Sitting of 20 July 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ROCHESTER BRIDGE BILL
    HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [Lords]
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified]
Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified]
Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

POOLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  SAINT LAURENCE, CATFORD BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON SKYDECK BILL [Lords]
  CONWAY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Students (Service Overseas)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made in preparation for acquainting students in comprehensive, secondary modern and grammar schools with opportunities for service in Overseas Development; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she is taking to increase the information provided by secondary schools concerning service overseas.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she will take to encourage girls in comprehensive, grammar and secondary modern schools to seek opportunities for service in overseas development.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): This Ministry and many voluntary organisations use school and youth conferences on Commonwealth and world affairs to tell boys and girls about the need and opportunities for service overseas.
    My Ministry is now organising meetings with associations undertaking speaking visits to schools in order to brief them on openings in the service of overseas Governments. Technical or professional qualifications and experience are almost invariably required for such appointments.
    I understand that Voluntary Service Overseas tries to interest all schools with sixth forms in the opportunities for voluntary service. Besides giving talks in schools, agricultural institutions and technical colleges, it circularises all members of the Headmasters' Association, the Headmasters' Conference in Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Headmistresses' Association in Britain.
    Mr. Molloy: Whilst I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Answer, nevertheless I am not wholly satisfied because a great deal of what is contained in it has been going on for some time. May I ask

    1315
    my hon. Friend if he or his right hon. Friend has under consideration a more dynamic approach for informing young people of opportunities available to them in overseas development? If a forthcoming answer cannot be given now, I can appreciate that, but, nevertheless, is my hon. Friend prepared to say that a more dynamic approach is under consideration?
    Mr. Oram: I accept my hon. Friend's anxiety for dynamism in this matter, but I would urge him to consider, as I put before him during the debate which he initiated, that service overseas is really for people of the age of 21 and thereabouts and that, in my view, it is wrong to encourage school leavers too much at the age of 15 and 16 to think that there are immediate opportunities for them. Therefore, though one is anxious to sow the seeds at this early stage for service, one should be careful not to raise expectations too high.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How many qualified students have gone from agricultural colleges or institutes after training?
    Mr. Oram: I think that there is a Question about that later on.

    Commonwealth Students (Exchanges)
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she is taking to increase exchanges of students between this country and other Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Oram: No steps are being taken by my Ministry to organise exchanges of students as such but a great deal is being done under a variety of schemes to encourage the two-way traffic of bringing to this country students who require training which is not available in their own countries and of providing teaching staff for service overseas.
    Mr. Boston: Can my hon. Friend say at what rate the number of outgoing students is likely to expand? Would not he agree that, although it has risen by some 200 per cent. over the last five years, the number for which his Department is responsible is still quite small? Can he also say whether, at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, there were discussions about exchanges, apart from
    1316
    two-way exchanges, between other Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Oram: My right hon. Friend, when she spoke to the Prime Ministers, raised the general question of student exchange but I understand that there was no considerable discussion on the matter. Other affairs were on the minds of the Prime Ministers. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me notice of the figures he asks for.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the Commonwealth scholarship scheme sponsored by the Drapers' Company? Will he give every encouragement to such imaginative schemes within the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Oram: We are anxious to encourage all such schemes and I will take note of the one to which the hon. Gentleman has called our attention.

    British Farmers, Kenya (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the financial assistance proposed to deal with the remaining compassionate cases among British farmers in Kenya.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I informed the hon. Member, in answer to his Question on 13th April last, that the British High Commission in Nairobi was studying each individual case on its merits. As the result of that study, I propose to provide up to £365,000 to enable the Kenya Government to make offers of purchase to 28 cases who qualify for assistance. Some additional cases are still under consideration and if they subsequently prove to qualify provision will be made for them. The remainder will now be told that they do not meet the criteria.
    An advance from the Civil Contingencies Fund will be required and provision for repayment to the Fund will be sought from Parliament by means of Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. Wall: While I welcome that statement as far as it goes, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is really satisfied that only 28 cases need to be settled? My information is that about 150 war-wounded, sick or badly disabled

    1317
    British people in Kenya should be repatriated to this country and helped in other ways.
    Mrs. Castle: This has been considered very carefully by the British High Commissioner and, as a result, about 100 cases have been rejected and 30 are still under consideration.
    Mr. Boston: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be very warmly welcomed by European farmers in Kenya? Can she give us an idea when the aid will be provided?
    Mrs. Castle: The successful applicants will receive offers based on vacant possession on 1st October. This is the earliest possible date from the point of view of agricultural management and standing crops.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Whilst also welcoming the announcement which will be appreciated by all in Kenya who are involved in these compassionate cases, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that this cannot, obviously, be the end of the story? There will always be other cases coming along even in the next year or two. Has she allowed for that in her planning? Will the British High Commission be able to take care of such people in due course? Will the money be easily transferable in such circumstances?
    Mrs. Castle: There are still 30 cases under consideration. We are not aware of any others immediately in the offering.

    Land Resettlement Schemes, Kenya
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development, if she will now make a statement on future Government aid for land resettlement schemes in Kenya.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Overseas Development what further will be done to help the remaining hard cases among British farmers in Kenya.
    Mrs. Castle: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 13th July to which I have nothing to add at present.
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in February, Mr. Stamp said in Kenya that unless something was done about resettlement there would be a
    1318
    general exodus of European farmers? The continued uncertainty which has existed under both British Governments for the last 18 months has caused great dissatisfaction among European farmers and Africans in Kenya and is damaging the Kenya economy.
    Mrs. Castle: As I have said before, there is not much point in sending out a mission unless one bases one's decisions on its report. I expect to receive the final report of the mission towards the end of August and on the basis of that report I shall have early discussions with Kenya Ministers.

    Cyprus (Financial Aid)
    Sir J. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Minister of Overseas Development what application she has received for financial aid from the Government of Cyprus; whether, in granting aid, she will ensure that it is used for the benefit of all the peoples of Cyprus and not merely for the benefit of the majority community; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Castle: I have received no formal application for financial aid from the Government of Cyprus. We have however told the Cyprus Government that we are ready to begin, without commitment, the consultations about future aid which are required under the Exchange of Notes of August, 1960. We have at the same time made it clear to them that, in considering this question, we shall be much influenced by the prospects of securing a lasting political and constitutional settlement and conditions in the island in which the benefits of any aid would be available to all the people of Cyprus.

    Food and Grain (Losses)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Overseas Development what action is being taken by Government representatives on such organisations as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to draw attention to loss and wastage of food and grain in hot and humid areas of developing countries caused by store pests, mould fungi and microorganisms and to suggest remedies such as the storage of food and grain in airtight containers.
    Mr. Oram: We support efforts by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other international bodies to reduce food losses caused by infestation. We are ourselves undertaking research in this field and providing technical assistance for the developing countries.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Swedish correspondent who has made a close study of this matter told me that about 35 per cent. of the food grown in hot, humid countries such as those of Latin America is wasted because of store pests, mould fungi and so on? Would it not be more effective to concentrate not so much on growing more food but on conserving food that is grown, through the provision of grain silos, airtight containers, and so on?
    Mr. Oram: I would not like to commit myself to confirmation of the percentage mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but certainly losses are very considerable and this is a very serious problem. I accept the spirit of the latter part of his supplementary question concerning the importance of storage rather than growing more food, although both are needed. The Ministry maintains a tropical stored products centre which is engaged in research in this important problem.

    Livestock (Mortality Rate)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Overseas Development what action is being taken by Government representatives on international organisations to suggest means of lessening the mortality rate, often 50 per cent. or more, of food-producing animals in developing countries, and to suggest remedial measures by way of better food and water storage to lessen deaths of animals by hunger and thirst.
    Mr. Oram: Government representatives at meetings of the F.A.O. and other international organisations have generally supported proposals to reduce the mortality rate of livestock in developing countries, such as disease control, livestock improvement, grazing control, water supply and other schemes.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Should not our representatives overseas pay more attention to things like irrigation in order to reduce the very heavy mortality rate
    1320
    among cattle? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal more could be done if we could get adequate irrigation in cattle-breeding areas?
    Mr. Oram: We are aware of the importance of this aspect of the problem, but I think it is a case not so much of producing new ideas but of getting implementation of ideas which are already current and accepted.

    White Paper
    Mr. R. Carrasked the Minister of Overseas Development when she expects to be able to publish the White Paper she has promised on the work and organisation of her Department.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Overseas Development when she will publish a White Paper on the policy and activities of her Department.
    Mrs. Castle: The White Paper will be published in the first week of August before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Carr: While thanking the right hon. Lady for her reply, and congratulating her on just getting the White Paper in—I do not know what she would have done if the House had not been sitting during the first week in August—may I ask her to use her influence with the Leader of the House to see whether, in the autumn, we may have a debate on this very important subject?
    Mrs. Castle: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that I have kept my word to the House. I will certainly be very anxious to debate the matter as soon as Parliamentary business allows after the recess.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side warmly congratulate her on bringing out this White Paper on time and on the enormous progress made since the establishment of her Ministry? Apart from the White Paper, does she expect to make any further policy statements in the near future?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not think there would be much time for any more policy statements between now and the White Paper, but I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are some interesting policy decisions contained in it. While

    1321
    thanking him for his kind remarks, I would point out that my hon. Friends at any rate are anxious to see the success of the Government's work in overseas aid
    Mr. Ioan L. Evans: I join with others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on producing this White Paper on the work of her Ministry, but may I ask her whether, in addition to our having a debate after the recess, there is any possibility of her issuing from time to time reports on the activities of her Department to stimulate in the country interest in the viral work of her Ministry?
    Mrs. Castle: The White Paper will contain a good deal about the structure and the work of the Ministry. I certainly hope to have policy developments to report to the House from time to time.

    Leeward and Windward Islands (Development)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made towards formulating appropriate development projects in the Leeward or Windward Islands in a manner that will make them suitable for submission to the International Development Authority.
    Mrs. Castle: The Islands are too small individually to be able to satisfy I.D.A. criteria in relation to the size of population and projects, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is exploring, with the Chairman of the Regional Council of Ministers, the possibility of a joint approach to the International Development Association on their behalf as a group.
    Mr. Chapman: Would my right hon. Friend put a bit of dynamite behind somebody on this issue? Is she aware that I have been pressing for a couple of years now that something ought to be done? Does my right hon. Friend realise that because of the history of the links of these islands with the mother country rather than with one another it is vital that the British Government should continuously take the lead in getting these projects formulated in this way?
    Mrs. Castle: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that if I had been Minister
    1322
    during all the years he has been asking all these Questions naturally decisions would have been taken a very long time ago, but we already, as my hon Friend knows, have taken very effective action in this area by setting up the Caribbean Development Division which will be able to help in this way in future. I would point out to my hon. Friend that there are difficulties about getting the I.D.A. interested, because it is reluctant to consider applications where the population to be served by a project is less than 250,000, and so we have to find group projects, and that is not very easy.
    Mr. Longbottom: Apart from the talks going on now about the Caribbean development bank and various other things arising out of the initiative which the British Government have taken in association with other Governments, will this be the type of organisation through which the I.D.A. can work in this area?
    Mrs. Castle: I could not say anything specific at the moment about the Caribbean development bank, but I agree that problems in this area are better tackled on a regional basis.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she accepts the 10-year development programme for the Leeward and Windward Islands prepared by Dr. Carleen O'Loughlin; and whether her announcement of interest-free loans applies to these territories and to this programme.
    Mrs. Castle: Dr. O'Loughlin's report was not a development programme setting out objectives and priorities; but it is extremely valuable as an examination of the economic potential and capital needs of the islands.
    I have under consideration the extension of interest-free loans to individual dependent territories. I shall deal with cases as they arise.
    Mr. Chapman: But is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme poverty of a number of these islands, and so will she not be misled by some average about the Caribbean but be willing to extend interest-free loans at least to the poorest of these islands for the development programme? Is it not time that we said plan by Dr. O'Loughlin and are going publicly that we accept the target of this

    1323
    to provide our share of the money over x number of years?
    Mrs. Castle: Poverty, of course, is one of the criteria we bear in mind in deciding entitlement to interest-free loans, and we have this matter very much in mind in this context of the sums we are able to make available. I hope to be able to approve C.D. & W. allocations for the Windward and Leeward Islands and other territories very shortly.
    Mr. Fisher: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that if these small islands were to form a sensible and strong federation we ought to be very generous indeed in giving the federation a chance of working and lasting, but that if they decline to help themselves by working together then perhaps we are under somewhat less of an obligation to them individually to give them aid to a greater extent than we do at the present time?
    Mrs. Castle: I would certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that federation, apart from political advantages, would provide a sounder basis for development.

    Interest-Free Loans
    Mr. Longbottomasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether a country which qualifies for interest-free loans will receive all its financial aid from Great Britain in this form; and what criteria will be used to determine the appropriate terms for the various loans which that country is to receive.
    Mrs. Castle: A country which receives all its financial aid in the form of loans and qualifies for interest-free loans, will receive all new aid in this form. Some countries, notably the dependent territories, receive grants and grants will continue to be given in appropriate cases. The criteria for determining the terms of aid to be offered to a particular country will be mainly two: the degree of need of the recipient country, in particular the income per head and the prospective burden of debt; and, on the other hand, the capacity of the country to achieve balanced and effective development.
    Mr. Longbottom: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for that very clear reply. I am sure that she is aware that we all recall the speeches which she made on a number of occasions about
    1324
    the heavy interest borne by a number of the countries, and the burden which this was upon them, and we very much appreciate the efforts she is making in this field. However, would she also bear in mind another criterion, that where loans are given for infrastructure it is impossible for countries to be able to sustain the heavy interest element upon this because it is non-productive in character? Is this another criterion which she will bear in mind?
    Mrs. Castle: I think that, obviously, we would have to have regard to the content of the development plan, but I want to lay particular emphasis on the criteria I have mentioned, because these are, broadly, in line with those which the I.D.A. follows in allocating its interest-free loans, and I think we would all agree that it has great experience in this field and has some useful examples to offer us.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Would my right hon. Friend say whether India and Pakistan specifically would qualify for such interest-free loans?
    Mrs. Castle: I am considering particular cases, but I expect that India and Pakistan would qualify.
    Mr. Longbottomasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she has yet offered any interest-free loans or indicated to any of the developing countries that they would qualify for aid in this form.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I shall apply the new policy case by case, and each case requires study. I propose to deal with new loans as they arise, and not to offer any general intimation, such as the hon. Member suggests, to countries which might receive them.
    Mr. Carr: Can the right hon. Lady say whether she has had any applications for interest-free loans and whether, therefore, any are under consideration?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, I have certainly had applications, and I am considering them urgently.

    Private Investment Insurance
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is Her Majesty's Government's policy at the meeting of the Development Assistance

    1325
    Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development this month with regard to the relative importance of private investment insurance against nationalisation and failure to remit profits.
    Mrs. Castle: I do not expect formal proposals to come before the Committee. The report on the subject to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. John Harvey) on 1st June last is being studied by the International Bank.
    Mr. Tilney: Since other countries, such as the United States of America, Germany and Japan, have a form of insurance, would the right hon. Lady say that she agrees that this is a form of aid, and that private investment can produce valuable techniques in developing countries, and would she also agree that through joint stock companies in developing countries, especially in partnership with those who own capital in this country, much progres can be made in development?
    Mrs. Castle: As I have already told the House, we have no objection in principle to the establishment of a scheme of this sort, but the question whether we could accede to it when the bank has finished its studies must depend on the exact terms of the proposals which come before us and also our current economic situation at the time.
    Mr. Longbottom: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when the United States, Germany and Japan ran similar schemes to the one posed in this Question they were extremely successful in attracting private capital into projects where, but for that private capital, British capital would have been necessary?
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware of the actions of those countries, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that none of those which he has mentioned has the tradition of investing in developing countries that we have developed strongly in this country. We are studying the matter, but I am sure the House realises that in our difficult economic situation we must proceed carefully.
    Mr. Carr: Does the right hon. Lady really suggest that entering into a scheme of this kind would involve any substantial burden on our balance of payments?
    Mrs. Castle: As I understand the purpose of the scheme as urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is to encourage the extension of private investment. This must be considered in relation to our capacity for overseas expenditure or investment of any kind, and must, as I have said before, be considered in relation to the aid programme.
    Mr. Carr: Will the right hon. Lady please consider again carefully the background fact that private investment in the developing world by this country and by other countries has been falling, and as far as we know is still falling? Therefore, it is not building up something which is rising; it is propping up something which is falling.
    Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman is giving me my point. Private investment in the developing countries is falling because of the necessity to create the infrastructure there which overseas aid alone can create. It is, therefore, a question of getting our priorities right. We cannot do everything at once, and I would rather start by laying firm foundations for economic development.
    Mr. Tilney: But surely it is the fear of political repercussions which really prevents private capital investment going into some Asian and African countries? If these were an insurance, would not it be possible to reduce Government aid?
    Mrs. Castle: Political anxiety is certainly one of the factors, and this is something which it lies within the power of the developing countries themselves to allay.

    India and Pakistan (High Commission Staff)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Overseas Development how many staff who are attached to the British High Commissions in India and Pakistan, respectively, are concerned full-time with the British aid programmes to those countries; and whether the responsibility for financial and technical aid within these High Commissions has been unified to match the rest of her own Department.
    Mrs. Castle: In each country two of the staff at First and Second Secretary level are exclusively concerned with aid. In addition several of the other members of the High Commission spend a significant part of their time on aid matters,

    1327
    particularly at the higher levels. As the hon. Member will know, it is the responsibility of the High Commissioners to deploy their staff and co-ordinate their activities. The financial and technical aid programmes are at present co-ordinated by the head of the economic division in each High Commission.
    Mr. Tilney: Can the right hon. Lady say whether this represents a change from the time before her Ministry was established, and whether the civil servants are directly under her control, or under the control of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?
    Mrs. Castle: I cannot give the preceding figures, but, as far as control is concerned, they are in the first place responsible to the High Commission. We have accepted the recommendations of the Plowden Report on this. The aid attachés, or whatever we like to call them, must be integrated in the work of the Commission as a whole, which, in a good High Commission such as we have in India and Pakistan, is dedicated as a unit to the promotion of development, but they keep in contact with the Ministry as well.
    Mr. Carr: Will the right hon. Lady tell us, not so much about the change in numbers, but whether there has been a change of function? In other words, is there now one aid attaché, to use the phrase which the right hon. Lady used, in charge of both capital and technical aid? Would not the right hon. Lady agree that it is almost as important to unify the management of aid in our overseas posts as in our machinery at home?
    Mrs. Castle: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the extent and complexity of the work in these few important countries makes it impossible to unify all the capital and technical assistance work in one individual. Clearly it must be shared, and it must be co-ordinated. We are anxious to strengthen the development representation in the High Commissions in these two countries, and discussions to this end are now proceeding.

    Commonwealth Medical Service
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will initiate consultations to create a
    1328
    Commonwealth Medical Service for use in the developing countries of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Oram: The medical vacancies which I am asked to fill for Commonwealth countries are almost entirely for short-term appointments. These are best filled on contract or by secondment from permanent employment here. To create a Commonwealth Medical Service would suggest the possibility of a full and continuous career overseas, which Her Majesty's Government could not guarantee.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to prepare a paper on this for discussion at the Commonwealth Medical Conference to be held in Edinburgh in, I think, September of this year? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great attraction of this scheme, namely, that in order to supplement short-term service arrangements the richer countries of the Commonwealth should combine to create a career structure for doctors prepared to serve overseas on a long-term basis?
    Mr. Oram: This question has been carefully considered, both by ourselves and the preceding Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference may well provide a suitable quorum for this exploration, but I would not like it to be thought that we have any hope or real wish to create the kind of service which the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Question.
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Sir G. Nicholson: May not there be some scope for some long-term service in respect of certain diseases? I am thinking particularly of leprosy. Is not there a need to co-ordinate efforts throughout the Commonwealth for the conquest of leprosy, which is a most terrible scourge but which can be dealt with, and in most cases cured, certainly if taken early? In many Commonwealth countries the elimination of leprosy tends to be neglected.
    Mr. Oram: I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with regard to certain specific diseases, but I think that the import of the original Question was the setting up of a general medical service.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the hon. Gentleman again look into the possibility of a proleptic appointment so that registrars or consultants can be appointed a year ahead and therefore serve on, possibly overseas in the Commonwealth, while waiting for their permanent appointments?
    Mr. Oram: This whole question of the recruitment of medical staff is a very difficult one indeed. We are constantly reviewing possibilities, and I shall take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Federation of South Arabia (Economic Aid)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement about economic aid for the Federation of South Arabia.
    Mrs. Castle: The allocations made to the Federation under the 1963 Colonial Development and Welfare Act have been £4·1 million; in addition Aden State has received an allocation of £1 million and has been offered an Exchequer loan of up to a further £1 million. Since 1st April, 1963, C.D. & W. schemes in the Federation totalling rather over £3 million have actually been approved. When the Overseas Development and Service Bill becomes law we shall be making a further C.D. & W. allocation to the Federation and I am considering its amount urgently in the light of the other calls on our aid and my recent discussions with the Federal Ministers of External Affairs and Finance.
    Budgetary aid, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible, amounted to £3·26 million in 1963–64, £4·49 million in 1964–65 and for the current financial year Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide a total of £5·65 million including grants to member States; all these figures exclude military aid.
    Mr. Fisher: That was a very full answer indeed. When the right hon. Lady comes to consider future aid for South Arabia, will she bear in mind that if there is to be a workable, unitary State, which I know the Colonial Secretary is very anxious to create there, there must be a far greater agricultural, social and educational developments in the Protectorate States to bring them into line
    1330
    with Aden, and there must also be more roads to link the States together?
    Mrs. Castle: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the priority of agriculture and of the other services which he mentioned. Road building can be a rather costly form of investment for any developing country, and I think that we should put agriculture first.
    Mr. Jackson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of our problems today is to face the neglect of the territories, particularly the Protectorate territories, in the 10 years before our Government came to power?
    Mrs. Castle: That is so. That is why we have made the provision that we have under the Overseas Service and Development Act.
    Mr. Fisher: With respect, I cannot let that pass. Last year, when my Government were still in office—and I know because I did it myself—we made very generous aid available—the right hon. Lady has given the figures—to the Federation and to Aden State, and the Ministers concerned in the Federation and in Aden expressed their great satisfaction to me personally for what we had given them.
    Mrs. Castle: I think that the hon. Member will find that we have made more generous provision.

    Gibraltar (Economic Aid)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement about economic aid for Gibraltar.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance is being given to Gibraltar.
    Mrs. Castle: The Chief Minister and his Deputy have just arrived in this country. I shall be having discussions with them and shall make an announcement tomorrow.
    Mr. Fisher: I quite understand why the right hon. Lady cannot make an announcement today, but does she agree that in the rather special circumstances which now exist in Gibraltar—whose economy has been cut by almost 40 per cent., through no fault of her own—we are under a special obligation to be

    1331
    generous in this matter? Can she say whether her statement tomorrow will be made to the House of Commons?
    Mrs. Castle: The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is "yes". As for the first part, I appreciate the point that he has made. That is why I am hurrying as quickly as I can to make the announcement.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will the right hon. Lady remember that we have a special responsibility for the economic difficulties in which Gibraltar finds herself at the moment, and that this is a problem in which a comparatively small amount of money can make a tremendous amount of difference?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir.

    Aid (Local Costs)
    Mr. R. Carrasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of British aid disbursements was given in support of local costs in 1964–65 or failing that in the calendar year 1964; how this compares with the previous year; and whether she is planning to make any increase in this proportion in the current year.
    Mrs. Castle: I estimate that some 30 per cent. of our bilateral financial aid, excluding the categories of aid for debt servicing and certain transfer payments, was in support of local costs in each of the years 1963–64 and 1964–65. In the current year we shall examine each case for local cost aid on its merits, but I must have regard to the particular impact of this kind of aid on the British balance of payments.
    Mr. Carr: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the great importance of local cost aid in order to make other forms of aid fructify, and that even that, perhaps, does not have quite such a bad effect on our balance of payments as some people think?
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware of the necessity for a reasonable allocation in respect of local costs for each of the loan agreements. In return, I hope that the developing countries will realise that we have our balance of payments difficulties and will do their best to increase their imports from this country.

    Aid (Goods and Services)
    Sir J. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of British aid disbursements during the latest 12-month period for which figures are available was tied to the purchase of goods and services from this country; and whether she proposes to effect any change in this proportion in the current year.
    Mrs. Castle: Of British aid disbursed in 1964, exclusive of technical assistance, aid for pensions and compensation and debt servicing loans, 42 per cent. was wholly tied, and a further 16 per cent. partly tied. Much of the remainder returns to this country in payment for goods. I do not expect these proportions to change significantly in the current year.
    Sir J. Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Lady says "wholly tied" and "partly tied". Can she give a little more information as to what she means? Can she, in particular, say whether any of the aid is tied to specific goods, or types of goods, or to any goods produced in this country?
    Mrs. Castle: It depends partly on the form of aid and the projects concerned. As I have no doubt the hon. Member knows, when making loans we agree the projects on which the money should be spent, and we would bear in mind the impact on our own economy of adding to that particular form of demand. In some cases, notably in the case of our dependent territories, where the aid is not formally tied, none the less there is, by agreement, a considerable flow of British goods.
    Sir G. Nicholson: What view does the right hon. Lady take of the proposal to make some of this aid specifically in the form of goods, which may to some extent ease our balance of payments problem?
    Mrs. Castle: This is a matter that we have under consideration. It is not particularly easy to carry out, but we are studying it.

    Colonial Territories (Co-operatives)
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she proposes to take to encourage the

    1333
    further development of co-operatives in the Colonial Territories.
    Mr. Oram: I propose to continue with measures recommended by the Advisory Committee on Co-operatives, under the chairmanship of Lord Peddie, in Cmnd, 2257 and in other ways now under consideration.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that while there is much to criticise the last Government for, it is to their credit that they set up the Committee? He will understand that hon. Members on this side of the House have far greater expectations of this Government's efforts. Does he realise that the formation of co-operatives helps tremendously in bringing about grass-roots democracy, in view of the fact that they are run on a non-profit basis, which eliminates unnecessary economic exploitation?
    Mr. Oram: I agree with my hon. Friend in his view about the importance to grass-roots democracy of co-operative development. I can assure him that in a number of practical ways we are encouraging such development. For example, we have just initiated a course of study at Nottingham University in co-operatives and marketing, and have recently made a grant to the Horace Plunkett Foundation for the next five years. In other ways we are seeking to encourage a full understanding of the co-operative idea.
    Mr. Onslow: When the hon. Member considers the proposals for these co-operatives, what account does he take of the financial viability of these concerns and of the possibility that they might need to be protected by licensing or subsidy if they are to continue in existence at all?
    Mr. Oram: The actual registration and encouragement is usually the responsibility of the developing country. In the case of Colonial Territories, the points that he makes are very well taken care of to make sure that the co-operatives to which we give support are fully viable.

    INVENTIONS (DEVELOPMENT)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Prime Minister if, with a view to encouraging inventions by persons with limited financial resources, he will introduce measures
    1334
    to give direct Government assistance, and specify a Department which shall fulfil this responsibility.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. The National Research Development Corporation already assists the development of private inventions which might not otherwise be sufficiently exploited.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Prime Minister aware that the procedure of this association is very circuitous, irksome, and ultimately negative? Does he realise that, as a consequence, many inventions have been lost to foreign competitors? Will not he consider instructing the new Ministry of Technology to accept the full responsibility for operating direct grants to small-scale inventors who lack financial resources, and retain the inventive genius of the Briton for the British State in general?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot accept that the N.R.D.C. is circuitous, or takes a lot of time before coming to the assistance of private inventors. This body, which has been in existence for 16 years—in fact, I set it up—has been extremely successful both with small private inventors and with the major developments in universities and State institutions. Since the passage of the recent Bill, extending its resources, it will be able to do more for private inventors as opposed to State inventors.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an organisation—the Institute of Patentees and Inventors—which has done most valuable work for the small inventor, and that many people, including Members on both sides of the House, think that Governments have not been sufficiently generous to this organisation, which does make a special effort to help those small inventors to which the Question refers?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I understand that the Institute referred to by the hon. Member is in very close touch with the Corporation, and that the Corporation has told the Institute that it is willing to look at any invention which may be channelled to the Corporation through the Institute. Furthermore, the N.R.D.C. is at present preparing a booklet on assistance to private inventors, and this will include a reference to the Institute of Patentees and Inventors.

    LORD CHAMBERLAIN (CENSORSHIP FUNCTIONS)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the introduction of legislation to abolish the Lord Chamberlain's functions relating to censorship.
    The Prime Minister: I have no proposals for legislation on this subject at this stage.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that theatre-goers do not need the protection of censorship in these days, and that in any case the Lord Chamberlain is the last person to impose it?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the very strong feeling that exists on this question, and to the extent that this aspect of our national life needs some degree of modernisation I should have thought that there was a very strong case here. How it is to be done is a matter which we need to think further about. It might be a fitting subject for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to study, now that he has facilities for studying law reform.
    Captain Litchfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Chamberlain's powers are being widely evaded already by the device of turning theatres into clubs? Ought not the regulations to be further tightened up?
    The Prime Minister: I gather that there is evidence to suggest widespread evasion. When there is such evidence in a case like this, it is, of course, an argument which pushes either way—either to tighten up the regulations to cut out the evasions or to abolish the regulations on the ground that they are not workable.
    Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister refresh his memory by reading the admirable speech of the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General in the last Parliament, when he introduced a Bill to abolish these powers, of which I was happy to be a sponsor? Would he not agree that the existing laws of defamation and obscene libel are quite sufficient to control the content of plays without having to have a royal governess thrown in as well?
    The Prime Minister: There is a lot to be said for this. As the hon. Member
    1336
    says, it was an excellent speech. I think that we had better leave this matter in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, with the law reform facilities which he has, to consider whether this aspect of our law and practice should be modernised.

    POLARIS WARHEADS (UNDERGROUND TESTING)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the underground testing of various components of Polaris warheads.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statements that I have already made to the House on this subject.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the Prime Minister confirm that the Royal Navy is very anxious that the firing mechanism should be retested, in view of the partial failure of the mechanism a year ago? Would he give an assurance to the House that the warhead will not be put into service until the firing mechanism has been tested?
    The Prime Minister: It is always difficult to know how far to answer these questions, for reasons understood by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. To test the warhead as a whole, as I am sure the House understands, would require facilities which are excluded to us because of the test ban agreement. To test some small part of it—I had better not be more specific—is, of course, open to us, though, as I understand it, the argument here is a matter of economy of materials, to see whether we could make further economies rather than to test the effectiveness. I am not going to comment on what the hon. Member said about the failure a year ago, except to say that it was a very expensive test.
    Mr. Soames: Would the Prime Minister assure the House—this is the important point—that he will carry out whatever underground tests, within the agreement, are considered necessary and which he is persuaded by his scientific and military advisers are necessary, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the deterrent? Will he carry out what testing he is persuaded is necessary and possible?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, for the reasons I gave to the House last December about the fact that this has to be a different shaped warhead because of Polaris, it is not possible ever now to be able to test whether that warhead will work in these circumstances. I certainly agree that there may be a case for tests, particularly on the grounds of economy, of parts of the mechanism, but it will never be possible, under the, test agreement, to test the warhead as a whole.
    Sir A. Douglas-Home: I will not ask the Prime Minister whether these mechanisms should be tested or not. I do not think that it is desirable that he should say one way or another in public. May we take it that what he has said means that if there is any part of the mechanism which needs testing he, as Prime Minister, will see that this is done, so that the Polaris submarine is an effective weapon of war?
    The Prime Minister: If it is necessary to do this testing, it will be done. I want to make it clear again that it is not an issue of being able to satisfy ourselves that the warhead, which the right hon. Gentleman had refashioned to fit Polaris, will work or not. This is something which has to be taken on trust, as the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take it on trust. He knows very well that the particular test in question—like him, I will not go into details—was not related to the effectiveness at all of this warhead. It was related to an attempt to save a considerable amount of money on certain of the materials concerned. If there is reason to think that a repeat of that test—which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, failed—should be taken in order to save money on materials, we shall be ready to do it.
    Mr. Orme: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that if the Labour Government, under any circumstances, were to start retesting nuclear weapons, this would be taken exceedingly badly by a large section of the Labour Party and also by the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The position is, as I have always made clear, that, with regard to the so-called independent deterrent which we inherited, we are going
    1338
    to internationalise this deterrent. That means that, in so far as it must be kept in being for that purpose, I do not mind taking such steps as are necessary to reduce the cost of this. This is a very expensive instrument. But this does not in any sense affect Her Majesty's Government's policy about internationalising the deterrent.

    HONOURS LISTS
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the procedure followed by Departments in submitting names for the Honours List; and what reply he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: No representations on Departmental procedure have reached me. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Hamling: I recognise that the obvious supplementaries will be out of order. Will my right hon. Friend give instructions to the Departments concerned to end the whole system of honours?
    The Prime Minister: I had not thought of going that far. Certainly, some of the recent comments on recent Honours Lists did not apply to that part of the Honours Lists for which the Departments of State are responsible.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for reviewing and modernising the Departmental machinery for the submitting of names for Honours Lists.
    The Prime Minister: The Departmental machinery is always under review, and I do not consider that any special action is called for.
    Mr. Hamilton: Until my right hon. Friend's conversion to the need for abolishing this ridiculous institution altogether, may I ask him to consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT some details of how the Departmental machinery works, in view of the increasing evidence that Departments in general are awarding honours for services which are more apparent than real?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the Departmental procedures work very well.

    1339
    Certainly, one of the big developments in the last few months has been the fact that, as a result of Departmental procedures, we are now able to identify a considerable number of names in the submissions which relate to successful work in export markets. The export citation is of great value and this has come out of the Departmental procedures.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Can the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that, in a future list, he will include the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and, preferably, send him upstairs?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is out of order.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of people in this country who deserve honour and to whom it is very difficult to find a way of giving public recognition, except by some system of this kind? While there may have been abuses, other countries, like Russia, which have attempted to find new methods have come back to the Order of Lenin and devices of this kind, because people do things for which they deserve public honour and may not be rewarded in cash.
    The Prime Minister: This is true of very large numbers of our fellow citizens. They do tremendous work in local authority work and in social service and public service generally, with no hope of reward. When, to the existing Honours system, is added the Queen's Award for Industry in respect of exports and technological advance, I think that the Honours system will be very much justified by results.

    UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Prime Minister if he proposes to address the United Nations General Assembly this autumn.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I hope to do so when the present difficulties
    1340
    affecting the Assembly's sitting have been overcome.
    Mr. Jackson: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he feels that an initiative by Britain when the General Assembly goes back to work would not be particularly valuable with regard to the No. 1 crisis in the world, namely, Vietnam? Could we perhaps co-ordinate this with a further effort by the Commonwealth Peace Mission?
    The Prime Minister: It may not be until the autumn—I hope that it will not be later than that—that it will be possible to have any addresses by anybody to the Assembly. My hon. Friend will know that we sought, some weeks ago, to activate the United Nations in the matter of Vietnam and, for various reasons, it became clear—I had to say this with great regret—that it was not possible in that situation. It was for that reason that the Commonwealth decided to take the initiative which they have.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does that Answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is promising the country that there will not be an autumn election?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is out of order—
    Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. Since the Prime Minister has half promised that he will go to the United Nations in the autumn to address that Assembly, surely it is reasonable to ask him whether it follows that there will not be an autumn election?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member forgets. This is one of the matters about which the Prime Minister may not be questioned in this House.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [22ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    CLASS II

      VOTE 2. FOREIGN SERVICES
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a sum, not exceeding £12,870,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £768,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for expenditure by the Foreign Office on sundry grants and services, including subscriptions, &c., to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid. [£9,184,000 has been voted on account.]
      Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Lawson]—put and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

      FOREIGN AFFAIRS
      3.32 p.m.
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Almost all the hon. Members who spoke in yesterday's debate, including, I think, the Prime Minister, said how difficult it was to talk in a foreign affairs debate which ranges over the whole world. I sympathise, and although each time the request was made that we might discuss more specific points and questions, the Patronage Secretary winced with pain, nevertheless I suggest that we should give more time for foreign affairs debates in the House which might be applied to more specific areas and problems. [An HON. MEMBER: "There has been too much waste of time."] There was much waste of time over the Finance Bill, but I will not lay the blame for that
      1342
      for the moment. We could have spent some time more profitably on that.
      Nevertheless, this general debate was timely, because it enabled the Prime Minister, and will enable the Foreign Secretary today, to review the balance of progress in international relations as they see it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House yesterday reacted to what the Prime Minister said with a number of very good, useful and thoughtful speeches.
      May I say at once to the Prime Minister that there is not, and should not be, on the two sides of the House any difference about the twin objectives of foreign policy, namely, the security of Britain and the peace of nations. The objectives are common to us all. But, of course, it is quite unrealistic to think that we can keep these questions out of party politics. They are questions of life and death, and questions of life and death raise the deepest emotions. If foreign policy is badly directed, that, too, is a matter which may be a proper cause for censure.
      In the last Parliament I felt bound to criticise the Prime Minister and other right hon. Gentlemen in that they intended to abandon nuclear power—to abandon the control of British nuclear weapons. I need not go into that today—at least, not yet.
      Later today I shall have to criticise the Prime Minister on the methods which he used in his search for initiatives to bring peace nearer in the Far East. When the Government are wrong it is the duty of the Opposition to say so, because that is in the national interest. But, by and large, on matters which concern the safety of the nation and the reconciliation of British interests with the interests of other countries, then it is right, I believe, that the House should seek the maximum degree of party agreement.
      Yesterday, the debate very largely centred on Vietnam, and I will come to that later. But I will, first, try to define what the Prime Minister yesterday called the underlying themes of world politics, because unless they are measured rightly I believe that our diplomatic measures and our political initiatives may very easily miss their mark.
      I think that there is no doubt anywhere on either side of the House that the first fact of international life which we must register today is the overwhelming weight

      1343
      of power of the United States and the increasing willingness of the United States to use it. It may be that at this point of time in the development of civilised man there ought not to be any need for national power and that we should now have substituted an international police force. That is arguable, but it is not so, and in the circumstances in which we live I suggest that it is altogether too easy an assumption to say that the use of military power is always wrong.
      In Europe, in spite of the fact that we have progressed a long way since the last war, we still seek the American umbrella, and we should be very unhappy indeed if it were taken away. What would hon. Members give for the chances of retaining independence, let us say, by India, or, let us say, the smaller nations of South-East Asia if they were left entirely alone without the assistance of the United States or the supplementary assistance of European countries?
      It is a fact that until the United Nations is in a position to provide an international force it is the power of the United States, supplemented as may be by European countries, which is the only real guarantor of countries which are weak and are threatened with aggression Certainly, many of those countries in South-East Asia and many other countries themselves believe this to be so.
      The second fact of international life which I believe we have to measure is the position of the Soviet Union. It is enormously important—the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) marked this—as well as the importance of the power of the United States in international affairs. We have to consider two aspects of the position of the Soviet Union today compared with what its position was only a few years ago. The first is that I think it is certain that the Soviet Union has concluded that a challenge to the United States power is impossible. The second is that it is confronted—and this is the accurate word to use—with the increasing power of China, although the power of China at the moment cannot be brought to bear on the Soviet Union, or only indirectly.
      1344
      Two things have happened. The first is that the Communist bloc has been breached. That is one aspect of change which has taken place in only recent years. It would be totally crude—I agree with the Prime Minister hare—for the West to try to exploit this break. There is no necessity to do it. A country can always harness its foreign policy to a political theory, but that will not last long and in the end the hard facts tell. It is early days for a complete reorientation of Soviet foreign policy and I say to the Foreign Secretary that I would not be unduly depressed if the Soviet Union returned to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva once more on the old pattern of trying to make propaganda against the United States and the West, but I think not.
      I think that the facts of life, the fact of Russian security, when faced by a growing threat from China, and the fact of the place which Russia wants to occupy among the nations of the world which count, will mean that Russia will look more and more east and will realise where her real interests lie.
      One of the disquieting features of the last nine months has been the apparent—I say "apparent", because it may not be so—loss of touch with the Soviet Union. Mr. Kosygin's visit, which was much heralded, has not materialised. The meeting with Mr. Gromyko was a failure and until lately—indeed, very lately—there have been some harsh comments about British foreign policy and Her Majesty's Government from official or semi-official Soviet agencies.
      I do not want at this stage to apportion blame. I merely say that during the last few years this country was able to keep continuous contact with the Soviet Union and, what is more, through continuous contact to show results. So far, during the past year there have been no results and I hope now that contacts will be resumed because if we lose momentum to progress with the Soviet Union and stand still we will not be able to do so and there will be a steady deterioration in relations.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the contacts have been very continuous and intimate. The attacks, disagreements and the failure to show

      1345
      results have been entirely due to one thing—that we take a different line from them on the question of Vietnam. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that we should take a line on Vietnam which is closer to the line which they are taking?
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will, of course, be dealing with this matter. I am at present setting out the facts. I was saying that in recent years we were able to keep continuous contacts with the Soviet Union. We were able to operate the co-chairmanship in Asia. The contacts may have been continuing to take place, and I hope that they have because, on the understanding of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union many great issues hang. I am anxious to see these contacts resumed and results from them. But for the last nine months we have not had such results. It is no use the Prime Minister suggesting that there have been any, because there have not.
      The third fact of international life—of the same order of magnitude as the power of the United States and the change, as I foresee it, in the Soviet Union's policy—is the growing gap between the nations that have and the nations that have not. One country after another is faced with the problem, partly owing to the population bulge referred to by one of my hon. Friend's yesterday, or trying to sustain minimum standards of living and being beaten, or nearly being beaten, in the task. This situation leads to one of unrest and envy and it is one of the reasons why African and Asian nations have been tempted lately to flirt with Communism, even though they know in their hearts that the Communists are not their real friends.
      In 1964, Her Majesty's Government, at the U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference in Geneva, were able to give a lead which, if it had been followed up, could have been decisive in helping the developing countries to meet the problems which are hard pressing upon them. I was rather astonished, after what the Prime Minister has said over the last few years—when he was in opposition—that he was able to make a speech on international affairs and range over the great problems of the world yet totally ignore this great issue.
      The only mention of it was when the Minister of State last night, galvanised into unexpected activity by an intervention
      1346
      from the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr)—who was so tactless as to ask him how he squared the position of appointing a "Minister of Disarmament" with a super salesman for arms—was not knocked off his perch, but shot her down in flames and blurted out the isolated sentence, "War on want". That was the only mention on the benches opposite—although I hope that the Foreign Secretary will put this right—of this pressing problem.
      When, as now, prices of primary products are falling, I should have thought that there was an even greater need for arrangements for commodity price stability, on which the Prime Minister was so keen when in opposition. When the tendency for investment in developing countries is contracting—and I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government should have given a lead in this matter—and when there is a tendency for credit to become tighter, why has the initiative which was taken at Geneva last year by Her Majesty's Government been allowed to run into the sands somewhere in the United Nations?
      Why is it that the zeal of the right hon. Gentleman, which was so keen in opposition, has somehow faded away now? This is a retrograde step and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us that he and the Government have been active in pursuing this matter. Although nobody can see any sign of that having happened, I hope that he will convince us that it has.
      These are the great themes and movements against which Britain's foreign policy must be framed. One of the first things that any Foreign Secretary has to decide is what degree of influence and authority he wishes his country to carry in the councils of the world. I believe that the minimum he should ask is sufficient economic backing to retain a presence for Britain in the alliances of collective security. It is presence which now entitles a country to a voice in matters concerning peace and war and a part in the decisions to be made.
      For example, we could never have influenced United States policy in Laos, we could never have commanded the ear of both the United States and the Soviet Union in the Test Ban Treaty and we

      1347
      could never have influenced the Russians in their attitude over Berlin and induced modifications if we had not been making a telling contribution to the alliances for collective security.
      Without that backing which, I suggest most seriously to the Government, was and must remain conventional and nuclear, Ministers may talk but few outside will listen to them. I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary will insist on the minimum backing for the rôles for which he has set this country on the international stage.
      At the moment, I cannot define what the minimum military requirement should be. We have not had the defence review which has been promised by the Prime Minister, although at this stage I will make two observations. First, the defence bill follows and does not precede the foreign policy laid down by the Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet. If the exercise is done the other way round—and there are disquieting signs that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is insisting on a rigid sum within which the commitments must be contained and that in no circumstances can it be exceeded—one of two things, and perhaps both, follow, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had better face this.
      One is that obligations already assumed are inadequately met. We cannot leave forces in the different countries in which we have assumed obligations with inadequate arms, and arms that are not comparable with those of our enemies. The other consequence is this—and let me repeat it, if the Prime Minister will stop making a noise for a moment. There are two consequences. The first is that the obligations assumed may not be adequately met, but the second is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to intervene in areas of world politics where they may consider it vital that Britain should do so.
      I will not review the commitments at this moment—
      The Prime Minister: Hear, hear.
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister will surely recognise what they are. I shall have to review them now by reason of his rather foolish interjection.
      There is Malaysia. We want to see a political settlement in Malaysia, but that
      1348
      is not in sight. Therefore, we have this commitment which we shall fulfil, and fulfil adequately. There follows a commitment in the Gulf. We do not, of course, want to deploy the number of troops we have in Aden or the Aden Federation at the moment if we can possibly help it, but, let us face the fact, if Britain were to leave that area today the political vacuum would be immediately filled and the political balance of the Middle East completely upset.
      Then, again, there is the commitment in Europe. We want to see savings for this country across the exchanges, and if the Government can arrange this with our allies, all the better, but it will be a marginal difference for the whole Alliance in burden and in cost, because it will be the difference between the 29 divisions now deployed on the ground and the fewer and more mobile forces which will have to take their place to fulfil our obligation to Germany.
      I therefore hope that the Foreign Secretary, while looking for modifications to our commitments, which it is certainly sensible to do, will not allow British foreign policy to be absolutely hamstrung by a rigid ceiling of finance. We must keep finance and the cost of our forces in view, but we must not make it impossible for Britain to exercise her influence in international affairs simply by setting a ceiling and saying, "That's that". The secret of authority in international politics—and I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe me, because I have had some our allies, all the better, but it will be a for this country, in the alliances for collective security.
      I now turn to the more specific theatres of operation. Fundamental to all the free world's objectives is the presence of American power. I think that we have all agreed that already. It has been put most emphatically by the hon. Member for Lincoln and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), as well as by a number of my hon. Friends. When considering the future of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, it is perfectly legitimate to plan in terms of greater responsibility for the European Parliament, but if the price of that is a lessening of United States involvement the price is too high. I believe that

      1349
      whatever difficulties there may be—whatever difficulties, for instance, other proposals from France may bring—this central need is understood by the French, that American power must remain in Europe.
      From what I have already said it will be quite clear that I believe it perfectly right that there should be a review in N.A.T.O. of the strategy of N.A.T.O., and the deployment of the tactical forces, both nuclear and conventional; and that we should aim at a reduction in the burden which the allies have to bear. But reorganisation in the structure of the Alliance is a very different thing, and one that requires the utmost sensitivity about the needs of others.
      I hope that member nations will exercise restraint in insisting on their own solutions. I have in mind, of course, the French proposal that might be made, but I have also in mind one British proposal. I ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to think, and think again, before they insist upon an Atlantic Nuclear Force, because this is bound to split the N.A.T.O. Alliance in half. I only give that warning. It will do so. It is certain.
      I turn from N.A.T.O. to the change—
      The Prime Minister: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but put this forward quite seriously because this is a very important point. When he says that the proposed A.N.F. would split the Alliance in half, does that mean that he still supports the M.L.F.? Does he think that there is a difference between the A.N.F. and the M.L.F. in the splitting, in the fissile capacity, or has he dropped his support for both the M.L.F. and the A.N.F.?
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am quite certain that the A.N.F. would split the Alliance. I think that the original proposal by the United States of the M.L.F. as it was at that time would split the Alliance, but there might be a modification of the M.L.F., and particularly a modification of its manning, that would not split the Alliance. It is that which should be examined.
      I turn to the change in the balance of power in the world that has occurred owing to the growing impact of Communist China on the Far East. Fear
      1350
      of Communist China was first alerted when China seized Tibet. The fear was sharpened when it attacked territory on the Indian frontier. The hon. Member for Lincoln yesterday hesitated to interpret Chinese intentions and, of course, none can be sure about them, but as far as one can see ahead I would think that the Chinese would be content with asserting Chinese sovereignty over territories which they themselves have previously maintained were part of the Chinese empire. Communists are not averse to being imperial.
      There is great significance, too, in terms of calculating whether or not the war in Vietnam will escalate, in this. I do not believe that now that China is so weak, and so weak relatively to the United States, the Chinese Communists will pursue any policies which will challenge the United States power. They can, in fact, afford to wait. I have no doubt that as they grow stronger, and this is evident today, they will be willing to use the instrument of subversion, and possibly to back it up by force to try to undermine the constitutions of the independent countries of South-East Asia with a view to later domination. If they could succeed in ousting the United States and the S.E.A.T.O. allies from Asia, the smaller independent countries would be ripe for the picking—let no one doubt that for one moment.
      The fear of these nations is increased very much by the growing Communist influence in Indonesia, which threatens them with a pincer movement from both north and south. So this war in Vietnam—and we must realise this in all quarters of the House—is not a "phoney" war. It is a war for real stakes, and a war conducted by real people who feel strongly about the issues.
      This war in South-East Asia is a war in which South Vietnamese, Malayans, Australians and New Zealanders feel strongly enough to send their sons to die. Hon. and right hon. Members will remember that plently of people said when we were threatened in Europe how mad we were to fight and how any patched up settlement would be better than war. They wanted us to patch up a settlement with the aggressors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] I am not apportioning blame to either side of the House, to myself or anyone. All I am

      1351
      saying is that plenty of people at that time, living at a distance, said that any political settlement in Europe would be better than facing the fact of conducting a war.
      These nations in South-East Asia are independent. I sometimes wish that some of those who are so vocal about self-determination would recognise that when this process has been gone through and nations are independent they have a right to their own point of view. It is quite useless to believe that this war in South Vietnam, about which the independent nations of South-East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, feel so strongly, can be patched up by any temporary peace. Those countries simply will not look at a settlement which in way seems to be a sham. To urge the withdrawal of America is simply a polite way of saying that South Vietnam now and her neighbours later are expendable.
      In this respect our position in Malaysia is very much the same as that of the United States in Vietnam. No one suggests that we should make a political settlement in Malaysia which does not secure for Malaysia absolute independence. No one should make any such suggestion either to the Americans about Vietnam.
      Mr. John Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the ruler in Malaysia is a follower of Hitler, like the ruler of South Vietnam?
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that that interruption is even worthy of any comment at all.
      This is a serious argument. This is a war in which the people who are taking part feel that their lives and the independence of their countries are at stake. The essence of the matter, when we come to the peace and try to organise a political settlement, is that it must provide security as effective as that which is given now by the United States. Nothing else will do.
      Time and again the Prime Minister said that this war is futile and that it will end only in political agreement. I have no doubt that that, of course, will be true at some point of time in the future, but, equally, if the United States were not ready to fight in Vietnam the
      1352
      only political settlement available to South Vietnam would be that dictated at the point of a gun. This must be understood. This is why any initiatives for peace must be looked at with particular care, because they must not even seem to lead towards sacrificing the interests of independent nations.
      I have said some things in the past about the Prime Minister's peace initiatives. There was, first, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Mission. It had an outside chance of success. I do not think any Prime Minister would put it higher than that. As such, I welcomed it, the Prime Minister will remember, when he announced it in the House. But I did not know that evening and we did not know until two days or so later, that there had been no preparation whatever and that Moscow, for instance, had not been sounded. From the moment we knew that it was absolutely certain that the mission would be publicly rejected by the Soviet Union.
      One has had some experience of these matters now. If one does 95 per cent. of the work behind the scenes in preparation beforehand there is some chance of success, but if that is neglected it is absolutely certain that one's efforts, however well-intentioned, will be exploited for ideological purposes by an adversary, ruthless, professional and totally unsentimental. The Prime Minister answered what he ought to have done in this respect by what he said yesterday about the possible rôle of the Commonwealth in Malaysia. He said that the Commonwealth might be able to assist in a political settlement once it became apparent that the will to negotiate such a settlement existed. That is quite right, but I wish that he applied that to South Vietnam, because there is no will to negotiate there. Anyone could tell him so, whether our Consul-General, our representative in Peking, or anyone in the Foreign Office.
      It would have been open to the right hon. Gentleman to avoid the fiasco of the visit of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I do not know if the Foreign Secretary realises—I think he must—why Mr. Gordon Walker's visit was refused. It was refused because Mr. Gordon Walker agreed

      1353
      with the policy of the Foreign Secretary. Why was any visit by the Foreign Office Ministers refused? Because, of course, they support the policy of the Foreign Secretary. Why was the hon. Member for Leek welcome? He was perfectly entitled to his views, but he was welcome because in the past he has opposed American policies, such as they are, in South-East Asia and on the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty.
      Why was Dr. Nkrumah invited? Because he has suggested that the preliminary to any peace must be the withdrawal of Australian troops. The right hon. Gentleman does not recognise what he has done. I said the other day that he had fallen into a trap. I ought to have put that rather differently. I expected that the Prime Minister would fall into a trap, but I am astonished that the Foreign Secretary did so. What has happened? He has put himself in a position where he has been rejected from North Vietnam and the hon. Member was partly accepted and then chucked out. He has put the Prime Minister in a position where he has been rejected in favour of Dr. Nkrumah, who, I am happy to say, has had the sense not to go.
      Mr. E. Shinwell rose—
      Mr. Arthur Henderson rose—
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister was given a full run yesterday. I am not going to give way again.
      Apart from anything else, the Foreign Secretary has been put in a position in which a country is allowed to choose which Ministers it will receive. Can this improve diplomacy or increase our chances of making an impact when the time is ripe? Time is all important in these matters. This would not matter so much, but what does matter very much is that the Prime Minister's words have been exemplary, the Foreign Secretary's words have been exemplary, but their intentions are judged by their deeds. What they have done in this matter is to lend colour to the suggestion, which is totally untrue, that the British Government are for peace at any price. That is the damage which has been done.
      1354
      The Prime Minister fairly asked what I would do in these circumstances. I will tell him. [An HON. MEMBER: "Send British troops."] There are two rules—
      Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Lady had her answer from the Minister of State last night. That should satisfy her for some time.
      The Prime Minister asked what I would do in these circumstances to operate British diplomacy. There are two rules, absolute rules, if there is to be success. The first is to consult the Americans at every stage—not to inform, but to consult the Americans. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."] We could never have influenced—[Interruption.] American policy can be influenced—I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand this—only if the Americans are confident that we are on their side.
      The second rule is this. We must work behind the scenes with the Soviet Union. Unless there is continuous discussion with the United States, and we work behind the scenes with the Soviet Union, there will be no success. In the case of the Laos Agreement—although it is not an exact parallel, it is, nevertheless, a near parallel—this is what we did. At the conference, when we were there with the Soviet Union, the Chinese and the United States, we made it an absolute rule to consult the United States and then to consult the Soviet Union behind the scenes, and this is the way we got results. If these rules of diplomacy are not followed results will not happen. I hope now that at last this lesson has been learned. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the visit of Mr. Harriman to the Soviet Union is the right way to do these things, and from it I hope that something will flow.
      These, then, are all the matters; and above all, timing. I shall leave disarmament. I know that the Foreign Secretary will say something about it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas), who has been with the disarmament problem from the start, will be speaking at a later stage in the debate, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I found it rather difficult to keep in my seat yesterday when the Prime Minister was claiming the new

      1355
      things that his Government have done about disarmament. Every plan—the Foreign Secretary knows this—for every contingency is already in the files of the Foreign Office, and I am happy to say we prepared them all and they are there for him.
      The non-dissemination agreement is there, based on the Irish resolution, ready for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt. There is one problem here which concerns either A.N.F. or M.L.F. It would be possible to put an annex on to this non-dissemination agreement which, I think, would satisfy the Russians that there would be no dissemination of knowledge within the Alliance. But there is another possible way of doing this. I think that a possible alternative is that the Russians might be asked to sign a non-dissemination agreement and then to opt out of it should they be dissatisfied with the working of it, if either an A.N.F. or M.L.F. ever took place, which is very doubtful indeed.
      Again, all the details are there for any proposition for observers in N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact. So, too, is a complete Test Ban Treaty. Even after a year in which nothing has been done, the right hon. Gentleman will find that all these are still up to date. I hope, therefore, that at Geneva he and his hon. Friend will use them.
      These, then, are some of our views on the great issues of the day and on the way British foreign policy should be set in their framework. I wish that the Government would be more active and more successful in international affairs, as successful as the Government who preceded them and the people who will soon succeed them again.
      4.13 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I think it right, in view of the matter and to some extent the tone of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, to begin what I have to say by replying to some of the criticisms which have been made of the Government's recent moves in an endeavour to solve the stubborn problem of Vietnam.
      I think that it should be noticed that the tone and matter of the Opposition's criticisms of these moves have varied
      1356
      up and down a good deal during the last few days. On some occasions—only last week in the House—right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to talk cautiously and with semi-approval. At another stage they were talking of welcoming the Commonwealth Peace Mission. Meanwhile, outside the House there were references to falling into Communist traps and exposing our weakness. Now we have at last from the right hon. Gentleman a formulation of the Opposition's position. He says that the Government were wrong to take these moves.
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers' move I accepted until I knew that there had been no preparation. The last one, I think, was totally wrong.
      Mr. Stewart: It is clear, then, that I was formulating the right hon. Gentleman's position correctly. He takes the view now that both the Commonwealth Mission and the Davies mission were wrong. He also said that if foreign policy is badly conducted it is worthy of censure. He can make those words good tonight on this in the Division Lobby, if he really believes it. That is open to the Opposition, because the charge made is an extremely serious one. We shall want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is merely a paper tiger, or whether he means what he says.
      These attacks were developed yesterday by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and by the hon. Members for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). It is up to the Opposition, if they make these charges that these moves were wrong, to show what harm in their judgment followed from them. I shall say a little later about why we believe, although they both fall far short of the highest hopes we could entertain, that they were right and yield certain positive advantages. It is up to the Opposition, if they make these attacks, to show what harm they think was done.
      It is not enough to say that these moves were made—we have never disputed this—in an unorthodox and unusual manner. It is not enough to suggest that they were wrong because it might conceivably have wounded my amour-propre, that my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) was received in Hanoi and I was not. It is the more up to the

      1357
      Opposition to show this because they stand alone in making these criticisms. We are supported by the countries of the Commonwealth, including Australia and New Zealand, which are mortally committed there, by the United States, and by the great consensus of the Press and opinion in this country. It is the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party alone, that takes this view.
      What are the harms that the Opposition allege were done? It gave the impression, said the right hon. Gentleman—this is the Davies mission—that the Government were for peace at any price. To whom did it give that impression? Certainly not to our American allies, nor to our friends in the Commonwealth. Certainly not, after my hon. Friend had finished with them in Hanoi, to the North Vietnamese. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite to show any voice in the Commonwealth, in America, or among any of our friends or allies who got that impression. If it gave that impression, it gave it to the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party alone.
      The other suggestion was that it provided some propagandist advantage to the other side. Do hon. Members opposite really think that? What has come out quite plainly for the whole world to see from the Commonwealth Mission and from the journey of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek is who is to blame for the fact that we cannot get to the conference table. That has given no propagandist advantage to Hanoi or to any of those who support the North Vietnamese.
      It was suggested that it would somehow give the impression that the Government were weakening. I ask again: has anybody formed that impression, except the members of the party opposite, doing so for party purposes? They cannot show that anybody, any party vitally concerned in this matter, shares that view for a moment. They have not been able to show, therefore, that this mission did harm.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept from me that there are many people in the United States, including those in the American Administration, who are extremely sceptical of the value of the Davies mission? I do
      1358
      not have the information that is available to the Foreign Secretary, who will know what the President and the Secretary of State said, but I give the right hon. Gentleman my word that many in the United States are extremely sceptical. Therefore, his charge that the Conservative Party is alone is simply not true.
      Mr. Stewart: If that is the best answer we can get to the challenge—that a Conservative back-bencher says that persons whom he cannot name are sceptical of the value of the mission—I would reply that in the first place the charge was that the mission had done positive harm. It is possible that anyone would have been sceptical whether this mission would have been successful. I said myself of my hon. Friend's journey at the weekend before last that I did not know whether he would succeed, but I knew beyond doubt that it was right for him to go. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is completely misrepresenting the position of the American Government on these matters.
      I was about to say before I was interrupted that these two moves had certain positive advantages. In the first place, they have demonstrated yet again the genuine desire on our side and on the side of the United States to reach an honourable peace, and that is more important than the party opposite realises. A dictatorial country can be dragooned into supporting military operations. In a democratic country all the natural feelings of humanity and compassion cause people to ask questions and to have doubts where there is use of armed forces and the killing of men, women and children. That is why it is important, where it is the fact that it is not the democratic countries who are at fault in this matter, to make that crystal clear beyond doubt.
      The second advantage which I think the party opposite underestimates is the fact that my hon. Friend was able to put the British Government's view direct to Hanoi. I do not think that we realise how much these Communist dictatorial countries are in danger of being the prisoners of their own propaganda. It is quite possible for a country like that really to believe that it is only a handful of warmongers in this country who

      1359
      support the Government and that the great mass of the population is surging with support for the point of view of Hanoi.
      It was of great importance to make it clear that that was not so, and this is a matter which applies not only in the field of Vietnam. It is important for us to take any reasonable chance there is of making clear to Communist countries what the real views of the Government and people in this country are on these and many other matters. It seems to me, therefore, that the charges which the Opposition have been making against us with regard to these two moves are more concerned with their own search for something on which to attack the Government and put life into their own party than with any desire to secure a solution of the problem.
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can say that we have not given him the fullest support on his Vietnam mission.
      Mr. Stewart: I get the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was getting a little weary of well-doing and was seeking for an opportunity to have something with which he could disagree with the Government in this field, because the isolation in which the Conservative Party has put itself on this issue is remarkable, as is its total inability to make good the charge that the mission has done harm. Meanwhile, I say that whenever the door opens and the other side are willing to listen the Commonwealth mission is ready to go.
      The noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South made the point, which has been made quite frequently, that we should not expect a response when, owing to the weather and military conditions, the other side were hopeful of victory. We knew from the start that that was a factor militating against settlement, but I think that it would have been wrong in tactics and morally wrong and cold-blooded to say, "We will let the fighting go on without making any effort". The very fact that in these months the hand-to-hand fighting was liable to increase and the slaughter and cruelty to grow made it all the more necessary to establish our desire for a just and honourable peace if that could be obtained.
      1360
      I should reply also to the other, opposite, criticism of the Government's policy, which was clearly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I think that he will agree that he went a long way in agreement with the Government's view as to the basis on which this conflict should be settled, but he took the view that we were not able to make progress because we would not condemn the bombing of Vietnam by the forces of the United States. I therefore want to emphasise that I do not believe that that would be the right thing to do. It would be quite wrong to make a criticism of the military actions of the one side without making a criticism of the military actions of the other.
      As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, some of the activities on the other side are less spectacular and less easily observed than bombing, but they are, nevertheless, powerful military actions and, in many cases, more merciless and more cruel. Next, I would point out that the United States did at one time, for a short period, stop the bombing only to be told by the other side that this was a deceit. Furthermore, in the hours which my hon. Friend spent in Hanoi never at an time was it said to him that if the United States would stop the bombing the other side would come to the conference table.
      Also, even if it were right, which I do not believe it would be, to condemn the American action, I am quite satisfied that it would not make one's proposals more acceptable. Let hon. and right hon. Members look at how those who condemn the American action have been treated, for instance, the 17 non-aligned nations and, most remarkable of all, Dr. Carlton Goodlett, who spoke at the World Peace Congress in Helsinki. He was most emphatic in condemning almost everything the Americans had done in Vietnam and he was insistent that the Congress should send a peace mission to Vietnam—and the Chinese said that this was yet another trick.
      It would be wrong to condemn American action. It is clear on the evidence that if one had condemned the American action it would not have unlocked the door which at present remains unlocked, but in time must open.
      Mr. J. J. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend will recall that when I was speaking I introduced the subject in connection with Mr. Gromyko's visit to London and I said that the Prime Minister had not given a second reason, which Mr. Gromyko always advanced as reason No. 1, which was that if the Soviet Union was to act again with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as co-chairman the first condition was that the bombing of North Vietnam must stop. It was only in connection with that serious diplomatic endeavour that I mentioned the point and not in connection with any propaganda conference in Helsinki or elsewhere.
      Mr. Stewart: The trouble is that Mr. Gromyko and others sometimes put it this way and say, "We cannot confer with you because bombing goes on", but they do not put it the other way and say, "If the bombing stops we will confer with you". I have discussed this many times with Mr. Gromyko.
      I do not think that the House requires me to state again the principles on which we believe that this matter could be solved. I have set them out clearly to the House and I have referred to them in public elsewhere. I believe that they constitute the basis of a lasting and durable peace.
      I turn from the particular question of Vietnam to a wider theme, because there are certain elements in the Vietnam situation which illustrate a general problem in the world today. I pick out three elements in particular.
      First, there has been the genuine desire among people in Vietnam, after what they have gone through, after the upheaval of the Second World War and what followed, for greater freedom and for greater social justice. If the Government in North Vietnam had been prepared to leave their southern neighbours alone, we should have watched with sympathy, as we do the smaller Communist countries of Eastern Europe, whatever they sought to do to establish a better standard of life and a greater measure of social justice for their people in the area they rule. That has been one element.
      The next element, unfortunately, was the disastrous attempt to squeeze this desire for social change and social justice into the rigid Communist mould. This still remains one of the terms set by the
      1362
      other side for a settlement in Vietnam, that the affairs of that country must be settled according to the principles of Communist organisations and no others.
      The third element was that, once the method of violence was adopted, once South Vietnam was not left alone but an attempt was made violently to squeeze it into the Communist mould, inevitably, the great Powers became involved.
      This is a situation which, in greater or less degree, one finds in various parts of the world, the combination of the desire for social change and of the effort, sometimes positively made and sometimes held in restraint, to squeeze the desire for change into the Communist mould, with, very often, on the edges of each particular area of ferment, the possibility of great Power involvement.
      About one thing we must be perfectly clear: the ferment and the change are there and will be there for a long time, whether we like it or not. I call to mind something which I saw some time ago in one of the poorer countries of the world. I saw a man ploughing his field, with an emaciated ox dragging a wooden plough, but hanging from the plough was a transistor radio set. This is really the image of the world in which we live and the way in which the poorest parts of the world can be brought into the whole traffic of ideas and propaganda. On that set he might have been listening to pure entertainment. He might have been listening to a programme from this country, describing our own social experiments. He might have been listening to propaganda from a neighbouring country trying to persuade him that he had only to engage in an armed overthrow of his Government and all the things that he desired would be his.
      In that kind of world it is no good hoping for what is sometimes called stability. There must be change, and the object of human policy must be to help change, to help it to come, as far as is humanly possible, without violence and to see that it is combined, as far as is humanly possible, with forms of Government which give some freedom to the ordinary man. I do not say that out of a British prejudice for our particular forms of Parliamentary democracy. The view is sometimes expressed that our form of democracy is all very well for us, but that we cannot expect other nations to be

      1363
      fitted for it. Admittedly, forms and procedures are different, but I believe that it is the right of every man in every continent to have some share in choosing his Government and to live under something like the rule of law.
      I say that not only because I believe that freedom and the rule of law are desirable in themselves, but because they are essential if we are to carry through in the world the technical and scientific changes which are needed. I remind the House of what happened in the Soviet Union a little time ago, when the biological doctrines of Lysenko were for a time enthroned as orthodox doctrine and it was heretical to question them. The effect of this was severely to set back scientific development in that particular field, with damage to the agricultural programme. An evil like that cannot happen in a society in which there is freedom of discussion. That is why I say that it is of great human interest that, where social change comes, it should be confined, as far as is humanly possible, with some provision for freedom of thought. Otherwise, a shackle is put on the human mind.
      Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote a fable about a country in which, owing to the power of an enchanter, every citizen had to go about wearing an iron shackle on his right leg. The hero of the story left his country, travelled through many perils, sought out and slew the enchanter, and then returned home. On his return, the first citizen he saw was wearing an iron shackle round his left leg, for, said he, "We have discovered that to wear a shackle round the right leg was a superstition". We do not want that to be the fate of mankind.
      In this major problem which faces mankind, can the changes which are bound to come be kept non-violent and be combined with the growth of freedom, political and personal freedom and freedom of thought, rather than its restriction? A great deal will turn on the attitudes of the Soviet Union and China, and both of them have at different times seemed to take now one view about the problem and now another. At one time it was China which was proclaiming the five principles of co-existence.
      At present, we find it in a number of practical matters more easy to approach
      1364
      the Soviet Government than the Chinese. In this situation, what we must do is to go on making perfectly clear what our own attitude is, that we shall help change, that in those parts of the world where we have direct responsibilities we shall positively promote it, that we shall resist, so far as we can, attempts to dragoon it and attempts to destroy human liberty.
      On the subject of the Soviet Union and China, I take up some of the criticisms the right hon. Gentleman made when he suggested that we were not maintaining contact with the Soviet Union and were not showing results. As regards showing results, it is an odd coincidence that it was a year ago this week—the right hon. Gentleman's Government was then in power—that the Soviet Government first said that they would not proceed with the co-chairmanship and when the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Butler, arrived last July for his visit to Moscow and was greeted with the announcement of this rebuff. I admit that it has been difficult during these months for us to keep up our dialogue with the Soviet Union, but the right hon. Gentleman did not at all deal with the interjection in his speech which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made.
      There is one thing we could do which would produce the most cordial relations with the Soviet Union, that is, to announce our conversion to their view of the Vietnam dispute. Does the right hon. Gentleman—this is the question he was asked—urge that we should do that? [Interruption.] I am replying to a rather silly point. If the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, he must accept that while we take the view which we do take and are right to take about Vietnam there are bound to be difficulties in the dialogue with the Soviet Union.
      We should, however, notice that after 10 months or more of refusal, the Soviet Government have now announced their willingness to come to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, and that will meet on the 27th of this month. It is not unreasonable to describe that as a result. As for maintaining contacts, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have succeeded in doing that. There have been a number of opportunities and I shall myself be visiting the Soviet Union later in the year.

