on this occasion was dictated by fear of what British Government policy might be in the event of a change of Government here at the next Election.
The same thing applies, though I understand with certain commercial qualifications, to the purchase of large numbers of Willys jeeps in Canada and Brazil instead of Land Rovers from this country which hitherto have been the standard equipment of the Portuguese Army. I submit to your Lordships that it is tragic that what can only be regarded as emotional remarks on the part of Opposition Leaders, based, in the case of Spain, on the ideological struggles of a world of 25 years ago, should be allowed to influence so seriously the economic interests of this country and our relations with these two friendly foreign Powers. I only hope that Her Majesty's Government and our British industrialists and shipbuilders will not allow themselves to be deterred by their bitter disappointment over these developments and will continue their efforts to "sell British" in the Iberian Peninsula and build up good relations with these two Governments.
6.12 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down is a great authority on Africa, and he has also given us the benefit of his recent
712
first-hand experience in Spain. I know nothing about either; and therefore I am not going to follow him, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not do so. I am going to embark, for a brief period, upon other fields about which I think I know a little bit more. But I would say this about Spain. I can never forget that in 1940 Franco refused to allow Hitler entry into Spain, and refused to embark on a joint enterprise with Hitler to capture the fortress of Gibraltar. I do not know to what extent that service to us can be estimated; but I should imagine that at that particular moment of time—and the noble Earl who leads the Opposition and who was then First Lord of the Admiralty will, I am sure, know a great deal more about it than I do—it was of very great service to this country.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have the two recollections in my mind on this particular point—I have no hesitation. I happened to be in the United States in 1936 after a conference in regard to the Pacific Ocean. While I was there Franco had invited both Hitler and Mussolini to bring their forces in to set up his new Fascist State. Nor have I forgotten not so long after the date mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, mentioned 1940—Franco arranged for his Blue Division to go into Russia in order to support Hitler against that country.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, that may be; I do not know. But I know this: after the meeting between Hitler and Franco at Hendaye in 1940, when Hitler was demanding to go through Spain and to capture Gibraltar and from there to go across to Africa; when it was all over (and I gather it was a long meeting), Hitler said—and this is on the record—that he would rather have six teeth extracted than ever speak to Franco again. For anybody who could arouse those sentiments in Hitler, I must say I have a certain regard. We also know that from that moment onward the name of Franco was never allowed to be mentioned in Hitler's presence for the remainder of the war. I do not think we should altogether forget it. I am not particularly supporting Franco, though I think the régime has been enormously modified, but for my part, I

713
cannot forget it. I think he did us a service.
My Lords, I now come to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. As usual, I find myself in total agreement with half of it and in total disagreement with the other half. But the speech itself moves me to make one last, urgent, personal plea to him across the Floor of this House. That is, that before it is too late he should reverse his crazy decision to leave this place. He still has great service to render the country in the House of Lords, even though he may think it is a deplorable institution. Personally, I think it is much better than I expected it to be when I came. But, anyway he ought not to leave us. It is a great forum. We need him here; the country needs to hear his voice, and it is sad to see him trekking round from one constituency to another in this gloomy Tory machine business—and we all know what that means—when he has a safe seat in Parliament for the rest of his life and need never be elected again. Thank God, I am in the same position; I am not worried about next October; and he need not be. I should like to make this one last urgent appeal for him to go home and sleep on it; think it over, and then withdraw this lunatic decision to go away, while there is still time to do so.
My Lords, I am not going to delay you with a long speech but events move fast in the modern world, and again and again since the war, instead of anticipating them and turning them into good channels, we have allowed ourselves to be overtaken by them. I am quoting the words of Mr. Louis Halle of the United States, who is a well-known American writer when he said of his own Government:
"Our Government and public alike are the prisoners of the past. They are psychologically committed to the basic conceptions on which they have been acting for fifteen years, so that it hardly occurs to them that those conceptions themselves, not just the tactics based on them, should be the subject of reconsideration."
My Lords, that goes for this country just as much as it goes for the United States of America. We are all prisoners of the last fifteen years. What we have to realise is that events have changed to such an extent since the Armistice was signed in 1945 that the world we
714
now inhabit is totally different. When the Russian and American armies met at Torgau in April, 1945, amid the total collapse of the pre-war European system, the Western Allies found themselves without settled convictions and without positive policies of any kind. America and Britain—not Russia—had demanded unconditional surrender as the only acceptable terms; but they had made no plans to deal with the situation which would arise when they got it. They had worked out no plan to deal with the situation which arose when the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, signed the Armistice at Luneville Heath—
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: At Luneburg Heath.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg your pardon—at Luneburg Heath. They did not know what to do after that.
There were four phases in post-war Western policy through which I should like to take your Lordships in a few sentences. First there was what I would call the Roosevelt dream. What he dreamed up in the last year of the war was a world in which, through the Security Council of the United Nations, the three victorious Powers, America, Russia and Britain, would exercise a benevolent directorate over the post-war world. It was for this reason that President Roosevelt thwarted Churchill's desire to limit the advance of the Russian troops in Europe; and I think that the noble and gallant Viscount was probably against that, too. He wanted to push on a bit further, but he was stopped, by orders from General Eisenhower, who had himself received orders from President Roosevelt, not only that the American advance was to be checked, but that in certain sectors and parts of the front it was to be substantially withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, my recollection is that General Eisenhower never received any political guidance at all. It was left to him. That is what I believed. He never received any political guidance from his political chiefs, and the political chiefs allowed the war to get out of hand.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, that makes it in some ways worse, because in fact General Eisenhower did order not

715
only the advance to be halted in 1945 but also substantial withdrawals. He ordered his troops not to occupy Prague. He ordered them back.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: That was not ordered by Roosevelt: General Eisenhower did it himself.
LORD BOOTHBY: All I can say is that that makes it worse. Better let it go at that; but, anyway, my facts are not wrong.
There was only one voice raised at that time publicly against it.
"Mr. Roosevelt's conception,"—
said General de Gaulle—
"was disquieting for Europe and for France, because it was a permanent system of intervention that he intended to institute by international law."
In fact the dream—whether it was General Eisenhower's dream or President Roosevelt's dream I am not bothered about now: but somebody had the idea—never became a reality. Stalin saw to that by seizing half of Europe, and by imposing a Veto in the Security Council of the United Nations which virtually wrecked it.
The second phase was the setting up of the Council of Europe in 1948. I am not going to bore your Lordships on this subject again, because I have bored you enough in the past. But this was the moment when we could and should have taken the undisputed leadership of a united Western Europe. We were the only country which had been neither defeated nor occupied, and our prestige was as high as it had ever been. They all wanted our leadership, and in the Council of Europe we had an instrument which could have led to a European Confederation.
We had a Committee of Ministers and an Assembly, which could have been a sort of embryo Parliament, and we could have built on that foundation. We killed it. We turned down Robert Schuman's Coal and Steel Community. We turned down the European Defence Community. We would have nothing to do with it; and both Parties are in this, because the Labour Party turned down the Coal and Steel Community and the Conservative Party turned down the European Defence Community. And
716
the only reason for this was that Dean Acheson had insisted on the rearmament of Germany, and at that time France was not unnaturally anxious and apprehensive, and thought that we ought to be in it. The Council of Europe has now been reduced to what the noble and gallant Field-Marshal once described in my presence, and to my great indignation, as "a talking-shop". Furthermore, it is a talking-shop to which no one pays the faintest attention. One can search the Press of every country in the world and never find a reference to anything that happens in the Council of Europe. With imagination and enthusiasm, it could have been made something great. It has now ceased to mean anything at all. And the blame and responsibility for that is primarily ours.
I come to the third phase, and that is NATO, about which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal knows a great deal more than anybody else who sits in this House. NATO successfully fulfilled its two primary purposes—first, the containment of Soviet power, and secondly the economic reconstruction of Europe. But these were only primary objectives, designed to meet a given emergency which was brought about by the seizure of Czechoslovakia and the blockade of Berlin. These are the two things that brought NATO into existence.
I was present at the signing of the Treaty in Washington, and I remember well that when President Truman and Mr. Ernest Bevin marched on to the stage, accompanied by all the other Foreign Secretaries, to sign the Treaty, the band of the American Marines struck up a tune. I was there as a humble journalist, and another humble American journalist who was sitting next to me suddenly seized me by the arm and said: "For God's sake, what do you think they are playing?" I said, "I seem to remember the tune. What's it called?" The answer was, "It ain't necessarily so". That was the tune selected by the Government of the United States to play in the NATO Treaty.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord has given an interesting account of the initiation of NATO but his vital facts are all wrong. I am not denying the general

717
position with regard to the seizure of Czechoslovakia and the agreement that was come to on that. But in fact the beginning of NATO was the talks in the British Labour Government at the beginning of December, 1946, as the result of the failure of the Paris Peace Conference, and from that moment onwards, until a few months later, when we promised National Service and through it got the Treaty of Dunkirk, signed by myself and Ernest Bevin in 1947. The noble Lord's dating of the beginning of NATO is out. If it had not been for the initiative of the Labour Government at the end of 1946 and the beginning of 1947, NATO would not have been in history to talk about now.
LORD BOOTHBY: I am perfectly prepared to concede that the existence of NATO is entirely due to the brilliant prescience and foresight of the noble Earl who sits on the Opposition Front Bench.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is a most unfair remark. I said the Labour Government and Ernest Bevin and the signing of the Dunkirk Treaty. It is no use talking to me about NATO starting in 1949, which was the end of about 3½ years' get-together.
LORD BOOTHBY: Well, I never heard about it at all—that is all I can say.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that if we had less leakage at the time of valuable and important matters, we should be given the credit of doing better than the present Government.
LORD BOOTHBY: I hope that the noble Earl has not been revealing Cabinet secrets when he ought not to have done so, but as a mere humble layman, as a man-in-the-street, I never heard of these tremendous designs for NATO in 1947. I heard of them only when the Secretary of State and President Truman made the proposals in public for the first time. They certainly did not emanate from the British Government. But NATO was organised, and eventually we all signed up; and that was right and splendid.
EARL. ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have never written large numbers of articles for
718
publication in the Press, or scripts for broadcasting and television, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord that the real basic fact that started the negotiations on NATO was the signing of the Dunkirk Treaty in 1947.
Loan BOOTHBY: Well, that is a staggering revelation to me. But I am certainly not prepared to deprive the noble Earl of the credit he wants. He and Ernest Bevin made NATO. The Americans had nothing to do with it. It was all done in secret by the Labour Government of that time. Beyond that the noble Earl can hardly ask me to go. The objectives I was referring to were only primary objectives. The ultimate objective was an Atlantic Union or Confederation. This has not happened; and, as a result, President Kennedy's "Grand Design" remains to-day only a Grand Design.
NATO was founded—and no one can deny this—on the basis of overwhelming American atomic power and of total European military weakness. That was the basis of NATO; and that basis has now gone. What we ought to have done—and I am not blaming any particular Government about this—was to create a single nuclear deterrent for the West, to balance the one Mr. Khrushchev successfully established in the East; and then to devise within NATO political machinery which would have given both ourselves and France a real say in determining the policies that would govern the use of that force. We never did it. There never has been in NATO a central organ of political decision. The NATO Council means nothing, and has never meant anything. Cuba, of course, was the proof of that.
Now the situation has completely changed, because the Soviet Union have reached nuclear parity with the United States, and the monopoly of American nuclear power in the West has ceased to exist. I have referred to Cuba. The confrontation there was brilliantly successful. The fact remains that Western Europe was led to the brink of nuclear war by the President of the United States, without consultation. That was, to many Europeans at any rate, a situation that could not be allowed to be repeated; and it has certainly provided a powerful argument for those on the Continent of Europe who now seek an escape from

719
total dependence on the United States of America.
At this moment of time—as of this moment, as the Americans say—the NATO Alliance is disintegrating; and it will continue to do so unless and until some kind of political confederation is achieved, by which I mean an effective Political Council which will be able to govern policy. Whether that will happen or not, I cannot tell. I only know that, so far, no progress in this direction has been made. There is at this moment no longer any agreement on how NATO should be organised, where it is going, or, indeed, what its immediate purposes are. To many European eyes—and I have just come back from the Continent of Europe—it is an alliance that freezes the present division of Europe, and the American troops on the Continent are nothing more than political hostages to a bankrupt NATO strategy. These are rough words, but I think it is necessary to say them.
This is not to deny for one moment that the peace of the world depends, somewhat less precariously than it did, upon the balance of nuclear deterrent power between the United States and the Soviet Union. As Mr. Couve de Murville himself said the other day, the alliance remains a necessity. But it must be radically transformed to meet the entirely new conditions that have now arisen. Confederal aims need not be ruled out as an ultimate objective, but I think the phrase coined by Professor Catlin, "organic consultation", is, in the existing situation, more realistic and appropriate.
What are the great changes that have taken place in the past ten years, to which I have referred and to which we have paid almost no attention? First of all, the economic recovery of Western Europe is an extremely important factor. Western Europe is now a force to be reckoned with. Secondly, we have the direct confrontation of tactical atomic weapons on the Continent of Europe, the use of which would almost certainly escalate into a full-scale nuclear holocaust at the cost of turning Western Europe into a radioactive proving ground. That is what we now have in Western Europe: two forces facing each other, only a few miles apart, both armed
720
with tactical atomic weapons; and, in my submission, there is no real distinction to be drawn between tactical atomic weapons and nuclear weapons. It is a terrifying situation; and no attempt of any sort has been made to withdraw or disengage. Thirdly, we have now the existence not only of one, but of several, iron curtains, of varying heights. Finally, we have what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to, the Sino-Soviet dispute, which is of the utmost importance and significance.
The last phase, the Common Market, I will not go back on that. We refused to go to Messina; we refused to go to Brussels. We did not believe it could happen. But there was one fateful meeting between Mr. Harold Macmillan and General de Gaulle at Rambouillet in December, 1962. If they had been able to come to terms then about nuclear arms; if we had been able to say to the French that we were willing to play along with them on this matter, I have no doubt whatsoever that the doors of Brussels subsequently would have been wide open to us. But it was never mentioned; it was apparently never raised. Mr. Macmillan went off to Nassau. I do not know what he thought he was doing. I do not know whether he was clear in his own mind of the possible effects. But, in fact, Skybolt was then pulled from under his feet. The Nassau Agreement for the supply of Polaris submarines by the United States convinced General de Gaulle that Mr. Macmillan had sold out to the United States; that the "Anglo-Saxons", as he called them, were against Europe, and when we finally got to Brussels the door was shut against us
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, do I understand the noble Lord to say that the Nassau Agreement is finished? If so, it is a very serious statement.
LORD BOOTHBY: I have read it in various American publications. I have read it in several newspapers. They simply said that the Nassau Agreement, as such, although it stands so far as Polaris submarines are concerned, is a dead letter; because without American agreement we cannot arm the submarines with warheads that will do the job.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but

721
he is quite wrong about this. We are proceeding to build the submarines under the letter of the Nassau Agreement. Far from being dead, it is very much alive.
LORD BOOTHBY: We have total control?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
LORD BOOTHBY: And the Americans have no right of withdrawal?
LORD CARRINGTON: No.
LORD BOOTHBY: So we have our Polaris submarine?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
LORD BOOTHBY: I am glad to hear that. I read in the New York Times or the New York Herald that the Nassau Agreement was in effect a dead letter. I am glad to have the assurance of the noble Lord that this, at least, is still going strong. But I still stick to my major joint, which is that the Nassau Agreement was the main cause of the breakdown of our entry into the Common Market, because General de Gaulle would not "wear it". In August, 1949, I remarked to the Council of Europe at Strasbourg that insistence on absolute State sovereignty was a primary cause of the evils of the modern world and that the only solution lay in some merging or pooling of national sovereignty. I still believe this to be true, and in saying so I find myself in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Gladwyn.
I will now conclude. We have thrown away too many chances during the last twenty years, since the war, and I dare-say we are now in for a period of comparative isolation and perhaps even solitude. It is the penalty we have to pay for successive mistakes and follies. But I am not frightened of this. After all, we were alone in 1940 in circumstances which were much more difficult than those which prevail to-day, and we survived. I am quite clear in my own mind as to what we ought to do now—and that is almost certainly a decisive reason why we shall not do it. First of all, we have to face the facts. The first fact we have to face is, as I have already said, that the world situation has been entirely transformed during the past decade; and we are still living prior to that.
722
Secondly, we have to face the fact that the key to the problem of German reunification, which I think is important, lies in Moscow and nowhere else. The Russians will not allow a reunified Germany as a member of the NATO Alliance armed with nuclear bombs; and in that they will have the wholehearted and passionate support of every single one of the so-called "satellite" Powers. There is no doubt about that. Sooner or later, the Germans will be driven to recognise that fact, as I think General de Gaulle does recognise it; and I think he might play a considerable part in bringing about a satisfactory solution. It is no good our thinking, or the Americans thinking, that we can impose a solution of the problem of German reunification. The key here lies in an accommodation between the Germans and the Soviet Union.
Thirdly:
"America and Soviet Russia are able to strike one another and no doubt reciprocally able to destroy one another. It is not certain that they will risk it. No one to-day can know when, or how, or why one or the other of these great atomic Powers will use its nuclear arsenal…all is brought into question"
These words are not mine. They are those of President de Gaulle, much abused in many quarters these days but not such a fool as he is sometimes made out. I think he has vision; and I would not disagree with those words, which were made at his famous Press conference in 1962.
I think we should concentrate now on two things: first of all, the expansion of East-West trade, particularly with Russia and what used to be called, but which are becoming no longer, the satellite countries in Eastern Europe—and accompanying the extension of that trade cultural relations and every other kind of relations, so that we get closer together. We have nothing to gain from making war on the standard of living in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. The more prosperous they are, the less the danger will become. We are not alone in this. The French are going ahead, and the Germans, who never stop prating of the dangers of East-West trade and of Communism and everything else, are in fact doing by far the biggest trade with the countries of Eastern Europe—a billion dollars a year, of which one half is done with a country that they claim

