Sitting of 14 July 1970

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

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—
Rt. Hon. John Jeremy Thorpe, Devon, North.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Amendment made: In page 6, line 10, at end insert:
  (7) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be a sufficient compliance with those provisions for any pleasure boat owned or used by the Scout Association or the Girl Guides Association or their members to display conspicuously on the outside thereof the badge of that Association together (in the case of any powered pleasure boat) with the name of the boat similarly displayed in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times.—[Sir H. Legge-Bourke.]
  To be read the Third time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS
  ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

  MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  WEST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Local Authority Building Programmes
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to expand the council house building programme; and if he will include using the available compulsory powers under the Housing Act, 1957 where local authorities are cutting down their building programmes in areas of serious housing need.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Peter Walker): In my review of finance and subsidies, I am studying how best to direct help to authorities in the greatest need to encourage them to undertake adequate programmes of slum clearance, improvement and new building for the homeless and the badly housed. I am not at present aware of any occasion for the exercise of default powers.
    Mr. Allaun: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I

    1335
    appeal to him, now that he has become the Minister, to reconsider and to withdraw his advice to Conservative councils to reject the temptation to go on building houses, otherwise, half the population which depend on them, as they cannot buy houses on mortgage, will be without any hope at all.
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have never made such a suggestion to Conservative councils. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the circular which I recently sent out to councils I urged all authorities with bad housing problems to continue providing council houses.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the cutbacks in housing made by many local authorities, such as Leicester, were at the express request of the then Labour Government during one of their economic crises?
    Mr. Walker: There was certainly a request which affected certain areas. I do not know the details about Leicester.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Whilst associating myself with the welcome to the right hon. Gentleman and also his conversion, if that is what it is, on the subject of council house building, may I ask him to comment on his speech to the Westminster Forum, which he did not deny when it was put to him, in which he said that the Conservatives, if elected, would put a curb on council house building? May we take it that that speech can now be forgotten and put into the wastepaper basket?
    Mr. Walker: That misquotation of the speech can certainly be forgotten.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to increase their building of houses both for rent and for sale.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Government have already announced their intention to refashion the housing subsidies so as to assist effectively local authorities to provide for the homeless and badly housed who cannot house themselves. Building for owner occupation is the function of private enterprise, and save
    1336
    in exceptional circumstances local authorities will not be permitted to build for sale.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome that statement, but is the Minister aware of the anxiety being caused because of the past Conservative practice of severe cutbacks in local authority building? Will he do everything possible to ensure that that building goes ahead?
    Mr. Walker: I am anxious to encourage the building of houses for those currently badly housed and living in bad conditions.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend remember that next to the availability of bank credit, which has been mentioned, the availability of land is the important factor in the private building sector? I hope that he will look at the zoning to see that land is available.
    Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is very much the base of the present housing problem, and already we are carrying out urgent talks on this subject.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has for the future development of local authority housing; what targets of slum clearance and new building he proposes for each year: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: As already announced the Government intends to refashion the subsidy system so as to concentrate help on those people and areas with the worst problems. I do not propose targets for the entire industry at this stage.
    Mrs. Short: In opposition the Minister made a great deal of mileage out of the fact that in our five years of Government we had built only 500,000 more houses than the previous Tory Government built in their last five years. At the same time he was encouraging Tory housing committee chairmen to sabotage the nation's housing effort. There is no other word for it. Does he not think that the House, and, indeed, the nation, deserve a reply to this Question so that we can know what the Government are doing to help those families who are in need?
    Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Lady regretting the targets of the previous Government. What I made a lot of mileage out of was the fact that in the last year of the previous Government fewer houses were built than in 1964.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has not the time come to recognise that the whole policy of segregating people physically on council estates is socially divisive and a mistake? Would it not be better in future to subsidise families and not the houses?
    Mr. Walker: That is a matter which will generally be considered in our review of the whole housing subsidy system.

    Private House Building
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to expand the building programme in the private housing sector; and if they will include permission to the banks to include loans to house builders in the priority lending list.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Graham Page): We have embarked upon discussion with the builders to discuss ways in which the decline in the building programme in the private housing sector can be arrested.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the serious decline in the private sector is due mainly to the fact that small and medium-sized builders cannot get bank loans, and, secondly, that there has been a great improvement in the country's financial position during the last six months which should permit the situation to be altered?
    Mr. Page: The availability of bank loans is one of the matters which we are discussing with builders, which, among other factors, will improve house-building programmes.
    Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend found any evidence for the theory that the reduction by 41,000 of the number of houses built in the private sector last year was due to the influence of Tory councils?
    Mr. Page: I would rather await the outcome of the discussions, when we can make a full statement on this matter, with the co-operation of the builders.

    Derelict Areas
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to speed up the clearance of derelict areas.
    Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend will consider what steps will be most effective.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good start apparently to withdraw the White Paper which his predecessor put out on the whole subject of pollution? What is being done to re-emphasise the assurance that within 10 years the major part of dereliction will be cleared?
    Mr. Page: I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the Government's review of public expenditure as a whole. My right hon. Friend is eager that steps should continue to be taken to deal with derelict areas.
    Mr. Crosland: Will the hon. Gentleman at least give the House an assurance that the very much enlarged programme of expenditure for the next three years which I announced in April will be maintained in the face of any pressures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Page: No, Sir. I cannot give that undertaking at present.