      1365
      Returning for a moment to the general theme that I was trying to advance, it can be summarised—and this is a phrase that was often used by the late Arthur Henderson—as "peaceful change". He was never satisfied with the phrase "the rule of law." He always saw that as too static and that the object was to direct and encourage the changes that are needed in the world.
      The instruments that we have in the international field for that purpose are, first, the United Nations and, second, the possibilities of disarmament, one important result of which would be that the human race would have more resources to devote to the problem which, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who spoke yesterday, is of first importance: that of narrowing the gap between the richest and the poorest nations in the world. I shall be saying something a little later on these subjects of the United Nations and disarmament.
      I want, however, to refer briefly to one or two instances of where a policy that I have described as peaceful change can be, and is being, carried through. I could say a good deal about that in Africa, but the House will remember that when I spoke in the last foreign affairs debate I spoke at some length on that theatre, and I do not want to repeat it now.
      Another area where change is of the greatest difficulty is the Middle East, and particularly the Persian Gulf, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There are there those small States for whose defence and external relations we are by treaty responsible. It can be said that this is an arrangement that was regarded as fitting and normal in the nineteenth century, but is not considered appropriate to the twentieth century. It can also be said that the whole area is one in which international relations are delicate and in which sudden and ill-considered moves, even with the best intentions, might make things worse. We have also to take into account the fact that since those treaties were first signed, the situation has been revolutionised by the great growth in the wealth of some, but certainly not all, of these small States as a result of the discovery of oil.
      1366
      What we are trying to do and are now beginning to succeed in doing there is to get those States to act, not each one separately, but together, because one cannot make any plan which makes sense for their development and modernisation unless we consider this group of States as a whole, so that the richer of them can help the poorer of them. Also, one wants to get them to modernise themselves, which is partly a matter of actual physical aid and partly a matter of their increasing connection with the agencies of the United Nations, which is something which we wish to promote.
      On the 9th of this month, there was a meeting of the Rulers of the seven Trucial States and of the neighbouring States of Bahrein and Quatar at which they agreed to provide themselves with a common currency and that they would work through the Trucial States Development Office for the purposes of mutual aid. That, I think, is in line with what I said was the right policy that we must think of this group of States as a whole and that they must increasingly come to do things, for themselves, neither wanting nor expecting a former imperial Power to do everything for them.
      We shall ourselves, in addition to the regular contribution for aid which we make there, be making a grant of £1 million to the Trucial States Development Office. There is an undertaking for a similar amount from Saudi Arabia and it is open to anyone else, the Arab League or anyone else who wishes, to contribute through the Trucial States Development Office to the advancement of these States.
      That meeting of the Rulers and the results that flow from it are a new chapter in the history of that part of the world. It may be said that it is a small part of the world, but it is one of the great pivots of interest and power and it shows how one can make work the concept of getting a change from a nineteenth to a twentieth century set-up without upheaval and without violent and dangerous pressures by great Powers on either side.
      I mention these figures of aid in the Persian Gulf because the right hon. Gentleman was, or tried to be, somewhat caustic about aid. I have mentioned that we have made this assistance in the Persian Gulf. There was the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend

      1367
      the Minister of Overseas Development of the interest-free loans. We are following closely the work of U.N.C.T.A.D., whose Committee on Commodity Prices—this was a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Haltemprice—will be meeting next week.
      It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was in danger of inconsistency when he urged, if what he said had significance, that we should spend more on aid and he also argued that the defence bill should follow decisions upon foreign policy and not precede it. I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will not be quite happy with that last phrase, because, surely, there must be an action and a reaction here.
      It would be quite useless to make a list of foreign policy objectives, then to say that it resulted in a certain defence policy and then to find that we could not meet that defence bill without serious damage to our economy. We have, therefore, to consider at one end where and to what extent ought this country, with its duty to itself and to mankind, to try to exercise influence, on the one hand, and, on the other, what it is sensible for this country to judge that it can afford.
      What ultimately emerges in defence policy and in foreign policy is a result of consideration of those two things. One cannot begin by setting either of them as the fixed point and saying that the other follows from it. If we were to behave like that, to draft foreign policy first and then say that the defence policy, whether we could afford it or not, must back the foreign policy, and if we also were to say that we must spend a great deal of aid, and if we also say, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we must cut our taxation, there would be considerable alarm as to what the result would be.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Ayrshire recently the Leader of the Opposition has been demanding big reductions in public expenditure?
      Mr. Stewart: Yes. Nothing stales the infinite variety of the right hon. Gentleman.
      The other field to which I would like to refer, which is not a field where we have
      1368
      the same direct responsibilities, is that of the events in Latin America. We recently received a visit from the President of Chile. I believe that if he is able to carry out for his country the kind of programme which he has in mind this will be an important new chapter in the history of that continent. It will be a demonstration that social injustice can be successfully fought without violence either within a country or between one country and its neighbours, and we were glad for that reason among others to welcome him as a visitor to this country.
      But, of course, we have another example of the difficulty of making change a peaceful process in the Dominican Republic. I think that we all listened with respect to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) on this matter. May I refer briefly to the course of events there?
      A Government who were, in fact, a military junta, were faced with a major insurrection—and with good reason. A situation arose in the capital in which large numbers of people, heavily armed, faced each other. There was a danger of very great loss of life, not only of citizens of the Republic itself, but of other people. The Dominican Republic informed the United States Government that it was not able to keep order in the capital. The United States Government sent a force, and I think that it is right to say that British, Jamaican and French subjects there have reason to be glad that that action was taken to save their lives. I think that it would be wrong and unjust in any assessment of this problem not to say that.
      However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South that the force was then built up to a size which was quite incommensurate with that task. Our view—expressed at the United Nations—was that this matter must be brought under the authority of the United Nations, and that although it was probable that the Organisation of American States could play a part the final authority ought to rest with the United Nations.
      There has followed a difficult period, but I think that it is not over-optimistic to say that there is now reasonable prospect of the emergence there of a Government who will come more closely to

      1369
      representing the wishes of their people than anything else which we are ever likely to see. I say no more than that there is a reasonable prospect of that. I think that one has to bear in mind that the other alternative development, if there had been no intervention from outside, would have been certainly an appalling loss of life in the capital and no certainty that the particular group which proved most successful in street fighting would be the one most representative of the wishes of the people.
      I suppose that in a world organised as we would like to see it, when the United States received the request from the Dominican Republic, it would have forwarded that at once to the Security Council and the Security Council would forthwith have provided a peace-keeping force. That is the way this kind of situation should be handled. What we have at the moment is a yawning gap in human arrangements. The United Nations is not at present able to function in that way. One of the morals of the events in the Dominican Republic is that it rings a warning bell for mankind as to the number of crises with which we may be faced until the United Nations has proper authority to organise peace keeping.
      It is over peace keeping that there has been the argument which at one time seemed to threaten the existence of the United Nations itself. The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South asked me very specific and searching questions about Article 19 of the United Nations Charter. She asked them plainly and categorically and I must tell her equally plainly and categorically that I cannot answer them at present. The view which we should finally take is still under discussion between ourselves and our allies and friends and it would not be helpful if I were to try to state the final position now when we have good confidence that the General Assembly will be able to meet and, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be there. I very much take the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South about the importance of members of Governments and Cabinets using the forum of the United Nations.
      Mr. Peter Thomas: I appreciate the difficulty when discussions are
      1370
      going on about peace keeping and Article 19. I will ask only whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there might be some prospect that Her Majesty's Government will abandon their support of the principle behind Article 19.
      Mr. Stewart: No. I would not want to put it that way, but I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas) will know that in a discussion of the facets of a matter like this one sometimes discovers—and it is part of the process of consultation—solutions which were not fully in the mind of any of the partners when they began the discussion. I do not want to prejudice developments by putting it into too rigid a framework now.
      More important than this immediate question is what is to be the future decision for the organising of peace-keeping arrangements. We take the view that although the primary responsibility should rest with the Security Council, it should be possible in one way or another for a decisive vole in the General Assembly with the support of at any rate most of the Security Council to get some kind of authorisation of peace-keeping operations and not to be left with a situation in which the veto of any one nation can always and in all circumstances preclude the giving of authority to peace-keeping operations.
      These matters will have to be argued out more fully, partly in the Committee of 33 and partly at the Assembly itself. But there are one or two things meanwhile which we are concerned to secure—that the Secretary-General's staff, and so on, should be such as to make it possible technically to think of operations of this kind. Some time ago, the Russians showed an interest in Article 43, which provides for the definite earmarking of forces for actual enforcement operations. We are anxious to know their definite proposals in that respect, because we believe it to be a helpful sign that they are thinking in terms of making the United Nations a stronger instrument for the enforcement of the rule of law.
      Then there is our own support, both financial and the pledge of logistic support, which shows that we are more than anxious that this gap in human affairs, the absence of effective machinery for keeping the peace, shall be repaired.

      1371
      I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), in his speech yesterday, should have regretted that we could not adopt the forms and procedure with which he is concerned. Although he may say that if there is general and complete disarmament, we want an international police force—and that is one proposal; and I do not think that any of us would dissent from it—we have also to consider the situation in which we do not have general and complete disarmament and in which what we want is a peace-keeping force.
      I think that he would see, if he looks at what we have done, and are doing, in this field, that we are nearer to him in spirit than he accepts—
      Mr. Gilbert Longden: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to answer one question? Could he tell the House what has held up our efforts to probe the Russians' desire about bringing Article 43 into use, because I believe that I am right in saying that it was 10th July, 1964, that he first wrote and said this?
      Mr. Stewart: Yes, but we were not able to get anything more precise about that. I hope that that will now be forthcoming.
      Finally, a word on what I call one of the other instruments towards creating a world in which we can work for peaceful change, the promotion of disarmament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), spoke of the Russians' initiative in calling the Geneva Conference. I thought that was a little hard when we have been at them for months to try and persuade them to do this. I am, none the less, very glad that they are now prepared to come, and the conference will meet next week.
      We have been working on the draft of a non-dissemination treaty, which is now ready for discussion. I do not think that it is the one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in the election and which the then Foreign Secretary said he knew nothing about; but my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs has had to occupy himself very considerably in preparing the draft of this one.
      1372
      I was asked yesterday about the timing of proposals within the Atlantic Alliance for A.N.F., or anything like it, and a non-dissemination treaty. We do not take the view that there ought to be a rigid order of priorities. If we could get a non-dissemination treaty with no doubts about its realiability, we could then make our arrangements within the framework of that treaty in the Alliance. Conversely, we cannot say, "We agree to do nothing about the reorganisation of our Alliance", when there is no certainty, when or whether suggested, a treaty will be achieved.
      One ought not, therefore, to have a fixed order of priorities on that. We want to see progress in the extension of the Test Ban Treaty to underground tests, and in measures to secure the freeze and the partial destruction of delivery vehicles. There are other measures to which I have referred in Answers to Questions and in earlier debates, which will need discussion with our allies. Inevitably, when one discusses how one can try to keep this world at peace and make that peace a creative peace, one finds that one is driven to examine these minutiae of alliances, of clauses in the Charter in the United Nations.
      The policies of war and conquest can always be presented flamboyantly and colourfully; the process of peace-making is a laborious and detailed one. That is why I hope that the House will not be wearied by the frequency with which one has to refer to the minutiae of alliances and to procedural matters at the United Nations. It is very easy for those who do not study these matters carefully to ridicule the laborious procedure of the United Nations, the months which often pass without apparent progress being made.
      I was asked if I could strike a balance. I would say this. There is no doubt that we are watching today one of the great tides of history where enormous changes are on the way and where there is great difficulty in preventing those tides from not being so turbulent that they sweep away peace and mankind with it. But, allowing for that, I believe that there are very powerful forces in the world trying to work for a progress that will be living and vital and, at the same time, peaceful and human, and among those forces I

      1373
      think it true to say that the British Government takes its place.
      5.5 p.m.
      Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I find myself in agreement with what the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), said yesterday, namely, that we should try in our debates on foreign affairs to concentrate on one main theme. I think that that has largely been the case in this debate today. For my part, I would like to address myself to that part of the Foreign Secretary's extremely interesting speech which dealt with Vietnam.
      The Foreign Secretary was, of course, bound to say something about the not so secret mission of his hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). Varying opinions have been expressed as to the usefulness or otherwise of the hon. Member's journey and as to who brainwashed who. I feel myself that perhaps a little too much importance has been attached to it.
      Why have we heard nothing of the comparable mission of the former Liberal candidate for Abingdon, Mrs. Perl, who was actually received by Ho Chi Minh, asked to luncheon by him and, we are told, kissed by him, through that very fine beard?
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: That is the advantage of being a Liberal.
      Sir F. Maclean: It took me to bring that point out.
      But I think that in one respect the hon. Member's mission has been useful. It has been useful to the Prime Minister. Like the late lamented TSR2, the Prime Minister has, and needs to have, sideways looking radar. He has to watch the hon. Gentlemen who sit on his right, but who stand politically, rather more to his left. I think that the hon. Member's excursion has been a very useful object lesson to them. It demonstrated several things. Among them that it is not just poor, accident-prone Mr. Gordon Walker whom Ho Chi Minh will not receive. It is not just that, like his Chinese friends, Ho Chi Minh thinks that the Prime Minister is a nitwit. The fact is that at the moment Ho Chi Minh does not even want talks with the hon. Member for Leek, not even with a nuclear disarmer, not even with the leading
      1374
      opponent of S.E.A.T.O. and of the American Alliance, not even with a neutralist, not even with one of them.
      The Foreign Secretary said that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance represented the views of the Government. All I can say is in that case he must have undergone—and it has happened in other cases—a very sudden and thorough conversion upon joining the Government. He certainly used not to hold the views propounded by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister today.
      Mr. K. Zilliacus: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Hanoi Government would be more willing to negotiate if they had some assurance that the United States were not bent on partitioning the country and turning South Vietnam into a second Korea, as admitted and endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) yesterday?
      Sir F. Maclean: I think that the hon. Gentleman has had the answer to that question already from his own Front Bench, from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who put it very forthrightly indeed. I think that Ho Chi Minh finds that at the moment fighting is probably more profitable than talking. I would like to develop that point of my argument in a few moments.
      To return to the hon. Member for Leek. What he has shown, and what has been demonstrated absolutely clearly, is the total fallacy of the misleading old slogan, "Left will talk to Left, in comradeship and confidence". One begins to wonder what "Left" means. I got tangled up, very much against my will, because I am neither young nor a Socialist, in a Young Socialist rally in Hyde Park on Sunday. I was interested to see there an enormous effigy of President Johnson, with, in one pocket, a little figure peering out who was easily identifiable as the Prime Minister. That was all right; one would expect it. But peering out of the other pocket were the faces, coloured bright green, of the hon. Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). The mind boggles.

      1375
      What the Davies Mission has provided is abundant justification for the Government's policy of support for America. It has demonstrated irrefutably, perhaps even to some hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite, that no other policy is possible. Of course, it might have been cleverer of Ho Chi Minh to receive the hon. Member, to make much of him and to fill him up with a lot of propaganda and send him back, like a little fire ship, to explode, as the Prime Minister put it "with all his accustomed fluency and persistence" right under the Prime Minister's nose. But probably Ho Chi Minh could not be bothered. He just did not think it worth while. He is not sufficiently interested in the antics of the British Labour Party.
      The other point is that at the moment the monsoon is blowing—or whatever it does. It goes on, I understand, from May until October. This very greatly favours the guerrillas. It impedes the operations of American troops on the ground. It impedes the use of helicopters and many other things. As I pointed out just now, for those reasons, Ho Chi Minh probably thinks that he has much more to gain by fighting than by talking. And thus he falls into the category of what the Prime Minister called "the enemies of negotiation" who are also "the enemies of peace".
      As long as that is so it seems to me that there is very little likelihood of any useful negotiations taking place. If Ho Chi Minh had really wanted to negotiate, he would have been able to open negotiations long ago with the Americans who let it be known in April last that they were prepared for discussions without strings and conditions. He did not. The Prime Minister, again rightly, said that the key to the situation lies in Hanoi, and Hanoi will not talk.
      Does this mean that Ho Chi Minh will never be prepared to negotiate? Not necessarily. One thing which we should all be clear about is that the Americans have no intention whatever of letting South Vietnam go the way of North Vietnam—of letting it fall finally and definitely under Communist domination—because they realise that if this were to happen, if
      1376
      they were to allow what is left of the 1954 settlement to be finally liquidated—if, in short, South Vietnam were to be thrown to the wolves—it would only be a matter of time before the same process began in Siam or somewhere else, only a matter of time before the whole of South-East Asia, indeed the whole of Asia, went the same way. That, I imagine, is what the Prime Minister meant when he said that a unilateral United States withdrawal would have incalculable consequences both within and without South Vietnam.
      Therefore, come what may, the Americans are determined to win, in my view rightly, whatever the cost in time, arms, treasure or men. At one time they seemed to think that they could achieve the desired result mainly by heavy bombing. I think that they were wrong, but that they have now grasped the fact that what is needed to fight guerrillas is men on the ground in large numbers. Bombing is disagreeable.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what he means by saying that America is determined to win? Does he mean that the Americans are determined to maintain a permanent occupation of South Vietnam, or that they wish to establish a Government of their own which they think will be able to stand on its own? What did he mean by saying that America is determined to win the war? How is it to be achieved?
      Sir F. Maclean: I mean that they are determined to put a stop to Communist aggression, Vietcong aggression, in South Vietnam so that some day the conditions of the 1954 settlement may be put into force. That is what I mean by saying that the Americans are determined to win. I do not mean anything else.
      I revert to the question of how to deal with guerrillas. As I say, what is needed is men on the ground and an enormous amount of patience. As Lawrence of Arabia once said, fighting guerrillas is a slow, messy business, like eating soup with a knife. As the Germans found in various countries in the last war, and as we found in Malaya, a relatively small number of guerrillas can hold down a disproportionately large number of regular troops. But because guerrillas are effective in this way, it does not mean that this process has anything to do with

      1377
      democracy or the will of the people. This was very well put by the Foreign Secretary, when he said it is not just a question of who is best at street fighting. There is more to democracy than that.
      The fact is that in the end, if there are enough regular troops, if they are well equipped, if they have enough air support, if they are intelligently used and if they have the population on their side—which is, perhaps, the most important and one of the most difficult things of all—they are bound to win. In South Vietnam, the Vietcong have been able to obtain support from some of the local population, largely by terror. That is one method of doing it. It is not a desirable method, but it can be very effective.
      One thing that needs looking into by the Americans is the old question of strategic hamlets and how they are operated. They have not, I believe, been as skilfully organised or as well sustained as our strategic hamlets were in Malaya. That is being seen to now, and I hope that there will be progress in this direction.
      It is largely a question of patience. Mao Tse Tung said that the Americans did not have the necessary patience. That remains to be seen. Ho Chi Minh said much the same thing. He said:
      "We held off the French for eight years. We can hold off the Americans for at least as long. Americans do not like long, inconclusive wars. This is going to be a long, inconclusive war."
      It looks to me as if the Americans have set their mind on winning and that they will pour hundreds of thousands of troops into the war and stop it becoming what Ho Chi Minh would doubtless like to see it become—a long, inconclusive war.
      Now, I think that in due course Ho Chi Minh, who is an old hand at this sort of fighting, is bound to realise that. First of all, the monsoon will come to an end, which will deny him one advantage. Then he will realise that he is threatened with the destruction not only of his supply routes, but, if he goes on long enough, his capital, Hanoi, itself and with all the other dangers of escalation; and finally with something else which may be a consideration, the danger that if he is too far pressed he may become more dependent than he likes on Peking, but that is a
      1378
      question at which one can only guess. In those circumstances, it seems to me to be possible that in due course his attitude towards negotiations may change.
      Another possibility of which we have to take account is that, on the other hand, it may not. He has behind him the Chinese, who, as they have shown by their behaviour in Helsinki and Bucharest and everywhere else, are in a particularly inflexible and uncompromising mood. Their chief reproach to the Russians is that they are not supporting world revolution as they should. One of the chief instruments in world revolution has always been what is called the war of national liberation.
      And General Giap, the Defence Minister of North Vietnam, and, incidentally, the victor of Dien Bien Phu, has said this:
      "South Vietnam is THE example for national liberation movements of our times. If it proves possible to defeat the special warfare tested in South Vietnam by the American imperialists, it can be defeated everywhere."
      In that frame of mind, and with that backing from the Chinese, he may quite easily be inclined to go on and on.
      What, in all those circumstances, should be our attitude? I think that, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to me to have done in this debate, we should make it abundantly clear that we stand fair and square on the side of our American allies and, we should also remember, on the side of Australia and New Zealand, who both have forces involved in this war and, as my right hon. Friend said when he opened the debate, feel that it is something worth laying down their lives for.
      I do not say that we should not mediate if the opportunity presents itself, but I rather doubt if it will. It is quite true that, during the last week or so the Russians have shown themselves slightly more forthcoming on a number of other subjects, and I am glad to hear that the Foreign Secretary is going to Moscow to talk with them. But, as the Prime Minister said and as his right hon. Friend said, the key to Hanoi cannot be turned in Moscow. At the moment, the Russians find themselves in an extremely difficult position and, as the Prime Minister said, it is certainly not for us to force them into a position of competitive militancy.

      1379
      They have got their view of the Vietnam problem. It may conceivably coincide more with ours than we think, and it would be quite impossible for them to say so in public.
      But, in any case, I believe that, if and when Ho Chi Minh wants to negotiate, he will negotiate direct with the Americans. He knows that the Americans are ready to negotiate, and negotiate unconditionally. They have, as a token of their good will, even ceased bombing for a period. When it was simply answered by further attacks from North Vietnam, they resumed bombing, but they have let it be known repeatedly that they are perfectly ready to negotiate and negotiate without strings.
      Meanwhile, we can only remember—and once again I quote the Prime Minister's significant words—that the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal by the Americans in South Vietnam would be incalculable and, that being so, what we must do above everything else is stand by our United States and other allies.
      5.25 p.m.
      Mr. Arthur Henderson: One of the outstanding features of this debate has been the persistent and partisan criticisms that have been levelled by the Opposition against the peace initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Even the Leader of the Opposition, if I may say so, marred what I thought was a very thoughtful and convincing speech by his references both to the Commonwealth Peace Mission proposition and to what is now being called the Davies Mission. I really cannot understand why the fact that the mission has not yet taken off mars the concept, and in this connection the Conservative Opposition have sadly misunderstood the mood of the nation as a whole. The nation as a whole desires to see an end of the war in Vietnam, and I think they will support any attempt that is made to bring that war to an end.
      As I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he criticised the Davies Mission on the ground that normally the position is prepared through diplomatic channels and full consultations take place with our allies before any mission takes off to carry out negotiations. But surely the Davies Mission was not intended to
      1380
      undertake any negotiations whatsoever. It was in order to make contact with the authorities in Hanoi, to convey the points of view held on this side and to try to ascertain the points of view held in Hanoi. So far as I can gather, to that extent it was successful. We know that the Commonwealth Peace Mission has not yet taken off. The Prime Minister has undoubtedly taken risks, but I remember the late Ernest Bevin saying once "You must take risks for peace".
      Are the Government to stand helpless without trying to make a contribution to the ending of the war in South-East Asia? I believe that the Prime Minister has done well. I personally support his initiatives, and I hope that he will carry on with them in the near future.
      The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that the obstacle to negotiations at present is the belief in Hanoi and no doubt in Peking that the Communists are going to win the shooting war. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that this was a tragic mistake and that peace will only come at the conference table.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said one or twice that the Americans were determined to win this war. I do not know on what authority he says that. I propose to quote from something said by a very distinguished American, Senator Fulbright, who happens to be the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who is regarded as one of the most influential political leaders in the United States, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and I have both met Senator Fulbright, and I think he will agree with me that the Senator is a statesman whose words carry great weight both in the United States and outside. Senator Fulbright was reported as saying:
      "'The North Vietnam leaders must be persuaded that they cannot win.' Only when this became clear was it likely that they would respond to proposals for unconditional negotiation. He went on:
      'At such time I would think it appropriate and desirable for the United States to reiterate forcefully and explicitly its willingness to negotiate a compromise peace and thereafter to act with other countries in mounting a large-scale programme for the social and economic development of South-East Asia.'"
      Does that indicate that the Americans are seeking military victories, military

      1381
      aggrandisement? Surely it is an indication that they are anxious to carry out their mission, which is to safeguard the security and independence of the people of South Vietnam and then to lend their services to, and participate in, the great task of social and economic reconstruction which is perhaps the best antidote to war in any part of the world.
      Sir F. Maclean: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Senator Fulbright put the American attitude very well, but, if the Americans do not want to win military victories in furtherance of these aims, why are they sending so many hundreds of thousands of men to Vietnam?
      Mr. Henderson: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows just as well as I do from our previous experience in these spheres, as long as the operations take place they will send sufficient reinforcements to enable them to undertake successful operations from their point of view. That is quite a different thing from saying that as soon as Hanoi indicates its willingness to bring the conflict to an end and to take part in negotiations there will be, as Senator Fulbright has made clear, a response from the United States Government. Indeed, President Johnson has, on several occasions, stated that the United States would be willing to enter into unconditional negotiations.
      Mr. Zilliacus: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) aware that in his speech of 7th April, allegedly offering unconditional negotiations, President Johnson made it clear first of all that he would not negotiate with the South Vietnam National Liberation Front and was determined to treat South Vietnam as a separate State which was to be made non-Communist by American force?
      Mr. Henderson: I completely disagree. President Johnson has also made it perfectly clear that he advocates a return to what he calls the essentials of the 1954 Geneva Agreement. The Agreement made it clear that, while there was a temporary division of the country along the 17th Parallel, there had to be within two years free elections with the purpose of securing reunification, and also that all foreign troops had to be withdrawn
      1382
      from both countries. If that is not an indication to the contrary of what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) has just said, I do not know what language means. I say that the authorities in Hanoi could make the road wide open to the conference table if they would indicate their willingness to enter into unconditional negotiation.
      I am not, however, in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on another aspect of this problem. I would like to see the United States give a lead by publicly announcing that it will suspend all bombing of North Vietnam. I believe that if it were to do that, and if the authorities in Hanoi were to indicate their willingness to go to a conference, a stable settlement could be found based on the essentials of the 1954 Agreement.
      Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) regretted that events in South Vietnam, Malaysia and the Dominican Republic had not been brought before the United Nations. These events unfortunately underline the present weakness of the United Nations. At the same time, I share his regret that no attempt was made to bring them before the Security Council. However, we must be realistic and consider the present position of the United Nations.
      We must realise that the most populous country in the world and probably the most influential country in South-East Asia, is not a member of the U.N. and that its proximity to South Vietnam suggests that it is not without influence on those responsible in North Vietnam. I have said before that to me China is like a rogue elephant that was pointed out to me in Africa on one occasion—dangenerous and irresponsible. But that is what China will be as long as it is excluded from the comity of nations. Therefore, if we are to seek to revivify the United Nations we must face the fact that China must be brought in as a member.
      My right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to difficulties with the Soviet Union and was challenged as to whether Her Majesty's Government stand by Article 19. I think that he gave the right answer. I do not think that it is a question of whether we should be driven

      1383
      finally to insist upon enforcement of Article 19. What we have to do, and what the Committee of 33 is trying to do, is to secure agreement with the Soviet Union, France and other countries which have resisted paying their contributions for peace-keeping operations because they do not consider them to be within the provisions of the Charter.
      I hope that other countries will follow the example set by the Government in making a grant of 10 million dollars to the funds of the United Nations with the objective of wiping off its present insolvency. I believe that if the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other countries would also make their contributions and restore the United Nations to a position of solvency, it might then be possible for agreement to be reached on peacekeeping.
      I am not sure that I share my right hon. Friend's view that the peace-keeping must be necessarily the responsibility of the General Assembly. Under the Charter, the primary responsibility, as he indicated himself, is placed upon the Security Council, and I believe we must get back to that position. But now we have the emergence of this great power—now a nuclear power—in the Far East, and until China can be brought into the United Nations the major responsibility for safeguarding the peace of the world will rest on the shoulders of the United States and the Soviet Union. It is, therefore, essential that these two countries should be brought together with the objective of ensuring that the Security Council, enlarged as it is to be, carries out its major responsibilities under the Charter.
      Mr. William Yates: This is very interesting. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually suggesting that in international affairs the time has come when China, the Soviet Union and the United States should consider revising the Security Council procedures?
      Mr. Henderson: As I have said before—and it is what I understood to be common to both sides of the House—China's rightful place is in the United Nations, and till we have universality we are going to have this basic weakness in the United Nations, because outside of it
      1384
      there will be this great nation of 600 million people. I therefore suggest that China should be brought into the United Nations, and she would then, or should then, take her seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. While I believe that the General Assembly has a vital part to play in the responsibilities of the United Nations, I also believe that so long as power politics, even controlled by the Charter, operate—since, after all, every Government have the first priority of safeguarding the security of their own people—and till we get a world order, we are going to have to rely on the co-operation of the United States and of the Soviet Union now, and, later on, I hope, of China to maintain world peace.
      There are just two other points with which I should like to deal. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition was very effective when he suggested that the present Government had taken over all the plans, all the papers, all the memoranda, all the proposals and had not done anything new in connection with the proposed agreement for banning nuclear tests completely and also for dealing with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Whether that is so or not I do not think matters. What is important is the situation in which we find ourselves today. It is two years since the partial test ban agreement was signed in Moscow, and it is time further progress was made, and I hope that the Government will go into the disarmament negotiations ready to enter into a complete test ban agreement and that they will not dig their toes in on the number of verification inspections which should be made under the agreement.
      So far as my information goes the scientists have made considerable progress, and it should be possible now not only to detect but to identify underground explosions to almost the very smallest underground explosion. It that be the case I should have thought nothing more would be required than possibly a token inspection, or perhaps two inspections in a year, as an absolute safeguard. Therefore I hope that they will go into negotiations without being bound to resist an agreement on this question of inspections.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a little clearer what he has said about scientists

      1385
      having made great progress in this field? I am sure he is right, but can he tell the House whether they can distinguish, at a long distance, between a nuclear test and seismic activity? Is it certain that they can distinguish between them?
      Mr. Henderson: Well, according to the statement made by Sir John Cockcroft—[Interruption.] There may be doubts whether he is a reliable scientist, but I should have thought he was one of the greatest scientists in this country at any rate. He does not make it 100 per cent.—he is quite fair about it—but he does make the suggestion that everything except the very smallest underground explosion can be detected and verified.
      My last point is with regard to a non-proliferation agreement. Again, I hope that when the Government go to the conference at Geneva they will go with a readiness to sign a non-proliferation agreement. I was not quite clear from what the Foreign Secretary said as to where the Government stood in regard to the negotiations and discussions which are taking place about the A.N.F. and M.L.F., but I hope that no discussions or negotiations will be allowed to be an obstacle to the signing of a non-proliferation agreement. We know that already there are six potential nuclear countries, including Canada, Japan, Germany, India, Israel and Sweden, and perhaps there will be others as time goes on and it is vitally important, in my opinion, and of the highest priority that we should secure this non-proliferation agreement.
      I must say that I was most disturbed by the statement made by the German Foreign Secretary the other day when he said, in effect, that the Germans, unless they got an agreement in regard to a multilateral nuclear force, would not give up their right to acquire—not to manufacture, but to acquire—nuclear weapons. I think that that has caused a great deal of concern in many quarters. I say that without any feeling against the Germans, but if we are to prevent those countries, which will be entitled to secure nuclear weapons if they consider them necessary in their own interests, then the sooner we get a non-proliferation agreement the better.
      I should like to finish by quoting something which was said by the late Adlai Stevenson a little while before he died.
      1386
      He is reported to have said that in the absence of any world order which would rescue the victims of clandestine aggression, national power must fulfil the rôle, which was the most costly, the most dangerous and the least desirable kind of peace keeping, but which could not be avoided.
      In my view, the only ultimate solution is general disarmament within the framework of a world security system operating the rule of law.
      5.47 p.m.
      Mr. A. E. Cooper: I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) that idealism is a wonderful thing, and it often is the beacon to practical policies of the future; but we must accept the fact that we are living in a very dangerous world today, and our first task as a nation is to make sure of our own defence.
      I would just ask him one question. If at this time China became a member of the United Nations, what guarantee is there that she would abide by the decisions of the United Nations? We know for a fact that over the last few years the veto has been exercised by the Soviet Union on many occasions to the detriment generally of the interests of the world. Having regard to Chinese policies at this time. I would have thought that there was little hope just now that China would be a useful member of the United Nations.
      Mr. A. Henderson: I thought I made it clear that in my view there will be no guarantee of world peace and the avoidance of major conflicts unless we can secure co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union now, and, in due course, China. All I would say in reply to the question is, let us get China to the General Assembly, and on to the Security Council and she will have to face up to her responsibilities to a greater extent than she does 6,000 miles away in Peking.
      Mr. Cooper: Let us hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, because we all want the world to live in peace.
      Together with four of my colleagues in this House, I have just spent two weeks

      1387
      in the Far East, and we visited Singapore and Hong Kong. We spent a little more time there than did the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), and I would beg leave to say that our visit was rather more successful.
      Two weeks in the Far East does not make one an expert on Far Eastern matters, or indeed on any matter at all, but I have heard many hon. Members claim expertise on far more tenuous grounds than that. During our visit we met many high ranking people in the military, political and business spheres. It would be wrong to attribute to any of those people the views which I am going to express tonight, but I trust that I interpret sincerely the views which we heard. In fact these views come very close to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
      Let me deal first with Malaysia. There is no doubt that the forces available there are sufficient to deal with the Indonesian problem, and I deplored the articles which appeared in this week's Sunday Mirror. They were inaccurate and harmful to the interests of this country and to the morale of our troops overseas. Although our task when we were there was to deal with non-warlike stores, one cannot be in an area and associate with people every day and the best part of every night without discussing other matters and coming to some sort of an opinion. At no time did we get the impression that there was a shortage or deficiency in the equipment provided to our troops. Of course, everybody wants more equipment. There has probably not been a commander in history who did not want more, but to mislead and to exaggerate—
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I hope that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen indulge in conversation they will do so quietly, otherwise it is not fair to the Member who has the Floor.
      Mr. Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As I was saying, there has probably not been a commander in history who did not want more, but to misrepresent and to exaggerate what difficulties there are, or there may be, is to do a disservice to our country.
      1388
      I thought that the Prime Minister was rather naïve in his analysis of the Far Eastern problems. Hanoi may be the key to Vietnam—which I doubt—but without a doubt China is the key to the whole Far Eastern problem. In a word, she seeks to dominate the whole area.
      In the short term, the Indonesian problem may be settled by some sort of negotiation, but such a settlement must not interfere with the independence of Malaysia. Sukarno may, and probably will, wish to keep the pot boiling, and it is probable that a positive decision will not be taken by the Indonesian Government during Sukarno's lifetime. After that, it will depend on who takes over the Government of the country. From what we were advised, it would seem that the Communists have about a 40 per cent. chance of doing this, but the odds at the moment appear to be in favour of the army taking over.
      In the latter event, the situation would move very much in our favour, because it is generally recognised that the army leaders incline to the West rather than to the Communists. If, however, the Communists were able to secure control of Indonesia, and if serious military disasters occurred in the north, in Vietnam, the position of Malaysia in both the short term and the long term would be very difficult indeed.
      I stress that Vietnam is only one facet of this vast problem, and the Prime Minister is naïve if he thinks otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman has become the Prince Monolulu of British politics—"I've got an idea"—but the difference between the late legendary figure and the Prime Minister is that whereas the tipster occasionally backed the winner all the Prime Minister's horses run well down the course. The fatuous Davies Mission was a failure, and was doomed to be so from the beginning. As an act, the performance of the Prime Minister and of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not been bettered since Barnum and Bailey. We must recognise that if Vietnam falls, Cambodia and Laos will be easy pickings, with real and consequent dangers to Thailand and Burma, and it does not need much imagination to foresee the dangers to which Australia and New Zealand would be exposed in such an eventuality.

      1389
      In the long term, I regard the situation in the Far East as the most threatening to the free world, and this country and the free world must be alerted to the very real dangers of the spread of Communism in the Far East. In Europe, highly concentrated industrial populations in close proximity to the Soviet Union, coupled with the availability of modern weapons, will probably preserve the peace in this area, but in the Far East the situation is vastly different. Huge distances separate the various countries, and defence is a much more difficult task. However, we must be prepared to defend our way of life and to contain Communism wherever we find it.
      Our bases in the Far East are vulnerable, and it would be very difficult for us to do anything about Singapore and Hong Kong. In fact we are in Singapore only on sufferance. We are dependent on the local government for our presence there. In concert with the United States, Australia and New Zealand we must create a real base or bases which will not be vulnerable, and from which we cannot be ejected. Such bases will probably be in northern Australia, or northern New Zealand, or in other suitable islands and areas.
      I beg the Government to realise that time is not on our side. Urgent action, in concert with our allies, is demanded if our way of life and our civilisation are to be preserved.
      5.59 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Foot: As I listened to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), I was reminded of many of the speeches that we listened to in this House during the late 'forties and early 'fifties, when we were told that the great menace that we had to guard against was the prospective march across Europe by Russian divisions. We were told on the highest authority, and also from the highest authority on the Treasury Bench, that the Soviet Government had 175 divisions poised to march across Europe. It was taken as a proven fact that the menace was of this nature and definable character.
      Only a few months ago a speech was made by the United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McNamara, who is not the kind of man to underrate the Communist
      1390
      menace, that it never was the case that 175 divisions were prepared to march across Europe. We have also had the opinion of no less an authority than Mr. Kennan that the menace that Europe has had to face, or the problems with which we have had to deal, were very different from those described by orthodox opinion in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Therefore, when we are told by the hon. Member that it is a proven fact that China wishes to conquer the whole of Asia, we are entitled to take such comments with some scepticism—despite the hon. Member's great authority. We need to examine such accusations or claims very carefully before accepting them, because if we accept and act upon false analyses of the world situation we will reach false conclusions. I shall return to the major points raised by the hon. Member shortly, but first I want to make some brief comments on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
      The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to suffer from a lot of imaginary fears. There are enough real dangers in the world without conjuring up a host of unreal ones. The first unreal fear of the hon. Gentleman is that we are not going to have sufficient military forces available to carry out our commitments. In my opinion the much greater danger is that this country's economic position may be gravely injured by trying to carry out too heavy a military commitment. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary began to reply to that aspect of the matter. It is quite misleading for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that the country's military burdens are being drastically reduced when, unhappily, that process is not yet taking place. That is the first of the imaginary fears with which the right hon. Gentleman deludes himself.
      He also says that one of the great dangers at the moment is that we shall have a patched-up peace in Vietnam. I only wish a patched-up peace was there for the taking. The trouble is that it is much more difficult than that to secure. For the right hon. Gentleman, in the midst of this situation, to speak as if a patched-up peace was the immediate menace that we had to deal with in Vietnam is a most topsy-turvy way of looking at the world. But that is what we expect from the right hon. Gentleman. Hetalks about the rules of diplomacy

      1391
      and tries to lecture the House on the way in which foreign policy should be conducted—as if his touch had always proved so expert, and as if his experience had always been so ripe. From Munich to Suez he has been successful throughout! People have told me that although the right hon. Gentleman is not an expert on domestic affairs he is a great authority on foreign matters, but I confess it is his knowledge and aptitude in foreign affairs that makes me the more alarmed.
      Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Member will at least give my right hon. Friend this—that he was the British Foreign Secretary when we signed the Test Ban Treaty.
      Mr. Foot: I am very glad that the Test Ban Treaty was signed, especially as I had been advocating it for many more years than had the right hon. Gentleman, and particularly when I had been saying that the tests that were being conducted were a great menace to the health of the people of this country and had been told by the Prime Minister of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member that I was being too pessimistic about the dangers.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: Has my hon. Friend noted what the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon about atomic tests? He urged the Government to restart the tests. Where does that fit into the Test Ban Treaty?
      Mr. Foot: That is a very good indication that we should not take the right hon. Gentleman's claims too seriously. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he is the master of diplomatic affairs and knows their subtleties, and has always dealt with them skilfully, is not borne out by the facts. He gave a further illustration of his attitude in these matters when he said that our relations with the Russians are extremely important in this connection. Nobody could doubt that. That was a gleam of the obvious if ever there was one. The right hon. Gentleman did not proceed to analyse why it had been more difficult to establish good relations with the Russians during the last few difficult months, which are the months under discussion.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said in an
      1392
      intervention at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it was Vietnam that ruptured the hopes of an improvement in relations between ourselves and the Soviet Union. This is the one reason, above all the other reasons, why it is so desperately urgent to try fresh ways of escaping from the Vietnam dilemmas and difficulties. If we cannot escape from them I fear that we shall not proceed very far towards concluding any agreement with the Soviet Union. We all hope that we shall get agreement at the disarmament convention in a week or two's time, or in the summer months, even though the Vietnam war is still proceeding, but in my opinion it will be difficult for the Russians to reach agreement with the West while that war continues.
      We can understand their difficulties, and the United States should, too. We have been told that there has been some alteration in our position in relation to the Russians during this period. That is true, but one of the most obscene actions taken by any Government in modern times was the commencement of the bombing of North Vietnam by the United States of America when Mr. Kosygin was in Hanoi. I can imagine no more shocking piece of ineptitude. How do the Americans thing such action assisted Mr. Kosygin in exercising any influence in Hanoi? Unfortunately, that action of the United States Government has largely contributed towards making it impossible for the West to reach fresh agreement with the Soviet Union in recent months. So we need not take much notice of rules of diplomacy as taught to us by the Leader of the Opposition.
      He is a kind of modern Bourbon who has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, yet he thinks he is a Talleyrand. He lectures the House as if he had always been able to manage these matters quite successfully. I will say this for him, however, that although I originally found it somewhat incomprehensible to understand why he held the leadership of the Conservative Party, when I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) yesterday I began to understand. The right hon. Gentleman is propped up by these pillars on three sides—on a kind of tripod of incompetence. Long may he stay there.
      There are more important matters to deal with. I want to raise some matters

      1393
      with my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
      Mr. Christopher Soames: Would the hon. Member aver that he would be well satisfied if his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary managed to bring into being again the co-chairmanship procedure over Vietnam which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition managed to do when he was Foreign Secretary?
      Mr. Foot: I welcome the right hon. Member into the controversy. It shows that the stool may not be a tripod; it may be a stool with four legs. I am backing the right hon. Gentleman. I have backed him at 100 to 1. I am told that after Thursday night the odds will turn very much in my favour. I am glad that he intervened. He made a very constructive intervention.
      We would all be glad to see the reestablishment and working of the co-chairmanship machinery under the Geneva Convention. What we are discussing is how we can get it—and it is much more difficult to get over the question of Vietnam than to get over the other difficulties. That is one of my quarrels with my own Front Bench on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talks of those in Hanoi and, perhaps, in the Far East, being prisoners of their own propaganda. To some extent, he has made himself a prisoner of his own propaganda. The major difference between myself and some of my hon. Friends on the back benches is our contrasted interpretation of what is the origin of the war in Vietnam. I do not want to go back over past history, but how we proceed at present depends very greatly on our interpretation of the past. My right hon. Friend has claimed in this House on previous occasions—the Prime Minister, in effect, repeated it yesterday—that the origin of the present war in Vietnam is the aggression conducted by North Vietnam subsequent to 1959. That is the kernel of the whole of his case. If that part of his case were to fall, we should have to look at the matter afresh.
      My right hon. Friend's interpretation of how the war grew up after 1959 is contested by many people who have examined the state of affairs in North
      1394
      Vietnam and in South Vietnam very carefully. Many of the most eminent journalists, French and others, who have been there give a very different interpretation. They give a different interpretation partly because they have examined with more care than my right hon. Friend what was the nature of the South Vietnam régime and how it conducted itself from 1954 to 1959, and what was done in South Vietnam during all those years obviously had a bearing on whether a rebellion in South Vietnam started. That is the first piece of evidence.
      Suppose, however, for a moment that my right hon. Friend was absolutely correct in his claim that not the sole but the major cause of the war in Vietnam today was the aggression of the North against the South. That is his claim. Supposing that it is true, as he says, that this is overwhelmingly proved by the facts, the proper course for the United States in that case was to have taken the matter to the United Nations. If an aggression was committed, their appropriate course was to take it to the United Nations Security Council or, failing that, if they liked, to the General Assembly to see what the judgment was there on the matter.
      What right had the United States Government to judge whether there had been an aggression or not and, furthermore, to proceed to decide for itself what response it should make to the aggression? No right whatsoever. There have been many occasions in the world during the last 20 years when countries have claimed that acts of aggression have been committed against them and when they have attempted to retaliate. That, apparently, is what the United States is doing in North Vietnam, but, when it happens in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab States, my right hon. Friend, this Government and previous Governments condemned it. I can quote the words used, not by the present Government but by the previous one, although I am sure that the present Government, in the Middle Eastern situation, would agree with the proposition.
      Thus, according to the British Foreign Office, on 26th February, 1956:
      "Her Majesty's Government deplore all reprisals, and must express their condemnation of a policy based on them. Reprisal raids have been repeatedly condemned by the Security

      1395
      Council, and the United Nations' Secretary-General has expressed the view that such raids cannot be considered within the limits of legitimate self-defence."
      That was the situation in the Middle East. Why does it not apply in Vietnam? What right has the United States to embark on actions of retaliation and reprisal for acts of aggression, they claim, by the bombing of North Vietnam? It has no right to do so. It has no claim to do so, no justification in international law, for doing so. This is not to be considered within the limits of legitimate self-defence—
      Mr. David Webster: On a point of order. I seem to remember that, about a fortnight ago, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) was prevented from reading and making a quotation. Is it in order for other hon. Members to do so?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What the hon. member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said is in order.
      Mr. Foot: I am sure that the House will understand that this is perfectly in order.
      What the United States has done in Vietnam is not to be considered within the limits of legitimate self-defence. This is the claim which many of us make about the bombing of North Vietnam. We want to know why the British Government should have expressed their wholehearted support for bombing in North Vietnam, whereas such reprisals in the Middle East would have been condemned. In his reference to Santo Domingo—part of which I welcomed—in response to the notable speech of my right hon Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), the Foreign Secretary made some good and hopeful comments on the situation in Santo Domingo, though he should have gone a good deal further. He said, I think, that the forces sent by the Americans in the second invasion of Santo Domingo were incommensurate with the need. Perhaps the people in North Vietnam could claim that the forces which they sent in to assist the Vietcong were incommensurate with the need.
      In the case of Santo Domingo, my right hon. Friend in the main supported the attitude of the United States. He was
      1396
      critical in some degree, but he did not condemn them. But in Vietnam a quite different rule is applied, apparently, and the North Vietnam Government are condemned absolutely for an act of aggression, when no proof has been offered by any international authority that this is what has occurred. My right hon. Friend and the Government have based their wholehearted support of the United States on a foundation which has never been established, in fact, a foundation which is contrary to what we would naturally expect.
      Anyone who reads what has happened in Vietnam since 1945 will surely understand that this is much more a social conflict in Vietnam than it is a war of the North against the South. Everyone who has examined the fact finds, for example, that most of the people in the Vietcong come from Vietnam. It is their country. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that we must not condemn one side instead of the other, that we must not condemn the bombing unless we also condemn the Vietcong. I can understand this argument, but it is a fact that the Vietcong are in their own country. The Americans are not in their own country. The Vietcong are in their own continent. The Americans are not in their own continent.
      Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: If the hon. Member's views are correct about retaliatory action, would not Malaysia be wrong to retaliate against Indonesia for the many incursions which have been made in that direction?
      Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have heard that point put exactly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South who has been pleading that the issue of Malaysia should be taken to the United Nations—precisely for this reason, that if we are to have retaliatory action against Indonesia by forces from Malaysia, it cannot be decided by the British alone, by the Malaysians alone or by any one nation alone. If that is said, it is a recipe for anarchy all over the world.
      Therefore, my charge against the Government in this respect is that they have not upheld the rule of law in Vietnam. They have been prepared to waive any attempt to uphold the rule of law, because our most powerful ally—the

      1397
      United States—is the country which has been guilty of breaking it, as it was further guilty of breaking the rule of law in its flagrant breach in Santo Domingo—
      Mr. Shinwell: Would my hon. Friend explain how Her Majesty's Government are capable of upholding the rule of law in Vietnam?
      Mr. Foot: I will explain it very carefully to my right hon. Friend. What I was criticising, first of all—I will come in a second to give my view on what measures should be taken to stop the fighting in Vietnam—was that if we are to find the right solution in Vietnam we must get the analysis right first—[An HON. MEMBER: "We have got that."] My hon. Friend says that we have got that. I do not think that we have. I was trying to argue that, in my opinion, Her Majesty's Government have based their case on a false analysis. They have said from the beginning that this whole war is due to an act of aggression by the North against the South. What I have been seeking to prove is, first, that is not the case and, second, that, if it were the case, the United States' action taken for dealing with it was quite illegitimate, indefensible and unjustified under any system of international law.
      Mr. George Y. Mackie: Would the hon. Member at the same time give examples of the co-operation of the Communist nations with the United Nations in peace-keeping efforts?
      Mr. Foot: I agree that very frequently the Communist States have defied and broken the rule of law and defied and broken the authority of the United Nations. But that is no reason why we should do so or why we should support our allies in doing so—no reason at all. I condemned what the Communist Government of the Soviet Union did in Hungary, but I also condemned what the predecessors of the present Government did at Suez. I condemn what the United States Government are doing in South Vietnam and Santo Domingo, and the main criticism which I make of my own Government is that they have expressed their whole-hearted support for these actions taken by the Americans.
      1398
      When the Foreign Secretary returned from the United States he did grievous injury to later possibilities which might have opened by expressing such unqualified support for the action which the Americans had taken. I think that it would have been possible for the British Government to have stated a view at the United Nations which was not insulting to the Americans but which would have been more profitable if they had not committed themselves to whole-hearted support of the American action.
      I greatly welcome some of the steps taken by the Government in recent weeks. Some of the statements made in the communiqué published by the Commonwealth Peace Mission carry the argument away from the original unqualified support for the United States, and I hope that the Government will persist in this line. In a moment I will quote something which upholds that view.
      Mr. Peter Bessell rose—
      Mr. Foot: I have already given way many times and if I give way again I shall hold up all other speakers.
      We listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). Everybody respects his judgment, his honesty and the downright way in which he speaks. He said that the Americans want outright victory, and that that was what they were after in Vietnam. I asked him how they thought they would get it, but he did not give me a very clear answer.
      No doubt the Americans would like outright victory if they could get it, but I do not think they can. There is one way in which some people in America may think that they can get outright victory—by a much further extension of the war. They may say that they could get outright victory by bombing Hanoi, or they may decide that they could do it by going even further and by having a full war with China. I do not say that these are the objectives of the American Administration—I think they are not—but these are courses which have been advocated in the United States. It may be that if the United States are defeated in the present operations, as may be they are being defeated, there will be powerful voices in the United States urging them to extend the war further by one means or another.

      1399
      What becomes of the Government's position if that arises? Do they say, "We would support any further action"? Or have they already said that they will not support it? What is my right hon. Friend's argument which says that we are prepared to support the bombing and will continue to support the bombing but that we shall not support further action? The Government should make their position much clearer. One of my fears is that by giving such unqualified support to the bombing they make it more difficult for themselves to draw the line later. I hope that they will draw the line now—and these are not merely my words.
      My right hon. Friend indicated that it would be no use our making appeals to the Americans and asking them to stop the bombing now. He said that it would not serve much purpose. We are told that it would not serve much purpose because the bombing was stopped for five days and there was no response. Does that mean that we are to continue to support the bombing whatever happens and however long it goes on? That is not the view of some of the most prominent members of the Commonwealth Peace Mission. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would be the first to pay tribute to the part which was played in the Commonwealth Peace Mission by President Nkrumah of Ghana. He issued a statement during the conference, on 24th June, in which he spoke about the bombing:
      "Unlike China and North Vietnam the United States Government publicly welcomed our initiative It is therefore in my view all the more serious that the United States Government should thave disregarded our request for restraint and have on the contrary continued to conduct provocative air raids in North Vietnam. The continuance of such raids at a time when the United States publicly welcomed our Mission makes our task more difficult."
      He appealed that there should be a stop to the bombing of North Vietnam. This appeal was also made at one point by the Prime Minister of Canada. I am sure that it is an appeal which would be supported by many others, and possibly a majority, of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. When appeals of this nature are made, it is no good people brushing them aside and saying that they are appeals of no importance.
      The reason I believe we should suspend the bombing is not only the horror and
      1400
      destruction which it causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) yesterday talked about how carefully these bombings were carried out. We should be very cautious in the House, many thousands of miles away, about saying that they are being conducted in this very cautious manner. I hardly think it possible for it to be done. There have been some appalling descriptions of the results of these bombings, including the destruction of a leper hospital. If we have such bombings, these will be the result.
      What would be the consequences? Do hon. Members think that these indiscriminate bombings—because that is what they are bound to be—will endear the West to the people of Vietnam? They will have exactly the opposite effect. Our American allies—I am not saying that they are doing it out of malevolence but out of one step after another, one folly after another—have got themselves into a well-nigh impossible situation from which they might be rescued only by a most desperate act which could involve the rest of the world. On the other hand, we have the situation in which the Vietcong and possibly the people in Vietnam and possibly the people in China—we do not know for certain—all think that they have outright victory, too. We have these two sides thinking that they can each get outright victory.
      I think that the statement issued by President Nkrumah during the Prime Ministers' Conference expressed very properly the situation the world is placed:
      "The situation in which we find ourselves today is that the danger of the war in Vietnam developing into a major world war is extremely great. The conflict in Vietnam cannot be resolved by purely military means. In spite of the United States' vast military resources, it is clear that the popular opposition in Vietnam is so strong that the United States cannot defeat the national liberation front unless they deploy their full military strength on an all-out war basis. If, however, the United States were to do this, it would almost certainly lead to a global war. On the other hand, it would be unrealistic to suppose that the United States would unconditionally surrender in South Vietnam. Therefore the only logical solution is a conference of the parties involved in the conflict. Such a conference can hardly be held unless there is a cease fire."
      That is a statement by the President of Ghana, and in many respects it does not

      1401
      differ from the conclusions expressed by the Government. I acknowledge that.
      Although I criticise very strongly the premises of the Government's arguments, I agree with some of their conclusions. I agree with the efforts of the Commonwealth Peace Mission. I certainly agree with the decision of the Government to send my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to North Vietnam. He did a very difficult job with great courage, determination and intelligence. It was right for the Government to send him and I think that he was the best man for the job. The sneers which have been made against him are utterly contemptible.
      I therefore congratulate the Government on the efforts they have made to try to get a conference. I am sure that they will continue to make such efforts to get a conference and that they will reject the appeals of hon. Gentlemen opposite not to be misled by the possibilities of a so-called patched-up peace. I hope that the Government understand that if we can get any kind of peace in Vietnam it will lead to a better situation than the possibilities described by President Nkrumah. In all these conclusions I agree with the Government. They have my full support on them, for what that is worth, and, I am sure, the support of all my hon. Friends who wish to see a conference and a peace settlement.
      But if the Government wish to play their fullest part in getting such a conference they must also acknowledge some of the other points which have been put, maybe some of those in President Nkrumah's statement. They must pluck up their courage and speak as strongly to the Americans on this matter as they have spoken to some of the other powers concerned. After all, the Americans are more the belligerents than China in North Vietnam—there are more Americans fighting there—and, therefore, the Government must use their influence and exert their power on the United States far more than they have done, partly because of the immediate situation which is so dangerous and partly because it is a wrong interpretation of what goes on in the world to imagine that the whole planet will be prepared
      1402
      to accept the Pax Americana described by the Leader of the Opposition.
      Of course the whole world is not prepared to accept it. The only authority which could possibly be accepted throughout the world is a United Nations authority—and the possibilities of getting such an authority have been injured by the actions of many Communist States, the actions of Her Majesty's Government over Suez but, in this instance in Asia, the primary opposition to successful activities and operations by the United Nations authority has come from the United States which, since 1950, has refused to give Communist China its rightful place in the United Nations. It is no use trying to brush this matter aside as a secondary question. Unfortunately, the matter may have gone so far that it is now difficult to repair.
      We must consider the danger which the world has faced since the Communist revolution in China. If we are to treat that revolution with the same hostility, futility and madness with which we treated the Russian revolution after 1917 our world is doomed. We might as well make an end of it. Her Majesty's Government are committed, as one of their primary measures, to seek to get China into the United Nations. I would like to hear what exertions they have made in this matter, including what representations they have made to the United Sates on the subject.
      I urge the Government to realise that on Vietnam they would not be speaking alone but with the support of many people, including a great many in the United States. What has been said in this debate by me, and by others much more effectively, has been said by some of the most prominent Americans. Mr. Walter Lippmann, probably the greatest journalist in the world, has been pressing this view on the United States Government for many months, since the beginning. He has prophesied to the United States Government what will be the results if they continued to follow their present policies.
      I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government to be more determined, resolute and upstanding in the policies which they adopt in these matters. I believe that they could take such an attitude partly because of our position in the world and partly

      1403
      because of our association with the countries of the Commonwealth. Because of this we have a chance of being heard. But for heaven's sake let us speak more audaciously than we have as yet attempted.
      6.34 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It will be agreed on both sides of the House that we have just heard an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I sincerely congratulate him on his forensic ability, which is well known to the House. I did not agree with most of his arguments, although I am sure that all hon. Members regarded his speech as a splendid oration.
      In addition to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, we have so far heard three great speeches in this debate. The first which I should mention was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke with authority and breadth of vision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least, that was the way in which it was accepted by my hon. Friends and the Treasury Bench, if not by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. We also heard a great speech from the Foreign Secretary, whose lucidity was quite remarkable.
      The third great speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). It was remarkable in that he said something which the House has needed to hear, namely, that it is the policy of the Conservative Party that we should join the Common Market. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend state that for the record and put the matter beyond question.
      Those three great speeches were in sad contrast with the speech of the Prime Minister, which, I thought, was unimaginative, sterile and, in some parts, downright shabby. He was out of his depth when he spoke about foreign affairs, and I knew before I came to the debate that he would be out of his depth. However, I did not think that he would mislead the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman misled the House on two or three occasions, as I will show later in my remarks.
      It is clear that the Prime Minister is extremely sensitive about the Davies mis-
      1404
      sion to Hanoi. It was a failure. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday we all knew that the mission had been a failure. It is perfectly plain from the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that it has also been a failure in Westminster. The Prime Minister thought that he had at least been able to tame his Left wing. He has obviously not succeeded. It must be sad for him to think that the failure in Hanoi has been followed by the failure in Westminster.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: I wish to be brief, because many hon. Members desire to take part in the debate. I will, therefore, concentrate on two issues, Vietnam and Europe.
      I hope that it will be accepted on both sides of the House that we all desire peace in Vietnam. I am sure that the American Administration want peace in Vietnam and would go a long way towards getting it. The offer made by President Johnson, supported by Mr. Eugene Black, to provide an immense economic and technical aid programme for South-East Asia, in which Vietnam could take part and in which the Soviet Union has been invited to participate, is something on which I hope the Government will comment later in the debate.
      I believe that peace could be had in Vietnam quite quickly. I will explain why. If the Communists would call off their attacks tomorrow peace could easily come within a matter of weeks. If the Communists will withdraw their regular soldiers from North Vietnam, north of the 17th Parallel, stop arming and financing the Vietcong rebellion, stop their terrorism and killing in the villages and stop bomb throwing there could be peace in Vietnam tomorrow, and I am glad that the Foreign Secretary recognises this.
      Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the people he is now describing are approximately the same sort of people whom we termed resistance fighters in Europe during the last war?
      Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Lady would explain that to her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not wish to involve myself in any internal fight in the Labour Party.
      Mrs. Kerr: Answer my question.
      Mr. Griffiths: If the Vietnamese in the North would withdraw their regular troops, stop arming and financing the Vietcong, stop bomb throwing, assassinations and killing, war could be ended tomorrow; and there is no question about it. Let us not think in terms of a formal cease-fire. There was no formal ceasefire in the Philippines after the Communist insurrection there, or in the Malaya fighting. It was simply that one day it all stopped and the guerrilla action ceased.
      That was not the result of a formal cease-fire; it was simply that the Communist authorities gave the word, and the word was "Obey". I believe that if the Communist authorities in Hanoi and Peking were to give the word that fighting should cease, in a matter of weeks it would cease. So far, they have not given the word. I wish that they would give that word to cease the fighting as a conscious and careful decision, but I do not think that they will, because it is clear that their determined policy is to take over South Vietnam. They have said so.
      Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) belatedly discovered when he went to Hanoi, they are convinced that they are winning the war, and are sure that they will conquer South Vietnam by armed force. I am, therefore, driven to the reluctant conclusion that there can be no end to the war in Vietnam unless either the Communists win, and stop the fighting because they have won, or are convinced that they cannot win, and stop the fighting because they know that.
      There is no half-way house between those possibilities. It is a stark choice on the military front between the Communists taking over Vietnam by force, or being hit so hard that they call off aggression and come to the conference table. That is the choice.
      Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the South Vietnam National Liberation Front, as pointed out, for instance, by Senator Wayne Morse, and John Mecklin, head of the United States Information Service in South Vietnam for years, and as also stated in the American White Paper, is
      1406
      getting more than 95 per cent. of its arms and munitions by capture from the American forces, and its forces are recruited overwhelmingly from local sources; that the whole story about aggression in Vietnam is a fiction, and that this is as much a national movement as that of Tito, and its fight is exactly like his fighting against the Quislings Nedich and Pavelich, the puppets of Mussolini and Hitler?
      Mr. Griffiths: No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make his speech when his time comes. I do not for a moment accept what he says. It is perfectly clear that the Foreign Secretary and the Government do not accept it either, so perhaps the hon. Member will address his differences to them.
      To my mind, there is only one choice to be made in Vietnam, and it is between the Communists winning and taking over the whole country by force and their being shown that they cannot win, and coming to the conference table. The only choice to be made is to see that they come to the conference table because they are convinced that they cannot seize South Vietnam by force.
      It would be madness for the Americans to let the Communists take over South Vietnam by armed aggression. It would be mad because it would demonstrate to the watching people all over South-East Asia that the Western world is prepared to allow the Communists to win by force. It would be cynical because it would consign the people of South Vietnam to live under a régime which the great majority of them do not want, and against which the South Vietnam army is fighting. And let us not forget that in the South Vietnamese Army are many brave men fighting for their country. They are not simply to be described as American puppets. If hon. Members opposite would go there and see, they would realise that the South Vietnamese are fighting just as patriotically for their country as any other—
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: Has not the hon. Gentleman read that since last year the South Vietnamese forces have dropped by 10,000 as a result of desertion?
      Mr. Zilliacus: Five thousand desertions a month.
      Mr. Griffiths: The strength of the South Vietnamese Army has been going up for consistently over the last year—
      Mr. Philip Noel-Baker rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: No, I think that I have given way enough.
      Mr. Noel-Baker: Read The Times this morning.
      Mr. Griffiths: Whenever I read The Times I appear to be reading the right hon. Gentleman.
      It would be further retrogressive for the Americans to allow the Communists to seize South Vietnam, because during the 20 years since the Second World War the Western world has been working for a world in which armed aggression is outlawed, and in which those who seek to change frontiers by force are not permitted to do so, but can do so only by peaceful means. The argument is not against change; it is that if there is to be a change of frontiers, or anything else, it must be accomplished by peaceful means. I cannot see how there can be disagreement on that.
      Therefore, on the main point of Vietnam, I conclude that we have no alternative but to resist aggression and that, therefore, the United States is pursuing the only course open to it, distasteful as it may be—
      Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: It is also in our interests to support the Americans in this action, first, for reasons of world peace and, secondly, because we, too, have a stake in the Far East of great importance. I am glad—
      Mrs. Kerr rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Lady must not persist. It is in the interests of the House that we should not interrupt too much, because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
      Mr. Griffiths: We should be glad of the American presence in Vietnam, if only because it takes some of the load off the backs of our own troops in Malaysia. I believe that, as time goes on, if the Americans were to be
      1408
      humiliated and forced from South Vietnam, the whole southward pressure of Chinese expansionism might come upon the British troops in Malaysia. This is one occasion when the Americans happen to be carrying more of the burden than we are, and for that we should be grateful.
      If, then, we must resist Communist armed aggression in Vietnam, it is vital that hon. Members opposite should understand what resisting aggression means. It is no use simply mouthing the words "resisting aggression" unless one is realistic and recognises that resistance to aggression means bombs, that it means troops, that it means cannon. That is precisely what, on the ground, resisting Communist aggression implies. It means that the United States and the South Vietnamese must repulse the Communists when they are attacking in South Vietnam. It means that they must destroy the Communists' points of concentration, if necessary, in North Vietnam. It may be necessary, I fear, for the Americans to attempt to seal off South Vietnam from North Vietnam with many more American troops. I hope that it will not be necessary, but we must understand what the phrase "resisting aggression" implies in this case. It is unrealistic to imagine that it means anything else.
      I believe that the Americans have the ability and the will, if necessary, to achieve their objective, and those who accuse them of aggression in Vietnam should realise that the Americans are using only a tiny fraction of their force. The Americans have immense capabilities, and to accuse them of aggression when they only reluctantly and gradually step up their forces to a point at which, as yet, they are using only a fraction of their capacity, is wrong. No American President likes calling up the reserves, but let hon. Members opposite realise that the United States can, and, in my view will, and should, call up enough men, and provide itself with enough materials to hold the line in South Vietnam for as long as it takes the Communists to realise that they will not succeed by armed aggression in seizing South Vietnam.
      I do not say that the Americans can win in Vietnam—I hope that they do not make that their military objective—but I do say that the Americans are strong