723
does not exist, which is Eastern Germany. They have a major part, about 70 per cent., of this trade in their hands, so they have no cause for complaint if we join the party.
Finally, I think—and I hope this will not startle your Lordships unduly—our main hope to-day lies in a policy we have pursued not wholly unsuccessfully for the last 60 years, indeed for nearly a century, and that is in a revival of the Anglo-French Entente; a restoration of good relations between this country and France. Here I am wholly on the side of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Not with the object of trying to get into the Common Market again (that is over; that is past; things move too fast; one cannot do that) but with the object of laying the foundations of a wider European political union on a confederal basis, which is what General de Gaulle has always claimed he wants. He genuinely believes that we do not want to have any part in Europe, but he thinks that in the end we shall have to do it.
I am in no hurry. This will take time. Fortunately, we have the time. For the first time in this ghastly century we have been given a breather, and if it is an obscene breather, in the sense that it is really owed to the nuclear weapons on both sides, at least it exists. We have the breather, and I do not think we should be in a hurry. But one of our principal aims must be the restoration of good relations with France and a revival of what used to be called the Entente Cordiale. In the meantime, even though we may be a little isolated, even though we may be a little alone, we remain an essential link and linch-pin, not only between the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean but between the East and the West.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say, as a Parliamentary delegate with NATO for ten years, that NATO is still a very fine military organisation and I think it does know where it is going.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I did not get that impression from General Norstad's speech which he made recently.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he contemplates the dissolution of the European Economic Community and its transformation into a loose con-
724
federation? Does he therefore think it would be acceptable to the other members of the Community?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may answer in one sentence, I would say that the other members of the Community are so anxious to have us in that they would be quite ready to agree to a looser confederation than exists at present in the Common Market in order to have us there.
LORD GLADWYN: It must be something more than an alliance.
LORD BOOTHBY: Certainly. I said Confederation—political union, if the noble Lord prefers it.
6.45 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I venture to take up some of your time in this very crowded debate because this will be the last opportunity I shall have for some years to suggest what I might call some rather radical ideas about foreign policy. I am deliberately using the word "radical", because what I want to suggest is that there may be much more optimism about the international situation if people were prepared to reexamine some of their basic assumptions.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has stated very well the real danger of the present international situation, that our present breathing space simply depends upon the atomic deterrent. If you ever start to think about it, it is rather an intolerable situation that it should be possible for a small group of men in Russia to make a decision which, within a matter of minutes, would kill about half the people in this country, and that the only reason one can have for believing that this decision is not likely to be taken is that, if it were, a Western counter-atack would kill as many people in Russia. Quite apart from this being an intolerable situation in itself, I think we ought to realise that it is this atomic confrontation between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers which is the crucial point of the whole international situation. All the other trouble spots in the world are only really dangerous because we were afraid that any local hostilities would escalate into a general nuclear war. Also, the other trouble spots very largely arise because this confrontation has made it possible for irresponsible local Governments to play

725
off the Communist powers against the Western Powers, and to get supplies of armaments which they would never have been able to get if they had had to pay for them from their own resources.
If I am thinking as an Australian—as I can in one sense—in the long run I can feel rather worried about China. But, certainly for the next five or ten years, China is not going to be in a position on her own to start anything more than a limited conventional war on the scale of the Korean war. What makes this situation in its way so frightening and frustrating is that, if you once start to think about it, you realise it is really completely irrational. We certainly have no reason for wanting to kill large numbers of Russians; and the Russian people certainly have no reason for wanting to kill us. I think it is perfectly clear that, if people would behave sensibly, the only reasonable settlement would be that which Communists like to talk about—a competitive co-existence. It is said, "We may disagree about our social systems, but let us try them and see which works best" What is frustrating is that here is a thoroughly intolerable and dangerous situation produced by human action and, therefore potentially soluble by human action, and yet no one seems to know quite how to get out of it.
What I find a little alarming about discussion of foreign policy is that you find so many people trying to avoid thinking about this really intolerable situation. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, made clear the unpleasantness of the nuclear situation. But in a great deal of the discussion, both here and in another place, and in the Press, you find people considering how to organise the deterrent—whether this country should have its own deterrent and all kinds of questions of detail. I feel that very few people say to themselves, "This is all very important as a matter of meanwhile policy, but we ought to say that our long-term policy objectives are very clearly to get to a situation where we simply do not need an atomic deterrent" I think this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but only in passing. Even from the point of view of home politics, my feeling is that it is a dangerous situation. After all, there is the traditional fable of the
726
Sword of Damocles. The whole point was that all the ordinary pleasures of life lose their savour if one is living in a situation where imminent death is suspended over one's head by a thread.
I think the ordinary public would be prepared to accept what one might call a Sword of Damocles situation as a temporary expedient if they had confidence that their leaders had some kind of feasible plan for dismantling the apparatus of mutual suicide between ourselves and the Russians. But my feeling is that if the leaders simply say, "Oh, yes, you have to put up with it even though it is very unpleasant" there will come a point at which the people will start to say, "This is intolerable" and they will turn to any leadership which promises to get them out of the intolerable situation, perhaps whether the promises are good or not. My feeling is that this to an extent explains the American swing of opinion to Goldwater. Here you have had feeling that official opinion has talked about an indefinite continuation of the cold war, and at last someone is saying, "Yes, I will get you out of it". Even though his method is pretty dangerous, a good many people are prepared to back it.
The other thing which worries me is that many of the people who see that a situation of nuclear deterrence is intolerable behave in a sense even more irrationally. A great many people say "Yes, we ought to do something about it" and then completely assume away all the real difficulties of getting to a better situation. I think that even more alarming is the attitude of people who simply rationalise the natural tendency to run away from danger, whose reaction to anything is to say, "Do make concessions to prevent this situation from blowing up into a possible nuclear war" I think that in the long run that is likely to be the most dangerous course of all. It really amounts to an advocacy of surrender, though very few people are courageous enough to say that openly.
I think that the real fallacy in the slogan "Better Red than dead" lies in the fact that only in the very short run are these alternatives mutually exclusive. There is no reason whatever to suppose that a Communist ruled world would be a peaceful world. So I suggest that the real options open to us are these.

727
The first is to accept an appreciable risk of war in the short term which gives us at least the opportunity for working out some more generally acceptable system, removing the nuclear deterrent and reducing the long-term risk of war to something very small. The alternative policy is to make the short-term risk of nuclear war neglible by surrender, at the expense of an extremely high and continuing risk of nuclear war in the long-term future. I think that for anyone who values his children's lives as well as his own the policy of surrender is simply not an acceptable alternative.
What then is the rational response to the situation? It seems to me, when you have this kind of situation with an obviously desirable objective but with no one quite seeing how to get to it, that what you need to do is to re-think some of your basic assumptions. I think it is a perfectly general principle that action can be effective only when it is based on a correct analysis of the situation. If people act in terms of an incorrect or inadequate theory they are certain to obtain results different from those intended and perhaps even contrary to them. I think a very good illustration of this was the great depression of the early 1930s where we had the same kind of irrationally frustrating situation. We had unemployed men and unemployed resources and a great demand for the goods they could produce, yet no one seemed to know how to get them together. We now know that the basic fault was inadequate economic theory. So I think we should examine some of our basic assumptions about international politics.
What I want to argue is that the basic assumption which has confused foreign policy in both the 1930s and the modern period is that national policy always results from the pursuit of national interest by comparatively reasonable rulers. It follows from that that international conflicts result from a real conflict of interests. The alternative, and I think the correct, view was very simply put by someone who described the 1930s as a period in which several major Powers were experimenting in government by the insane. I think that if we look at the past we see this theory fits the facts very much better than the
728
national interest theory. After all, having lost all the objectives which national policy had been striving for before 1945, and even territories which they possessed in the 'twenties, the Japanese, Germans and Italians are now far more prosperous than ever before, which is very clear evidence that the pre-1945 objectives were not essential for national interests in any material sense.
In the case of Japan, about which I know something, there is clear evidence that the policy did not result from any reasoned consensus about national interests. Policies were usually initiated by extremists in the Army, often with the disapproval of the Foreign Office and against the wishes of the Emperor; and the thinking of these Army extremists, which can be gained from a lot of literature, was extraordinarily confused and their basic motivation was a belief in the divine mission of Japan to rule the world. I think that in some ways they were pretty near the borderline of insanity.
The thesis I am trying to argue is that the overriding problem of foreign policy in the past thirty or forty years has been how to deal with Governments controlled by political extremists who are to some extent insane—I believe that paraphrenia is the correct medical term. And I believe that this is a problem which most people in the rather more rational Governments of the West have consistently refused to face.
If your Lordships will turn to the present confrontation of the Communist Powers, you will find, if you look at most expressed opinions, a wide disagreement about the Communist leaders. What one might call the Right-wing view considers them to be rational but wicked, determined to pursue a policy of world conquest and making extremely skilful use of peace propaganda to weaken and confuse their opponents. What one might call the Left-wing view considers them to be rational and benevolent, ready to accept competitive co-existence with the Western Powers, if only the Western leaders would respond to their overtures for peace and respect their reasonable interests. Either view can be maintained only by ignoring part of the evidence, and what I contend is that the only hypothesis which fits the evidence is that

729
the Communist leaders suffer from an intellectual and psychological confusion which leads them to combine inconsistent beliefs.
I might point out that the present Soviet leaders themselves admit that Stalin had become partially insane by the mid-1930s. I think we would all agree that Mr. Khrushchev is considerably more sane than was Mr. Stalin, but this by no means implies that he is completely rational. My feeling is that when Mr. Khrushchev talks about wanting peace, in one sense of that word he is quite sincere. But the problem is that he has a number of psychological blocks in his thinking which prevent him from facing some of the implications of really wanting peace.
I think I can illustrate this very clearly by the basic problem of competitive co-existence. I think it would be right to say that most people in the West would genuinely accept this. We have very good reason for believing that our type of society is, on balance, a good deal more attractive than the Communist type of society, but we would be prepared to admit that this might possibly change. If we had a situation in which a Communist Government won power in some country through a genuinely free election, and still more so if it retained power by subsequent genuinely tree elections, I think that even in the United States there would be very few people who would say that this ought to be opposed. That is to say, we are in fact prepared to play the game of competitive co-existence, but you can only play a game if you admit there is a possibility you might lose.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think it is a little unfair of him to pin insanity entirely on the Russians. Nobody is completely rational. We are all more or less mad.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I am coming on to this point. I did say "comparatively", and I will say more about it later. It seems to me that the difficulty about this competitive coexistence is that Mr. Khrushchev really makes perfectly clear that he is prepared to play it only on terms of, "Heads I win; tails does not count."
730
He says it is entirely wrong for the Western Powers to oppose any national liberation by which a Communist Government would come into power; but when you have a situation, as you did in both Hungary and East Germany, where the masses tried to turn out a Communist Government, he automatically says, "No. This is not the people at all; this is a foreign instigated plot which I have the right to suppress." I think it is a very good illustration of the psychological block in Mr. Khrushchev's thinking. It is axiomatic that the Communist Party represents the masses and any evidence which could possibly contradict that axiom must somehow be explained away.
I think that in some ways we find even more confusion in the present Chinese leaders. Just to take one point which several noble Lords have mentioned, the desirability of having closer contacts with China, I think we all agree it is desirable. What we have to face is the problem that in their present state of mind the Chinese leaders find contact with intelligent and well-informed people from outside extremely awkward.
I remember in 1954 when the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and some other members of this Party had an interview with Mao Tse-tung. In the course of three hours—some of it taken up by translation, so it was not a long interview—there were no less than two occasions when Mao Tse-tung found himself completely nonplussed. He had put forward the standard line of Communist propaganda. Lord Attlee or some other member of the Party made the obvious argument to show that this was indefensible. And Mao could say nothing and hastily changed the subject. So I think it is perfectly clear that, until the Chinese leaders are prepared to go revisionist, which is now the worst heresy, until they are prepared to modify some of their opinions if they prove to be indefensible, they will be perfectly willing to give long interviews to people like Felix Greene or Edgar Snow, who ask only questions which can be answered by a paraphrase of the official line, but they are unlikely to enter into free conversations with people who ask genuine questions about policy.
The next very important point I wish to make is that to say that Communist leaders and other political extremists are

731
to some extent insane does not imply that their behaviour cannot be understood. Their thinking is not chaotic. But it is distorted, and I think one can trace the influences which distort it. Last week I think all of us were very deeply impressed by the plea from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for greater knowledge as the first equisite to take more effective action ire regard to crime. I would say I think it is equally true that one of the first requisites for more effective action on foreign policy is more knowledge about the influences which make the leaders of some countries incapable of co-operating to secure a peaceful world based on reason and justice. I believe that a great deal of this knowledge is in fact already available, only it is in scattered patches which need to be brought together, some bits from political theory, a good deal from psychology and some from the philosophy of science.
Obviously it would take me all night even to begin to outline the kind of theory one can develop, but I might suggest what I think is the main point of such a theory. I think in a sense what really makes the Communist behaviour irrational is that they find themselves in a false position. Imagine yourself in the position, say, of a Chinese Communist leader. You have perhaps for thirty years or more accepted a life of considerable danger and hardship in the belief that if only you can get into power and apply this Marxist—Leninist theory, in which you have an almost religious faith, you can then produce a wonderful new society. I think part of their confusion is that they say Marxist—Leninism is scientific, and because they are completely confused about the philosophy of science they believe that scientific theories give certain knowledge. That is in parenthesis.
When they come into power they then apply the theories in which they believe. They find they may improve society a little. Actually in some countries I think they make it worse. What can they do? Either they have to admit that the faith to which they have devoted their life is rather inadequate and needs considerable revision, or else they somehow have to distort their thinking to justify their continuance in power, and somehow be able to argue, "If only we can stay in
732
power a little longer we then really will arrive at the new society." That is only one aspect, perhaps the most important aspect, and you can explain most of the other irrational features of the Communist system on lines of the same sort—political theory plus psychology plus a certain amount of theory of scientific method.
Here I would come to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I think one reason why people are rather reluctant to think out this kind of theory is that, if we start doing it, it shows that our own comparative sanity is not very secure. I was very impressed last week when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, stressed the importance of standards. If we ask why our society is able to work to a large extent through discussion and reasonable compromise and voluntary co-operation, we find it depends on accepting standards of honesty and respect for truth and a tradition of public spirit which, between them, constitute a sort of social capital, which can quite easily be dissipated. And I think it is very frightening to see how easily people from our kind of society can develop a totalitarian type of behaviour in the right sort of situation. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has shown us very convincingly how it has happened in South Africa, and I think we can see it in much simpler cases.
From my own experience I feel that I learned a good deal about totalitarian societies from my experience at the Australian National University. Here was a Western institution in a Western community which had developed almost all of the features which make it extremely difficult to reach any agreement with leaders of totalitarian societies. There was absolute refusal to engage in reasonable discussion; criticism was always met by evasion or silence when they could not suppress the critic. There was the same quite explicit claim that people in authority had a right to repudiate any promise whenever they no longer considered it expedient to keep it. People did not follow explicity the theorists of totalitarianism in saying that truth is what those in authority consider expedient, but they were prepared to practise this principle and to make statements they knew perfectly well to be untrue. From