    Building Land
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his plans for ensuring an adequate supply of building land ahead of immediate requirements.
    Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend appreciates that the availability of land is essential to the revival of the house-building programme and we are beginning discussions with local authorities about this.
    Mr. Murton: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that land has been brought forward in too small quantities and only from time to time, and that this has probably added quite considerably to the cost to the home

    1339
    buyer? Will my hon. Friend consider a ten-year rolling programme for the release of land in the future?
    Mr. Page: I agree with the first remarks of my hon. Friend. On the second part of his question, I think that a lot depends on regional planning, and we are pressing forward with that as best we can.
    Mr. Freeson: The Minister said that the Government were beginning discussions with local authorities. Is he not aware that discussions on this matter have been going on for some time, particularly with county planning authorities? Does he appreciate that one of the difficulties, that of the resistance to releasing land, can be overcome by the use of the Land Commission in selected areas?
    Mr. Page: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sandys: While recognising the need for more land for building, may I ask my hon. Friend to remember the importance of preserving the Green Belt?
    Mr. Page: Yes, Sir.

    Flats to Rent
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his plans for encouraging the private building of flats to rent.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Paul Channon): As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend is very anxious to reverse the present decline in this and other kinds of house building. He is studying the financial and other implications of this problem, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of this study.
    Mr. Murton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he bear in mind that official encouragement is the obvious answer to this problem, and that if houses were built to rent they could make a big contribution to the continuing housing shortage?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Molloy: May I first congratulate both Ministers on putting in an appearance today? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as Conservative-
    1340
    controlled councils seem to have put a brake on council house building, which seems a most callous thing to do, and seems to many people to have been done merely as a political gesture to hit the then Labour Government, he will reverse that trend, knowing that many people are still homeless because of that callous manoeuvre?
    Mr. Channon: I do not accept the implications of that question, nor do I think it relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend bear in mind particularly in this connection the recommendation of the Milner Holland Committee that the allowance of depreciation for tax purposes in these cases would be a great encouragement to the provision of accommodation to rent?
    Mr. Channon: That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall bear my right hon. Friend's views in mind and keep in touch with the Chancellor in reviewing this issue.
    Mr. Ronald Brown: May I ask the Minister whether a check will be made on Hackney Borough Council which has cut its programme from 2,000 to 600 homes a year? There is evidence that councils are cutting back their building programmes in areas of great housing shortage.
    Mr. Channon: I would not without notice wish to comment on what takes place in Hackney. That is an entirely different matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about it if he wishes to do so.

    Council Houses (Sales)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he issued the circular to local authorities removing restrictions on the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Peter Walker: To encourage the spread of home ownership and to increase the opportunities for tenants of council houses to own the houses in which they live.
    Mrs. Short: But if the Minister has just awakened to the fact that thousands

    1341
    of families, white and coloured, and their children are living in grossly overcrowded conditions in many of our towns and cities, apart from London, does he realise that by sending out this circular to local authorities he is reducing the pool of houses to let? What we need is more houses. Will he get on with this?
    Mr. Walker: I believe that those people in bad housing conditions and on housing waiting lists will benefit more from what is being done as a result of this circular than by waiting for existing tenants to vacate their homes.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Liverpool about 10 per cent. of the people are rehoused each year in corporation houses which become empty during that year, and that his policy, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that all houses would be sold, which would remove the opportunity for that 10 per cent.? While there may be a case for this policy in those areas where there is no shortage, or no great shortage, surely this is a detrimental step for the Minister to take in respect of Liverpool?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that the large number of people living in council houses should be deprived of the opportunity of buying their own homes, which I wish to encourage them to do. It was made perfectly clear in my circular that resources released as a result of this policy should be used to help those people on the housing list.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hundreds of council tenants in my constituency welcome his decision?
    Mr. Walker: Yes.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most difficult social cases to rehouse are the very people in need of old council houses with cheaper rents? How, therefore, will this policy help? Can the Minister give any estimate of the cost of replacing the older houses that he is selling by new houses in our big cities?
    Mr. Walker: Houses will be sold within a fixed margin of the market price and not the original cost price. In my view this will release resources which will help those people still on the housing list.

    Lambeth (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about his official visit to the London Borough of Lambeth.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will now take, following his recent official visit to Brixton, to alleviate the housing problems of the London Borough of Lambeth.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I was pleased to find the Lambeth Council engaged in an expanded programme of new house building, a large slum clearance programme and a campaign for house improvements.
    In particular I intend to draw the attention of other local authorities to the success of Lambeth's comprehensive housing advisory centre.
    Mr. Fraser: Having visited some overcrowded houses in my constituency, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the council will now receive loan sanction from the Government to buy empty houses in the same road to alleviate overcrowded housing conditions? Secondly, can he say whether there will be increased housing finance from the Government for Lambeth, which the borough has requested? Has he discussed with the council its proposal in respect of concessionary fares to old-age pensioners if it receives an increased rate support grant?
    Mr. Walker: I should require notice of the last question. The question of financing areas like Lambeth, with a serious financial problem, is something to be considered in the general review of housing finance.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that his whiz-kid descent upon Lambeth, accompanied by loud protestations of horrified disgust, is not worth a light unless he follows it up with some concrete action? How much more money will he give Lambeth? Is he willing to give a guarantee that Lambeth will get more money under the review that he says is going on at present?
    Mr. Walker: As the object of the review is to assist areas where housing is worst the review will be of benefit

    1343
    to areas such as Lambeth. As for my visit there, I particularly complained at the manner in which certain tenants were being exploited and were unaware of their rights. As a result, I have increased the expenditure to be incurred in bringing to the attention of these immigrants their proper rights and powers.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister accept that one of the main underlying problems of Lambeth and similar areas is the shortage of land on which to rehouse people in order to pursue improvements and clearance? Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that the Borough of Lambeth is experiencing—difficulties that are repeated elsewhere in London and in other areas—in getting land for local authority purposes in outer London areas such as Sutton, which prevents rehousing? What action is he proposing to take to get the Sutton Council and others like it to release land in outer London so as to help the Inner London twilight areas?
    Mr. Walker: We are sending out the recent report on housing in London, and in the circular attached we are urging local authorities to take notice of this problem, and we are entering discussions with them.