      1409
      enough not to be beaten, and strong enough to prove to the Communists that they cannot and shall not succeed in winning this war by force. Given this situation, when neither side can win, there is only one possible answer, as the House on both sides will agree, and that is negotiation. But it takes two to negotiate and, so far, the Communists have not shown a shred of willingness to do so. That point needs to be rammed home again and again. The one consistent accompaniment to the savage fighting in Vietnam has been the repeated requests to negotiate, which the Americans have repeatedly accepted and, which the Communists have invariably turned down. This is a fact.
      First, there was the United States offer to take the matter to the United Nations—China rejected it, and Vietnam followed. Second, there were the Foreign Secretary's conversations with Mr. Gromyko—the Communists would not comply. There was the Foreign Secretary's attempt to involve the negotiation over Vietnam in a resumption of the Laos talks. The Communists turned it down. There was U Thant's call for negotiations. The United States agreed, the Communists turned him down. There were the 17 unaligned nations. The United States accepted, the Communists turned it down. There was the Indian Government's plan. The United States Government were prepared to discuss it, the Communists turned it down. There was the four-day bombing pause and the message which Mr. Ponsonby took at that time to the Vietnamese authorities. The United States was prepared to talk, the Communists turned it down.
      There was the Canadian initiative. A Canadian member of the International Control Commission went to Hanoi in an attempt to get negotiations started. The United States was willing to talk, the Communists turned it down. There was the Commonwealth Mission. The United States was prepared to receive it, the Communists turned it down. There was even the Davies Mission, which, once again, got nowhere because the Communists turned it down. Here are 13 or 14 precise examples when the United States was prepared to negotiate and where consistently the Communists have refused to do so.
      1410
      Hon. Members must face this. It is a fact, regrettable of course, but it cannot be simply airily dismissed because hon. Members prefer it to be different. Consistently, the United States has agreed to come to the conference table unconditionally. The President of the United States has agreed to support an immense economic and technical aid programme with the assistance of the Soviet Union, if they will play, but in every case the Communists have refused to have anything to do with it.
      I want briefly to say a few words about the mission by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the hon. Member for Leek, and to make three short points. The mission was sent at the wrong time, because when the hon. Member left and went to Hanoi it was perfectly plain that the Communists thought that they were winning. They intended to win and they expected that there would be no reason for them to negotiate while they were winning. I believe, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, that he was the wrong man to do the job, because it was plain where his sympathies lay.
      Finally on the Davies Mission, as I said earlier I believe that the Prime Minister has been less than candid with the House of Commons. He came close to misleading the House on 8th July when he left all of us here with the impression that the hon. Gentleman had been asked to Vietnam as a member of Her Majesty's Government. That is in HANSARD at column 1815. That was not true. The North Vietnamese had arranged that the hon. Member should go as a private person whose views, they believed, were broadly consonant with their own. They underlined this by granting him, not an official visa, but a personal visa as opposed to a Government permit.
      This was emphasised again when Mr. Murray, the Foreign Office official who accompanied the hon. Member, was refused admission to Hanoi. I believe that the Prime Minister knew this when he spoke to the House of Commons. He knew that the hon. Member was there not as a Minister but as a private person, and yet he left the House of Commons with the impression that he had been

      1411
      received as a member of the Government. In my submission, that was misleading the House.
      The House was misled a second time on 12th July, when the Prime Minister gave the impression that in spite of reports which were all over the newspapers that the hon. Member had been rebuffed, there still were grounds—the Prime Minister said this from the Treasury Bench—for thinking that he would be received by the North Vietnamese Prime Minister. This, too, was misleading. The Hanoi authorities had already rejected the request for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to see their Government leaders. They had fobbed him off with officials. I believe that the Prime Minister knew this when he came to the House of Commons and gave us the opposite impression that there was still a possibility that his hon. Friend would be received.
      What was the story that the Prime Minister told us? He said that as he had entered the Chamber, he got a message saying that the aeroplane that was to bring back the hon. Member had been delayed. On these grounds, apparently, we were led to believe that the possibility was still open that the hon. Member would see the North Vietnamese Prime Minister. Of course, the physical possibility existed while he was still there, but it is to mislead the House of Commons for the Prime Minister to ask us to accept that, because an aeroplane had been turned back, in some strange way the refusal of North Vietnam to receive the hon. Member had been rescinded. Surely, that is asking too much and I must say here that the Prime Minister has misled the House of Commons in this matter.
      I must turn, because I undertook not to speak too long, to the other point which I want to make, namely, that it is time to look beyond the fighting and the war in Vietnam to the kind of peace settlement that it might at some stage be possible to have. There are four cardinal principles on which we can base the shape of the Vietnam to come, because in the end we must consider what kind of a Vietnam we wish to see when all the fighting is over.
      The four points are, first, that Vietnam must be independent, independent of any
      1412
      great Power, of China as well as of the United States, and independent, too, of any power bloc but guaranteed in its independence by the great Powers, because its independence is of no value unless that independence is agreed to, underwritten and guaranteed by the great Powers themselves. I would hope to see China as well as the United States one of the guarantors of the independence of Vietnam.
      I believe, too, that an independent Vietnam must be free to choose its own Government. If it should freely choose that that Government be a Communist Government, so be it. It is not for us to elect their Government for them. An independent Vietnam means precisely that. It must be free to choose its own Government.
      Mr. David Ennals: Can the hon. Member explain the point of the whole operation of going through the war to destroy Communism in the South if, in the end, he says that there can be free elections and the people can be allowed to choose a Communist régime? I do not see the purpose of all this.
      Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member is getting it all wrong. The fight in South Vietnam is not, I hope, an anti-Communist fight for any doctrinal reason. It is simply an effort, I understand, by the United States to prevent armed aggression taking over an independent nation. It so happens that this aggression is sustained by Communists, but I would take exactly the same view if the aggression was not Communist but came from any other part of the world. The purpose here is to resist the armed aggression against an independent nation. I am suggesting that the first cardinal principle in the settlement which we ought to envisage is an independent Vietnam, and, secondly, a neutral Vietnam.
      It is idle to suppose that the Vietnam of the future can belong to either side in the great struggle. It must be neutral, because we cannot seek to build an anti-Chinese bastion on China's southern border. That would act as a constant provocation and it could not be supported. But neither should there be built there an anti-American nation either. Therefore, it must be neutral as well as independent.
      The third principle which I suggest is that it must in the long-term be a unified

      1413
      Vietnam. It is impossible to imagine that South and North Vietnam can continue for ever to be divided at the 17th Parallel. Let us say, therefore—and I hope that in this we should have the support of the Americans—that in the long term unity must come.
      The fourth and last of these principles is that we must seek also to have a prosperous Vietnam. It is on this subject that we have heard so little, from either side of the House, about the proposal made by the President of the United States that his country is prepared, in concert with the Russians if they are willing, to put money and assistance into the whole valley of the Mekong—and this would benefit South Vietnam most of all—in an endeavour to improve the living standards of the people there. I believe that it is around these four principles—independence, neutrality, unity and prosperity—that the eventual settlement can be made. I hope that these are the kind of things to which the Government are willing to give their support.
      Finally, I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet place the Conservative Party behind a policy of seeking membership of the European Community. Will the Government spokesman tell us precisely what is the policy of his party and of the Government? Will he answer my final question and say whether, in the event of the possibility of our joining the European Community—and I accept that the possibility does not exist now—the Labour Party would accept it and join Europe?
      7.1 p.m.
      Mr. E. Shinwell: I have often suspected that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) wrote the speeches frequently delivered by the Leader of the Opposition. I have now concluded that the speech just delivered by the hon. Gentleman was written by the Leader of the Opposition. In principle, in general context, in extraneous matter, and especially in niggling and pettifogging criticism, there was similarity if not complete unanimity.
      The hon. Gentleman dealt with Vietnam and I am grateful to him for having concentrated on this tragic affair. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Mem-
      1414
      ber for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for his references to this subject. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that if we are to have a succession of foreign policy debates, from time to time we ought to confine ourselves to specific issues and to exclude extraneous matter. Today, we have heard about the Common Market, and I will speak about that before I sit down. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds did not wait for a reply to his question on this issue. I will tell him what Labour Party policy on the Common Market is. Nobody knows it better than I do.
      In the course of what for the most part was a thoughtful contribution, in market contrast to the somewhat strange, remarkable and innocuous speech of his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made a speech which, although I had many reservations about it, completely squelched the shadow Foreign Secretary. He now has only to utilise the several matches remaining in his match box to deal effectively with the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). Having disposed of both, I will wager with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale all the money in my possession—I cannot speak for the money in his possession—that the right hon. Gentleman will remain the Leader of the Opposition and I am glad to be able to say it.
      Before dealing with the subject of Vietnam, I want to say a word or two to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He made some remarkable statements in that speech, among them that we must be prepared to provide adequately—speaking in the military sense—to carry out our obligations. He also reminded us that to prevent subversion and to arrest the march of the Communists and the danger of Communist aggression, we must provide adequate aid to the under-developed countries. But he has suggested that to meet increased military expenditure—for that is what he implied—and increased military aid we must have a reduction in taxation. Apart from that, he made a first-class speech.
      Why does the right hon. Gentleman, who is an authority on foreign affairs, as I frankly admit, and who knows as much about that subject as anybody in this

      1415
      Assembly and who has had long experience, contradict himself when he comes to dealing with either military or defence matters and especially with economic matters? Why does he not leave it to the shadow Foreign Secretary to give us another exhibition such as we had yesterday afternoon?
      I want to concentrate on the subject of Vietnam, because that is the most important theme which has been developed in the course of the debate. Of course, it is important to talk about the United Nations and the 19th and 43rd Articles and the desirability of promoting a peace-keeping force. But I am concerned with what is happening now in this tragic affair and how to bring it to a speedy termination. That is the issue. If I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and to other hon. Friends whose opinions may vary with the opinions of other hon. Members, retailing the history of what has happened in Vietnam over the years will not assist us to reach a definite conclusion about promoting negotiations and bringing the tragic affair to an end. That is what we must aim at. That must be our objective.
      I have the very highest regard for the ability and quality of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, who argued that the Government had acted wrongly and improperly in not condemning the United States for bombing in Vietnam. His argument was that if the United States stopped the bombing there would be a possibility of promoting negotiations. If the bombing stopped—and no one would welcome it more than I, as we would all welcome it, however our views vary—the troops in Vietnam at the disposal of the United States Government would still be there. We would be left with conventional forces on both sides armed to the teeth and, although not engaged in bombing activities, still at each other's throats and engaged in the most merciless and ruthless activities in order to gain the upper hand. What would we gain by compelling the United States Government to stop the bombing?
      This reminds me of the argument which is so often used—that if we can prevent the use of nuclear weapons and rely on conventional forces, all will be well. That is far from being my view. If we are to promote disarmament, or even partial
      1416
      disarmament, it must be not only thermonuclear weapons, but all conventional weapons, which are often as deadly as nuclear weapons. However, the argument seems to run that way and it is a condemnation of Her Majesty's Government.
      Perhaps I might be permitted, as an ordinary back bencher, not a member of the Government, not receiving a Government salary, to say a word on behalf of my party. Is that regarded as unusual? It is my view that if one is a member of a particular party, one ought to be loyal to it. Is there anything strange about that? Since we have a Government—it is our Government, with no great majority—is there any reason why we should not, from time to time, extend our support to that Government. Is it treachery or treason to support one's Government? I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, and with no respect for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, must we have to listen to two speeches in succession condemning Her Majesty's Government?
      I do not bother very much with the hon. Member opposite. I do not think that he matters very much. But my hon. Friend does. He is a responsible and prominent member of the Labour Party. I am bound to say this, with the greatest good will, that by implication, if not directly, he was condemning Her Majesty's Government. Quite frankly, I do not like it. So I venture to put one or two questions. This is not the sort of speech I had intended to make. I had intended to deal with the hon. Gentleman opposite in proper style. I will come back to him some other time. I want to dispose of this difference that appears to exist on this side—not that we have never had differences before.
      In parenthesis, may I say that the differences we on this side have about Vietnam are nothing in comparison with the differences that exist on the other side about the leadership of the Tory Party.
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not want to be discourteous, but I wonder whether I might leave now? I have another engagement.
      Mr. Shinwell: Yes, and do not come back.

      1417
      I did not mean in indulge in that last remark. I am always glad to see the right hon. Gentleman, but he really asked for it. I do not know where he has gone. Perhaps we had better not make indiscreet inquiries.
      I want to ask a simple question. Suppose that, on behalf of the Government—and by implication, on behalf of the Labour Party, because it cannot be dissociated from the Labour Government, although some people appear in their speeches to do so, and I do not care very much for that—one of my right hon. Friends decided to denounce violently the United States Government for indulging in military activities in Vietnam, leaving aside the matter of bombing, which, of course, I dislike heartily. What effect would that have? Would it bring the war in Vietnam to an end? No. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is much too intelligent to believe that.
      I say this with great respect, and meaning no offence, but the argument is largely emotional. I am only too well aware that one must never quarrel with an emotion. This is the last thing one should do. One has not got a chance. I put the question again there, in order to have it answered, perhaps by my hon. Friends, perhaps by the Government representative at the end of the debate—
      Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
      Mr. Shinwell: No, the hon. Lady talks too much. I will not give way. The last thing I want to do is to be disrespectful to a lady, but I must continue.
      If Her Majesty's Government condemn America for engaging in military activities in Vietnam, for whatever cause, what would be the impact? Suppose the United States Government said, "Do not bother us. We like to hear from you from time to time. You are in the Alliance and you can borrow money from us, but that is all. Do not bother telling us that we have to stop. We simply cannot stop".
      Mr. Michael Foot rose—
      Mr. Shinwell: No I will not give way. It would upset the thread of my discourse. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was the idea."] Some time ago I was one of the representatives at the Anglo-American
      1418
      discussion at Bermuda. We considered this matter with American Congressmen and Senators. Almost everyone, without exception, was anxious to get out of Vietnam. They were pleading with us, asking for guidance. Could we find a way out? We could not. They cannot, and we have to face the facts of the situation.
      It could be settled if Hanoi said, "We are ready for negotiations. If you agree to withdraw the troops and stop the bombing we will agree to negotiations at once."
      Mrs. Anne Kerr: And get back to the Geneva Agreement.
      Mr. Shinwell: I beg my hon. Friends to listen. I am quite serious about this.
      If they said, in response to the appeals made, and the attempt made by the Commonwealth Peace Mission and by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that they were prepared to consider negotiations, and to get round the table on the understanding that the United States Government would take measures to withdraw troops and to stop the bombing, then it could be settled.
      I supported the Government in their initiative in asking my hon. Friend to go to Hanoi. He has been out there several times and has come back and reported. He has vast experience of that area, and they have a great affection for him there. But, if I may quote an old saying, "It's all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" It is all very well to be affectionate, but at the end of the day it did not seem to work. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) will understand that.
      This is the dilemma that faces us and the Americans. So my right hon. Friends in the Government took the initiative. What was wrong with that? Suppose they had not taken the initiative. What would the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition have said in his speech this afternoon? He would have said, "There you are, doing nothing, no initiative, no energy, no activity. What a crowd you are". When we do something the right hon. Gentleman uses the

      1419
      same language. We are doing something and that is the situation.
      I am facing facts. I do not believe that anything which can be done now would bring this terrible affair to an end. I think that some time ago the Russians might have intervened. I do not believe that they are refusing or failing to intervene because they are afraid of the Chinese. That is not the trouble. I suppose that I can be as much a foreign policy expert as anybody else and speculate on this subject. My view is that it will not worry the Russians very much if the Americans are humiliated. Why should it? Of course, if they are humiliated, there will perhaps be a better chance of rapprochement. On the other hand, if the Americans won and defeated the Vietcong, they might not be so anxious about a rapprochement with the Russians. These are speculations, perhaps idle speculations.
      The Government were right to take the initiative. They ought to be supported for taking the initiative, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale supports them in that regard. All that I ask is that the Government should not be condemned for failing to denounce in violent language the United States Government. Let me remind my hon. Friends that the Government asked for a cessation of hostilities. Let me remind my hon. Friends and the House generally that over and over again my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on the telephone to President Johnson making appeals.
      I inspired, perhaps—maybe it was suggested to me—an early day Motion supported by a large number of hon. Members. Mine was the first signature. It asked for a cessation of hostilities. We all want that. But how are we to bring it about? Not until they all begin to realise that war does not pay, that the damage is too serious and that the possibilities are too harsh and severe in their consequences will it be possible to bring the parties round the table to promote negotiations. But we must carry on and do our best. I do not blame my hon. Friends in the least for condemning the bombing and military activities. All that I ask is that they should not condemn the Government. That would be wrong.
      1420
      I follow the line taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) yesterday in what I thought was an excellent speech, and, in particular, the argument which he adduced. It was an argument which I ventured to use at the conference in Bermuda. I do not believe that these international problems will be solved by the United Nations. I wish that I could say otherwise, but I want to be realistic. On the other hand, I believe that as a result of an understanding between the two great Powers, the United States and the U.S.S.R., using their influence, with perhaps economic sanctions and economic aid, it is possible to make an impact on the world at large and to bring a number of other nations to their senses. Of course, there is no reason why they should not co-operate with the United Nations.
      I say in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)—perhaps he will read what I say, as I read what he says and have been doing for years—that it should not be forgotten that for more than 30 or, perhaps, 40 years he has been pleading the case, first, of the League of Nations and then of the United Nations in the cause of disarmament. Only now we hear that the Soviet Union has agreed to go to the 18-member disarmament conference at Geneva. That is how long it takes to get anything done.
      That is all I wanted to say—to defend the Government, perhaps in imperfect, harsh and blunt language, but meaning all of it. I wish to be loyal to the Government, to back them up and, at the same time, condemn, if anybody is to be condemned, those right hon. and hon. Members opposite who, instead of offering constructive proposals, have indulged in pettifogging criticism which is unworthy of them, and certainly unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition.
      Mr. David Webster: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give the official view of the Government on the Common Market. May I take it that his silence is completely official?
      Mr. Shinwell: The official view of the Labour Party on the Common Market is

      1421
      that this is not the time to talk about entering the Common Market. If ever we join, we can do so only on our conditions.
      7.25 p.m.
      Mr. Forbes Hendry: We have heard a most remarkable and very enjoyable speech from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). It was particularly remarkable and enjoyable to hear someone on the benches opposite say a word in praise of the Government—a most unusual thing. I have not heard a great deal of carping criticism of the Government's policy from this side of the House, except in some minor respects. I think that, generally speaking, we are in agreement with what the Government have done in Vietnam.
      There is a great temptation to follow the right hon. Gentleman's speech and to deal with these great matters of peace and war and the conflict between East and West. However, in a debate of this sort, which ranges very wide, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I deal with another subject. I feel emboldened to do so not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) but by the Foreign Secretary who today mentioned the position in the Middle East, particularly in the Arabian peninsula. It seems to me that that is a land of great promise and a very important matter for us to consider, especially in view of changes in conditions there.
      There has been a tremendous change in our lifetime of what were very poor overseas dependent countries which have become rich in some cases beyond the dreams of avarice and which have become independent and which, in addition to all that, seem to me to have had an injection of new leadership, or rather the old leadership has emerged with new facilities. There is in the Arabian peninsula, certainly in Saudi Arabia, very great leadership which is full of promise for the world at this particularly difficult time. In these difficult times, when we have wars and tensions in the world, we cannot afford to neglect any influence which will lead to world peace in however tenuous a way. The Islamic world and what has been happening there
      1422
      recently hold very great promise and are worthy of further study.
      In considering the Arab world and the Islamic world, we are apt to think, unfortunately, of two things: first, our relations with the State of Israel, and, secondly, our unfortunate relations with the United Arab Republic. Both these very important matters are becoming less and less important. In the Arab world there is a change of view on both subjects. People in the Arab world in general are becoming much more tolerant of Israel. They regard the Jews in Israel as their Semitic brothers, although they think it unfortunate, perhaps, that they are there. I believe that, with our good offices and those of the Americans, a great deal could be done to bring an end to the tension between the Arab world and the Republic of Israel. That is obvious not only in the action recently taken in Tunisia but in the general attitude in the Arabian peninsula itself in recent years.
      The other thing about our relations and those of the world in general with the United Arab Republic could, by the use of our good offices and the good offices of our allies, become less and less important. The recent visit of a delegation from the United Arab Republic can mean the beginning of good relations with that country. I feel that our friends in the Arabian peninsula—and we have powerful friends there—could bring the bad relations with the United Arab Republic to a satisfactory conclusion.
      That is not particularly what I want to say on this subject, because there is a very much more important side to the Arabian world than that. I would reflect on what happened recently at the Islamic Conference which took place in Mecca immediately after the pilgrimage this year. The initiative that was taken there this year under the presidency of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia was something new. In the past, the Islamic world has rather kept itself to itself, but this year there were official representatives of no fewer than 60 Islamic countries who attended the conference at Mecca. There were heads of State, Ministers and officials from 60 countries sitting down together, not only to discuss questions of religion but to discuss their common interests as members of the Islamic community all

      1423
      over the world, from Nigeria in the West to Singapore in the East.
      Quite apart from their common religion, it is a community in that to a very large extent they have a common language, though not possibly the vernacular language of each country. They have a common civilisation, and they have a great many aims and objects in common. It is remarkable that representatives from these 60 countries met at Mecca this year to discuss a great many problems of the world and many of the problems which are worrying us at the present time.
      A great deal of thought was given to bringing peace to Malaysia and Indonesia, for there are Moslems on both sides, and the heads of the Moslem States regard it as their duty to do what they can to bring peace to the world. There are a great many other parts of the Islamic world where there are hostilities at the moment, and there was full and complete discussion about a great many countries, including the difficulties in India, Kashmir and the possibilities of getting peace there, and about various African countries. I believe that this new approach under the new leader who has sprung up in Saudi Arabia could do a great deal for the peace of the world, and I think it is right that someone in the House should say so and that the Government should give every encouragement to the movement which has grown up in the Islamic world.
      There has been a change of leadership there, because the old régime has gone. I personally had the privilege of meeting King Faisal as his guest only a few months ago, and I know something of what has been happening in the country.
      Quite apart from the advantages of the Islamic conference in the way of direct diplomatic or semi-diplomatic relations between different countries, the effect of public opinion throughout the whole Islamic world, consisting of several hundreds of millions of people, could mean a very great deal. Its importance these days is not confined to the pilgrimage to Mecca. One is apt to think of the lone Arab on his camel crossing the desert for day after day and week after week to fulfil his ambition of going to Mecca. The ambition is still there, but the pilgrimage has reached unheard of proportions.
      1424
      This year, a total of nearly 1,400,000 people came from the ends of the earth—from West Africa, from East Africa, from Asia, from the Arabian countries themselves, from Malaysia, from Indonesia and from as far away as Singapore and Thailand. There was a tremendous international gathering of people discussing world problems amongst themselves. The political influence based on high moral principles that can be brought to bear can have a great effect throughout the world. There are 60 countries involved, and I feel that our Government should do everything possible to encourage discussions in this new movement in the Islamic world on behalf of the peace of the world.
      The world today is suffering a great deal from materialism, but this movement is based not so much on religion but on high moral principles. They are definitely anti-Communist in their attitude and a great deal of good could be done among the common people of these countries, many of them developing countries.
      What can our Government do to help? We have these countries, particularly in the Arabian peninsula. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has mentioned the Trucial countries, but the leader of the countries is definitely Saudi Arabia. It is a country of almost untold wealth and a comparatively small population which is doing its best to establish itself with its wealth as a modern civilised country, quite willing to exercise a great deal of leadership in the world. In that country, one finds not a lack of money but a lack of the ordinary common skills, and I feel that we should be doing a great service to world peace if we could do something practical in the way of aid to the Arabian countries—the Trucial countries, Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, and so on—to give them the skills which are basic to a civilised country.
      By that, I do not mean anything very elaborate. I do not mean anything at the level of universities, but ordinary courses such as nursing, the training of craftsmen, teachers and so on. I ask the Government if they would consider inviting people here from those countries for training as nurses and teachers. They are building hospitals there, but they are handicapped by the lack of nurses. They have schools, but

      1425
      the schools are a great disadvantage because of the lack of teachers and the lack of facilities for training teachers. In a small way, we could help a great deal by introducing these basic skills. After all, their influence is vast throughout the world, and by fulfilling their practical needs we could do a great deal for the peace of the world.
      A good deal has already been done, and it is not so long ago that a junior Minister paid a visit to Saudi Arabia to meet the King and find out certain of that country's needs. Practical results followed from that, and I suggest with great respect to the Government that it would be well worth while sending a senior Minister to go round the various Arabian countries, finding out what is happening there, what are their aims and objects and what can be done to help them, not so much in the way of money—although the Foreign Minister did mention making a grant and a similar grant from Saudi Arabia—but in the way of what we can do to bring them the basic civilisation which will be of tremendous importance to them informing an influence throughout the world based on high moral principles and a desire for peace.
      It is a matter of very great importance. It is possibly different from anything which has been said in the debate in the last two days, but in a world which is riven by warfare and potential warfare, anything we can do to encourage a movement for peace is well worth doing. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State referred to the Arabian Peninsula as a hinge for world power. With the proper influence and the proper assistance—and it is practical assistance rather than monetary assistance that is required—it could become not only a hinge but a focus of world power. By giving them practical help and assistance, the Government of this country could do a lot to help world peace.
      7.40 p.m.
      Mr. Ivor Richard: The fact that I am not in a position to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) seems to me to underline a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) last night—that it is quite farcical to have a grand tour d'horizon in a two-day debate in which we are supposed
      1426
      to consider not only South Vietnam, which is on everyone's lips, but the problems of Britain and Europe and of the Middle East and Islam and what we can do about them. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will forgive me if, for that reason, quite apart from my ignorance of the facts of which he spoke, I do not follow him in discussing the Middle East.
      This debate has been concentrated almost entirely upon Vietnam and I hope that I shall be forgiven for following suit. We have heard a number of remarkable speeches from the benches opposite, most of which have been misleading and a large number of which have had their facts wrong. We started off with a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who said, among other things, that the United States will win and wants to win. With the greatest respect to him, I say that that is a ludicrous assessment of the expressed American intentions, let alone an assessment of what people might think those intentions to be.
      I draw his attention, for example, to an interview given by Mr. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State, on television recently. Mr. Rusk said:
      "The United States is not going to capitulate, but, on the other hand, we do not want of ask for surrender by Hanoi or surrender by Peiping. All we are asking them to do is stop shooting at people at whom they have no right to shoot, and take home the people they have infiltrated into South Vietnam, including some of the regular North Vietnamese armed forces. The objective of the exercise is that Hanoi and Peiping learn to live at peace with their neighbours."
      Speaking of North Vietnam he said:
      "The United States has never undertaken to destroy that regime but simply wants them to stop bothering their neighbours. We hope very much that they realise, before this gets into much larger conflict, that this is the essential purpose."
      Looking at American intentions in the Vietnam situation one starts—and I appreciate that this may not gain favour among some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway—with a situation in which the Americans are not attempting to win a war by aggression but are trying to get a negotiated settlement from the situation that has arisen.
      It would not be for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) into some of the paths he trod. He made a brilliant

      1427
      speech. It had all those qualities that one has come to associate with him—brilliance of expression and a somewhat selective approach towards the facts. It was, indeed, a speech which I admired greatly and thoroughly disagreed with.
      However, one can and should say about his speech, that at one stage he said, taking up a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) last night, that we should be careful about judging the effect of the bombing of North Vietnam. I certainly agree that when we are 6,000 miles away we should be careful. But my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale then went on to attack the American bombing because, he said, it was killing women and children and had destroyed a hospital as well. But if one must be careful about reports of the effects of bombing one must be careful about reports from both sides.
      Mr. Zilliacus: It is a fact.
      Mr. Richard: I should like to see the proof. No doubt, if proof is forthcoming it will be presented to the House, judged objectively and weighed up. But if I am required to enter a caveat as to the version entered by one side that caveat must equally apply to the version of the other side. I am sure that most hon. Members accept that approach.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), unfortunately, marred his speech in the last 10 minutes by the absurd and unworthy approach which has been shown by the Opposition towards the Government's initiatives. He tried to spell out what he thought the future pattern of developments in Vietnam might be, and I agreed with a good deal of what he had to say. He talked about a Vietnam independent of major Powers, guaranteed by them—if possible, by China as well—and also about a united and finally prosperous Vietnam. Surely all hon. Members, whichever side of the main Gangway or the shorter Gangway they happen to sit, would agree that, in the long run, that is the objective of a settlement.
      I plead with my hon. Friends to look at the problem in relation to the facts as they are and not in relation to the facts as we would want them to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale
      1428
      said that we should get the analysis right. By all means. I am not going back over the last 11 years to trace out my own particular version of history. That would not be profitable in trying to look at the situation as it exists tonight, when we should look at it clearly, hardly, and objectively.
      The House is trying to debate British policy in relation to South-East Asia, so we should at least get clear what our position and our status and power in the area are. We should be clear that a resolution of this House, however forceful its terms, does nothing except represent an expression of the combined will of the House of Commons. It does not solve war in South-East Asia for the simple reason that we are not involved in that war.
      There are four salient facts about the British position.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend says we are not involved. Is not he aware that we have had a police mission there?
      Mr. Richard: I am obliged for that intervention. I appreciate that we have had a police mission there, but I would not have thought that it amounted to military intervention on the sort of scale that would give us a military sanction in the area. But I am not evading the point. I will come to it later.
      I was referring to the salient facts of the British position. First, our status in the area is limited. The sole fact is that we are one of the two co-chairmen of the 1954 Conference. It is noteworthy, and should be said, that we are one of those co-chairmen not because we happened to be neutral in the dispute in 1954, not because we were uncommitted or independent, but because it was impossible for the belligerents and the parties concerned to agree upon one chairman. Had it been possible to agree on one chairman I have no doubt that some uncommitted, neutralist, independent nation would now find itself saddled with the responsibility of trying to recall the conference, and not us. But because it was found impossible to have one chairman it was decided to have two—one from each side. The Soviet Union was picked by the Eastern side and Britain by the Western side. That is our sole and real status in the area.

      1429
      The second fact also concerns the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Our influence in the area must be limited by the fact that we have no troops there. Of course, that is not an argument for having troops there but it is an argument for saying that we cannot impose a sanction based on the withdrawal of military support. We are, therefore, in a much weaker position than we were in the Korean situation. At that time it was possible for the British Prime Minister to fly the Atlantic to make very strong and forceful representations to the American President because we had our own troops in the area fighting side by side with the Americans.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why do we want police in Vietnam at all?
      Mr. Richard: I have no idea why we want police there, but I accept the point put by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it detracts from the point I am making, which is that we have no military strength in the area sufficient to make the withdrawal of that strength a sanction, and that, therefore, we cannot turn to the United States and say, "If you do not do X, Y or Z, we will withdraw our troops." We have none to withdraw.
      The third fact of the dispute is that such influence as we have is diplomatic and resides in Washington. It does not reside in Moscow and certainly not in Peking or Hanoi.
      The fourth fact of the matter which, I suppose, I touched upon a little earlier, is the fact that Britain is not an uncommitted nation. Britain is not a neutralist State. We are one of the most committed and non-neutral nations in the world, and the sooner the party I belong to faces and accepts this basic fact, the better it will be for the foreign policy of the British Government.
      Given those four facts as I see them and believe them to be true, our influence can only be and our initiative can only be at best persuasive, and it can only operate within the framework of the Alliance, and it can only be to persuade the Americans to take some particular act we might think desirable in the long run.
      1430
      I turn to certain other unpalatable facts which have to be faced. What are the facts of the situation itself—not just of the British position, but of the situation?
      There have been on both sides breaches of the Geneva Agreement. Let us face this fact. The International Control Commission has found breaches by North Vietnam in infiltrating into South Vietnam and by South Vietnam in accepting American support, though I think one ought to get the record straight and remember that the condemnation of South Vietnam was, for acts committed after those for which North Vietnam was condemned.
      The second fact which I should have thought most people would have accepted is that American involvement is firm—it is committed. It is unlikely, to say the least of it, that we shall see the Americans withdraw unilaterally from this area either because the Americans themselves consider it desirable or, and even less so, because the British Government make a declaration that perhaps they ought to.
      The third fact in this area—and this seems to me again to be unpalatable but true—is that in 1965 we are in fact dealing with two Governments. There are just as much two nations in Vietnam to be dealt with as there are two nations in Germany which have to be dealt with. Therefore if one is attempting a settlement of the Vietnamese dispute in terms of a general agreement we have to look at the whole of Vietnam, just as, if one is trying to settle the German dispute, one is looking at the whole of Germany.
      With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, the cry of "Back to Geneva, 1954" is just as unrealistic about Vietnam as is the cry "Back to Potsdam" which divided Germany in 1945. The situations are not strictly comparable, but there is an analogy there which I think ought to be pointed out, and there is a lesson there which I think perhaps ought to be learned.
      Another fact is that there are only three possible alternatives to the conflict in South Vietnam. One is that the South Vietnamese and the Americans will win in the sense used by the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), the second is that the Vietcong will win and there is in the third one, which is the one we ought to support,

      1431
      namely that there should be a negotiated settlement in the area acceptable to all.
      In relation to this last alternative, the third alternative, this is where, if anywhere, the British Government can play a part, and that is why the attitude of the Opposition is so infuriating, carping at attempts to bring about a negotiated settlement in the area. One hon. Gentleman got up today and actually condemned the Prime Minister because, the hon. Gentleman said, he was a man who had ideas. This is precisely what I should have thought British foreign policy has been lacking for very many years—ideas and initiatives to deal with some of the difficult problems facing us. Now, when a British Government actually produce some ideas and take some initiative, the only response from the other side of the House is a carping, pettifogging type of criticism which would be unworthy of hon. and right hon. Members discussing at three o'clock in the morning some abstruse Clause of the Finance Bill.
      The steps we have taken so far have been mainly directed towards persuading North Vietnam and China that the position is one which ought to be settled by negotiation. I certainly do not propose to run through all the initiatives. They have been numerous, they have been abortive. It matters not whether the initiative has come from us or whether the initiative has come from an uncommitted nation or whether it has come from a group of uncommitted nations, the result has been that Hanoi and Peking have firmly refused so far to enter negotiations about the situation in South-East Asia. Indeed, when one notes that Yugoslavia is dismissed as a Titoist clique, as the Chinese news agency did, it is not encouraging. It is not helpful when one is trying to get negotiations going.
      These failures have taken place not because of any minor matters. Whether, for instance, the Commonwealth mission should be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or whether it should be chaired by the Liberal prime minister of another white Commonwealth Government seems to me to matter not a jot. The fact of the matter is that so far there has been no sign from the other side that they are prepared to negotiate at all, and I regret to have to say that one
      1432
      must, therefore, viewing it against the background of the facts which I have presented and which I think are accurate, anticipate that the present American build up in Vietnam will continue, and that one must expect them to try and hold their present military position at least till the end of the monsoon.
      It may be necessary to withdraw from the coastal areas, it may be necessary to fortify towns. I know not, but I am convinced of this, that if the military situation is allowed to deteriorate further from its present state, then the hope of a negotiated settlement in that part of the world seems to me to be very limited indeed. One would hope that provided we—I say "we", and I am falling, perhaps, into the same error as some of my hon. Friends—the United States can in Vietnam maintain its present military position till later in the year one would hope that by then the North Vietnam Government would be in a more receptive frame of mind.
      What should Britain's posture be? I should think that the only posture we can take up is the one the Government have already taken up, one of watchful concern. What we are saying is that we do not like the situation any more than anybody else, but it is not of our choosing, it is not of our creation; it is something which we believe ought to be settled, and we will do everything we can to see it is settled. If later on this year we get to the state in which the military position in Vietnam is held by the United States then negotiations may become possible, and at that stage it becomes very useful to consider the form and scope of those negotiations and the precise part which Britain can play.
      There is a terrible tendency, too, in this whole debate about Vietnam, whether inside this House or outside of it, to forget South Vietnam. We tend to concentrate on the bombing in the North, we tend to concentrate on the Vietgong, we tend to discount completely the expressed intention of the South Vietnam Government. I believe that the South Vietnam Foreign Minister has been rather like one of our more static civil servants. He has remained in office despite the fact that his political leaders have changed repeatedly, but he has maintained a pretty firm attitude as to the sort of form the negotiations ought to take. He has said firstly, that North

      1433
      Vietnam must withdraw its troops from South Vietnam.
      Secondly, he has proposed and has accepted that what the South Vietnam Government call friendly forces—in other words, the United States—should withdraw, and, thirdly, that there should be effective guarantees of Vietnamese peace and independence.
      This last point, I would think, is absolutely essential if a firm, final and lasting solution is to be reached. We tend to forget, when we talk about the lack of stability of the South Vietnam Government, that theirs is a nation which has been fought over for some 25 years. It is a little difficult in that situation to expect the precise forms of democratic government we should like to see exist.
      I am not suggesting that the present South Vietnamese Government is one which I should like to see in office. Nor am I suggesting that I agree with everything that it says, but let us accept that it is high time this unhappy nation was left alone by all people to get on and decide its own future.
      I have one final word to say about the North Vietnamese attitude towards neutrality. Neutrality has been spoken of as a possible solution for both North and South Vietnam. It has been suggested that unification, neutralisation and international guarantees would be a hopeful step in settling the area. But to get that far one would have to have a rather drastic change of heart on the part of the North Vietnamese Government.
      For example, we were told, I admit in a rather obscure speech made in Havana last year by the head of the permanent Vietcong delegation to Cuba, that for North Vietnam neutrality would be a step backwards, but for South Vietnam it would be a step forward. This does not seem to be a realistic basis on which to start talking about the possible neutralisation of an area, even though it is backed by effective international guarantees.
      I conclude with a quotation which I think it might be worth noting. In a recent television interview on "Panorama" the late Adlai Stevenson, when talking about what has come to be called the Davies Mission, said:
      1434
      "Well it is my understanding that Mr. Davies' mission to Hanoi was in an effort to explain to the authorities in North Vietnam what the purpose and objectives of the Commonwealth mission were, and we have generally supported, as you know, the purpose of the Commonwealth Mission which is entirely consistent with some thirteen or more initiatives that the United States has taken and many of them with the co-operation of the United Kingdom to bring this matter to the conference table. I don't think we can afford to leave any stone unturned if you believe in peace."
      I should like the Opposition to note those words.
      "And certainly we do. And certainly you do, and certainly I think most of the civilised world does and it doesn't want to see this war escalate. President Johnson has so repeatedly said we don't want any larger war. We want to see this thing resolved and resolved as quickly as possible, as a fair and honourable peace, a just and honourable peace that will enable these people to determine for themselves their own future."
      That is the position of the Government. It is a position which I hope all hon. Members can support.
      8.3 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Blaker: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in adding my name to the list of people who have pleaded that we should be able to devote more time to debates on foreign affairs and that we should be enabled to debate one subject at a time. Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish to speak about Vietnam. I do not propose to follow the question raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the rôle of the British police mission in South Vietnam. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will reassure his hon. Friend about that, but I have a certain knowledge of that mission, having served in Indo-China for two years. It is an extremely small mission, I believe its numbers can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and it is devoted entirely to peaceful purposes.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why should the British taxpayer pay for it?
      Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman should address that question to the Treasury Bench.
      Sir Cyril Osborne: Why do we have police in South Ayrshire?
      Mr. Blaker: I wish to consider the problems of Vietnam in the context of relations between Russian and the West. In his very interesting speech the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) queried the basic facts about what is going on in Vietnam. I did not get a very clear picture of what the hon. Gentleman thought the facts really were, but, so far as I did get an impression, it seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman was fundamentally wrong.
      I served with a British Embassy in Indo-China for two years, and I believe that the basic facts are as follows: As the Government have said, since 1959 the authorities in Hanoi have been waging a ruthless and single-minded campaign to convert South Vietnam into a Communist state. In 1959, when this policy began, there were, I believe, about 700 Americans in South Vietnam, none of whom was an active combatant Service man.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway may ask, "Where is the evidence for the claim that this is a ruthless policy directed from Hanoi?" There is, of course, a good deal of published evidence but the difficulty as far as these hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned is that most of it comes from American sources, and I dare say they will claim, although I do not, that it is likely to be biased. I would remind them that at the time of the Cuba crisis in 1962 many people were asking, "What is the evidence for the proposition that the Russians, as the Americans claim, are installing missile bases in Cuba directed against the United States?". There were cries of, "Where do we get this evidence?". The person who proved it was Mr. Khrushchev who, after a few days' delay, said, "I will withdraw these missile bases from Cuba". Thus, when we hear doubts about the value of American evidence of what has been going on in Vietnam, let us remember that example.
      There are, however, various other pieces of evidence which confirm the validity of the statement which the Government have made, and which I entirely accept. There are, for example, the circumstances at the time to be considered. Why did this aggressive policy on the part of the North Vietnamese start in 1959? It started then for two
      1436
      reasons. First, by then the North Vietnamese had come to the conclusion that they were not going to succeed in taking over South Vietnam in a peaceful way by elections. Both sides were, of course, to blame for the fact that elections were not held in 1956 as they should have been, but that is a factor in the timing of North Vietnamese policy.
      The second reason was that by 1959 the Diem Government which had been in control in South Vietnam had registered tremendous successes with their policy of pacification. A few years before the South Vietnam countryside had been dominated not by the Viet Cong, but by other armed bands such as the Cao Dai and the Hoa Hao about which we used to read. By 1959 the South Vietnam Government had succeeded in pacifying the country and were looking forward to greater prosperity. That was a situation which the North Vietnamese could not tolerate because they saw the prospects of their taking over South Vietnam disappearing. They saw the prospect of greater pacification and greater success for the South Vietnamese Government, and that is why they intervened.
      If hon. Members are doubtful about these North Vietnam tactics, the next piece of evidence lies in the Communist writings about subversive guerrilla warfare, and I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale cannot have done his homework, and cannot have read these basic Communist documents about guerrilla methods of subversion. If one looks at the campaign which the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese authorities have waged since 1959, one sees that it is a classic example of the evolution of subversion as preached in the doctrines of the Communist experts on that subject—forced recruitment, forced indoctrination, the creation of village cadres, the smuggling of illicit arms and, above all, terror.
      I want to mention one case, of which some other hon. Members are aware, as an illustration of the exercise of terror as a weapon by the Vietcong. It is an extremely well authenticated case. There is no doubt of its truth. The Vietcong occupied a village, the head man of which, they thought, was showing too little sympathy to them. They brought him and his family into the main square of the village and in front of his eyes disembowelled

      1437
      his wife, cut off the limbs of his children. They then emasculated him. Terror is the classic means which, among other factors, has brought success to the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese. This is what is so often described by people who have not sufficiently studied the situation as a spontaneous uprising of the Vietnamese people against the Fascist South Vietnam Government.
      There is no doubt that the National Liberation Front and the Vietcong contain some genuine nationalist members who are not indoctrinated Communists, but there is also no doubt that the control of the Vietcong is exercised by the Communist Party in Hanoi and, as we have seen in many other parts of the world, it is quite possible for a liberation movement of this kind to have a predominance in numbers of genuine Nationalists but, all the same, for its policies and ultimate objectives to be directed by the Communists.
      It is worth asking ourselves what would have been the position in South Vietnam in recent years if this ruthless campaign had not been conducted against South Vietnam from Hanoi, through the Vietcong. I believe, as the Prime Minister implied yesterday, that the revolution could have been contained. South Vietnam would not have been a perfect country—very few countries in that part of the world are. No doubt there would have been inefficiency in Government, and the elections would not have been conducted on lines that we would like to see. There would have been some corruption and instability. But there would not have been the constant governmental changes every few weeks and the situation of grave crisis which we now see. In fact, in those circumstances South Vietnam would have been very much like many of her neighbours.
      But we must deal with things as they are. I have painted this background, but I do not mean to imply that we should resist negotiations. I would be prepared for talks to take place between the West and the Vietcong, because we must accept the present situation. With respect to the Foreign Secretary, I believe that he said that initiatives in foreign affairs should not necessarily have flamboyance. He said that the processes of peacemaking should often be laborious. The criticism that I would make—and I shall
      1438
      be accused of carping—about the mission of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to Hanoi, and about the Commonwealth Peace Mission, is that they were flamboyant and that too little laborious work went into their preparation.
      There is no doubt that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's mission to Hanoi failed. The Prime Minister yesterday expressed the hope that something might come out of it in the long run. Have we any reason to believe that it will? Whom did the Parliamentary Secretary see? We were told by the Prime Minister that he saw the head of a department in the Foreign Ministry. The Prime Minister suggested that it would be somebody equivalent to Sir Paul Gore-Booth, Permanent Head of the Foreign Office. I think that the Prime Minister has it wrong. If he were the head of the North Vietnam Foreign Ministry that would be right, but he was merely the head of a department in it—somebody equivalent to what I would have been if I had remained in the Foreign Service. I would not have considered that I was treating a Minister of a foreign Government very respectfully if I were the only person to receive him on such an important matter. It would have been quite possible for the Government to make contact with North Vietnam in some other way. The Prime Minister has said that there are no diplomatic contacts. That is true. But would it not have been possible to make contact with Vietnamese officials—and that is all that we have done—through our respective missions in Peking? Could not our Chargé d'Affaires in Peking have talked to the North Vietnamese Ambassador? Could not this have been done in some other country where North Vietnam is represented? The argument that there are no diplomatic contacts needs some searching examination.
      The Foreign Secretary asked what harm could have been done by the visit of his hon. Friend to Hanoi. I think that it may have done some harm. It may have made it more difficult for Britain, next time, to be listened to with respect in Hanoi. There is the danger that next time the North Vietnamese authorities will say, "Last time, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Pensions came, we chose him. They did not insist on sending a Foreign Office Minister. We refused a visa to the official

      1439
      he wanted to bring in to advise him, and he had talks only with one of our middling civil servants. This is the weight that we attach to Britain. That is the way in which they are prepared to be treated." So next time we shall find it more difficult to persuade North Vietnam to take us seriously.
      What about the Commonwealth Mission? There can be no reason for surprise that none of the Communist countries would receive a Commonwealth Mission which was to be led by the Prime Minister, because, as has been pointed out by Peking and Hanoi, he is committed to the American line. He reaffirmed that commitment this afternoon. Would it not have been possible to set on foot a Commonwealth mission with a different composition which might have been acceptable to Hanoi or Peking—a mission consisting of the Prime Minister of Nigeria, the President of Pakistan, the President of Tanzania, and perhaps the Prime Minister of Canada—although he might have been too controversial, but less so than our Prime Minister? One criticism that can validly be made against the handling of this Commonwealth Mission by the Prime Minister is this—that his desire to make sure that Britain was in it and, thus, his desire to get the limelight, removed any chance that it might have been acceptable to the Communist side.
      This Mission, too, has failed. It is remaining in being, but it is very doubtful whether it will ever be called upon to do anything. If one has a failure of this kind one may find it more difficult next time to take a successful initiative. The Prime Minister has talked about his strategy of movement in foreign policy. Certainly there is lots of movement, or the appearance of movement, but there is not any progress.
      In these circumstances, what should the British Government do? I am in broad agreement with most of what has been said from the Government side, by speakers like the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) and the hon. Member for Barons Court. It is absolutely right that we should keep open the possibility of negotiations, though I am doubtful whether this is the time to press further initiatives on the North
      1440
      Vietnamese. As has been said a number of times, they are unlikely to be responsive for several months yet. Secondly, so long as the Americans pursue their policy of carefully controlled response to Communist aggression, we should back them up. There are several reasons for that. The first is that, contrary to what the Government believe, I think that Hanoi is well informed about British politics. They have followed very closely and with a high degree of sophistication what goes on in this country and in America on matters of this kind. Their decision whether or not to push on with their military methods or whether, perhaps, to agree to negotiation will be influenced to some degree by the amount of solidarity they see between Britain and America, and inside Britain and inside America, on this subject.
      The second reason for backing up the Americans is that, I believe, the only way the Communist side might be brought to negotiations is that they will in due course—not necessarily at the end of this rainy season: we may have to wait longer than that—realise how determined and powerful are the Americans—how much more powerful than the French, which is the comparison the North Vietnamese are fond of making, and much more able to stay than the French—how much more capable they are in all those respects of avoiding losing the battle on which they are engaged.
      Thirdly, there is the effect in South-East Asia. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln said that the more he looked at it the less impressed he was by the domino theory. He explained these remarks by saying that the other countries in South-East Asia differed in religion and history from South Vietnam. That is true, but, with respect to the hon. and learned Member—whose speech I listened to with great interest—in this context these factors are not relevant. One should not over-estimate the importance of the difference in religion in a matter of this kind. I ask hon. Members to consider the case of Ceylon, which is Buddhist and has strong Communist parties, or cases much nearer home, like those of Italy and Czechoslovakia. It is not things like religion and history which will determine whether or not South-East Asia crumbles if the Americans are defeated in South Vietnam.

      1441
      It is not even a question of humiliation, which was a point made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire yesterday. Perhaps it is good for people to be humiliated now and again. That is not the point. The point is that, if the Americans withdrew, or if they were defeated, the rest of South-East Asia would say to themselves something like this, "We thought that the American Seventh Fleet and their tremendous resources were going to prevent South Vietnam going Communist. It has not worked, America is revealed as a paper tiger." Therefore, they would start reinsuring, as individuals and as countries, with the Communist side.
      The danger about the American policy in South Vietnam is that it may make it more difficult to achieve a further détente between the West and Russia. I should like to put to the House a thought on that subject which has not been mentioned. The Prime Minister said yesterday that we cannot assume that, because of the rift between Peking and Moscow, Moscow will be bound to come over to our side. I entirely agree with that, but there is something else to bear in mind in considering the long term relations between the West and the Soviet Union. It is that it is essential. if the West is to have really friendly relations with Russia—which is what we all want and hope for in the long run—to demonstrate to Moscow, as much as to Peking, that subversion of the classic Communist kind does not succeed.
      It is also essential to demonstrate that the continuation of such subversion by any Communist country is inconsistent with really good relations with the West. I believe that the Russians, in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, are still pursuing the campaign of subversion which we heard much about a few years ago but which now tends to be forgotten. I should be grateful if the Government would confirm that that is the case, that Russian subversion is going on all over the world in the same way as Chinese subversion. It is not acceptable, in the long run, that Russia should say, "We are prepared for a détente with the West, but we want to have a special arrangement by which we can carry on subverting non-Communist Governments."
      1442
      That, I think, is another reason why the Americans are right to pursue their policy of controlled response. I believe that the Americans understand the importance of their relations with the Soviet Union. That is why they sent Mr. Harriman to Moscow, a decision which we all welcome. That is why they recognise the importance of pressing on with disarmament. That is why, I hope and believe, they recognise the importance of obtaining some agreement, if we can, on United Nations finances and Article 19.
      I hope that we will press on with all these things. I believe that the fact that the Russians are agreeing now to the resumption of the disarmament negotiations proves that we can continue to work for a détente with them while pursuing the present policy in South Vietnam.
      8.27 p.m.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want, first of all, to deal with a special point mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). I became interested in our police mission to Vietnam as a result of a question put to me by a member of the Government one day in May, when he asked, "Did you read the Daily Mirror yesterday with the account of what the British police said to the correspondent of the Daily Mirror?" This was the first time I was aware that we had an active police mission in Vietnam.
      I turned to the Daily Mirror of 11th May, 1965, and I came across a feature article by a correspondent, Donald Wise, who apparently is the Daily Mirror correspondent in Vietnam. It was published under the heading:
      "British bobbies hit at 'brutality' in Vietnam".
      I am not aware that the Daily Mirror has any propagandist axe to grind about Vietnam. I read this article as coming not from an apologist for any point of view, but from a journalist who was apparently there on a fact-finding mission. Mr. Wise described an interview with half a dozen British policemen. These are not ordinary policemen; apparently they are experienced police officers who were seconded to this mission two or three years ago. They talked frankly to this correspondent, so he said, and he gave the names of the police

      1443
      and their years of service. Between them they had 125 years' police service in Nigeria, Cyprus, Malaya, Kenya and Tanganyika. The article contained the sentence:
      "And they are sickened by what goes on here".
      One would think that these police officers were very experienced and tough characters. They went on to speak of the South Vietnam Government, and one of the remarks which they made was:
      "Prisoners and suspects are killed as casually as swatting flies, but no record is kept of who these people are."
      Apparently the British police did not agree with the Vietnamese police. The article contains two columns of descriptions of the views of these police, who complained bitterly about the methods of torture employed by the South Vietnam Government and expressed the wish to be brought home.
      I put a Question to the Under-Secretary of State, who answered it and promptly agreed to find out the facts. I understand that he communicated with the ambassador in Saigon, that the police were interviewed and that they explained that they had conversed with this reporter but that they had made none of these statements. That seemed to me an extraordinary thing. I fail to see why an experienced journalist would risk his reputation in stating these facts when they were so liable to be contradicted. For my part, in spite of contradictions from the ambassador at Saigon, I still think that this journalist, who is a responsible journalist, told the truth about this matter without any exaggeration at all.
      The hon. Member said that there were only six of these police now in Vietnam, but the advisory commission has apparently been there for three years and the head of this mission, independently of the evidence given by the other police, has also expressed his point of view in an interview with the Evening Standard. The surprising thing is that these police officers are apparently being paid by the British Government. Why? If the South Vietnam Government are so incapable of running their affairs that they cannot run a police force of their own, it is understandable that they should apply to us, but why should we send them to South
      1444
      Vietnam free of charge? According to the Answers which I have received, the chief of this mission was there for three years and was paid over £22,000. I should like an explanation from the Foreign Office why they think that we should keep this police mission there at present.
      Very little information is contained in the Answers which I have received. In my most recent Question I asked whether the Foreign Secretary would give details of the aspects of police work on which the British Police Advisory Mission in Saigon advise the South Vietnam Government. I was told in reply that police training and procedure, civil disturbance control and various other police tasks were now the civil aspects of counter-insurgency. Counter-insurgency? That is a new one on me. I have heard of counter-revolution, but apparently this new thing, counter-insurgency, comes under the control of the Government.
      We are told in the latest information about the most recent Government of South Vietnam—and I understand that there have been about a dozen Governments in about as many years—that the Prime Minister there is a great believer in Adolf Hitler and has expressed the view that what Vietnam wants is not one Hitler but six. Is this not a peculiar counter-insurgency Government to be supporting? I would like a plain and specific answer to the Question which I asked because I want to know why we are paying these police officers in Vietnam who are supporting what is presumably a Fascist Government.
      Mr. William Yates rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I want this information from the Foreign Office, not from the hon. Gentleman. He is not in that Ministry yet.
      The situation I have described is peculiar, particularly when it is remembered that we are constantly being told that we need policemen here. When one listens to the Home Secretary dealing with the problem of crime prevention one understands that we do not have enough policemen. Despite this, we are sending them to Vietnam. At present the Home Secretary is preoccupied with bandits who attack vehicles and steal mailbags not even as far away from the House as

      1445
      Kingsway. Prisoners have escaped from Wandsworth Gaol, yet the British taxpayer is generously providing police for Vietnam. I suggest that the commonsense thing would be to bring them home, even if somebody in Washington would be upset about it. The best thing would be for these gentlemen to be brought home and, if necessary, their headquarters could be set up somewhere near the City of London.
      We have had an interesting debate and to me today's part of it has been more enjoyable than yesterday's. From all points of view it has been a good debate. The Leader of the Opposition was, of course, all out against Communism. He is naturally anti-Communist in Africa, Asia—
      Mr. William Yates: Scotland?
      Mr. Hughes: —and all over the world. If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) owned 60,000 acres in Scotland he would be afraid of Communism, too. Naturally the Leader of the Opposition is perturbed about Communism coming dangerously near to us and is alarmed that it may gain momentum in Africa. I am not disturbed about Communism in that part of the world. I have seen a little of it in China and whatever may be the faults and difficulties of the present Chinese Government—for which nobody, not even the Russians, have a good word to say at present—from the little experience I have had of seeing China. I suggest that it has a Government which is infinitely better than the Governments of the warlords and the bandits which preceded it.
      Why does Communism come in any part of the world? The conditions of Communism are a poor peasantry and an unemployed working class in the towns. China is a huge country, with a huge population and a vast number of villages. There had been the war, and then the Japanese invasion, and then there was this immense upsurge of revolt. One of the things the Chinese did was to get rid of the landlords. They got rid of the usurer, the banker and the pawnbroker, and the landlord went at the same time.
      Naturally enough, that is why the Opposition get alarmed. I do not want
      1446
      to see Communism come into this country in the same way. I want to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition peacefully retired. I do not want to see him hurt or injured in any way. I would be content if he were left for the rest of his life to carry on with his salmon fishing and other peaceful avocations, with his 56 farms taken over, perhaps, by some public body.
      I mention this because in all these countries where Communism comes we have a landless peasantry, half starved, and the inevitable revolt. One thing one notices in all Chinese propaganda in literature and on the television screen is that the villain is usually the landlord who has seduced the wife of the landless peasant. This is crude propaganda, but it happens to be basic fact. The result is that feudalism in China collapsed, and the present strong, steady central Government are, on the whole, in spite of difficulties, building up the country, and the standard of living and the economy are rapidly developing.
      I am not alarmed about that. I am not alarmed at the possibility of Communism coming in Vietnam or in Africa. We have heard some searching questions asked about what the Americans would do if they won the war in Vietnam. They would have to repair the bridges. They could not send back the landlords to the rice fields. They would need a planned economy very much like that which the Chinese have under Communism. I fail to see why we should be so enthusiastic about taking the side of the Americans in this war.
      The Prime Minister yesterday made a very interesting speech. As he spoke, I was reminded of a rather famous saying by the late Mr. James Maxton, the Clyde-side M.P. Jimmy Maxton was speaking on the street corner. He was interrupted by someone who, thinking that he was getting dangerously orthodox, said, "Jimmy, you're trying to ride two horses at the same time." Jimmy looked at him reproachfully, and said, "Politicians who can't ride two horses at the same time are not worth their place in the bloody circus." That is what I was thinking about the Prime Minister. He is an exceptionally good performer, but yesterday I thought he was trying to ride two horses at the same time when, unfortunately, they were not like the ones referred to by

      1447
      Jimmy Maxton but appeared to be going in opposite directions. That is a very difficult thing. It is difficult to retain one's peace and stability. The Prime Minister defends the bombing, on the one hand, and then, on the other, he talks about initiating peace. These two lines of policy cannot be reconciled. That is my difficulty in understanding the policy of the Government.
      It is possible to believe in the bombing and to believe in American policy and one can carry that through to its logical conclusion, but I do not see how anybody can work the two lines of policy at the same time. I shared the perplexity of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr), who asked how it was possible to reconcile the appointment of a Minister of Disarmament and a super salesman for armaments at the same time. That is my perplexity and dilemma. Although I am a loyal supporter of the Government, I believe that these views are those of a large percentage, if not the majority, of the supporters of the Labour Party. They are perplexed about this support of American policy and they are anxious about the future. I hope that this will be cleared up.
      I am an old friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and I was very pleased when he decided to go on his mission. It is surely not for the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) to complain about an unorthodox mission. I wish that the hon. Member were present. He objects to a mission to Ho Chi Minh, but the hon. Member went on a successful mission. He went to Yugoslavia and helped to establish Tito Communism in that part of the world. Therefore, I fail to see why he should object to an unorthodox mission.
      We have heard a lot of talk about humiliation. It will be a humiliation if the Americans are forced to withdraw. A lot of Americans are feeling a sense of humiliation because they are there at all. The most encouraging thing that is happening is that they are asking in different quarters of America how American traditions and ideas of democracy can be reconciled with this. It is only 200 years ago since George Washington was leading the Vietcong guerrillas
      1448
      against the British Government. All that the Vietnamese, the Chinese and these people who are fighting for their independence are doing is acting under the inspiration of Washington.
      I do not see any humiliation in admitting when one has gone wrong. General de Gaulle is a big man. In spite of the fact that I disagree with him, General de Gaulle appears to me to be one of the biggest men in world politics. General de Gaulle has recognised the inevitable. He came out of Indo-China. It was a humiliation to the French.
      I remember being at the Geneva Conference at that time as the correspondent of Tribune. My most vivid memory of that Conference is of the gorgeous peacock outside the building of the United Nations. It was a very discourteous peacock. It fluttered on to the bonnet of Mr. Molotov's car and used it as a lavatory, at which the Western journalists were delighted; but the next car was American and the peacock showed its impartiality by doing exactly the same thing to it.
      I remember that at that time there was similar talk about the humiliation of the French. But it has been good for the French to be humiliated, because they have come out of Indo-China, which has become Vietnam, and they have come out of Algeria, and six or seven years ago nobody thought that that was likely to happen.
      President de Gaulle takes the realistic view that the days of colonialism and imperialism are over and that the white race cannot hope to lord it over the whites and the yellows and the blacks. When he speaks out about the Americans, he expresses the view not only of the French but of intelligent people all over the world. As one of the Prime Minister's loyal supporters, I would have been more pleased if he had taken up a similar attitude and had expressed the view of many British people and had spoken out against American policy in Vietnam.
      We have our own experience. We came out of Suez. The Americans did us a good turn by helping to stop the madness of Suez. We have come out of Africa. We are rapidly abandoning our rôle of liberators of other countries. If the Americans were frankly told that by the

      1449
      British Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend would be expressing the view of many people throughout the world.
      The real reason why we are so friendly with America and do not criticise America is that we have financial difficulties because of previous over spending on, among other things, armaments. We are indebted to the pawnbroker and we cannot be uncivil to the pawnbroker. That is about the root of it—that we cannot afford to criticise America too much, because if we take a different line on Vietnam, it will mean a financial crisis for this country. This is not 30 pieces of silver but 300 million and for that we are abandoning the moral leadership of the world.
      We seek our truths in the newspapers and I am distressed that the Prime Minister is President Johnson's poodle. That is humiliating. We have to consider it from Hanoi's point of view and when Hanoi sees the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions coming along, naturally it says, "Here is the pup of the poodle". That is the irreverent way in which the cartoonists of the Communist world regard us. They are putting rather crudely in their caricatures what Dean Acheson said bluntly a few years ago. So when my hon. Friend arrived in Hanoi they did not bring out the red carpet. I am told he was in conversation there for 16 hours, and I gather that the conversation would not be on one side. I am not in favour of conventional diplomacy, and I would like to see a White Paper of exactly what the North Vietnam people whom he met said about the whole situation. The more information we get the better.
      Supposing this thing had been in reverse. Supposing it was suddenly discovered that there was arriving in London the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for Outer Mongolia to tell us that he wanted to solve a problem in Malaysia. What would the Foreign Office have done? Would it have put out the red carpet and introduced him to the Prime Minister? No it would have said, "Go and have a 16-hour talk with the junior Whips". I am not sure whether he would have learned just as much from the junior Whips as from the more exalted personalities in the political establishment.
      1450
      I hope that we are not at the end of the Commonwealth Mission. It cannot go to Hanoi, it cannot go to Peking, but it can go to Washington. Why should it not go to Washington? The mission is composed of a very large and representative collection of people who have firsthand experience in liberating their countries from foreign domination. President Nkrumah has been in a British gaol—I do not know how many of them have not been in British gaols. They are exactly the people to go and tell the American Government that the time for carrying on the traditions of eighteenth century British Palmerstonian imperialism is over and that it is time they learned sense.
      It is a curious thing but I am, for what reason I do not know, suspected of being anti-American, because I take an international outlook. Yet one gets some very anti-American sentiments being expressed in some very strange quarters these days. What is the gentleman who is occupying this new position of super arms salesman going to do? Fight the Americans. What was the whole key to the criticism of the Government's action in doing away with TSR2? Hon. Members got eloquent because the Americans were trying to destroy our aircraft industry.
      So I say that instead of this happy unity with America there are grave economic contradictions. American industrial policies and our policies do not coincide. If the Americans are trying to sell arms in different parts of the world, and we are competing with them, then our interests are conflicting. I have heard a lot about the American alliance in the course of this debate. I have never believed in it. One of the most interesting moments in my life in the House of Commons was when I was a Teller against the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I have never believed in N.A.T.O., and now even Lord Montgomery does not agree with N.A.T.O. A new generation has arrived, wanting new ideas and new diplomacies, not the traditional deal of the Foreign Office. They are not going to be content with the old shibboleths, the old platitudes that have served as foreign policy during the last decade.
      I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who has just returned to the Chamber, do not be so