733
my experience there I can perfectly easily understand how, through the same processes carried further, people in the Chinese Communist Party, whom I knew quite well and for whom I had very high respect, could since then have become involved in completely indefensible policies. I think other noble Lords can probably think of similar instances to show that the rationality of our society has not got too firm foundations. Under certain stresses it will break down unless we keep up the social capital of standards.
What follows from all this is an argument for a quite new approach in foreign policy. What I advocate is not so much a change of foreign policy but a change of attitude. Traditional diplomacy was a very effective thing for arriving at agreement or compromise between basically reasonable people. What you have to realise it that, to a large extent, you are dealing with people who are not basically reasonable. The problem, to some extent, is really psychiatry, rather than diplomacy. If we want to improve the international situation we must either find some way of correcting the distortions and psychological blocks which make it impossible for Communist leaders or other extremists to reach any reasonable agreement in our obvious mutual interests, or else we must be prepared to go over their heads by discrediting those extremists who prove to be incurable, and appealing to the more rational members of their societies at home.
I think one obvious requirement is to attack the unresolved contradictions on which the irrational position depends. If they can get away with their contradictions and maintain their "doublethink" they can then feel satisfied and act effectively. If you attack these positions, they obviously find it painful, and if they broke down they would have to behave reasonably. Let us take a few examples. It has always puzzled me that when the Soviet Government has proposed a non-aggression pact between the Warsaw Pact countries and the NATO Powers no one has ever asked, "Would you please explain how your new proposed Pact differs from the nonaggression Pacts which the Soviet Government concluded in the 1930s with Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and
734
Poland?". I think this would be a perfectly genuine question. If Mr. Khrushchev replied, "Yes, I agree that the Soviet Union under Stalin was an aggressive Power, and I want to behave differently", there would be some reason to believe him, because he would be repudiating a line which Soviet publicity has consistently taken right up to the present. He would really be making a break, an even more decisive break with the Stalinist elements in his Party. If he refuses to answer, you then have a clear and sound argument for saying that this aggression Pact is not proposed in good faith.
There is a nice quotation from the preface to the first Russian edition of Lenin's Imperialism in which Lenin quite explicitly says that Russia was an imperial Power in Poland, Courland and Bokhara, and Khiva. Here, again, I feel that Her Majesty's Government have been far too docile in allowing themselves to be attacked as imperialists by a Government which is, in fact, the greatest imperialist Power in the modern world. Again, when you are dealing with China you can point out to them that the constitution of the Chinese-Soviet Republic in the 'thirties quite explicitly gave Tibet the right of secession.
I can go on to give a whole lot of other instances—for example, a Government which relies on secret police terrorism thereby proves that it does not represent the people—but I want to make clear what this adds up to. Basically, you are saying, "If you are willing to accept the rules of a reasonable system, to reach and observe reasonable agreements, to accept demonstrable facts and to co-operate in a system of competitive co-existence, we shall be only too glad to co-operate". On the other hand, you say, "If you insist on behaving unreasonably, insist on maintaining things which are clearly false, and insist on holding inconsistent positions, then we are prepared to show you up and to make you ridiculous". I think being made ridiculous is far the most effective weapon, because hate from what they call an "imperialist Power" is something which they expect; being laughed at is something which they really fear. I think you can put them in a situation where they either

735
have to behave more reasonably, or else be made ridiculous, which will weaken their influence both in the uncommitted countries and at home.
Finally, I think that there is this appeal over the heads of the Government to the people. We have heard several remarks about the thaw in the Soviet Government which I agree has improved the situation, though I think it is a little premature to put too much trust in it, because the thaw is violently attacked by the Chinese, and clearly one of the things that makes the Sino-Soviet dispute so bitter is the fact that the Soviet Union has sympathisers in China, and China has sympathisers in the Soviet Union, so that it is also an internal conflict which the opponents of the thaw might win.
Reading the debate in another place I saw some references to a fat Communist being preferable to a thin one. I think there is something in that. But I cannot feel happy with the idea of a Soviet Union in which the privileged ruling class is thinking only of maintaining its privileged position. This might be better than a set of political fanatics, but not so much better. The people you ought to appeal to are the younger generation in Russia and China. I think there is clear evidence that in spite of all the indoctrination there is a desire for truth and justice. A desire for a genuinely better society has persisted and reappears whenever official pressure is relaxed. I think we ought to be able to say to these people, "We will show you what are the requirements of a better society: and we will show you what are the real criticisms which you can make of your existing society".
People say there is not enough contact for this to have any effect. I think what people fail to realise is that it is much easier to put over a true belief than to put over a false one. If you want to put over a false belief you have to keep up continual pressure. When, however, you are trying to put over a belief which people can see for themselves fits their own experience and explains their experiences, if you once get this theory into a society, even a closed society, then it starts to spread. So my feeling is that with the right kind of strategy, of which I have been able to sketch only a few points, we might really change the inter-
736
national situation within perhaps the next five or ten years.
Finally, I think I did refer to the Goldwater movement as a reaction to a situation of frustration. Talking to Goldwater supporters, I feel they have some real grounds for complaint against what they call the "no win strategy" which has dominated Washington. The strategy I am suggesting is psychological warfare, not nuclear or even conventional warfare. I think it is a strategy which, if it won, would offer a victory, not a national victory, but a victory of the people in all countries who want truth and justice and a better society against the unreasonable, slightly crazy and fanatical extremists in all countries.
7.18 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I add my plea to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to consider what Lord Boothby said? I am sure he has many friends in another place, of whom Lord Boothby and I were two; and he has many in this House, and many admirers in the country who know that he is an awkward sort of a chap but who still feel that he would do better for his country to stay in this House than to go out into the wilderness.
I hope that the noble Lord who has just sat down will discharge me from any lack of courtesy if I do not follow him. I want to follow some other noble Lords who spoke earlier, and time forbids my wandering over more ground than I must. I should like first to offer a welcome to His Excellency, Dr. de Wet, the South African Ambassador, who has been in this country only a few months, and to wish him the best of good luck in his difficult mission. I should like to say a word of appreciation, if I may, to my noble and gallant friend Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein. I thought his was one of those short, expert speeches on a technical subject, which we are accustomed to look for in this House, but seldom get so well done.
The noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Shackleton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, all spoke about South Africa. If I may say so, I thought that Lord Shackleton and Lord Samuel were to be congratulated on speeches over which they had obviously taken a good deal of trouble and to which they

737
had given thought—speeches which in a sense were constructive speeches. Too many people in the world and in this country talk about South Africa with a kind of flourish, because it is easy to get a cheer by abusing somebody who is 6, 000 miles away and cannot answer back. But Lord Samuel and Lord Shackleton did not do that. They both gave us thoughtful speeches. I am bound to say that I thought they were both wrong in their diagnosis of the trouble in South Africa. And it follows that if they were wrong in their diagnosis they were also wrong in the treatment which they recommended for that country.
Lord Shackleton said that he despaired of a solution short of a bloodbath. Lord Samuel said that South Africa had reached the point of no return. I hope to show, if noble Lords will allow me, that I take an exactly opposite view. I take a hopeful view. I take the view that South Africa is set on a purposeful course which, given good fortune and given time, and provided there is not too much interference from outside, can solve her problems. We have had the Prime Ministers' Conference, and in passing I should like to praise the Prime Minister of this country for his exceedingly statesmanlike chairmanship of that conference. It is to be noted that some of the Prime Ministers who were there joined together in asking for positive action by way of sanctions or boycotts against South Africa. Others did not think it was the time to do it; and yet others did not think it was right to do it. We do not know who took which view, for that is not vouchsafed to us but perhaps if we read the results of the Cairo Conference which followed shortly afterwards we can guess what views were taken by some of the members.
I think that the Prime Ministers who went to the Conference are equally wrong in their diagnosis, and therefore are equally wrong in the treatment which they recommend for South Africa. In a long political life I have learned that no man always supports everything that a Government does, even if it is a Government of his own Party and I by no means support all the things which are done by the South African Government, any more than I support all the things that are done by Her Majesty's Government. But one has to make choices in
738
this world, and I believe that at this moment the South African Government are doing the best thing that can be done in South Africa, and that it would be better—and we should certainly move more quickly to attain the object a great many noble Lords seem to have in mind in South Africa—if we were to give the South African Government encouragement in some of their activities. I believe that, if we understood them, that is what we would do. That is why I ask leave to take up a little time to explain one or two things.
There are, of course, reasons why Governments behave as they do. One reason is that they have extremists. We have them here in England, in the Conservative party; we have them in the Labour Party, and from time to time they influence, and from time to time embarrass, their Governments. In South Africa we have what in Afrikaans we should call "Die man met die groot bek", which, translated, means "The man with the big mouth". He causes just as much trouble in South Africa as the similar type does here. We also have the man who runs away. I personally admire the man who is prepared to die for his country or to go to prison for his principles but for the man who declares his principles in loud speeches and then runs away from the country and tries to make a campaign for himself, whether it be from a pulpit or from a platform, I cannot say that I have any admiration whatever. I think he is both a nuisance and a trouble to all of us. Unfortunately there are some who come back from South Africa.
Let me just allow figures to speak now, instead of my arguing a case. Last year, in 1963, 7,000 persons left South Africa, some to come back to England, some to go to other parts of the world. In that same year 40, 000 persons went to South Africa, a quarter of them from Britain. Of those who go to South Africa only one per cent. leave, and almost always because they have proved to be bad settlers. But that is not what they say when they come back. They tell the newspapers, without giving them the real reason why they came away, that they could not stick this policy or that policy, or that they had been persecuted by the police. We do not hear the other side of the story. However, I think those figures, which show that 40,000 people

739
went to South Africa last year, speak for themselves.
It is argued by some that we should cease to talk to South Africans, cease to trade with South Africa, cease to regard her as being in the comity of nations; that we should turn her out of this and that international committee, because this would be a way of getting her to alter her policy. South Africans are no more likely to alter their policy because they are put under pressure or blackmail than are the English. They have their pride, and perhaps I can say this as a Scot: trade is not a bad and evil thing, bartering with men's lives, or a pursuit which is to the detriment of humanity. I believe, on the contrary, that trade is an exceedingly good thing, and that talking with men, working with them, trading with them, is the best way to get them to talk sense and not quite so much nonsense. I think it is right, both economically and ethically, for Britain to trade with as large a part of the world as possible.
Some people wholeheartedly support British trade with Cuba but say that we must not trade with South Africa; others, such as the Americans, say that they will trade with Russia but not with China. I believe that there is a great deal of hypocrisy and nonsense talked about this. It is surely better to trade with all mankind, because trade brings civilisation along and also understanding. I am delighted to know that the leaders of our two great parties, the Prime Minister and Mr. Wilson, have both said that they do not think it is a good idea to impose sanctions upon South Africa. That, at least, is a good declaration made by those two leaders.
One of the criticisms of South Africa concerns what is commonly called "job reservation". Job reservation means the delimitation of certain jobs to certain people, and the exclusion of others from the same jobs. It is quite indefensible; it has no economic value and it is unethical. In my opinion it ought not to exist anywhere. But saying that, my Lords, does not cause it to cease to exist. It exists here in England. The craft unions take extreme care to see that only members of their union may undertake certain jobs. It does not matter how skilful some other man may be at the job; he must not do the job unless he belongs to the union. Within
740
a union certain men may do certain tasks, and certain other men may do certain other tasks; but they must not overlap. They do not mind if the business is disrupted and orders are lost. They still must not tread upon each other's corns. It is quite ridiculous, but saying so does not alter it. It is quite unethical, it is uneconomic and quite absurd.
How can we change this practice? We might pass a law in Parliament to say that job reservation in Britain was not to be allowed. They might do that in South Africa. But if we did that it would have no effect, because the trade unions would see to it that there were ways of avoiding its consequences. There are things you cannot do, although, of course, you can make big speeches about the matter, open the mouth wide and that is all—which really does not do any good. In South Africa, in fact, job reservation is wearing out in the only way it can wear out; that is, by the effluxion of time and by the natural processes.
One of the processes which is helping it to wear out is that there is in South Africa a very high degree of prosperity and a limited amount of skill. The consequence is that the African is being more and more brought into higher and better-paid skilled jobs. If one goes into the country districts away from the centre of authority, one will find Africans managing small enterprises, or being foremen of small gangs in quite superior positions and getting quite superior money. This process is going on now, and will continue and, in time, will become current ordinary practice. This is the way in which job reservation will work itself out.
May I turn now, my Lords, to the policy, as it is called, of apartheid, or partition or separate development, as some people call it? This is not the best way of life. Indeed, no attitude of men towards each other which involves class distinction or racial discrimination is the best way of life. But mankind has lived with it for a very long time, and we have had to resort to it from time to time. We could not solve the Irish problem without partition; we could not solve the Indian problem in the time of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, without partition; and the same thing applied in Palestine where there was partition. It

741
may be that we shall not solve the problem in Cyprus without partition, or apartheid or separate development or separate living.
Why is this? It is because certain persons of different races, or sometimes of different classes, dislike each other so much, or have such different ways of life, or are at such different stages of development, that they cannot or do not live comfortably together. It is better then, in the end, to separate them than to continue with the difficulties which arise and which sometimes become intolerable. That, at any rate, was found to be the case in the three countries I have mentioned; and very likely it will have to be the case in Cyprus.
One can deplore that situation, of course. Racialism is to be deplored; apartheid is to be deplored; partition is to be deplored. But, my Lords, what practical good does it do to deplore it? The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, having spent thirty minutes deploring this, that and the other, ended up by saying that he did not think any of his deploring was any good—I think those were his words. He said that it was quite useless to deplore these things—and I agree with him, though I have already said that I admired his speech very much.
What can we do to change it? First of all, may I deal with the subject which seems to be so much tied up in people's minds with apartheid—namely, the question of votes? Votes for all seems to be the key to happiness for mankind; "Votes for all!" is the cry which precedes independence; votes for all is the practice which continues after independence, and a good many people in this country, perhaps, feel that votes for all in South Africa is the only solution. Have your Lordships noticed, in one after another of the countries in Africa where they have been given votes for all, that the votes are negatived as regards their power and influence by the establishment of one Party or one list of candidates? So chat once you have the very thing which seemed so well worth while going forward to get—votes for all—you find that Nkrumah and the whole rigmarole all around Africa have taken it from you. It just does not exist as the precious thing it was expected to be, because it has been negatived and
742
the Opposition has either been locked up or frustrated, or a one-Party list is presented.
We should think seriously, my Lords, whether we might not be wrong in taking the view so strongly, as some of us do, that "votes for all" is the right course. But if it is; and if the world thinks it is right to try it, it is to be hoped that the Africans will learn to use it and appreciate what Opposition means. May I say, nevertheless, that it is very difficult to learn what is meant by "the Opposition", when one has been accustomed to cracking the Opposition over the head or locking them up. Even in colonial times opposition was not exactly encouraged. I do not blame African leaders for creating the one-Party State as soon as they get power, which is what they do. I do not blame them, but it is worth considering whether we should go on paying quite so much attention to this "One man, one vote" principle, because that is not what they get after a year or two.
Nevertheless, if the world and Britain think that, "One man, one vote" is the right course to follow, I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is precisely what South Africa is doing for large numbers of its Bantu people; and it has made a very good start. I refer, of course, to the Transkei, which it might be said, is very like Basutoland. In fact the Government which has now been set up in the Transkei is almost an exact replica of the Government we have had in Basutoland—formerly a British Colony—for the last five years.
In the Transkei you find the Xhosa, the man who has a vote and can become a Prime Minister or a judge, a Member of Parliament or the head of a Department. He has every right of a citizen to do whatever he likes in his own country, to do whatever his abilities and his education will allow him to do; and large sums of money are being spent in developing both the institution of government in this territory and the amenities—hospitals, and other things. More ought to be spent, and more will be spent, just as more ought to be spent in Basutoland. My Lords, Basutoland will very soon go a stage further, but at the moment the Administration of the Transkei and that of Basutoland are the same. I am bound to say I think both of them are a good idea, and I can see

743
no logical reason why we British should praise what we have done in Basutoland and criticise the South Africans for what they have done in the Transkei, because the two things are identical.
I would go further and say that I would encourage all my friends in Basutoland, all my friends in South Africa, whether they be white, black, coloured or Indians, to give moral support and encouragement to the Bantustan idea. Because, if the Bantustan idea is carried forward to a successful conclusion, as I think it can be and will be, and if it is a successful experiment right under the eyes of the South Africans, where they cannot escape noticing it and seeing it brought into existence and being successful, then it will be the greatest possible lesson to them. It will show them that the native or the African, can, in fact, govern himself reasonably well; and, more important than that, that he can live in amity with his neighbour. It may be that if these Bantustans are a success, as I think they will be, and if they are proliferated and many more come into existence, as I also think they will, then some kind of a Federation or Commonwealth embracing these various territories in South Africa might come together, and it might be found that the great majority of the Bantu have votes.
So, if the vote is all that important—I have shown already that I am not at all sure it is, but if it is—let us praise South Africa for having started this process, because it is a genuine attempt and, in my opinion, a viable attempt. May I just add that the Xhosa, the man who lives in the Transkei, also has a vote in the rest of South Africa, wherever he lives, and that the Zulu, when Zululand gets a similar constitution, and the Swazi and the Basuto, will each have a vote in his own homeland. It is very important to remember this, if you are going to attach great importance to the vote.
May I take your Lordships back, for the briefest moment, to 1909? That was when a Liberal Government, supported by the Labour Party, placed the power in South Africa, in the ex-Colonies, as they were then, into the hands of the white men in that country. They could do nothing else, because those people were the only persons who were
744
capable of forming the Union of South Africa and of making it a viable, economic and fruitful unit. It followed logically from this, when the Great War was over and the League of Nations was set up and when mandates were given to various countries, that the mandate for South-West Africa should be given to South Africa, because by 1919 or 1920 South Africa was a viable country, an established country, a well-recognised country and, as the noble and gallant Field Marshall told us, a country which we were proud to stand by and to have standing by us during the First War. So they were given a mandate for South-West Africa; and, following the rules laid down for the conduct of mandates, they conducted the mandate in just the same way as they would have conducted the government of their own people. Objection may be taken to it now, but there was then no other course open to mankind; and I am not so sure that what was done was not sensible, both then and now.
May I remind your Lordships that some years ago Russia took into her orbit the Baltic territories and brought under her suzerainty the Balkan States, and that all these once-free, independent, little countries which were going to manage themselves and have self-determination are now all part of the Russian orbit? It does not occur to any of us to suggest that we should go to The Hague to ask whether this is right, or to New York to ask the United Nations to do something about it. Why not? It is because it is a matter of history. History is full of these anomalies and conquests, if you like. In the case of South Africa, I think the same thing applies. It is fifty years now since the mandate was given to South Africa. It has been well managed, and there is no other country that could have managed it. The United Nations find the utmost difficulty in getting two or three men together to do a job anywhere in the world, and they are very nearly broke. South Africa is not broke, my Lords.
So do not let us assume that all the things we hear about South Africa are necessarily true. Do not let us assume that the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people are separate groups, as they were thought to be in earlier times, and used to be in earlier