    Mortgage Interest Rates
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make proposals to reduce mortgage interest rates.
    Mr. Channon: It is not possible to isolate mortgage interest rates from the general level of interest rates. I am satisfied that the building societies recognise the need to reduce their lending rates as soon as this can be done without reducing the flow of deposits.
    Mr. Fraser: But since the hon. Gentlemen, when in opposition, slated the former Government over the housing interest rates, will the Government act as quickly on the G.L.C. mortgage rates—which have gone up—as they did on giving sanction to sell council houses? Can we have a little instant government to make house purchase easier?
    Mr. Channon: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that local authorities must make sure that they are not
    1344
    running lending schemes at a loss, and that they also have to borrow for their lending.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that whereas Bank Rate has been reduced twice, from 8 per cent. to 7 per cent., there has been no commensurate reduction in mortgage interest rates for some time? Although it does not automatically follow that there should be a reduction, there is no doubt that building societies today have ample funds to lend but are frustrated from doing so due to the high interest rates, which are deterring borrowers?
    Mr. Channon: That is true, but my hon. Friend would agree that Bank Rate is relevant only in so far as it reflects and affects rates of interest in general.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister completely unaware that in the recent General Election every Tory candidate was attacking the Labour Government for not reducing mortgage rates and was promising that a Tory Government would do so?
    Mr. Channon: Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. George Brown made some very foolish comments in an earlier General Election.

    Liverpool (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make an official visit to Liverpool.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to visit many housing authorities with serious housing problems in due course. Prior to becoming the Minister I made several visits to Liverpool and visited a number of the areas with housing problems. I hope to make further visits in the future.
    Mr. Ogden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for visiting Liverpool, because it helped tremendously to increase my majority, but can he give an assurance that he will continue the policy of his predecessor and that Liverpool will remain an area of special need? Will he continue the policy of his predecessor, so that when Liverpool asks for permission to build houses it will be given that permission and a chance to show what it can do?
    Mr. Walker: I have no intention of stopping Liverpool from proceeding as

    1345
    fast as possible with its housing programme.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall visiting Liverpool and discussing its housing problems with the Tory Council? Does he subscribe to the view that in the next two or three years there will be a surplus of 10,000 houses in Liverpool? Will that be because the Tories will have raised the rents to such an extent that people will take their names off the housing register?
    Mr. Walker: I mainly visited the Snap project and I particularly discussed the two improvement areas which the Liverpool Council has set up, both of which are progressing, but obviously with a city with such a housing problem as Liverpool I shall keep in close contact with the local authority.

    Building Societies Association (Discussions)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association in relation to Her Majesty's Government's housing policies.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met representatives of the building societies for the first time on 29th June at a meeting of my Housing Programme Working Party, and I intend to have continuing discussions with them.
    Mr. Ogden: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the supplementary question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Is he aware that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that it would help if he could make a statement on the matter as soon as possible?
    Mr. Walker: I certainly hope that the volume of funds coming into building societies will be sufficient to support an expanding building programme.
    Mr. Crosland: Once again the right hon. Gentleman talks about hoping. There was a clear General Election pledge by the Tory Party. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to carry it out?
    Mr. Walker: To which General Election pledge is the right hon. Gentleman referring?
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. On almost every Question someone has risen from the Opposition Front Bench. Are they going to continue to take advantage—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that point last Thursday.

    Council Houses (Repairs)
    Mr. Bob Brownasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it is his policy to advise local authorities to charge their tenants for repairs.
    Mr. Channon: Authorities have certain statutory repairing obligations. Beyond this policy is a matter for local decision.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the Newcastle City Council is charging tenants for all repairs? Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is a grossly undesirable practice, which is likely to cause good houses to fall into disrepair, thereby frustrating his own policy of selling council houses?
    Mr. Channon: That is a matter of policy for the Newcastle Council. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point to raise perhaps he will write to me, when I shall be willing to look into it.

    Rents and Housing Subsidies
    Mr. Bob Brownasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much he estimates rents of Newcastle Corporation and Newburn Urban District Council houses will increase on average on the basis that housing subsidies are abolished.
    Mr. Channon: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 7th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 19.]
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that my constituents will be grateful to have it straight from the horse's mouth. Can he advise the House when he intends to legislate to abolish housing subsidies, which is so genteelly referred to in the Gracious Speech as "restructuring"?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must remember what was said in the Queen's Speech. That remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and before

    1347
    any change is made in the system by recasting housing subsidies, there will have to be lengthy consultations with local authorities and others concerned.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on his plans to renegotiate the housing subsidy system.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has regarding the level of the grant to local authorities for council house building.
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend is now considering how the present housing subsidies might be recast so as better to serve the Government's housing objectives of giving greater priority to the homeless and the badly housed.
    Mr. Barnes: But could the hon. Gentleman not clarify this business of "recasting" or "refashioning" or "restructuring", or whatever it is, the housing subsidies? Does it not mean that he intends to cut drastically the overall level of housing subsidies, which will mean that the rents of many council tenants will be forced up even faster than they are rising at the moment?
    Mr. Channon: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the passage in the Gracious Speech, which said that housing subsidies will be refashioned so as to give more help to those in greatest need. I should have thought that that was very acceptable.
    Mr. Tuck: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it will give help to those in the greatest need if he slashes the housing subsidies of £130 million which the Labour Government gave, which will force up council rents and make it much more difficult for local authorities to build houses?
    Mr. Channon: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), the purpose of recasting or refashioning the housing subsidies is to give more help to those in greatest need.
    Mr. Freeson: In pursuit of that objective, which has been mentioned a great deal by hon. Members opposite, will the hon. Gentleman and the Minister con-
    1348
    sider pursuing the consideration which the previous Administration gave, as part of their reconsideration of housing finance, to a national rebate scheme to apply to people in private accommodation as well as public?
    Mr. Channon: It is far too early at this stage to reach any conclusions on this matter, but certainly all points of view will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Tuck: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