      1451
      afraid of Communism. Communism is coming anyway—not perhaps the kind of Communism which has come in Russia, in China or in Vietnam, but a planned economy which means to make an honest man of the landlord. In another 10 or 20 years, if we have not destroyed ourselves in an atomic war, we shall see tremendous changes in the structure of society in every country. I believe that in 20 years' time every country will be a country in which the land and the industries are used for the benefit of the people. The right hon. Gentleman will have to accept the inevitable.
      However, like the Leader of the Opposition, I want to see a world free of war. I have one beautiful quotation from a speech of his which I want to read now that he has returned. I have been a student of his speeches—and today's was not the worst. I have suffered, too. I do the right hon. Gentleman the credit of believing that he is just as sincere in trying to avert a world nuclear war as I am; but he is on the wrong lines. When he goes to Moscow, he makes good speeches. That is the benefit of sending our great politicians to Moscow: they breathe the rarefied air of a far-off Communist country. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who speaks for the Opposition on foreign affairs, has been there recently. It has done him good. I did not notice it in his speech yesterday, but I have hopes.
      I remember going on a historic mission to Moscow with Mr. Macmillan. He made wonderful speeches in Moscow. He made two wonderful speeches at the British Embassy in which he lauded Mr. Khrushchev as the prophet pointing to the promised land. I took it down, and I brought it home. He owes me a debt of gratitude.
      When the Leader of the Opposition went to Moscow, he gave two talks. One was at the signing of the nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I do not begrudge him any credit in contributing to the signing of that treaty because anybody who does anything about ridding the world of the possibility of nuclear war deserves our approbation and thanks. The right hon. Gentleman appeared on television. He was very popular on the Russian television. I have a copy of the speech which he made on television. It was a
      1452
      very good speech. He quoted from my immortal constituent. He quoted wrongly, because he said:
      "It's coming yet, for all that,
      That man to man the world o'er shall brothers be."
      It was a notable utterance on his part.
      However, the real gem was in his television talk. He said, "We want to do much more than co-exist. We want to co-operate". Russia is a Communist country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about co-operating with the Russians. If we can co-operate with the Russians, I do not see why we cannot think of co-operating with the Chinese. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "Each of us can do good things separately, but if we do them together they will be very much better, and we believe that if we work together it will be good not only for each of us but for the whole world as well."
      That was a quotation from the best speech that the right hon. Gentleman has ever made.
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman encourages me. May I send him a lot more of my speeches?
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wrote a biography of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have already gone through a period of extreme torture, but I am prepared to learn. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Russians are now respected. They have been admitted into the diplomatic circle. We must keep in with the Russians, but the right hon. Gentleman is in order to abuse the Chinese.
      I believe that the Chinese are going to make a bigger success of Communism than the Russians have, because they are more subtle and they have the capacity of infinite wisdom. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be too much afraid of this bogy of Communism and to realise that Communism has come to stay. We have to live with it, unless we are going to be wiped out together.
      Underneath all this debate, there is a misunderstanding of what goes on in Russia, of what goes on in Vietnam and of what goes on in China. These people are human beings, like ourselves. We have to co-operate with them and do our best to rid their minds of the horror and torture of war.
      9.6 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Thomas: I can agree unequivocally with one of the things that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said during the course of his somewhat long speech, namely, that it has been a very good debate. It will be agreed by all sides that in the last two days we have had extremely thoughtful speeches on the very important and serious topics involved in a debate on foreign affairs. It would be right, too, that I should reiterate what has been said, not just on this side of the House, that there are so many subjects in foreign affairs that we should have more debates so that we can concentrate on more subjects in the singular for instance, I think it is important that we should have a day to debate Britain and Europe.
      An Hon. Member: You have had one.
      Mr. Thomas: We have not had a day. We had a short debate in which one or two hon. Members took part, mainly from this side, and it would be important for us to have a short debate to discuss the important implications of Britain's European policy, because it is possibly the most important branch of foreign affairs and one that should be discussed in depth.
      I have not a great deal of time, because I wish to give as much time as possible to the hon. Gentleman who will be replying. Therefore, I will concentrate not on all the subjects I had hoped to raise, but on the one or two important matters which have been discussed.
      It has been my belief in the few years that I have been associated with foreign affairs—and I know that many right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Government side share it that British foreign policy ought to be based on a broad measure of bipartisan consent and agreement surpassing the sectional and domestic differences between us. If there is to be a credible foreign policy, there must be the semblance of some unity of purpose. This debate has to some extent been hopeful—and I emphasise the words "to some extent"—in this respect. The main subject, inevitably, has been Vietnam, and the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary have made it quite clear that the Government stand firmly with the United States in the double aim of halting communist aggression against South Vietnam
      1454
      while at the same time seeking a just political settlement which will end the savage conflict and enable the people concerned to work out their future in freedom and in independence. It has been made quite clear by speeches on this side of the House that this is our view, however much the Government's policy on Vietnam rouses the anger of their own Left-wing guerrilla forces.
      I am entitled to say—and I do not do so to embarrass the Government—that we have had an indication of the real divisions which exist on the benches opposite on foreign affairs. There was the forceful speech by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It was delivered with great sincerity. It was harshly critical of the Government. We had a delightful speech from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, which was also critical of the Government's policy. I noticed when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was speaking that there were 45 hon. Members on the benches opposite and that 26 of them were nodding agreement with him. That indicates the division.
      I said at the outset that in order to have a credible foreign policy we must have some unity of purpose, and I say this to the Government: I admire the way in which the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have remained firm throughout the debate for the policy they know its right and which I know will be warmly welcomed by all our allies and all our friends in the world who are extremely concerned about what Britain's attitude should be to these world problems.
      The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made many references to what is happening in South Vietnam. I noticed that he said nothing about what has happened in North Vietnam since partition along the 17th Parallel. He made no mention of the totalitarian régime which was so quickly established there after 1954. He did not mention the thousands of peasants who were tried before the people's courts for offences of which they were not guilty and that hundreds were killed. He did not mention the peasant revolts in North Vietnam which were quickly and brutally put down by the totalitarian regime.
      It is quite clear that the policy of North Vietnam from 1954 onwards was

      1455
      that in time the South would collapse because of internal subversion. After 1954 the Vietminh left behind trained people and armed caches ready to assist in that subversion, and that was why in May 1959, when the South Vietnam Government did not collapse, it was decided that there should be an all-out guerrilla war with the objective of overthrowing that Government. It was planned, supported and directed from the North.
      Up till then, as the Foreign Secretary said at Oxford, there were only 700 American advisers in South Vietnam. Since then, approximately 20,000 officers, soldiers and technicians have entered South Vietnam from North Vietnam, mainly through Laos. Again, as the Foreign Secretary said, there is possibly a regular battalion of the North Vietnam Army operating about 200 miles south of the border, and possibly many other units as well.
      The campaign carried on in the guerrilla warfare by the Vietcong, assisted from the North, was well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), with his intimate knowledge of that part of the world. It is a campaign of indescribable terrorism. I remember when I was at the Foreign Office being given facts, which I would not like to describe to the House, about how villages were intimidated and examples made of head men and their wives and families before the rest of the villagers. If that is supposed to be loyalty, it is loyalty which is only obtained by abject fear. Up to 1959, it must be remembered—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will remember it—and, indeed, right up to the American air attacks in 1964, and to the beginning of 1965, really, there was no question of North Vietnamese territory being infringed or threatened. The story is a simple one. It is a story of direct, unprovoked aggression from the North.
      Mr. Michael Foot rose—
      Mr. Thomas: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way? I was given very limited time.
      Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving
      1456
      way. If he says this was a case of direct, unprovoked aggression, why was the matter never brought to the United Nations?
      Mr. Thomas: That is a point which the hon. Gentleman made and which, I agree, is a valid point. It is a far more valid point than other points he made. In our assessment of what should be our attitude today I think that one should not be too much dominated by post rights or wrongs. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) said yesterday, one could debate ad nauseam whether American policy has been consistently right or wrong since 1954, whether the various South Vietnam Governments were good or bad, whether there have been breaches of the Agreement, whether the matter should have been referred to the United Nations.
      One can debate all these sorts of things. The real question is, where do we stand today? I think there can be no doubt about that answer, and that the answer, which is the general view of the House, is this: we stand firmly behind the Americans, the Australians and the New Zealanders in what they are seeking to do, and, whatever may be the fringe issues, the situation in Vietnam is simply this: it is a military confrontation between aggressive Communism and non-Communism, the outcome of which is of vital interest not only to South-East Asia and the Far East but to every country in the non-Communist world, and in particular to us here in Britain.
      The Prime Minister yesterday summed up the situation by making nine propositions with which he invited agreement, and with the first eight of them I entirely agree. The first one was the horror and misery of the war. Of course, one agrees about that. The second one was that the war carries a danger of possible escalation. One must obviously agree with that, though I think that in many ways the danger could be exaggerated. The third was the poisoning of East-West relations. Again, that is obvious. The next was that a peaceful solution could not be found by military means alone. I agree with him again. He said that to get a political solution meant getting round a table. Of course, that is obvious. Another was that the majority of the

      1457
      Geneva parties are willing to have negotiations. Again, that is so. He said that the key to the situation is in Hanoi, and we have no normal diplomatic channels in Hanoi.
      It is with his ninth proposition, which was this, that we should seek all means, orthodox or otherwise, to penetrate Hanoi and to persuade them to negotiate, that, I must say, frankly, I have some real reservations. I am sure that the idea of having any means orthodox or otherwise can be a serious danger, and I will say why. I think that repeated attempts to contact Hanoi by any means could lead to misunderstanding; misunderstanding in Hanoi; in particular, misunderstanding as to the strength of American determination to remain in South Vietnam till a peaceful solution is found.
      It has been said, and frequently in this debate, that the Americans cannot win. That may be so. But they cannot lose. They cannot afford to lose, and indeed they are determined not to lose. I think that the North Vietnamese, together with Peking, will in fact negotiate, but they will agree to do this only when it is to their advantage to do so. First, they must come to a realisation that they cannot win. Despite what they told the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, it may be that they realise that today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said, he cannot credit that they are so remote from outside information, but it is true, as has been said, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), that during the monsoon period the Vietcong may well make substantial gains and consolidate their position and their influence in the south.
      For some time the Vietcong has been in control of villages. South Vietnamese forces and American forces have been forced back to the towns of which there are about 300, and these towns are now, in effect, defence posts. It could well be that after the monsoon, when the Americans and the South Vietnamese forces are in a position to redress the situation, Hanoi will call for talks, although I doubt it, but it may well be that they will when they are in an advantageous position, and I think we should be very careful
      1458
      about showing too much immediate enthusiasm if this be so.
      I do not need to remind the Government that the Americans seek nothing for themselves in Vietnam. All that they seek is a just, lasting and peaceful solution by agreement, but we must not forget that they are there representing the interests of those who condemn Communist aggression and are determined that it shall not be seen to succeed. It is therefore of vital importance that any attempt by Her Majesty's Government to negotiate talks, or any responses to overtures, should be made only after the closest and fullest consultation with the United States, and that is what I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) meant when he said yesterday that the object here is to achieve peace but not appear to be trying to achieve it at any price.
      I have only seven minutes left and I therefore regret that I shall not be able to refer to some of the matters to which I wanted to refer, in particular to matters relating to the United Nations. I should, however, like to say this to the Foreign Secretary. He made a statement today about Article 19 and said that he would not be able to give us any details because the matter was still under discussion. We were told by the President, Mr. Quaysa-Sackey, that the General Assembly was to meet on 1st September, and the Prime Minister said that they intended to be present then. Does that mean that the General Assembly will be meeting with full voting procedures? I would welcome an answer from the hon. Gentleman who is to reply on whether a decision has been taken on abandoning the principles of Article 19, because by so doing we are abandoning the firm stand which both sides of the House have taken for some time.
      In the few minutes that I have left, I should like to refer to the proposed Disarmament Conference which will be convened on 27th July. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to present this proposed reconvening as a new breakthrough. This, of course, should have happened many months ago. I think it will be agreed that the United Nations Disarmament Commission in New York was no substitute for this 18-Nation Conference. No progress was made in New York. In fact, the conference was used

      1459
      only for polemical speeches and there was very little indication of any progress at all.
      The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said yesterday that he found it encouraging that the Russians were taking the initiative. They were apparently willing to re-convene on 20th July but we found it more convenient to go on to 27th July. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we were not ready. I am willing to accept the explanation made last night by the Minister of State about administrative difficulties, but were the Government taken by surprise on this? Was this initiative taken very suddenly by the Russians? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister says that we took the initiative.
      The Prime Minister: I did not say that. I said that it was not a Russian initiative.
      Mr. Thomas: I find it very difficult to understand the Prime Minister when he speaks sitting down. I thought he said that we took the initiative. Whoever took the initiative, let us be glad that the conference is convening. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the Minister of State responsible for disarmament has spent months working on a treaty of non-dissemination. Why has he been working for such a long time on this treaty? Such a treaty is presumably based on the Irish Resolution of 1961, and that treaty, in draft, was approved, with various suggested amendments, and had been so for some time when he assumed office. On 23rd July, 1964, in a speech which I made at the E.N.D.C., I emphasised what had been said time and time again before, both in this House and in the Disarmament Conference, that we were entirely ready to negotiate a non-dissemination agreement as soon as possible. I called upon the other members to conclude a non-dissemination agreement then and there.
      The question that we can properly ask is: why should there be a delay now? As far as I can gather from what the Prime Minister said yesterday, the matter is still being discussed. There may be some doubt whether or not the treaty can be put before the Disarmament Conference. Many of us would like to know
      1460
      why there has been this delay. The Prime Minister talks about initiatives. Is this one of the new initiatives?—because it is something that we have been working for for many years.
      I am not blaming the Minister of State—I know the difficulties—but we have a right to point out that not one of the measures mentioned by the Prime Minister yesterday and the Foreign Secretary today is new. Many measures which once they advocated very strongly—when they used to criticise what we were doing when we were the Government—appear to have been dropped. The Minister of State responsible for disarmament started his political career in a truly spectacular way. Few, if any people, can claim to have become a Minister, a Peer, a Privy Councillor and a member of the Labour Party all in twenty-four hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is talent!"] One might call that a truly liberal accumulation.
      Perhaps it is not surprising that since then the momentum has not been maintained. Perhaps that is one reason why the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who, in his very interesting speech yesterday, described himself as "Pain in the Neck No. 1", said that he could hardly be more disillusioned with the Government at the way things had gone. I am not disillusioned. I know the difficulties that there are in disarmament. I appreciate that the Government are now face to face with reality.
      But let us be honest about this: the noble Lord the Minister of State who is responsible for disarmament has been on half-time for the last nine months. Let us hope that he will have an opportunity in the Disarmament Conference to work full-time. Hon. Members on this side of the House are happy to give the Minister our fullest support in the measures that they will be putting forward at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference. We could hardly do otherwise, because all the measures were initiated or supported by us when we were in office.
      I say this to the Prime Minister—and I mean it, because I can remember things which were said before this Government came into office: arms control and disarmament are of such vital concern to mankind that they should not be brought

      1461
      into the field of party politics. Do not exaggerate for party advantage initiatives which should be shared not only by both sides of the House but by the whole of the Western Alliance. If ever a matter of foreign affairs demanded a bipartisan approach, it is disarmament.
      The hon. Member the Minister of State has told me that he can let me have two or three minutes more. In conclusion, therefore, I agree with the measures which have been put forward, in particular, the two most important measures—the agreement on non-dissemination and the comprehensive test ban treaty, involving the banning of underground tests. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell me whether the Government have any information on the points which were put forward by Sir John Cockcroft and mentioned earlier in this debate, that is, on-site inspection. Have we made any advance on this?
      As to the first measure, an agreement on non-dissemination, that is something on which we cannot afford to delay. Matters have now reached such a head that, as William Foster, the head of the United States Disarmament Agency, said the other day, a delay, perhaps even of months, could mean the difference between success and failure.
      About a dozen countries now have the industrial and technical knowledge to construct and test a nuclear weapon of their own. All they need is the political decision to go ahead and do it. In the course of a few years, nuclear weapons will have become easier to manufacture, smaller and relatively inexpensive. The dangers of nuclear spread, if unchecked, are horrifyingly apparent. Pressures already exist on India to manufacture, following the Chinese explosion. If India did so, Pakistan would follow. We know the technical "know-how" which exists at the moment in Israel. If anything like that happened there, one knows what effect that would have on the Middle East.
      A treaty of non-dissemination, by which the nuclear Powers agreed not to transfer their weapons or control of them to non-nuclear countries while at the same time non-nuclear countries agreed not to acquire these weapons or their control or to manufacture them, must be made before it is too late. It is so much in the interests of all countries. In particular,
      1462
      is it in the interests of the Soviet Union and the United States of America?
      It is very much in the interest of the Republic of Germany, because it would help greatly in the relaxation of tension in Europe. I hope that the Republic of Germany is one of the first non-nuclear countries to sign such a treaty. Such a signature would in no way jeopardise her full participation in any arrangements like the M.L.F. or an A.N.F. which might eventually be agreed on. It is quite clear that none of those agreements could ever involve proliferation, because it would not be acceptable to the countries at the heart of such an agreement.
      If this agreement is signed, as Lord Chalfont said in an admirable speech the other day to the Foreign Press Association, some form of security by way of collective guarantee or other measures might be given to the non-nuclear signatories. This is a difficult thing, but it is something which we shall have to think about. These measures are important for the future of mankind and for the peace of the world. I wish the Government well in what will be happening in Geneva. The conference may start with polemical speeches, but it is a good thing that the countries are entering into a dialogue. I hope that, in the course of time, there will be a not-too-late result.
      9.33 p.m.
      The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): There is one matter on which I can be 100 per cent. bipartisan with the right hon. and learned Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas) straight away, and that is in his assessment of the two-days' foreign affairs debate which is just finishing. It has been an unusually good debate, wide-ranging, constructive and at times extremely lively. It is I think, the last debate on foreign affairs which is likely to take place for some months. All the various suggestions which have been made from both sides of the House during the debate will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.
      Having started on a bipartisan note, perhaps I may pass for a moment to a more partisan note and congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if it does not embarrass him too much, on the excellent speech which he has just made. We have been listening to the

      1463
      speeches in the debate with a great deal of interest and we have decided that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to add himself to the contenders in the leadership race. I do not know quite what odds my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would give him, although I feel that they would be rather shorter than those which he would give the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
      A great many subjects have been raised. Some of them have already been dealt with by my right hon. Friends and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I will try to concentrate on the new points which have been raised during today's debate. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned this afternoon the importance of saving foreign exchange costs within N.A.T.O. On this matter, I have an announcement to make to the House. It has just come in and I am sure that the House would like to have it at the first opportunity.
      The House will be very glad to know that a protocol has been signed this afternoon by the Federal German Foreign Minister and our Ambassador in Bonn to give effect to the agreement on offsetting the foreign exchange costs of maintaining British forces in Germany arrived at by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury during his talks in Bonn last month. The text of the Protocol will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. I hope that the House will share the Government's view that this agreement represents, as my right hon. Friend said to the House in his statement on 1st July, a satisfactory settlement of an issue of the greatest economic and political importance to both our countries.
      The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) mentioned the need for greater co-ordination in the work of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. He gave as extremely relevant examples the situation in relation to Spain and Gibraltar and also in South-East Asia. This is a matter which we regard as being of very great importance, and I hope that the House will excuse me if I say a word or two about the way in which the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office are being reorganised, modernised and co-ordinated to meet the challenge of changing times.
      1464
      Much of this is the result of the work of the Plowden Committee, which included my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), both of whom took part in the debate. Their recommendations were accepted by the previous Government and are being implemented by this Government. As the House knows, the integrated Diplomatic Service came into being on 1st January. It combines the previous Foreign Service and Commonwealth Service, as well as the Trade Commissioner Service.
      This is part of a many-sided effort by our two external affairs Departments to co-ordinate their activities for maximum efficiency. The constant aim is to see the world as a whole rather than in separate compartments labelled Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Affairs, while preserving the advantages of the arrangements for special Commonwealth relationships. Cross-postings between foreign and Commonwealth capitals, although they must necessarily begin slowly, have become a normal feature of the integrated service. For example, the new Permanent Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office comes to the Foreign Office from being our High Commissioner in India.
      In practical terms, there are eight Departments at home, dealing with the administration of the new service, which are fully integrated and serve both the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary. One particularly important example of the way in which we are trying to carry this progress forward is the amalgamation of the separate information departments, on which work is now proceeding. Our overseas information services were never more important than at present, when foreign confidence in our economy is a vital factor in our plans for the future and the very foundation of an effective foreign policy.
      Sometimes, the Foreign Office is accused of being cloistered and cut off from the world. From my brief experience of the Foreign Office, I do not think that this is either a fair or an accurate charge. During recent years there has been an increasing cross-fertilisation between the Foreign Office and business

      1465
      and commerce and also an increasing exchange between the Foreign Office and universities and other similar institutions. In addition, the Government have in many ways been seeking to open the doors of the Foreign Office and the minds of all those inside it to the ideas of outside experts. My right hon. Friend the "Minister for Disarmament" has set up an advisory committee in connection with his new Disarmament Research Unit. My noble Friend Lord Caradon and I have sought more informally to consult widely among those concerned in academic, public or journalistic life with United Nations problems.
      Perhaps I am entitled to add that these various steps of modernisation are taking place in one of the least modern buildings in Whitehall. Hon. Members and members of the public who visit Foreign Office Ministers in their offices—with their varying degrees of stately splendour should not be misled. For the great majority of those who work there, the Foreign Office is a slum—a rather squalid, inefficient and overcrowded slum. It is a building which was designed for 300 desks more than a century ago, but which now houses seven times that number. The Locarno Dining Room—that glittering relic of the age of Curzon—has long been carved up. Visiting foreign diplomats coming to see a Foreign Office official may find himself sitting in a little cubicle facing one-third of a marble fireplace.
      Mr. A. Woodburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members have found when travelling abroad that some members of our Consular Service, who have been abroad for perhaps 30 years, have lost touch with what is going on in this country? In this new modernisation plan, will my hon. Friend see that the members of the Consular Service are kept advised on all political and other developments that take place in this country so that they may be up to date?
      Mr. Thomson: I will look at my right hon. Friend's suggestion. The main part of the Consular Service is integrated with the main Diplomatic Service and goes to and fro between London and overseas posts in the normal way. I mention this because there will be a particularly warm welcome for the decision which was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building
      1466
      and Works about the redesigning of the Whitehall site, including the rebuilding of the Foreign Office—Commonwealth Relations Office block.
      Meantime, despite the difficult working conditions which I have described, the morale in the Foreign Service remains impressively high. There have been criticisms in recent months about the overseas commercial services, which my hon. Friend the Joint Minister of State dealt with that last night. I content myself with the observation that if the average level of hard work and devotion to duty were as high in the export industries as it is in the Foreign Service we would have fewer worries than we have about our balance of payments.
      I was disappointed at the speeches of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and the Leader of the Opposition and the fact that they adopted such a carping attitude towards the efforts which the Prime Minister and the Government have been making to get talks started about the Vietnam problem.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Conway made a great deal about the virtues of having a bi-partisan approach to foreign policy problems. Where this is possible it is certainly extremely desirable. I must point out, however, that the attitude of the Opposition during this debate, particularly towards the mission of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, has been anything but a bipartisan or helpful attitude.
      To be frank, I was astonished that the Leader of the Opposition, with his immense experience and knowledge of the impact that his words make overseas, should have said that this action might lend colour to the belief that the Government were interested in peace at any price. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman showed such an unimaginative approach to this attempt at unorthodoxy to try to get through to Hanoi and soften North Vietnamese intransigence.
      I can only think that it may perhaps be because of his earlier experience in politics. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, used to be a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain, who, as is well known, took the conduct of some of the most sensitive parts of

      1467
      our foreign policy out of the hands of the Foreign Office and passed them over to the Government's Chief Industrial Adviser of the day, Sir Horace Wilson. This drove the then Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, to resign and then we had the Permanent Under-Secretary retiring prematurely. I had hoped that the much more limited step which was put forward by my right hon. Friend—of sending my colleague at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Hanoi—might have gained much readier acceptance on the benches opposite, in view of the admitted difficulties of getting through to Hanoi.
      Certainly, I do not think that there will be any doubt that far from persuading Hanoi that we were interested in peace at any price, the staunchness with which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance put the position of the Commonwealth Peace Mission, and of this Government, has destroyed some of the illusions that, unfortunately, there were in that part of the world about the attitudes towards the problems of peace in Vietnam.
      There has been a good deal of discussion in this debate on the problems of disarmament, and particularly on the threat of the proliferation of nuclear arms. The Government have sought persistently for a reconvening of the 18-Nation Geneva Conference to discuss this particular disarmament problem. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of a Russian initiative, and wondered what my right hon. Friend was saving, we were merely remarking that this was not a Russian initiative but a long-delayed Russian response to repeated initiatives from the West, in that the Soviet Union has agreed to a resumption of talks.
      Our "Minister of Disarmament" has his draft non-dissemination agreement ready for discussion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether we were not making a great deal of this, and claimed that all that had happened was that we had taken over a draft non-dissemination treaty he had left behind, and the Leader of the Opposition made exactly the same charge. They are both wrong and the House should know how wrong they are.
      1468
      The fact is that there was not left behind in the Foreign Office a Conservative non-dissemination treaty. What was left behind in the Foreign Office was a draft American non-dissemination treaty which the Government to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman belonged were considering, and suggesting various amendments—
      Mr. Peter Thomas: That is exactly the same thing, because we exchanged treaties. We both drafted treaties on the 1961 resolution, exchanged them, and received the comments from one another. This was done two years before this Government got in.
      Mr. Thomson: I have looked very carefully into this matter, and I stick to the words I have used. Nor was this draft American treaty, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues were offering amendments, consistent with the Irish Resolution.
      That apart, we have been working on a new draft non-dissemination treaty, and the reason is very simply that the one we found in the files did not, in our view, go nearly far enough. I do not want to go into details at this stage, since it is still subject to discussion; sufficient to say that the proposals on which we have been working very hard are a great deal more effectively non-disseminatory than the kind of suggestions the previous Government had been discussing—
      Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Have these been agreed by the United States and our allies?
      Mr. Thomson: I said that I did not want to go into details precisely because the discussions on the matter are still going on in preparation for the resumed meeting of the Geneva Conference.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton and the right hon. and learned Member for Conway asked for information about the latest position in relation to a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our advice is that despite recent advances in seismological research it is still true that no detection system existing or in prospect will be able to identify all underground events with certainty, and that a small number of on-site inspections is necessary for the identification of nuclear tests underground. We hope that the Soviet Government will

      1469
      agree to join with us in discussions between experts to see whether agreement can be reached on the technical problems involved.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked if we could give any information about the statement by the President of the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Quayson-Sackey, that the Assembly would resume on 1st September. This information is perfectly correct, but the Assembly that will resume on 1st September is the tail end of the present Assembly. This was a date agreed some time ago in order to receive the report of the Peace-Keeping Committee of 33. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are not yet in a position to give the House any further information on that matter.
      Enough has been said from various quarters during the debate to indicate that there are deep anxieties on both sides of the House about the many and complicated international problems that we face. There are sincerely held differences of opinion about how to deal with them. No Government or party within a Parliament can claim a monopoly of wisdom in these matters. I content myself by claiming for the present Government that we have tried to be patient peace-makers at the United Nations in overcoming the difficulties there, at the Disarmament Conference table, in Africa and in Asia. In the Rann of Kutch, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was notably successful as a peacemaker. In my view, he has received insufficient credit for his contribution to the avoidance of war between two great Commonwealth countries.
      In North Vietnam, the problem has proved much more intractable. The reason for this is that the North Vietnamese and the Chinese, although possibly not the Russians, still believe that there is more to be gained by fighting than by talking. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Peking, in a vivid and revealing phrase on the morning after my right hon. Friend announced the Commonwealth Peace Mission, called the Mission "a plot for peace". That is a startling charge to make in a world as dangerous as ours. We are, however, glad to plead guilty to it, as, I am sure, are most people in this House. We are plotters for peace
      1470
      and we are proud of being plotters for peace.
      Making peace, however, is more than ending war. It means negotiating conditions which not only end the present fighting, but prevent further fighting, otherwise one war might be bought off at the price of an even more destructive and horrible war in a few years' time. That, as we understand it, is the basis of the American position in Vietnam and that is why we support the Americans. They have stated that they are ready to withdraw when conditions have been created in which the people of South Vietnam can determine their own future. The Americans are ready to talk. It is the other side who are not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said that the Americans were not in their own continent, there being the implication—it certainly came out in other speeches—that this was building up a colour war in some way. I would only say that the Americans are there as the allies of the South Vietnamese and that we in this House, and particularly we on this side, have always believed in collective security. In my view, there should be no colour bar in collective security.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale also asked why the Vietnam situation had not been referred by the Americans to the United Nations in the same way as the Arab-Israel dispute was normally referred to the United Nations. The fact is that in connection with the Arab-Israel dispute there is an elaborate United Nations machinery on the ground. I only wish that the United Nations was on the ground in the same way in many other parts of the world, and peace would be a good deal safer.
      In South-East Asia, however, North Vietnam and China are not members of the United Nations [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] When the Americans referred the attack in the Tonkin Gulf to the Security Council, and when the Soviet Union invited the North Vietnamese to come to the Security Council, the North Vietnamese refused to attend. Who can doubt, in the face of this intransigent Chinese militancy, that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister

      1471
      said yesterday, a unilateral American withdrawal would have incalculable results, not only for Vietnam, but for Asia and, indeed, the whole world. Hanoi and certainly Peking have still to be convinced that military victory is impossible. It is, therefore, the sombre truth that fighting is likely to grow fiercer before the battlefield is abandoned for the conference table.
      Despite that, this does not alter our view that Communist China should be represented at the United Nations. It is a nonsense to have an international community without as its member one of the major countries of the world. I was asked about this. We recently informed the Americans that we should vote for Communist China's membership of the United Nations in the usual way at the forthcoming Assembly of the United Nations as the previous Government have done on other occasions. We would also like to see China associated with disarmament negotiations as soon as the right conditions can be created. China has, however, unfortunately at present, made it clear that she will have nothing to do with the Geneva Conference. She also rejected the idea, put forward last autumn by U Thant, that she might join in five-Power nuclear discussions.
      In the light of what I have said, the Government are entitled to take pride in these various British initiatives for a more peaceful world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, in a particularly notable and lively speech, we are entitled to some credit for these various steps which we have taken, but it is important, as the Leader of the Liberal Party emphasised yesterday and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington repeated today, that we should not exaggerate what it is possible for Britain to do in the modern world. In a spontaneous cri de coeur in answer to an interjection in the last foreign affairs debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary remarked that there was a limit to what we in Britain could tell other nations what they ought to do.
      1472
      We all have the painful task of adjustment to make to the changed British rôle in a very quickly changing world. In making it we are sometimes tempted—and this is true of those of us on this side of the House and I plead guilty to it as much as anybody else—to make the same mistake about the United Nations and to believe it to be capable of resolving problems beyond the capacity which its members are prepared in present circumstances to give it.
      In saying this, of course, I believe passionately that both Britain and the United Nations have a great deal to offer to the world. I am merely pleading for realism about some of the limitations imposed on us, especially in present economic circumstances.
      The patient peace-making of which I have been trying to speak relies in the end for its effectiveness on our national economic strength. Our ability to contribute to the United Nations, to help in closing the gap between the developed nations and the "Third World", to pay the costs of peace-keeping, to have a positive influence on world affairs—all these things are rooted in our economic strength.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rather lectured us this afternoon on the dangers of setting a ceiling for our defence expenditure, but it would be self-defeating and self-debilitating if we were to incur a defence bill which the economy itself could not stand. This would weaken our ability to play an effective part in international affairs instead of strengthening it.
      In one of his most famous phrases as Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin said that what he needed for a successful foreign policy was several million extra tons of coal. What we need today for a successful foreign policy is an extra £100 million of exports. Our nation's ability to contribute to a more peaceful world in the end will be decided not in Parliament, not in the Foreign Office or our embassies abroad, but in the board rooms and on the factory floors of British industry.
      Mr. Brian O'Malley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (MEMORIALS)
      Considered in Committee.
      [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]
      Resolved, nemine contradicente,
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will direct that memorials be constructed to the memory of the late right honourable Sir Winston Churchill, K.G., and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expense attending the same.—[Mr. Bowden.]
      Resolution to be reported.
      Report to be received To-morrow.

      GAS (BORROWING POWERS) [MONEY]
      Resolution reported;
      That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the amount which may be borrowed by the Gas Council and Area Boards under the Gas Act 1948, it is expedient to authorise such increases
      1474
      in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer, as may result from provisions of the said Act of this Session

      (a) increasing up to £1,200 million the limit imposed by Section 42(3) of the Gas Act 1948 on the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council and Area Gas Boards; or

      (b) consequentially increasing the sums which may be advanced to the Gas Council under Section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963.

      Resolution agreed to.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That the Proceedings on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Bill and on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Gas Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

  GAS (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  GAS (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

    Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS OF GAS AUTHORITIES.)
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, Clause 1, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "£900" and insert "£850".
    This short Bill seeks to give to the gas industry an alteration in its borrowing powers which were raised from the current £650 million to an ultimate of £1,200 million, with an interim of £900 million. Our Amendment seeks to reduce that figure, as I hope to show, to a more reasonable level. This additional borrowing has been found necessary by the gas industry to cover the capital expenditure in the period up to 1970, together with any other likely contingencies.
    While we on this side of the Committee welcome the fact that the gas industry has found itself in a position where it can expand, we nevertheless believe that the sweeping powers envisaged in this Bill should not be allowed to go through without additional parliamentary checks to make sure that the money is spent effectively. We are as happy as anybody that the gas industry has outstripped all the estimates which have been made for it. Only 10 years ago it would have been impossible to envisage the situation where we would be, in this House, considering an expansion programme on this nature.
    The National Development Council suggested only last year, when reviewing the growth rate of the industry, that in the current year the figure would be about 5 per cent. We now know that the growth rate has been about 8 per cent. At every corner of the industry one finds expansion and progress. On the sales side, not only in the actual quantity of gas sold, but also in the distribution of space heaters and central heating, one finds that great strides have been made.
    All of this we welcome, and in welcoming it we appreciate that additional
    1476
    funds are necessary. What really concerns us is the nature and the amount which it is suggested the industry should be able to borrow. If one looks at the excellent brochure issued by the gas industry, "The Growing Gas Industry", there is there set out the plans which the industry has, together with estimates of expenditure. If we look at page 15 of that brochure, we see estimates of expenditure forecast until 31st December, 1970.
    Table 3 shows that the forecast of the gas industry is not an interim figure of £900 million, but a figure of £830 million—£70 million short. This figure, which, in the Amendment, we not only meet but cover with £850 million, seems to us to be very reasonable. Page 16 of the same brochure says—and no doubt this will be touched on in a later Amendment—that the estimates on which those programmes are based
    "have been formulated with great care, taking into account market research".
    Therefore, we are supported in our Amendment by the words of the gas industry itself.
    During the Second Reading debate, the Minister said:
    "The investment of £830 million is substantial by past or any other standards".
    How right he is when we consider that the money which we are being asked to vote tonight is far in excess of that. We find ourselves in a situation in which both the gas industry and the Minister, having supported the figure of £830 million, are asking for an interim figure of £900 million. In his comments during the Second Reading debate on the financial objectives of the industry, the Minister said:
    "The objective for the next five years has not yet been agreed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 2001–2.]
    The substance of our case is simply this. We are being asked to grant to the industry very considerable additional borrowing powers. We accept that expansion is necessary, but we are very unhappy at the thought of making this very large grant without there being any parliamentary check between now and the ultimate period. Basically, we are asking the country to give the gas industry a very large blank cheque. My

    1477
    hon. Friends and I believe that further justification is necessary. At a time when the fuel industries are facing very considerable uncertainty, with new finds of natural gas, new methods of making nuclear energy, and when perhaps new forms for using existing coal resources can, we hope, be found, we are being asked to make this blanket increase. At a time when everybody on this side of the Committee and, I believe, in the country is looking to the Minister to provide a clearly thought-out fuel policy, this industry is to be given these sweeping increases in borrowing.
    Only last week I tabled a Question to the Minister asking him how many times the Fuel Advisory Council had met to discuss the possibility of arriving at a fuel policy. I was very alarmed to find that it had met only twice. It is suggested, I understand, that it shall meet again within the month. But, in view of the uncertainty in the fuel industry, and of the fact that no clearly defined ideas exist as to the relationship between the fuel industries, it is asking too much to grant an interim figure of £900 million without further check.
    Over the last 10 or 15 years, we have seen a shrinking in the use of coal in the manufacture of gas. From a 93 per cent. usage, we find today the situation where about 55 per cent. is the figure. If one listens to expert opinion and understands that perhaps that figure will fall at the rate of about 2 million tons a year, one may find by 1974 that the gas industry ceases to be a customer of the National Coal Board.
    With this sweeping and very real change in the whole basis of gas making, I believe it is unwise to give to one industry such wide powers without further control. We have heard recently of the very big write-off in the coal industry of £400 million and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee look forward to this money helping to make the coal industry effective and efficient. But the fact is that the money we are talking about tonight, if used, could be a very substantial part of the national income, and all we are asking is that the figure of £900 million should be reduced to something like the figure outlined by the gas industry itself.
    1478
    Later tonight we may be discussing another aspect of the gas industry in a Bill which deals with underground storage. I must admit to being disappointed when, in his speech on Second Reading, the Minister told us very little about the gas industry's plans in this matter. Indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) mentioned it in his speech, and I do not recall that the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with it at all. We have been told nothing of the plans which I understand are going forward for the use of crude oil as opposed to light petroleum distillate for making gas, and I was most interested to read in a comment in The Times of 15th July that the plan for using crude oil as opposed to light petroleum distillate is in an advanced stage.
    In that same article, one was told that the Lurgi plant, which is the method of making gas out of coal on which a lot of money has been spent, was described as follows:
    "But the Lurgi process is still an excellent one and a much modified pilot plant is operating successfully at Solihull. However, visitors leave with the impression that this is as much a political sop as a genuine research effort."
    The point I am trying to make is that, quite apart from the expansion which is taking place, a tremendous amount of technological advance is also taking place within the industry. A lot of new thoughts are coming into the general plans for the future of gas.
    I am suggesting to the Minister that it would be far better for him to reduce the figure of £900 million to the one that we have suggested, because it is not a question of stopping the industry from getting the money if it requires it, but merely seeing to it that, if the industry does require this very excessive addition, then parliamentary checks will make sure that we have an opportunity of discussing the matter further.
    I hope that our Amendment can be accepted, because I believe that it is a sensible one. It does not seek in any way to inhibit the gas industry. Indeed, it goes further than the suggestions that the gas industry has already made for itself. All we are seeking is to make certain that Parliament and the country shall have an opportunity of studying these matters as and when necessary.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): I want to understand the hon. Gentleman's case absolutely clearly. Apart from the questions that he has asked, do I understand that the main basis of his case is the figure of £830 million which is to be seen on page 15 of the brochure?
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is not. The main basis of the case is that we are being asked to vote larger borrowing than is justified as this stage and that the Minister himself referred to £830 million on Second Reading. Our suggestion is to reduce the figure to a level at which the country and Parliament may have an opportunity of discussing the future stages of development of the industry as they arise.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. David Webster: I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson). It is a very moderate Amendment and would carry out the principle, as he said, that Parliament should have adequate scrutiny of public expenditure.
    The gas industry is a very thriving nationalised industry and in the last few years it has taken big steps forward. We welcome these developments. There is nothing in the Amendment designed to prevent that type of expansion from continuing. In fact, it is well within the limit set down in the brochure "The Growing Gas Industry" and it is extraordinary that the Government should extend the industry's borrowing powers at this time.
    We have seen the changeover from coal to oil. In this connection, a number of hon. Members, doing their job for their constituents, spoke at length on Second Reading of their anxieties and about the switch over from coal to oil and to natural gas and Algerian methane. I will not mention hon. Members by name, for I do not see them here and as I did not give them notice I am not entitled so to do but they expressed their anxieties which are of a non-party nature.
    This is a non-party subject. It is a matter for the House of Commons. We wish to scrutinise the development of
    1480
    the industry and keep a close check on it. This is, after all, a five-year programme and it is right that we should keep within the limit so far set and not go beyond it at this time in the country's financial history.
    I do not want to go back to last October and November, when there were mutual recriminations about the sudden balance of payments crisis. I am Rapporteur on fuel matters of the Economic Committee of the Council of Europe. When we were discussing the raising of money for borrowing by this country, people said, "We will try to help you and to be understanding of your difficulties but we expect you to be responsible about this and not go on spending money without adequate scrutiny." We on this side are trying to make sure that this kind of responsible qualification is applied to the granting of immense sums of money to a nationalised industry.
    At the same time, there is the squeeze on the private sector through bank advances. Not very long ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the credit squeeze did not show immediate effect he would tighten the screw. Then, last week, he said that it would not be necessary for him to do so. There was a little flurry in the exchanges and the £ went weaker on that occasion. So the right hon. Gentleman felt fit to go to a miners' gala and say that if necessary he would apply a squeeze.
    But there was nothing in this to apply a squeeze to the nationalised industries. I must say that I congratulate the Minister, though I do not agree with him, on getting more out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than, apparently, did his colleague the Minister of Transport for new roads. We now have that Minister saying that he hopes to carry on the programme left to him by his predecessor but that the problem is to get the money.
    It is the duty of hon. Members to look to the priority within the public sector. I am not absolutely against the public sector. I want to have more expenditure on various aspects, but every time an hon. Member comes along with a proposal involving expenditure—say, a new hospital in his area, or something

    1481
    of that nature—he is challenged, or should be challenged, to say how he proposes the money should be raised.
    As a former member of the Select Committee on Estimates—which ceased, incidentally, to be the Select Committee on Estimates and became just the Committee on Estimates on the day I joined it—I have always felt it to be the duty of an hon. Member, when putting forward a proposal for public expenditure, to say how he proposes to raise the money, whether it should be by additional taxation or whether by curbing another form of expenditure. I should like to have a number of other forms of expenditure which I think should have greater priority than this, but I do not want to develop that, for I should be getting out of order.
    However, every one of us in this Committee is entrusted by his constituents with the duty of scrutinising the activities of the Executive and public expenditure, and it is for that reason that I warmly support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it, as it runs so much in line with the recommendations of the Chairman of the Gas Council.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It is necessary, I think, to repeat some of the arguments which were brought forward on Second Reading of the Bill, largely for the reason that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his winding-up speech, did not answer those points. He was far too busy keeping his eye on the clock, and on the possibility of getting a further Bill through, to deal with any care at all with the points which my right hon. and hon. Friends made on that occasion. I am sure that he will forgive us if we repeat some of those points, because they have not been answered here.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) moved his Amendment with great force, I thought, and everything I have to say is in support of what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) had to say. The point was well made by my hon. Friend that this increase from £650 million to £900 million, before the first order must be made, before any parliamentary check,
    1482
    as he called it, is brought in, is an increase of £250 million in the borrowing powers of the gas boards, and this is bigger in total than any given in the past by any Bill for borrowing powers. There never has been in any borrowing Bill as much for the gas industry as there is in this first step when the Minister has to make an order. For that reason alone we are quite justified in querying what is being done.
    I know that the Minister will say that the electricity industry has had its limit raised, first, to £3,300 million, and then to £4,400 million by the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, but I think that there are some very serious reasons why this Bill is totally different from that Act. We are now dealing with an industry which is changing, and which is causing very great concern, even among supporters of the Government, as to its future and as to what will be the raw materials which will feed it.
    We are living in an age of changing technology and all these unknowns as my hon. Friend described them. We do not know what will be its impact on coal. We do not know what the chances are of finding gas in the North Sea. We do not know what arrangements we will make with Holland, and what will be the future of methane importations from the Sahara.
    During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said:
    "Therefore, we cannot plan too far ahead. We ought not to commit ourselves to spending so much money on the importation of methane in a long-term sense, in view of the new scientific possibilities within our own country and the possibility of gas being found under the North Sea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 2022.]
    It is surely a warning to the Minister that such an eminent spokesman on his side of the House feels that this is too great a sum of money.
    I think that my hon. Friend spoke with considerable knowledge when he referred to the technological improvements and the technological uncertainties which the gas industry faced. As he said, hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about the future effect on the coal industry. I do not think that we on this side of the Committee want to inhibit the gasindustry, but the mere fact that

    1483
    its progress will have an effect on coal, and that this will cause serious social and other problems, means that we must have an opportunity to debate the matter in the House.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) put this very clearly during the Second Reading debate when he said:
    "… it is high time that the fact was recognised that trying to maintain what is a purely artificial level of coal production is no longer wise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 2039.]
    For these reasons, I think that we are right to call for more frequent parliamentary discussions of these affairs.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare insisted, and I agree with him, that it is necessary to impose criteria on the expenditure of such large amounts of capital in the future. This, I think, ably develops the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), to which the Parliamentary Secretary did not attempt to reply, as to what tests of profitability would be applied and how we were to assist the contribution which the gas industry is to make with this extra capital in regard to all the other competing claims on the nation's scarce capital. We should like to hear the Minister's answer to that.
    I know what careful and useful work my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has done on the Economic Committee of the Council of Europe. It is clear to those who are members of that Assembly that the expenditure of vast sums of money is considered more carefully by some countries than appears to be the case in this House, which is a further reason why the Amendment should be accepted.
    The total investment which is contemplated is £550 million from outside sources. That is what the Minister, in the Bill, is giving the industry power to borrow. But, with the 52 per cent. self-financing which has existed for some time, there will be a further sum of nearly £600 million which, presumably, will be invested at the same time from the gas industry's own internal resources. Thus, we are approaching the colossal sum of
    1484
    an extra £1,150 million investment which this industry is to make. When one looks at it that way, at not merely the net borrowing, but at the average capital requirement, surely the Government agree that it is asking a bit much to allow the gas industry to invest that sum of money after only one short debate in this House?
    The unique thing about the Bill is that there is this borrowing margin of £200 million. I understand that the gas industry has asked for a total of only £1,000 million by 1970.
    The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going on to the second Amendment.
    Mr. Ridley: No, Dr. King. I wish to relate what I am saying to the Amendment that we are discussing.
    The Bill says that there shall be provided a sum of £250 million, the difference between £650 million and £900 million, before the Minister has to make an order. We think that is too much. We would like to reduce the sum in the first order to £850 million. That will be a small Amendment for the Government to accept. It is difficult to discuss this Amendment without relation to the others, because either this one and the Amendment in page 1, line 12, at end insert:
    Provided that the Minister shall not specify an increase of more than £200 million by any one order.
    would need to be accepted, or the Amendment in line 12, leave out "£1,200" and insert "£1,000", whichever way one looks at the matter, in order to make a sensible job of the Bill.
    The gas industry appears to have added £200 million to its borrowing requirements for good luck, so to speak, and on page 216 of its brochure it says that it would facilitate future investment plans if a reserve borrowing margin of £200 million were provided. To facilitate the planning of future investment is surely a very strange requirement when the House is being asked to abandon its control for such a long period. If the forecast rate of capital investment takes place it will be at least 1972 before these borrowing

    1485
    powers run out. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask for the first order to be made at an earlier date than is expected. I do not want to trespass on a later Amendment, but one will be moved which will ask for more than one order, so that we can on at least two occasions debate this large sum of money.
    10.30 p.m.
    I do not believe that there is any precedent for having a borrowing margin. The Minister, in answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in the Second Reading debate, said:
    "I should have thought that there were plenty of such precedents, but I could not quote one offhand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 2003.]
    We are now asking him to quote one, either offhand or by any other means, because hon. Members on this side of the House do not believe that an extra sum of money has ever been lumped on to the borrowing requirements, just for good measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was right to call in question this rather peculiar procedure, and we want to hear much more about it.
    Our tabling of the Amendments—and particularly this one—does not in any sense imply hostility towards the gas industry or its leadership, or the great work which it has done in the past and which we are sure it will do in the future. If we ask for there to be two orders by lowering the point at which the first check is to be administered, this is not in any sense to be taken as a criticism of the industry but much more as a concession to the needs of Parliament to debate and comment upon this great industry.
    If the Amendment is accepted, as I sincerely trust it will be, it will greatly inconvenience a Conservative Government of the future to have to provide this extra time. The burden will fall on our shoulders and not on those of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to provide this extra time. So, with a little parliamentary tactics, I feel certain that the Minister will be disposed to accept the Amendment.
    There is not enough spare capital in this country for the gas industry to be able
    1486
    to pre-empt an extra £200 million without giving any reason why it should have it. We do not want to starve it of capital, but we ask that this House should have an opportunity to inquire into what it is being used for, the rate at which it is being used, and its effect upon other fuel industries, and to debate these matters at more frequent intervals than the Bill provides.
    Mr. Adam Hunter: I want to repeat some of the fears expressed by my colleagues in the last debate. I have no desire to take part in any of the technical arguments about the fuel and energy needs of other producers in this country. When, on 9th July, my right hon. Friend moved that the Bill be read a Second time, he did so by stating, first, that it was nice to see the enthusiasm of the party opposite for the Bill, which was of the utmost importance to the future of the gas industry. I should be the last to decry or deplore in any way the initiative of the gas industry, for I thought, some years ago, at a time when local authorities were turning from gas to electricity for certain domestic appliances, that the use of gas had lost its appeal. Now the gas industry seems to have the unqualified support of the Government, for the introduction of the Bill is designed to increase the limit of its borrowing powers to £1,200 million.
    There is also the point put by my right hon. Friend in the last debate, which conveyed to the House that the margin from the initial limit to the final limit was a reserve borrowing power to meet possible increases in investment consequent on, for example, the discovery of gas under the North Sea. This is tantamount to a decleration that the Government are already aware of what rôle the gas industry is to play in the future energy needs of this country. The coal industry is not yet in that happy position. The people responsible for the nationalised coal industry cannot be blamed for seeing this piece of legislation as the Government's future plans for the gas industry.
    Consequently, it is natural that miners, tradesmen and all those associated with the mining industry view with concern the apparent bias in favour of gas. The electricity industry and the coal mining

    1487
    industry are bound to have misgivings when they recall what my right hon. Friend stated in the previous debate, that the gas industry was in extremely good heart, particularly when rapid progress in the gas industry is detrimental to the interests of the two energy producers I have just mentioned.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) said sufficient in the previous debate to echo the disquiet then and still in the minds of those closely associated with the mining industry. I must ask my right hon. Friend what are the coal industry's prospects in the growing consumption of energy in relation to the gas industry—
    The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend answered him about the prospects of the coal industry in the debate on this Amendment, he would be out of order. I am sorry.
    Mr. Hunter: We are told that, given a 4 per cent. growth rate, the consumption of energy in Britain is likely to rise from its present level of 250 million tons of coal equivalent to over 300 million tons next year and to 450 million tons in 15 years. In view of this, I submit that the coal industry should be getting to know soon what its share in the ever-increasing consumption of energy will be.
    It is reckoned that 1,000 people are leaving the coal industry every week. There is a great lack of confidence in the industry and the Bill will in no way dispel the understandable fears of all the people in the industry. The greatest danger which I see is that not only miners but skilled craftsmen are getting out. The only effect of this situation is an interruption, if not a complete halting, of the process of mechanisation in the mining industry.
    In Scotland, fear abounds for the industry's future. In and around my constituency, many pits have closed and others are likely to close in a few years' time. I was myself a redundant miner.
    The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on his ingenuity in arguing
    1488
    the case for the coal industry on this Amendment, which seeks to decide whether we allow the gas industry to borrow £900 million or £850 million. The hon. Member must, however, relate his argument to the Amendment.
    Mr. Hunter: I felt that since my colleagues had an opportunity to speak on the subject in the last debate, I might do so now.
    The Chairman: May I help the hon. Member? I do not like to look ahead, but the hon. Member might have an opportunity to say some of these things, with difficulty, on Third Reading. Even then, it will be with difficulty.
    Mr. Hunter: I am quite prepared to support my right hon. Friend in rejecting the Amendment.
    Clearly, two courses are open to the nation. The first is to support the Gas Council's hurried abandonment of coal in favour of fuels and feedstocks, which cost Britain valuable foreign currency. Such a course would, in effect, throw away public money which, acting on figures supplied by the gas boards themselves, the Coal Board has invested in gas coal pits.
    The second course is for the gas boards to slow down their move away from coal without swerving from their path towards greater technical efficiency. In this way the nation would obtain some return on the millions of pounds which have been spent by one nationalised industry in support of another.
    I repeat that I support my right hon. Friend, but I ask him to move cautiously in respect of the Gas Council's needs and urge him to recognise that the coal industry is anxiously awaiting an announcement on a co-ordinated fuel policy.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: Bearing in mind the exchange which you and I had, Dr. King, last night about calling hon. Members to order, may I refer briefly to two statements made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who, in his speech, referred to the effect which the proposals of the gas industry have had, are having and will continue to have on the coal industry. He spoke very briefly of the social effects. I thought that it

    1489
    came ill from an hon. Member on his side of the Committee to speak of the social effects.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Why?
    Mr. Ogden: Because every Question which has been asked by hon. Members opposite during this Session, far from supporting that industry, has been opposing it in every way they could.
    May I return to the Amendment? The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury deplored the fact that in this Session time had not been found for a debate on the nationalised gas industry, the nationalised electricity industry or the nationalised coal industry. I thought that that was what he said.
    Mr. Ridley: I do not recall having said that, and if I said it, I had no intention of doing so. We have had many debates on the gas industry. If I deplore anything it is that we have not had debates on the other fuel industries.
    Mr. Ogden: We are in agreement there, if in nothing else. I remind the hon. Member that when I have asked the Leader of the House about debates on the other fuel industries which directly or indirectly depend on the gas industry, my right hon. Friend has said that there is only one more opportunity in this Session for a debate on the nationalised fuel industries, and that that rests with hon. Members opposite.
    The Chairman: Order. The Committee seems to be getting into a mood of wishing to discuss anything but the Amendment before it. I ask the hon. Member to discuss the Amendment, which is to decide whether we allow the gas industry to borrow £900 million or £850 million.
    Mr. Ogden: In my constituency I have no coal mine, but a fair number of industrial gas installations, and, therefore, it seems reasonable that I shall support £900 million against £850 million. But as those points had been made by the hon. Member, I thought that I might attempt to answer them.
    10.45 p.m.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): This is a peculiar situation. When the party opposite was in power, in 1963,
    1490
    the House was asked to enact a Measure whereby £650 million of borrowing was possible for the gas industry up to 1970. Tonight, two years later, we are asking for powers to enable the industry to borrow far and away in excess of that sum—remembering that that £650 million was thought by the former Government to be sufficient for the industry up to 1970. That being the position, the best that hon. Gentlemen opposite can now do is to suggest that we are asking for too much.
    I should have thought that they would be aware, from their previous experience of these matters—particularly concerning estimating, in which their estimates proved to be so grossly inadequate—of the problems involved and that they would have thought twice before suggesting a smaller sum than we propose.
    The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke of the brochure produced by the gas industry and said that the industry had made out a case for borrowing £830 million. The hon. Gentleman made what seemed a convincing speech—that is, if in fact the industry had asked to borrow £830 million. Instead, that was the expenditure and not the borrowing. If the hon. Gentleman had done a little more research he would have seen, particularly on page three of the brochure "The Growing Gas Industry", that the industry has made out a case for borrowing £1,000 million, plus £200 million, which is the total which we are now suggesting.
    Mr. John Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman is following his Parliamentary Secretary in almost intentionally misunderstanding what my hon. Friend said. We are not concerned about this £830 million. We quite understand that. By the Amendment we want to limit the total borrowing of the gas industry under the Bill to £850 million. That is the first step we wish to take.
    Mr. Lee: In that case I wonder why his hon. Friend based his remarks entirely on the statement in this brochure about the sum of £830 million. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has made a gallant attempt to come to the assistance of his hon. Friend, but has not succeeded.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lee: I have made it clear that whereas the hon. Member for Lewisham, West took the figure to be that of borrowing, it was actually that of expenditure. Thus, his case falls to the ground.
    The figure of £900 million, which the Opposition seek to reduce to £850 million, came about as a result of a close analysis of the gas industry which was conducted by eminent officials of my Department. It is not guesswork. I am not suggesting that these officials can estimate these amounts to within a few pounds. However, this sum has been estimated following an analysis of the rate of increasing productivity in the industry and of many other factors. They feel certain that £900 million is the right figure.
    The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggested that on this basis we would not be discussing borrowing powers again until 1972. I do not quite know how he arrived at that date. We are, in fact, basing our figure on precisely the same time factor in regard to debate as when the Opposition were in office. We believe that with this estimate we will be able to come back to the House in rather more than three years from now, when the House will again have the opportunity to discuss the subject.
    I think that I understand how the hon. Gentleman came to that conclusion, but if he looks back at the borrowing record he will find that there has not been an even flow. For instance, in the year 1963–64, at the end of December, 1963, borrowing reached £524 million. By the end of March, 1964, it was £538 million. If we take 1964–65 there is a difference of only £10 million in the borrowing from the end of December, 1964, to the end of March, 1965. In other words, we come to a peak in the third quarter of the year, with precious little borrowing taking place in the following quarter. We are, therefore, following the precedent of hon. Members opposite who, when in office, arranged for the House to have an opportunity of discussing the industry's borrowing powers every three years.
    We all agree that the industry has been growing extremely rapidly, and in the
    1492
    brochure there is a table which shows how rapid that growth has been. In 1961–62, there was a 1 per cent. increase over the previous year. In 1962–63, it was 3 per cent., and in 1963–64 it was 5 per cent. It is now running at 8 per cent. On those figures, the probability is that we are under-estimating rather than over-estimating. The figures show that in each succeeding year there has been not only an increasing amount of gas consumed but an increasing rate of growth from year to year. Historically, therefore, I should have thought that if we were to accept the Amendment we would have to come back to the House sooner than would otherwise be the case.
    As I have said, it is because of the gross under-estimating of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that we are here now. They believed that they were borrowing sufficient to cover the period up to 1970, and the fact that they have been proved wrong—I do not blame them—is proof of the speed at which the industry has been growing—
    Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it a bad thing that we should be here tonight? Surely, it is very useful that we should be able to discuss this industry now.
    Mr. Lee: We are here, as I have said, because the hon. Members opposite grossly under-estimated the speed at which the industry would move—yet now they seek to tell us that we are asking for too much. In view of all this—
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lee: No. The hon. Member will have the opportunity if he wants to speak later.
    In view of all this, and as the annual capital expenditure of the industry will continue to increase fairly rapidly—having had careful estimates from both the gas industry and my Ministry—the conclusion has been reached that this is the right figure. Weighing against that the underestimating of the past, it would be a grave mistake for the House to fix a figure short of that which we suggest. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Ridley: I express sympathy with the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter), who wished to draw attention to the effect upon the coal industry of the Gas Council's policy. The hon. Member was ruled out of order on certain points and, therefore, I will not attempt to follow him. The fact that the hon. Member wished to bring those points to the Minister's attention is, surely, evidence enough, if it were necessary, of the need for the House of Commons from time to time to discuss the affairs of these industries.
    The Minister alleged that the borrowings will be used quicker than was expected. He made the point that my right hon. and hon. Friends, when they were responsible for these matters, underestimated and that we are discussing the matter again sooner than might otherwise have been the case. My hon. Friends are greatly pleased that this should be so. We see no objection to discussing these matters—
    Mr. Lee: Nor do I.
    Mr. Ridley: —and having a debate at any hour of the night when the Minister likes to examine these things.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) got me slightly wrong. I at no time suggested that we had not had a debate on the gas industry. The hon. Member made a more serious charge, however, against me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that we on this side were not interested in the social effects of policy in the coal industry. We do not in any way want to maintain uneconomic production of coal, but, at the same time, my hon. Friends are fully aware of the need to take account of the social effects of such a policy. We should not, however, let the social effects stand in the way of reshaping the industry if at sometime that is necessary.
    The Minister has given a poor answer to the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson). The Amendment cannot be taken on its own, because it links with the other Amendments. I have no doubt that although the Minister may not wish to take a £50 million cut in the first borrowing requirement, he will be prepared to look favourably upon the second and third Amendments, in line 12,
    1494
    which my hon. Friends will be moving in due course.
    We are not satisfied with the Minister's answer. We will urge him, on future Amendments, to accept the principle of further Parliamentary control, which we on this side welcome, although he appears to resent it and to be slightly frightened of it. On the basis that we will press the later Amendment, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, to let this Amendment go so that we may proceed to the major points which follow.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    The Chairman: Before we come to the second Amendment, might I point out to the Committee that the Chair will not be prepared to hear all the same arguments on the second Amendment. We now address ourselves to the maximum amount permitted under the Bill.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Peyton: I beg to move, Clause 1, in page 1, line 12 to leave out "£1,200" and to insert "£1,000".
    I am obliged to you for your warning, Dr. King.
    The Minister will be the first to acknowledge that he had due notice of these Amendments. We on this side are extremely disappointed with both the paucity of the reply which we received on Second Reading and the meagreness with which the right hon. Gentleman has answered the previous Amendment.
    The Minister has made a good deal of the fact that the previous Administration under-estimated the gas industry's borrowing needs. So did the gas industry. Its expansion was not and could not have been foreseen. However, an underestimate of borrowing needs is easily put right; an over-estimate is much more serious, particularly in the context of the present economic situation.
    On Second Reading, I asked a number of questions which have not yet been answered. I asked where the money was to come from. It is easy for the Government to introduce a borrowing Measure of this kind and not even begin to try

    1495
    to treat with the importance it deserves the question where the money is to come from. There is much competition for limited resources and it is incumbent upon the Government to explain how these demands are to be fitted in with demands coming not only from the other fuel industries. We have not yet had even a cursory explanation of how the money is to be spent and we are entitled to something more than the kind of introductory brochure which the Gas Council has very properly put before Parliament. However, for the Minister merely to quote from such a document is wholly inadequate.
    The Amendment is concerned to increase the total borrowing powers to £1,000 million instead of £1,250 million, and is a reasonable and modest demand to make. The grounds on which we rest the Amendment are what the Minister and the industry have said, and I do not think that we need stronger grounds. We have asked and still have not been told whether there is a precedent for the disproportionate procedure whereby £250 million is to be raised under the Bill and £300 million by order. We disapprove of that very much and the Minister has not yet seen fit to comment upon it.
    Both the industry and the Government have made it absolutely clear that a £1,000 million limit to borrowing powers would probably be enough to see the industry through until 1970. Page 16 of "The Growing Gas Industry" says:
    "An extension of borrowing powers to £1,000 million would, on the evidence of Boards' present capital programmes, cover requirements to the end of 1970."
    There follow these words:
    "Faced with these uncertainties, the Council takes the view that any error in the demand estimates discussed earlier, particularly in the estimate for peak demand, is more likely to be in the direction of under-estimation than of overstatement. In this situation it would facilitate the future planning of investment if a reserve borrowing margin of say £200 million were provided to meet possible major fluctuations in investment in the later years, bringing the new limit of borrowing to £1,200 million."
    The Minister and the Government know perfectly well that if there was a serious under-estimation of £200 million before we reached 1970, it would be
    1496
    open to them, or any following Administration, to come to Parliament and ask for this remedy. I do not believe that it is right for the Government to come here and ask for £200 million, which, on their own confession, they do not really need. If I may refer the Minister to no less an authority than himself—opinions may vary as to the weight of his authority, of course—in col. 2003 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 9th July, he said:
    "This is, as the memorandum points out, to allow a margin of reserve borrowing to meet possible increases in investment consequent on, for example, the discovery of gas under the North Sea."
    Then he goes on, after a question from myself:
    "I should have thought that there were plenty of such precedents, but I could not quote one offhand. This is not something which has not yet begun to mature. The actual work in the North Sea is proceeding. The people now investing are confident to the tune of £80 million up to now, and if we do not make provision for a distribution to take place it may well be that, although they find gas, many years would have to elapse before the gas industry got the necessary borrowing powers and for operations to begin. I should have thought that to allow a margin of this sort against the probability of finding gas under the North Sea was right. I think that we need this degree of margin to meet that situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 2003.]
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman: how long does he think it would take the gas industry to make the necessary arrangements, and for all the arrangements to be made, once gas had been found in substantial quantities under the North Sea? He must answer this because if he cannot, then it means that confessedly his present demand for money is made on the vaguest of backgrounds, without even a hint of adequate justification. Therefore, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the demand now is unjustified. He knows perfectly well that if substantial supplies of gas were found under the North Sea he or his successor, could come to Parliament the following day, or week, and he would readily be granted the money, because there would be a need for it.
    For any Government to ask Parliament for sums in the neighbourhood of £200 million to be granted, just in case they might be needed, is intolerable. The House of Commons has a traditional task of safeguarding the taxpayers' interest—

    1497
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Minister and his supporters utter a derisory, "Hear, hear." That is just the trouble. We believe that the party opposite has no regard for such a matter, and are very anxious to have the contrary proved.
    I believe, and I said it a long time ago, when I sat on the benches opposite, although not on the Front Bench, that Parliament was in danger, and had become, the Pekingese of the Administration. I do not accept the kind of argument, put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to the Second Reading debate, that all we are being asked to do is to authorise this borrowing, and not to confirm the expenditure of the money. As I pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministerial discretion is a very different thing, according to which side of the House one looks at it.
    At the moment, I must confess that I am apt to take the most jaundiced view of ministerial discretion, and I feel certain that I carry all my right hon. and hon. Friends with me. We do not think that Ministerial discretion is something to be greatly respected. When it comes to asking for another £200 million "just in case we need it", I am bound to say that any lingering fragments that one might have for Ministerial judgment disappear altogether.
    I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman for Brixton (Mr. Marcus Lipton) is having a very interesting conversation, but at the moment we are trying to discuss the fate of several hundred million pounds. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I will, of course, give way.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: The hon. Gentleman made his point at least 10 minutes ago and has been repeating it ever since. There is no need to keep repeating it.
    Mr. Peyton: I had no idea the hon. Gentleman had been listening at all. However, the point I am making is an important one, and I hope that the Government will take a serious look at it before they admit to Parliament and to the public that they are asking for £200 million, the need for which, by their own confession, is not clear.
    Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman of what his hon. Friend the
    1498
    Parliamentary Secretary said in winding up the Second Reading debate:
    "The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked for precedents for the margin of £200 million. I concede at once that there are no exact precedents, but we are here dealing with an unprecedented situation in that, in part, this £200 million may well be required for North Sea development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 2074.]
    We all look forward to it, but, as I understand, a good deal of time would probably elapse before the necessary arrangements could be made for the transport of such gas or oil as was found there and its subsequent accommodation in the fuel economy of the country. I am more than satisfied that that lapse of time would be quite sufficient to allow the Government at the earliest possible moment to come to the House and say that this is the amount of money that is required for such a purpose.
    To ask us now to give this reserve borrowing margin of £200 million is intolerable and should not be agreed to. At any rate, we look forward with a good deal of eagerness, though not all that amount of hope, to the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: It always seems to be my fate to make speeches on the subject of gas, if not exactly by gaslight, certainly not in daylight. Last time I spoke, on 8th December, it was at 11.48 p.m. I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee one particular phrase that I used then:
    "As Members of Parliament, we are trustees for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1491.]
    That was on the last Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order.
    The first thing that occurs to me—and I would have raised it had I been called in the Second Reading debate—is that the figures that we have in the prospectus of "The Growing Gas Industry", as it were, do not to my mind necessarily coincide with the figures which are presented in the Command Paper 2295, "Government Expenditure Below the Line, 1964–65."
    The Command Paper refers to £46 million for 1961–62 and to £60.9 million for 1962–63, with an estimate of £101.3 million and a forecast of £82 million for

    1499
    1963–64. According to the table quoted by the Minister—I hope that he will listen to me, because this is not a speech based on a oratory. This is a time when we, as trustees for the taxpayer, have a chance of looking at a prospectus. The scale of expenditure is much greater than the average problem facing the board of any company or group of companies.
    In the column for 1961–62, there is the figure of £46.1 million, which compares with £46 million. There is the figure of £60.9 million capital investment, which compares with £59.2 million. For 1963–64, in the column concerned with the industry's finances, we have the figure of £92 million against an estimate in the Command Paper of £101.3 million. Such discrepancies would have to be adequately explained by any board of directors and it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of these differences tonight. We have discussed the expanding capital programme of £117 million, which is £140 million per annum as outlined in the Command Paper.
    I congratulate the members of the Gas Council, particularly the Chairman, on the fact that we in this House at last have a prospectus of some sort—"The Growing Gas Industry"—to guide us. I wish that we had a procedure by which to examine the various clauses, particularly the financial implications, of the prospectus in very much more detail. Because we have before us a blank cheque for a very vast sum of money—£550 million—and we are discussing on this Amendment a reduction from £1,200 million to £1,000 million because the exact nature of expenditure of the last £200 million is not known.
    Why is it not known? Because we do not as yet know whether or not the researches in the North Sea will be successful. I, as a trustee, am very unhappy about giving this blank cheque. As an enthusiast for the gas industry, I hope that the discoveries in the North Sea will be fruitful, and that there will be a good case to spend the money, but a few weeks ago I saw a picture in one of the national newspapers of one of the rigs being used by one of the joint enterprises of the Gas Council.
    At this time, when we have to-look at every item of capital expenditure, it is
    1500
    necessary to ask are we containing the gas industry in the correct bounds within which it should be contained? It is said that we must expand the industry. If a company has not the money to expand and cannot find it because it is not there, it expands at its own peril. It could well be that we in this country have to watch very carefully the rate of expansion and capital expenditure of all our industries, including the gas industry.
    Not that we do not want that expansion to take place, but we must live within our means and this is one of the few occasions we in this House have of examining whether we have the means to go ahead with the programmes that we want. There is a very good case for not giving a blank cheque for this final £200 million until we as a nation can see exactly where we are going.
    I believe that contributions on a more detailed Measure of this type should not be too long. I have made my point and I would be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would assure us that the gas industry will be confined to what it should do and no more and that there will be no unnecessary empire building, particularly when many activities of the gas industry could be taken on by other agencies. The activity in the North Sea, for instance, could be farmed out to other people who would not use the taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Peter Bessell: I entered the Committee this evening with a completely open mind towards these Amendments, and I deliberately avoided seeking to catch your eye, Dr. King, on the previous Amendment, because I wanted to hear the arguments from this side of the Committee. I am bound to say that the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members on this side have not impressed me.
    Considerable tributes have been paid to this great industry, in which everyone takes a pride. The Minister has already said this evening that the figures contained in the Bill were reached in agreement with the industry itself. As there has been no suggestion by any hon. Member that there has been any extravagance by the Gas Council in the past, or by the area boards, and as they have, as we know, conducted their affairs well, and are indeed, a source of great pride to the whole nation, I believe that these

    1501
    additional powers for which the Minister is asking leave tonight should be granted without question. I should be sorry if the sort of arguments we have thus far heard for the Amendments, and for this one in particular, were accepted by the Minister.
    It is my belief that the Gas Council will have a tremendous part to play in the future of industry. I think that it has already shown it is capable of providing the nation with an essential source of power at a reasonable price, and it has contributed to the health of the nation in helping to rid us of many of the smoke-polluted zones of the country. We are now entering a new and quite exciting phase of the industry's development; we are thinking in terms of exploration for natural gas under the North Sea and possibly elsewhere.
    There is the question, too, of new methods of underground storage, and, also, there are the experiments which are being made in the providing of other forms of artificially produced gas. In all these circumstances it does not seem unreasonable to me that the Minister should seek to have a cushion, and that the Gas Council itself should feel that it is necessary for this cushion to be provided. It may well be that on many aspects of the Government's record of spending to date I would be among the first to criticise, but I do not believe that the Ministers' right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do other than protest very loudly if he exercised his power to permit the Gas Council or the area boards to borrow funds which were other than completely necessary.
    For my part, in view of the fact that the power of the Gas Council is limited by the Minister's consent under the Bill, I am more than content to leave the figures as they stand, and I hope that the Minister will not be too impressed by arguments which, if I may say so with the greatest respect, I feel have led to a great deal of artificial heat being generated, and not as much light as the Bill deserves.
    Mr. Webster: I am surprised, in a way, that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has spoken like that, because I know him to be concerned with finance, and I know that before he would
    1502
    accept any new form of expenditure by a firm which was proposing to double its expenditure he would look very closely at it indeed. Here there is a doubling of expenditure over the next five years. I was rather surprised at his saying there had not been much light in the arguments which have been put forward.
    This is an industry whose self-financing will increase very considerably due to discoveries both of the oil process and of the Algerian methane, both of which, we hope, will bring down the cost per therm very considerably and, at the same time, make it very possible to keep well above the average of 10·2 per cent. earned on capital, which figure contained in the White Paper, No. 1337, is of great significance at the present time.
    It is a change from 44 per cent. in the present year to 52 per cent. average over the next five years, but this average, like all averages, conceals the fact that by 1970 it will be 62 per cent. self-financing, and by that much more it means that there there should be less of the cushion which the right hon. Gentleman has given.
    I do not think that many chairmen of companies would go to the public and say that they want a cushion for five years' ahead, not only for going up from £650 million to £900 million that we have gone to already, which is a very considerable percentage, but up by yet another 20 per cent. over that increase. I am sure that as a merchant banker the hon. Gentleman would look more than twice with an exceedingly jaundiced eye on this subject.
    Mr. Bessell: There is one point to which I should like the hon. Gentleman to address his mind. In the past the estimates for the borrowing requirements have been much lower than has proved to be necessary. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is an argument for providing the cushion for which the Minister is asking?
    Mr. Webster: No, because it means that we had great Parliamentary scrutiny, and that is what we are here for.
    The other thing is that in relation to the Gas Bill, which we are soon to discuss in its amended form, I asked for a greater amount of clarification of the Gas Council's powers. In the past these estimates

    1503
    may have seemed inadequate, but, at the same time, we had the estimates of fuel sales by the fuel industry, which were greatly over-estimated. It is very difficult to look into the crystal ball and plan for five years ahead or anything like that, but we cannot allow this extra £200 million to be given simply on the order procedure. Even if it is cloud-cuckooland, we should have a liberal Minister of Power coming to the House and being accountable for this extra £200 million which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to obtain.
    We are giving away a tremendous amount of money tonight. We are giving away our right to have the matter dealt with in the proper way, namely, through a proper borrowing powers Bill, and this at a time when the First Secretary of State is talking about major breakthroughs. This is about the biggest breakthrough that we have had in the financing of the nationalised industries.
    What is the purpose of providing this money? If a private proprietor discovers oil and natural gas under the North Sea, what is there to prevent the Minister—perhaps he will assist me in my ignorance of this matter—using this money to nationalise and take over these newly-found deposits? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention from about halfway down his throat, and I cannot hear him very clearly.
    Mr. Thomas Swain: I said "exploiter" is the word in the correct context.
    Mr. Webster: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has proved that he can get to his feet.
    In a useful document which Sir Henry Jones but before the British Electrical Power Convention, on 22nd June, he made a survey of the progress of this industry, and of its appliance side.
    Because of the reduction in the cost per therm to the user, there has been a tremendous increase in the use of gas space heaters. The number rose from 244,500 in 1959–60 to 744,000 last year. The figure for this year is estimated to be 920,000. In respect of warm air and central heating appliances it has risen from 13,000 to 120,000.
    11.30 p.m.
    What is the money to be used for? We know that the Minister of Power is the
    1504
    arch nationaliser of the Cabinet. He is proud of it. I always like a man who is honest and straightforward in his declarations on this subject. But we say that if this money is to be used without adequate Parliamentary redress so that the industry can go into the manufacturing side of the appliance industry we must have a close look at what was said before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, oddly enough not regarding the gas industry—although I have that report—but on the railways. I now quote the present Minister of State for Economic Affairs, then a very prominent member of that Committee. On page 195, at Question 1444, the Minister of State said to the Chairman of British Railways—
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to talk about the railways industry when we are discussing an Amendment to the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Bill?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I understood the hon. Member to be preparing to apply his quotation to the question why we should not grant the increase in borrowing powers.
    Mr. Webster: Yes, Sir Samuel. I am grateful to you and to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) for allowing me to underline the reason why I am putting the point.
    If the nationalised industry is going into manufacturing it will be almost impossible for it to decide which way the overheads should be distributed. The Minister of State said to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission:
    "What you are saying is that quotations are given which do not cover the full overheads."
    Sir Brian Robertson replied:
    "I would say that is so, because there is a dearth of new orders."
    The Minister then said:
    "Therefore, it may not necessarily pay the Commission to place the orders with the workshops and get the higher overheads in the workshops."
    Sir Brian went on at considerable length to explain why it is that in a nationalised industry it is almost impossible to spread the overheads and make sure there is an adequate costing.