745
times. Events in Africa, among other things, and the developments, some of which I have mentioned, have led to a situation in which I think I can say now, truthfully, that I do not think there is more than 4 or 5 per cent. of the English-speaking people in the Republic of South Africa who would urge the policy of votes for all on the Common Roll. I do not believe that even the Indians and the coloured people would do so. Why not? It is because the English, the Dutch, the Indians, the coloured people, are all minorities, and they know perfectly well that if votes were given to all they would be swamped. Now they do not intend to be swamped, partly for their own good but partly, also, because they believe they have a sense of trusteeship for the 11 million other people, the Africans, who look to them for guidance and leadership, and they intend to go on with it.
Multiracialism is thought to be a sort of panacea. It is said, "If only we could have multiracialism, how different everything would be! "It has not worked anywhere in the world, my Lords, except in one or two islands in the Caribbean. It has not worked anywhere else; and even the genuine attempt of the British and the Rhodesians in Southern Rhodesia to try to make it work in Southern Rhodesia has not succeeded, either. There is no place where it has worked. What hay come in its place is black nationalism, not multiracialism; and the freedom, or so-called freedom, of the Africans is no greater—perhaps it is even less—than it used to be under colonial administration. This is the regrettable truth, I am afraid, but there it is.
My Lords, there is one aspect of South African policy which comes in for a great deal of criticism and I shall devote a few minutes to it. That is the aspect called the "Ninety-days rule". It probably is the reason for some of the strong remarks made on the other side about the police and about South Africa. The ninety-days rule is a rule under an Act passed in 1963 whereby the Minister of Justice can apprehend a man, cause him to be locked up for ninety days, and then can repeat the locking up after ninety days for another ninety days without trial. Before judging this matter, may I ask your Lordships to allow me to talk about it for a minute or two? There are many countries in the world that have used,
746
and still use, the method of holding a man without trial. The reason they do it is nearly always that they cannot get witnesses. I have myself known of cases in South Africa and in other territories nearby, and in Basutoland, where witnesses cannot be obtained because of the fear that they themselves or their wives and families will be beaten up or their houses burned down. If there is subversion, if there is sabotage, if persons are suspected, what course is open to the Minister of Justice or the police but to apprehend the persons who are suspected? If witnesses cannot be obtained, what course is then open to him?
Your Lordships would appreciate it if two or three or six of us were members of a Cabinet in South Africa—not necessarily the present Cabinet, but of any Cabinet—and we were responsible for law and order. Would we then let go the men whom we were fairly sure were guilty or would we hold them for questioning? Which would we do? Would we be responsible or not if, having let them go, further sabotage and loss of life occurred? I think we should. Therefore there is justification. It seems to me that there is a duty to see that subversion and sabotage are stopped. That is a requirement which is placed upon a Government; a duty it has to undertake. I have expressed my own views to Mr. Vorster, Minister of Justice in South Africa, about the harshness of the ninety-days rule, and especially about the fact that it can be repeated for a second dose. I have asked him to consider modifying it, and to consider introducing a committee to which a person who is apprehended, a detainee, might go on appeal. This would mini-mise injustice. I would remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the Labour member of the war-time Cabinet, as Home Secretary, operated detention without trial during the war. He also had a committee to which appeal could be made. Many people have done it in various circumstances.
You may say that there is no war on and that the situation is quite different now. My Lords, there is a war in South Africa—a cold war—going on between ambitious men who want to take power away from those who have it, from those to whom our Gov-

747
ernment gave it in 1909; and vicious men are now making a cold war in that country by means of sabotage, subversion and sedition. The great mass of the native population are by no means influenced in this matter. They have no more idea about politics than most of our people had 50 or 100 years ago. But powerful, big-mouthed, clever leaders, ambitious for power, are behind this subversion. So there is a war going on in South Africa, a battle for power; and the South Africans believe it is better to nip this trouble in the bud than to wait until it has developed into the kind of trouble which Her Majesty's Government is now trying to deal with in British Guiana. And we have had the same trouble in Cyprus, too.
My Lords, I have an interest in South Africa and an interest in Basutoland and some of the other territories, and I hereby declare it. It is not only a commercial interest, but an interest that touches my heart because my family has been associated with the country for ninety years. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori; but perhaps it is even better if one can live for one's country and help one's country to live. It is for that reason I desperately hope I may be able to persuade some of my friends on all sides in this Parliament, in your Lordships' House and in the other place that the South African story is a very much better and a very much more agreeable and understandable one than they imagine. I beg them to come out and see for themselves instead of making speeches from 6,000 miles distant.
The Basutos, under the guidance of Her Majesty's Government, are going through a phase of self-government and are approaching independence. Within a year or two, if the plan is followed, if they have their election, if the Parliament, once elected, wishes it, they will go forward to independence. Only within the last few weeks a representative gathering of all Basuto leaders of the Basuto Parties came over here with the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, to discuss this new Constitution they are to have. They themselves wrote a Constitutional Report asking for what they wanted before they
748
left Basutoland. In this report the Basutos themselves said unanimously that the Basuto people are willing and ready to trade in friendliness with their neighbours. The neighbours are, of course, South Africa, because they are an enclave of South Africa. They then went on to say that it is the desire of the Basutos to live and let live. It might be a very good idea if those of us who are responsible for the government of Basutoland, or for any element of public opinion, or for persuading people what to do or say about South Africa, were to take a leaf out of the Basutos' book and to live and let live.
Your Lordships may think that Basutoland is a multi-racial country. So it is. But there are 850,000 Africans living there and 2,000 whites. They live in peace together—not because they have votes. Nor is the white man's usefulness there assessed by the votes he has or in any way related to them. It is because he renders a useful service to that country and because he is friendly, and because he is in such a small minority. It is generally where the numbers of races are more or less equal that there is trouble, not where there are overwhelming majorities over minorities.
I am far from taking the view, which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, took, that South Africa has reached the point from which there is now no return, and from using the phrase "blood-bath" which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, used. I think that they are wrong. I think that this country is approaching a viable means of giving large elements of its native population self-government, leading up to independence. I believe that that can grow and prosper, if we give it a chance, and that this country, one of the richest countries in the world, can be a suitable and agreeable home for all the people of different races and ethnic groups that live there, if only we give it our encouragement and do not interfere with it too much.
I can give your Lordships a hundred reasons why the Republic should prosper, but time will not allow. I will mention only two or three. South Africa's present gold and foreign exchange reserves exceed £250 million. South Africa and Britain are trading partners and we are among each other's best customers. Trading last year was £82

749
million in favour of Britain. The Europeans came first to the Cape before the Bantu, and at this moment a million foreign Bantu—that is to say, Africans from Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, the Portuguese Territory, what was called Nyasaland, and Northern Rhodesia—live and work in South Africa, because they get better money there, better welfare, better hospitals and better conditions than in the territories for which Britain was so recently responsible. This is something to be proud of, if you are a South African, as I am.
I beg all my friends, of whatever colour or Party, to think twice before they address themselves to speaking about South Africa in terms of obloquy and criticism. As I said just now, let them go and see the country that they, six thousand miles away and in ignorance, are talking about.
8.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part again in a debate started by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, whose eloquence enables me to reduce my speech considerably to give five "shopping items". I have always heard that, if you wish for something badly and have to ask for it at the end of a long debate, just ask for it straight. I see on the Front Bench the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who has refused me on previous occasions. I hope that he will be more conciliatory to-night.
First of all, I should like to adjust my speech so as to reverse the order. When the Emperor Haile Selassi was invited by the late Lord Buxton to abolish slavery, he asked for twenty years in which to do so. In this case I would follow the judgment of the President of the Congo, who when, jointly with Mr. Lumumba, he asked the Belgians for freedom, asked for it in thirty years—although Mr. Lumumba asked for it immediately. I think that this error of timing in the more sophisticated areas of Africa will produce widespread ruin, unless the time is greatly extended, so my first request to South Africa is for thirty years. I must say that I regard apartheid as a type of slavery, to be abolished in due course. In this connection I would quote The Times of a few days ago:
750
"A prominent Kenya African said here to-day that the newly independent African States were in the grip of Fascist dictatorships which were worse than that in South Africa. The difference was that the dictatorships in the new States were more inefficiently run by black men than those run by the whites of South Africa"
All my information about the new States confirms that this is so, and that the pace is too fast. That is all on South Africa.
I have been receiving information since January of this year, culminating in President Nyerere's speech to the O.A.U. in Cairo, that "Freedom Fighters", intended for subversive activities, are being armed and trained in Tanganyika. The headquarters of the liberation committees are in that country. Their intention is first to subvert and then to invade by overt armed force the Portuguese territory of Mozambique. If the Government do have not the same evidence as I have, I will send it to them at some other time. I ask now merely for some assurance that the Portuguese in Mozambique are not going to suffer the same fate as those in Goa and that Her Majesty's Government will not do nothing while they are overrun. That is my request on behalf of the Portuguese, whose system of colonial government is superior to any other and results in a type of multiracial society not to be found anywhere else. To class their colonial government with apartheid is simply ignorance.
My third request is an old chestnut. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was indignant about our being somewhat unfairly treated in the Yemen. Her Majesty's Government were very unfair last year on the other side of the Straits, as I pointed out in a number of speeches, and I am hoping that they are coming round to see that an amende honorable is due to Somalia and that they should refrain from sustaining the black colonialism of Kenya against them. I communicated with the President of Somalia and asked whether I could do anything to help, and he duly replied:
"The Prime Minister dispatched special letter this morning. We all appreciate your excellent endeavour to help Somalia. Please let me hear on receipt"
A fortnight has passed and the letter has not arrived, due to delay in the post. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Gov-

751
ernment whether they have in mind some approach to the Somali Government, which would in effect be some amende for the injustices of last year.
Then I have two small items. Last year I travelled in India as a guest of the Indian Government, at a time when they were recovering from the shock of the invasion from the Chinese People's Republic and were intensely grateful for the help they were receiving from Her Majesty's Government in arms and equipment of all sorts. It seemed to me, from many discussions, that Pakistan and India must hang together, as we used to say, lest they hang separately. The problem of Kashmir seemed to be on the point of being settled. But then Nehru died. A letter I received on his death from my contact said that it was a pity he did not live another six months, for then he might have settled the Kashmir problem.
I want to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with this observation, which I have received from the President of Pakistan:
"The President very much appreciates your concern over Kashmir. Furthermore, he fully agrees with your views that the wishes of the people of Kashmir should be ascertained and the principle of self-determination applied, as laid down in the United Nations' Charter"
I ask that question of the Government because when I last asked they had no such principle, and I was assured that they did not mind what happened so long as the two parties, Pakistan and India, agreed. I believe there has been a change. Are they in favour of discovering what the people want, and supporting that it should be done?
I have one more item, and that is with regard to Cyprus. It so happens that I travelled this year to Cyprus as a guest of the Greek Government. With Greeks I have a long historic family association and other associations. Nevertheless, at the end of my brief there was a remark which seemed to me to prejudice a fair solution, at least to some extent, of the Cyprus issue. There are two kinds of partition. One possible partition is to group the Turks and Greeks in different parts of the same island, and surrendering each part to its Mother Country, which I understand to be double Enosis. That would be one fair way of settling the problem. Another form of partition is
752
the same grouping, but an independent State, something of the sort that we have now, with a modified Constitution. That also would be partition on the ground.
These two partitions seem to me to be fair systems which, as such, should not be excluded from consideration. Yet at the end of the brief that I had going to Greece there was a note to the effect that the Prime Minister was opposed to partition. I do not know whether that is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that it is not prescribing a particular remedy, but tending to pour cold water perhaps on two of the only three methods that are really fair to both sides. That is my fifth request. Are the Government open-minded as to one or other of these forms of partition? I have finished my speech, and I have asked for five separate things.
8.13 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I think I am the sixth speaker during this debate to focus attention on South Africa. That must seem a little incongruous in a debate on foreign affairs, but I welcome it, because I have felt that a debate on South African affairs is very long overdue in your Lordships' House, and there has been no other opportunity than this. There are two alternatives only in front of us for the future of South Africa. There is alternative (1), which is separate development or apartheid; and there is alternative (2), which is described in the report of the experts to the Security Council of the United Nations as
"the application of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to all inhabitants of the territory as a whole, regardless of race".
Put shortly, that is, one man, one vote, now, and no nonsense about it.
I would invite your Lordships, quite briefly, to look at those two alternatives. Separate development is the solution adopted by the South African Government. The two races are to live side by side, but be separate. The country is to be divided into black African homelands and white African homelands. The Bantu races are to have full political rights in the black African homelands, and political rights up to municipal level in the white African homelands; and for the white race the converse is to apply. That is apartheid. It has been condemned as morally unjustifiable and

753
spiritually wicked; and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have just reaffirmed their condemnation of it.
I should like to say here that I, personally, agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in a letter to The Times a few weeks ago: namely, that it is not possible to say that apartheid or separate development is wicked in principle. All men are equal in the sight of God, but all men are not the same. I know of no authority, Biblical or otherwise, which says that they must all live together and under the same government. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made this point to-day, and both he and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that one should be careful about it, because it might even prove, in the end, that some form of separateness was the only key to a solution. I think that is right. But whereas apartheid may not be described as wicked in principle, in practice, as applied by the South African Government at the present time, there are certain things grievously wrong about it.
Let me take, for example, the so-called black African homelands. They do not represent a share of the national assets than one can possibly regard as in any way fair in relation to the numbers and importance of the Bantu people. They not only do not represent it now, but they are not planned to represent it in the future. They are, moreover, islands not well endowed with natural resources, in a sea of white domination. Therefore, they can never be free or independent; and the South African Government knows this very well.
The second thing that is wrong about the practice of apartheid is that it has led the South African Government to adopt measures of repression which deeply offend the consciences of their best friends, and in some measure justify the criticisms of their detractors. I think on these two scores alone separate development, as practised at this time by the Government of South Africa, must be condemned as wrong.
Of course South Africa is an important customer of ours, and I entirely agree that we should do everything to build up our trade with her. But I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, would,
754
if he were here, agree with me that that would not justify British businessmen if they attempted to excuse what is inexcusable on that account. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, reminded us of the strategic importance of South Africa; and I entirely agree with him. Moreover, I agree with him entirely when he says that South Africa and Great Britain must not drift apart. But that, again, is not a reason, is it, for defending what is wrong as right? It is also true enough that worse injustices go on in other countries. But that, it seems to me, does not excuse them in South Africa.
It may also be true that the black man is better off materially in South Africa than he is in any other country on the continent of Africa. But that is no compensation for the indignity of the pass laws; it is no compensation for the unfairness of job reservation, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said, is indefensible. I was sorry that the noble Lord seemed to go on almost to defend it, because it is indefensible. And it is no compensation for the 90-day Detention Act. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, emphasise that, too; and I am sure that if, indeed, he did speak to the Minister of Justice in South Africa and asked him to think about it again, he did South Africa a great service.
I personally think, though I daresay others will not agree with me, that as a cover plan the Communist bogy has been much overplayed. I think it is far better to be plain and simple about these matters. Apartheid, as practised in South Africa at the moment, is wrong. Another thing is that it will not succeed in the long run, although, of course, it can succeed for the time being. I have South African friends who have said to me: "If you people would only leave us alone, we can take care of the situation. Our internal security is now very good." I dare say, but that misses the point. History shows us that a policy like this, which can be sustained only by the use of Draconian repressive measures, will never bring a lasting solution. As the old saying goes, "You can do a lot with bayonets, but you cannot sit on them".
Of course, all this has been said before, and said with great relish by those who are the protagonists of the alternative

755
solution. And what is the alternative solution?—"One man one vote", and get on with it. That would result, as we know, in virtually an all-black Government and probably in a one-Party Government. The white population of South Africa say that that is intolerable and that they will not accept it. Are they wrong? I personally find it very difficult to argue that they are. To be frank, if I still lived in South Africa and I was told that universal suffrage was to be applied immediately, I should pack my bags and go. That would be all right for me, because I should have somewhere to go to. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has pointed out, there are many people in South Africa who do not have anywhere to go to because South Africa is indeed their homeland. That is where they belong. In a sense it does not make much difference whether the white population of South Africa is right over this thing or wrong: the fact is they will not accept it. They cannot be persuaded to accept it by argument at this time, and they are, as has been said, a very stubborn people. As to other means of persuasion, it is as well to remember that they are a very brave people. If they were subjected to an effective blockade—if such a thing indeed could be done—they would resist it to the end, and your Lordships' consciences would rebel against it before they gave way. As to more forcible measures such as have been threatened, I think the people who threatened them would be well advised to think again, because they would only take a good hiding.
I think we can sum this second alternative up quite simply by saying that it is not acceptable by the white population of South Africa, and that it is not feasible, even if it were justifiable, to shove it down their throats. So there we are. The South African Government floods us with propaganda on their alternative, and the United Nations, led by the Afro-Asian bloc, fulminate away about their alternative, but neither is any good, because they will neither of them work.
What then is to be done? We have heard some excellent speeches this afternoon on South Africa, but there was one speech which impressed me enormously, which was the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I thought it was an exceptionally well-informed speech, that
756
it was a very powerful speech in most convincing language, and I am glad to have heard it. But I find it rather a terrible speech, because at the end it said: "It is too late; the cataclysm is going to come". That is a conclusion I do not accept, and I will not accept. I will go further and say that I think it is our duty not to accept it. Until the cataclysm is there, we should go on trying to stop it from happening.
As to how it can be prevented, that is a different matter. But if all concerned would come to realise that their present ideas do not work, it would at least clear the decks. What we need is new ideas. Where are they to come from? Not, I am afraid, from the United Nations. The Security Council of the United Nations has before it a report from its experts which one can only regard as completely one-sided and completely impracticable. By such thinking, they forfeit any chance they might have of making a useful contribution to this difficult problem.
The major contribution to a re-thinking will have to come from the South African Government. I have not forgotten that I said they are a stubborn people; I have not contradicted the words which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, used about them. But it seems to me that there is some evidence that the leaders of the South African Government are not entirely happy about the final outcome of this matter. I know that a number in South Africa think that the preservation of white domination is a holy mission entrusted to them, but I believe some South African leaders do not share that view or, at least, have serious doubts about it.
Another thing I would point out is that there are some men, whom we know to be men of intellect and of liberal views, who have recently been appointed to high positions, including the South African Cabinet. In that connection, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, in welcoming the Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Dr. Carl de Wet who has already gone a long distance to win our respect for the dignity and friendly way in which he represents his country among us. A contribution will also have to be made by the leaders of the Bantu people. There, as has been pointed out, is a big difficulty, because there are no immediately available and generally recognised