    Tower Blocks (Strengthening)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will increase the percentage of Government grant to local authorities for the cost of strengthening tower blocks of the Ronan Point variety.
    Mr. Channon: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7th July to a question by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram).—[Vol. 803, c. 20.]
    Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Report stage of the Housing Bill on 18th June last year, when Conservative hon. Members, including the present Minister of Housing, voted for an Amendment to increase the grant for this work? Will the Government now explain to the local authorities concerned why this pledge has been broken, along with a number of others?
    Mr. Channon: This is a decision made by the previous Administration. My hon. Friends, when in Opposition, strongly supported any attempt to raise the level of the grant from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. But I am satisfied that it is impossible for us to disturb this settlement.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: As one who persistently and consistently criticised the previous Government for their parsimonious attitude on this all-important question, and as one who moved the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred, may I ask whether we can be assured that as the

    1349
    present Government said that they would be a better Government, they will do something better on this issue than the previous Government did?
    Mr. Channon: I have looked at this matter very carefully, in view of the hon. Member's long and persistent interest on behalf of his constituents, and I am very sorry that I have to adhere to the previous decision of 50 per cent. It is a matter of regret to me and, I know, to the hon. Member. But I assure him that I have looked at this matter very carefully.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give a list of the councils who have notified his Department that they will claim the 50 per cent. costs towards strengthening high-rise blocks of flats resultant upon the Ronan Point disaster; and whether he will consider the system of compensation so as to enable those councils with the higher costs to receive higher compensation so that all councils are committed to an equal outlay from their local rates.
    Mr. Channon: As regards the first part of the Question, so far 16 local authorities have submitted claims for grant and I will, with permission, publish their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    As for the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 7th July to the Question by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram)—[Vol. 803, c. 20.]
    Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government was very weak in standing up to the Treasury on this question? Is he aware that the London boroughs and authorities throughout the country affected in this way are strongly against the policy pursued by the former Labour Government and the present Conservative Government on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to stand up to the Treasury to ensure that these people are fairly and properly treated because it will be the poor who will once again suffer unless something is done about this problem?
    Mr. Channon: I have explained that this was a decision of the Labour
    1350
    Government I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfatcory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Following are the names:
    Blackburn C.B., Brent L.B., Chertsey U.D., Coventry C.B., Crosby B, Croydon L.B., Hounslow LB., Lowestoft B., Nottingham C.B., Rochdale C.B., Rochester B., Slough B., Sunderland C.B., Sutton Coldfield B., Wandsworth L.B., Brentwood U.D.

    Mortgage Option Scheme
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what changes he is proposing to make in the mortgage option scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend is exploring ways of improving the option mortgage scheme.
    Mr. Barnett: Yes, but will the Minister of Housing insist that the building societies do not obstruct a more flexible scheme, which would allow people to opt in or out of the scheme, as was clearly implied by everything that the right hon. Gentleman has ever said?
    Mr. Channon: As I said in my original reply, we are exploring ways of making the scheme flexible. I am sure that there is good will on both sides, among the building societies and ourselves, in attempts to make this scheme more flexible. It is being re-examined.
    Mr. Emery: In considering the flexibility, will my hon. Friend make sure that he bears in mind the more elderly, those over 55, who still may want to use the mortgage option scheme and who have as much right to use it as have some younger people?
    Mr. Channon: I will bear my hon. Friend's views very much in mind in our discussions with the building societies.

    Bideford and Northam (Sewerage Scheme)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals have been submitted to him for a new sewerage scheme for Bideford and Northam.
    Mr. Graham Page: None, Sir, but I understand that applications for planning permission for alternative sites for a treatment works will be considered by the county council in September.
    Mr. Mills: But would my hon. Friend remember that an early decision is required on this scheme, bearing in mind that we are in a development area? Will he also give a firm assurance that no financial restrictions will be imposed once a decision is made? Will he give every assistance to these two local authorities to come to an early decision?
    Mr. Page: Certainly. It depends, of course, on when the two councils can agree upon a scheme and prepare it, but the financial side must obviously depend upon the scheme itself.

    Land Commission Proposals (Maidstone)
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will advise the Land Commission to terminate its activities in the Walderslade area of the Maidstone constituency immediately.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Land Commission's planning application and draft compulsory purchase order are formally before my right hon. Friend for decision. He will make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are living in a state of uncertainty owing to the rascally activities of the Land Commission set up by the previous Labour Government? Will he take steps to terminate its activities in the Maidstone constituency, and elsewhere, as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Page: I am very conscious of the need to make an early statement on this matter to remove uncertainties, but it is a matter which, through no fault of the present Government, is very complex, and a hurried statement might result in further uncertainties.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Denis Howellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the
    1352
    Government's policy in respect of the future of local government.
    Mr. Peter Walker: We shall implement local government reform on the principles laid down in my speech in the House on 18th February in the debate on the previous Government's White Paper Cmnd. 4276, and in accordance with the undertaking given in our Election manifesto.
    Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman has given us more detail in an interesting article today in the Birmingham Post—more than he has given Parliament, either in that debate or since. What time scale does he intend in order to bring about these major reforms, which he writes about today, and what proposals has he to deal with local government boundaries which he also writes about today?
    Mr. Walker: There is nothing in that article in the Birmingham Post which is any different from that which was laid down in my speech in February.
    Sir T. Brinton: But will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the previous Government's approval in principle of the Maud Report is cancelled? Will he go at least that far?
    Mr. Walker: What I want to avoid is the view that Maud is scrapped or destroyed or that no notice is taken of it. Both the previous Government and the present Government considered that the Report was very important and that any reform of local government must consider it, and belief in the need to create larger authorities is shared by both sides of the House.