    1505
    Those of us who have been round the dockyards and any other public undertaking know that when we have a diversification of industry throughout these vast undertakings it is almost impossible to make sure that there is not a tremendous amount of subsidy, and that the taxpayers' money will not be used for the unfair subsidisation of manufacturer against taxpayer. [Interruption.] If the Minister is trying to get me out of order by talking about agriculture, I would much prefer that this additional money were given to the unfortunate dairy farmers in my constituency. But the Minister is trying to waste time. We want a greater scrutiny of borrowing powers in respect of this process of giving money by order.
    In the present Session we have had far too many Bills which have given immense powers of delegated legislation, sometimes by positive and sometimes by negative Resolution procedure. When we are giving away the taxpayers' money it should be of concern to us that there is adequate Parliamentary scrutiny. Hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, who have been noisy both in the foreign affairs debate and so far in this, seem to think that taxpayers' money is of no concern to them. It is of concern to me, and it is the duty of Parliament to protect it.
    Mr. Ogden: I want to make three very brief points. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) was once the secretary of the Conservative Party Parliamentary Committee on Transport—
    Mr. Webster: Chairman.
    Mr. Ogden: That may explain why railways were brought into the debate. He continually spoke of our giving away vast amounts of money. I may have missed part of the debate—I do not think that I did, but I may have done. I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us whether we are giving anything away tonight. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that over-estimation is much worse and much more serious than under-estimation. He has had considerable experience of fuel and power. He seems to be under the impression that the Government are giving away either £1,000 million or £1,200 million.
    Mr. Peyton: Let there be no misunderstanding about this: I thought that I had made it clear. The hon. Member should understand that what we are asked to agree to tonight is the authorisation of a further borrowing by the gas industry of a total of £1,200 million. The Minister and the Treasury, of course, approve the expenditure, but we are saying that, as the House of Commons, we should not part with so large a sum of money merely subject to Ministerial approval before it is spent. This ought to be clear in the hon. Gentleman's mind. After he has heard more debates on borrowing powers Bills, no doubt he will not make such confusions in the future.
    Mr. Ogden: Whether we part with it or give it away is a matter of words. This is the impression of the Opposition argument received by some hon. Members on this side. Again, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) used such phrases as the "trustees of the nation" and "blank cheques". This is the impression going out from benches on the other side of the Committee. This is why I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear. I would ask hon. Gentlemen with experience on the other side, are they really suggesting that the gas industry will spend, at any time in the next period, £200 million more than it actually needs? Are they saying, on the one hand, that this is an efficient, good and growing industry, but that just because it has the ability to borrow this money and use it, that is what it will do out of sheer devilment? This is the suggestion of hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell).
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has entirely misunderstood the argument from this side of the Committee. If one followed his argument to its logical conclusion, one would have to ask: why stop at £200 million? Why not go on to £500 million extra? The whole point of the argument is that these nationalised industries are accountable to Parliament. This is the one opportunity which we have to exercise our powers of control and

    1507
    scrutiny over these great State enterprises. It should not be said that we should authorise the expenditure of sums in such large dollops that we have only the most limited opportunity to discuss the affairs of these industries—perhaps only once every five or six years.
    The argument advanced on this side in favour of the Amendment is that the sums which the Minister has written into the Bill are too large in the circumstances, that they attempt to tie our hand too far ahead. It is essential that we should have an earlier opportunity to express our views, as the House of Commons, on this industry for which we are responsible. The margin which it is sought to write into the Bill, which will be exercisable by affirmative order, is huge. It requires considerably more justification than the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give it on Second Reading.
    I make this assertion on two grounds, which are different from those advanced so far from this side of the Committee. No doubt the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) will be interested to hear them. He may find himself persuaded by them, even if he was not persuaded by the arguments of some of my hon. Friends. The two grounds upon which I make the assertion that the margin is too large for us to accept at this time are these. First, the degree of uncertainty which must be regarded as surrounding the whole of the energy industry of this country is such that we cannot possibly say that we know what will happen by 1969–70. For this reason, we cannot possibly entrust the Minister, or indeed—I say this with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—his successor with powers to authorise the expenditure of these substantial sums in the light of this uncertainty.
    The second argument which I advance in support of the proposition is that the precedents which have been mentioned, in so far as they have any point, are irrelevant. Indeed, we have heard of no precise precedent. The precedents which have been mentioned do not support the authorisation of margins of this magnitude.
    May I deal with the argument about uncertainty. It has been common to both
    1508
    sides of the Committee, as it was to both sides of the House on Second Reading, to express the view that in the last few years the gas industry has been revolutionised. As recently as five or six years ago it could be described as a moribund industry, struggling for survival, but today it has arrived at a state in which it is expanding and thriving.
    The point has been made—it was made again tonight by the Minister—that few people foresaw this revolution. I was astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the earlier Amendment. If he had read the speech made by the present Minister of Transport, and the speech made by Lord Blyton in that debate on the 1963 Bill, he would have realised what sheer effrontery it was for him to accuse my hon. Friends of grossly under-estimating the requirements of the gas industry. If it had been left to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, the industry would have made no progress at all. They were against the substitution of oil for coal, against the importation of natural gas and against the exploitation of the gas fields under the North Sea. Yet all these have been the springboards from which the industry is making its present progress.
    This process of change or revolution in the industry has not ended. It is still undergoing a rapid transformation. For that contention I start by relying on the industry's pamphlet, "The Growing Gas Industry", and I quote from page 16, where the writer makes the point about uncertainty:
    "But at the present stage of development even recent experience may be a poor guide to future gas demands: changes within and outside the industry could materially affect the predicted course of demand: in particular, the discovery of substantial deposits of natural gas beneath the North Sea would give an extra fillip to sales long before that gas could be marketed."
    Mr. Ron Ledger: That quotation is the best argument which I have heard so far for the extra borrowing power. Would the hon. Gentleman read it again?
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank the hon. Member for giving the opportunity to explain the case more fully.
    In the light of the uncertainty surrounding the future of this industry, can we

    1509
    honestly justify at this stage the expendditure of these substantial sums of money? Perhaps the hon. Member does not regard the extra £200 million as a substantial sum. In the light of the major uncertainties which surround the future of the industry, this cannot be justified.
    Mr. Ledger: The hon. Member has been too clever by half. He became too excited in reading that pamphlet and read a few sentences too far for his own argument. It is clear that the quotation is a justification of making this extra money available. I challenge the hon. Member to read again exactly what he read to the Committee and yet not reach the conclusion that the gas industry is justified in asking for extra money.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Jenkin: Fortunately, the passage I read was brief enough for most hon. Members to carry in their heads. I have no intention of wasting the time of the Committee by reading it again. Even if the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) were right, and even if that justified the authorisation of an extra £200 million from the gas industry's point of view, are we bound to accept the views put forward by the gas industry?
    Mr. Ledger: You can continue the argument, but in your heart you know that you have been too clever. You made a mistake and you should admit it.
    Mr. Peyton: I am sure that you have never been too clever, Sir Samuel. I hope that you will correct the hon. Gentleman.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. That is correct, but I thought that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) had not realised what he was saying.
    Mr. Ledger: I apologise, Sir Samuel. I should have said that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has realised that he made a mistake, that he read too much of that passage and that it would be in his own interest to leave the topic before getting himself into even deeper water. I challenge him again to read the whole of the passage which he quoted.
    Mr. Peyton: Before my hon. Friend continues with his remarks—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. It is unusual to allow two interventions at the same time.
    Mr. Peyton: I thought that my hon. Friend had given way.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee must observe the custom of not allowing two interventions one upon the other.
    Mr. Ledger: You are making it worse.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that you have never made anything worse, Sir Samuel. On the contrary, I am sure that you have been an influence for virtue and purity throughout your long experience in Parliament. In any case, the hon. Member for Romford is entitled to his view. He has made it at least three times. Perhaps we can leave it there and I will be permitted to continue with my argument.
    The argument about the uncertainties of the discovery of natural gas in the Continental Shelf merely confuses the future of the industry. The second point—and I will do no more than mention it—is the recent announcement by the right hon. Gentleman of the breakthrough in nuclear power. Although we have not yet seen the figures, we have been told that this will substantially reduce the cost of electricity and that it represents a major advance for the electricity industry, to match the advance recently made by the gas industry. He would be a bold man indeed who could say that in five years' time the pattern of demand for the various competing forms of fuel will be reckoned to be what it is now. It is a major change, but it accentuates the uncertainty to which I have drawn attention.
    The third point—it is of a somewhat different nature and I will dwell on it at greater length—seems to strike at the roots of the whole argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading to justify expenditure on this scale. It relates to the future of the hydrocarbon oil feedstocks which appear at present to be so rapidly supplanting coal as the primary raw material for the manufacture of gas. In opening the debate on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman referred to a number of reasons which had led to the great advances made by the gas industry and went on.
    "The new and more efficient processes for making gas from oil, the growing availability of cheaper oil feedstocks surplus to refinery

    1511
    requirements … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 1997.]
    That is taking a very sanguine view indeed of the raw material position which may face the gas industry in four or five years' time. As I will show, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that although it appears that these oil feedstocks are at present surplus in Europe, this may not turn out to be the case in four or five years' time and that the gas industry, which seems to be swinging rapidly towards these feedstocks, may find itself in great difficulty.
    In view of this uncertainty, therefore, is it right that we should authorise expenditure which, presumably, is being put forward on the basis, to quote the right hon. Gentleman's words, that this abundance of feedstocks will be available from refinery surpluses?
    In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend quoted from the interesting article in The Times of 15th July, which obviously stemmed from something in the nature of an open day given by the Gas Council research establishment at Solihull. I, too, would like to quote from that article, because it seems to me that the authorities at that establishment are tending to take the same view. The article states:
    "With a rapidity which is almost frightening, gas boards from one end of Britain to the other are rushing to tie themselves to the coattails of the oil industry. More than 40 plants to produce gas from light petroleum distillate are now in the pipeline—yet knowledgeable people"—
    and I would ask the Minister to listen to this, because it is the core of my argument—
    "both inside and outside the industry are already forecasting a shortage of their basic feedstock."
    The article goes on to say how the industry had come to rely so much on the light distillates for feedstock:
    "At the time it was offered to the gas industry it was without a major market.. Today it is struggling to satisfy the needs of one of the fastest growing markets in the world, for Britain is not alone in the rush to produce cheap gas from light petroleum distillate."
    This view is not without influential support. I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a paper, which has not been circulated widely in this country, but which may be regarded as providing serious support for the view
    1512
    that we may be heading towards a situation of shortage in this light distillate feedstock in Europe. I wish to quote from the paper, written by Mr. Ralph Ericsson, of Ericsson Chemical Industries Inc., which was delivered by him in February of this year at the 55th National Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers at Huston, Texas. Mr. Ericsson was examining the whole European supply position for this light distillate feedstocks. He made the point, as many others have made it, that the situation in America is entirely different, for reasons that it would be quite wrong for me now to go into. The situation in Europe has developed on its own lines, so no conclusions can be drawn from what has happened in America.
    Mr. Ericsson says:
    "As far as the petrochemical feedstock situation in Europe is concerned, there are several very interesting events taking place which will have to be put in proper perspective before attempting a forecast. The "Light Naphtha" which has been extensively used in Europe as a feedstock for petrochemical plants, ethylene in particular, has consisted of a heavy gasoline cut. With only about 15 per cent. of total petroleum product demand consisting of gasoline, the increased demand for heating oil has created embarrassing quantities of gasoline and this is part of the reason for the great interest in petrochemical operations based on naphtha in Europe."
    Mr. Ericsson goes on to examine the question. I will not bore the Committee by reading the paper in full, but he notes:
    "… the question now arises"—
    and he talks of the petroleum distillates—
    "where is it all coming from?"
    and he goes on to draw the conclusion that within a few years we will find ourselves in a position of shortage of this middle cut, if I may call it that, of the cracking operation, the light petroleum distillate.
    I quote again:
    "So, while there is little doubt that there are more than enough known reserves of oil to keep the refining industry going for a century or more, and the refining industry is growing at as fast a pace as marketing of the products can be arranged, proliferation of supplies will keep pressure on the price of crude."
    A little further he states:
    "So, as strange as it may seem, it appears that while crude prices are almost certain to go down, naphtha prices are about equally certain to go up."
    I should like to know whether the Gas Council, in putting forward these pro-

    1513
    posals for substantial expenditure over the next few years, has taken these forecasts of its raw material position into account.
    In defence of the Gas Council and of the Minister, I am bound to say that that is by no means a unanimous view. There are commentators who have taken an opposite view. There was a recent article by Mr. George Tugenhat, of the London School of Economics, who is a great authoritiy in these matters, in Chemical Engineering Progress for April, 1965. He said that although the demand for naphtha and for these light distillates is increasing, nevertheless the supply will keep pace with it; he did not expect a shortage. He stated:
    "I do not think that any scarcity will develop in the supply of this material over the next seven years or so."
    Mr. Ogden: The hon. Member is saying that the gas industry should not rely upon this raw material because it will not be available, and then he states that it may be there after all. The only point that the hon. Member has made so far is that this is a first-class reason for relying on the nationalised coal industry.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member is entitled to his argument. My argument is whether, in face of these uncertainties in the vital matter of the industry's raw material supply position, it is right that the House of Commons should at this stage authorise the expenditure of these substantial sums of money for five or six years ahead. Nobody can say what the position will be. Nobody can declare with confidence that the industry will be able to fulfil the forecasts which have been made for it.
    Our contention is that expenditure should be authorised only as far ahead as we can see. When one gets beyond that position, the industry, through the Minister or his successor, should come back to the House of Commons and ask for an increase in the borrowing powers at that stage.
    Mr. Bessell: Throughout his speech, the hon. Member has argued that the gas industry is a thoroughly well organised, well managed and well conducted business organisation, and he has argued that great changes are likely to take place during the next few years. Are not these
    1514
    two facts linked, and is not this a good reason for giving these additional powers to the industry and to the Minister?
    Mr. Jenkin: To follow the hon. Member's argument to its logical conclusion, why should Parliament retain any control over these industries? To follow that argument, there would seem to be no reason for imposing any financial restraint upon the management of the nationalised industries, and yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said powerfully on Second Reading, they are deriving all their financial resources from the taxpayer. Surely, the taxpayer has a right to require the expenditure to be justified at fairly frequent intervals rather than that a blank cheque or carte blanche should be given to these industries to spend as they will when the future is doubtful.
    Mr. Bessell: I ask the hon. Member to appreciate that what we are talking about is a cushion of £200 million in a total of £1,200 million. It is not a question of Parliament abrogating the right of control. It is simply a matter of Parliament giving to the Minister certain additional powers which I believe to be justified.
    Mr. Jenkin: I differ from the hon. Member in that this is a question not of £200 million in £1,200 million, but of £200 million on £550 million, which is a much larger proportion of the total sum. The existing borrowing limit is £650 million and we are being asked to increase this to £1,200 million. We suggest, in the Amendment, that the additional £200 million should not be—I am glad that the hon. Member is now looking at his papers and agrees with me—
    Mr. Bessell: It is £1,000 million.
    Mr. Jenkin: —that the extra £200 million should not be authorised. [Interruption.]
    The Chairman: Order. This is a debate, not a conversation between two hon. Members.
    12 m.
    Mr. Jenkin: I was under the impression, Dr. King, that I was on my feet and entitled, in those circumstances, to address the Committee.
    Mr. Bessell rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman enough already.
    The Chairman: I was protecting the hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am very grateful. I had not intended to suggest otherwise, Dr. King. To recapitulate—[HON. MEMBERS: Tedious repetition.]
    The Chairman: May I remind hon. Members who are interrupting that interruptions prolong and do not shorten speeches?
    Mr. Jenkin: The core of my argument is that there are such major uncertainties for the future of this industry that it is wrong that Parliament should be asked at this stage to authorise sums for further ahead than any man can honestly say that he can foresee. To take even this one factor which I have examined in some detail, and which is a very important factor for any industry, namely, its raw material supply, who can put his hand on his heart and say that the situation is now so certain and that the future is so clear that it is right that at this stage we should give authority to the Minister to bring forward an order to authorise the Gas Council to spend these sums of money five or six years ahead? Not the right hon. Gentleman, I vow.
    The right answer in this case is to authorise expenditure for as far ahead as we can reasonably see and for the Minister then to return to Parliament to justify further expenditure beyond that. Clearly, this is a question of degree. We would not expect the Minister to come back every year. In a debate some years ago, the question was asked: how many bites at the cherry would you expect to take? The answer is for as far ahead as one can reasonably see. In this industry at this time, in view of all the uncertainties, not only North Sea gas and not only the advent of nuclear power, but also the uncertainties of the fuel stock supply, the answer cannot be more than three, or three and a half, or possibly four years. That is my first argument in support of the Amendment.
    The second argument is that of precedents. I have taken the trouble to look out the precedents on this issue of the margin of borrowing over the amount which Parliament authorises automatic-
    1516
    ally when it passes the Bill, the amount which can be authorised by statutory order. It appears that since this procedure began, which was only in 1959, which is comparatively recently, there have been only 13 instances of borrowing powers being authorised in this way. They are contained in seven statutes. We are here being asked to authorise the making of an order to raise the borrowing powers by £300 million, from £900 million to £1,200 million. In only two of those 13 instances has the amount been larger than that, and in only one was the equivalent amount asked for.
    The two larger amounts were both concerned with the electricity industry and, as the right hon. Gentleman will know full well, the electricity industry has been spending capital on a very much larger scale than the gas industry expects to spend even in its wildest dreams. In the Electricity (Borrowing Powers Act), 1959, the margin was £500 million. It is interesting that it was on the Committee stage of that Measure that this new procedure was introduced, this sort of splitting into two stages. In the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, the amount was £1,100 million. The existing authorisation when the 1959 Measure was introduced was £1,400 million and the original Bill proposed to increase that to £2,300 million.
    As a result of pressure, not from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but from hon. Members on this side, it was felt that this was too big a chunk for the Minister to authorise without coming back to Parliament, and powerful speeches were made in the Second Reading debate of the Bill. As a result, in Committee the then Paymaster-General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), introduced the interim figure of £1,800 million, beyond which a further Statutory Instrument would have to be passed by affirmative Resolution of the House before the sum could be exceeded. In the 1963 Act the figure was £2,300 million. It was proposed to add a further £1,000 million to make it £3,300 and a further £1,100 million to take it to £4,400 by order.
    The interesting thing about that proposal was that there was no debate on the matter at all. The Committee and Report stages and the Third Reading all went through on the nod. No one on

    1517
    the then Opposition side of the House was sufficiently interested in the matter, although there was £1,100 million being authorised by the order.
    Electricity is a different case from gas. In the first place, it is a very heavy spender of capital and it is undergoing a transition from coal-based power stations to nuclear power stations. This poses a tremendous demand for new capital. In the second place, it is interesting to note about these two applications, that in each case, for stages one and two the figures were the same, or very nearly the same. In the present case, stage one is £250 million, and stage two is £300 million, an increase of one-fifth.
    For these reasons, for the uncertainty of the industry, particularly with regard to its raw material feed stock and for the inadequacy of such precedents as do exist, I support the Amendment to reduce this figure to £1,200 million to £1,000 million.
    This would make the margin to be sought by order £100 million and would bring forward to an earlier date the point at which the industry would have to come back to the House to seek further authority for borrowing for capital expenditure. In the light of the precedents and uncertainties this would seem to be an entirely desirable step for Parliament to take, in order to have an opportunity to assert its control over this industry, and to make sure that the spending was subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny on behalf of the taxpayer.
    For these reasons, I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I feel cheated. I sat here, almost as man and boy, listening to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), clutching page 16 of "The Growing Gas Industry" to quote just those words he quoted, in order to show how wrong he was. He beat me to it. I have a huge pencil mark all over it so that I could get the right place. I think that the hon. Gentleman must have got the wrong place.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about expenditure. We are not discussing expenditure tonight. We are discussing borrowing. The gas industry will have to justify everything that it wishes to submit. Hon. Gentlemen talk in terms
    1518
    of not having the opportunity to discuss the subject again for x years. I tried to meet them in the last Amendment on that point. If they wish to discuss the annual White Paper there is nothing at all to prevent them from discussing this issue each year. It is so much nonsense to talk in terms of Parliament losing its control over the industry. If the Opposition wish it can have an annual debate on this issue.
    The hon. Gentleman who charged me with being the arch nationaliser should understand that the Tories beat me to it. They nationalised the resources of the North Sea, and I am annoyed to think that I shall never have a chance to do it.
    Mr. Peyton: The charge that we nationalised the resources of the North Sea is a very odd one. You will recall, Dr. King, that the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the First Secretary was accusing the Tory Administration of handing out this valuable asset to their friends in the oil industry.
    The Chairman: Order. Even if I do recall it, I think that this digression has gone far enough.
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again, but I will discuss it with him on another occasion. Indeed, the Opposition can discuss it at their will each year.
    I have pointed out that the gas industry cannot merely take the full sum without justifying the expenditure of every penny of it. Therefore, the rather wild exaggerations that we have heard during the course of the discussion are not in any way comparable with what the House is being asked to do.
    I mentioned in the debate on the last Amendment that the industry is now advancing at an increase of about 7½ per cent. per annum. If that increase goes on at anything like the pace that we have seen in the last few years, the £1,000 million may well be expended long before the time period in the Bill, and the £200 million may well be necessary even without the considerations of the North Sea at all.
    I will try to meet the Opposition on the point that they make about £200 million being too large a sum to allocate at this stage. I will give them this assurance. If the gas industry's demands were

    1519
    nowhere near the £200 million extra that we are now discussing, I would not ask permission to lend £200 million. I would limit it to the amount that we in the Ministry, along with the gas industry, believed was necessary for the operations in mind. In other words, suppose that they came to me and said that there was a need for £100 million above the £1,000 million that we have discussed. I would then not authorise the payment of the £200 million—the difference between the Amendment that the Opposition are moving and the £1,200. I would merely authorise that which I felt was necessary for the operations that the industry had in mind, and then they would have to come back again and prove that they needed whatever was left of the original sum.
    I would have thought that is going a long way to meet the Amendment. The £200 million is not a minimum, it is the maximum. If the industry's requirements do not come up to the total, then I will not authorise the full amount to be borrowed.
    Mr. Peyton: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. What I would ask him to clarify is this. He has made the point all along that the Government are not authorising expenditure here, but merely seeking borrowing powers for the industry. We accept that; there has never been any argument about it. He has also made the point that the gas industry has to prove the need for every pound of expenditure. He has said all along that the necessity for the need for every pound of expenditure has to be proved by the gas industry to his and the Government's satisfaction.
    We accept that. What I am not clear about is what he is adding to that, because I understood him to say that, over and above the £1,000 million, the gas industry would have to prove their need. What is he really adding by this Measure?
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Lee: We are discussing an Amendment to leave out £1,200 million and to substitute £1,000 million. The basis of the argument is that, whereas the Opposition can see the point of having £1,000 million, there is a huge sum over and above that of £200 million for which they
    1520
    can see no justification. I am meeting that argument by saying that, although I think they are wrong, in the event of their being proved right that it is not necessary to have the full £1,200 million, I would not authorise the £200 million. I would merely authorise the sum which the industry could prove necessary for its requirements.
    That, surely, meets the point that the Opposition have laboured. If the industry cannot prove its case, it will not get a halfpenny. This is where the difference between asking for borrowing power and actual expenditure is so important. Surely my statement meets the Opposition's argument. I give the Opposition my assurance and I hope that they will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Peyton: What the right hon. Gentleman has said does not really meet the point but the way in which he has said it and the fact that he has been moved at all is some recognition that there is a point of substance here, and for that at least we are grateful. I remind him, however, of what my hon. Friends have said.
    My hon. Friends have made it clear that our demands add up to additional opportunities for Parliamentary scrutiny of the expenditure of a certain sum of money, the need for which has not yet been proved. I do not want our intention misconstrued. There is no hostility on the part of the Opposition towards the gas industry and its present plans for expansion, which we believe to be useful and appropriate and which can make an immense contribution to the national economy.
    What we are concerned about is that any nationalised industry should be represented by the Government with a request that a £200 million borrowing power should be authorised without proved need. We are not opposing the Bill, but we ask the Government to tell us why it is necessary. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) made a strange intervention, backed up by two rather odd companions, with carefully prepared notes and an open mind, and then showed himself only too anxious to give an enthusiastic "yes" to anything the gas industry may ask for.
    Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman has my assurance—and many hon. Members

    1521
    will have observed it—that I prepared my notes during the speeches of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Peyton: I am glad to know that. But it became clear during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) that we were concerned with an increase of borrowing power of £550 million, within which a borrowing margin of £200 is a fairly high proportion. It is clear that the hon. Member for Bodmin had this a bit wrong.
    We accept, of course, that the gas industry will have to justify itself to the Minister, but that is not the argument. We know perfectly well that the gas industry has to justify the Ministers the expenditure of the money. We on this side of the Committee are not Ministers.
    Mr. Robert Maxwell: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Peyton: Very well, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene we will always give way to him.
    Mr. Maxwell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman and will take him up on his invitation. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will not be Ministers for a very long time—because of the way they have been carrying on.
    Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful for that, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene further in the debates tonight we shall, of course, be only too pleased to welcome his interventions with the normal enthusiasm.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member should know that the Chair discourages invitations to intervene.
    Mr. Peyton: I am really terribly sorry, Dr. King, that we are not together on this. I did think you would be the first to share my enthusiasm for the hon. Gentleman's interjections, and I am very shocked, though humbled, to know you disagree with me, and naturally, I shall change my mind immediately. I am very grateful to you for bringing me so sharply into line, and correcting my judgment, which, I recognise, needed it.
    To get back to the argument, I do not want there to be any doubt about this. Both the Government's spokesmen have constantly trotted out this point that the
    1522
    actual expenditure of the money will be subject to constant supervision by the Government. We accept this. All we are saying is that if the Government say, as they are saying, and as the industry is saying, that they want this borrowing margin for the industry, then the time will come later on to come to the House of Commons and say, "This is the moment we want it." But to authorise now, by a proposed Act of Parliament, money for which, confessedly, the need is not established is, in our view, wrong.
    The Minister said—and I am rather concerned to probe this a little further, if I may—that the gas industry will throughout its use of the money, the borrowing of which we are now to authorise, will have to prove the need for every single pound and shilling. All right. How is that different from what he has said in relation to the £200 million borrowing margin? This is where I am a little bit in doubt.—[Interruption.]—I do not think that the mere fact that it is the subject of an Amendment makes all that difference. I am so sorry to have to repeat this argument, but what the Minister has said all along is that the actual expenditure will have to be approved pound by pound. Now, in discussing this Amendment, the Minister appears to suggest some special procedure will attach to the last £200 million. In that case, what the Minister said did not really mean very much.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: We are discussing an Amendment by which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are seeking to cut down borrowing by £200 million. It is they, not I, who attach all that importance to this point. I am asking them to agree to my having permission to borrow. The expenditure which the industry incurs we discussed on the last Amendment. We put the case why that was being done. We come to this last tranche which the hon. Gentleman thinks so important. I have said that if, on examination, we were to find that the industry's requirements were not such that it would be necessary for the industry to have it all, then we would not authorise it; we would not authorise any more than the industry could prove it needed. While I am on my feet I will go further, and give an assurance that I will expect the industry to produce a further brochure justifying

    1523
    that expenditure when the industry asks for it. The hon. Gentleman made the distinction between Ministers and people who do not get the opportunities to study the matter. I repeat the assurance that I will expect a further brochure from the industry.
    Mr. Peyton: I do not wish to be unreasonable, but I am bound to come to the conclusion, though I welcome this assurance as a slight change of wind, indicating some willingness to consider the points, and some sympathy with the points, which have been put forward from this side of the Committee, that it nevertheless does appear to me quite clear that the Minister is not really indicating anything very different between his examination of the expenditure of the last £200 million and the way he treats the first £350 million of the amounts with which we are concerned. It is a slightly hollow offer, though I appreciate and welcome the right hon. Gentleman's desire to please.
    I do not understand why, when these words about a reserve borrowing margin are used—in other words, there is here a clear confession both from the industry and from the Minister that there is no proven need for this money—it is unreasonable for the Opposition to ask the Executive to come back to Parliament when the need for such money arises and say so. That is the reason for the Amendment, but in view of the Minister's at least reasonable attitude to what we have said, although he has not gone very far with us, we would not wish to press this to a Division.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, Clause 1, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
    Provided that the Minister shall not specify an increase of more than £200 million by any one order.
    The previous Amendment having been negatived, the purpose of this Amendment is to suggest an alternative and possibly less painful method by which the Minister can bring to this House for Parliamentary scrutiny the further, or part of the further, expenditure for which no case has as yet been made out.
    I referred in an earlier debate to the 1959 Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act
    1524
    which first authorised this two-stage procedure. During the Committee stage of that Bill, on 17th February, 1959, at column 254, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet moved an Amendment which had the effect of introducing this affirmative Order procedure and establishing the two-stage process. In doing so, my right hon. Friend wanted to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that it was to be open to the Minister, when bringing forward an Order pursuant to the Act, to make the Order cover part, as well as the whole, of the additional amount, and that he was not to be obliged to bring forward one Order for the whole amount.
    It will be remembered that in that Bill the extra margin was £500 million, and in those circumstances it was perhaps not unreasonable that my right hon. Friend should have emphasised that aspect of the matter. He said that the Minister's hands should be left untied, and that he should be free to introduce an Order for part of the additional margin, or the whole of it if he thought fit. My right hon. Friend wanted the Minister to be left with a degree of flexibility; that he should not be required to introduce an Order for the whole amount.
    In this Amendment we are going one stage further. This is a new procedure. It is not based on any precedents. It has not happened before. But in the circumstances of this case I submit that the Amendment is a reasonable one. It would afford Parliament a degree of control over the borrowing powers of this rapidly developing industry which would seem to be justified.
    12.30 a.m.
    I have already referred to the uncertainties that face the industry in the future, and it seems reasonable that Parliament should retain at any rate this degree of control over the granting of additional borrowing powers. I would much rather have it this way, so that we periodically have an opportunity, in considering either a Bill or a statutory instrument, of reviewing the progress made by the industry, and to look at its future, than to have the continual sniping attacks which seem to have come from both sides of the House as the industry develops.

    1525
    I was talking to the chairman of one of our nationalised industries the other day, and he likened his job to that of running a large private company, with the annual general meeting constantly in session. This seems to be not a bad analogy, and one can understand the difficulties of the top management in these enormous concerns in trying to manage the day-to-day affairs of their industry in the face of the inevitable barrage of criticism they receive not only from the public but also, at times, from the House. It would go a long way towards removing the need which many hon. and right hon. Members feel constantly to probe the intentions of the industry and to ask what its future is to be if, periodically—in the case of this industry not less frequently than once every three years—a proper inquiry were made and a proper debate held in which the question could be examined dispassionately and at proper length, so that the industry could go forward secure in the knowledge that it had Parliamentary support for its development.
    The Amendment provides that the additional margin of £300 million, over and above the £900 million written into the Bill, should not be authorised all in one, and that not more than £200 million at any one time should form the subject matter of an order, and that therefore, when the £200 million is approaching exhaustion, a further authorisation should be made when the Minister can ask the House to authorise the borrowing of the additional £100 million.
    In view of what the Minister said in reply to the preceding debate about his desire to scrutinise this additional margin with extra special care—that it would be examined with more than the usual thoroughness with which the Ministry examines the proposals of various industries—and in view of his assurance that if the industry does not make out a case he will not sanction expenditure, it seems to me that the Amendment would go very little further, and that it would be a proper courtesy to hon. Members, as trustees of the taxpayers, to make sure that they should be the ones to authorise this additional tranche of expenditure. I hope that the Minister will see the force of my argument and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ridley: We have not so far achieved a great deal of acceptance by the Minister of the main proposals that these Amendments have dealt with, concerning greater Parliamentary control over the borrowing of these large sums by the gas industry. All that we have so far been offered by the right hon. Gentleman is a brochure for about 1970, or whenever it may come, and we are grateful to him for this offer of an extra brochure. But we want a slightly more solid concession to the principle which we have been debating tonight, and this Amendment gives him the opportunity to give it to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), with his accustomed clarity and accuracy and brevity, has moved the Amendment, which I commend to the Committee.
    The Minister has resisted the previous Amendment only on rather flimsy grounds, which fall down in relation to this Amendment. I should like to mention both the Minister's main standpoints, because I think that they are relevant to this Amendment. First of all he says that we are not discussing expenditure: we are discussing borrowing only. The whole Committee would accept that, but the mere borrowing itself must, of course, control the amount of investment and the number of activities which the industry can undertake, and borrowing can be financed directly from the taxpayer.
    I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to such a year as often happens in our financing, when the Budget is in surplus and that surplus is used to pay the capital to nationalised industries. It could otherwise have been raised by borrowing on the market. In those years there is a direct outpouring of the taxpayer's money towards the capital of the nationalised industries. This is a very good reason why we in this Committee should be concerned about where it all goes.
    The Minister's second and more important ground has been that he would not agree to this last tranche of £200 million of borrowing margin unless the Gas Board proved to him the need for it. We are not satisfied that the Minister alone should have the need proved to him. The House of Commons, which will have to agree to the borrowing, either now or at a later stage, should

    1527
    surely be consulted when that further tranche is asked for. We are being helpful to the Minister in this, because, in asking for a further order, we are asking for something which would be less trouble to the Government of the day than a borrowing powers Bill.
    We have now reached £650 million; after another £200 million, we would reach £850 million and, after a further £200 million, we should reach £1,050 million. With two orders, he would get as far as the £1,200 million. We could have short debates about them, but, if it were felt to be an important matter, they could be much longer, as they have been tonight. If there was a point of major principle, we could use the opportunity for Parliament to debate the principle.
    So, by this means, the Minister would achieve much more flexibility and would use much more Government time than under the previous Amendments. I believe that it would satisfy the case put by many of my hon. Friends this evening, and to which the Minister has not produced a satisfactory answer. We look forward to hearing from the Minister that he is prepared to accept the Amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It was, of course, clear that the object of the Amendment was to make me come twice for authority. This goes back to the theme of these discussions, the amount of control which Parliament will exercise. So far as the gas industry is concerned, there have been five debates on the industry during the course of the last nine months. If the Opposition require more debates on the gas industry, it is well within their powers to arrange for them. I do not want to go over the arguments again which I adduced against the last Amendment. I have tried to show—and this is relevant again—
    Mr. Webster: The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Opposition wish to do so they can easily find time. I have been to the Library and checked whether there was ever a Supply Day chosen for this purpose in the whole of "the thirteen wasted years" about which we hear so much. The Opposition of the
    1528
    time never took a single Supply Day for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism does not seem to be very apt.
    Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman studies what I said he will see that I was not referring to Supply Days.
    We believe that the first tranche of £900 million will expire at about the end of a period that the Conservative Party, when in Government, determined was the right period before a further debate—after about three-years. They were in power when the gas industry began this vast expansion and they laid down the rules of the game. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) says, one sees these things from a different angle when one has moved to the other side. But as they have determined the period, and as I think that a three-year period is reasonable, I think that hon. Members opposite should agree that we should preserve roughly the time factor between discussions which they laid down.
    Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that his intention is to obey the rules of the game as we laid them down. What we quarrel with—I hope that he understands this point—is that £250 million is authorised by the Bill immediately and then a larger sum, £300 million, is authorised by order. This is a new procedure as far as I am aware. If it had been £250 million followed by £50 million or £100 million, we should not have quarrelled with him, but he is going very much further than that.
    Mr. Lee: If that is the case, it is difficult to see why hon. Members opposite moved the first Amendment to reduce the sum from £900 million to £850 million. I am not impressed by their argument that the House cannot exercise a great deal of control by the two tranches which we suggest. This is the fifth time in nine months that we have discussed the gas industry. There are also regular annual events which provide an opportunity for the House to debate the gas industry. Every year my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has the duty of presenting to Parliament a White Paper on the level of investment and borrowing for the nationalised industries. In addition, I present the Annual Reports of the Gas Council and the Area Boards, together

    1529
    with the report which I make on my functions under the Act. In addition, there is the possibility of debating the nationalised industries on Supply Days, although I was not including those days in my earlier comment.
    I went a long way to meet hon. Members opposite on the last Amendment. I feel that I am not being unreasonable in asking the House to agree that the two tranches for which we ask should be maintained. If there is a find of gas in commercial quantities in the North Sea there will be a huge impetus to the demand for gas. There is no doubt about that. The very fact of finding commercial quantities of gas in the North Sea would have an enormous effect on the demand. I suggest that it is better for the industry to be able to proceed with its affairs rather than my having to come back to Parliament to ask for further powers.
    12.45 a.m.
    The hon. Member for Yeovil spoke about my being able to seek futher powers at a later date, but what would happen if, in about three weeks' time, a huge find were to be made in the North Sea? Three or four months would have to elapse before I could seek those powers from Parliament. Since the House of Commons will have the rights, privileges and so on which I have described, I suggest that it is right and proper to allow the industry to take advantage of the possibilities to expand when they occur. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment. I have tried to answer their questions in a reasonable way. In the interests of the gas industry and the nation, we should be allowed to proceed in the way set out in the Measure.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Chairman: Under Standing Order No. 47, the Chair is of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the Amendments proposed thereto. I propose, therefore, to put the Question forthwith, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Question put accordingly and agreed to.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment: read the Third time and passed.

  GAS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  GAS BILL

    Clause 3.—(RATING OF GAS COUNCIL AND OTHER GAS AUTHORITIES.)
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In Clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert:
    "(2) For the purposes of section 6(1) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955, and of the corresponding Scottish enactment, gas supplied by the Gas council to consumers at, or manufactured by the Council at, a place in Great Britain shall be treated as having been supplied or manufactured, as the case may be, by the Gas Board in whose area that place is situated."
    12.48 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I suggest that it might be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 7, in Clause 3, page 5, line 8, to leave out from beginning to "1955" in line 11 and insert:
    "Section 24(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to section 6(1) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955, Schedule 4 to the said Act of 1956 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to Schedule 3 to the said Act of"
    Amendment No. 7 is consequential on the first in that it refers to the Scottish position. The object of the Clause is to ensure that the gas industry pays the same amount of rates whether the maker or supplier of gas be the Gas Council or an area gas board. The Amendment ensures that when the Gas Council exercises its powers under the Bill it will come under the same formula as a gas board; that is as occupying a notional hereditament.
    Mr. David Webster: Having moved just such an Amendment in the Standing Committee, I am very delighted that the Minister should now have accepted it.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special entry.]
    Lords Amendment No. 3: In Clause 3, page 3, line 42, leave out "the gas works" and insert:
    "a gasworks of the Gas Council".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    With this Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 44, at end insert:
    "as they apply where a gasworks of a Gas Board is so situated".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no objection, if the House has no objection.
    Mr. Morris: The present position is that where a gas board's gasworks is situated partly in the area of one rating authority and partly in that of another, provision is made in the rating law to deal with the situation, and it is sought by this Amendment to ensure that a gasworks operated by the Gas Council is put in a similar position.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his explanation. Could he tell us what happens when the gasworks is situated on the Border—and partly in England and partly in Scotland? I am sure that he has advice forthcoming from his colleague from the Scottish Office, and we should like to be instructed in the position, having regard to the great care with which the Parliamentary Secretary has gone into the matter.
    Mr. John Morris: The case of a gasworks, whether it be the property of a gas board or of the Gas Council, which is situated partly in the area of one local authority and partly in that of another, is covered by the present legislation. I see no difference whether it be in Scotland or in England. The legal provision for dividing the rating charge is well known.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 5: In Clause 3, page 3, line 45, leave out from first "of" to end of line and insert:
    1532
    "section 11(3) of the Local Government Act 1958".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment. There is nothing I can add by way of explanation except to say that, by reason of an Amendment already agreed to, there is a lengthening of the sentence in the original reference to Section 11. The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify further the position.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 6: In Clause 3, page 4, line 47, at end insert:
    "() In this section, in its application to England and Wales, expressions used in the Rating and Valuation Act 1925 have the same meanings as they have for the purposes of that Act and, in its application to Scotland, expressions used in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 have the same meanings as in the said Act of 1956".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    There was concern expressed in another place about the use of the word "rate" as it was felt that it should not include the drainage rates. One method of dealing with this point might have been to ensure that "drainage rates" were expressly excluded, but that would have resulted in complications in regard to other rates. This Amendment has therefore been tabled to make the position absolutely clear.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 7: In Clause 3, page 5, line 8, leave out from beginning to "1955" in line 11 and insert:
    "Section 24(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to section 6(1) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955, Schedule 4 to the said Act of 1956 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to Schedule 3 to the said Act of".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Webster: May I simply say again, as seemingly the only person who spoke up for Scotland in Standing Committee, and having had no assistance from any Scottish Member on the Government side,

    1533
    from any Law Officer or Scottish Minister—and I am not sure that any Scottish Minister is present now—how much I appreciate that the Lords have done something for Scotland in the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(CONTROL OF MINING AND OTHER OPERATIONS IN STORAGE AREA AND PROTECTIVE AREA.)
    Lords Amendment No. 9: In Clause 5, page 7, line 4, after "this" insert "Part of this".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I ask that with this Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the following 19 similar Lords Amendments be taken: Nos. 11, 12, 15 to 18, 20 to 27, 29, 31, 35, 38 and 40.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I have no objection if the House has no objection.
    Mr. John Peyton: Perhaps I may help and say that now that the hon. Gentleman has got the formula for moving the Amendments right we are happy to have these Amendments taken together.
    Mr. Morris: I am obliged. These are drafting Amendments. In accordance with drafting practice, where an Act is set out in two or more Parts and a provision in it does not relate to the whole Act, it is the practice to make this clear by relating that provision to the relevant Part or Parts.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 10: In Clause 5, page 7, line 36, leave out from beginning to "the".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The words proposed to be left out are unnecessary and misleading. As the preceding subsection includes the words which are being left out, they are unnecessary. The words are:
    1534
    "Subject to any conditions imposed under this section."
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 18.—(DISCONTINUANCE OF AN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE.)
    Lords Amendment No. 19: In Clause 18, page 22, line 20, leave out from "Minister" to "be" in line 21 and insert:
    "necessary in the interests of safety that an underground gas storage should".
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment to remove an ambiguity from subsection (1). It also repairs an omission by ensuring that subsection (10) also applies to subsection (1).
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 25.—(APPLICATION TO THE CROWN.)
    Lords Amendment No. 28: In Clause 25, page 28, line 4, leave out "of Power".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment. The words "of Power" are already covered by the definition Clause, Clause 33(2) and the words are therefore unnecessary.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27.—(REGISTRATION IN LOCAL LAND CHARGES REGISTER AND GENERAL REGISTER OF SASINES.)
    Lords Amendment No. 30: In Clause 27, page 29, line 44, leave out "local land charges register" and insert "register of local land charges".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    There are two related Amendments which could be taken with this. The

    1535
    purpose of the three Amendments is to ensure that the same description is used throughout the Bill for the same register.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would help the House and the Chair if the Chair knew in advance what the groupings of Amendments were to be. The job of the Chair is to protect the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 28.—(MODIFICATION OF STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) ACT 1945.)
    Lords Amendment No. 34: In page 30, line 16, leave out Clause 28.
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The matters set out in Clause 28 are also dealt with in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill which is to be further considered by the House after Amendment in another place. If that Bill becomes law, Clause 28 of this Bill will become redundant. It is therefore sought to remove Clause 28.
    Mr. Ridley: How is it that Clause 28 ever got into the Bill if it should not be there at this late stage? The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill would make it unnecessary, but the Government, not I, wrote that Bill. Why has it not been proposed before that Clause 28 should be left out if it is irrelevant now that another Bill is in transit?
    Mr. Morris: It would not be advantageous to discuss who originally drafted the Bill. The Gas Bill was introduced before the other Bill, which has been considered in another place, as has the Gas Bill. It seems likely that the other Bill will be discussed by this House this week and that both Bills will receive Royal Assent on the same day, in which case there would be no need for Clause 28 of this Bill when another enactment will be coming into force dealing with the same subject.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1.—(AMENDMENTS AS RESPECTS FUNCTIONS OF GAS COUNCIL.)
    Lords Amendment No. 36: In Schedule 1, page 38, line 3, leave out "Gas Act 1948" and insert "principal Act".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment. As explained in the Bill, the Gas Act, 1948, will be referred to as "the principal Act".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 37: In Schedule 1, page 38, line 15, after first "the" insert "said".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Again this is a drafting Amendment. It inserts the words "said" before "Act of 1964", so as to make it clear that the reference is to the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, previously referred to.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 2.—(STORAGE AUTHORISATION ORDERS.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 39: In Schedule 2, page 41, line 37, leave out "under this Act".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Pehaps it would be convenient to take with this Amendment No. 41, in Schedule 2, page 44, line 20, leave out "under this Act".
    Paragraphs 8(1) and 12(2) of Schedule 2 of the Bill make it mandatory to hold a public inquiry if objections are made by anyone on whom a notice has to be served under Paragraphs 7(3) or 12(1) of the Schedule: that is, when the gas authority formally apply to the Minister for the making of a storage authorisation order, or when the Minister proposes that his control under Clause 5 over underground operations in the vicinity of a storage should be applied over a wider area than had been proposed by the gas authority. However, if the Minister is

    1537
    satisfied that the objections relate exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal, on a claim for compensation under this Act, he is relieved of the obligation to order an inquiry under Paragraphs 8(3) and 12(4). It is usual to include a provision of this kind in procedures of this nature. In this particular case the words "under this Act" should not appear, because compensation may be payable by a gas authority, not only under this Act, but under another enactment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 3.—(CERTIFICATES AS RESPECTS PLANNING PERMISSION AND GRANT OF STATUTORY LICENCES TO ABSTRACT WATER.)
    Lords Amendment No. 42: In Schedule 3, page 49, line 14, leave out "where" and insert "of".
    Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment, simply to correct a grammatical fault in Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3.
    Question put and agreed to.

    ROADS (DISC PARKING SCHEME)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
    1.10 a.m.
    Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I am grateful for having the chance this evening of raising with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport the possibility of extending the use of disc parking in Britain. Usually an Adjournment debate is used to air specific grievances, but on this occasion I hope that both the Parliamentary Secretary and I can agree that this is a subject which will help many millions of people and save their time in future.
    Everyone accepts, I think, that there is an increasing need for some control of parking in city and town centres. Some years ago, authorisation was given by the Ministry for
    disc parking, and it fell
    1538
    to Cheltenham, which I have had the privilege of representing for the last year, and which is, as all hon. Members will know, a most progressive borough, to be the first highway authority to try out the efficacy of disc parking.
    Cheltenham is not only a very fine town, but it has a magnificent shopping centre, parks and other amenities in the centre, where, hitherto, there has been considerable congestion. The Highways Committee is a very good team, and some three or four months ago, under Councillor Creswell, it introduced disc parking in the central area.
    There are still some people who do not quite know how the scheme works. I have one of the discs with me and, if I may, I will demonstrate. If this were the afternoon instead of being 1.15 a.m., I would set the time of arrival at between 1 p.m. and 1.30 p.m., and parking would be permitted until an hour and a quarter later, at 2.30 p.m.
    Incidentally, it has just occurred to me that some adaptation of the device might be useful for curtailing speeches in the House, or even the use of some of the more comfortable chairs in the Library.
    The system of disc parking in Cheltenham, which operates from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. except on Sundays and holidays, covers an area about three-quarters of a mile square in the centre of the town. There are parking bays, though they are not measured out as they are for meter parking, so that one can very often get three small cars into an area where, in the case of ordinary meter parking, there could be only two. I understand that there is room in the area for some 1,500 vehicles, which is obviously fewer than would be possible if there were unrestricted parking, as there was previously, but more than if pre-payment meters were installed.
    As for the cost to the local ratepayers, there are only four wardens, who have carried out their duties admirably in the three to four months that the system has been working. There are also in Cheltenham "Trust the motorist" car parks at sixpence a day, and they again have worked very satisfactorily to the benefit of the community and with the minimum cost to the ratepayer. As for the discs themselves, I understand that an

    1539
    enterprising oil company produced some 50,000, which are issued by local hotels, by the police, by garages and, as I shall explain in a moment, by the wardens. If the system is adopted more widely in the country, these discs will become standard equipment in all cars.
    The result since the introduction of the disc system has been universal praise. To take some of the points which arose, the bus companies describe it as "a marvellous scheme", and the bus drivers have written to the Highway Committee to express their pleasure. The Chamber of Commerce and the commercial travellers, who are probably the most consistent users of parkinig places, welcome it. The unloading bays near the shops have proved adequate. There has been a great fund of good will from the general public, and the police have welcomed it, as have the motoring organisations.
    The congestion has been considerably eased in the centre of the town because drivers now find places to park more rapidly and do not have to drive round and round looking for places. There is much less "street furniture", as it is called, which is so disfiguring and so costly.
    One enters the marked zone and finds considerably less notices, such as notices about parking on one side of the street or the other, or from such and such hour to another. The growth of traffic restrictions and, consequently, street furniture is one of the most striking things in our cities. I would instance Westminster, in this respect.
    There have been so far very few offenders. The drill so far is for the warden to put a disc on a car and leave it there, taking the number of any offender. So far—I speak without prejudice and with no anticipation—no prosecutions have taken place. I understand that all are better mannered and less frustrated and happier as a result of the introduction of the system. One feels that there must be some drawback to it somewhere, but The Times motoring correspondent noted on 25th May that there was none. Indeed, I understand that no complaint has been received from the public.
    So, having cut my remarks as brief as possible, I ask the Joint Parliamentary
    1540
    Secretary what action he is taking or proposes to take to give publicity to this successful scheme. The Ministry has, I understand, a team in Cheltenham examining the scheme, and I hope that when the experiment has been considered it can send out recommendations to the other 1,285 highway authorities in Britain to see whether some at least cannot try out the scheme and to urge them to consider introducing it, allowing always, of course, for local problems.
    I think that further experience is needed. Prima facie one feels that this is most useful in towns and cities up to about 100,000 inhabitants. When one gets into larger cities and conurbations it may be necessary to introduce other forms of control, and there may be a bigger need for off-at parking on a larger scale.
    I am sure that the Cheltenham authority and its admirable administration, which has done so much to make Cheltenham one of the leading towns in Britain, will be delighted to give the benefit of its experience to other local authorities. I believe strongly in local government. Here is a definite chance for local initiative where Cheltenham once again has given a lead. I am sure that only benefit can result from it if others should try it.
    1.18 a.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Before dealing with the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) in a very interesting debate, perhaps I may say something in general about the problem of the control of parking in order to put the situation into perspective.
    I think that nearly every intelligent citizen admits the need for control of parking on the streets in towns, but there is wide diversity of opinion and controversy about the way in which it should be controlled and about the severity of the penalties imposed. Especially in London and the big cities, people are now getting used to stringent restrictions on parking as a normal part of city life, but in smaller towns lack of space still irritates people and they accept controls in a grudging way. In very small towns and villages, many people still regard street parking control as necessary for others but not for themselves. These

    1541
    different attitudes reflect the real problem which we in the Ministry of Transport and local highway authorities have to face: how much control is necessary and suitable to a particular place?
    The fundamental point is that the relationship between available parking space in a town and the effective demand for parking space by vehicle owners governs not only people's attitudes to the controls which are imposed but also the type of controls which ought to be chosen to suit particular local circumstances, and these may vary considerably from place to place.
    Therefore, in brief, while the need for control is universal and, I think, is becoming more and more universally accepted, it does not necessarily mean that uniformity of parking controls can be imposed: we should try to develop the kind of controls which are suitable to the place. Those responsible, especially on local highway authorities, should apply their minds to their own local cirsumstances and try to develop the best controls to suit the local needs.
    Parking can be controlled, of course, in a number of ways. It can be controlled simply by erecting "No waiting" signs or by painting lines on kerbs as proposed and laid down by the Department I represent. This method is very clear but not very subtle, of course. It will not suffice for very complex town centres. As soon as signs begin to cramp people's activities they also begin to be disregarded, and that is a factor, of which we are very well aware, which brings the law into disrepute, and I am very sorry to say it has brought it into disrepute in this respect on quite a wide scale.
    At the other extreme we have the system of parking meters, which ration space for parking effectively by means of time limits and by means of charges. People cannot easily disregard this form of mechanical control, but the difficulty for those responsible lies in getting people to accept meters in the first place; especially is it a difficulty for the members of local highway authorities. People, we find, have many objections to meters. They find meters are ugly; they find that they symbolise regimentation; they are regarded as a method of rationing by the purse. If the objections to parking meters can be classified under the heading of
    1542
    hatred, the feelings about signs and kerb markings which are ineffective can be classified under the heading of contempt.
    One might, I suppose, make out a case for parking discs by saying that they remove the grounds for contempt without necessarily arousing hatred. Parking discs are a sort of gentleman's agreement whereby the motorist erects his own sign in his own
    car and applies the general rule on time limits to his own individual movements. There are many attractions in this form of disc parking control. Disc parking control reduces the need for unsightly street furniture, in the phraseology of the hon. Member for Cheltenham. It imposes a discipline, but through co-operation on the part of the motorist himself. It rations space, but only does it by time limitation and not by the purse. There is no payment involved.
    The limitations of the disc control method of dealing with car parking can best be appreciated in terms of the amount of enforcement effort that is needed to obtain good results. In a word, the cost both in money and in public patience to all those who are involved in a town like Cheltenham.
    The first prong in street parking control is the time limit on car parking itself. That clears the long-term car parker, usually the car commuter, off the streets and leaves room for the short-term parker, for example, the shopper, the business caller, the commercial traveller, the sightseer, the tourist, and so on. A time limit is all that a disc can impose. That is the method of control, and time limits alone are effective only while there is, by and large, enough space for everyone who wants to park in the town. That is an important factor for all towns which are going to consider the question of disc parking to remember. As soon as the demand for car parking space rises to the point at which people have to tour round and round looking for space, time limits become very irksome, and in such circumstances the parking discs will tend to be disregarded, in the same way, I am afraid, as signs and kerb markings are disregarded today.
    At this point the efficacy of the parking disc system will depend on its enforcement by the attendants, whether they are wardens or the police. As soon as enforcement becomes the mainstay of a control system, two things tend to happen: the

    1543
    cost rises because more manpower has to be employed in supervision and in prosecutions, and the atmosphere of co-operation, which I know has been a very important part of the Cheltenham scheme, between the motorist and the authorities tends to diminish.
    The Ministry's view is that parking meters, which combine the use of the price mechanism with time limits and make supervision physically easier for attendants and wardens, are the most appropriate form for towns in which it is clear that the demand for parking presses very heavily on available space. In other words, in towns in which there is an excess demand for car parking space it is necessary for some deterrent to be introduced in the form of pricing. But we know that there are many towns in the country in which that state of affairs does not exist, but in which some form of parking control is nevertheless necessary. For those which have not reached the position where there is this excess demand, parking discs may well present the most advantageous solution to the problem.
    I am very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Cheltenham—and what he has said is borne out by all the evidence that we have in the Ministry—that the disc parking system inaugurated by my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary some time ago is developing in such a happy and successful way. We are extremely pleased to hear that. Cheltenham is fortunate in having the right circumstances for a parking disc scheme, with adequate off-street parking and wide streets suitable for parking outside the disc zone.
    Cheltenham, as the hon. Member can rightly claim, is the first authority to use
    1544
    discs, although as long ago as 1961 the Department which I represent invited any local authorities who were interested in parking discs to consult it about the possibilities of the system, which is widely used on the Continent of Europe. I understand that as a result of Cheltenham's initiative about 20 other local authorities have already approached Cheltenham to discover details of the scheme. Such is the result of putting a project actually on the ground, as compared with putting it on paper in a Ministry circular. We shall certainly be ready to consider further proposals from any authorities who wish to operate parking disc schemes, and we shall consider them on their merits in relation to local circumstances, as the Ministry did in the case of Cheltenham.
    I conclude this agreeable Adjournment debate by thanking Cheltenham for the agreement which it has expressed to co-operate with us in the Ministry in making a detailed survey of the working of this scheme and expressing the hope that this little debate will give some useful publicity to disc parking in general and to the very useful little car attachments that they make in Cheltenham, which I understand are freely available not only to those who live there but those who visit the town.
    I hope that Cheltenham's success, in particular, will also give publicity to the fact that the Ministry will consider favourably applications by any local authorities who wish to copy Cheltenham. We hope that they will achieve the same success.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Graduates (Courses Relevant to Tropical Conditions)
  Graduates (Courses Relevant to Tropical Conditions)
  Interest-Free Loans
  Interest-Free Loans
  Economic Aid Disbursements
  Economic Aid Disbursements
  Nepal
  Nepal
  Overseas Service College (Introductory Courses)
  Overseas Service College (Introductory Courses)
  Bilateral Aid
  Bilateral Aid
  British Farmers, Kenya (Financial Assistance)
  British Farmers, Kenya (Financial Assistance)
TECHNOLOGY
  Departmental Activities (Information)
  Departmental Activities (Information)
  Approved Research Projects
  Approved Research Projects
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Purnell & Sons Limited (Accounts)
  Purnell & Sons Limited (Accounts)
  Finance (No. 2) Bill (Inland Revenue Staff)
  Finance (No. 2) Bill (Inland Revenue Staff)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Allowances
  Allowances
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Compulsory Purchase Order, Liverpool
  Compulsory Purchase Order, Liverpool
  Water Supply, Vennington
  Water Supply, Vennington
  Cheltenham (County Borough Status)
  Cheltenham (County Borough Status)
  Council for British Archaeology (Memorandum)
  Council for British Archaeology (Memorandum)
  Rating (Allen Committee's Report)
  Rating (Allen Committee's Report)
  Car Park Dump, Humberston
  Car Park Dump, Humberston
  Reorganisation, Shropshire
  Reorganisation, Shropshire
HOUSING
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  3, Colvin Gardens, Ilford (Sale and Repurchase)
  3, Colvin Gardens, Ilford (Sale and Repurchase)
  Council Houses, Ilford (Sale)
  Council Houses, Ilford (Sale)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Matrimonial Proceedings (Information)
  Matrimonial Proceedings (Information)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon Net Licences (Poole Harbour)
  Salmon Net Licences (Poole Harbour)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Wages, Salaries and Dividends
  Wages, Salaries and Dividends
  North-West (Economic Study)
  North-West (Economic Study)
  SPACE RESEARCH
  SPACE RESEARCH
  LEASEHOLD SYSTEM (LEGISLATION)
  LEASEHOLD SYSTEM (LEGISLATION)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  London Airport (Taxi Fares)
  London Airport (Taxi Fares)
  Provincial Airports
  Provincial Airports
  Leconfield Airfield
  Leconfield Airfield
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Education Scheme, Liverpool
  Comprehensive Education Scheme, Liverpool
  ANGLO-GERMAN ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
  ANGLO-GERMAN ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
  ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Jewish Property (Protection)
  Jewish Property (Protection)
  West Riding Special Constabulary (Uniforms)
  West Riding Special Constabulary (Uniforms)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Immigration Vouchers
  Immigration Vouchers
  Unemployment, Merseyside
  Unemployment, Merseyside
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Land Prices (London Region)
  Land Prices (London Region)
  Colliery Spoil Heaps
  Colliery Spoil Heaps
  Land Commission (White Paper)
  Land Commission (White Paper)
  Forestry
  Forestry
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Telephone Operators, London (Dispute)
  Telephone Operators, London (Dispute)
  Imperial, Footscray and Orpington
  Imperial, Footscray and Orpington
POST OFFICE
  Post Office Tower (Special Stamps)
  Post Office Tower (Special Stamps)
  Churchill Memorial Stamps
  Churchill Memorial Stamps
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pay Television
  Pay Television
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Office Accommodation, Central London
  Office Accommodation, Central London
SCOTLAND
  Forestry
  Forestry
BOARD OF TRADE
  Jaguar Car Company (Unofficial Strikes)
  Jaguar Car Company (Unofficial Strikes)
  Secondary Courses (Fourth Year Pupils)
  Secondary Courses (Fourth Year Pupils)
  Secondary Pupils (Certificate and Non-Certificate Courses)
  Secondary Pupils (Certificate and Non-Certificate Courses)
  Proprietary Schools (Scientific Apparatus)
  Proprietary Schools (Scientific Apparatus)
  Patents (Compact Prosecution Procedure)
  Patents (Compact Prosecution Procedure)
  Production and Employment
  Production and Employment
  Nigeria (Tariff Preferences)
  Nigeria (Tariff Preferences)
ROADS
  A.1 (Stanborough Footbridge)
  A.1 (Stanborough Footbridge)
  M.1—M.6 Link
  M.1—M.6 Link
  Waiting Restrictions, London
  Waiting Restrictions, London
RAILWAYS
  Kingston-upon-Hull (Cottingham Branch Line)
  Kingston-upon-Hull (Cottingham Branch Line)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Rallies
  Motor Rallies
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
WALES
  Forestry
  Forestry

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD REA on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln

ANGLO-FRENCH VARIABLE GEOMETRY AIRCRAFT
11.6 a.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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 which aircraft in service with or due to enter service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force it is proposed to replace by the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I cannot really add much to what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in another place about the use of the variable geometry aircraft when he announced the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding with the French Government, which I also repeated in this House. Both Governments are convinced that there will be a wide variety of uses for aircraft with variable geometry in the middle and late 1970s. In this period it is likely that we shall have to withdraw, or begin to withdraw, from service the Buccaneer, the Lightning and the Phantom, and we are satisfied that versions of the variable geometry aircraft now under study are likely to be suitable replacements for some, or possibly all, of these types.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I assume was intended to be helpful. May I make it clear in passing that I strongly favour Anglo-French co-operation in this field? Indeed, I favour co-operation on a wider European basis. But may I take it from the reply that the noble Lord can at least confirm that the Royal Air Force will have a requirement in the later 1970s for a long-range high performance reconnaissance
586
and strike aircraft? He mentioned the Buccaneer, the Lightning and the Phantom. He did not mention a replacement or anything about the Royal Air Force's strike requirement.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think that the noble Earl is right in thinking that this particular aircraft (I am unadvised on this matter) will in fact have the capacity for long-range strike reconnaissance, but it is early days yet. It is likely to be a very much smaller aircraft than the F.111 or the TSR 2. That is perhaps as far as I can take it. If I can help the noble Earl more I will. Certainly it is my view, which has been clearly stated, that pending the outcome of the Defence review it is difficult to contemplate any situation in which the Royal Air Force will not need a long-range strike reconnaissance.
EARL JELLICOE: It is the position, therefore, that if the noble Lord does not succeed in getting for the Royal Air Force the F.111 or an equivalent aeroplane, if there is such an aircraft, then the R.A.F. in the 1970s will be without a long-range strike and reconnaissance aircraft?
LORD SHACKLETON: If the R.A.F. does not have such an aircraft it will be true to say that it does not have such an aircraft, but I think that we are getting a little away from the original Question.