757
leaders of the Bantu people. Such as there are are mostly in gaol or in exile. But some leaders will certainly have to be found, because there will be no lasting solution to this problem unless it is supported by men who can carry the Bantu people with them. These are the people who have to do the rethinking, and at some point of time they will have to think together.
I am not, needless to say, suggesting a national convention as recommended by the report recently given by the Security Council. That seems to me to be a fruitless recommendation. It could end only in wind, and exacerbate an already difficult situation. Long before any such formal discussions took place, a lot of quiet, patient work has to go on in the background, and some new ideas have to be produced. I personally have a feeling that the two parties to the dispute are not able of themselves alone to find a solution to their problem. I think they will need help, and they will need the help of friends. It is one of the sad things about this sad business that some South African leaders have reserved their hardest words for the people who can best befriend them. Great Britain, I believe, understands their problem, and has a great deal of sympathy for them in their difficulty. Great Britain certainly remembers and admires South African gallantry in war, South African sportsmanship in peace, and South African hospitality at all times. There is a great fund of good will for South Africa here.
We in this country also sympathise with and understand the aspirations of the coloured people. I think we have given evidence of that. It is my view, in short, that the best, and maybe the only, chance of finding a way out of the difficulty, is that the two sides out there should reach the conclusion that their present ideas will not work, and that they will have to think up some new ideas; and that in doing so they would do well to seek some help from those who are ready to help them in a disinterested and sympathetic manner.
I fear that in saying this some noble Lords perhaps, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will say that this is a weak-kneed approach—I think those were his words. He asked that there should be clear strategy marked out, line by line.
758
I certainly do not feel able to produce that at this time. I feel that quick, cut-and-dried solutions are not to be had in a difficult case like this; that you have to work your way quietly. The important thing is to get the dialogue started; and that is what we should aim for.
My Lords, I will end by briefly summarising what I feel our point of view in this matter should be. I think we should be quite frank with both sides. We should firmly refuse to pretend that right is wrong or that the unattainable is practicable. Secondly, we should do everything we can to ensure that this extremely difficult situation is not made more difficult either by things that happen or are said in this country or by things which are said or done by other nations, in so far as we are able to influence them. Thirdly, and finally, we should be ready at all times with our sympathy, our advice, our practical help; and also with leadership, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked for, and I agree with him. But it must be the kind of leadership that wise parents give to their sons when they are attaining manhood; that is to say, the sort of leadership in which those who are being led do not realise that they are being led.
8.32 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, we are on the eve of two great and very important Elections, one in this country and one in America. Naturally I shall welcome a Labour Government in this country, and, aside from that, I hope it will be for me one of the last opportunities for using this Chamber, because I hope the Labour Party will keep to its original Socialist principles and abolish your Lordships' Chamber, a wish I expressed so vehemently in my maiden speech in this House.
The Labour Party promises great and good things for Britain and the British people after it is returned to power, but unfortunately foreign policy is the key to all possibilities of home policy. I am afraid I shall have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in just dismissing the Goldwater affair as something to do with the Americans only, because I think it is a terrible warning to us all. In the 1930s the foreign policy of this country was based, at the core, against Socialism and against Russia. In those days Russia was alone; Hitler

759
emerged and was not taken seriously; it was said that it could not happen, the German people were far too sensible; that it was nothing to do with us.
We on the Left in those days made a great mistake. We never took full account of the huge industrial monopolies who were behind Hitler, who put him into the Chancellory, and who kept him there so that he could work against all the organisations and movements of the German working-class and against any vestige of Socialism anywhere. In Britain, in our Government and in influential places we had people who welcomed Hitler in this job; and to-day we have Government leaders who were Munichites, who were appeasers and have written in the newspapers trying to justify their appeasement.
Goldwater is on the horizon. He may not become President but there are the same influences, the same big people behind Goldwater as were behind Hitler in the 'twenties and 'thirties. Over two million dollars have been spent on Goldwater's election to date by these powerful industrialists, and this business which has been going on in America shows that there is a huge force of dark reaction and racialists in America. My only fear is that the Democrats, in trying to trim their sails to what is happening in America, may move more to the Right.
A very short time ago a liberal, progressive, forward-looking President was shot. The commentator Walter Lippmann—no Socialist—has written:
"Goldwater has sounded the trumpet for a global crusade to be carried on by a very wide-ranging military intervention, possibly nuclear"
Against whom? First of all, against the Soviet Union and against all Socialist countries, and I think we on the Left in politics must take note that Goldwater will think that all America's Allies who are Socialist are arch-enemies also. The Washington Post has declared that the Goldwater policy, now the official programme of the Republican Party, constitutes a commitment to war for the United States and is a platform that any rational man must read as an expression of political leaders who are willing to threaten the use of military power to achieve a national and
760
ideological objective, even at the risk of the nation's destruction in nuclear war. In other words, in America there is no nuclear stalemate on the Republican side, and to the Republicans the Russian bomb is no deterrent whatever.
My Lords, I am concerned that the Labour and Tory foreign policy ties us absolutely hand and foot to American policy through the Alliance and NATO. The Tories say that we must have the independent bomb alongside the American one. The Labour Party says: "Let our own nuclear weapons run down and rely completely on American, on the American umbrella." Neither of these policies means a free, powerful and independent Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seemed to me this afternoon to be rattling the sabre when he talked about the mixed-manned ships with all these bombs to be carried. If you rattle the sabre and talk with pride of all things like this, how are we to go forward to disarmament with the Soviet Union? It is asking for stalemate.
The Prime Minister says that we must have powerful weapons, that we must have the nuclear bomb so that we may have more respect in the world, so that we can argue from strength. My Lords, I think this is an absolutely archaic argument, especially for us in Britain. This idea of brandishing a big stick to cause respect and to strengthen any argument, I suspect is a hangover from his public school days, when certain society people walked arm-in-arm in the streets with canes to impose respect from that class of fags.
LORD COLYTON: You were a member of it.
LORD MILFORD: I beg your pardon, but I was not. For Britain to go forward economically, socially and with real prestige in the world, if we are to give a new vista to mankind which is so badly needed in this world to-day, I think we must break with this deadlock in conceptions of strength from bombs. I think we have to break completely with a lot of what we have been hearing in your Lordships' House to-day and give a real new perspective to the young people, the young nation. It is a young world growing up all around us: of new nations, new peoples, new Socialist countries. And to

761
go on wielding the big stick to get prestige is completely out of date. We have to start again.
Perhaps I have sounded too much in despair about Goldwater and the American situation. I honestly do not feel it, because things are very different to-day from what they were in the 'twenties and the 'thirties. The best way to stop fire is to prevent it. And to-day there is a tremendous force for peace in the world. There are many countries, and many former British Colonies, that are out for peace at any price. In the days of the rise of Hitler there was only one Socialist country; to-day there are many. Many of us who were in the Labour Movement in the early 'thirties know that Hitler could have been stopped if we had all united together to save peace, if we had fought on a real united front against all those backing and helping the Fascists to power.
My Lords, I hope that we do not make the same mistake again. The peace forces are in the majority in the world, and I hope that we shall all stand behind them and swell their ranks. The foreign policy of this country I think—and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others agree; and I welcome it—must primarily be based on co-existence and the easing of tension, leading to nuclear disarmament and, later, total disarmament. But we shall not get this if we go on talking about, boasting about, and increasing our nuclear forces. Every day in the Press we read about more bombers, bigger bombers, more multilateral submarines.
I believe that we should rid this country of foreign bases, to which a large section of the public has always been opposed. After all, these bases are a springboard for a foreign Power. And they could be used to cause us to be annihilated with hydrogen bombs in a war which we did not start, or make us a target for nuclear attack, even if we were not at war. Particularly is this the case with the Polaris bases. Incidentally, my Lords of the Labour Party, what has happened to that resolution at the Labour Party Conference on the question of Polaris bases? I think we should categorically declare that in no circumstances will we take part in this multilateral force.
762
However much people argue about the "safety catch" and all that, anybody who goes out shooting knows that the safety catch is damn near to the trigger; and sooner or later it will give the trigger to the Germans. In the 'twenties the Germans started by being given (I think it was) submarines, and then something else and then something else; and in the end they were fully armed. This is the beginning. I say that we should categorically come out against the whole idea. It will also spread nuclear arms to other countries. How can you expect the Soviet Union to come to the table and talk about complete nuclear disarmament, complete disarmament, when we are going to continue with this nuclear force? Mr. Wilson and others who have been to Moscow have found this out for themselves. And yet here we are boasting about this force and committing ourselves and admitting we are going into it. Where is the danger of attack to-day? I think the danger of attack to-day can come only if a man like Goldwater, and those hotheads behind him in the Republican Party, do what they are boasting about, and also from the revengists in Western Germany. If the two get together, God help the world!
I think we should withdraw from NATO. We have heard about NATO today. What is NATO for? It is an Alliance against the Soviet Union, and does anybody honestly believe to-day that the Soviet Union want to attack this country? If we get rid of alliances on our side, I am absolutely certain that alliances on the other side will also melt away, and we shall have a world free from any military alliances whatsoever. The Test Ban Treaty was a very good first step towards easing tension. Now let us go forward to the next, always having as the target total disarmament. Instead of this talk to-day about arms, let us talk far, far more, and put our vision to the world, of total disarmament. That should be our great ideological aim and that is the picture we want to give to the young people to-day. If we did that, we should not have half the trouble, half the cynicism, we are having now.
It would be tragic, I think, if the next Labour Government found itself having to spend even more on armaments than

763
is being spent to-day. If this country could get rid of this colossal arms bill, if we could cut our arms bill by half, get rid of the foreign bases and renounce nuclear arms, it would be a tremendous step forward for peace, and as I have said before I am sure it would help to break down other alliances which we think are threatening us. But, above all, if we cut the arms expenditure we could have the houses we so badly need; we could have more and better social services; and more scientists would be released for peaceful use. The Labour Government could easily achieve the vision it offers to the British people to-day, and Britain as a whole would gain an enormous admiration and respect and would have a tremendous voice in the arguments for peace and disarmament. I am sure we should be far more respected in the world if we did these things rather than, as we boast, the archaic thing that we do by waving our strength with the bomb.
8.50 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, as well as the late hour, have enabled me to cut down a good deal of what I should have liked to say in this debate. It is a subject on which I happen to have spent many years of close study and I have felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said just now, that mention in this House of South Africa and its position in the world as misrepresented generally, was overdue.
I think that before one expresses any view on South Africa one ought really to make quite sure that one understands what the policy of apartheid is, and that one is not merely criticising some of the methods of its application which have no intrinsic reference to the policy itself. The policy, as defined by the Government, is just this—and perhaps I ought to emphasise first of all that it is against this background that the claim, and I think it is a correct claim, is that this is not a racial question, but a national question. Mr. Macmillan in his famous speech in Cape Town referred to the South African Republic as the "first nationalism in Africa". That is the basis of their position. They have no
764
colonial background. They have no parallel elsewhere in Africa. Their position is that of a white nation occupying their own land, which they started occupying 300 years ago when it was virtually empty, and with the Bantu coming in from the North at a rather later date. The basis of their policy is that, owing to differences of language and tradition, and general outlook on life, it is not possible to share an Administration with the Bantu; and they may easily point to the rest of Africa to-day where the idea of multi-racialism lies in ruins all over that Continent.
The basic principle of apartheid is to safeguard the future of the white nation in those parts of South Africa which the European immigrants settled as their homelands over the past 300 years; to lead the Bantu nations to effective self-government in those parts of South Africa which the Bantu immigrants settled as their homelands during the same period of history; to give the European-descended and the Bantu peoples alike the opportunity to maintain the social and political organisations best suited to the expression of their distinctive characteristics and aspirations; to enable all people, wherever they may work and live in South Africa, to be intimately associated with the cultural and political life of their own nation; and to raise living standards in white and Bantu homelands alike.
One has to keep that as the background, and also to remember that it is not a case of 3 million white people on one side and 11 million black people on the other. It is a matter of three or four nations living within that area: the 3 million white nation, the 3½ million Xhosas, the 3 million Zulus and so on. The idea behind apartheid is ultimately to have three or four Bantustans.
The manner in which South Africa proposes, and is endeavouring, to discharge its guardianship is governed, as they have said publicly, by three considerations: that a nation cannot be free in the modern world unless its citizens are literate; that successful self-government depends on the existence of a political system which has grown up from the people and is able to enlist their enthusiasm and support; and that political independence must be supported by economic advancement. Those

765
three considerations form the pattern envisaged for the Bantu people.
I should like just to mention the question which the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, mentioned—namely, that every Bantu, no matter where he lives, will automatically qualify for the vote and a voice in the Government of his own national homeland or State. If he lives in the white State he will have legal political rights at municipal level in Bantu townships and villages, as in many places he has to-day, but he will continue to have his political rights at a national level as a citizen of his own State. Similarly, white South Africans will have no political rights in the Bantu homelands or States, and, should the white man decide to reside or work, there, he will be subject to the Bantu Government concerned. The example is in the Transkei—which is the first of the Bantu homelands now endowed with a Government of its own and which will be independent within a few years—where there are, I believe, 14,500 people of European origin living and, in accordance with the system, they will have there no political vote at all. Their political vote will be in Cape Town or Pretoria as the case may be.
If one looks at what the South African Government have done to carry out these principles which I have just enunciated, one finds that in education South Africa has the highest degree of literacy in Africa. Recent figures show that four out of every five Bantu children are at school. This compares with the rest of negroid Africa, where four out of five children are illiterate. One can go on for quite some time giving figures of that sort. There are 29,000 Bantu teachers in South Africa. There are 48 Bantu training colleges, with a current enrolment of more than 4,000 student teachers. So one could go on.
I want to emphasise that the South African Government are not introducing a plan which is distasteful to the African outlook, but are endeavouring to give the African what he has, from one end of Africa to the other, declared he wants, which is to be an African and not a pseudo-European. Last year 49 educational experts from 28 African countries met in Madagascar under the auspices of UNESCO, and they decided that
766
it was necessary to reconsider the type of education of which the aim had been, in many African countries, the assimilation of young Africans into the cultures of the metropolitan countries. They said that this European-orientated education would no longer do. The conference decided that the old syllabuses should be revised with due regard to political and cultural emancipation. This entailed—I quote,
"The rediscovery of Africa and bringing it to the youth in secondary schools."
It is, as I have said, precisely this attitude of mind, the craving to be themselves, which the policy of apartheid is endeavouring to give. I could give your Lordships a number of figures. There has been £111 million voted for Bantu education by the South African Government from 1948 to 1961.
In regard to the social services—I mention these things because we have not only heard a good deal about an atmosphere of oppression and suppression in speeches here but read it constantly in the Press—in the last ten years the South African Government have spent £100 million on urban development for the Bantu. That has entailed the construction of the equivalent of a dozen cities of 100,000 people each. These cities, largely around Johannesburg, have modern amenities such as sports grounds, swimming baths and that sort of thing. Incidentally, £20 million a year is spent to provide hospital and health services, and so on, for Bantus alone.
We have heard a good deal this evening from one or two speakers about what ought to be done by those who apparently disapprove of apartheid for largely mistaken reasons. One of them is the matter of the imposition of sanctions. I sincerely hope that the British Government will maintain their stand that imposing sanctions is no way of settling a question of this kind, and that it would largely hurt the people whom one is going out to benefit. It is estimated that to impose sanctions on South Africa would immediately result in some half a million of the coloured population in South Africa, and many scores of thousands of people in Scotland and in this country, becoming unemployed. This does not seem to be a sensible way of approaching a difficult problem.
It was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale that South