    Leasehold Reform Act 1967
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance that he will seek to make no amendment to the principles of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 which will have the effect of increasing the price of the freehold.
    Mr. Woodhouseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 to remove the limitation by reference to rateable value on the right of enfranchisement.
    Mr. Channon: The Government are currently reviewing all housing legislation but we have no plans at present for amending the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with a certain amount of alarm? Is he aware that the key to the Leasehold Reform Act is the price at which the freehold is sold, and that ideas that this is under review by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be popular among many hundreds of thousands of leaseholders?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand my Answer. I said that we have no plans at present for amending the Act.

    London Parks
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has made a decision in the future of London parks administration.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. Before reaching a decision on the scheme submitted by the Greater London Council under Section 58(2) of the London Government Act, 1963, I shall need to consider any representations which interested bodies and members of the public may wish to make to me. For this purpose copies of the scheme are being made available for inspection by the public.
    Mr. Moyle: I am very grateful for that reply. Will the Minister undertake to receive a deputation from the trade unions on matters of promotion policy, negotiating machinery and the training scheme which the Greater London Council has maintained heretofore?
    Mr. Walker: That is a different question, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down on the Order Paper.

    Housing Advisory Centres
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage housing advisory centres.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have already personally visited a number of housing advisory centres and we are collating
    1354
    information for the purpose of encouraging the creation of housing advisory services in many parts of the country.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that future centres not only give advice but give proper propaganda in favour of the possibility of starting people on the way towards home ownership, thus reducing the demand on council housing?
    Mr. Walker: One of the impressive things about the housing advisory centres run by, for example, Shelter and the Catholic Housing Association, and the one at Lambeth is the way in which they advise people on how to start home ownership.

    New Towns (Sale of Houses)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage the sale of new town houses to tenants.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I shall certainly be doing everything I can to encourage these sales, and positive steps for increasing them will be discussed with corporations and the Commission over the next few weeks, when I hope to be able to make a statement.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no substantial difference between the treatment, from the point of view of the terms of sale, of council houses and new town houses; and if there is a discount of up to 20 per cent. on the sale of new town houses, may I assure my right hon. Friend that he will be surprised at the demand that will arise?
    Mr. Walker: I am anxious to encourage home ownership in new towns and elsewhere.
    Mr. Rankin: Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that a house will never be sold over the head of a sitting tenant who does not want to buy?
    Mr. Walker: As far as public authority housing is concerned, certainly.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless he extends to new town houses the terms contained in his recent circular about council house sales,

    1355
    there could be great discrimination shown against new town tenants, who might have to pay up to 25 per cent. more for a similar house in a similar street in a similar town?
    Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of these points. Many complicated details are involved. These are being discussed and I have promised to make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Orme: Why is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the sale of council houses but against local authorities building houses for sale?
    Mr. Walker: The reason is simple: the building industry is quite able to cope with this problem.

    House Building (Starts and Completions)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what forecast he has made of the anticipated number of starts and completions of houses in 1970.
    Mr. Channon: Starts in the first five months of 1970 were over 18,000 fewer than in the first five months of 1969, and completions were over 6,000 fewer. The figures for the year as a whole may be worse than those for 1969.
    Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that that confirms my worst fears and that when the Labour Party were in power I pointed this out but that hon. Gentlemen opposite merely laughed? Is he aware that the building industry now has the highest unemployment in recent memory? What does he hope to do to get things going again satisfactorily in the industry?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about this being an extremely worrying situation. We are doing all we can to reverse this trend. We are also concerned with the inflation in house prices that we have inherited.
    Mr. Freeson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that one contribution to resolving this problem might be to allow the 20 or more local authorities which wish to build houses for sale to go ahead and do so?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that would not be a solution to the problem which has been outlined.

    House-Building Programme (Havering)
    Mr. Leonardasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what undertakings have been given so far this year to his Department by the London Borough of Havering concerning the number of houses which the Borough proposes to build this year and next.
    Mr. Channon: The council is to give further consideration to the size of its future house-building programme as soon as the results of a detailed survey by its own officers of the needs of the borough are available.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until the Conservative Party won control of Havering, the borough council was building 800 houses a year, but that its first proposal this year is to build only 12 houses? Is he aware that continual prodding from his Department is necessary if the 4,000 people on the waiting list of this borough are to stand any chance of being rehoused?
    Mr. Channon: I do not accept the figure of 12 houses which the hon. Gentleman gives as the council's target. However, I hope to see the study when the council has prepared it, and then I will discuss it with the authority.

    Government-Subsidised Dwellings (Sales)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will extend his policy of selling off subsidised council houses to sitting tenants to those persons who are in subsidised Government houses and flats.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Government accommodation is provided for people carrying out a particular job and, therefore, normally cannot be sold to a sitting tenant. This does not preclude in appropriate circumstances the sale of a redundant dwelling to a sitting tenant.
    Mr. Lewis: If such dwellings are good enough to sell to poorer tenants in poorer

    1357
    areas, why not allow them to be sold to richer tenants in and around Whitehall?
    Mr. Walker: We believe that they will have sufficiently long leases on these premises not to be interested in the freeholds.

    ENVIRONMENT (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint to the Cabinet a Minister responsible for the environment.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 93.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Who will be responsible for representing the interests of expenditure on the environment in the public expenditure sub-committee of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: I explained to the House in the debate on the Address that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is in the Cabinet, is carrying the main responsibility for environmental problems. However, I am reviewing the whole structure of this matter to ensure that we get it right.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the Prime Minister aware that the measures which the Labour Government took to protect the environment received widespread acclaim from hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is he further aware that his continued refusal to give an answer to this Question suggests that the present Government are seriously downgrading this entire crucial issue?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no justification whatever for that allegation. I am taking what I consider to be proper time to examine the whole structure of these Departments in dealing with the environment.