NUCLEAR PROPULSION IN NAVAL VESSELS
11.10 a.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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 study they are making of the possible incorporation of nuclear propulsion systems in surface naval vessels.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, certain studies of the military possibilities of the application of nuclear propulsion to surface warships have already been carried under the Ministry of Defence and more are being undertaken. The subjects under study include the type of reactor which would best be suited to military needs and how a development programme

587
might be set up and managed. We are also reviewing the assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of adopting nuclear propulsion for surface warships. There are prospects of considerable operational advantages from increased range, flexibility and speed, but there may be disadvantages such as increased complexity and upkeep, and cost will of course be a material factor. This work is proceeding actively and the results are being considered by a high-level group under the Chief Scientific Adviser. Their conclusions will provide a basis on which the Government can decide on the course to be followed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer? May I say that from my imperfect knowledge I would not dissent from a great deal of what the noble Lord has said about the pros and cons of this particular application of nuclear propulsion? May I ask, however, whether he can assure us that these studies are being taken forward with all possible speed, and can he tell us how they are going? Are they yet at the feasibility study stage?
LORD SHACKLETON: I can promise the noble Earl that they are being pressed forward as fast as they can be. He will be aware that some of these studies were taking place or were initiated before he left office. We have not yet reached the stage of the feasibility study but it is a difficult and complicated matter. It would not be right to hurry it, but I have myself gone into this deeply to find out the answers and am satisfied that it is being regarded as a matter of great importance and therefore of urgency.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful reply.

"MIXED" FARMERS IN KENYA
11.12 a.m.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now make a statement regarding the position of the "mixed" farmers in Kenya, following the visit there of the Stamp mission.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development said in reply to a Question on July 13, the Stamp Mission now expect to present their final report towards the end of August. But following her receipt of the Mission's interim report, my right honourable friend invited Kenya Ministers to London next week for a preliminary exchange of views, and she hopes that these discussions will form a basis for substantive talks later on when she has had the opportunity fully to consider the Mission's final report.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply? Following upon this meeting in London of Her Majesty's Government and the Kenya Ministers and after the visit of the Stamp Mission, may we expect a statement later in the year of the Government's final decision about what they will do? Also, will the noble Lord remember that there is still a number of "mixed" farmers in Kenya who fell outside the earlier resettlement purchase scheme, and there is considerable concern that the Land Bank should be financially equipped to help these farmers should they require this help and have to leave the country.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend will certainly make it known when she has had the opportunity, in the first place, of preliminary talks with the Kenya Ministers; secondly, of studying the final Report of the Stamp Mission; and, thirdly, of course, of talking once more with the Kenya Government on these matters. She will then make her position known through the appropriate channels.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that further answer. But will it be borne in mind that progressively, as time goes on, there are more of what used to be called security cases, compassionate cases and so on, arising among the farmers as people get older and live alone? These are the people for whom the help of the Land Bank will be required. Will this fact be borne in mind?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that will certainly be borne in mind.
LORD CAREW: My Lords, may I beg leave to intervene here with some supplementary questions to the noble Lord, Lord Walston? Would he and Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the fact that these "mixed" farmers have to make up their minds before December 12 next whether or not they will assume Kenya nationality, as opposed to British nationality? Are these farmers going to be given an opportunity to leave Kenya before that date, without losing absolutely everything they possess in the world? In fact, what assurances are this House and the country at large going to get on the matter?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Stamp Mission's Report will be available long before then, and will have been studied by then. I very much hope—and that is a date which we certainly bear in mind—that such people will be in full possession of the facts before they have to make up their minds.
LORD CAREW: I thank the noble Lord.

MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/ WALLASEY) ETC. BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that six Amendments, particulars of which lie on the Table in the House, be agreed to. I am in a position to assure the House that all these Amendments are purely drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That the said Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING DAYS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MINISTERIAL SALARIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
11.19 a.m.
Order of the Day for the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading read.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, before casting a vote on so important and moving a matter as this, one is naturally disposed to give one's reason for the vote which one is going to cast. I can be quite brief. This measure arouses very deep convictions, and I am sure that there is equal sincerity among those who support it and those who oppose it. These deep convictions are hardly capable of logical proof or disproof. They arise out of our own mental and emotional processes. There is one argument in favour of this Bill which I feel is not sound. The fact that the Act of 1957 may have gone too far does not seem to me a reason why this Bill should go farther still. If it can be shown, as I think it can, that the 1957 Act has been ineffective for its purpose and has wrought a number of injustices, then that calls for a careful reconsideration of the Act, and not for unconditional abolition of the death penalty.
The first argument, I think, against this Bill is the importance of protecting the safety of the public. At the present time, there is not only an appalling wave of crime of all kinds but a disproportionate increase in crimes of violence. Those who have in the past been, very rightly, advocates of making our penal system more humane were for a long time able to justify their campaign by pointing out that, as humane punishments had

591
replaced inhumane punishments, so the amount of crime had diminished and declined. But that is no longer the case. It may well be that, whereas at one time punishment was too savage, it may now have become inadequate for its purpose. I well remember an occasion, when I represented a constituency, when a constituent of mine was tried a second time for murder. If the death penalty had not been commuted on the first occasion, an innocent person would not have been murdered.
I do not base my opposition to this Bill entirely upon grounds of convenience or public policy. I believe it is desirable that justice should be done, and I believe there is such a thing as moral indignation which is not a bad thing. I do not think that it is hypocrisy or self-righteousness, or anything of that kind, when one feels a stirring of great indignation after something very wrong has been done. I remember, many years after the Fascist régime came into power in Italy, being in Rome and happening to hear that a number of the murderers of Matteoti had been convicted, and convicted so that there was really no shadow of doubt that they had been guilty; but, because there was no death penalty in Italy, they were merely imprisoned. Now I did not know Matteoti, I am not an Italian and I am not a Socialist, but I cannot believe that there was anything wrong in a real feeling of moral indignation that those who had been guilty of a singularly cowardly and deliberate murder should not have met the supreme penalty.
We are told by the Christian religion to forgive our enemies, but I am not aware that we are told necessarily to forgive our neighbours' enemies. It is extremely easy to forgive the wrongs done to others; and, if there is no sign of repentance, I do not believe that forgiveness is either desirable or, indeed, morally right. I disagree with emotional condemnations of the death penalty. When a deliberate, cold-blooded murder has been committed, I think that the death penalty alone can right the scales. To put the matter on an ethical basis, is it not often the case that, after a murder has been done, it is only when one knows that the murderer has been executed that, for the first time, one feels some sympathy for him? Is it not perhaps the case
592
that only by paying the supreme penalty can a person who has done a wrong of that kind regain the sympathy of his fellow men?
If a mistake is mad—and I am quite sure that everything human is done to ensure that no-one is executed if there is the slightest shadow of doubt—the same difficulty applies in the case of all punishments. If we are to have imprisonment for life and someone is imprisoned for life, and if he dies in prison and then later, for some reason that could never have been foreseen, it is discovered that in fact he was not guilty, there is still no way of making up for the injustice that has been done.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? Would he address this side of the House? When he turns to that side, we lose his voice.
LORD MOLSON: I beg your Lordships' pardon; I am very sorry. I will try to address the House as a whole. To continue, certainly so far as concerns those who believe in survival after death and some kind of divine justice, it cannot be said that, if human justice has failed in this way, there can in a later life be no compensation for the wrong that has been done. It is the humanitarians, and those particular humanitarians who do not believe in any survival after death, who alone are quite logical in feeling that the abolition of the death penalty would do away with the danger of an irreparable wrong being done.
But, my Lords, we have to consider whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. It is no good arguing—and I am sure there are no statistics that are going to tell us—whether it is or is not. All that one can do is to search one's innermost soul; and I know, speaking for myself—and one can only speak for oneself—that, if I were subjected to a great temptation to commit murder, the knowledge that the penalty was death would be a great help in resisting that temptation.
My Lords, we have to consider, also, what are the alternatives. I cannot regard long-term imprisonment as a satisfactory alternative. As long as it is imprisonment, there is the hope of escape or of release. Let us take, for example, the case of the train robbers, two of whom

593
have just recently escaped. A number of them were given 30 years' imprisonment, and that, I take it, was to protect the public. A number of them were hardened criminals who had made crime their occupation in life. I suppose the sentences were also to ensure that they were not released from jail in time to spend a long life of leisure enjoying the results of their crime. But if, as I believe, penalties of that length are necessary in order to protect society and to act as a deterrent against robbery, what effect can further imprisonment have as a deterrent against killing—either against killing to resist arrest or killing in order to escape from prison?
I feel that punishment by the courts should not be merely reformatory, as is sometimes now argued. There are a number of confirmed criminals who are obviously incorrigible. There are, I think, some crimes too grave to justify any attempt at reformation. The courts, in awarding punishment, should attempt to give to enlightened public opinion some feeling that fair and proper punishment has been awarded. I believe that there is a great danger at the present time that we may show too much concern for criminals and too little concern for their victims, and too little care for the protection of society.
11.30 a.m.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: My Lords, it is eighteen years since I became eligible to sit in your Lordships' House, but this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address your Lordships, and I must ask, as is traditional, for your Lordships' forbearance; although I can hardly hope that it will be forthcoming in such prodigal quantity as the forbearance which I have exercised over this period.
During the discussion yesterday in your Lordships' House, many views were put forward from both sides on this complicated, not to say vexed, question. Statistics were used on either side, and noble Lords put forward their own personal experiences. It would be wrong, I think, in fact presumptuous, for me to claim that for as long as I can remember I have been a convinced abolitionist, but it certainly would not be untrue to say that I have been in that position, or moving towards it, for as long as I have
594
been able to think. I believe that it was reading Macaulay's description of the execution of Monmouth that first started me worrying about a question that I have always believed since then to be about as worrying as any question could be. I know that for the remainder of my schooldays I continued to find the problem, to put it mildly, an important one.
During the last war, for a few months of which I was a prisoner-of-war in Germany, I found these worries coming to a head and demonstrated in a practical manner. In the prison camp in which I found myself at one point, I think it was in January or February, 1945, we had—I was going to say a new inmate—a new member of the camp, in the person of an American colonel. When he arrived we were told that he had been condemned to death by his German captors because, in his capacity as senior officer of another camp, he had declined to post an order on a notice board—which was his notice board—in that camp because he felt that the order was contrary to the Geneva Convention and therefore illegal. For that he had been condemned to death and had been moved to our camp, according to the Germans, to await the carrying out of the sentence.
At that period of the war, nobody—that is, nobody in the camp—believed that the sentence would ever be carried out. But after the colonel had been in the camp for about a fortnight, he was suddenly taken to solitary confinement, as it were to the condemned cell. We still did not believe that, at that juncture of the war, the sentence would be carried out; that any German would be either so inhumane or so blind to his personal safety in the future as to attempt to carry it out. It happened that I paid a number of visits to the camp dentist at that period; and, by a coincidence, so did the American colonel. At the age of 22, which was my age at the time, I was forcibly struck and impressed to an alarming degree by the change that had taken place in the fortnight or three weeks during which the colonel had been in solitary confinement.
He was a man of about 38: normally robust, not to say "cocky" in his conduct and in his attitude in the relative freedom of the prison. But he had been reduced to a shadow of his physical self

595
and, so far as I could make out in talking to him when going to and from the dentist, to a shadow of the morale that he had shown before being put into solitary confinement. I should be the last person to pretend that a quite simple, and certainly a solitary, experience of this kind should convince one to be either an abolitionist or a retentionist. But it did start me off (perhaps I should finish the story: I believe the colonel to be still alive to this day) thinking seriously and furiously on a subject which since the war has occupied the thoughts and consciences of a great many thinking people.
Sir Ernest Gowers, when he had finished being Chairman of the Royal Commission which considered capital punishment a dozen or more years ago, said that there were two dogmas which were accepted emotionally as an act of faith by people who took an attitude on the question of capital punishment. Neither dogma was reached intellectually by reason. Each was arrived at emotionally, as I say, and by an act of faith. The adherents of either camp insisted—and the debate in your Lordships' House yesterday went to underline this view—that the onus of proof was on the occupants of the other camp. The abolitionist position rests basically on two points. The first is that it is wrong in any circumstances in cold blood to take the life of a fellow human being; and the second is that the death penalty is no sort of a deterrent to any prospective murderer. Your Lordships heard the first subject discussed during yesterday's debate and will hear it referred to again today by people with considerably more authority than I have. The second point, the matter of the deterrent, has also been discussed and talked round and through in the course of yesterday's debate, and again will be further discussed today.
To my mind, the most notable contribution on this subject made yesterday was by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, when he produced a series of statistics, and particularly those statistics which related to the curve, as one might describe it, the drawn curve of the incidence of murders over a period of twenty years or more in the United States. He cited the experience of certain States that had gone abolitionist, of other States that had
596
remained retentionist, and of further States that went abolitionist, and subsequently re-adopted the death penalty. The curve was found to be almost identical, whether a State had stayed one way, gone the other way, or changed in the middle. In other words, the statistics, which are perhaps as valuable statistics as we can find on this particular problem of the deterrent, showed the different application of quite contrary laws in rather comparable circumstances.
It seems to me, my Lords, that there is one crucial difference in the thinking of the retentionist and the thinking of the abolitionist. The abolitionist recognises the absolutely fundamental nature of taking human life, whether by a murderer or by the State. The retentionist is prepared to put the taking of human life by the State as it were in the balance, between right, on the one hand, and wrong, on the other; to treat this matter of the State's removing the life of a human being as like the action of a dealer in precious stones who corrects an uneven balance. That position the abolitionist is in no circumstances prepared to accept, either for himself or, of course, for society. It seems to me that that is the fundamental difference of thinking, of conscience, if you like—and I use the word with a certain diffidence because I do not mean to imply an excess of conscience on the one side and a lack of it on the other; but it is a difference in conscience—between the thinking of the abolitionist and that of the retentionist.
Your Lordships' House has twice in the last twenty years had a chance of accepting or rejecting the abolition of capital punishment and has twice chosen the course of rejecting it. I hope that your Lordships will take a different view later today when the question of a Second Reading for this important Bill comes up and is decided. I hope that your Lordships will accept that thinking has moved ahead, as it has in your Lordships' House, as was shown in 1948 and again nine years ago, because on those two occasions there was a very considerable difference in the number of Members of your Lordships' House who voted against the death penalty. I hope that your Lordships, by your voting, will agree that thinking has moved ahead; that in this instance this House must be clearly on the side of history and not

597
against it; and that this House can adopt the phrase of a great Englishman of the past, John Donne:
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind".
I hope that this House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
11.42 a.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, it is my good fortune on this occasion to be able, on behalf of your Lordships' House, to congratulate the noble Earl upon his maiden speech. I can assure him that all those who listened to him appreciated immensely the elegance and thoughtfulness of his speech. There is a formula which is frequently used on these occasions to the effect that we hope that we will hear him often in the future. It has clearly been our loss that eighteen years should have passed before he decided to address your Lordships' House and I can only say—and I am sure I am speaking for every Member of this House—that I hope he will in the future make up for that lost time.
After so much controversy and discussion, as my noble friend Lord Molson said, we who speak in this debate are perhaps less concerned to persuade others to the rightness of our own points of view, than to give an explanation as to how and why we intend to cast our votes. I hope I may be allowed to do so fairly shortly this morning. Let me say that I do not regard the problem of capital punishment as a great moral problem or its abolition as a very significant reform. I know of nothing in the New Testament which supports the idea of the absolute sanctity of human life; and, living as we do in a half-century in which the State has demanded without compunction more innocent lives in its service than at any other period in our history, I frankly find it difficult to see how we can claim to be elevated morally above our fathers, because we abolish capital punishment whereas they had no difficulty in deciding that it was right to hang a man or woman guilty of the awful crime of murder.
I am not opposed to capital punishment, yet I propose today to vote for this Bill to abolish it. In 1957, as a Member of the House of Commons I was one of those who voted for the Homicide Bill, partly because I did not realise its full
598
implications and partly, I confess, from a certain inborn prejudice on this subject. Subsequently, I have realised the nature of the Act which my vote helped to place on the Statute Book. I have also learned something of the handling of the problem of punishment for murder under other codes and I have sworn for many years past that if I could do anything to remove from the Statute Book the Homicide Act—which is a piece of legislation which I regard as the worst that any Parliament has passed—then I would take that opportunity with both hands.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has stated the position precisely. The 1957 Homicide Act must go. It is in my view unworthy both of the British legal system and of the sense of justice and equity of the British Parliament. If the alternatives are the Bill which we have before us, on the one hand, and the Homicide Act, on the other, then I will vote today for the Bill to replace that Act. Yet I am aware, or at any rate I think, rightly or wrongly, at present, that the abolition of capital punishment will create a number of new and difficult problems. I think, for instance, like my noble friend Lord Derwent, that it will lead more speedily than would otherwise be the case to the arming of the police. There will be occasions in the future in which the police and armed criminals will shoot it out; and if, as I hope, the police shoot quicker and straighter, this means that men will be executed without trial whereas today, at any rate, those who stand trial for, and are found guilty of, murder of a capital nature have gone through the due process of the law before falling subject to the ultimate penalty.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will have in mind that in Norway, in Sweden and in Denmark there is no capital punishment, yet the police are not armed.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I can only give my opinion. I do not think we can judge from the experience of other countries as to what may happen here. I think there is a great danger on both sides, both for the retentionists and for the abolitionists, in trying to call to their aid the somewhat misleading circumstances

599
and different situations of other countries. I may be wrong about this; I fully accept that. Indeed, some of the fears that have been expressed by noble Lords who are in favour of the retention of capital punishment may not be realised. Public opinion, which is of great importance in this matter and which must not be ignored by Parliament, may accept the change after a short time with complete equanimity. The fears of the warders and the police may prove groundless. My view is that the case for retaining capital punishment will never be proved to the satisfaction of informed opinion in this country unless we are prepared to go through a period when it has been abolished. I think, therefore, that the period of five years which is written into this Bill as the period of its life will enable those of us who have sincere convictions on both sides in this controversy to see for once and all who is right and who is wrong.
Quite apart from the fact that I believe in this particular circumstance that it would be wrong for this House to go against the majority opinion of the House of Commons and to reject the Bill on Second Reading, I believe it is in the interests of both sides, and not least of those who are in favour of capital punishment, that these five years of experiment of its abolition should be gone through to see what conclusions we can draw from them. All that I would say is this: if at the end of those five years the views of those who are in favour of capital punishment prove right and their fears are substantiated, then I will do my level best to ensure that what is restored to the Statute Book is not the existing 1957 Homicide Act but something that provides far greater equity and justice in this matter.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friends who are not abolitionists will not accept the advice that was given to us yesterday by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne or that which may be given to us towards the end of this debate, but will vote for the Second Reading, reserving their position with regard to the Committee stage and, more particularly, reserving the position of Parliament when at the end of five years the time comes for Parliament to consider the whole problem of dealing with murder in the
600
interests of public policy, in the light of the experience of the period of the experiment, which by that time will have ended.
11.52 a.m.
LORD CHUTER-EDE: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships, which I know is always granted to a Member addressing the House for the first time. If I get the opportunity, I propose to vote for this Bill. I have had a considerable experience in one form or another of dealing with the problems that arise in considering the appropriate punishment for murder. I observed, from the speeches I heard yesterday, that apparently we are now asked to accept hanging as the only and efficient deterrent to the wholesale commission of the crime. I do not believe that that is in accordance with the traditions of the British people.
It is most unusual for any crime of murder to have been long premeditated. The whole idea that murder had to be accompanied by malice aforethought is not borne out, I think, by the actual experience of the British people. It is most unusual for the crime of murder to be the result of prolonged meditation and of a determination to effect that particular crime. In most of the cases I had to consider when it came to granting a reprieve, I came to the conclusion that there was no possibility of long premeditation.
I imagine that if most of the people who have committed murder had been told, on the morning of the day on which they committed the crime, that before the day passed they would stand in danger of capital punishment, they would have expressed complete astonishment and would have assured anyone talking with them that they had no such thought in mind. What I think happens is that an opportunity occurs to a person not generally violent, when he is temporarily deranged mentally by some quite different motive—something is said or done suddenly by someone and in the particular frame of mind he happens to be in, a blow is struck, generally far harder than intended by the person delivering it—and a murder is committed. I do not think that a person who is in that position has the time in which to think of what the results of his action might

601
be for himself. The deterrent appears to me never to be likely to be present in the mind of a person who is tempted by some sudden coincidence of circumstances that place him in jeopardy.
I felt myself in considerable agreement yesterday with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in the attitude he adopted on the main principles of this issue. Though a former Lord Chief Justice complained that I was looking very fixedly at him, and assured me that he had never had a quarrel when our paths might have crossed in the past, I still think that the advice that the Lord Chief Justice gave to us yesterday should be followed.
What the penalty to be imposed should be is a matter which will cause the greatest concern, and I very much doubt whether, without an experimental period, we should be wise to make any decision on that matter. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be passed, that it will be thoroughly examined in Committee, and that, as a result, we may be able to do something practical that will remove from the Statute Book the present law and give us an opportunity of framing something that is more in accordance with the needs of modern times.
11.59 a.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, although the speech of the noble Lord to which we have just listened is not marked down on the list of speakers as a maiden, I have just been informed that it is a maiden speech. However, whatever it is, I am sure that your Lordships would like me to congratulate the noble Lord on a very good speech and to hope that we shall hear him often again. May I also add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Harewood? I think that all noble Lords, on whatever side they may be, will admit that he put up a very fine performance.
I hope that my speech will be one of the briefest speeches in a long debate. I was unable to be present yesterday to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, introduce this Bill, but I have already assured her of my support in the Lobby tonight. I stand today in the position in which I have always stood. Whenever such Bills have come before your Lordships' House, I have spoken and voted as a total abolitionist. I believe that if capital punishment ever
602
had any value—and I do not think it had—it certainly has absolutely none today. I do not believe you can cure violence by further violence. The greatest man who has ever lived on our planet told the world that 2,000 years ago. The world has not listened; and the world might have been spared a lot of suffering if it had. I believe that you have to start at the other end, and root out and try to cure the cause of all this trouble. I feel that if we go on as we are going on the world is very soon going to destroy itself.
Your Lordships will be getting tired of the word "deterrent", and I will not say more about it than this: that the most significant point, to my mind, is the finding of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1953. With all the mass of material and expert evidence at their disposal, they were unable to draw an inference or come to a conclusion one way or the other. That is what they said, and that, to me, is most significant. We abolitionists voted for the Homicide Act for one reason, and one reason only—namely, because there was no alternative for those who wanted to see fewer hangings. Of course, that Act has been a terrible thing, with all its anomalies, whereby murder with rape is not a capital offence, but murder with shooting is. That is only one of the anomalies, but several others were mentioned to your Lordships yesterday.
The final and all-important point to me is that a miscarriage of justice may be vary rare—because I have the utmost respect for British justice—but it is never impossible: justice cannot be infallible. The death penalty, once carried out, is absolute and final, and a mistake that is discovered later can never be put right. That is all I have to say. I intend to vote for this Bill, and I only hope that sufficient of your Lordships will do so to pass the Second Reading of the Bill, so that this country may follow the example of 30 other enlightened countries in the world which have brought in abolition and never seem to have suffered thereby.
12.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I suppose I must be one of the very few Members of this House who took part in the debate on this same subject nine years ago. I well remember the atmosphere in the

603
Chamber at that time. I was the unfortunate person who was winding up the debate on behalf of the abolitionists. The House was packed: I have never seen so many noble Lords in the House as there were on that occasion. I think many noble Lords came partly to listen to the debate, but there was also a big function on that evening and they were there in readiness for it. There were present noble Lords whom I had never seen before, and have never seen since. The atmosphere to abolition was quite definitely hostile, and one could feel it. The result was that I made one of the worst speeches of my career and we lost the Division heavily: possibly we did not lose it on account of my speech, but lose it we did.
What a difference there is in the atmosphere today. The House is not packed, as it was then; and I think I may say that, if one can judge the atmosphere of the House this morning, it is definitely in favour of abolition. The number of the speeches, as well as the weight of them, is definitely in favour of abolition. There have been few speeches for retention. I would say that even those who have spoken in favour of retention have spoken regretfully. I think that they would prefer to abolish capital punishment, but they are concerned about the danger of not being able to provide an effective deterrent. If I wanted to hear the best possible case in favour of retention, it would be the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I say this because I have a high respect for the noble Viscount, and because he certainly put the case as well as it could possibly be put. But what did it amount to? It amounted to this: that he would like to abolish capital punishment—he thinks that if it were practicable to do so he would do it—but there is the awful fear at the back of his mind (I do not think he said he could prove it, because these are things one cannot prove) that if you abolish capital punishment somebody who is today deterred by the fact that he is liable to be hanged will, in carrying out a lesser crime, go out with a weapon which he would not otherwise carry with him. That, I think, is a fair summary of the noble Viscount's view.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I intervene only to say that, so far as the
604
professional criminal is concerned, I entirely agree that the noble Lord has given a fair summary. But that is only one of the categories.
LORD SILKIN: Before I deal with that, I should like to say a word about some of the speeches that have been made. I think it is notable that the younger Members of the House are almost without exception in favour of abolition. I should like to mention three speeches, in particular, which have impressed me immensely—and I doubt whether, taking them together, I have ever heard three better speeches in my life. I refer to the maiden speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I wonder whether they do not feel that they have wasted a great deal of time in not having addressed this House much earlier than they have, because I think their speeches were so worth-while; and, if the quality of their speeches had been the same, I would have said this if they had been in favour of retention. But the fact remains that we now have in favour of abolition not only the younger Members of this House but many of those who, nine years ago, were in favour of retention. We have had the lawyers on the side of abolition to-day. I can guess that the Lord Chancellor will be in favour of abolition. We have heard the Lord Chief Justice, and we have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and I rather sensed that the Lord Chief Justice was speaking largely, if not entirely, on behalf of Her Majesty's Judges. I think that the general sense of the Judges is in favour of abolition.
Then, of course, there is the Report of the Royal Commission, which has not been mentioned very much. The Royal Commission consisted of people, including the Chairman, who started off, if anything, with a bias in favour of retention of capital punishment. Sir Ernest Gowers, one of the greatest men of the day, a man whom I have had the privilege of knowing for many years and who is a great man in every sphere of life, admitted that he started off with a bias in favour of retention of capital punishment and finished up as an ardent abolitionist. And so did the Commission. We have had all this weight of opinion and every one of

605
those people has considered this point of the deterrent.
I should like to say a word about the deterrent. It is assumed by those who are in favour of retention that there is no effective deterrent except capital punishment. That is not the view of a great many people who have had considerable experience of this matter. May I mention the case of Mr. Brooke? Mr. Brooke, both on Second Reading and on Third Reading, emphatically stated that in his opinion a rather long term of imprisonment was an effective deterrent against the commitment of murder, and that if any person contemplating murder realised that he would be committed to prison for a long term, that would be quite effective. Of course, the difficulty is that nobody can say with certainty that a murderer will be either apprehended or convicted or what will be the term of his punishment. If he is sentenced to death, even that is no guarantee that he will eventually be hanged. Therefore, the person who sets out in cold blood—if there are such persons—and weighs up his chances, will come to the conclusion that it is a fair risk to take, in spite of capital punishment, because his chances of getting off are possibly 99 in 100. So he will estimate. Therefore, I do not regard that as a deterrent at all.
Let me mention one thing which is, I think, referred to in a book by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. About 115 years ago, executions were public. Pickpocketing was a capital offence, and people were hanged for picking pockets. Those public executions used to attract a very large number of people. If ever a deterrent was necessary, there it was. There was the person being executed visibly before their eyes. And yet pickpocketing on those occasions was carried on to a far greater extent than normal. The pickpockets really reaped their harvest, in spite of the deterrent in front of their very eyes.
As I said at the outset, times have changed, and the outlook has changed. I think public opinion is changing. If you took a Gallup Poll to-day, what the majority would say I do not know, but I think that in a case of this kind, before you took a Gallup Poll it would be right to put the case more clearly, more effectively, than is done at the present time. Obviously, if you casually
606
ask a person who has never given it a thought, "Are you in favour of capital punishment, or are you not?", I suppose the immediate reaction is the reaction of one or two noble Lords in this House: "This person has committed murder. Why should he not suffer the full penalty? Think of his victims", and so on. But if you ask these people whose opinion you are seeking to go into the matter a little more carefully, I am sure that the majority would be against capital punishment.
The Bill provides, however, that automatically there is to be a sentence of imprisonment for life on conviction. That I, must confess, is wrong, and is contrary to my own conception of a deterrent. After all, is it not much the same thing as a judge solemnly sentencing a prisoner to death, putting on a black cap, when everybody knows that the prisoner is not going to be hanged? That is the position to-day, in the case of all capital offences. In the majority of cases, people are not hanged. To that extent it is much less of a deterrent. If you automatically have a life sentence, which people know is not going to be carried out, then it is making a farce of sentences.
I would say that in this intervening period of five years, in this trial period, it would be much wiser and right, and act as a more effective deterrent, if the judges were enabled to pass a sentence on the basis of the gravity of the offence. There is the point that once a sentence is passed, the Home Office, if not the Home Secretary, is not in a position to intervene. But that is a matter which Parliament could put right if it thought it was desirable to do so. I feel that that is probably the only blemish in the Bill—this indeterminate life sentence. I hope that on the Committee stage we shall be able to rectify it.
May I, in conclusion, express the view that it would add greatly to the stature of this House if we passed this Bill on Second Reading unanimously, without a Division. I would make a plea to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—he is not very far from us; I believe he would like to abolish capital punishment, and I think every noble Lord who has spoken would like to—let us give this Bill a Second Reading unanimously. It would raise the stature of

607
this House. Let us look at this Bill in Committee very carefully, and particularly on the point to which I have just referred, and let us give it a trial for five years. I am quite certain in my own mind that at the end of five years we shall not seek to reinstate capital punishment.
12.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are making quite good progress in this debate. I have had consultations through the usual channels in an endeavour to take the feeling of the House, and I think it is this; that we should not have a Division before 6 o'clock, in view of the fact that so many noble Lords have been given that as an indication of the probable time. If that be the case, and in view of the progress that we are making, it would seem to me right that we should adjourn this debate after the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has spoken, and resume it at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon.
I would also announce that, again after consultation through the usual channels, the meeting of the House of Lords Offices Committee, which was scheduled for 4.30 p.m. this afternoon, has been postponed.
12.21 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this long and important debate because I am a comparatively recent convert to the cause of abolishing the death penalty. I have reached such a decision, not for any sentimental reason of softness towards wrongdoing, not even on the grounds so movingly and excellently expressed in his maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, that in no circumstances has the State the right to take life, but because, having brought as dispassionate and unprejudiced a mind as I can to this matter, I am persuaded that capital punishment is a bad punishment.
As the Royal Commission have reminded us, it is commonly held that punishment should have three principal purposes: reformation, retribution and deterrence; and the Commission accepted that classification. Apply it to capital punishment as it is administered today: and take, first, reformation. I suppose that it is possible that wrongdoers do sometimes come to a sense of
608
their evil actions by the shadow of the gallows, but this is only the beginning of part of what we mean by reformation. Its reality is to be seen in its fruits: the educative process must be seen in the readiness to right the wrong, so far as it is possible so to do; to make amends to those who have been wounded; to repay by service to the community the hurt that has been done to its common life. It is these essential elements in reformation which are confounded by the very nature of the death penalty.
Then the second purpose—retribution, by which, as the Royal Commission said, the State marks its disapproval of the breaking of its laws by a punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This is certainly an essential element in punishment, and there was a time, whether or not we approve of the form of punishment, when it could be said that by punishing the crime of murder by putting the guilty person to death the State was, in the most solemn manner, expressing its detestation of the taking of life. There was a time when this point of view could be justified; but not now. Not since the Homicide Act of 1957, for, by the differentiation between the various forms of murder, and the punishment applicable to each, that Act has reduced the element of retribution to a grisly farce. How can the State claim to express its condemnation of the crime of murder by the imposition of the death penalty when it fact some of its most loathsome manifestations do not suffer the death penalty, while many of those which evoke some sympathy receive the capital sentence? How can it be held that the majesty of the moral law is upheld in such circumstances as these? The present state of affairs is, I believe, an affront to the conscience of the nation, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Either the death penalty must be applied indiscriminately to all cases of murder, or it must go, and it is the latter course which I believe to be the only feasible one.
We are left, then, with the element of deterrence. Admittedly this is the most difficult to analyse, for no-one can know how many people have been deterred by the fear of capital punishment. But I would hold that, in weighing the propriety or otherwise of the capital sentence, so terrible in its application, so awful

609
in its finality, we cannot be content with the strong suspicion that it is a deterrent, with the likelihood that it will deter people from murder. There must be convincing proof, beyond the bounds of probability, that capital punishment does deter the commission of murder; and such convincing arguments I have not been able to find anywhere. On the contrary, I feel bound to take note of the evidence of Professor Sellin, of whom the Royal Commission said that he had made a profound study of his subject. The Commission asked him:
"I think you have already agreed that capital punishment cannot, on the basis of your figures, be exercising an overwhelming deterrent effect?"
And his reply was:
"That is correct."
The Royal Commission went on to conclude, in paragraph 68:
"It is accordingly important to view this question in a just perspective and not to base a penal policy in relation to murder on exaggerated estimates of the uniquely deterrent force of the death penalty."
If a particular form of punishment is clearly fulfilling the purposes for which it is intended, then society must bear the inevitable injustices which fall on the innocent and the sometimes deleterious effects on society which accompany the imposition of that penalty. The old addage:
"The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge"
represents an inevitable law of things. But when a particular form of punishment fails to fulfil the canons which must be applied, or only doubtfully fulfils them, then we are forced to take into our general consideration of the problem the consequences of that punishment, not only upon the malefactor but upon society and upon individuals as well.
In the case of capital punishment these are especially severe. There is the terrible finality of the death penalty, admitting no mistakes, providing no opportunity for redress if a mistake has been made; and no one, since the case of Timothy Evans, can say that it is impossible for such things to happen in our society. There is the intense suffering imposed on the relatives, the strain on those who have to watch over the condemned man and to carry out the sentence; the harm done generally to society by the morbid interest
610
taken in the contemplation of a human being fighting for his life and in the ghastly details of how he is to be deprived of it if he is found guilty. If it could be shown without shadow of doubt that capital punishment uniquely fulfils what society requires in the punishment of murderers, then we should have to bear with these ugly consequences which accompany it. But if, as I believe there to be, there is grave question about the propriety of capital punishment as such, then the secondary factors bring their weight to bear and make it even more inconceivable that this punishment should continue to be tolerated.
I ask your Lordships to bear with me while I stress one more point which I believe to be of fundamental importance in our debate. We speak of capital punishment. What is in fact the punishment that we seek to impose upon the individual who is subjected to it? Is the punishment the deprivation of life in this world? If so, I think it is a doubtful proposition that society has the right to use the taking away of a man's life as a punishment. In any case, physical death is an experience that we must all sooner or later undergo, and it is a strange state of affairs that we should regard as a punishment something which will one day be the fate of all of us, merely because we impose it prematurely rather than allowing it to befall us in the course of time. Moreover, such action has an element of irresponsibility about it, for we cannot possibly know the consequences upon the individual of the penalty which we have imposed upon him.
No, my Lords, the only recognisable punishment which we can be certain that we impose by the death penalty is the fear of the unknown, the agony of apprehension. Quite properly we take pains to ensure that the act of execution shall be carried out expeditiously, painlessly and humanely, and yet we tolerate the imposition as a punishment of that
" … dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourne
No traveller returns".
My Lords, this use of mental and spiritual suffering as a means of punishment smacks too much of the torture chamber, too obviously of the tools employed by systems of government which we should all condemn and which we

611
have sought to destroy. It is not a form of punishment to which any civilisation should be a party, however terrible the crime.
12.33 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, just at the end of the last war it was rather a depressing time; controls and licences were required for everything. I had a contract to write books, and I thought I would cheer people up by writing a book about crime—a thriller. My publishers liked the plot. So I went to a murder trial to get a good background. I had never been to a murder trial before, and I have never been to one since; and I do not know that I want to go to another one. But I went to get the background, and I got to know everybody connected with the trial, which I saw from beginning to end. It was in Scotland. The murderer had lain in bracken, in a lonely glen, watching an isolated cottage. When the shepherd went down with his grandchildren to take them to school, he went to the cottage and asked the wife for food. She prepared him a meal, and, so far as I could see from the evidence, after he had eaten it he raped her and killed her. He then went through the house and took the few pounds that were in it, and took all the jewellery he could find in the house, including her wedding ring.
The prisoner seemed quite cheerful about it all. He said that he had had bad luck because he had been given the wrong place; there was a lot of money in another house that he had not gone to. He was Polish. He thought he had been rather "done down" by being caught so quickly, because he could have gone to the other house, where, presumably, he would have killed the occupant. He said, "I have pleaded guilty. It is a fair catch. Why don't they get on with it?" But the trial went smoothly on from time to time, until it came to the inevitable verdict. I think that possibly the Scottish procedure is a good deal different from the English, but I am not an expert. The judge told him, reading from a piece of paper:
"You will be executed in the precincts of the Perth prison on February 8 provided the licence has come through in time to buy the timber for your scaffold. Is that understood?"
I had a drink with the hangman: he seemed quite a cheerful chap, and dedi
612
cated to his work. He said he was doing a lot of good, or he thought he was, for the country. I did not know what to think about it all. I certainly did not write the story. I was interested and curious, and wondered whether there was any relationship between crime, punishment and prevention.
I made a great many notes. Being a writer I typed out about three folders-full of typescripts from any source I could find. All this occurred nearly twenty years ago, and I cannot remember what was in them, but just before entering your Lordships' House I was trying to remember a few of those notes to give your Lordships an idea of the type of research I did. I will give them as I wrote them in my notes, which are easier for me to remember. Stone Age murder: Cain cursed that his agricultural endeavours will not be profitable; marked with a mark which will identify him wherever he goes to save him from mob violence. During Terrence's plays two thieves were crucified each side of the stage to act as a form of government poster against thieving. Could not find out whether it did any good or not. The novelist Fielding (1707–55: Tom Jones) was also a magistrate. Street murders were very troublesome in London at that time, and the Government gave him £500 to have them stopped. He used the money to pay informers; the informers gave away the gangs. The gangs were rounded up and hanged. He reduced murders in London from an average of five a week until in the month of December there were none. Whether it was a cold month of December I do not know.
I remember another note from China which struck me as curious; and although a little bit funny, it was, I think, interesting. It was taken from some Chinese documents I found. Apparently in the old days in China the Chinese took human nature as it was; they were not going to do anything about it; they left it as it was. They saw what money could be made out of human nature. Before the break up of the old Empire, that is between 1906 and 1908, there were quite a number of recessions in the country and the Mandarin of Micao raised a tax on the beggars and the Mandarin of Shanghai raised a tax on thieves. The beggars' union came out on strike, and so did the thieves' union. For some time there were no beggars in the town of

613
Micao, famous for beggars, and thieving and street murder were conducted only by "blackleg" amateurs It was very quiet. In the end the unions climbed up a bit and the Mandarins climbed down a bit; the strikes were ended, and business went on as usual. I made these notes twenty years ago, and I say, absolutely frankly that I could make nothing of the situation. I had at the back of my mind, my own private view, which I will come to later. But I want to be completely neutral.
I said the other day, in a speech that I made in your Lordships' House, that I meet an enormous number of holiday people from all over the British Isles—people of all classes and kinds. Therefore it is very easy for me to conduct a really good poll of public opinion. About seven months ago, when this Bill was introduced, I thought, "I do not know anything about it, I have no views and I will find out what other people think". I made a target of 200 people, which may sound a lot, but sometimes I talk to between five and fifteen people a day—people I have never met before—and I find out what they think. I must say that I found a lot of what the curate called the "Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" about their views. A lot of women-no, not a lot of them; about five of them—said the same thing: "I would hang the lot." Some most intelligent women made some quite shrewd and good remarks about it; and they ended, I would say, with the quite erudite opinion that in present times it was necessary to keep this deterrent, because the Act of 1957 had made such a muddle of deterrence.
They did not resent that this Bill is a Private Member's Bill. They thought that it was a "closed-circuit" Bill, in which the public would not be able to have a say. They thought that that was wrong. They thought that the Act of 1957 should have been thoroughly gone into in public, that it should have been altered and brought more up to date, and that more deterrents should possibly have been added, not subtracted.
So the views went from people—different people all over the place. I could quote them at length. I could keep you here for ages. Some of them are quite interesting. I remember a surgeon from
614
Southampton who had his own view. He said he knew a man who had threatened to kill his wife, and he was put in a mental home. He palled up with his psychiatrist and, after a little while, he was let out; and this man then killed the surgeon's wife, so he was put back in the mental home. This surgeon said, "I have seen many lives and I have seen so many people who have died. They were nice people and they have died. They were people who liked their families, who liked their friends, who did not want to die but nevertheless have died through no fault of their own. I am not worried about hanging four murderers a year. This does not worry me. I think that it was a great mistake to take off the deterrent. But this Bill is all wrong, and the deterrent should not be taken away."
So the result of my 200 inquiries was that every single person was against this Bill. They were a fair cross-section of the general public—people in the motor trade from Coventry, steel workers from South Wales, and doctors, lawyers, business executives, every type of people. They all said the same thing. They did not want the deterrent taken away; they wanted it to continue. Most of them said the same thing: they thought it was a shame to do it in a closed circuit and that the existing Act must be revised. A good many of them thought that it would lead to an armed police force, and that there would be shooting in the streets and innocent people would be shot. There was an expression used by some, "What is it all in aid of? Is it just that four people a year should not be hanged?".
Coming over here yesterday on an aeroplane I sat next to a charming old lady who had been on a holiday and enjoyed it, and she was going back to the old ladies' home where she lived. I thought, "Here at last I have found somebody who is an abolitionist". We talked about her holiday for a while, and then I asked her whether she was an abolitionist, and she quite flared up about it. She had all sorts of reasons. She spoke of women being worried and of burglars—about armed burglars going into her home. What she said would have covered pages, and I would bet Lombard Street to a china orange, if Lombard Street were mine, that general

615
public opinion today is that they are pretty well dead against abolition. That is the public's view—not particularly my view.
However, after the debate yesterday it was a lovely evening, and I walked back to my club trying to think it out. I could not think it out. When I got to the club I talked to a chap at the bar and, just out of curiosity, I said, "What do you think about this?" and he said, "Hanging is wicked; it is wrong; it is mediæval. I am all against it." I said, "What are you going to put in its place?" He said, "They are building a new fortress, a big prison, on the Isle of Wight. I would have them shut up for life. I would see that they never got out." I said, "Surely, that is torture?' Well, when I got into my bath (Monday is my bath night) I thought, if people can sing in their bath, why cannot they shout and talk to themselves in their bath? And I said to myself that. "I must get down to this", and I started to shout and talk to myself in the bath. I said to myself, "Do you believe in hanging?"—"No, I do not believe in hanging and I do not believe in the atom bomb". "Are you going to stand outside the Palace of Westminster with a banner displayed with 'Ban the Bomb', or stand on a beer crate in the park with a rope round your neck?" And I said to myself, "No, I don't think I shall do that." "Why not?" I asked. "I think it is the principle of democratic government that a Government should always protect the people it serves". And I said to myself, "I think that is true. Lots of my feelings are fairly funny, but I think it is true".
I said to myself, "Why are you so much against hanging and the atom bomb?". And I replied, "That is easily explained. When I was young I was taught instincts; I went to church and I was taught philosophy, and they gradually became reflexes in my mind. My mind works like a computer, and my answer to any problem comes out pat like this: 'This is right; that is wrong'. In regard to all sorts of human behaviour I can say that this is right or this is wrong." Even whether you tip your soup plate away from you or towards you, one is right and one is wrong. I know straight away. I said to myself, "Have
616
you ever inquired into these things?" I answered, "I am a bit cautious about it, because when I look at metaphysical teaching through a glass darkly I am a bit cautious. When I go into philosophy and wander about I am in a labyrinth of words, signifying nothing. There are those occasions when I feel like the Roman Lieutenant-Governor all those years ago. What is true—truth? And that is true, and that is how I feel." I said to myself, "My ideals are sacred. I like the one tiny light in the dark world which are my ideals. I do not want to mess them about or tear them about in case I destroy them forever."
So we came to the end of my discussion in my bath, and I had to say to myself, "What do you really think?" I answered, "Well, I do not think I have the nerve. I have the nerve for most things, but not to go into your Lordships' House with everybody looking at me all the way around, with so many distinguished people, and with Ladies in the House, and say what I really think." I said to myself, "If you cannot do that, for goodness' sake do not bore them with a long speech; just shut up." Finally, I said, "I am going to do it."
I think I can lead into it by saying what happened at the beginning of the war, when, like everybody else, I went into the Army. One night in the mess the parson was telling dirty stories. I went over to him and said they were jolly good stories. I knew them all, but they were jolly good. But I said, "Why do you not tell me about God?". And he was rather offended and went away—he did not like it. The colonel said to me afterwards, "You must not speak to the padre like that." I just thought back about that little cottage in that beautiful Highland glen. I thought of the grandchildren coming back from school and what they found there. I remembered this light—it is the only thing we really have; this mysterious light that we call the Bible; this collection of fact and literature, of poetry and mystery. It has guided us through the centuries, and led to our building the wonderful cathedrals that we have in this country. It has brought out the finest in men. Without the Bible I think that we should long ago have got into a state of anarchy. It has kept us going. It is our guiding light.

617
I know this sounds old-fashioned, but I do not care; I was wondering what the Bible had to say about it all. And I remembered the trial. The police were most careful, and they were good with this prisoner, and I admired them a lot for it. I remembered that an enormous crowd collected; they were very sullen and angry with this man. They thought he had done a wicked thing. I stood there watching the whole thing, and I could see that some of them were very angry. If they had got hold of the man they would have broken his neck. The police joined hands and guided the man into the police van to take him to the trial. There is a wonderful text that comes to my mind when I think of this matter; it is a very fine old text that thunders round:
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, I will repay."
I thought of that text when I stood there some twenty years ago.
There was this man, who said he was guilty, and who was no doubt thinking, "Why don't they get on with it?" He was given the most wonderfully fair trial any man could receive. The counsel on his behalf, who was a King's Counsel, a very able man, brought out each point most carefully. The Judge was extremely good to the man and did everything in his power to help towards his defence. It was a very remarkable feat. I, who knew he was guilty all the time, watched it. The trial could have gone various ways. There was one moment when I thought he would get off; there was another when I thought the case would be non-proven. I knew that the biggest and most damning piece of evidence had not been produced in court, because the prisoner told me about it. It was the wedding ring. He had broken it in half and sewn it into his shoe with a piece of snare-wire. He said the police had not got it. He said, "That would have hanged me straight away." That bit of evidence never came into the trial.
I watched the jury. I thought they were nice, intelligent people, who were taking a keen interest in the case the whole way through. I thought to myself that it was a difficult job for them. I had to feel that the whole thing was embodying justice, that there was no vengeance or hatred or malice. The whole thing was, so to speak, floating on
618
air. A push one way or other could have brought a different result. I thought after the jury had retired that they were probably praying for guidance in their task. It is on such occasions when one puts up a prayer to God. I told your Lordships the verdict. A lot of people would say that it was good luck or bad luck. I wondered if God is not luck.
12.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT TENBY: My Lords, this is the third time on which I have spoken on a Bill which deals with this very important question of the abolition of capital punishment. Because of this, and because of the fact that there are very many more noble Lords who want to take part in the debate, I will not trouble them by covering the same ground this morning. A good deal was said yesterday about the 1957 Act, and while I do not propose to answer any of the questions in detail, I would remind your Lordships that that Act incorporated within it many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission some years before. I remember saying at the time that the Government had given very serious consideration to the whole question and that, while they were all in favour of amendment of the law, they still felt that the punishment should be retained.
I personally still believe that it is a deterrent. One of the reasons for that is that the figures for murders in the country are among the lowest in the world. At the same time, I must agree with what the Royal Commission said with regard to figures. We heard yesterday many figures, most of which were confined to the United States of America, showing that murder had gone down. Some States had capital punishment; some had not. This morning the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to the work which had been done by Professor Sellin. He quoted an extract from the Royal Commission's Report. Having given the Report very careful consideration over many years, I come to the same conclusion as the Royal Commission, and that is that figures do not prove the case one way or the other. Indeed, Professor Sellin himself was asked when he appeared before the Royal Commission:
"Can we not conclude that if it has a deterrent effect it must be rather small?"

619
His answer was:
"I can make no such conclusion because I can find no answer one way or the other in these data. It is impossible to draw any inferences from the material that is in my possession that there is any relationship between a large number of executions, a small number of executions, continuous executions, no executions and what happens to the murder rate."
That was his opinion, and confirms what I have just said, that the figures which have been given to us do not prove anything, one way or the other.
I propose to vote against the Bill. I agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne when he said yesterday that the time may come when we can afford to do this. I agree with him; but I do not think the time has come. The noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, when speaking in another place some twenty years ago and recommending the House not to support abolition, drew attention to the danger of removing the death penalty in view of the phenomenal increase in crimes of violence. That was nearly twenty years ago. I have not got the figures for crimes of violence in the year 1947 because they were not included in the statistics, but the pre-war figure was 1,500. In 1963 the figure had risen to 12,000. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in the debate last week that the figures for crime in 1963 would prove to be the highest on record.
What does this Bill propose? This Bill proposes to do away with capital punishment, and I should just like to say this to one or two noble Lords who referred to what can be done in Committee. I have no doubt at all that much could be done in Committee, but surely the Second Reading of a Bill is the time when one votes for or against the principle, and the principle of this Bill is the abolition of capital punishment. No Amendment, surely, could be introduced on Committee stage which in any way upset that conclusion if your Lordships so decided.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, speaking last evening, gave the impression which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he had shared through listening to the speeches, that a good many people in your Lordships' House would be very glad to see the end of capital punishment. I think I am right in saying
620
that he gave that impression at the beginning of his speech. But he said that so far as he was concerned everything depended on what the alternative was. I had hoped that we should be shown an adequate alternative.
Let us be quite frank, my Lords. We have not been shown an alternative which is at all adequate. What is proposed in the Bill? It is proposed that in future, after this Bill is carried, the alternative will be imprisonment for life. If I may say one thing to your Lordships, after some experience in debates of this sort, it is that there is a very great misunderstanding as to the meaning of "imprisonment for life". Simply because the average for those murderers who have been released from prison has been something like nine years, far too many people have assumed that the alternative to capital punishment is going to be imprisonment for something like nine years. They have forgotten something. The nine years' average is made up of murderers who have been reprieved. Why were they reprieved? They were reprieved because of the extenuating circumstances that existed, and those people who have been reprieved were among the best prisoners in the prisons. Many of them were perfectly decent fellows but they had been driven beyond endurance. I want to repeat to your Lordships, that the nine years bears no relation whatsoever to the real meaning of "imprisonment for life". It is purely that there were extenuating circumstances, and they have contributed to this rather small figure.
Under this Bill, some people could be imprisoned for up to 20 years, some up to 25 years or even longer. I made a calculation in, I think, 1956, which I gave to the Lower House at the time, that, taking the murders between 1949 and 1953, there would have been in Her Majesty's prisons about 250 in the 20 years' category and about 100 in the 25 years' category. In other words, there would be a very large increase in the population of people not one of whom was eligible for reprieve because of exenuating circumstances. Do not forget another thing, my Lords: that most of these people would be there ender conditions of maximum security.
One of the great things which keeps prisoners going, as has been mentioned

621
already to-day, is the hope that sooner or later they will be released. Indeed, I do not think I am disclosing any secret when I say that when I was at the Home Office—and I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, has had the same experience—if one of these reprieved murderers had behaved himself and it had been decided that he should be released, he was nearly always informed many months before that if he continued in the same way he would be released in June or July of next year. The purpose of that was to give the man hope that within measurable time he would be out. But what about those without hope?—and there must be a large number in the 20 or 25 years' category who would not have it.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment. It appears to me that there may be some misunderstanding arising out of his remarks. I think he made a calculation which would indicate that in certain circumstances some 150 prisoners would be serving 20 years or more, and 100 would be serving 25 years or more. Is it not the case that if we do not have this Bill we shall be left with the 1957 Act, and under the 1957 Act only some three or four each year of the kind of criminal which he has mentioned would be going into prison?
VISCOUNT TENBY: My Lords, I would not disagree with that at all. That is perfectly true, because under the 1957 Act that would be about right. But it does not follow that everything that I should have liked done was done in the 1957 Act, which is a very different thing. But there it is, and we have to take the situation as it is at the moment. But I do not disagree with the noble Lord's interpretation there.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves that point, could he explain how he gets this figure of 20 years or 25 years? Are these sentences which he thinks would be imposed by the judges? There is nothing in the Bill which talks of 20 or 25 years' imprisonment.
VISCOUNT TENBY: No, my Lords, I agree. That is one of the reasons why
622
I say that there is no real clear alternative being put to the House. The point is that nine years is the average for the reprieved murderer, and I took a purely arbitrary figure of 20 or 25 years or more. I did not have in mind that any court would impose it. One of the complaints I have is that it has never been indicated to anybody what is going to take the place of this punishment, if and when this Bill becomes law. There is no doubt at all that many would serve very long terms of imprisonment.
We heard yesterday from a noble Lord that conditions in the prisons must be made so much better. They have improved over the years, and I assume they will improve still further. But do not forget, my Lords, that certain murderers will have to be kept under the strictest security. I do not want to mention any names, but many come into my mind whom one would not dare let out. I personally have had experience of one with over 26 years under restraint, and he was not insane. I thought at one time that he might be let out, but I was told, "No, in no circumstances whatever." The Home Secretary's prime responsibility is for law and order and for the protection of the public in this country, and that is something which we must not lose sight of. We are always hearing about the poor murderer in his cell, but I am just as much concerned, possibly a little more, about the consequences for which that same murderer is responsible.
Sir Alexander Maxwell, who I think is admittedly one of the great authorities at the Home Office on our prisons, was asked by a committee what he thought about these long terms. He said—I am paraphrasing what he said: "Whatever means of education and recreation may be employed, it requires a superman to survive 20 years' imprisonment, and I gravely doubt whether an average man can serve more than 10 years without deterioration". Then, if you look at the letter from Biggs which I saw published in a newspaper last Sunday—and he had not served even two years—you will see that he said:
"I am rapidly losing patience, and I find it difficult not to escape".
I do not know whether he found it difficult or not, but escape he did.