767
Africa is one of the best trading partners of this country and that last year there was a trade balance in our favour of £81 million. It is also estimated that British investment in South Africa is about £1,000 million. All of those things go to prove that the methods of force suggested would be lamentable, ineffective and inefficient. I notice that at the Commonwealth Conference one of the Commonwealth Ministers spoke rather disparagingly of this country and said that we thought more of our investments than of our principles. But if we did not think about our trade and investments we should not have all these large sums of money with which to help underdeveloped countries. For a trading nation to be told that it should neglect its investments does not really make much sense.
I want in conclusion to ask: what is the alternative to apartheid? Those who do not like apartheid must shoulder the burden of saying what they would put in its place. Enthusiasts want to do away with racialism, white supremacy and oppression, and in their stead wish to create a non-racial society in which all men will walk in freedom, regardless of race or colour. These are wonderful phrases when uttered 6,000 miles away from that country and away from the experience there. But is such a solution at any time likely to be feasible? Where in Africa is there such a Utopia—or where, indeed, in the world is there such a place? These are the questions we have to answer. It is all very well to wish for a solution of this kind or to talk impressively in glib shibboleths when you are 6,000 miles from the problem, but what matters is the concrete evidence produced by events in the African continent itself. It shows quite conclusively that there is no such thing as multi-racialism in Africa. It shows that wherever the African and European personalities have been forced to find expression in one and the same political system the one has inevitably dominated the other. South Africa knows this, and, after all, unlike many of her critics, she is part of Africa and has had some experience of the country.
Would it not be fair to say that in the policy of apartheid South Africa is turning her back on the idea of white
768
supremacy, as also on the idea of black supremacy, and is saying that human dignity of both white and black would best be ensured by allowing each to rule themselves and to join together politically as independent States but economically interdependent? The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said that these Bantustans can never be really independent. What country, it does not matter whether it is Bantustan or Swaziland or Basutoland, is independent to-day? Their geographical position tells them they will always be economically interdependent on South Africa, whoever manages them and however independent they may be politically.
There is evidence—and I know people deny this—that large numbers of the Bantu have accepted the guiding hand of the South African Government and are working for the advancement of their own national groups and the Republic as a whole. It is nonsense to talk of South Africa as being a danger to world peace. In my view, the only way in which South Africa can be a danger to world peace is if the sort of bigoted, largely ignorant, sometimes well-meaning and sometimes malicious, interference from outside multiplies until it induces the United Nations perhaps to try what has never in the history of the world been tried before; and that is interference on a large scale with the internal management of a wealthy and powerful country. My Lords, I feel that it has been a good thing that South Africa has been mentioned so frequently in this debate, because it was high time that the other side of the picture was shown.
9.9 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, there is at least one point on which I can agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I feel, with him, that it is a good thing that South Africa has been mentioned so much in this debate. It was right that it should be, following upon some remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his, if I may say so, very balanced and reasonable speech taking us to so many parts of the world. Your Lordships who listened to it will remember that he finished up by reminding us, as others, including the Prime Minister, have done before, that one of the major problems confronting the world at the present time is the disparity

769
and tension between the rich nations and the poor.
What he did not remind us of, though I am sure that he himself is well aware of it, as are your Lordships, was that the rich nations, as it happens, are, by and large, the white nations, and the poor nations are, by and large, the coloured nations—coloured in the wide sense of the word. It is in the Continent of Africa that we have this agglomeration of coloured people, black people, living to a very large extent in very considerable poverty not only with the tensions created by that, but with their rich white neighbours in the North across the Mediterranean and their rich white neighbours in the South, in South. Africa.
We have heard from the noble and gallant Field Marshal his views on the importance of South Africa for defence in case of war. Far be it from me to disagree in any way with the noble and gallant Field Marshal in his views on defence, though I certainly might on other matters. But I would point out to him, and to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, who also mentioned this matter, that it is no good looking on defence, and South Africa's rôle in defence, in isolation. What is the good of having a friendly South Africa, with bases at Simonstown, or wherever it may be, if the whole of the rest of the African Continent is against us; if it is on the other side, in the event of war with the Communist Powers, which is what the noble and gallant Field Marshal was talking about?
The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, made, I thought, in the first part of his remarks, a very fine speech. I will make no comment on the second part of it. In the first part he dealt with the African Continent and the problems affecting it, and with a very large part of what he said I agreed. I think his diagnosis of the problems there and the tensions there was absolutely right. But where, in my opinion, he went entirely wrong was in the conclusions he drew from that diagnosis. My Lords, if we have these problems arising (some have already arisen in the Congo, and others undoubtedly will a rise in the future) where there are tensions, where there is this struggle between the East and the West, between Communism—and to an increasing extent Chinese Communism,
770
as opposed to the Communism of the Soviet Union—on the one hand, and the Western Powers, on the other, fighting for our respective ways of life, how are we best to counter, to win that fight?
I suggest that one of the ways—there are many ways, and I certainly will not go into them tonight—in which we can gain ourselves friends in the rest of Africa, excluding the Republic of South Africa, is by making it abundantly clear to all the people of Africa that we oppose apartheid in every way. The surest way of allowing the other side, of allowing the Chinese Communists, with or without their money, to gain the upper hand, is by letting it appear that we in this country have aligned ourselves with the white men of South Africa, and that we are sticking to our blood brothers and turning our backs on the Africans of Africa. That is the conclusion I draw from the diagnosis which I think the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, so ably made for us earlier this afternoon.
Therefore, my Lords, I believe that, if only for the sake of our defence, if only for the sake of the security of our own country and our own way of life, we must take a stand about what is happening in South Africa to-day in such a way that there can be no doubt in the mind of anybody. We must remember that there are many people who are not so well intentioned towards us as they might be; many people who are very ready to misrepresent us if we give them half a chance. We must therefore make it clear, in spite of those misrepresentations, that we do believe in the equality of men, and that we do not believe that any man should be penalised simply because of his birth, his race, his religion or his colour. My Lords, our record in that is not above reproach. It is a mixed record. We have said good things. Sir Patrick Dean, our own representative at the United Nations, said less than a year ago:
"The rulers of South Africa are, by their inadmissible racial policy, carrying their countrymen, of whatever race, to certain tragedy".
Those were brave words, my Lords, for a representative of Her Majesty's Government, and I, for one, am glad he spoke out in that way. But the effect of such a statement is to a very large extent vitiated when you realise that, in spite of those words, we are still supplying

771
to the Republic of South Africa a whole series of armaments which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself, on another occasion, admitted can well be put to use against the people of South Africa itself, and which my noble friend Lord Shackleton pointed out, by actual quotations from speeches by Ministers of Defence in the Republic, are intended for use, if necessary, against the Africans of South Africa. It is that double facet that we present to the world at large—fine words at the United Nations but very different actions when it comes to selling arms—that is doing us so much damage in the eyes of the poor people of the world and, in particular, in the eyes of the African people, who, as I say, if for no higher reason than that of our own self-interest, we must make sure come out on top if, in the struggle which is going on in that great Continent between Communist China, and perhaps Communist Russia, on the one hand, and ourselves, on the other, we are to come out the victors.
But, my Lords, I hope that we have some higher motives for taking this action, and I was very happy indeed to listen to the courageous words of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, speaking on this matter—because, say what you will about it, my Lords, apartheid is evil. It is a policy based on the innate belief that men are different because they have different skins, and that is something to which, in my submission, no decent-minded man or woman in this country, whether he calls himself a Christian or not, can possibly subscribe.
My Lords, we have heard from two noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, an apologia for apartheid. I do not for a moment suggest that either of them is anything other than honest in the view he holds; I do not for a moment suggest that they are, as some people are, hypocritical in the views they put forward: but I do suggest, my Lords, that they show the most remarkable insensitivity to human dignity and human suffering if they are capable of getting up and saying the things that we have heard them say in this Chamber this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, towards the end of his speech, said we must not talk glibly from 6,000 miles away about the problems of this country, but should
772
go and look for ourselves. I hope he has looked for himself, but I doubt if he has looked in the right places, because he would not have said the things he has said had he looked in those places, had he gone with me a few months ago to the suburb of Alexandria in Johannesburg and seen the way Africans were being used and were being housed and had he even gone to the newer suburbs—those places about which he was boasting to us, on which so many millions of pounds have been spent—with their barbed wire enclosures for the labour, as my noble friend Lord Samuel told us, and all the other horrors and indignities—not physical horrors but mental horrors—which go on in that country.
He reminded me, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, of the sort of things which might have been said, possibly in this Chamber, I suppose, 120 years ago when slavery was being abolished. People got up then and said: "What is wrong with slavery? Look how much better these slaves are. They are well looked after by the plantation owners. It is better than rotting in the jungles of the Congo, fighting each other and dying of disease. Surely it is better for them to be here." Physically, perhaps, it may be so; but that did not stop slavery from being abolished; and the words the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, used will not stop the abolition, eventually, of apartheid. I know that there are some people who say there is nothing we can do about it; that it will work itself out; that the economic prosperity of the Republic is such that job discrimination will have to go. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that. He said it is going already, and that other things will follow. But it is not just a question of jobs. There are so many other things, too.
If we are seriously wondering whether this situation is going to get better over the years, let us look at what has happened in the course of the last three years. Has the situation got so much better? In 1961, three years ago, the General Law Amendment Act introduced the twelve-day detention clause, under which the Attorney-General might direct that a person arrested should not be released on bail for twelve days. In

773
1962, because that was not enough, the offence of sabotage was created, providing penalties as for treason—which may include the death penalty—and stipulating that any sentence of imprisonment imposed must be for at least five years. House arrest was introduced at the same time. In 1963 (and remember that we are told that things are getting better the whole time; that the policies will work themselves out if we do nothing), it was found that twelve-day detention was not enough; so 90-day detention was brought in. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, was gracious enough to say that he did not like it; that he had tried to get the Minister of Justice to alter it. I wish he had succeeded. He did not succeed, and I doubt whether he or anyone else will succeed. But he went on, having said he disapproved of it, to ask: "What would you do if you were a member of the Cabinet? You have to maintain law and order. There is no other way."
My Lords, when we talk about the maintenance of law and order it is so often order we are thinking about, and not law. The law of this country, of which we are so proud, holds that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty and that a man must be brought to trial within the least possible time. He cannot be held, incommunicado or otherwise, without trial, without coming before a magistrate. That is the sort of law that we believe should be upheld; but the 90-day detention Act, although it may achieve maintenance of order in the short run, is striking at the very foundations of the law and destroying the law that it sets itself up to protect.
There are many points I could take up, and should like to take up, in the speeches which have been made in the attempt to defend apartheid; but it is too late to do so at any length. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, that when he tries to draw an analogy of partition as in Ireland with what is going on in the Transkei and in Bantustan, there is no analogy of any kind. In Ireland there is no division on the ground of race, and, what is more important, nothing whatever to stop—and there never has been—a Northern Irelander, if he so wishes, from travelling
774
into Southern Ireland, setting up residence there, going to college there and mixing with the people as a free citizen. Conversely, there is nothing to stop a Southern Irelander from going into Northern Ireland. So, as I say, one cannot draw an analogy there. There is no need for me to labour the point.
Then the noble Lord said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who I am sorry to see is not in his place either, that multiracialism never worked. Of course it has worked. If we go back far enough, we in this country are a multiracial society. We had Picts, Scots, Saxons, Latins and Jews all mixed up over generations, and we are proud of the result, because we have never believed in apartheid in the past. If we come nearer the present time, there are multiracial societies in Singapore and in Jamaica, on the other side of the world. We see it even in Kenya: it is struggling, but it is there. The Cabinet there is composed mainly of Africans, but there is one European who is a prominent member of the Cabinet. So one cannot say, with any honesty and knowledge of the facts, that multiracialism has never worked. It will work, given a chance. The trouble is that in South Africa it is not being given a chance.
The worst of anything that is happening in South Africa to-day—worse than the pass laws and the detentions—is that the present Government have decided that black and white may not be educated together, not only in the primary schools, but also in the seats of what are so ironically called in that country the "liberal arts." There have been in the University of Witwatersrand some Africans and white people working together, but by edict of the Government Africans will no longer be allowed in that University. That is not the sort of progress which enables those of us who look at this problem with an honest and clear view to say that we must leave it alone, and that things will work out all right if we do not interfere.
What are we to do? I confess that my brain tells me that my noble friend Lord Samuel is right, and that the point of no return has been passed. But my heart leads me to side with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and not to give up hope. I still believe that there is a faint glimmer of a possibility

775
that this final cataclysm may not fall upon that wonderful country, whose people, black and white, nave such fine qualities and among whom there is so much good.
We can do little. At this stage, we cannot interfere in the internal policy of another country. We cannot say that there must be one man, one vote. Speaking personally, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, that if that were to come within the next twelve months, it would be disastrous for both the black and white in South Africa. But we must do what we can to show our utter abhorrence and condemnation of what is going on in that country; to give such encouragement as we can to those good people who are fighting against it. We must hope and help in any way we can for some alleviation of the present oppressive legislation and for some relaxation, if only in the field of education, to enable black people to feel that at least there is a chance for them to move up and become as their white neighbours are. These are things I hope we can do, and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he comes to reply, will give us his support and the support of the Government for them.
I hope, too—because here is something we can do and, for the reasons I have mentioned, must do—that we shall at once prohibit the exportation from this country to South Africa of all forms of armaments. We have fulfilled our obligations under the Simonstown Treaty. We have no more arms that we are obliged to send under that Treaty. We hope that we shall not be blackmailed by the South African Government into sending more arms, or succumb to such blackmail. We must follow the lead of our American friends and other countries—It is a pity we did not start it—and at this stage say that there will be no more arms from the United Kingdom for the Republic of South Africa. If we do these things, although, as I said, my brain still tells me that my noble friend Lord Samuel is right, my heart will go with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, in hoping that the cataclysm may still be averted.
9.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson,
776
opened the debate this afternoon he mentioned five points on which he expected there would be unanimity. In the course of this debate, I think it is fair to say that there has been no difference with that view and the extent and measure of the bipartisan policy which exists. Indeed, I would say that the debate has been characterised, in such divisions of opinion as exist, by an endeavour on both sides to try to understand and meet the policies of the Government. I would exclude from that the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who would be insulted if he were said to agree with anybody. But, beyond that, I think there was an effort on both sides of the House to find agreement.
I must say that I deplore what was said from the Cross Benches, that NATO was disintegrating; that the American troops on the Continent were hostages; and that we should have our fuller and former position in the use of the American deterrent. That I should never expect the Americans to concede in any form. I think all those propositions are not true. NATO is a healthy organisation. And the measure in which General de Gaulle allows himself liberty is, I think, the obverse of the assurance he has of American support. I very much doubt whether he would have allowed himself the liberty he has if he were not as assured as he is that the Americans are supporting the Western Alliance.
I would regard the breathing space which has been mentioned to-day as being (shall I say?) the end of a chapter which started with Sir Winston Churchill's speech at Fulton: that speech in which he drew attention to the fact that alone among the Powers which had won the war the Soviet Republic had not disarmed. That was the basis of the Fulton speech, which has come up to the end of a chapter, when we now have a breathing space, and we now have a steadier balance in Europe. I think we may claim credit because much of the difficulty—may I call it the log-jam?—in our relations with Russia was eased by Mr. Harold Macmillan, which enabled Mr. Kennedy subsequently to do the work he did. I am fully confident that the Prime Minister to-day will carry on the task of those who went before him.