    SOUTH AFRICA AND PORTUGAL
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to South Africa in the near future.
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Portugal.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman decide to visit his friends more often? Has he asked Mr. Vorster to act as the go-between in negotiations with Mr. Ian Smith?
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit these countries at present, though we are in diplomatic relations with them. There is no truth in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question
    Mr. Archer: While sympathising with the Prime Minister's distaste for such a meeting, may I ask him to find a method to convey to the South African and Portuguese Governments the fact that Her Majesty's Government will not condone the infringement of human rights and that we shall respect United Nations and Council of Europe resolutions on the subject—if that is, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman's intention?
    The Prime Minister: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, as is well known to both countries.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his talks with the American Government, they indicated that they would support the shipments of arms to South Africa? Would he also say whether reports that he has communicated with Heads of Government in the Commonwealth with a view to the resumed supply of arms to South Africa are true or false?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already told the House that we are in consultation with Commonwealth Governments on these matters. A full statement has been promised to the House for next week. As far as consultations are concerned, one must put a particular view to a Government before one can consult about a matter, and that is the basis on which we are working. I understand that the Opposition may wish to debate the subject. We appreciate that.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: And the American view?
    The Prime Minister: As for the American view, this is a matter for the American Government to state publicly.
    Mr. Wilson: What view has been put to the Commonwealth? Would the right hon. Gentleman answer with a "Yes" or "No"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you?"] I said "Yes" or "No" on all matters of this importance. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has put a proposition to them involving the supply of arms to South Africa, in breach of the Security Council resolution?
    The Prime Minister: When Her Majesty's Government have reached a decision they will inform the House, after they have carried on consultations with the Commonwealth countries. It would be improper for us, while carrying on those consulations, to announce a proposition which has been made to Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Sandys: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to restore our old friendship with Portugal, with whom our relations in the last few years have become so strained?
    The Prime Minister: Portugal is our ally in N.A.T.O. and continued to be so when the Opposition were in power. We have diplomatic relations with both South Africa and Portugal so, naturally, we like to have normal relations with them.
    Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to any discussions with Commonwealth Governments, can the Prime Minister deny what was reported yesterday in reputable newspapers that the Government have announced the decision that they will resume arms sales to South Africa and then start discussions with Commonwealth countries, or are the Government having real discussions before the final decision is taken?
    The Prime Minister: We are having proper discussions with the Commonwealth countries, and it is right that while we are doing so we should not state publicly the contents of communications. We shall do so when the Government have reached their conclusions. We have promised a statement to the House next week, which we shall then make.
    Sir F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend take it that all of us on this side accept that when he does announce Her Majesty's Government's decision it will be one in the British national interest,
    1360
    which will be a departure from what we have become used to in the past?
    The Prime Minister: I stated that in my statement on the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Michael Foot: To refer to the original Question, why is the Prime Minister so reticent about visiting Cape Town to settle this disreputable deal when a previous Conservative Prime Minister, assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary, was quite prepared to go to Munich?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is embarrassing his right hon. Friends far more than he is embarrassing me. There is nothing disreputable about discussing with Commonwealth Governments the carrying out of obligations, which were binding on the Administration of the Labour Party when in power, but which they failed to carry out.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the Government presided over by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) base their southern hemisphere strategy far more than have any Conservative Government on the South African Navy? Is it not, therefore, utter hypocrisy for them to condemn the sale of arms for naval purposes to South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must answer for their own hypocrisy: they had five and a half years to do so.
    Mr. Healey: As the overwhelming majority of our allies in N.A.T.O., who have as much concern as we have in the security of the Cape route, and as the overwhelming majority of our partners in the Commonwealth and our potential partners in the Common Market, have declared themselves opposed to the policy which the Government proposed during the General Election, and as the South African Government have attempted to blackmail Britain by exploiting the Government's weakness to seek revision of the Simonstown Treaty totally in their own interest, will not the Prime Minister now align Her Majesty's Government with the overwhelming majority of those on whom we depend for our defence and prosperity?
    The Prime Minister: We shall take our decisions on their own merits, but I well

    1361
    recall, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Defence and Mr. George Brown was Foreign Secretary, how they were both dished by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition sending his Chief Whip round to get hon. Members to sign a Motion against him on something which he himself wanted.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the un-satisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg leave to give notice that my right hon. Friends and I will take an early opportunity of raising the matter—and not on the Adjournment.
    The Prime Minister: If I may say so, as the right hon. Gentleman has already told us that, it makes no difference.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and what action he proposes to take about the settlement of the dispute with Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 81.]
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the promised talks are likely to take place before the end of this year?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give any indication when such talks are likely to start.
    Mr. Judd: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any settlement of this dispute can only be one which is acceptable to all the people of Rhodesia, whatever their racial origins?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that the settlement must be in the context of the five principles, and that covers that particular point.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Has the Prime Minister seen the conclusion of the United Nations Committee appointed to consider sanctions, to the effect that sanctions have not been fully effective, and have not led to the desired results, and would he and the Government in their consideration have regard to that neutral view?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that sanctions have not brought about the desired objectives, in so far as they have failed to bring Rhodesia back into the constitutional fold, but it is undeniable that they have had an impact on Rhodesia. The proposal is that those sanctions should remain pending negotiations.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The Prime Minister constantly talks of the five principles, but were there not six principles? Which has he thrown overboard?
    The Prime Minister: Five principles were agreed between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when Prime Minister, and Mr. Smith. The sixth principle was created by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at a later date.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the five principles were not agreed with Mr. Smith before 1964? All the exchanges are on the record in the Blue Book issued by the late Government. The sixth principle, which I did invent, was very much welcomed at the time in the House by both sides because what it said was that we should protect the rights of the majority before majority rule and, more important still, the rights of the minority after majority rule. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, therefore, that he was wrong in his answer?
    The Prime Minister: The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is already covered by the five principles. In fact, if the five principles were put into practice there would be no need for the sixth—
    Mr. Wilson indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, because it would be covered by the constitutional arrangements. As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, this was arranged in talks between Mr. Smith and my right hon. Friend.