623
I come now to the problem which is tied up with what I am saying. In the last big debate on crime the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to escapes in answer to my noble friend, Lord Derwent, who opened the debate last Wednesday. He said that in 1963 the number of escapes from our prisons was 40 per cent. up on 1962, and that 1964 would show a similar increase. That is escapes—40 per cent. up in one year and the same amount up in the following year. My Lords, is this not a terribly serious thing? We are apparently going to substitute imprisonment for the punishment that has existed for so long in this country, and yet—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt, may I say that in just quoting the crude figures, quite clearly and accurately, he is giving a totally false picture if we are thinking in terms of security, because the increase in the number of so-called escapes includes the increase in walk-outs from open prisons. The open prison policy is one for which he himself was in some measure responsible when he was Home Secretary. The number of escapes is increasing, and it is a risk that we take; but the noble Viscount must not give the impression, in that context, that this increase has any relation at all to the kind of man who must be kept in secure conditions.
VISCOUNT TENBY: I accept fully what the noble Lord has said about open prisons and so on, because I did have a great deal to do with some of those experiments, which I think have, on the whole, worked very well; but I am now talking about the vast increase you are going to get in relation to very different prisoners. You have already had two escapes of maximum security prisoners from our prisons.
My Lords, there are many industries in this country, but there is a new one which has cropped up. It is a very important and big industry, and it is that of crime. Some of the astutest brains in this country are guiding this particular industry at the moment; it is well organised and. I regret to say, very well financed. After all, the train robbers, I assume, have got behind them a capital of £2½ million, which is quite a sum to play about with. That is the sort of
624
thing we have got to face, and I have had no indication from anybody in alp-port of this Bill as to what the alternative really is.
Moreover, I think the rigidity of the sponsors of this Bill on the question of the protection of the police and prison officers is most deplorable. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, again in the debate last week, that the police are at the receiving end of everything and are striving gallantly to cope. Of course they are at the receiving end of everything; but if they are at the receiving end of everything, surely they are entitled to as much protection as the community can give. After all, the police of this country are not a different breed of people. They are a disciplined force; but the police of this country are doing for the community—in fact, this is the basis of the police force—what the community would otherwise have to do for itself. They are the people to whom we look to protect us from the appalling increase in crime which is manifest today.
I said that I would be as brief as I could, and I hope I have not been too long for your Lordships. I would finish with this comment. My noble friend Lord Alport said that in his opinion it would be wrong to go against the judgment of the Commons—I shall have a word to say about that in a moment—and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he did not know whether he could accept Gallup Poll figures or not, but that in any event, before anything was done, the case should be explained to the people of the country. The last Gallup Poll that I saw showed that 70 per cent. were in favour of the retention of capital punishment, either in its entirety or with modification. I think they were of the opinion that murder was the most heinous of crimes, but certainly the voting was 70 to 30 in favour of retention.
It is said that, before another poll is taken, we should explain the case to the people of this country, and that we must not go against the wishes of the House of Commons. Who has explained to the people of this country the case which has made the passage of this Bill possible? Nobody. I do not recollect that it was in the Manifesto of the Labour Party at the Election; and, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said in a previous debate, I should be very surprised if a

625
single M.P. had it in his Election address. What is the good of talking about the House of Commons representing the people, when we are pretty satisfied ourselves that they do not represent the people, so far as this matter is concerned? You have these polls, if you believe in a Gallup Poll—and I suppose that most people believe what they think suits them best. But the fact of the matter is that it is no good pretending that this is a Bill brought forward at the wishes of the people of this country, because there is no proof whatsoever that that is the case.
Therefore, my Lords—and this is my last word—I cannot possibly support this Bill, and I give the three short reasons why. First, it ignores the present very serious situation, the admittedly serious situation, in which this country finds itself as regards crime; secondly, because the sponsors have given no clear picture of what is the alternative to this punishment; and, lastly, though by no means least, because it gives no protection whatsoever to the police or to the prison officers.
1.18 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, in view of the very large number of speakers in this debate and of the recent pleas for shorter speeches, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. However, in such a vitally important matter, as well as casting my vote I should like to refer, as briefly as possible, to the reasons why I shall vote as I intend to vote, even though, after so much discussion on the subject, there must be very little one can contribute that is new, and even though I agree with so much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has just said.
I abhor the thought of taking human life as much as the most fervent abolitionist, but I simply cannot bring myself to support this Bill at the present time. Last week we had a debate on the great increase in serious crime, and it seems to me that the question of the abolition of the death penalty at this moment, as the noble Viscount who has just sat down said, must be considered essentially in this context. Abolition cannot possibly have a beneficial effect and it may make the situation much worse if it is introduced before adequate steps have been taken to deal with this grave problem. Of all the five-year periods that could
626
have been chosen to give it a trial, the next five years must surely be the worst. From all accounts, the police are unanimously against it. Are we by our vote to-day to add to the undermining of their morale which, according to last week's debate, is at low ebb? If so, we are bearing a heavy load of responsibility if more and more they feel they are not supported and are less able to cope with the situation. The only result is likely to be, therefore, that there will be fewer recruits to the force; and those who remain in it will be working with a sense of grievance and a feeling that they have been let down.
I wonder whether the abolitionists would feel as they do if in their own daily lives they were, as police officers and prison warders are, threatened by homicidal criminals? If I were to support this Bill and it were passed, when I read of the next instance in which a policeman was murdered during the course of his duties, as must happen sooner or later, I should have grave misgivings. Could I be sure in that particular case that the fear of capital punishment would not have acted as a deterrent? Could I be confident that I had not therefore, indirectly, however, slightly, been responsible for it? The whole question, as has been emphasised so many times, is whether the death penalty really is a deterrent. Both my instinct and my reason tell me that this must be so, at least in some cases. If there is the slightest chance that that may be so, we cannot afford to dispense with it at the present time.
It is said that human life is sacred and that under no circumstances is it justifiable to take it. Yet we did not think that in two world wars, otherwise we should not be here to-day. But we are at war again, even though it is an entirely different kind of war: we are at war against crime. Had the sponsors of this Bill in another place been prepared to accept the Amendment that the death penalty be retained for the murder of police officers, prison warders and members of the public assisting the police, I should have felt able to support it to-day. This would have met the objections of many people to the Bill. Nevertheless, I should have done so with deep misgivings and with none of the satisfaction that many of the abolitionists appear to show at the thought that the Bill may

627
soon become law. As it stands it is obviously unsatisfactory, failing as it does to provide an adequate alternative punishment for the other categories of murder as well as those involving the police. I should however, have reluctantly accepted that; but I cannot accept a Bill that in my view is lessening the protection afforded to the police. All these indications that the most serious of all crimes is being treated more leniently, with a life sentence—which means nine or ten years, on the average—putting it more and more on a par with the less serious crimes, can only give comfort and encouragement to potential homicidal criminals. In the present circumstances one simply cannot afford to allow the heart to rule the head.
One thing that puzzles me is that I have always understood that in a democracy Parliament should be the mouthpiece of the people. From all accounts most people are against abolition, by a majority of at least two to one. Yet, in spite of this, Parliament intends to try to force this Bill through. On this occasion, apparently, it knows better than the masses. On other occasions, when the mass of public opinion happens to coincide with the policy of the Parliamentary majority, they are only too ready to support their arguments by claiming that they represent the will of the people. They cannot have it both ways. It may be said that there are occasions when Parliament should be ahead of public opinion and must lead, in effect, must dictate to, the people. I think this is a very dangerous doctrine. Where do you draw the line? I hope that if your Lordships reject this Bill today there will be no talk of thwarting the will of the elected representatives of the people. With due respect, it seems to me that the passing of this Bill in its present form would run contrary to the whole concept of democracy that the will of the people should prevail.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock and resumed at half past two o'clock.]
2.30 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am not one of those who agrees that Parliament should necessarily lead public opinion; indeed, I see dangers down that path. To
628
me the idea savours in some measure perhaps of intellectual arrogance which I think out of place, especially in a case like the present, when I am certain, as a number of other noble Lords have said, that the great majority of the people of this country—certainly those in Scotland and, curiously enough, particularly womenfolk—believe that the proposals in this Bill are, to say the least of it, premature. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has in a measure covered my point, but in any case, and for this reason, many have an uneasy feeling that it was not quite fair on the electorate that this proposal was not a plank in the electoral platform last year.
In the course of the debate I have been struck by three incidental points of which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make mention. First, much play has been made with the words "hang" and "hanging" and the gruesome details that accompany it. In my view, the Press is largely to blame because of the brevity of the word compared with the Title of this Bill. The relevant words in the body of the Bill are, of course, "suffer death for murder" which is too long for any headline. Surely, my Lords, any execution by any means is a revolting business, but some sort of legal ritual must be complied with and hanging may be no more revolting than other methods, and perhaps less revolting than some.
Secondly, with regard to experience in other countries, I feel that we must remember that here we are legislating for Britain and for the British people. England is England and Scotland is Scotland, and as such are cases on their own. Thirdly, I have been surprised that more emphasis has not been placed in the debate on the comparative cruelty, not only to the criminal but to his family and friends, of a long incarceration and an irrevocable end. My heart goes out to the innocent who suffer from the delinquency of another, almost as much as to those who suffer from the deed itself. The victim and the dependants of the victim are the ones who need our sympathy.
My Lords, I am one who believes that most of the Members of your Lordships' House have a peculiar advantage in reflecting public opinion. We have wider opportunities than most to come in contact with and consult people in all

629
walks of of life. By virtue of living where I do I have also had opportunities of meeting, both in and out of the Establishment many of those concerned with the new State hospital at Carstairs. In Scotland, our law and the administration of it—take for instance the "not proven" verdict and so on—contribute, I believe, to the much lower incidence of executions in that country—and, talking of the Carstairs institution, I believe that, through and through, the system in Scotland deserves further study. This experiment is still in the process of development, though it cannot be a complete success so long as some convicted murderers are still incarcerated in prisons with other ordinary classes of criminals, largely because of the lack of accommodation and special establishments like Carstairs. The ultimate end at which we aim in Scotland is that all convicted murderers should be treated as mental cases and given distinctive treatment throughout their sentences, thus, and thus only, providing adequate safeguards such as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, referred to last night.
We are, of course, all agreed that the object of all of us is the protection of the public, and perhaps one day the elimination of murder itself; but, alas!, that day is far off. The certainty of incarceration is a deterrent—there can be no question of that—and I maintain that especially is this so if that incarceration is to be long and, even then, indefinite. But surely the capital sentence also is a deterrent, particularly to a certain class of desperado. Here I prefer to rely on what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, said yesterday on this subject and add that to my own feelings and the outcome of personal inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, expressed my feelings on the subject better than I can.
Even if capital punishment were not a deterrent—which I do not concede—the great majority of the public think that it is, and I contend that this is one of the considerations that we must bear in mind to-day. It is admitted that the police need the help of the public—we have been asked to "have a go", yet the Bill proposes to remove this protection against attack by a cornered criminal with a finger on the trigger. I noted that in his excellent maiden speech yesterday the
630
noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, omitted from his list of potentially deterrent emotions that of self-preservation. The temptation to a man or a woman to shoot his or her way out may well be affected by the shadow of the death penalty. I believe that, were I in that position, it would in my case. This is one angle of our responsibility to the police.
Your Lordships will have gathered from what I have said that I am one who is prepared to believe that some day capital punishment will be abolished, and abolished to the public weal. But I believe that that time is not yet; and certainly not in the terms of this Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what was said yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I believe, for instance, that until a proper alternative deterrent has been devised, until ample prison and hospital accommodation is available, and until adequate and trained staffs are available, capital punishment should be maintained in the background for those who murder a warder or a policeman, or a member of the public going to their aid. I say "in the background", because it is very much in the background, as has been shown by the figures which have been quoted in your Lordships' House. Certainly this is so in Scotland as was mentioned yesterday by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said yesterday, that a Government Bill on a different basis to this one, embodying greater protection for the public, would be more acceptable. The only clause that I would retain is the clause giving the measure an experimental period.
Before I sit down, I feel it proper to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said yesterday about the staffs at all levels in our prisons and penal hospitals, often short-handed, sometimes misunderstood, who render devoted service to the community and, indeed, to humanity. I would add to my list the chaplains and those engaged in after-care. They are engaged in onerous duties and dedicated to research, which on this subject is of inestimable value. Let us pray that these researches will lead, as they must, to the improved security of the public. In other words, I feel that more groundwork needs to be undertaken and, above all, that additional expenditure

631
has to be faced before the next step is taken. For these reasons, I oppose this Bill and will vote against it. It would be contrary to my conception of my duty to your Lordships' House if I were to depart from what my conscience dictates because of a vote in another place.
2.42 p.m.
LORD BOLTON: My Lords, I feel that I must ask your Lordships to forgive me on two counts for speaking this afternoon. The first is that I am entering a controversial debate as a maiden speaker, and the second—something for which I am sure your Lordships will forgive me—the brevity with which I propose to speak. I am going to speak briefly because, in the past 24 hours your Lordships have listened—and will be listening for some hours still to come—to noble Lords much more able than I, and many of the arguments which I should have put in front of your Lordships would therefore be repetitious and boring.
But I should not like your Lordships to think that the brevity of my speech is due either to discourtesy to your Lordships' House or to the fact that I have not studied the subject. I am a magistrate, and I have studied this subject with great interest for many years. I see a lot of the work by the police and by prison reformers, and their work interests me, as it interests your Lordships. I speak this afternoon only because I feel so strongly about this subject.
I am not of the "Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" school, although I am in favour of the retention of the death penalty. Likewise, I believe that we cannot stand by, "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away" leaving to the Lord decisions which many of us feel can be taken only by Him, but which we cannot leave to Him when innocent lives are at stake. Many figures have been quoted, both in this House and in another place, to show that the death penalty is no deterrent. I can only say, without, I hope, being frivolous, that if my own homicidal tendencies were coming to the fore, I should definitely find the prospect of being punished in kind a deterrent. I cannot believe that at least a proportion of potential murderers do not feel in this way.
I also feel that if only one innocent man, woman or child is saved in a year
632
by the retention of the death penalty for certain types of murder, the retention is justified. Whether we like it or not, we are in the middle of an upsurge of crime, particularly of crimes of violence, the like of which we have never before witnessed. At this time we cannot afford to experiment in leniency and, at the same time, exhort citizens to "have a go" in helping the police. We are lucky enough to have a Police Force which is the envy of the entire Free World. They are doing an unenviable job and taking appalling risks. And in equally unenviable conditions, the men in the Prison Service do likewise. How can we take a step which might add to the dangers already faced by gallant men, mostly with wives and families who love them, or put in possible hazard the life of the bystander at the scene of a crime who boldly attempts to intervene and aid the law? I hope I am not being un-Christian when I say that in my view the first priority is the protection of the innocent and that the lives of evil men, or the dubious prospect of their reform, must come second.
Like many other noble Lords speaking in this debate, I could speak for hours. But that would inevitably mean repetition of the many facts that have been ably presented to your Lordships many times in the last few hours. You will hear many facts and figures in the speeches still to come. They will prove many diverse things. But, like many of my fellow citizens throughout the land who wish for the preservation of law and order, and of a life in which men, women and children can go peacefully and without fear about their lives and occupations. I ask the House to reject this Bill.
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, first of all, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bolton, who has just spoken. I thought that he spoke splendidly, though I did not agree with what he said. To make a maiden speech is a frightening thing—it was for me, anyway—but the noble Lord spoke with great confidence and great authority and also, I thought, with grace and style. That is the kind of speech which I believe your Lordships like to hear. I hope that he will speak again, and often. He must please forgive me if I now speak on the opposite side.

633
I want to say a few words only. I support this Bill. It is a risky business, but I think that we must take the risk. I do not believe that we live in an age of savagery and brutality, though there always will be bad people. On the contrary, it is my profound belief that, in this country at least, we are moving forward and that there is more kindness, more gentleness and more compassion than ever before. If it is not so, then there is not the least hope for humankind. If we have not learned in the course of 2,000 years, when shall we ever learn? In every measure of social reform there is a risk, in the abolition of capital punishment as in the removal of penalties for homosexual offences. Let us accept this risk. Let us legislate broadly and constructively and not repressively. Let us give human nature a chance, and if we are wrong, if in the end we have to admit defeat, then we can come back wiser, and infinitely sadder, men—but let us at least try.
2.49 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I support this Bill. My first speech in your Lordships' House was made in July, 1956, in support of the abolition of the death penalty. On that occasion, I followed the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who is to follow me to-day; and I remember that, although he and I differed on the main issue, I took common ground with him in the belief that retribution is a necessary and valid aspect of punishment. I should still wish to emphasise that retribution need not imply vindictiveness or hatred or vengeance. It does not mean that the wrongdoer suffers punishment because he deserves to; and the recognition on his part that he is getting something he deserves is a necessary step towards his reformation. And if the crime has been a terrible one, the penalty will be a terrible one. A terrible penalty: yes, my Lords. It must be so.
But in trying to set out what I believe to be Christian principles in this matter, I go at once to two other considerations. First, there ought to be beyond the penalty the possibility of reclamation. I mean the possibility of the person being alive, repentant and different. If this can happen in this world, and not only for the world to come, we should strive for that to be so. Secondly, there ought to
634
be recognition of the fact that the taking of life as a penalty does devalue human life. It means society saying, in effect: "This man has killed someone. Very well; we will kill him too." This does not enhance the sacredness of human life. I believe that it derates it further.
I am very conscious that these considerations have to be weighed against whatever weight there may be in the other consideration which has been so prominent in the discussion yesterday and to-day—namely, the need for deterrence. Terrible crime needs to be deterred. Victims must be protected, and all of us feel to the uttermost for victims and their families. If there were convincing evidence that any penalty is a unique deterrent, then I should feel obliged to let that consideration weigh very heavily in the scale against those basic considerations which I have tried to set out. I will come back to that issue later.
Now it is asked: if not the death penalty, then what? I take up my own phrase, "A terrible punishment for a terrible crime". Here the arguments seem to me to be very strong for the life sentence rather than a judicial sentence for a certain term of years. There is the argument that the Judge cannot know at the outset what the man is going to be like after 9, 10, 11 or 12 years, or how he should be best treated, both for public safety and for his own good, after that time. That consideration is a strong one, and it concerns both security and the protection of the people, as well as what is good in the reclamation of the criminal himself.
But I would add this consideration, too, in connection with the life sentence. The sentence for the crime of murder ought, I believe, to have what I call a retributive moral seriousness about it: therefore, I believe that the life sentence is right, even though it again and again, and perhaps almost always, be mitigated in practice. The life sentence says, in effect, to a convicted murderer: "You have outraged society by killing one of your fellows. You must expect no claim to your old place in society for a very long time, not, indeed, until society can be told that you are on the way to being an utterly different sort of person from what you are now." I believe that, thus understood, a life sentence carries with it a terrible moral

635
meaning. It can be a terrible deterrent; and, indeed, it is so.
Yesterday the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, pleaded for far fuller consideration of the life sentence and the procedures in connection with it. Indeed, it should in some cases be a really long sentence for desperate types of criminal. That was the plea of the Lord Chief Justice. But he urged, also, that the penal methods ought to be such—and I am glad he said that he was sure they could be such—that personality should not rot in the process. But I wonder whether, in trying by Amendments to this Bill to give further definition to the content of a life sentence, we are any more likely to be successful than they were in another place. The life sentence is a deterrent because it can demand the custody of the person for a very long time, and it carries with it the right of the State to recall the person to custody. It should be reformative. There is ample evidence that already it can prove reformative; indeed, we can most certainly hope for means in the future to make it so. For all these reasons, I believe that the alternative to capital punishment should be defined as the life sentence rather than the various alternatives which have been tried and pleaded for.
Those, my Lords, are the main considerations which determine my attitude. But let me come now to the special problem of the Homicide Act, and then to the matter of capital punishment as a deterrent. Previous to the Homicide Act there had been attempts to get at a classification of murders, with some moral distinction between those which were more loathsome or more morally vicious than others. In a debate here in 1947 my predecessor, searching as others at the time were searching, for some line of distinction between capital and non-capital murders, spoke of the distinction between "murder" and "murder most foul". But when the Homicide Act drew a distinction, it did not claim to be a moral distinction in that way. It drew a distinction, on lines of expedience and of public safety, between murder in circumstances where the death penalty might be a unique deterrent to violence or the use of arms, and murder in circumstances where that was
636
not so. It was the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who said in his speech on the Second Reading of the Homicide Bill that a moral issue was involved, and that the proposed distinction between capital and non-capital murders would be found to affront morality—though the noble Lord then made it clear that he was not an abolitionist. I said at that time, in a brief intervention, that I agreed with the noble Lord.
Now, in another place, two successive Home Secretaries, different in their politics and different in their initial approach to the abolition question, have told how they have found intolerable moral issues in the distinction of sentence between capital and non-capital murder. On the one hand, a murderer kills while stealing, perhaps on a sudden, delirious impulse—the death penalty. On the other hand, a murderer poisons after loathsome, vicious premeditation—not the death sentence. If, penalties other than the death penalty were involved, the moral abitrariness of the distinction might be swallowed. But where the penalty is sometimes to kill the murderer, sometimes to sentence the murderer to death, and sometimes not, it seems that law and morality have gone apart on the very point where it is imperative for them to go together.
It was not surprising to hear from the Lord Chief Justice yesterday:
"I have seen the complete absurdities that are produced, and have been completely disgusted at the result."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 268 (No. 105), col. 481.]
To be fair, these considerations may be construed as an argument for going back, as well as an argument for going forward to total abolition. But I was impressed to hear yesterday from the Lord Chief Justice the plea that to go back to the older system of general capital sentences, mitigated by frequent reprieves, was to put a quite intolerable burden upon the mind and heart of the one man on whom it falls to make those decisions.
I realise, and I feel deeply, that against all these considerations the argument of a unique deterrence in the death penalty might throw an overwhelming weight if it were an argument that had real validity. Like others, I have been very worried about this and ready to let the evidence have all the weight that it might have. I have not the training of a lawyer,

637
but I can read and listen, like any person who might be eligible to sit upon a jury in this country. After listening and reading a great mass of evidence, I feel that there is a dearth of convincing evidence that for murders by armed thieves the death penalty is a unique deterrent. There has been such opportunity for the production of that evidence, in weighty and convincing forms, in these last two days, and I do not feel it has been there. In its place, we have had generalisations and appeals to feelings—feelings, of course, which we all have, and which cannot help moving us.
There is the evidence, on the other side, of the former Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke:
"By no means all those murderers who came before me because they had been sentenced to death were from the criminal classes ".
There is the evidence as to the proportionate increase in murders now capital and murders not capital since the Homicide Act became law. The figures here show that the increase has been in both categories, thereby combating the view that the death penalty is a uniquely powerful deterrent. We do not think to look to the evidence of foreign countries in order to be impressed by this evidence which we have at home, although I believe that some of the evidence from foreign countries is, when sifted, very weighty indeed. I could not help being impressed by the speeches yesterday of no fewer than three of Her Majesty's Judges who were, in a way, giving their own evidence and also summarising their weighing of the general evidence of people and situations, which is their life's work. I could not help being impressed by their conclusions, and it just is not shown that the death penalty is a uniquely powerful deterrent.
Let me end by referring to all those considerations of feeling which bear upon us, whatever our conclusions and opinions may be. No one can help feeling terribly for the victims of crime and their families. No one can help feeling terribly the fears which exist in many hearts since crime, and not least violent crime, has increased. Still more must our feelings go out to the members of the Police Force and to those who are in the Prison Service. The country owes so much—and there is no limit to what it owes—to its servants who are exposed to great dangers in serving
638
it. But, my Lords, again and again in the formation of judgments upon human affairs we have, on the one hand, a set of anxieties, and, on the other, the action or conclusion needed to answer those anxieties. So often in human affairs we tend to build a bridge from the one set of facts to the other set of facts by our feelings and our emotions, rather than by our reason. Not many years ago, at a time when the increase of violent crime was giving so much anxiety, we were urged to build the bridge between the anxieties and the conclusions by the reintroduction of flogging. It was really a method of substituting feeling and emotion for reasoned conviction about causes and effects.
I believe that the issue in this case is somewhat the same, and that here, too, it is not those emotional considerations but the conclusions of reason which should prevail. I believe it to be a completely reasonable conclusion that capital punishment is not a unique deterrent; that a sentence of life imprisonment is a terrible sentence, deterrent in effect, and capable of issuing in a wise, stern and human penology, and that to abolish the death penalty in this country will set us in the way of progress in this matter, and rid us from the wrong of a system which punishes killing by a penalty which helps to devalue human life. I therefore hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, and that it will soon become the law of this country.
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, like the most reverend Primate, I have approached this matter by considering what are the changes in circumstance, that have occurred since we debated it nine years ago, on the occasion to which the most reverend Primate has made reference. Nobody can deny that the outstanding change of circumstance in those nine years is the vast increase in crime and violent crime. The number of crimes known to the police have increased in the terrifying proportion which the House heard last week. Eighteen months before I made the speech to which the most reverend Primate referred, I ceased to be Home Secretary. During the three years that I was Home Secretary—that is, from 1951 to 1954—the number of offences known to the police declined by 20 per cent., to a figure of, roughly, 450,000

639
indictable offences known to the police. If my recollection is right of Lord Stonham's speech, to which I listened with such care, the figure is getting nearly three times that—1,200,000 at the present time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble and learned Earl will allow me, I would inform him that the correct figure is 1,066,000, or some two and half times the figure to which he referred.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction, but I think the noble Lord will agree that it does not affect the point I am making. An increase of two-and-a-half times in a matter of just over ten years is in itself a terrifying account.
The second point is that we are now dealing with crime on a much more organised and ruthless basis than was the case ten years ago. The third point is that, while accepting the differentiations and alleviations which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned, we are finding it difficult to prevent escapes from prison and therefore to enforce the custodial element in our punishment, which is of course the basis of the most reverend Primate's view. These are facts which no serious legislator can ignore.
Something has been said about the Homicide Act, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will remember, because he and I spoke in the debate, that categorisation was introduced—as I remember it and I have re-read the debate—at the earnest request of the then Archbishop of Canterbury and the then Lord Samuel, two of the most respected Members of the House. We endeavoured—the most reverend Primate says we were wrong; I hope that when your Lordships have rejected this Bill the most reverend Primate will suggest how our labours could have been improved—to adopt the principle of retaining the minimum necessary for maintaining law and order, and particularly the safety of the elderly woman who lives alone, on the one hand, and the officers whose duty it is to catch and warn offenders, on the other hand. That is why the Act made capital murder or murder in the course of theft, murder of policemen and of warders, and murder by gun.
My Lords, it has been criticised largely for what was left out. The most reverend
640
Primate mentioned poisoning. I should like to tell him—this is now a matter of history—that my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, and I (he was then Attorney-General and I was Lord Chancellor) spent hours in trying to find a definition of poisoning which would include the sort of poisoning which the most reverend Primate has in mind and would exclude mercy killing. We tried, but we failed. However, we came before both Houses of Parliament with a Bill which deliberately set out to preserve what we thought was the minimum necessary for preserving law and order and public safety. Now the most reverend Primate says we went on the wrong road, because we should have dealt with it on the basis of morality.
I should like to come back to that point in relation to another part of his remarks with which we have always been in complete agreement, as far as I know, namely, on the necessity for the retributive element of punishment, although we separate it in its application. However, I want to point this out: that, say what you will as to whether we were right or wrong, these figures were given by the Home Office on June 17—the figures for the three years before the Act and for the last three years. And, my Lords, there has been a substantial increase in the number of non-capital murders, while the number of capital murders—that is murders liable to the death penalty—has remained almost exactly the same. The non-capital murders have risen from 361 to 488, and for capital murders the comparative figures are 67 and 69. Allowing for diminished responsibility and other elements that is an enormous increase—361 to 488—and on capital murders the figure remains, as I have said, the same. With that one comes back to the point which the most reverend Primate has dealt with thoroughly—and he will understand if, at this stage in the debate, my reply is in headline form. He has heard me deal with it at some length, and he knows that it is a matter I have considered; but in the interests of the debate as a whole I want to put it as briefly as possible.
My Lords, one point has gone. The large number of murders to which the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, referred (and he was, if he will allow an old colleague to say so, a most distinguished occupant of the Office of Home Secretary)

641
—the murders which one can call either "family" or "emotional"—have almost entirely gone. They remain only in the relatively few cases where such murders are carried out by shooting, because the noble Lord knows, as I do, that they are mostly carried out by strangulation or the knife. So that that element has largely gone. On the question of the figures of other countries, an aspect which was dealt with so ably yesterday by my noble friend Lord Reay, it has to be remembered that a great many of these figures—though not all—were brought before the Royal Commission some twelve years ago, and the judgment of the Royal Commission was that they did not help one way or the other. Therefore we cannot get much help from them. The other point that I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, because it is the keystone of the matter, is that of the murders that have not been committed—and no statistics can ever prove what that figure would be.
One comes to the point which the most reverend Primate nine years ago described in the kindliest way as a "hunch" on my part—he may remember; I would prefer to describe it as a value judgment, but we refer to the same thing. That is this. From the number of criminals that I have known, seen, tried and whose cases I have considered, which means a very large number, I believe that hanging, the threat of the rope, is a deterrent to the professional criminal against arming himself with a revolver or an automatic and being prepared to kill the policeman whose duty it is to arrest him, who he knows is unarmed. Of course, as has been said, to arm the police would be a deterrent, but it would completely alter the nature of the police force, of which I, and I am sure everyone who has been in the position of Home Secretary, am extremely proud, and which has done everything it can do to try to keep the police force a friend of the public.
The fact that we have moved into an age of organised robbery and killing disposes of the argument that the killer no longer weighs his chances. Of course he does to-day. It is part of what he has to take into account in judging the success of what has become a business on which he is engaged. And the killer who weighs the risk will weigh this fact, that if he engages in burglary or housebreaking and
642
he has a long record he will go into custody for at least ten years of preventive detention, and possibly more. If he kills someone in the course of that burglary it is very doubtful, on everything that has been said, whether he will sustain as long a sentence, certainly not a longer one, and anyway something which he can take into account much more easily.
I do remind your Lordships of this. One is so apt on a Second Reading to say, "Well, let us accept the principle and then we can make an Amendment; we can make an Amendment about policemen and about warders". But you cannot logically pass a Bill which abolishes capital punishment on the strength of being able' to move an Amendment by which you are then going to restore it in the case of policemen or warders.
This Bill comes to us as a measure that is untimely, for the reasons I have given, unwanted, as we have heard, by the people of this country, and without an alternative deterrent being set forth in the Bill. It is untimely because of the increase of crime and the professionalisation of criminals. It is contrary to public opinion, and in over forty years in politics I never thought that I should see the day when public opinion would be swept aside and sneered at from the Bench of Bishops and every other part of this House. I venture to base some of my political philosophy on Edmund Burke, who said this:
"The great inlet by which a colour for oppression has entered the world is by one man's pretending to determine concerning the happiness of another."
I ask those who are prepared to sweep aside public opinion, to disregard with contempt the old lady who is frightened, most sincerely and most humbly to think again, when all suggestions of longer periods of imprisonment or new methods for fixing the length of sentence have been swept aside by the promoters of the Bill when it was in another place.
I come to the point on which I was so glad to go for a stage in agreement with the most reverend Primate—and indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester reminded us of this point, as did my noble friend Lord Molson also: that is the retributive element. I venture to quote again, because it received general acceptance, what was

643
said by the late Archbishop Temple. He defined it as
"the State's marking of its disapproval of the breaking of its laws by a penalty proportionate to the gravity of the offence."
He continued—and this is even more important:
"If when a crime has been committed the community does nothing, it is condoning the act and to that extent becomes a partner in the guilt of it."
Those are not my words; they are not the words of a lawyer. They were said by an Archbishop who was himself an abolitionist. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning put it, if he will allow me to say so, in admirable words to the Royal Commission. He said:
"Punishment is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime."
And my noble and learned friend went on to say:
"There are murders which in the present state of public opinion bring the most emphatic denunciation of all, the death penalty."
There is the division of the ways, and I follow my noble and learned friend, and for this reason. A great deal of the evils of the world that I have seen is done by those who use men and women and society as a means to their own ends and not as an end in themselves. The most reverend Primate went as far as to restate, in slightly different language, what I always understood to be the Kantian theory of punishment—namely, that when society, and men and women, have been used as a means to the end, society replies by putting the offender outside society for an appropriate period. That, at any rate, is a most respectable and highly based theory of punishment. But then one considers murder, and until the most reverend Primate spoke, I cannot remember any abolitionist, in all the debates that I have listened to in two Houses of Parliament, ever expressing sympathy for the person murdered or his relatives. The most reverend Primate was the first abolitionist that I have ever heard do that.
LORD BYERS: Withdraw!
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I have been there and I have listened.
LORD BYERS: Withdraw!
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I have listened to the debates, and I cannot remember—
LORD BYERS: The noble Earl must know that many of us are on record as having expressed our sentiments.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: As I say, I cannot remember it.
LORD BYERS: Would the noble Earl withdraw that remark?
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: No, I will not, because I cannot remember it. That is what I said. Until the most reverend Primate spoke, certainly I do not remember anybody in this debate who is supporting abolition expressing any sympathy for the murdered person or his family.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it may be in the recollection of the noble and learned Earl that I introduced into this House a Motion to provide compensation for the victims of violence.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: That does not seem to alter the point which I am making, or to correct my recollection. But what I do object to is what I consider the somewhat gruesome levity with which it has been said that the last person concerned is the murdered man, because he has lost his life.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): Who said that?
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: That is not a position which I believe a responsible person can take up, and certainly not the position which—
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl mention any Peer who has said that?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I think that if the noble Lord will pursue back debates he will be able to trace that remark to its source. But I must seriously suggest that the death penalty for these cases of deliberate murder is the self-defence of the community, and to abolish it in present conditions is the abandonment of Governmental responsibility, and a cruel infliction on decent people.
3.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, like the last two speakers I am a member of that rather small band who took part in the debate of 1956. Since that time there have, of course, been many changes inside and outside the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, told us earlier, a whole new generation has come into the House since that time, and wherever they sit, with I think one notable exception, they have left no doubt in their speeches that they are utterly, and indeed passionately, opposed to the continuance of hanging.
Bearing in mind that one of the maiden speakers took a different view from myself, I would say, and I think that most people will agree, that there has not been an occasion since the war when we have listened in a single debate to four such notable maiden speeches as those of the noble Lords, Lord Reay, Lord Norwich, Lord Harewood and Lord Bolton; and, may I add, Lord Chuter-Ede, although he stands in a rather different category, as one of the most respected British statesmen of the last half century. At any rate, whether they be young maidens or old maidens, they have deserved well of the House. The main Government speeches in this debate are being made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who spoke so well yesterday, and by the Lord Chancellor, who winds up tonight. The Lord Chancellor has, I suppose, done as much as any man living, even the heroic Mr. Silverman himself, to bring this issue to its present position. I promise to be at any rate fairly brief, and not to cut across the general reply to the debate of the Lord Chancellor.
I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who won such golden opinions from all of us in past years, because of the courtesy and care that he showed in replying to many debates, has seriously affronted a good many of us this afternoon. I need not pursue that subject because these are not personal issues. But since he comes forward without, if T may say so, any obvious apology, indeed, in a posture of pride as the architect of the Act of 1957, perhaps again (though I do not want to make this a personal debate) I may remind him of what was said about that Act by the Lord Chief Justice yesterday. Speaking, I gathered, on behalf of the Judges as a whole, and speaking with a great deal of
646
personal authority, the Lord Chief Justice said about that Act:
"I have seen the complete absurdities that are produced, and have been completely disgusted at the result".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 286 (No. 105) col. 481; Monday, July 19, 1965.]
If the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, the architect of that Act, is still proud of it, I think he is almost alone in the House in that attitude. Of course, we do know —and all credit to him!—that Mr. Henry Brooke, after his experience of the last few years and of the working of that Act, has been changed in outlook from a strong retentionist to someone who is ready, and indeed anxious, to see abolition given a chance. So much for the Act of 1957.
I was rather sorry—though I realised the shortage of time which afflicted the noble Earl, just as it is, I hope, going to cut me short—that the noble Earl brushed aside the findings of the Royal Commission in a way that I thought almost frivolous. He said, "Well, they did a lot of work, produced a lot of evidence, and so on, but it does not help." When one looks around this House, particularly if one looks at the younger Members, I think one may say that the whole climate of discussion in this country has been changed by the findings of the Royal Commission. Of course we all recall that they were not asked to pronounce, and therefore were not in a position to pronounce, on the question of whether we should have hanging or abolition.
But what I think is notable, apart from any particular words used in their own Report, is the personal conclusion reached by the Chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers. We may well remember that he wrote a book as a result of his four years' studies, which appeared shortly before our last debate; and I would venture to quote again one sentence from that book. This was the quotation of Sir Ernest Gowers, the Chairman who started as a retentionist—he started in favour of hanging and he finished up as a strong abolitionist. He was much freer as Chairman, writing a book, to offer his opinion on hanging or otherwise than, of course, were the Commission as a whole, who had been asked to do a different job. Sir Ernest Gowers said:
"There remains the argument that without the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment more murders would he committed. As we have seen, such evidence as there is "—

647
and he had been working for four years—
"goes to show that the abolition of capital punishment does not in fact have this result."
These conclusions of Sir Ernest Gowers have never been challenged, and I should suppose myself that those who have moved their position, or come into this controversy for the first time since those years, and have taken up an abolitionist posture, have been much influenced by the findings of the Royal Commission and of Sir Ernest Gowers.
In our last debate, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, another veteran of 1956, like myself and the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, and the most reverend Primate (who impressed us so deeply a little while ago) attached great weight in coming to his conclusion, after balancing the arguments, to what seemed to him a kind of irrefutable conviction that (putting it rather shortly) at least some potential murderers are deterred by capital punishment. I hope that I am not misinterpreting his view, which he will no doubt explain later. Of course, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, said, we cannot tell; and we have no information about murders that might have been committed. But I would put this point to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—I know that it weighs with him very much, and therefore I hope that he will give it careful thought. Is it not really the case that, when you go round the world and study other countries as well as ours, and are forced to the conclusion, after a dispassionate study, that, on balance, hanging does not in fact diminish the amount of murder, and then, after that, you say that surely there must be two or three people who have been deterred by it, you have equally to admit that there must be two or three people who have been encouraged by it? That is not by any means a far—fetched hypothesis, because in a society which uses execution freely it might well be that there would be less respect for the sanctity of life than in a community which treated hanging like the shooting of hostages, as an utterly barbarous and loathsome thing.
There is one point which has not been touched upon, and in some sense it follows on what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir. I do not know whether he would regard it as a refuta
648
tion—that would be too much to expect —but it links up with his argument. What surprises me in these discussions is that when there is so much evidence, evidence which has convinced most of those—in my experience almost all of those—who have made a study of this subject for the first time in recent years, there are still some leading men, men of humanity and great knowledge, who are still obdurate, who still stick out for retention. I am not talking of people who have not studied the matter, but people who have done so. Some of them may have acquired certain convictions which no amount of evidence will change. That is a possible explanation, and it would not be insulting to suggest that such noble Lords exist.
I myself should like to place one other possibility before the House. I am far from rejecting altogether—I cannot speak for others; I can only speak, as in all this, for myself—the attempt to make sure that in the penalty for any crime we try to impose a punishment which should be not only deterrent and reformative but appropriate. I will not become involved in an argument about the word "retribution". On the last occasion I did so I had the two Archbishops on their feet disputing with me in a matter of seconds. I think that we all, in some way or other, are convinced that graver crimes should receive a heavier penalty than what we regard as lighter crimes. To take the case of parking offences, even if they become a universal pest one would not consider giving people a life sentence for them. So we all consider that there must be some evidence of appropriateness.
There have been big developments in thought in the last thirty or forty years. We may laugh at psychiatrists, and I suppose we always shall—they may say that it reveals some great need for psychiatry on our part, and that is why we laugh at them—but the fact is that after the psychological developments during the last thirty or forty years I suppose there can be no serious person who is as ready to assess the guilt of another human being as he was thirty or forty years ago. We must be much less confident than we used to be about saying that somebody was an atrocious fellow and not fit to live. There has grown up, I believe, a general conviction that human justice, however hard we try, must always be a rough justice,

649
and that, whatever sentence we write here below, God is writing a different sentence both on the criminal and on ourselves.
That does not lead me, and I believe it will lead few Members of the House, to the conclusion that it is no good even trying to administer this rough justice; that it is no good even trying to pass appropriate or just sentences. It seems to me a condition of civilised existence and a kind of acceptable law and order that we should continue to make this effort. But it does place on us an ever heavier responsibility for insisting that every punishment we inflict should contain a reformative or redemptive element of some kind. When we destroy a man by hanging or by any other form of execution, we abandon the attempt to help him or reform him. We commit not only the sin of cruelty, but the still graver sin of despair. We despair of the man and we despair of our own possibility of helping him.
I am not going to continue; I will leave my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to do what he is so capable of doing and reply to the debate later on. I can imagine dilemmas of various kinds being put but, in view of the evidence which has been built up that hanging is not only wicked but useless and unnecessary, I submit that there is no excuse for manufacturing any moral dilemma here. The time has at last come when all the old arguments for hanging are seen to be threadbare, based on absolutely unsupported assumptions, on pure fiction. The way is at last clear for a type of justice and of mercy of which we shall one day be abundantly in need ourselves.
3.47 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Lady who introduced the Bill, for my inability to be in my place during the early stages of the debate yesterday. I was away abroad on business, but I have read all the speeches carefully. I should like to, state as briefly as I can the reasons why I hope your Lordships will reject this Bill this evening. Some of them have been stated before, but I think they bear repetition.
Let me say at the outset that I fully respect the sincerity of those who are seeking to abolish the age-old right of the
650
community to protect the lives of its citizens through the dreadful penalty of capital punishment. Equally I hope that they will respect the sincerity of those of us who advocate its retention in present conditions. I say this with all the more feeling, because I was for a number of years, during and after the war, a supporter of abolition. It was only when the wave of violent crime which followed the conclusion of peace continued to increase year by year in scope and ferocity, as it still does to-day, that I gradually became convinced that to abolish the death penalty would be wrong.
Before turning to the merits of the Bill one thing should be made quite clear. This is not in any sense a normal Private Member's Bill. Since the day when reference was made to the Bill in the gracious Speech, the Government have provided unprecedented facilities for it throughout all its stages in another place. These included the imposition of the Whips to secure its original discussion in Committee upstairs and the arrangement of meetings of the House on Wednesday mornings to fit into their timetable when the Bill was brought back to the Floor of the House. The fact is that the Government are wholeheartedly behind the abolition of the death penalty but lacked the courage to put it into their Election programme because they knew that it was totally unacceptable to the public and would be politically disastrous to them.
The Government are responsible for law and order. If they believe in the need for and the efficacy of this measure, why did they not come forward and put it into a Government Bill? The plain fact is that, as one Liberal Member of another place said on Third Reading, there is no mandate for the abolition of capital punishment, nor indeed have individual Members any mandate for abolition—unless they choose to include it in their electoral addresses. In this matter, surely, the duty of Members of both Houses of Parliament is to have regard not only to their own opinions and consciences but, above all, to the wishes of the people of this country.
What is the view of the people in Britain? In this matter, we fortunately have the benefit of access to the opinion polls. No one, of course, would suggest that they are entirely accurate, but where,

651
as this case, the figures are overwhelming in one direction, we have no choice but to accept them. The National Opinion Poll taken in November showed 65·5 per cent. of people were opposed to abolition. The Daily Express poll taken a little later showed 39·5 per cent. for the maintenance of the existing law, 32 per cent. for capital punishment for all murders, and only 19 per cent. for abolition. A Gallup Poll taken in January showed again that it was three to one against abolition.
We are told in answer to this that this is a matter on which it is the duty of Parliament to give a lead. I suggest, with all respect, that when it is evident that the great majority of our people are opposed to a measure of this importance, which must affect their lives, their personal feelings and fears in the case of many millions, the proper way to give a lead is for a Party and for an individual politician to advocate and explain the proposed reform boldly at Election time on the platform, in the Press and on television, and not to seek to impose it on the people of this country just after an Election and by the back stairs. At it is, this Bill comes to this House with the support of only 200 Members of another place on Third Reading, out of a total of 630.
The promoters of this Bill have sought to argue that the principle of abolition was conceded in the Homicide Act 1957, and that all that the present Bill is doing is to abolish the categories of capital punishment which were then retained. That is, of course, putting the cart before the horse. The 1957 Act did not abolish capital punishment, and the continued emphases which we have heard during this debate on the illogicalities and ineffectiveness of that Act can only lead to one conclusion: that it should be repealed and something more effective substituted. Certainly, as I will seek to show, it will not improve matters in any way to remove the deterrents which still remain.
I think that every one of us in this House is agreed that capital punishment by hanging with all its attendant procedure is a dreadful and horrible thing, and that we would like to see it abolished if it could be done without detriment
652
to the community. But, at the same time, every one of us must also agree that murder is a far more filthy and horrible thing, and that our first duty must be to protect the public and to prove that murder does not pay. With these ends in view we must ask ourselves two questions. Is capital punishment the unique deterrent which has been claimed, and if not what effective alternative can be devised? As regards the deterrent, one thing seems to me to be certain. The law is the law, and the burden of proving that the death penalty is no deterrent must be upon those who are seeking to abolish it. The public expect them to prove their case; to prove, in fact, that there is not the slightest risk of an increase in murders as a result of the proposed change.
Can noble Lords opposite who support this Bill put their hands on their hearts and say that they really believe that this is so? In fact, the abolitionists have not done so, and nothing that was said in fifty hours of discussion on this matter in another place, or in this House yesterday or to-day, has contributed one iota of new evidence in that direction. If we pass this Bill tonight how can we face the wives and children of innocent men who may lose their lives, have their lives snuffed out by unscrupulous murderers, as a result of our action? It seems to me that sometimes nowadays in this country we tend to get our point of view distorted; that we think more of the interests of the vicious and the criminal, than we do of those of their victims. I am bound to say that I agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir when he said that there have been indeed very few words of compassion or consideration said in the speeches in this House in favour of the wretched sufferers from these crimes.
Your Lordships will all recall that the Royal Commission were in fact unable to draw any firm conclusions as to whether there was a unique deterrent in the death penalty. On the other hand, they did lay great weight on the evidence of the police and of the prison officers in that sense, and they also pointed out that the murder rate in this country was remarkably low. Furthermore, they pointed out that very few criminals in this country at present carry lethal weapons.

653
Since the Commission reported, there have been two important developments. The first is the vast increase in serious crime, which we debated in this House last Wednesday on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Derwent. As he pointed out, between 1960 and 1963 crimes of violence against the person rose from 17,000 to 20,000, and the figures for breaking and entering rose from 140,000 to 220,000. The number of thefts involving violence has, I think, more than doubled in the last ten years. Yet the number of capital murders, which include the murder of prison officers and murder accompanied by theft, has remained comparatively steady. Since 1957 there has been a startling increase in crimes of robbery with violence, but not in those which have led to death; and this despite the fact that more and more criminals are organised professionals. Indeed, three quarters of capital murderers since 1957 have previous convictions. Surely, the only conclusion that we can draw from these facts and figures is that the abolition of capital punishment for murder with theft must lead to a great increase in such murders, together with an increased use of firearms. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kilmuir, that it is no exaggeration to say that it will almost certainly lead to the arming of the police which, as he said, would be so deplorable.
The second development to which I should like to refer is one which he touched on, and it was also contained in a Written Answer to my right honourable friend Sir John Hobson in another place on June 17. There the Home Secretary gave figures showing that since the introduction of the Homicide Act the number of murders has greatly increased—26 per cent. higher than in the years before 1957. But for the three years following the Homicide Act, capital murders had increased by only 3 per cent. on the previous three years, while non-capital murders had been steadily rising. In fact, since 1960 there has been an increase of 35 per cent. over the position in non-capital murders which existed before the 1957 Act was passed. I suggest, again, that here we have concrete proof that capital punishment has acted as a deterrent to excessive violence in crime, which might lead to capital murder.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I cannot quite agree with what he said about an increase of 30 per cent. in non-capital murders since the 1957 Act. I have the official figures here. In 1957 there were 151 non-capital murders; in 1958, 134; in 1959, 138; in 1960, 135—a particularly low year. If you select your year, it is very easy to find an increase in any other particular year you select. But the general trend has not been as the noble Lord has said, and in capital murders there is almost no change at all.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords. I have the figures here. They are not the same figures as those of the noble Lord. They are in column 104 of the House of Commons Hansard of June 17, and I suggest that noble Lords look them up.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am reading from exactly the same column, column 104, of Hansard, Table 6.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, if I may continue with my speech I should like to say this. I was suggesting to the House that here, again, we had concrete proof that capital punishment has acted as a deterrent to excessive violence in crime, which might lead to capital murder.
The second question we must ask ourselves is whether there is any possible satisfactory alternative to capital punishment; and certainly the Bill in its present form contains none. Despite the protestations of the Home Secretary, so called life imprisonment is, it seems, in the vast majority of cases unlikely to be more than nine to ten years. A Written Answer, on December 16 last, to the noble Lady who introduced this Bill showed that, out of 316 persons serving life sentences for murder, only 7 had served more than 10 years—I repeat, that out of 316 persons serving life sentences for murder only 7 had served more than 10 years—and only 1 for more than 20 years. Are we likely to get any variation in this pattern?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Lord will have in mind that the Homicide Act dates back only to 1957, and that the table in question refers to persons released. We therefore have no evidence of how long murderers who have had their sentences

655
commuted under the Homicide Act may yet have to serve. There have been only eight years since.
LORD COLYTON: I agree, of course, that we can have no such evidence, but we have the evidence of what the Home Secretary has said in another place on a number of occasions, all of which goes to indicate that nine to ten years is likely to be the sort of average. Now, for criminals liable to get long-term sentences, as those now serving 30 years for the great train robbery, there will be no deterrent at all.
It is significant that, during that particular crime, no guns were carried; but when, as your Lordships will remember, some of the gang took part in effecting the recent escape from Wandsworth Jail, they were this time armed. To say, as the Home Secretary has said again and again, that the real alternative to capital punishment is the virtual certainty of conviction, though no doubt true, is certainly in present circumstances quite unrealistic. It is obviously quite impossible to guarantee detection of every murder at the very best of times, but with the present state of our police forces—the lack of manpower which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, described so forcibly last Wednesday; the fact, for example, that the Metropolitan Police are down 500 on their 1920 strength; the overloading of the C.T.D., and many other factors—it is quite unrealistic to talk like this.
My Lords, there are three matters to which I should like to refer very briefly before I sit down. One is the position of the police, the second that of the prison officers, and the third the so-called moral issue. The police, through their Federation, have made their position quite clear. They are utterly opposed to abolition, which they believe will lead to more murders. In their view, these murders would include increased use of firearms in robberies, murder when resisting or preventing arrest and the murder of witnesses to prevent their giving evidence. We all know how, in the 1940s, Murder Incorporated (" Murder Inc ", as it was called) in New York systematically blotted out witnesses who could lead to convictions. Already, in the last six months, since capital murderers have been automatically reprieved, there has been a great increase in the number of robberies
656
with firearms in this country. For the four months immediately following the introduction of this Bill, there were in the Metropolitan Area 97 offences involving firearms as against 29 for a similar period in the winter of 1963. No wonder the police are demanding the retention of capital punishment in the case of the murder of police officers or of anyone assisting them to make an arrest. The very real alarm felt by the public, and especially old people living alone and afraid of being robbed, fully endorses this plea.
The position of prison officers under this Bill would be at least as difficult as that of the police. I have here (some noble Lords may have seen it) the midday edition of to-day's paper, which gives a description of a jail riot in Auckland —and New Zealand is one of the countries where capital punishment has been abolished. There are apparently 20 hardcore convicts still locked up; arms are being used; troops are being brought in, and so forth. Under this Bill, prison officers in the execution of their duty would be deprived of their only protection against murder by ruthless and very often pathologically dangerous criminals with long sentences to serve and with nothing to lose.
The number of assaults on prison officers each year is now very large. According to a statement by the Minister of State in Committee in another place on April 14 of this year, there were 167 such assaults in 1964, of which 30 constituted gross personal violence or violence sufficient to be dealt with by the courts. One result must be that the prison officers themselves will tend to become more tough, and even brutal, in their treatment of the prisoners; and surely that is not a good thing. The increased fall in the recruitment of prison officers after this Bill was foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech—only 57 in the last six months of 1964 compared with 200 in the first six months of 1964—is not at all surprising when you consider the new risk of their murder in the execution of their duties. No wonder they and their wives view this Bill with fear and abhorrence!
We are told that there is going to be a new, strong, security prison. What happens until that becomes available? And, even then, what are the chances

657
of preventing determined prisoners, acting through a brilliant organisation such as that which functioned at Wandsworth Jail, from getting away? As my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke admitted during Third Reading in another place the other day, the case for retention has been considerably strengthened by these recent events.
I turn now very briefly to the moral argument—namely, that we have no right to take human life even in order to try to preserve the lives of others. I agree, my Lords, that the procedure of hanging is detestable; but, as I said before, murder is still more horrible. I should warmly welcome the setting up of an expert inquiry to consider altering the penalty for capital murder; to find something perhaps more humane than hanging; and to make what the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, yesterday described as the whole paraphernalia of the death penalty less macabre and ghoulish than it is to-day. The Home Secretary, in winding up the Third Reading in another place, described capital punishment as a barbarous obscenity, but in what way does killing in peacetime for the protection of society differ from killing in wartime for the protection of our country? Why is it right to kill bestial murderers like Hitler and his Nazi thugs but not to execute the bestial murderers who strangle old women for the sake of a few pounds out of the till? I fail to understand the logic of these opinions. Has not society the right to protection from these people, too?
To sum up, my Lords, my objections to this Bill are, first, that there is no mandate for it, and that it is anathema to the mass of our people; secondly, that at a time of mounting robbery with violence and offences against the person it is bound to lead to more murders and to the much wider use of firearms in robberies; thirdly, that it deprives the police and prison officers of their main protection against being murdered in the execution of their duties; and, fourthly, that the moral argument is untenable. I profoundly believe that in present circumstances we cannot safely abandon capital punishment, and I strongly urge your Lordships to reject this Bill.
4.9 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, so much has been said in this debate, and so much has been said so well, that this middle distance runner is rather tempted to slide off the track now that we are getting to the last laps of our marathon. I have only two possible justifications for resisting that temptation, as I have resisted it. The first is this. We have heard the case for retention argued powerfully and sincerely from this Dispatch Box by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and my noble friend and successor at the Home Office, Lord Derwent; we have just heard it argued powerfully and sincerely by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir—a distinguished Home Secretary; and no doubt in a moment we shall hear it argued with equal power and sincerity by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. My first reason, therefore, for not taking myself off the batting list this evening is that I wish to give visible and audible, albeit inadequate, testimony that a contrary opinion is held, and held with equal sincerity, on this Front Bench.
My second reason is that, even at this late hour, I should like to say how this long and swaying debate has struck this particular observer who has approached it from the standpoint of a moderate abolitionist. This is a problem that has long exercised my own mind, and I think it may be a problem which tends to exercise, in particular, the minds of those who have in the course of duty taken human life. But it never exercised my mind more closely than during the months I was at the Home Office, when I could almost feel the awful weight of responsibility resting on the shoulders of the inhabitant of the next—door office, the Home Secretary. I felt before I went to the Home Office—I felt it very intensely then, and I feel it no less intensely now—that execution by the State of one of its citizens in peace time is a repulsive procedure. I cannot myself see how anyone, however insensitive he may be—and I am not suggesting that there is anyone of that ilk in your Lordships' House—who has read the evidence, for example, which Mr. Pierrepoint gave to the Royal Commission in 1950, could feel otherwise.
More important, I hold that the capital punishment which we are discussing this evening is objectionable. The reasons

659
why it is objectionable have been explored and expressed at great length in the course of these two days of discussion, and I will not myself attempt to elaborate them. But I should like to quote (because I think it puts the point both well and pithily) what was said in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission fifteen years ago by a former Home Secretary and a distinguished former Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Templewood. As he then put it, capital punishment is objectionable on four counts. These were his words:
"First, because it abandons the possibility of reforming the prisoner. Second, because, by being irrevocable, it gives no opportunity of reversing a wrong decision. Thirdly, because it places a hateful duty upon all who have to take part in an execution. And, fourthly, because it lowers the moral standards of the whole community."
My Lords, I, for one, endorse those four arguments, and I think that the majority of noble Lords who have spoken during these two days of discussion have also endorsed those four arguments.
However, I said just now that I was a moderate abolitionist. I do not myself subscribe to the extreme view that any State in any circumstances, in any conditions of peace time, is morally debarred from taking the life of one or more of its guilty citizens if by so doing it protects the life of one or more of its innocent citizens. May I say, and may I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir, that I feel just as strongly as he does—and as does any retentionist —about the victims of crimes of violence, about the victims of murder and about those who are, as it were, in the front line: the police and the prison officers. I would ask my noble friend who spoke with such sincerity to believe, as I do, that the sentiments I have just expressed are shared by all abolitionists. But that said, I hold that we should not legitimise or perpetuate an institution as repulsive and, prima facie, as objectionable as capital punishment, unless we are absolutely certain that it does not lead to injustice or to gross anomalies; and unless, of course, we are certain that in fact it is the unique deterrent.
I have endeavoured to listen to these debates over the last two days with as open a mind as I could muster. Nothing
660
that I have heard, I must confess, has altered my conviction that the present set-up, this "three-quarter house" of the Homicide Act 1957, fails to Hass those two fundamental tests. I was impressed when my former chief, my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke, another distinguished Home Secretary, said on the Second Reading in another place that he had become convinced that the Homicide Act was unjust and anomalous in its incidence—I am paraphrasing his words —as would be any alternative arrangements that could be devised. But that denunciation of the Homicide Act and of our present arrangements was very mild compared with what we heard yesterday from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Again, nothing that I heard yesterday (or, indeed, that I have heard to-day) has convinced me that capital punishment constitutes that unique deterrent which its supporters claim it does. In fact, the evidence—as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, in two really outstanding speeches have pointed out—tends, if anything (I would not put it higher than that) to point the other way. But, as I said, I sought to preserve an open judgment. However, nothing that I have heard during these two days has altered my initial feeling that it would be right for your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, we cannot go back—for one thing, another place would not permit it. It is wrong to stand where we are. We cannot devise suitable alternative arrangements for the existing. Homicide Act. Accordingly we have no alternative but to take our courage in our hands and go forward.
Nevertheless, having said that, I would wish very frankly to add that one particular aspect of this matter has worried me, and increasingly, throughout this discussion. It has been approached from admittedly rather different angles by the Lord Chief Justice, by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, by my noble friend Lord Derwent and by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. If the Bill passes then, as your Lordships know, all further murderers convicted will receive a life sentence. Up to now —I know the arguments about what can happen later—a life sentence has meant

661
incarceration for nine years, plus or minus, on average. We know that men are now serving far longer sentences in prison than this for serious offences, extremely serious offences, yet not offences involving the ultimate crime of murder.
I myself see the danger of perpetuating or extending a system whereby a man who has disembowelled an old lady, or raped and murdered a young child, serves less time in prison than the man who robs a train, even though that robber be a hard, ruthless and professional criminal. That idea, that conception, offends my common sense and revolts my sense of justice; and I think that it may revolt and offend the common sense and the sense of justice of other common men. Apart from this, there is the deterrent aspect. If we are determined to abolish hanging for murder, I, for one, agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, that the alternative must be made more of a deterrent.
This, as I see it, involves four things. First, the clearly expressed determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government that hardened or dangerous criminals will be liable to serve possibly a considerably longer period than nine years in prison. We have heard what the Home Secretary has said about this in another place. I hope that when he winds up the debate the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will be able to give us a more unequivocal assurance than we have had hitherto. Secondly, I hope that the Government will be prepared to re-examine the present system whereby the power of release is vested solely in the Home Office and the Home Secretary. In saying that, I am not casting any reflection on past or present incumbents of that Office, or on the Home Office itself, a Department for which, having served in it, I have the greatest respect.
In another place Sir John Hobson deployed very powerful arguments suggesting why, on practical and constitutional grounds, the present system was open to objection. I feel that to vest in the judges the unqualified right to pass determinate sentences on murderers may be open to equal objection. On the other hand, I am at one with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that we should consider the establishment of some review body to which all long-term cases,
662
whether for murder or other offences, could be referred. I would make only two stipulations. First, the system of licensing must be retained for murderers. Secondly, the ultimate decision should still be vested in one man; and that one man should continue to be the Home Secretary. If we were to introduce a system (I will not attempt to spell out how it could be done, it is a matter for the lawyers and not for a layman) I think that it would be incompatible with a system of determinate sentences.
It would greatly help me, and I think it might help some of my noble friends, if the Lord Chancellor could indicate at least a readiness on the part of the Government to examine these possibilities. I hope that we shall be able to write something along these lines into this Bill on Committee stage, but I realise that there may be insuperable practical objections to this course. Alternatively, could not some such scheme be written into the Criminal Justice Bill, which we hear is on the stocks, or could not the Royal Commission be asked to make an early recommendation on this specific point? I hope that the Government will show themselves flexible in this respect.
Thirdly, our so-called "secure prisons" must in future be rendered really secure. I agree with all that has been said in that respect by noble Lords. At the moment these prisons are leaky "sponges" rather than secure "clams". I know what was said yesterday about this point by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—he said quite a lot about it. However, I am not yet convinced that this problem is being tackled with the absolute vigour and ruthless determination which it demands.
Fourthly, if we are to have long-term imprisonment, we must create conditions in which long-term prisoners do not merely rot away their lives and their personalities in prison. This point was made by the most reverend Prelate, and indeed by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. It is, of course, a question of individual prisoners and of their individual personalities. It is, I believe, even more a question of the prison régime. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be able to tell us rather more about what the Government have in mind in this respect.

663
My Lords, I trust that what the Lord Chancellor may be able to tell us about these matters will allay my anxiety in this respect and remove some of the hesitations felt by my noble friends. That said, I should again like to make my own position crystal clear. Quite simply, I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it right to do so. I believe that the risk we are running is small, and that it is in any event minimised by the clause relating to the five-year review. What is more, I hope—indeed, I am reasonably confident —that I shall be joined in the Lobby by a fairly substantial number of my colleagues from this side of the House. I am glad that in recent years there have been occasions when your Lordships have shown yourselves, if anything, a little in advance of public opinion. I trust that this will remain so. I trust especially that our vote to-night will help to remove from British life the black shadow which has lain over it for far too long—the shadow of the gallows. My noble friend Lord Colyton suggested just now that we had no mandate, that there was no mandate to abolish the death penalty for murder. If we believe in our hearts and in our minds that the death penalty is repulsive and objectionable; if we believe it in all sincerity, then that, my Lords, is our mandate.
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, prior to this debate I was under the impression that both the protagonists and the opponents of this measure had at least one view in common, namely, that they shared the pious aspiration of Gilbert in "The Mikado"—
"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time
To let the punishment fit the crime—
The punishment fit the crime."
Having listened to the vast majority of the speeches during the last two days I am beginning to wonder whether indeed we have even that aim in common, because, to judge from most of the speeches made in support of this Bill, "punishment", in the view of those who support the Bill, has become a dirty word; to such an extent—I shall deal with this later in my speech—that, so far as I can see, this Bill, which is supposed to be entitled the Murder (Abolition of Death
664
Penalty) Bill would be better known as "Murderers' Charter (Incitement to Homicide) Bill ".
At this point, like my noble friend Earl Jellicoe, I must make my own position clear. I am by no means a "hang 'em all" man. While I should like to see the Act of 1957 swept away, I should also like to see it replaced by something which does retain the death penalty in certain instances with which I shall deal in a moment, including (I believe this is not beyond the wit of the lawyers, even though my two noble and learned friends did not manage it) the death penalty for poisoning—the foulest, most treacherous, most cruel, and always premeditated, form of murder. Equally, I would not press for the death penalty for crimes of passion. I wonder how many of your Lordships know about what I believe was the first occasion on which a crime passionel was allowed to have any influence in the courts of this land. It is now almost 50 years ago when, during the First World War, the wife of a serving soldier, Captain Malcolm, during his absence in France, was seduced by a Belgian refugee, a very unsavoury person with the dubious title of the Count de Borsch. Captain Malcolm, returning home on leave and finding out the situation, went to visit the bogus Count and literally emptied his service revolver into him. The jury acquitted the captain, although, as I have said, up to that time the crime passional formed no part of our judicial procedure, nor was its existence even admitted.
It is obvious that most crimes passionels are carried out by people who have not really the long-term intention of killing. Obviously, in the Malcolm case, there was premeditation, but he was acting on great emotion and one must have all sympathy with the person who did it, even though he ought to be severely punished. In the recent case of Harvey Holcroft, who received only three years for murdering his wife, I think that was far too slight a punishment, because the killing of even the most blatantly unfaithful wife is something which should be discouraged by a considerable sentence of imprisonment.
The noble Lord, Lord Strange, gave your Lordships an interesting account of a trial which he attended. As that particular murder took place in Perthshire,

665
and as, for many years from before that time, I have been chairman of the Police Committee of the county, I know something about it. This man, as the noble Lord said, was a Pole. The vast majority of Poles who came to this country during the war as fighting refugees were not only very brave soldiers but also in all respects admirable citizens. Many of them have settled in this country and nearly all are a credit to the community. This man was one of the rare exceptions. While he was under sentence of death in Perthshire, a letter arrived from his mother in Poland, a woman in poor circumstances, for the gravity of the case had attracted attention in the Press of all Europe. She said in her letter, "I hope you hang my son. He has been a monster since birth." That man's record showed that he was one of that small category that cannot be redeemed, and such people, I consider, are better out of this world. The second type for whom I think we definitely ought to retain the death penalty are people of the train robbery gang type, when their actions have resulted in death.
After something like 60 speeches during the course of this debate, it is difficult to find any aspect that has not been touched upon already, but there is one which I do not think has been mentioned—that is, that, contrary to the opinion of social workers, the steady and welcome rise in the conditions of living of the people of this country has not been accompanied by the expected diminution in crime.
In my young days, when there was still a vast amount of poverty, suffering and unemployment, malnutrition and, indeed, starvation, most of the crimes that were committed were committed for the sake of getting food to keep the family alive or for getting money to purchase food. Those days, fortunately, in most cases are gone for ever. But the people who have carried out the vastly increased number of crimes are not people who are at all in destitute circumstances. They are often quite well off. Take the train robbers. They were well enough off to have a large number of cars, to acquire a farm and to have careful arrangements made for their, fortunately, temporary escape. And while the poor in former times were satisfied if the results of their thefts, accompanied or not accompanied
666
by violence, produced enough for them to live on, to-day, as the standard of living rises, so does the criminal desire that his standard of living shall rise. He wants bigger and faster cars, more and more expensive drinks, more and more expensive women, and he is determined to have them. That is why we have this unfortunate tendency.
I can see no hope for serious crime diminishing. All we can do is to make sure that so far as possible we make the perpetrators feel in advance, in as many cases as possible, that the game will not be worth the candle. I join with my noble friend Lord Kilmuir in his surprise, and in my own case disgust amounting to almost nausea, at the sentiments expressed by a great many of those who have spoken in favour of this Bill. There have been many notable exceptions, like my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, but, by and large, it has been noticeable how much they have spoken about the poor unfortunate murderer and how very little about the poor unfortunate victim.
The noble Lady who introduced this Bill—I heard every word she spoke and I have read it since to make sure—made no mention of the victim. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, at the beginning of his speech, did pay what I hope was more than lip service to the iniquity of murder, but thereafter he expatiated at great length upon what we ought to do for the murderer, and well nigh shed salt tears over Michael Davies, who was kept for some weeks in ignorance of whether he was to hang or not. The noble Lord said nothing about Michael Davies's victim, a young man cut off by Michael Davies in the prime of life, leaving behind a girl to whom he was shortly to have been married.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many people, including myself, have worked for years to establish what we believe to be the innocence of Michael Davies?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, let Hansard be my witness that what I and my noble friend Lord Kilmuir have said is correct. I would add that, with the noticeable and most commendable exception of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, even from the Bishops' Benches we

667
have had much theology but little Christian sympathy. That I find very regrettable. The noble Earl, Lord Long-ford, said that a new generation had arisen—to me it seems all too often a new degeneration.
I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary, but at this point I want to put an absolute challenge to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that he at least will not do what all his colleagues and other protagonists of this Bill have done up to the present time: that is to say, they have burked and shirked, avoided and evaded, any statement as to what they are going to do with the murderer if this ill-starred measure goes through. We have not heard any description of whether they are prepared to have a British Alcatraz in an island off the Scottish or Welsh coast, or a farm in the Eastern Counties adequately surrounded with a moat and many coils of dannert wire. They have said nothing whatever likely to assure the people of this country that these murderers are going to be kept in a place whence they cannot escape.
As we heard last night from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in that most admirable speech, there has already been an escape from a newly-opened prison supposed to be of the greatest security. What are we going to offer in the way of prisons of real security? How are the people of this country to be reassured that they are going to have genuine security from these desperate criminals?
Furthermore, as I have said, we hear nothing of the punishment. There has been again a careful disinclination on the part of the protagonists of this Bill to say what they regard as an adequate term in gaol. Naturally, such a term would have to be an elastic one. For once, I think there is something to be said for the American system, much as I deplore and despise most of their judicial system. Under that system they can sentence a person for, say, from five to fifty years' imprisonment; that is to say, there can be no question of releasing him before five years, but at any time thereafter he can be considered for parole.
668
The Home Secretary has been quoted often for the remark he is supposed to have made, that men were usually released after nine years because that was when deterioration began to set in and when they began to rot in gaol. I am less concerned about murderers rotting in gaol than I am about their victims rotting in their graves. I feel that those who support this Bill will have a very heavy responsibility indeed upon their shoulders if they are not able to produce —and produce before the Bill goes through—an adequate description of what they arc going to substitute for the death penalty.
We have heard that the death penalty is not a deterrent. If not, is it not rather peculiar that during the past three months there have been two cases, one in Scotland and one in England, where young miscreants were on the point of being apprehended by the police, and on each occasion their leader shouted, in almost the same language: "Kill the so-and-so's; they can't hang us anyhow"?—the "so-and-so's" being a euphemism for a word seldom heard in your Lordships' House before Lord Arran's Bill. In each case, the desperadoes were unable to carry out their purpose; but surely those two examples show that the death penalty is still a deterrent. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by many and more eloquent speakers than myself, when you get a man who has a long criminal record and he finds himself on the point of capture, very likely by only one policeman, and when he knows that his fate if he shoots and is afterwards captured is going to be little, if any, worse than if he does not shoot, what inducement is there to that desperado to refrain from killing? I put it to your Lordships that there is absolutely none.
I should like to speak now about the position of the police. Tributes have been paid, and quite rightly, from both sides to the conduct of the police. But I should have thought that those who support this Bill would have paid some little attention to the fact that the whole of the police forces of this country, with very few individual exceptions, from chief constables down to the humblest "Bobby" on the beat, are absolutely opposed to the Bill, as are the prison officers. Were it not for our unarmed

669
police force, none of your Lordships could come and go with safety to this House. Should the wave of crime accompanied by the use of firearms become much greater, there will undoubtedly be a cry for the arming of the police; and that, I entirely agree, would be a most lamentable procedure, and one which the police themselves wish, at all costs, to avoid. But it may still have to come if this violence increases.
In reply to those noble Lords who have asked why shooting should make murder a capital offence, I would merely reply that it must be assumed that a man who goes out to commit a felony carrying a weapon loaded with ball cartridge is perfectly prepared to use it; that is to say, it is premeditated murder should the occasion arise.
I confess to two things. I am not so much interested in the fate of the Bill. What I am interested in is the fate of the little shopkeeper in the back street; of the old spinster or widow living alone; of the policeman trying to arrest desperate criminals; of the prison officer trying to keep them under restraint. If this measure goes through, all these will be put in peril of their lives to a greater extent than they are at the moment. We have had quotations and statistics thrown at us ad nauseam to prove that the removal of the death penalty is not likely to increase murders. But if the removal of the death penalty is going to cause the death of one person per year in this country, then this Bill stands condemned; and as we have no assurance that it will not, and have every reason to believe that it will, I trust that your Lordships will most emphatically reject the Bill.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARN-BURY: My Lords, I cannot hope to add much that is new to the many eloquent and weighty arguments that your Lordships have listened to over the best part of the last two days (many of them you will no doubt have heard several times), but may I briefly summarise those that weigh with me, and perhaps add one new one of my own? I speak as an abolitionist without reservations. As I see it, the only possible excuse for the taking of life is that thereby life is saved. If I believed that by the taking of one life we could save many other innocent lives, that we
670
could protect the lives of children, then I would reluctantly assent to what seemed dire necessity. But I do not believe this, because all the evidence seems to me to point the other way.
Since your Lordships last discussed this question, one significant event has taken place: the Homicide Act has become the law of the land. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, for his description of that Act, which came new to my legally untutored ear. That Act has always seemed to me to have no roots in justice, reason or morality. It is a tissue of anachronisms. In fact, if I were the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein (fond, impious thought—presumptuous fantasy!) I should feel sorely tempted to describe the Homicide Act as a "dog's breakfast". Yet that "dog's breakfast" has been swallowed, not only in another place, but here in this House, bristling, as it is, with learned Law Lords. I can explain that aberration only by supposing that some noble Lords, learned and less learned, were suffering from a spasm—of course, only a temporary spasm—of diminished responsibility. However, that, fortunately, is not a capital offence.
But, whatever its flaws, the Homicide Act has rendered an invaluable service to the abolitionist cause, not only because it has reduced the number of hangings, but because it has blown sky-high the argument that the death penalty is, in fact, a unique deterrent. Supporters of the Homicide Act must either abandon this contention here and now, or they must admit that they do not intend to deter the poisoner, whom many of your Lordships described truly as the most coldblooded and calculating of criminals; that they do not intend to deter the murderers of children; that they do not intend to deter those murderers who rape and strangle a woman, but who negligently omit to take away her handbag; nor do they wish to deter those who kill with any weapon but a firearm. I must confess that if I were to be the victim of murder, and if I had time to make the hedonistic calculus, I should, on the whole, prefer to be shot dead than to be hacked to pieces with a hatchet or sliced to bits with a knife, and I think I should not worry over much about my handbag.