777
If I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, he said that nationalism was hardly less dangerous than the bomb. I profoundly agree with him. But it is no good pretending that nationalism does not exist. I am a little surprised that there has not been more comment on the fact that this world has to-day something over 120 foreign States.
LORD GLADWYN: One hundred and thirty.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I readily accept the correction. They are all engaged, and particularly the new ones, in a rather exciting adventure. They are full of life, and in many cases wild revolutionary theories, and believe that the solution to human life lies in political action. In most cases, these 130 countries are engaged in a bitter struggle with some opposition or other, often of a racial character.
I believe it has been assumed to-day that racial problems exist only in Africa. That just is not so. I doubt whether any country has behaved more abominably to people of another race than the Indonesians have to the Chinese. The difference there is that they do not write their laws at all, whereas I believe the South Africans do at least write them. Indeed, not very far behind them is the way the Burmese treat the Indians. In each case the Prime Minister is dealing with a bitter struggle. In many cases life is in danger, and in most cases he is quite convinced that he is doing the most difficult job in the world—and he probably has plausible reasons for thinking so. He is in charge of what is a sovereign State which, by definition, means a State which is hounded only by what the people will stand, whether that be the process of democracy or the kind of process which ends in dictatorship or rule by the army. They are not influenced by convention nor, indeed, by public opinion. Moreover, they have little experience of international relations.
I must say that think this is a most complex and dangerous situation and, frankly, I do not believe it can continue indefinitely. We sec already a number of centres of disturbance: Cyprus, Southern Arabia, Laos, South Viet-Nam and Indonesia. We must reckon that
778
such places are likely to extend rather than to diminish. I am sorry to be depressing, but I think it is the natural deduction to be made from the situation in which we find ourselves. The basis which is common to nearly all of them, if not all, is due to inferior and weak forms of Government, assisted by the overall fear of escalation. In other words, the very fact of the atomic bomb means a greater danger at a lower level.
What can we do? We turn our thoughts first of all, naturally, to the United Nations. Frankly, from what I have heard, the United Nations represents the most difficult point of meeting of all these 130-odd States. They are probably in a more cantankerous mood there than anywhere else. What disturbs me is that the very presence of the United Nations does not command more respect than it does. I should have expected that when the United Nations troops, under the authority and direction of the Secretary-General, appeared in Cyprus, they would have been greeted with a high measure of respect. Far from that being the case, it seems to be the object of some of these indigenous people actually to fool the United Nations. I think this is a most deplorable situation.
On our part, I think the greatest danger is in interference in the internal affairs of these countries. We have, of course, attracted a certain amount of attention with our past history of colonialism, and are an easy object of suspicion. But I believe that to-day the nature and dangers of Communist colonialism are increasingly recognised in the minds of many people. The dangers are particularly strong in India and Malaya. We talk a great deal about aid—and I am sure that it is welcome—about economic and cultural association, and about trade. As a trading nation we can, of course, do a tremendous amount. I am sure that in practically no case should we impose a trade embargo, whether it be in Cuba, Spain, South Africa, China or Indonesia. Such a step would be extremely undesirable, for trade in itself has a civilising influence. In the majority of cases it is to the advantage of both sides who enter into that trade.
In this we are, of course, carrying out our task in the Commonwealth. I believe this to be extremely important,

779
because to-day the Commonwealth is not a meeting of like-minded people; it is a meeting of unlike-minded people, who can talk freely and frankly. This is a tremendous advantage, and I believe that it will help all. I must say that I think that in this complicated world we should deal very much better with one Department instead of two Departments. I do not know, for instance, when we come to a quarrel between China and India, whether it is dealt with by the Foreign Office or by the Commonwealth Relations Office, nor indeed in relations with Malaysia or Indonesia where the action is taken. But I am sure that it could be dealt with more simply by one, rather than two, Departments.
There is one side of this question to which attention has been drawn by Kissinger in a recent article on foreign affairs. In this world the distinction between allies and neutrals is likely to diminish, because the neutrals get the same protection and the allies want to be equally free. I think there is a great truth in this, and very consider-able danger. We, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, do not force anyone to be aligned. But let us be quite frank: we do want friends, and neutrality is an unreal concept in this world to-day. It is nice to think of one as being equal, but it is a completely impractical policy.
Here I would, if I may, say a word about Malaysia. Here is a country which in every way has played the game. It is a good United Nations member; it works on adult universal suffrage; its law courts are a model of what law courts ought to be; it works in close co-operation in a country where racial disputes could be extremely easy. The difference in temperament and psychology between a Malay, a Chinese and an Indian is very sharp, as anybody knows. I very much regret to hear that there was a riot in Singapore the day before yesterday which is, so far as I recall, the first riot for eight years. When I was in Singapore I read of riots in Trafalgar Square, so it does go both ways. But this danger is always present in that country.
They have been attacked by unprovoked aggression. The Indonesians have said that they will crush them, and, let us be quite frank about it, Indonesia is being treated, if I may say so, like a
780
Teddy-boy with diplomatic immunity. This world cannot go on with people being treated in this way at the present time. I saw in the Guardian a suggestion that the President of the United States should speak to the Prime Minister of Malaysia along the following lines. First, he should say: "Resist confrontation, but avoid anything which would lead to escalation. You must always be open to diplomatic approaches whenever they are made, and you must gain the sympathy of the Afro-Asian world "If those were the instructions issued by the President of America to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, I think it would suit President Soekarno down to the ground. First of all, the Indonesians want to fight something, just as Orwell told us in 1984; just as Hitler wanted to fight Czechoslovakia. They have to be opposed. They do not want escalation any more than anybody else, because they know they would suffer very heavily if it came. They are ready to keep the door open to diplomatic movements.
President Soekarno has no reason for going to Tokyo other than to draw the world's attention to himself and his policy. Moreover, the Indonesian's propaganda is quite superior to the Malaysian propaganda. It surprises me, the readiness with which everyone, even the B.B.C., in this country is prepared to quote from Antara, which is a pure propaganda instrument under the control of the Foreign Office in Jakarta.
I will add one point, because time is getting on. The most serious situation to-day is in South Viet-Nam. There we have a big common interest with the United States, which is the most powerful force there, and there our relations are least easy. We must regret, of course, the difference of attitude which we take, but we think United States is only halfhearted in supporting Malaysia, and I have no doubt that they think we are less than enthusiastic about supporting them in Viet-Nam. I would emphasise the paramount importance of seeking to keep in close step with them in this very difficult part of the world.
I am fully aware how difficult the Chinese position is. But China has said they will not allow war to spread to the border and they will not countenance aggression against North Viet-Nam.

781
I must say that the Chinese generally mean what they say, and I have no doubt that they are genuinely frightened that the United States are seeking nearer bases to their own country. Equally, the United States do not trust China, who have said they are prepared to enter into what they call a just war, which is, of course, any war in which they happen personally to be engaged. They are the most xenophobic people in the world, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, would agree. They have the greatest contempt for foreigners of any country I have been near to. I have not actually been there. I suggest that in this most difficult area, which is of the utmost importance, we should keep in close contact with the United States of America.
9.45 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are coming at last to the end of a very long debate, which has taxed many of us in fulfilling the difficult task of really listening to all the speeches. In fact it has been quite impossible with me, although I have heard most. I should like to say, before I forget, having just listened to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that what he said in the winding-up of his speech is vastly important. We recognised, de jure, the new state in China almost as soon as they became so organised as to be recognised. This country did so. We were in office as the Labour Government at the time. And I think if the British Government at the present time could bring pressure to bear to see that the Chinese are recognised in the United Nations, so that these matters can be really fought out in their presence, we should probably get an easier road to the solution of some of the difficulties. I appreciated his story of the general position in Malaysia and the neighbouring countries. I see exactly what he means by the possibility of fears by the Chinese as to what the United States have in mind.
However, I do not want to be drawn into that, because I want to stick to the point laid down for us advisedly by my noble friend Lord Henderson in that remarkable survey which he gave on foreign affairs at the opening of the debate. I agree with the speaker who
782
said that perhaps the majority of the House, at any rate, could agree with my noble friend's statement that five of his main propositions were such that he hoped all the House would agree with them. In the years since I have been here, at any rate since 1950, we have grown to accept that as far as possible our debates on foreign affairs should be objective and non-Party, and I should have liked to think, after the speech of my noble friend, that the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition could have been—and I think it could be—upon the same basis of trying to make a survey of the situation so far as he could see it, and not to have to resort to what I call hard-hitting political opposition. But the debate has not turned out like that. I could find nothing in the speech of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, which could lead us to be violently opposed to the particular matters with which he was dealing. Sometimes in foreign affairs I disagree here and there with what the Government may say, but very often I much prefer to put my points in private, where I think I can help my country by submitting them to the appropriate Department concerned in the particular foreign issue. I think it would be a very good thing if we could maintain, so far as possible, that kind of thing.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Milford—I am not going to reply in detail to his speech—made some good points and I think some poor ones. But there is one thing we cannot stand for in a great democracy: to call anything else a democracy is to play with words. We cannot stand for a one-Party State with one list of candidates and no other freedom.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I do not think I used the word "democracy" in my speech.
EARL ALEXANDER or HILLS-BOROUGH: Well, I always thought that the people whom the noble Lord was clearly supporting in his speech certainly claim to be democrats. But we cannot accept a one-Party system as being a democracy, so we have to disagree, except on one point which is essential and which I believe has been accepted by successive Conservative Prime Ministers during the

783
last few years—namely, that if there can be reasonable discussions towards the final objective of the maintenance of peace, then we would work among the different opinions in the world for the greatest amount of co-existence that can possibly be obtained. I think it is important that I should make that quite clear.
We have had speeches on various matters which dealt not so much with foreign affairs in general as with particular objectives upon which in the country there has already been political diversity and political activity which perhaps is not always to be admired. However, it seemed to me, when I listened to the survey that my noble friend gave in such an excellent way, that probably the most controversial matter he left outside his special points was the reference made to South Africa. Perhaps I might say one or two things on that, first of all. I have never been in South Africa itself, but for the whole of my life, and especially during my fifty-six years of married life, I have been in touch, as my wife has, with relations who are good South Africans. One of them was married to the second holder of the Victoria Cross in this last war, Colonel Norton. I have a great affection for a large number of South Africans. I had the great honour of being presented with the freedom of the City of Sheffield on the same day as that great South African Jan Smuts, with whom I had a long acquaintance and a deep friendship.
We as a Labour Party have nothing against South Africa as South Africa. What we have against them is that they are departing from all the real pledges they made with us when we joined the United Nations. The policy which is laid down first, and then the consequences that follow after it, in regard to apartheid are quite contrary to the Charter which we all signed when we agreed in the United Nations Organisation. My noble friend Lord Walston made it perfectly clear just now—I hope the Government will pay special attention to this in their reply, because it is a matter that requires clearing up—that we have no desire to interfere with the development of South Africa in any possible way. Again, as was clearly emphasised by my noble friend, we are against any economic
784
sanctions being applied. But we are certainly against the supply of arms by the British Government to South Africa, which in fact contravenes two things. It contravenes what is understood by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter: that the supply of arms ought to be confined to that which is necessary for the particular country to resist outside armed aggression. That is the first point. The second is that, long after that was established, only recently, the Security Council voted firmly upon this matter and there was no veto upon it. At present, therefore, unless the Government can explain otherwise, they are contravening the position in that respect.
Let me say this in general about the insinuations which have been made—because of course we are approaching a General Election. What is the Labour Party's true position on these matters? When I listened to the attack made by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, who has had ministerial experience in colonial and Commonwealth matters, I was amazed that he used a Foreign Affairs debate of this kind to amplify from his point of view the charges, whether true or false, which have been circulating in the country and in the European Press against the Labour Party and its leadership over the matter of the Spanish frigates. The more I have looked into this the more astonished I am at the use which has been made of it.
Let us look at the facts in detail. The figure published in the Press first of all was that the intervention of the Leader of the Labour Party in another place, Mr. Harold Wilson, had led to a loss of trade of £14 million. That was the first charge. But it went up and up until it became a figure of up to £60 million, and in one or two cases higher sums than that—millions of pounds worth of trade was said to be lost by that intervention by the Leader of the Labour Party on what for years had been known to be our policy in that matter.
Our policy has not been against the development of trade with countries, whatever their character in politics, whatever their general political philosophy. All the way through we have not been against trade with Spain. Indeed, any advice which has been given in the last few years from a Conservative

785
Government, in regard to either export or import trade or the development of the tourist industry in Spain, has been entirely due to the monetary treaty which Mr. Harold Wilson made when he was President of the Board of Trade, a treaty which established on a firm basis the development of trade with Spain. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, talking about a loss of trade I was shocked, in view of the origins of the whole thing.
Let us now look at something else. I have had a long connection with Defence and the practice in Defence Departments, but in my long experience as a Service Minister, which altogether, including the Defence Ministry, runs into nearly twelve years, I never once experienced a case where a British Government were prepared, not for purposes of trade or for the building of a ship in this country, to sell the outline, and in some cases the inside secrets, of British defence construction, for it to be manufactured in another country. We found, when we came to examine the figures, that the figure—rembering first the £14 million, then the £60 million, then plus this and plus the other—came down eventually to £11 million, and £2,300,000 of that was to be paid for the design of the Leander frigate. What advantage was that to labour in this country? It was said that £8 or £9 million were to be spent in other directions in this country. On what?
Let us see what the features were in the case of the Leander frigate. They would have had the full outline and the up-to-date construction, propulsion, armament of the well-known post-war established "Leander" frigate. But they would also have had what we had added at a later time—the addition of the missile, the Seacat. Is that not so? Where could they have got the Seacat except in this country? Nowhere. The other part of the £8 million-odd which was to be spent, was to be spent mainly on electronics, so far as I can find out. It is no good saying that that was diverted, because if the Spaniards were going to make the contract they would not have got them anywhere else but here.
Is it not true that Spain was negotiating for two or three years, not only with us but with the United States, with France and with Holland? No agreement has
786
yet been made with any of them. I understood this afternoon that the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, had some inside information that the contract was going to the French, and it was followed by a story about a large contract—
LORD COLYTON: I was referring to the Portuguese frigates and submarines.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then I misunderstood. But certainly we have been told recently that the French have got the contract. For what? For a sale by them to Spain of their secret information, for something to be built in Spain, for the supply of something equivalent to the Seacat which would probably have been supplied with the "Leander" frigate? Or would the contract be dependent upon the acquisition from the United States of the Tartar or the Terrier, which the United States are using with the larger escort type of ship?
My word! When you come to look into this, you see what a botched-up case has been put, to try to have a big political influence in the coming Election. I do not mind whether I have to debate this matter here or on any platform or on television. The Government cannot make this case. Indeed, the whole way in which the facts were finally presented to the British public, as if the contract had already been signed—which was admitted by Mr. Butler, admitted by Mr. Thorneycroft, to have been a leak which they did not know was going to be made—makes it quite clear to me that it was a leak which it was felt it was desirable to secure at this time, in the political circumstances of the nation approaching a possible Election.
The more I look into the facts about the ships concerned and the equipment concerned, giving away details to a foreign country, not for building in this country but for building in Spain by Spanish labour, and the way that is put up as a grave loss, the more I feel that it was partly a betrayal of our great defence traditions in relation to the way we handled our defence production in the past. I leave that there for the moment, but I may have to come back to it again presently, for certain reasons.
The other day I had to make a comment upon the Prime Minister's attack upon my Party. It was a dreadful attack,

787
with language of a kind which is not used nowadays. It is true that, in the course of the General Strike in 1926, Mr. Churchill said that Labour was unfit to govern. He was very anxious to get us all in in 1940, and we enjoyed great co-operation from him. We had great faith in him, and he in us. But the Prime Minister now says that we are too dangerous to be allowed to form a Government. What an insult that is to the 12 million, 13 million or maybe, this time, 14 million voters who will vote for the Labour Party in this country, and who have never let their country down when they have been up against it—never!
Anyway, who are the Conservatives, who were in office from 1931 until 1940, to comment on such a thing as this? Who was the danger then? Was it the Labour Party? The danger was in the complete incapacity of the Conservatives to use the taxable power of the nation to prepare for the inevitable in Europe. They had it in their hands to do this, as well as being able to provide work for the unemployed with that power, but they did not do it. There was no real organisation of manpower until April, 1939—and even then it was for six months' training. If we are to have these attacks upon us, we have got to reply, and that is the position in that regard. The Prime Minister himself was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Neville Chamberlain when Mr. Chamberlain made his three visits to Germany and came back with his "piece of paper" from Munich. If we are to have this sort of attack made upon the Labour Party before the Election, you must have the answer. Who were the dangerous people in such circumstances as those?
Let me say, with regard to the policy of the Labour Party in relation to the supply of arms and of trade, not only in the case of the one country I have mentioned, Spain, but with all foreign countries and with the Commonwealth, that we were at all times constantly at work as a Party—and we shall be when we come back as the Government—to promote trade with anybody. The Government themselves showed that to be right when they said to the Americans, "We are going to trade with Cuba". We have always said, "Trade with the Communist countries. Why shouldn't you?" I do not know that
788
the Conservatives have always done that. I simply remember that, from 1952 until 1959, they refused again and again to supply merchant ships to Communist Russia at a time when our shipyards were beginning to slide in output. We have memories, you know!
We have always promoted trade with any country in the interests of our own people and of their prosperity. But when it comes to the supply of arms, we are not prepared to go beyond the general purposes of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter—and we do not always go as far as that. If I may quote words which Mr. Butler, used recently in another place, he said:
"In such cases we examine the political, the economic and the strategic positions—all of them—in regard to the delivery of arms."
How much examination was given to the political position in Spain when these negotiations were entered into by the Government? When I suggested quietly, or somebody did, that Spain was a Fascist Government, the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said, "No, a change has been made. You can see what things are like." But the prisons in Spain to-day are filled with political prisoners, many of them not sentenced but just detained. There are exiles still outside because they hold certain political opinions; they are not allowed to be in their own country. It has taken up to this year for Spain at last to grant complete religious freedom to the small number of 30, 000 Protestants in Spain. If you look at all the combinations of this you can see you have a Fascist Spain.
The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, perhaps had forgotten what I said in the course of an interruption of somebody else concerning what happened in the last war with regard to Spain. Not only had they already previously tried out the aircraft, the men and the weapons of the Fascist States of Italy and Germany in their own civil war, but later on, through Hitler's Ambassador, the head of the State in Spain was awarded the Golden Eagle of Hitler, with his tremendous thanks for the three years' fighting that the Spanish Blue Division did in the U.S.S.R. on behalf of Hitler. And what was the reply of the head of the State in Spain when he came to accept this great honour—as it was to him—this gift of the Golden Eagle from Hitler for all these services?