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the workings of the Official Secrets Act; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: The Government are looking into this, but I have no statement to make at present.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply is about as satisfactory as the Answers I used to get, when I asked the same Question, from my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman, however, undertake to have a searching look at the weaknesses of the Official Secrets Act, in order to make sure that its provisions operate only in those fields where national security is affected, and not in fields where it is a matter of sensitivity of Ministers and nothing else?
    The Prime Minister: The points which the hon. Gentleman made are certainly those which must be taken into account in this review. The hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of the problems involved here, and I think that he has some knowledge also of the difficulty of redrafting the requirements to meet the specification which he himself has just laid down.

    REGIONAL PLANNING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Denis Howellasked the Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for regional economic planning councils and boards.
    The Prime Minister: As regards the English regions, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government; as regards Scotland and Wales, the respective Secretaries of State.
    Mr. Howell: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he fully accepts the concept of regional strategy in order to harmonise the conflicting interests of industry, local government planning, and so on; and that future Government policy will be fully based on that strategy?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that was a broad statement of the desirable aims of regional development which could not be denied.

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to
    1364
    give the Welsh people a greater say in their own affairs on the same basis as his plans for Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what was said in the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Morgan: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if the case for Scottish devolution rests on nationhood, an equally strong and reputable case must be made out for Wales? Will he give an undertaking that in this respect he will treat both these countries on a basis of absolute equality?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but as to the second part I should have thought that what was required was a structure best suited to each country and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the countries have differences of background.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is, perhaps, time that the English people had some share in deciding their own affairs?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that Lord Crowther's Commission is bearing that point in mind.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether the constitutional proposals for Scotland referred to in the Gracious Speech will be implemented in the present Session of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: They must follow upon action on the reform of local government in Scotland. As stated in the Gracious Speech, we shall lay proposals before the House to that end.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Prime Minister make sure that Scotland always keeps up with Wales?
    The Prime Minister: The request in this Question is for Wales to keep up with Scotland.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate in Scotland to do any such thing? Will he say what Wales has done to deserve the kind of treatment he is about to mete out to Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is using as a background to his series

    1365
    of questions that he wants a separatist Scotland, he had better put that to the Scots. He will not get much support.

NORTHERN IRELAND (QUESTIONS)
Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance and to draw the attention of the House to a difficulty I am encountering and which I believe will be of concern to many hon. Members and should be of concern to the House as a whole. As I understand it, if a British subject is in a foreign prison it is admissible to table Questions to the Foreign Secretary. If a British subject is in a prison in the United Kingdom it is admissible to submit questions to the Home Secretary. What I am finding is that in the case of a British subject imprisoned in a gaol in Northern Ireland it is not admissible to submit Questions to Ministers in this House because there is a denial of Ministerial responsibility.
May I draw your attention to the fact that I have made two attempts to take direct action, as it were, by attempting to contact the Governor of Armagh Gaol? Yesterday morning he was not there; yesterday afternoon he could not be found, and today he is off duty. It does seem that it is quite wrong that this House should be unable to inquire about the circumstances and well-being of one of its Members. I am seeking your guidance as to what remedy there is open to us to try to redress this anachronistic, anomalous, ludicrous and unsatisfactory situation.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for letting me know that he was to raise this matter. I cannot comment on the ubiquity or lack of ubiquity on the part of the Governor of Armagh Prison, but there is little comment I can make on the substance of the submission the hon. Member had made beyond expressing broad agreement with his interpretation of the facts.
Northern Ireland is neither an independent foreign country nor a colony, and many aspects of its administration have been removed by the will of Parliament from the direct control of the United Kingdom Government. This situation is inevitably reflected in the rules governing Questions. I believe,
1366
however, I ought at this point to make clear to the House, to the hon. Member and to new hon. Members that it does not accord with our custom or convention that the refusal of Questions should be raised in the House as a point of order. If a Member believes his Question has been unreasonably rejected by the Table Office he can always require an appeal to be made to me. Such appeals are not inevitably doomed to failure. [Laughter.]
If, however, an appeal is unsuccessful I am always ready to discuss the matter with the hon. Member who, if still dissatisfied, then has two courses open to him. On the one hand, if he disagrees with the Chair's interpretation of the rules he has the conventional remedy of a Motion of censure upon Mr. Speaker. If, on the other hand, he believes the rule is bad and ought to be changed, he can put down a Motion requesting that such a change be made. The mere raising of a point of order, however, confers no power on the Chair and no alteration of the accepted procedures of the House can flow from it. I hope that that helps the hon. Member.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for what happens to a prisoner in a foreign gaol, but we can none the less put Questions to the Foreign Secretary asking him to make inquiries or to make representations on our behalf. Is not our link with Northern Ireland in those respects for which Her Majesty's Government are not directly responsible the Home Secretary? In the same way, can we not put Questions to the Home Secretary asking him to make inquiries and to make representations in matters in which he is not directly responsible on which, like the Foreign Secretary, he has grounds of access to that Government?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has put a little more deeply the point put by his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham). The uniqueness of Northern Ireland is the fact that we have handed over the administration of law in Northern Ireland and many other functions of government in Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with your