671
But, as I have said, thanks to the Homicide Act, the argument that hanging is the unique deterrent has been blown to smithereens. I believe that the way to inspire respect for human life is to refrain from taking it—above all to refrain from sanctifying killing by killing in the name of the law. But, as we must recognise, there are many people who see in hanging, in the death penalty, not only a deterrent but also a means of retribution. I am sure we all agree that moral indignation is a thoroughly reputable emotion: we all indulge in it, and some of us thoroughly enjoy it. But it sometimes engenders a less reputable impulse, and that is a desire for vengeance—the desire to pay the murderer back in his own coin.
The other day I came across, by chance, a quotation from a speech delivered by my father in the House of Commons as long ago as 1900–65 years ago—in which he challenged
"the theory—at once barbarous and fallacious —that a man who commits a peculiarly brutal offence should receive a proportionately brutal punishment."
Flogging was then the issue. But the self-same emotions which demand flogging as a remedy for violence demand hanging as a cure for murder. It is the "Give them a dose of their own medicine" school. The trouble is that "their own medicine" is not medicine, it is poison. Violence breeds violence, and brutality brutalises. Above all, the State should not soil its hands by meting out either brutality or death.
Finally—and this is, I think, what moves me most of all: it is not an argument but a profession of faith—I believe in the resurrection of the living here on earth; in the infinite power of self-redemption of the human spirit. I believe that it is possible for any one of us, however low we have sunk, to climb up again out of the depths and darkness of the pit into the light above. Which one of us has the right to deny that chance to any human being—to extinguish human life when it has reached its lowest ebb, to
"Put out the light, and then put out the light"?
I believe that the battle we have been fighting here this afternoon, and many
672
of us yesterday as well, is waged between two forces: those who are swayed and driven by fear, and those who are inspired by hope, unconquerable hope, in human nature. Fear is always a bad counsellor, a counsellor of despair. Let us turn our backs on fear. Let us have courage. Let us dare to hope.
4.55 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this is the third occasion since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House that I have intervened in a debate dealing with the death penalty. The first was on July 9, 1956, and the second was on February 21, 1957. I have been here for a good deal but, I am very sorry to say, not the whole of the debate of the last two days. I particularly regretted missing two of the four very distinguished maiden speeches that were made. I read the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, with admiration and, perhaps, all the greater delight, because I was a colleague of his father in another place, and was one of the many who admired his great gifts.
There are still some very important speakers who are going to contribute to this debate, and I want to limit myself to two purposes: first, to say why I myself propose to support the Second Reading of the Bill and, secondly, to make clear why I shall almost certainly vote against the Third Reading unless we can improve the Bill in Committee. One or two of my noble friends have spoken about our passing this Bill this evening. That, of course, cannot be done in any event. What we can do, and what, for the reasons I shall give, I hope we shall do, is to give it a Second Reading.
In the debate of July 9, 1956, I spoke and voted against the Bill then before us for abolishing the death penalty. I thought that the death penalty for all murder, tempered by the use of the Prerogative of mercy, provided a saner, a better and, indeed, a more humane law than would its abolition. More than half a century has elapsed since I first studied philosophy at Oxford, and during that half century and more I have always thought that the moral problem of punishment was one of the most difficult with which philosophers, theologians, lawyers, and statesmen have to deal. For the reasons that I gave to the

673
House, I believed in the death penalty, and I still think that I was right. Every one of us numbers among his personal friends many men and women who believe in the death penalty, and many who reject it. I really do not believe that the two groups differ in humanity, or in their appreciation of moral principle.
One of the most astonishing things that I find in this whole controversy is the large number of persons who can see that to take a human life involves a great moral question—as undoubtedly it does—but seem to suppose that to take away a man's liberty for a number of years involves no such moral question. My Lords, both involve immense moral questions. Both raise great moral issues. I firmly believe that the State has a right to take life in a proper case. In our previous debates that was the view of both Archbishops, and I can scarcely believe, therefore, that it is a view which it is improper for a Christian to hold.
Why then, it may be asked, do I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill this evening? The answer is perfectly simple. It is because we enacted in 1957 what was then the Homicide Bill and is now the Homicide Act. I spoke against what was being done in that Bill, in separating the two classes of murder, and indeed the most reverend Primate, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the then Archbishop of York, was good enough to rise in that debate in a short intervention to say that he agreed with me.
My Lords, I recognise the sincerity that prompted my noble and right honourable friends to bring forward that measure. I know that their motives were honest, but that measure had, and it obviously had, what I thought was a perfectly fundamental defect. It separated murders into two classes and subjected one of those two classes to a more severe penalty than the other, but the difference between the two classes was not decided by any moral consideration whatsoever. Some of the resulting absurdities I ventured to point out in 1957. I gave a list of the ways you could murder your wife if you did not wish to suffer capital punishment, and the ways that you had better avoid. I expressed the view that as the public came to recognise these absurdities they would wonder how on
674
earth Parliament came to pass such a Statute.
In that debate the most reverend Primate, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, supported the Bill, as was quite properly said by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir. I said I reluctantly differed from him on an issue of morals. He thought that no moral question was involved, I thought that a moral question was involved, and I was glad of the support not only of the most reverend Primate, the then Archbishop of York, but also of my old friend the late Lord Bishop of Chichester. It is possible for a civilised country to carry on with a criminal code that includes the death penalty for murder. It is also possible for a civilised country to carry on with a criminal code which abolishes the death penalty for murder. What I believe it cannot do in the long run is to maintain a criminal code which many reasonable people, including most of the Judges, believe to be indefensible. For that reason I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill to-night. That does not mean that I can continue to support the Bill as it now stands. I am absolutely convinced that it is the duty of the State to preserve order and to protect its citizens from criminals. I also believe it has to consider the interests and safety of its agents, the police and the prison warders. In all these respects I believe that the Bill, as it now stands, fails.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the theory of punishment. I am relieved from the necessity of saying much by what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said this afternoon, and by some wise observations of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who spoke yesterday. There are few subjects on which those who have not thought deeply about punishment talk more nonsense than on retribution. They seem to think that retribution is almost an improper purpose of punishment. My Lords, as I have shown to the House on previous occasions; as has been demonstrated, I think, by every moral philosopher who has dealt with the question; as was certainly demonstrated in an admirable little book by the present Leader of this House, retribution is the most fundamental aspect of punishment.
Of course, the three main theories of punishment are retribution, reform and

675
deterrence. Nearly always punishment, if we are wise, may make some contribution under all three of those headings, and it is demonstrable that you cannot pursue any one of them to the complete exclusion of the others without getting results which appear to be shocking. What is, I think, certain is that if retribution is wrong then all punishment is wrong, for the reasons given in that essay which I ventured to quote on the previous occasion, and a portion of which was quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir this afternoon—an essay by the late Archbishop Temple.
My Lords, I have summed up the principle of retribution in the two Latin words "strum critique"—"to each his deserts". If it is in any way true that a man ever deserves punishment, then that means that the principle of retribution is right. Of course that does not mean that one has to kill; it does not mean that one has to exact the same penalty as was exacted by the murderer. But it does mean that there should be some correspondence. Many in this debate, and previous debates of the same kind, have spoken of the terrible state of our law when it was a capital crime for a child, let us say, to shoplift. Of course that was shocking, but it did not result from people believing in retribution. Retribution would utterly have condemned it. What it resulted from was deterrence, run wild.
That brings me to the first of my main criticisms of this Bill. Because the House of Commons has passed this Bill with a great majority, both on Second Reading and on Third Reading, I have carefully studied how, consistently with our beliefs, we can agree, so far as possible, with the House of Commons. Let me say at once that, of course, we have honestly to make up our own minds, but I do not believe it is in the general interest of the criminal law that we should prolong this old controversy unnecessarily, if any agreement is possible. As I understand the vote of another place, it means that they are prepared to back the idea that a term of imprisonment can be a sufficient deterrent. I agree that that is an arguable proposition in some cases, but there is an outstanding case in which it seems to me that it is not an arguable proposition. The threat of a long sentence of im
676
prisonment cannot deter from murder the man who is already suffering a long sentence of imprisonment. Nor can it deter from murder the man who, if he is captured for a crime, will, even without murder, suffer a long term of imprisonment. In such a case an instant murder may rid him of the only witness.
There have been two ways, I think, in the course of this debate in which it has been suggested that we might improve this Bill in Committee. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, said that he would at the Committee stage introduce reforms regarding the sentence that will meet some of the problems to which he drew attention. We all look forward to seeing the Amendments that are drafted by that skilled hand, and we will consider them most carefully in Committee, should this Bill get a Second Reading to-night. But I am less confident than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that it will be possible by any reform of conditions in prison to avoid the risk of a man, as it has been described, rotting. The noble Baroness who so persuasively introduced this measure yesterday afternoon gave a touching example of somebody in another country who had endured a very long sentence of imprisonment and was now a very useful citizen. I think these things are possible. I do not think it wholly depends on the conditions in the prison. I am not sure that we can provide that that will be so in every case.
There are perhaps a diminishing number of people here who knew—because this House is becoming so young, but there are still many in this House who knew—as I did, the late Alexander Paterson. They will remember his objection to long terms of imprisonment. He thought, as I confess I have thought, that the sentence of death can be far more merciful. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice will discover that if he tries to make the imprisonment to which a man can be sentenced so severe that it will, in fact, deter in most of these cases, it will have the disadvantages to which the late Alexander Paterson drew attention; and he then may find that the numbers of people who find capital punishment an abominable cruelty will take the same

677
view about long imprisonment. That however, is one way in which we shall be invited to amend the Bill.
Another possible way occurs to me. I shall not say anything final about it this afternoon; but I can understand, I think (because I myself drew attention to many of these things when the 1957 Bill was being considered), the House of Commons' objection to many of the categories of offences that are now capital murders. In fact, I can see certain disadvantages of those categories which I think have not yet been mentioned in this debate. People often speak of the inclusion of shooting as a capital murder, as though that had been entirely happy in its effect. I am not sure that it has. I am not at all sure that the effect of putting shooting alone of these methods into the capital class has not been to encourage what I think is a most deplorable and horrible increase in the crime of stabbing. I find stabbing quite loathsome, and there is something that I find almost more repulsive than either, the habit of the young thug which I believe is now known as "putting in the boot", by which practice he kicks in the face his victim already on the ground. I think it is a hopeless task to try to do what the 1957 Act did, making this separation between capital and non-capital murders based on no moral considerations.
I think there is one class of capital murder, or possibly two, on which this House might wish to insist, notwithstanding the rejection by another place. It seems to me that, whatever may be the distinction which one should or should not draw between what I might call primary murders, there are two cases which are in a different class—I do not say better or worse, but in a different class for consideration of what we ought to do about them. One of them is murder in order to resist arrest. The second is murder to effect an escape from lawful custody. There may be a very strong case for excepting those two classes from this Bill, even if we allow the others to be repealed. It may be said that the House of Commons would not look at it. Well, my Lords, we do not know, and in any event I do not think the subsequent fate of this measure in the House of Commons will prevent us from doing our duty as we see it.
678
For the reasons I have given, I propose to vote for the Second Reading to-night. But I will also look with the greatest interest at the Amendments that will be brought forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice dealing with imprisonment, and I hope that some of my noble friends, or possibly I myself, will think of some Amendments to save from the repeal in the Bill as it stands murder committed in order to avoid arrest and murder committed to enable a man to escape from lawful custody. It will be observed that in neither of those two categories do I specially mention the police, though the police will be, I believe, the principal beneficiaries of the reforms that I advocate. I apologise if I have spoken too long, but I hope these matters will be considered.
5.20 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, your Lordships have heard so much argument that it remains for me to be only a witness. I speak as one who has prosecuted men charged with murder, who has defended men charged with murder, who has tried them, and who has sentenced them to death. I have through my mind faced the question: is it right for me to condemn a man to a punishment which I for myself would not be willing to execute or even to witness? Equally, I have been faced with the other question: Here is an enemy of society society must be protected against such an onslaught. And in that conflict I have been comforted that the law has taken the decision for me.
Here we have a Bill which I would read in the composite manner, not only to abolish the death penalty but also to replace it by a sentence for life. A sentence for life sounds as great a deterrent, perhaps, as capital punishment. But a sentence for life, as now understood, is an indeterminate sentence at the discretion of the Executive, and not of the Judge who tried the case. I should like to say, if I testify as a witness, that in my opinion the death sentence is a deterrent. This is not a matter which is capable of statistical proof; it is not a matter which you can ever prove, because how can anyone tell who may not have been deterred? But when I think of the robberies, and the murders in the course of robberies to-day, I would refer to the evidence which was given by the

679
Commissioner of Police before the Royal Commission in support of their strongly held view that the death sentence is a deterrent.
Your Lordships may remember the cases: the case of the Bermondsey gang, a large gang of thieves and robbers, who, in 1944, in Burcham Street in the City of London, smashed a jeweller's shop, seized nearly £3,000 worth of jewellery and drove off in their stolen car. A naval captain Captain Binney, saw them and stood in their path, signalling them down, to arrest them. They drove him down: they murdered him. It was so found by the jury, and one man was sentenced to death. He was reprieved. For the next three years that gang continued their activities in crime undeterred. Three years later that gang, in Charlotte Street, again with a stolen car, attacked a jeweller's shop, stole the jewellery, and when citizen Alex Antiquis came to arrest them, they shot him down. They were found guilty and sentenced to death; and the Commissioner of Police recorded that
"after the death sentence was executed, almost immediately the gang disbanded. They have not been seen in their usual haunts since, and, as far as is known, are not engaged in criminal pursuits."
No wonder that those to whom we entrust the enforcement of our law feel that they need the protection of the law.
Then, when I read, as I do, of attempts from outside to invade our prisons, as in a state of war, I recall that just over a hundred years ago, in 1862, the Fenian conspirators, believing that one Barrett inside was being exercised, put their kegs of gunpowder outside the prison wall and blew it down, and killed many. Fortunately, the Governor had been appraised of their plan and the prisoners were not being exercised that day. Those outside did not get their man, but they killed many in an attempt to release the prisoner. They were convicted of murder.
I ask myself now, not only when we have robberies and armed robberies, but when after a hundred years we have this revival of attempts, successful attempts, to invade our prisons from the outside: if anyone should be shot or murdered in the course of that attempt, what would our people think of us, what would the
680
police and prison warders think of us, if there were not retribution? But further than that, I would say: Just think. These are calculating, clever, premeditating criminals. Will they not know? They may in the course of their theft or robbery be liable to 20 or 25 or 30 years' imprisonment. If in the course of it they should shoot and kill an ordinary citizen who stands against them, and if the principle of this Bill as it stands is accepted, the punishment will be an indeterminate sentence at the discretion of the Executive. In the future, in any of these robberies, a man will realise, if he calculates—and some do—"I shall suffer no more if I kill that man who seeks to stop me; indeed, I may destroy the only evidence which may convict me".
It is the ordinary man who feels that the present penalty is a deterrent. The question before us, deterrent or no deterrent, is a matter of what I believe the ordinary man in this country feels. So, accepting that it is a deterrent, I go on one stage further. In my judgment—I have expressed this opinion before—the objects of punishment are not properly described as being solely deterrent or reformatory. I am glad that the most reverend Primate has mentioned retribution. I know that his predecessor did so, too. There is retribution, by which I mean that in order to maintain the respect for law and order in this country, society itself, and the courts of law in their punishments, must express the revulsion which the ordinary citizen feels towards grave crime. Indeed, as we all know, in the present state of opinion, some crimes demand the most emphatic penalty of all.
I realise that there is a strong argument in favour of this Bill by reason of the anomalies which have been thrown up by the 1957 Act—a well-intentioned Act which I would not criticise overmuch. But the anomalies which have been thrown up are not, it seems to me, a ground for altering the whole of our conception in this matter. It is a matter for curing the anomalies. In my evidence before the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment I accepted and put before them the degrees of capital murder, murder and manslaughter. I still think that our law can be properly adjusted so that these anomalies can be

681
ironed out, and I do not think that the existence of these anomalies is a ground for removing the death penalty.
I come back to this point: what should be done in regard to this Bill? If an acceptable alternative were offered, then for myself I would be the first to say that we should try abolishing the death penalty—I repeat: if there were an acceptable alternative. The matter has been threshed out in debate in the Commons, and suggestions have been made by the Lord Chief Justice. But is 30 or 40 years' detention—breaking the heart, the mind and the soul of the individual—an acceptable alternative? Is that not more cruel? If society does that, it seems to me that the acceptable alternative is not proffered. At all events, it seems to me that the principle of this Bill does not offer it. It offers simply the abolition of the death penalty and the substitution of an indeterminate sentence at the discretion of the Executive.
This, of course, is a matter on which all of us have our feelings, but I look, as I trust I always shall, to the proper and due enforcement of the law and order of this country. We in this country have a reputation for law and order higher than that of any other country in the world. Our murder rate is among the lowest. That is because our people have throughout had respect for the law and its administration. Our police officers and our prison warders, who are responsible for its enforcement, expect the Judges, the country, to protect them; and unless an adequate alternative is offered—and I have seen no prospect of that immediately —unless this Bill is wholly reconsidered and brought forward in a different shape altogether, I think that we should reject it. I therefore propose to vote against the Bill.
5.33 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we are coming to the end of a very important debate, and I will be brief. I will not immediately follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, although I should like to comment on some of the things he said. But despite the most moving and persuasive speech which he has just made, the range of speakers in this House yesterday and to-day testifying in favour of abolition is a measure of the dramatic swing in informed opinion which has
682
taken place in a relatively short period. It was a pleasure to all of us to listen to the four maiden speakers, three of whom were in favour of this Bill, and all of whom were the right side of 45.
The weight of opinion and argument in favour of this Bill in this, the Upper House—the Upper House which used to have the reputation for being "stuffy" and "fuddy-duddy"—is indeed very heartening to one of my generation who has only recently joined your Lordships' House. The weight of opinion in this House is now very heavy, and I hope that we shall see the result of that in the Division Lobby, if we are forced to a vote. I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that, moving and persuasive as his argument was, there is a formidable weight of opinion on the other side which cannot be ignored.
Those of us who have campaigned for years for abolition have welcomed tremendously in recent years the support of many new people—many people who have come over to our point of view, and, in particular, the support we have received from the former Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke. He was opposed to abolition; he was then made Home Secretary, and he did what a sensible Minister would do. He sent for a study of the working of the Homicide Act, and I gather that he was quite appalled by what he found in the way of anomalies. He came to the conclusion that the Act could not be amended—and this is something which we in this House have to remember—and that it would be far better to go straight forward for abolition. This is what happened to a retentionist who had the job of Home Secretary and who took the trouble to study and study and study. This has been the experience of so many people who have really studied the matter.
It is quite impossible to ignore the pattern of persuasion which is followed by those who shed their prejudices and study the thing with an open mind. In fact, whether one is an idealist or a purely practical man, the argument in simple terms, as we have heard it to-day, is surely this. Mr. Henry Brooke said that the 1957 Homicide Act is completely anomalous and that it cannot be amended without creating further anomalies. The Lord Chief Justice has told us what the

683
Judges, certainly the majority of them, think of the Act. He has been supported by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. Both concluded that we should go to abolition. We have had the courageous speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, from his Home Office experience. We have the evidence of Sir Ernest Gowers; we have had evidence from the Church, which has always been in the van in this fight for sanity in this matter.
The Lord Chief Justice, quite rightly, in his view, makes his support for the Bill throughout conditional on there being reconsideration of the sentencing arrangements. This, I think, is reasonable. It is a matter with which the House will have to deal in Committee, but reservations on the length and form of sentence is no justification, in my view, for voting against the Second Reading of this measure, which contains an important principle. We have had the remarks from the noble Earl the Leader of the House to indicate that this is a subject to which the Government will pay particular attention, but the arguments for and against have all been adduced time and again.
I want merely to add this. In my view, it is not for the abolitionist to prove his case. Where the life of a man is in the balance, it is for those who are in favour of judicial murder to prove that it is such a unique deterrent that society can find its protection from criminal murders in no other way at all. That is where the burden of proof rests. The retentionist cannot do it. He can bring forward no tittle of evidence to prove that execution must be retained to protect humanity and society. The retentionist will try to make our blood curdle, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, did. There was a great deal of talk about this Bill probably being a change for the worse, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said. We are told that it might mean that more people will be murdered. When we started this campaign for abolition we were told, "It will mean that more people will be murdered". But now the trimmers are working, and all we are told now is that it could possibly, could conceivably, in certain circumstances, lead to more murders. All this is assertion. It is opinion; but it is not evidence.
684
I was amazed at the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, put forward, that the great majority of the public believe that capital punishment is a deterrent and therefore, for psychological reasons, to give them a feeling of cosiness, we should retain it. Can it really be right for the State to execute men to provide people with a sense of security which is acknowledged by its own definition to be a false one? That cannot be right. For myself, I cannot reconcile the killing of a human being, even by the State, with my own belief in the sanctity of human life. When the State executes a man it diminishes the respect for human life. When the State refrains from execution, I believe it will enhance the respect for human life by the public, and this is one of the main tenets of our belief. We believe that you will get a greater protection for society, for policemen, for prison officers, for those who have a hard task to do, when we can say that the taking of human life by anybody is the grossest thing that can happen. We want to see the respect for human life raised by example—example of the State, example of the individual.
Death is so very final, indeed. It is not only in this country that there have been miscarriages of justice. Those who were in the House of Commons from 1945 to 1950 will remember the number of people we tried to rescue from other countries, whose only crimes had been political ones; and before we could get there they had been murdered; they had been executed by the State. A couple of years later there was a change of regime, under which those people would never have suffered the death sentence. There was a terrible feeling of trying to catch up with those people. Sometimes we were lucky, but usually we were too late, and, once the hangman has done his grisly job, there is nothing one can do to right the enormous wrong that has been done.
I believe that we can no longer delay in bringing about this long-overdue reform. It is a reform. It has demonstrated once again the difference in this House between the forces of reform and the forces of non-reform. The hallmarks of the few "last ditchers" are clear to see all along the line. We are told, "Now is not the right time. Would it

685
not be better to wait a little longer?" My Lords, this has always been said by those who do not want to progress, by those who want to hold up radical reform of any sort. A great deal has been said in this debate, and in others before it, about public opinion. But the fact is that reforms such as these come about not because there is an upsurge of public opinion, but because some people in society are continually seeking the fine balance between true justice for an individual and the welfare of the community as a whole, and that is very difficult to achieve at all times. But if we can achieve one without weakening the other, then we have taken a stride forward, as we could do by passing this Bill.
These reforms, in my view, will work only if they are based on deep study and deep research which command the confidence of the majority of leaders of public opinion. This has now been done not only in Britain but in many other countries of the world, and the conclusions are plain to see. The retentionists cannot bring forward evidence to justify the death penalty as a unique deterrent, and it must surely be clear that society will be a better place to live, in if the barbarism of the gallows, the inhuman torture of the death cell, and the risk of taking an innocent life are banished forever from this country.
5.44 p.m.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, I came here to listen and not to speak, but as I listened the case of those who support this Bill seemed to me to be based on the fact that statistics supported their side, whereas the heart and the belief only supported those who oppose this Bill. Late this afternoon, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, of figures given in a Written Answer on June 17 in another place, which were disputed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that in the five years before the passing of the Homicide Act 20 capital murders were committed, and in the years since the Homicide Act there had been 23. That is an increase of 15 per cent. In the years before the Homicide Act there were 121 non-capital murders, and after the Homicide Act there were 149. That is an increase of 23 per cent.
I had decided to support this Bill, because there was no evidence that the
686
death penalty in any way affected the number of murders. It seems to me that the capital murders are the ones which would be expected to increase more with the rise in crimes of violence, and in view of the disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could deal in his reply with the figures in the Written Answer which was quoted.
5.46 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise with great trepidation to address your Lordships. The task of a Parliamentary winder-up, who has to reply to a debate which has included upwards of 60 speakers, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree, is not one to which anyone would greatly look forward. Clearly, one cannot hope or attempt to deal with all the points that have been raised. All one can do is to make up one's mind which are the most important, to try to deal with those and to knock some of the nails home; and that, my Lords, is what I propose to do.
As in the case of some other noble Lords, this is the third occasion when I have taken part in a debate on Bills designed to abolish capital punishment—in 1948. I think it was, in 1956 and now again in 1965. I should like at the outset of my remarks to try to remove a misapprehension which seems to be in the minds of some Members, both in another place and in your Lordships' House. It is that capital punishment has in effect been abolished already, and that all that Parliament has to do is to tidy up the position by removing the few stray ends where the penalty, almost by chance, still survives. Now, my Lords—and I think this will be confirmed by other Peers who were in this House at that time—that was certainly not the intention of your Lordships' House in 1956. We did accept a compromise, and I think it is now generally agreed a very bad compromise, which made considerable additions to the categories of murders which did not attract the death penalty, but we very definitely intended to keep capital punishment on the Statute Book. That being the case, it is still, as I see it, open to Parliament if it wishes, either

687
to reduce or abolish those categories of murders which still attract capital punishment, or, on the contrary, to widen them. If we do not recognise this, we shall conduct our debate on an entirely wrong basis.
There are, of course, large numbers of people in this country who do wish to abolish capital punishment. There are those who think it wrong for the community to take life in any circumstances —people like the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who made so charming and sincere a speech yesterday; people like the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, who made an equally impressive speech today; and, finally, people like the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, whose courage in coming here, I understand from a bed of sickness, we must all greatly honour. It is for these people a matter of conscience, and they will not be swayed by any arguments. Nor do I propose to take up the time of the House in trying to convince them. One can only respect their principles, which I do most sincerely, and agree to differ.
Then there are those who hold that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder, or not a greater deterrent than life imprisonment. We have heard a great deal about that in these last two days. It is a matter on which, I suppose, the supporters and opponents of capital punishment can argue for all time. I have pondered it many times—like, I suppose, most of your Lordships. I do not think that any mere figures are a very sure guide, one way or the other. One must just trust one's own judgment; and I am still personally convinced, as I was in 1956, that capital punishment is a deterrent in the sense that it does deter some people from murdering their fellow citizens.
And this, my Lords, is not only my own view, which would not be, I know, of very much importance: it is the view of the police and prison officers, whose opinions, I believe, if I may speak quite frankly, should influence us just as much in a matter of this kind as even the opinions of such great lawyers as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Parker of Waddington and Lord Shawcross. For, after all, they have even more know
688
ledge and experience of criminals and lawless persons than Judges can possibly have, for Judges merely try these people, but the police and the prison officers have to live with them. And what do they say, my Lords?—and I recommend this, in particular, to, I think it was, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who questioned the matter of a deterrent this morning. If noble Lords will refer to paragraph 61 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, they will find these words—and they have not yet been quoted, I think, in this debate, although they were in another place:
"Of more importance was the evidence of the representatives of the police and prison service. From them we received virtually unanimous evidence, in both England and Scotland, to the effect that they were convinced of the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment in its effect on professional criminals".
This too was emphasised more recently at a meeting of the Chief Constables in Scotland, at which the following resolution was passed:
"The Chief Constables of Scotland decided unanimously to make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland against the abolition of the death penalty. In doing so, they were actuated by a deep concern for the safety of the public no less than that of their own men".
Their anxieties have been confirmed, I think, by a new and more reckless attitude among younger people since those two recommendations were made. I will give one example. Only yesterday, the Daily Telegraph contained an account of a horrible incident in which a householder went down merely to protest against some noise being made outside his house by teenagers—just to do that, no more—with the result that they stabbed him and left him dying on the pavement. My Lords, can anyone doubt that that indicates a new and most formidable change in the whole temper of some young people, even in the space of the last few months? In the paper this morning two more cases of the same kind were reported. They did not hit the headlines very much, because we are becoming so used to these things that they are hardly included in the newspapers at all, but this is what the report said:
"A man slumped to the ground, in Loughborough Road, Brixton, last night hit by a blast from a shotgun fired from a passing car.

689
He was taken to King's College Hospital, Camberwell.
"In another incident police were called to a house less than a mile away in Somerleyton Road, Brixton, after a report that a man had been stabbed."
If I am told by any noble Lord, on either side of the House, that that may be so, but that it has nothing to do with the abolition of capital punishment, I would reply by referring to just one other case, rather like that already mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, of a youth of 17 who was arraigned and charged on eight charges, four of them alleging shooting with intent to murder, and who was reported in the Daily Telegraph on February 13, as saying triumphantly to a detective in Old Street:
"You can do what you like. You couldn't even hang me now if I killed somebody."
Is this the moment, when violent crimes like that have never been so rampant, for us in Parliament to take away from the police, who are already under strength and are not normally armed—though they may have to be in future—this deterrent, to which they themselves attach such value?
My Lords, I make no apology for stressing this aspect of the police, for, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said this morning, it is on the police that we rely entirely for the maintenance of law and order. They do for us, I think he said, what we should otherwise have to do for ourselves. Like, I expect, other noble Lords here to-day, I sit on the Standing Joint Committee of my county, which deals with the police, and I know how difficult it already is to keep up the strength of the force. Their work has always been, in many ways, onerous and inconvenient, and it is becoming steadily more dangerous. If we, by our action over this Bill, increase those dangers still further, we shall most certainly increase, too, the pressure brought by the wives of police officers on their husbands to resign from the force. For us to run that risk at the peak of an almost unparalleled wave of crimes of violence would surely, I submit, be gratuitous folly. The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, yesterday spoke, very rightly, of the increasing difficulties of the police, and he instanced in particular their inadequate numbers; but I could not help thinking that it seems a very odd way of curing this situation, to take action
690
calculated almost to break their spirit, if not their hearts.
So much for the Bill itself. I will not pursue it further, because it has already been dealt with by my noble friends Lord Dilhorne, Lord Tenby, Lord Derwent, Lord Kilmuir and, last of all, Lord Denning, in the sombre and impressive speech to which your Lordships have just listened. But, my Lords, there is yet another aspect of this particular measure which, though it may have nothing to do directly with the question of whether it is right or wrong to hang a murderer, should, I feel, weigh heavily with each of us in coming to a decision on whether or not to pass this Bill at the present time. It relates to the views of the British public with regard to this question, about which Lord Tenby has already spoken such wise words.
We say that we are a democracy, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, said this morning, a democracy, if it means anything, means that the people rule. This is essentially true, I think, of a question like capital punishment, for this is not one of those hideously complicated economic questions which we are nowadays all too often asked to decide: it is a perfectly straightforward issue on which we have been repeately told the answer by the public opinion polls—and I really do not know why the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, speaks with contempt of public opinion polls, as she did in her speech.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:My Lords, if the noble Marquess will allow me to say so, I did not speak with contempt of the polls: I spoke of my dismay at the idea that decisions in this House should be guided by them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the noble Baroness means is that decisions in this House should not be guided by the public opinion of the people. The polls say that 70 per cent. of the population are against abolition. Nor did this come as any surprise to me. When this question came last before your Lordships' House I was leading the Opposition and, as your Lordships will understand, I had a considerable mail—not, indeed, of the character of "fan mail", but what I think might more properly be described as "anxiety mail".

691
This mail was very predominantly against abolition; and the particularly interesting thing about it was that the great majority of the anti-abolitionists were to be found among the poorer sections of the community, the ordinary working-class, which forms the great majority of our people. And with the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, who spoke yesterday afternoon, I believe that this is still true, absolutely true.
We have been told in this debate, I think by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who spoke before me, that it is the duty of Parliament in cases like this to give a lead to the country when the country is, understandably but wrongly, hanging back. But I cannot help feeling that that is a very euphemistic way of describing the forcing through of a measure on which the country has never been consulted at all at any time, and to which there is every reason to suppose that the British people are strongly opposed. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his speech to-day tried to minimise the importance of Gallup Polls by saying that the British people were not properly informed on the subject of capital punishment. But what have the Government done to instruct them? They have done absolutely nothing.
The supporters of the Bill, I thought, judging by yesterday's debate, obviously feel that here they are on very delicate ground because they reverted continually to it in their speeches. I do not want to quote what they said; it would take too long. But I can give the gist of their argument, especially as it is of a general character and one very generally used. The argument is to the effect that in a Parliamentary democracy, once Parliament has been elected, it is for Parliament alone to decide what Parliament thinks is right and good for the country. At the next Election, of course, the electorate can do what it likes and throw out the Government if it wishes to do so. But until then the people, in effect, do not count at all; they do not come into the matter. I was shocked that even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw-cross, yesterday began to pay lip-service to this, I believe, most dangerous doctrine. And the noble Earl, Lord Longford,
692
went further. When faced with the statement by the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, that if your Lordships pass the Bill we shall be opposing the will of the British people, he did not apparently attempt to deny this; he leapt up and replied, with the air of one who is trumping his opponent's ace, "But we should be agreeing with the House of Commons". That is the argument.
There is an almost universal tendency by those who use this argument to quote in its support a celebrated dictum of Burke—not the one quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir, but another—to the effect that once a man is elected a Member of the House of Commons he must not regard himself as a representative of any one constituency but as a Member of Parliament. That is interpreted as meaning that he, and he alone, must be the judge of what he does until the next Election. I have heard that remark of Burke referred to again and again in this connection, as I am sure have other noble Lords. It sounds extremely impressive; but I have been at some pains to look up what he actually said and I am afraid, with all deference to those who use it, that it is clear that Burke did not mean the same as they do, but the exact contrary. For these were Burke's actual words:
"Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest; that of the whole"—
that is, the whole nation—
"where not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole."
I would again emphasise that this means "the whole nation", and by "reason" he obviously means the "opinion" of the whole nation.
"You choose a Member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not the Member for Bristol, he is a Member of Parliament."
Those words do not mean, and cannot be twisted to mean, that a Member of Parliament, once elected, need thereafter pay no attention to any views but his own. They mean that he must be guided not merely by sectional, local views and interests (in this case the interests of the people of Bristol) but by those of the country as a whole of which Parliament is, at it were, a microcosm.
Burke was in fact a Democrat, a real democrat, in the full sense of that word.

693
But now, it seems, a new doctrine has come into being which is not, in the true sense, democratic at all. Under the new doctrine the electorate is just a ladder by which a Party climbs to power; and once it has got there it can do what it damn well pleases, whatever the people may want, until the end of the Parliament—possibly in four or five years—when no doubt the electors can kick it out; but not perhaps before irreparable harm has been done—as, perhaps, in this case. That is not democracy at all; it is something dangerously like dictatorship.
This Bill, if I may return to it, I believe, from the way it was introduced, is a very good example of that new temper of mind. Instead of the people being the true rulers, considerable pains have been taken to by-pass the people altogether. We are told by the supporters of the Bill, with considerable pride, that it was in the Queen's Speech; which means, I take it, that it has the official blessing of the Labour Party. But I would repeat, with all the emphasis in my power, what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. Why was it not in the Labour Party Manifesto at the Election? Why was there no mention of it at all? It is not I who ask that; it is the British people, too. There had been an Election in this country less than three weeks before. If the leaders of the Labour Party were willing to put it in the Queen's Speech on November 3, why did they not put it in the Election Manifesto, only a fortnight earlier, to find what the public reaction was? Why did they not try to consult the British people and not merely the British Parliament? Why wait until the gracious Speech, when it was too late for the British people to say or do anything, whatever they might think? If I am told that they could not do this because it was not at that time part of their official policy, then I would reply: Could they not at least have mentioned it in the same words in which they had no difficulty in mentioning it in the gracious Speech?
There can be, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said, only one reason: the Labour Party did not dare to put it in their Election Manifesto. They knew it would cost them a good many votes. So they left it until the Election was safely over and then imme
694
diately produced it and gave Parliamentary time for it. And almost every one of them in another place, from the Prime Minister downwards, trooped into the Division Lobbies in its support. It has, in effect, been regarded as Government policy even since and is now, I understand, officially so. No, my Lords, that may be clever Party tactics; but it is is not democracy. Where do the people come into it? They do not come into it at all. No, my Lords, I am afraid that the electorate have been by-passed—I was almost going to say "double-crossed"—in this Bill.
That, I suggest, presents a very pretty problem for us in this House, whose main function, as is constantly said, is not to oppose the views of the people but to make sure, so far as we possibly can, that the people have the opportunity to express their own views on matters in which they are vitally interested but about which they have not hitherto been consulted. Who shall say that the people are not vitally interested in this?
We shall be reminded that Elections are not fought on one issue alone but on the broad policies of the opposing Parties. But that, my Lords, surely should not prevent the candidates of the Parties from being questioned during an Election campaign on this particular issue and forced to give their views and reasons on the subject. In that way it would be fully ventilated, and if the views of the people were very strongly expressed one way or the other, that must influence the leaders of all Parties alike. That was not done in this case. As I have said, the people were not consulted at all.
I make no apology for having gone, at the end of this debate, into this particular aspect in such detail, for, to my mind, this question of by-passing the electorate is perhaps the most important of all those raised by this Bill. In the hands of an extreme Government it could create a precedent which could be used for very far-reaching purposes indeed. Nothing would be said during an Election and then, directly after the Election, a Private Member's Bill would be introduced. There would be no pretence of consulting the people. It would be assumed that Parliament had been given a free hand and, whatever the people might think, they would be faced with a fait

695
accompli, just as they are being faced to-day.
What, in those circumstances, ought this House to do? I personally hope that your Lordships will reject the Bill, for I believe, with the police and with the prison officers, that it is going to remove deterrence and increase the incidence of murder. If I am told that the present law, the Homicide Act, is unsatisfactory, I should cordially agree. I thought that nothing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, said about the Homicide Act was too strong. Clearly the law must be altered to cover such crimes as murder by poisoning and the murder of small children for sex reasons, of which there are so many and such shocking examples at the present time. I cannot believe that to take such measures as are necessary to protect the poor and the weak from injury and outrage can rightly be regarded as reactionary. But of this I am sure: that this is not the moment to abolish one of the main deterrents to violent crime, for, make no mistake my Lords, law and order and the very lives of ordinary, decent people in this country are in jeopardy to-day as not before for centuries.
Violent crime has, I believe, actually increased since the introduction of this Bill—perhaps because of the introduction of this Bill, because lawless people are arguing already, like the young man to whom I referred earlier, that they will not be hanged, whatever they do. We are told that all that is at present in contemplation is an experimental period of five years. My Lords, the experiment is already being tried, and has been tried ever since the introduction of this Bill; and there is no sign at all that violent crime is decreasing—quite the opposite. If there were any reason to suppose that the country was in favour of abolition, that no doubt must weigh very heavily on us all, but there is no reason, so far as I know, to suppose this.
I wish I could see any hope from the solution which has been proposed by my noble friend Lord Conesford, but I am afraid that it would only lead to our giving up the principle of capital punishment, in which we believe, and getting nothing in return when the Bill comes back from another place. Surely, in
696
those circumstances, the proper course for your Lordships' House, from the constitutional and from every other point of view, is to postpone further experiment until the British people have had at any rate a chance to express their views on the proposals contained in the Bill. For that reason, my Lords, I personally will go into the Lobby against the Bill when the time comes for us to vote, and I hope that every noble Lord who feels as I do will do the same.
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, may I begin by apologising to those of your Lordships whose speeches I missed when, owing to another duty which I could not avoid, I was unable to be here when the House met this morning. I have had a full note of every speech which I did not hear. It was at one time my intention at this stage to submit to your Lordships an analysis of the arguments by both sides in this debate, but I have come to the conclusion that that would not be the most helpful thing which I could do at this stage.
Of course, the retentionists in your Lordships' House have always had one great advantage. We all know the confidence in, and the high regard which, the whole House has for the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—so rightly, if I may say so—and the retentionists had the advantage that he wound up for them in the debate in 1948 and again in 1956, and they have had the advantage that he has done so to-day. I thought it would perhaps not be courteous to the noble Marquess if I did not begin by taking first the point which he said was the most important. I had no idea what point he was going to say was the most important, but he has told us that the most important point is the constitutional point: the fact that there is no mandate; that it should have been in the Election programme; and generally, the discreditable way in which Her Majesty's Government have behaved in relation to the matter. This means, of course—and the noble Marquess naturally did not seek to disguise it—that in his view this ought to be a question of Party politics, because, of course, you cannot have a mandate for a Private Member's Bill. Nothing can be an Election issue unless it is in the programme of the particular Party.

697
That is what the noble Marquess said ought to have happened.
In view of the very high regard which we all have for him, I should like to do what the lawyers call "confess and avoid" rather than merely say that I am of exactly the opposite opinion. But we are all here to say what we think. Rash as I may be to challenge in any way any view which he has expressed on a constitutional question, I am bound to say (without thinking for a moment that there is any reason to suppose that my opinion is better than his, I am only saying what I think) that I profoundly disagree. All my life I have fought against the Labour Party or any other Party appropriating to itself the issue of the abolition of capital punishment. I have always refused to join any society to promote the abolition of capital punishment unless it was an all-Party society. This is a personal opinion. I have always held this view.
In my opinion, in this matter the Government acted perfectly rightly. The present Prime Minister, not long before the General Election, at a public meeting which was widely reported and a report of which was also separately printed, said:
"That brings me to the Homicide Act. I think that it is generally agreed now that the Homicide Act has neither a rational nor a moral basis and few can be found to defend the present law. We feel that as this is an issue on which people have strong views, and which is to some a matter of conscience, it should be left to a free vote of the House, and we are prepared to find Government time for it. I think that on this sort of issue the House of Commons is at its best when each Member is expressing his own individual view."
Everyone knew that that was the position. I said that on every Election platform on which I spoke, and so did everyone else who was asked.
My reason is simply this. In the case of New Zealand, from 1935 capital punishment was in abeyance until 1941, when it was abolished by a Labour Government. In 1950, when the Conservative or National Party got in, they reimposed it. They expressly disclaimed any suggestion that they had reimposed it because of any adverse results which had taken place since abolition. I stress this because, in the 1956 debate, the noble Marquess told us that New Zealand had
698
reimposed capital punishment because of the increase in murder. The Minister of Justice, in opening the debate proposing the reinstitution of capital punishment, said:
"I have satisfied myself that the figures neither prove nor disprove the case for capital punishment and therefore they neither prove nor disprove the case against it."
The sole reason why it was reintroduced was that its abolition by a Labour Government had been bitterly opposed by the Conservatives in 1941, who had then said that, if Labour did this, when they regained power they would put it back. So, when they got in, in 1950, they put it back. When the Labour Government, by a majority of one, got back in 1957, they abolished it again.
I can understand anybody who says that he does not like capital punishment. I realise that to say to a young man, "Three weeks from now we are going to kill you," imposes a greater degree of mental cruelty than any other killer imposes on his victim, because no other killer is in a position to say that. But I appreciate that, though a man may take that view, he may still say that if it is necessary to do it for the safety of society, we must do it. But what I cannot think is right is that whether three men and a woman are going to be hanged or not should depend on the result of a Party political Election. That last Election depended on one seat. I cannot think it right, whether one believes in capital punishment or not, that this should depend on Party politics.
Nevertheless, what some noble Lords are saying is that this issue ought to have been in the General Election programme; it ought to be a matter of Party politics; the Government ought to have taken it over. But what the Government have done is exactly what the noble Marquess and the Conservative Government did in the past. With the sole exception of the disastrous Homicide Act, every debate on this subject for a generation, whatever Party has been in power, has been on the basis of a free vote, every Member voting as he thinks right, but with the Government of the day saying what their opinion was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble and learned Lord in his most

699
interesting speech, but the fact remains that directly the Election was over, the Government then broached to the British people this idea. They could have spoken about it before. It was an idea which they knew was extremely unpopular with the British people, and perhaps naturally they decided to wait until the Election was over before raising the subject at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not desire to introduce more controversy into this matter than can be helped. I would only point out that the Prime Minister publicly announced that, owing to the working of the Homicide Act, he thought that it would be right that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider the question and to give it Government time if necessary, but he made it clear that he was going to leave it to a free vote of Parliament.
In this House, that is exactly what happened last time. On July 9, 1956, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, said:
"Her Majesty's Government are clearly and unequivocally of the view that capital punishment must be retained. I endorse fully to-day what my right honourable and gallant friend the Home Secretary has said in another place about the dangers of this Bill. However, I have said that this will be a free vote and I do not withdraw from that statement in any way. The Government do not expect or wish that any noble Lord should speak or vote against this Bill out of a sense of loyalty to the Government and, least of all, from Party feeling. At the same time, no Government with any sense of responsibility could abstain from expressing their view on such an important matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198; (cols. 573–574) July 9, 1956.]
The noble Marquess said exactly the same thing on the following day:
"Of course, the Government have their own view, and I think it is right that they should have their own view. That view was stated to your Lordships yesterday by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That was the position in another place and that is the position here "—(col. 819, July 10, 1956.)
That is exactly what Her Majesty's present Government have done. They have left it to a free vote, while at the same time making clear what their own view is.
At this stage of the evening I desire to deal with this matter as shortly as possible, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to confine myself to the points which seem to be most in the minds of
700
those who are doubtful about voting for this Bill. One point which was greatly stressed, particularly by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, was the increase in crimes generally, and particularly in crimes of violence. All those who propose voting for the Second Reading of the Bill have that very much in mind. The only debate I have ever initiated in your Lordships' House was one last year drawing attention to the serious increase in the rate of crime. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with figures at this hour, but your Lordships may remember that, broadly speaking, when one looks at the ten years before the war, 1930 to 1939, and the decade after the war, 1950 to 1959, the number of burglaries and housebreakings went up by about 250 per cent.; rape and other offences against women, by about 400 per cent., and wounding, by about 700 per cent.—and these figures are rather worse now.
One would think that if the rate of crime goes up, particularly crimes of violence, the rate of murder must go up, too. But your Lordships will remember that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said yesterday that that does not seem to happen. One can look at crime figures only by relating the number of crimes to the population, and per million of population the murder rate is virtually fixed. The other figures have gone up by as much as 700 per cent. while, though murders go up one year and down the next, if we take any decade during this century, they are never less than 3½ or more than 4½ per million of the population. The worst ten years were the first ten years of the century: the next worse were the ten years just after the war, and the best were just before the war. Why murder does not increase when there are these enormous increases in other crimes, particularly crimes of violence, is very strange; but that is what happens. It is almost as if one cannot make the murder rate increase or decrease.
After the war, in Denmark, when the Germans found that the Danish police were an integral part of the Resistance Movement, they removed them to work camps in Germany, with the result that there were no police, and people could do what they liked, so long as they did

701
not upset the German Army. There was a big increase in offences against property, but there was no increase in murder. It is strange how the rate varies in different places. In the North of Europe, in England, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland and Norway, the rate is about four per million of the population—and two of these countries are retentionist, three abolitionist. Taking the Commonwealth, Australia and New Zealand—New Zealand, as we know, was at one time retentionist, at other times abolitionist; New South Wales, retentionist; Queensland, abolitionist for 40 years—it is 12 to 14, whether you take a retentionist country or an abolitionist country.
If you go to the Latin races on the Continent, if you take Belgium and Italy, which have abolished capital punishment, or France and Spain, which are the only two of the 16 Continental countries that still keep it, it is about 40—an entirely different position; nothing remotely like the position here. But it does not seem to matter whether the country is abolitionist or retentionist. Therefore, to say that crimes of violence have increased is not of very great assistance unless murders have increased also, or unless it has been the experience of the past that murders increased when crimes of violence increased.
There is one other point with which I was asked to deal on this, and that is the point, raised also by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, about the factual position since the Homicide Act. Other passages have been read from the proceedings in another place. It seems to me that if I put it as it was put by Mr. Brooke it will not seem that I have chosen some particular set of figures. He said:
"I am greatly influenced, and I was before I left the Home Office, because I called for the figures while I was there, by the figures set out in Table 6 at columns 247–8 of HANSARD of 11th December. In that table, all murders from January, 1952 to March, 1957, are analysed. Those were the years before the Homicide Act. It is ascertained that 14·4 per cent. of all those pre-Homicide Act murders would have been capital murder had the Homicide Act definition then been in effect.
It seems to me that, if the unique deterrent argument were valid, there should have been a substantial fall in that percentage after the Homicide Act. Until then, the deterrent for murders which were to be non-capital and murders which were capital was the same.
702
From March. 1957 onwards, the special deterrent of the risk of death remained only for capital murders and it was removed for non-capital murders. Yet, although one would on grounds of logic, if the unique deterrent argument were sound, expect the percentage to fall materially, one finds, on examining the figures since 1957, that it has fallen hardly perceptibly. Before the Homicide Act, the percentages were 14·4 per cent. capital and 85·6 per cent. non-capital. Since the Homicide Act, the percentages have been 13·5 capital and 86·5 non-capital. I do not see in those figures support, still less proof, of the argument that the death penalty is a uniquely powerful deterrent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 704 (No. 38), col. 909, December 21, 1964.]
Then it is said that this is not the right time to do it, because of the increase in crime and so forth. I am perhaps in a fairly special position in your Lordships' House—at least, I imagine so—because I have read, more than once, every debate which has taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject since 1810. I can assure your Lordships that there has never been a debate in which it has not been said, "This is not the right time". I am afraid that this is something rather like the remuneration of the superior Judiciary. What I always feel is a little hard on the abolitionists is that this is always used both ways: that is to say, if crime is going up, it is said, "Look at the awful way that crime is going up. Is this the time in which to chance so hazardous a venture? "If, on the other hand, crime is going down, it is said, "Look how satisfactory the crime situation is. That shows how effective our deterrents are. What a mistake it would be to alter it at this time! ".
What happened in 1948 was an exception, because then the two arguments were used by two noble and learned Lords in the same debate. But this was a record. One of them said:
"Is this the time at which to introduce this change in the law? The statistics which were given in another place by the Home Secretary have shown a great increase in crime."
The other noble and learned Lord said:
"The number of crimes of murder in this country is very small. I ask your Lordships to take the view that when things are going so well as regards the number of murderers this is not the time to make this change."
If two noble and learned Lords can put these arguments forward in the same debate, then I think it shows that it will never be the right time.

703
I have no intention of starting to argue the case for the abolition of capital punishment, but may I just say a word on two Committee points? There seems to be some doubt as to whether all your Lordships regard them as Committee points, but importance has been attached to them, and, therefore, I should like to say a word about them. The first is the position of prison officers and the police. It is said, "Ought we not to protect the police and prison officers?" Well, of course, we should. Abolitionists are very used to being told that they do not think of the police, and they do not think of the victims. This is really quite untrue, as I know from my own experience, it was, after all, Marjorie Fry, an abolitionist, who for years fought to get compensation for the victims of crimes of violence. I know myself a provincial group formed to abolish capital punishment; whenever there is a local murder the first thing they do is to see whether there is anything they can do for the relatives of the murdered man. In the movement to abolish capital punishment there are many close relatives of the victims of murder. I remember one whose only daughter was first raped and then strangled by an American negro in an American town, who, in writing to support the movement for abolition, said:
"If it is ' an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', it will soon be a blind and toothless world."
When we abolished the punishment for treason that you should be hanged, and then cut down while still alive, and then disembowelled while still alive, and then quartered, we did not abolish that punishment because we sympathised with traitors, but because we took the view that it was a punishment no longer consistent with our own self-respect, of course we think of the police; and of course the police view ought to be taken into account, even if they are not right.
But there has been a great deal of experience in this field. I will not refer again to the research work done in America to show that, in fact, as between six abolitionist States and eleven retentionist States the police were safer in the abolitionist States than in the retentionist States. But we have had two long and
704
careful inquiries into this. The Select Committee of 1928 said:
"We have had no evidence put before us that after the abolition of capital punishment in other countries there had been any increase in the number of burglars arming themselves or in the carrying of lethal weapons."
The Royal Commission, again, went fully into this, and they themselves went to a number of abolitionist countries in Europe and to the United States to talk to the police and to find out, not what happened in theory, but what happened in practice when capital punishment was abolished, and whether there were any increased difficulties for the police.
We have been reminded by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that they drew attention in their Report to the apprehensions which had been expressed in theory by the British police; but they went on to say, in referring to their consultations abroad:
"We have received no evidence that the abolition of capital punishment in other countries has in fact led to the consequences apprehended by our police in this country."
If I may add a personal note to that, when there was all this controversy in the newspapers in 1956, it was picked up by some of the newspapers in Norway —Norway being an abolitionist country—and interest was shown there. The Attorney General of Norway told me that, in view of this interest, he had asked the Chief of Police to take a census of all the Norwegian police as to whether they would like capital punishment restored for the murder of policemen, and by a very large majority they said, No; on the whole they felt safer without it. The Norwegian police are unarmed, just like ours, and this is the general experience where there has been abolition.
Massachusetts recently asked their neighbours, Rhode Island, who had had no capital punishment for 113 years, what would happen if they abolished capital punishment in Massachusetts. Again after 113 years experience the Rhode Island police answered, "You are safer without it." I certainly think one ought to take the views of the police into account, and even if they are wrong, the fact that they think it is a thing to be taken into account. But as well as considering the theoretical view of men who

705
are trying to guess what would happen in a certain event, one should also consider the views of policemen who have known what it is like to live under capital punishment and have known what it is like to live without it.
So far as prison officers are concerned, we have had between 600 and 700 reprieved and released murderers living among us this century. There are 360 life sentence prisoners at the moment. In all our long history, no reprieved murderer has ever killed a prison officer, and with 360 life prisoners in prison at the moment, if you add two or three a year is it likely to make some profound difference?
The other question which I know exercises the minds of your Lordships—though to my mind it is really a Committee question—is the question of the alternative. The first difficulty about this is that if one discusses it at all with ordinary people one realises that they do not know of what murder consists. As your Lordships know, there is every conceivable kind and type of murder: murder by old people, by men, by women, by those who are hardly more than children. They may vary from the most excusable to the least excusable. About a third of the murderers commit suicide, at the time, a second third are found to be insane at some stage of the proceedings, and others of diminished responsibility. There is every sort of circumstance.
I always think the worst murder, although it is not capital now at all, is that by the deliberate poisoner—a person who over a long time quite deliberately poisons somebody for his money. I appreciate the difficulties of definition referred to by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, and it is right to say that whereas there is one of that kind of poisoning case only every ten years, there are poisoning cases every year, but they are mainly by the mother, who gives an overdose of phenobarbitone to an imbecile or dying child, which is very wrong. It is done out of mistaken love because she cannot bear to see him suffering any longer. I remember one woman who devoted her whole life to an imbecile boy until he was about 22. She fed him, clothed him, and one day she was told that if she did not have an operation she would not live six months.
706
She could not bear to think what would happen to him.
That being so, it is no good saying, "For how long are murderers to be kept in prison?" because which murderer do you mean? I would venture to suggest that retentionists have done a certain amount of public harm by letting the public think that a life sentence is the same as if a man were sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. This is very old. I was surprised to find—I will not trouble your Lordships by referring to it now—my noble predecessor, Lord Jowitt, in 1948, dealing with exactly the same point in that debate and saying:
"It is said that the average sentence for life is nine years. I called for the details. The first case I found had been let out after a year, the second case I found had been let out after 20 years."
He added that the mathematical average may be nine, but what on earth does it mean?
I think, with the greatest respect, that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was perhaps less than fair in what he said about the Home Secretary's remarks, because my right honourable friend said very clearly two things:
"I accept at once that the first necessity is to see that society is properly protected".
He said he would always put that first. Then he said:
"One may have to deal with a murderer who obviously has inherent vicious propensities and of whom one has to say to oneself, albeit reluctantly, 'This man can always be a danger and menace to society. A man like that must be kept in confinement for a very long time, maybe even for the whole of his life.'"
I do not see what any Home Secretary can say except that while, of course, it must depend on particular cases, those are the principles which might well guide him, and that if it is necessary for the security of society to keep a man there for the rest of his life, he will have to keep him there for the rest of his life.
As to the length of term, it must depend on who the individual is. But while nine years is the mathematical average that has been served in the recent past by prisoners sentenced to death before the Act of 1957 who had their sentences commuted because of mitigating features, with the coming into operation of the 1957 Act we had a second category of murderers sentenced to life imprisonment

707
—that is to say, non-capital murderers, including some whose offences presented no mitigating circumstances, and to whom the nine-year average does not therefore necessarily apply. Less than eight years have passed since the passing of that Act, and it is therefore too early to say what the average period served by this second category will be. Only four prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment since 1957 have yet been released.
If this Bill is passed, there will be a third category, that is to say, persons who would under the present law have been sentenced to death for capital murder and in the absence of mitigating circumstances executed. To this third category, the figure of nine years is equally irrelevant. I can assure the House that in all types of case where there is any possibility of a danger to society, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary does not, and will not, release a murderer from prison, even if this means detaining him for a very long period indeed, if necessary for life.
It may be asked, what effect will such a long period of detention have on the prisoner? This brings me to my second point, that nine years has in the past been regarded as about the time after which a prisoner begins to deteriorate. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, asked why we could not have prison conditions to enable a prisoner to serve a very long period without deteriorating. We are already making arrangements to ensure that where a prisoner needs to be confined in conditions of strict security, the conditions of his detention will yet enable him to lead as normal a life as possible.
This will apply in the proposed new maximum security prison at Albany, in the Isle of Wight, of which many of your Lordships have heard already, and in special units in existing prisons at Durham, Leicester and Parkhurst. The units at Durham and Leicester are ready for occupation. It is intended that within a perimeter of maximum security the prisoners detained in those units shall be able to live as full a life as possible, to sleep, eat, work and attend chapel within the walls; and where it is necessary for them to go outside special arrangements can be made. Your Lordships will probably be interested to hear what are the
708
latest scientific discoveries which will enable these maximum security prisons to be safe. I should like to discuss them, but I am reluctant to hand a blueprint to others who may be listening.
If this Bill is passed, the prisons will have to cater for only an extra three or four prisoners a year who would previously have been executed and, secondly, the life sentence will enable the Home Secretary to recall a prisoner at any time up to his death, even if he has not committed a further offence. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, after telling your Lordships, with illustrations, how revolted all the Judges were at having to administer what I venture to think is the worst Act that has ever been put on the Statute Book, pointed out that the only alternative is abolition, but that he would want to be satisfied with the working of the alternative. This, therefore, as I think the Daily Telegraph—that well-known "Labour" newspaper—pointed out this morning, can be no reason for not voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. No doubt if appropriate Amendments are put down we can also discuss by whom, if anyone, the Home Secretary ought to be advised, but it is impossible for me to say what the attitude of the Government may be on any Amendment until we know what the Amendments are. This is a very real problem, but the numbers of men who are involved are very small. There is no reason to think that they cannot properly be dealt with. The whole problem of the life-sentence prisoner, who normally gives no trouble, is aggravated only by this small minority, and all the difference this Bill makes is two or three a year.
Finally, I would remind your Lordships that we are now, on a third occasion, discussing this matter. In 1948, the House of Commons (I must not say the "elected Chamber" because I might get into trouble; but the House of Commons, after all, is elected by the people, and a Member of the House of Commons has to think of public opinion, for the very good reason that if he strays too far from it, while he is not a delegate and it is not his business to do what he thinks the majority of his constituents think, but what he thinks is right, if he goes too far they will—and they do—throw him

709
out, so it is at his own risk. Your Lordships' House, of course, is not in that position. In 1948 it was, after all, a Labour House of Commons which passed through all its stages a Bill to abolish capital punishment. I make no complaint at all that at that time your Lordships said, "Well, first of all there has not been a lot of public discussion about this; secondly, it is a very small majority—only 23; and thirdly, it is done against the advice of the present Government", which was the Labour Government. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said he thought that another place ought to have "another opportunity"—he did not say "three other opportunities"—because views had been expressed in your Lordships' House on points which the other place had never considered, and he said he believed it would be to their great advantage to be able to discuss it again.
Then, as you all know, my Lords, that went off, because the then Government tried to find a system of grading and failed; and they set up the Royal Commission to do the job. But then in 1956, for the second time, another House of Commons, this time a predominantly Conservative one, and again on a free vote, passed through all its stages a Bill to abolish capital punishment. If your Lordships will forgive me for saying so, I did think on that occasion that as this was for the second time, and there was a Conservative House of Commons, in the circumstances your Lordships might have thought it right to accept that decision. But again your Lordships said, "Well, it is again a very small majority: 24 on Second Reading, only 19 on Third Reading, and although it is a Conservative House here again it is done against the advice of the Government and, in particular, against the advice of the Home Secretary, who after all is the Minister responsible for the protection of the public."
Now, my Lords, this is the third time in 20 years when the House of Commons, this time as representative of the Parties as any House is ever likely to be—we have had a predominantly Labour House of Commons doing it, we have had a predominantly Conservative House of Commons doing it, now we have one that is almost equally divided—again on a free vote, and for the third time passing through all its stages a Bill to abolish
710
capital punishment. This time the Government have approved of the Bill being passed, and in particular the Home Secretary, who is the Minister responsible for public safety and public security.
I believe that there has been a great change in informed opinion. Generally, our great enemies have been the Bishops—if they do not mind my saying that: I mean historically, of course—but there was a change in 1956, when the then most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said he did not approve of complete abolition but was going to vote for the Second Reading. As I understand it—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—since 1956 all the Bishops of the Convocation of Canterbury have voted for abolition, as have all the Bishops of the Convocation of York, except one; and yesterday for the first time in English history a Lord Chief Justice spoke in favour of the Second Reading of a Bill to abolish capital punishment, saying—and I submit he was right—that as the Judges ought not to be required to work an Act which causes so much injustice, and as the only two alternatives are either to go back to what the law was fifteen years ago or to abolish the death penalty, the latter was the only thing to do, provided that the alternative was satisfactory. It followed really from the Homicide Act which, as your Lordships will appreciate, abolished in this country capital punishment to the extent of 85 per cent. but left 15 per cent. Nobody said, "Where is your mandate?" Nobody said, "It was not in your Election programme." The abolition of 85 per cent. of capital punishment was done by that Government without its being in any way a Party political question.
I would submit that we should attend to what peoples in other countries tell us, such as Dutchmen, when they say, "After all, we have tried living with capital punishment, we have tried living without it; whereas you will not even try abolition." I suggest the time has come when, for the first time, we should try this and, for the first time, experience a situation in which if we make a mistake we shall be able to correct it. I have always doubted personally whether men who are fallible can ever be justified in imposing a punishment which cannot be altered. We shall be able to see, too, what is the

711
effect of the State setting the example which I have always felt it ought to set. After all, when Samuel Romilly started this he did not know what the result of abolishing capital punishment was going to be, here or elsewhere, because it had not been done, and he never used mote than two arguments—namely, first, "You think crime will increase if you abolish it, but it will not, because, you see, the great deterrent to crime is not severity of punishment but certainty of conviction, and you will find the conviction rate will go up". Secondly, he said, "We all underrate the effect of the example set by the State". I have always been convinced that he was right, and I have agreed with John Bright when he said, "A deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions in the prevention of murder. And it is in fact the
great security of human life. The law of capital punishment, while pretending to support this reverence, does in fact tend to destroy it".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, if I were asked to define an anti-climax I should define it as any speech which followed that which we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack. Therefore, I shall simply confine myself to thanking those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and expressing the hope that they will now record their support of this Bill.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 204; Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cohen, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Airedale, L.

Cohen of Brighton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Alport, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Amory, V.

Colgrain, L.

Hurd, L.

Amulree, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Archibald, L.

Cowley, E.

Ingleby, V.

Arran, E.

Cranbrook, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Crook, L.

Jessel, L.

Astor, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kennet, L.

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Digby, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Barrington, V.

Dinevor, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dowding, L.

Latham, L.

Beswick, L.

Dudley, L.

Layton, L.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Dundee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Blackford, L.

Eccles, V.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Blyton, L.

Effingham, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Boothby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Bourne, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Bowden, L.

Faringdon, L.

Listowel, E.

Bowles, L.

Foley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brain, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

London, L. Bp.

Bridgeman, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bristol, L. Bp.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Geddes, L.

Luke, L.

Brown, L.

Gifford, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Burden, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Mancroft, L.

Byers, L.

Grantchester, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Caldecote, V.

Granville-West, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Haddington, E.

Melchett, L.

Carnock, L.

Haig, E.

Merthyr, L.

Carrick, E.

Hailes, L.

Meston, L.

Carrington, L.

Haire of Whiteabbey, L.

Milford, L.

Cawley, L.

Harewood, E.

Milford Haven, M.

Chalfont, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Mitchison, L.

Champion, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Hastings, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Chorley, L.

Hawke, L.

Morrison, L.

Chuter-Ede, L.

Henderson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Citrine, L.

Henley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hertford, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Rothermere, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

Norwich, V.

Runcorn, L.

Swansborough, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Swinton, E.

Ogmore, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Tangley, L.

Parker of Waddington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Taylor, L.

Pender, L.

Sandford, L.

Terrington, L.

Perth, E.

Savile, L.

Thurlow, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Segal, L.

Tucker, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Twining, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ullswater, V.

Poole, L.

Sherfield, L.

Wade, L.

Queensberry, M.

Silkin, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Simey, L.

Walston, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sinclair, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rea, L.

Sinha, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Reading, M.

Snow, L.

Williams, L.

Reay, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Willis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Soper, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Sorensen, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Wise, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Spencer-Churchill, Bs.

Woolton, E.

Rochester, L.

Stonham, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Rockley, L.

Strang, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Margesson, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Mersey, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Aldington, L.

Forester, L.

Molson, L.

Allerton, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Monsell, V.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Allander, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

St. Helens, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Furness, V.

Salisbury, M.

Bolton, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Sandys, L.

Bossom, L.

Glendevon, L.

Shannon, E.

Braye, L.

Goddard, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Brentford, V.

Goschen, V.

Somers, L.

Brocket, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulbury, V.

Burnham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Headfort, M.

Strange, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hereford, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hobson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Colwyn, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Colyton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swansea, L.

Coutanche, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tenby, V.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Teynham, L.

De La Warr, E.

Kindersley, L.

Tollemache, I,.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denning, L.

Latymer, L.

Verulam, E.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Lilford, L.

Waleran, L.

Devonport, V.

Limerick, E.

Watkinson, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Long, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Yarborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CARS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CARS