789
How much has the political situation of citizenship within Spain altered since then. Who has the vote? It is a Fascist State. And if we feel in our position that we ought not to supply a dictatorship of any sort, whether Communist or Fascist, with arms apart from the terms of Article 51, I should have thought this Government would have taken exactly the same view. I hope I have said enough about the Spanish position to make our case completely clear, but I am quite prepared to go on further on future occasions if you want me to do so.
Now I come to the general questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He is an old friend of mine because he was with me and Hector McNeil during well over three months of the consideration of foreign matters then, as they affected Europe, in the Paris Peace Conference in 1946. He was there all the time. He knows what went on. He knows pretty well how things have changed from time to time since. When he referred to the relationship of the declaration of the Republican candidate Senator Goldwater, I thought that he was not going perhaps quite so far as he might have gone in that respect; but I should have thought it was much better to listen first, as he did, to my noble friend when he put what ought to be our position in relation to the Election in America. And that is that it is a matter for America. And although I admit that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not put up any special case for Senator Goldwater's candidature, we want to keep away on both sides in this country, from a mixing-up of the politics of the United States and ourselves in the Elections that will take place this Fall within three weeks of each other. That is the position. As regards his optimism about the position of the Common Market, I wonder whether he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that it is dead and we should not talk about the Common Market. I suppose he did not agree with that.
LORD GLADWYN: No, my Lords, I do not agree.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should say myself that, in fact, the best deal that could possibly be made there was to
790
avoid being drawn in at that time. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, probably feels strongly that, if it had not been for General de Gaulle, an agreement would have been made. Maybe so. As I see from the publication of the organisation for which he works, the noble Lord has argued that the rôle of the British Government in such a case was to work for special concessions from the Common Market to the Commonwealth nations. But, in fact, we have done little in the last three years, compared to what might have been done, to arrest the decline of trade of this country with the Commonwealth countries, because of things being held back here. The terms of trade within the Commonwealth could have been in a much better position than they are now, if this question of the Common Market had not been raised. That is my view and I am sure the noble Lord will accept it, coming from me.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and NATO. The noble Lord seemed to think that the foundation of NATO sprang from the initiative of the Americans in 1949. In my intervention, I said that that was far from the case. When the Paris Conference broke up in October, 1946, it was hoped that there might still be a chance of an agreement with the Communist front, which we had been up against, because Russia went to Paris with a new empire behind her, and with troops in every country in that empire and she made it perfectly clear that she was not going to do this, that or the other.
We started right away to set up, through the Treaty of Dunkirk and the Treaty of Brussels, a military stocktaking in this country, and in 1948 we got military observers and highly qualified staff from Washington and Ottawa and then proceeded with the final negotiations to bring America into NATO. Up to twelve months before that, America was demobilising, hand over fist and not on an agreed basis, such as Mr. Churchill (as he then was) had agreed with Ernest Bevin for our own well-organised demobilisation. Thus we should have been put into a position of real current weakness, if we had adopted no alternative. But out of it came NATO, and from that day on the existence of that organisation has prevented the Communist blackmail and propaganda

791
from changing the whole face of Europe—and without having to fire a shot. And it has been a large factor in the continued defence of the peace ever since.
We have had more difficulties of late. I am not going to attack the position of France at the present time. What we have to do is to get around the NATO table and do the best we possibly can to see that it is properly run, with proper contributions made by those able to make them to the general defence, and to make quite sure that, when we are dealing with military strength in these matters, our first objective will be, not to see how soon we shall fight, but always how we can maintain the peace. I believe, from what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said this afternoon, that he would be in agreement with me on that point. But that we should go without collective strength for the Free World would be, to my mind, an intolerable state of affairs.
I must apologise for speaking so long. I have spoken a little longer than I intended, and I am sure that I have missed out many points that I ought to have dealt with. I thank all my noble friends who have helped me in the debate this afternoon. I think especially of the scholarly yet humanist speech of my noble friend Lord Samuel, and of the contributions of my noble friend (I nearly said "Eddie") Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Walston, with his wide knowledge from his travels of the colour problem. Let me say that when we on this side talk about the colour problem, I am sure that this country, whatever Party is in office, has every reason to be proud of its record since the changes in the composition and Government set-ups of the different territories which used to be just a part of the British Empire but have now achieved independence.
There is nobody else in the whole world who has given such a free position, as being against the colour bar in all its development, as has taken place in the Commonwealth. I am proud of the fact, as I am sure noble Lords opposite are, that we have never attempted during those years to use anything like the colour bar, and I hope we never shall. Now let us hope for
792
peace. I pray for peace, and I am sure that all my friends, in all Parties in the House to-day—Independent, Conservative and Liberal—will have the same desire.
I cannot leave out of mention, however, that the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in his speech this afternoon dealt with the strategical point with regard to the South African position. I noted with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, interpolated at the time: that there could be little movement in the air, on land or on sea in the case of a major nuclear war. That is as may be. I think, however, that you may easily get positions in which operations might break out in a part of the world in which the Simonstown Agreement would be very useful to us, because most of the nations who understand the position will not risk being the first to cast the nuclear weapon.
From that point of view, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said. But other occasions arise—I have studied this a good deal as a Minister in connection with Defence services—and we might well be glad of the opportunities that we should afford to each other, South Africa to us and we to South Africa, in such circumstances. When people talk about the possibility of this leading to circumstances in which South Africa would deny the Simonstown Agreement, I say that she has as much to gain out of that Agreement as we have. There is no reason why South Africa should abandon the Agreement.
I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to me. I apologise for keeping you so late at night, but, of course, mine has not been the only contribution in keeping you this late. I hope that, whichever Party comes into power during the autumn—I am pretty confident my Party will form the Government at the time—we shall never lose one habit of the British people: that when they are in trouble they stick; when freedom is in danger, they defend it; when rights are in jeopardy abroad, we defend them—although we do not always defend them at home as we ought to. I hope that we shall pull together for peace and happiness.
10.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships how much pleasure I have had in listening to twenty speeches in the last eight hours. I am the twenty-first speaker, and I am certain it would not give your Lordships so much pleasure—in fact, it would give you no pleasure at all—if I were to reply to all the twenty speeches to which I have listened with so much delight. I think your Lordships' House works a good deal harder now than it did seven or eight years ago, which is a most excellent thing. I sometimes think it is a pity that the pressure of our other Business makes it difficult for us to have these broad general debates in conditions of greater leisure and less congestion of time, because there is so much knowledge and experience contributed to our debates on these occasions.
I am going to be short in reply. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, did his best to put ideas in my head when he said he thought I might be reserving the subject of British nuclear policy until the end. But I am not going to do that. Not because it is not important—indeed, it is a question which will have to be thoroughly discussed and debated within the next three months. It is of vital importance to this country. But we have discussed it already in this House. My noble friend discussed it in the debate on Defence, and I discussed it in our last Foreign Affairs debate in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, so I will say no more about it now.
I am going to make only brief references to the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, and to the subject in which most of your Lordships have shown most interest, the question of South Africa. May I first allude to the one point which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, particularly asked about in his opening speech and which my noble friend did not have time to reply to? That is the Gomulka Plan. He suggested that the Western Powers have not taken a sufficiently constructive attitude to it, but I do not think that that is quite so, because although the proposals are perhaps unacceptable as they stand, we have made it clear to the Polish Government that we are willing to examine very carefully any
794
further proposals they may care to make. We have indicated to them our willingness to discuss with them the problems involved in measures of this kind. I think the noble Lord will agree that problems of nuclear armaments are more likely to be solved if they are tackled on a wider basis. As regards the noble Lord's remarks about President Johnson's proposals, the "freezing" of strategic nuclear vehicles, I fully agree that this is a measure of great importance, and it enjoys our full support. The United States and the Soviet co-chairmen at Geneva have discussed this, and I hope that the conference will get down to detailed negotiations on this promising measure.
I see that my noble friend Lord Gladwyn is one of the few of the twenty speakers who have survived until the end. My noble friend sent me a note about his speech in which he asked me to say whether or not the Government think that his conclusions were, broadly speaking, acceptable. I think the answer depends on how broadly one can speak.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I realise that the noble Earl cannot speak broadly until after the Election.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: When I am asked this kind of question I always think of the American businessman who was asked by his friend: "Is it not true that you made 100,000 dollars in cotton on the New York Exchange last week?". He said, "Yes, broadly speaking, it is true. Only it was not last week, it was the week before; and it was not in New York, it was in Chicago; and it was not in cotton, it was in wheat; and it was not 100,000 dollars, it was 10,000 dollars; and I did not make them, I lost them."
I am not going to say anything about my noble friend's theory on the subject of Mr. Goldwater's nomination. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we must leave the internal affairs of America to the Americans. With regard to the observation about the Atlantic arch, I would say what I have often told your Lordships before, that I believe the veto of our application to join the Common Market in 1963 was the greatest service that has been rendered to world Communism in this century. I have said that before, and I say it again.

795
I think the Government would certainly agree with my noble friend in supporting Atlantic interdependence, which means interdependence strategically, economically and politically. There is not much we can do at the moment commercially. We want to make the best we can of the Kennedy Round and we also want to progress, as we are progressing, with our EFTA tariff reductions. Strategically, my noble friend has already dealt with the question of the multilateral force, and I have nothing else to add to that. Politically, the position is a negative one. All we can do is in the Western European Union. Our attitude there is that proposals for European political integration ought not to proceed without our participation.
I should like now to say a word about the speech of the noble Earl the leader of the Opposition, and I should like to say how much I admire the way he is able, at his venerable age, to come here and sit up half the night and make a speech of such very great vigour and enthusiasm. We all enjoyed listening to him. It is really a matter of deep regret to me that I must make one criticism of it. I regretted that he should have spent so much of the time in making what I think was not a very well-informed attack upon the Government's policy of creating better diplomatic and better commercial relations with Spain, which we have been doing over the last twelve years and which, I think, is very much in the interests of this country.
I must frankly say two things. First, the proposed arms deal was based on exactly the same principles as we follow with every other country except those in the COCOM group—for Spain as for every other country in the world which is not in the Communist bloc, to which we promised not to send arms. The other thing I want to say is this. It is no use the Labour Party criticising us because our economy is not expanding fast enough if they are going to sabotage our exports and balance of payments necessary to our economic expansion and growth; and this is what they have done in this matter.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask what exports we have sacrified?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: You will have sabotaged not only the immediate contract with Spain, which would have been a valuable one itself, but the further development of commercial relations with Spain; and we cannot afford to throw away chances of expanding our exports. We cannot afford to do it. We must try to trade with countries all over the world and try to expand our exports wherever we can. And if people are going to stop us from expanding our exports because of old-fashioned, out-of-date political prejudices which have no meaning in the nineteen-sixties, then it is not for them to criticise us on account of slowness of our economic growth.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt, but I am quite sure the noble Earl desires to be fair. I have put a case, which the noble Earl has not answered, that the contract, which was said to be lost as a result of what the Opposition had said, was first of all for the delivery of secret and private designs worth £2,300,000, and that the only things covered by the rest of the contract were Seacats, made by Short Brothers & Harland, and electronics: and all would certainly have been made in this country. So I do not see where we have interfered with your exports.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: There is no more secrecy about any of these designs than about a great many other designs which we have exported to numerous countries all over the world, including South America. I really do not think it would hold water to suggest that we have not lost a very valuable commercial position, which a country in our economic circumstances must always make it its business to try to secure.
On the South African question, there are of course two parts of it. One I think we are all agreed on, although other nations are not: that is the question of sanctions or blockade. The other we are not agreed on, and that is the question of sending arms to South Africa. I will say as little as I possibly can. The Government's position since last December is that we do not export arms to South Africa if we think they are the kind of arms which are likely to be used for civil repression. The noble Earl suggested that in sending other arms to South

797
Africa we were acting contrary to the United Nations Resolution. But of course it is not a mandatory Resolution. When we abstained from voting on it we did not veto it, but our Representative made it perfectly plain that we did not regard it as mandatory and that we proposed to go on supplying to South Africa such arms as we thought were necessary for strategic purposes.
I think the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein this afternoon made a very valuable contribution to this question in his short and carefully arranged speech. As he said, it is of very great importance to our whole strategic position that we should be able to use the South African ports, where a British admiral is in command of the South Atlantic forces of NATO. It is not just a question of supplying particular articles that were stipulated for under the Simonstown Agreement. If we want the Agreement to go on, we must enable South Africa to be able to defend herself in the event of attack from the Communist Powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, it is difficult to draw an exact line between weapons necessary for strategic defence and weapons which could be used in civil repression. He referred to the South African Minister of Defence. I have not been able to find the exact speech, but I think I have heard of a speech by the South African Minister of Defence in which he did say that Buccaneers, which we are supplying, could be used for civil repression; but he went on to say they would not be, because the South Africans have plenty of small arms and ammunition, and it is perfectly ridiculous to think that any Government would buy expensive things like fast fighter naval aircraft, intended for use against bombers, in order to suppress a riot, though it is not inconceivable they could be diverted to that purpose on occasion. But we do intend to continue to supply weapons which we think are necessary to the South Africans to fulfil their obligations under the Simonstown Agreement.
The other question is this. Fortunately, it is not one on which we here are in any disagreement, but it is one on which, as your Lordships know, there is very strong feeling among some of our own Commonwealth and at the United Nations. But, here again, I think our
798
position is quite plain. We did not veto the Resolution to set up a committee of the Security Council to examine the whole of this question. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, I believe referred to a report of a committee of experts on which the researches of this Security Council committee are to be based. The fact that we agreed to take part in the Security Council committee does not mean that we approve of everything in that report. I was not sure whether the noble Lord was actually quoting it. However, I think that parts of the report, particularly those parts dealing with the question of sanctions, were extremely superficial, and indeed disingenuous. But one reason why I think it is a good thing that we should take part in the study is in order to put the case against foolish proposals of this kind.
We are willing to take part in the work of the committee. We think, too, that it is a good thing that everybody in South Africa should be consulted in regard to their future. But in agreeing to take part, we made it absolutely clear that we do not consider that the situation in South Africa constitutes a threat to the peace, nor—and this is the important phrase which Sir Patrick Dean used in his statement—did we agree that coercive measures are the right way of dealing with this problem; and we have explained that we are not committed now or at any time in the future.
As a matter of general principle, we have always taken the line that it is a good thing to trade with all countries. We have incurred a certain amount of opprobrium from many of our Allies, not only in the United Nations, but the United States and Germany, on account of our policy in trading with Cuba and with the Iron Curtain countries, particularly in the matter of giving long-term credits. We believe that that policy is a good thing, that it is better for the future of the world that we should have as much trading as we can with Iron Curtain countries. We certainly take the same view in regard to South Africa.
It seems to us, as I think both Lord Samuel and Lord Shackleton implied, that if you are going to make economic sanctions really effectual and make sure that they are finally effectual, that will become indistinguishable from war, and you may not be able to make them

799
finally effectual without declaring a state of war. It appears to us that sanctions without complete war would probably be ineffective, and their only result would be to make the Afrikaners more bitter, more obstinate and more determined to resist the opinion of the rest of the world.
Like many of your Lordships, I was impressed and moved by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I thought he made a brilliant historical analysis of the factors which have led up to this tragic situation. I thought he also spoke with understanding of the feelings of all Parties there, and I think he was right in saying that on the military question the bases were important. He said that we must stay out of all action involving the use of force. Then he concluded by saying, which may be true but which we hope is not true, that it is too late for peaceful change, that things have got beyond the point of no return, that the future will be one of massacre and destruction. I am sorry that the noble Viscount has been unable to stay; I wish he could have been here. I think that perhaps his conclusion is a prophecy of despair which may prove to be unwarranted.
I should like to conclude by referring to a letter which was published in The Times a couple of months ago by four Africans. They are not themselves victims of apartheid, because they do not live in South Africa; but they are in Basutoland and are therefore closely affected by events there. The letter is signed by the President of the Basuto National Party, a member of the Executive Council for Agriculture, the leader of the Marema Tlou Freedom Party, and one other. The opinions which they give are, as it happens, almost identical with my own. The reason why I refer to them instead of giving my own opinions here is that it seems to be so much more convincing when they are the written opinions of Africans, who are so greatly affected by what is going on and who are unlikely to be prejudiced in the matter. They said:
"The Basuto people hate apartheid and believe that it will kill itself, but they will not fight it in a stupid or evil way…it should be obvious that an attempt to fight apartheid by economic sanctions would probably mean the end of the High Commission Territories and especially the end of Basutoland"
800
Then they said:
"The advocates of sanctions seem to us to make two fatal mistakes. They assume that economic sanctions against South Africa could bring South Africa to her knees in a short time, that the effect would be quick and decisive. But such evidence as we have does not confirm this. Sanctions would probably be a long-drawn-out business, inconclusive against strong South Africa, but meanwhile fatal to the small and comparatively weak High Commission Territories"
"We repeat that we Africans in Basutoland hate racialism and apartheid, but we will not be stampeded into stupid and ineffective ways of fighting it. We have lived with whites and had our differences with them for more than a hundred years. We have survived and intend to survive. We will not commit suicide."
So they are evidently not looking forward to a future of destruction.
The way I look at it is this. We try to increase our trade (sometimes in spite of the criticism of our friends) with Communist countries, because we believe that the result of greater trade and more cultural relations will make it more likely that the Communists in time will come to recognise the value of human liberty. May we not also believe and hope that in South Africa, where the Afrikaners are people of our European race and culture, they too may come to see that those principles of human liberty must also be applied to the relationship between black men and white men in Africa?
10.46 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am sure we all recognise and admire the physical stamina of the noble Earl, who has sat right through this debate and shown unusual vigour in the delivery of his reply. There are two or three answers with which we are dissatisfied—on arms to South Africa, and the frigates to Spain question—but these matters have been threshed out pretty well today and I do not think that at this hour noble Lords will appreciate it if I express any comments. I think that I should be risking whatever good will I have in your Lordships' House if I made the twenty-second speech of the debate. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DIVORCE SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL
  MERSEY RIVER BOARD BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY) PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIDEFORD HARBOUR) MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHOREHAMAND LANCING)
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Third Report from the Committee, made, and to be printed.
  NEW PRISON AT CULHAM AIRFIELD
  NEW PRISON AT CULHAM AIRFIELD