1367
observations with regard to the uniqueness of the Northern Ireland situation, but, with great respect, I should have thought that events arising from last August had satisfactorily shattered the convention that had existed in this House over the responsibility of this House and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on questions concerning Northern Ireland. In this particular case, is it not the fact that the British Government, through General Freeland, have responsibility for internal security in Northern Ireland? Therefore, the noble Lord in another place, the Minister of Defence, is responsible for security there and any question on the treatment of inmates of Armagh Prison is undoubtedly a question of tremendous security importance. Therefore, would it not be in order to put down Questions to the Minister of Defence, or his representative in this House, concerning prisoners in Armagh Gaol?
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled and I have been asked for my advice. My advice is that this can be pursued in one of two ways, either by a vote challenging the Ruling of Mr. Speaker and his interpretation of the rule about questioning, or a Parliamentary Motion seeking to change the rule which some hon. Members find at the moment very onerous.
Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order. You stated, Mr. Speaker, that certain powers have been handed over to the Northern Ireland Parliament, but surely you will recall that Section 75 of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act gives this Parliament sovereign power over the whole of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. Surely in those circumstances and at the same time when 12 hon. Members are being sent from Northern Ireland to sit in this Parliament there is a right of this Parliament to question any aspect of what happens in any part of the United Kingdom. I should think this a basic right which we are given safeguarded under the 1920 Act.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member knows the clause at the end of the 1920 Act, but this does not affect my Ruling.
Mr. English: Mr. Speaker, your Ruling is of immense importance if we are to have devolution in Scotland, Wales and, possibly, in England as well as the present devolution in Northern Ireland. May I offer you the analogy of the United States where, even in a federal State, it is not the case that Congress is precluded from investigating anything. Congress may investigate matters even when they are in the province of the State. So could this House through a Select Committee. It seems clear that what this House could do through a Select Committee it ought to be able to do in the form of a Question to a Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for Mr. Speaker McCormack and the Government in Washington, but the Ruling I have given is clear. One has Parliamentary ways of examining it, and there is indeed a Motion on the Order Paper examining the whole issue.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you reconsider the answer you gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which seemed in some respects to go rather further than some of the Rulings which previous Speakers have made on this issue? Surely it is the case that the Home Secretary does have a departmental responsibility to make representations about the conditions of affairs in Northern Ireland to the Northern Irish Government. In that respect, therefore, he can be questioned either as to the representations he has made or to ask him to make further representations. In that respect, therefore, he should be asked a question along these lines about conditions in Armagh Prison.
Mr. Driberg: Despite the existence and responsibility of the subordinate Parliament and Government at Stormont, of which you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have reassumed responsibility for law and order in Ulster? Does not that mean that the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is part of a whole area of responsibility with which Her Majesty's Government here are now concerned?
Can I further ask you, Mr. Speaker, for guidance? There are a number of matters

1369
—for instance, the day-to-day administration of the nationalised industries—on which Ministers are not responsible to the House at Question Time but which an hon. Member can raise in debate. Would it be in order to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate?
Mr. Speaker: It would be in order to raise this matter on the Motion which is on the Order Paper, which includes this and a whole series of kindred matters in what is a unique and historic occasion.
Mr. Paget: May I ask you once again, Mr. Speaker, if you will reconsider and give us your Ruling on this narrow point. In many cases we have devolved our whole responsibility, as with the Colonies which have become independent. If one of our citizens is imprisoned there we may then, through our Foreign Secretary, make representations, and we may put Questions to the Foreign Secretary asking him to do so.
In Northern Ireland the position is that we have not devolved all; we have devolved part. As to that which we have not devolved, we can put Questions to the Ministers who are responsible. As to that which we have devolved—this includes prison administration—we cannot put a Question to a Minister who has responsibility, because no Minister is responsible for prison administration. However, precisely because no Minister is responsible we can put a Question asking that representations or inquiries be made in exactly the same way as we do so in any prison outside Ulster anywhere in the world where we are not responsible. I ask you to reconsider this narrow point. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is merely putting again what has already been put very clearly—the difference in the position of Northern Ireland from Colonies, on the one hand, and foreign countries, on the other. I must abide by my Ruling.
Mr. Ogden: Is it not rather sad, Mr. Speaker, that matters of this kind have to be raised as narrow points of order when everyone in the House, including, I hope, the Prime Minister, knows that the point we are getting at is that it would be a good thing if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) who is at present in Armagh Gaol were released as an act of mercy and clemency? This would be a good thing for progress in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Fernyhough: Everyone in the House knows that when we pass the Estimates we vote a subsidy to the Northern Ireland Government. On which of the Estimates in the Consolidated Fund Bill, which we shall deal with next Monday, would it be in order to raise a discussion on that part of the subsidy which goes towards keeping closed or open gaols in Ulster?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must examine the Estimates himself. I cannot help him in that way.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Molloy: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in dealing with questions about the supply of arms to South Africa, the Prime Minister said, perhaps inadvertently, that discussions were going on with the Commonwealth. It seemed to us that the right hon. Gentleman had included South Africa in "the Commonwealth".
Could the Prime Minister be provided with an opportunity to say quite clearly that, despite certain Press reports, the Government have entered into no negotiations at all with South Africa and place that matter beyond doubt?
Mr. Speaker: This would have been in order as a supplementary question. It is not a point of order for Mr. Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has a single and strictly limited purpose—to enable the Government to continue to make financial assistance available for harbour development under Sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964. It is necessary to introduce it now, before the Summer Recess, so as to allow for existing commitments. These consist of loans and grants which would take us over the £100 million limit fixed under Section 13 of the 1964 Act.
  If developments already planned and urgently needed are not to be held up, those commitments must be honoured. The most recent were undertaken by the previous Administration in anticipation of the Ports Bill, which would have abolished the limit under the 1964 Act.
  I have said that the Bill has a limited purpose. The House will not now expect me to anticipate the outcome of a wider review of the needs of the ports industry. Meanwhile, there is no "policy vacuum" after the disappearance—welcome to us on this side—of the previous Administration's Ports Bill. The Harbours Act, 1964 is still in full operation. The National Ports Council under the vigorous leadership of Sir Arthur Kirby continues to give valuable service. In the vital field of labour relations there is general agreement about pursuing the objectives of the Devlin Report.
  To explain the provisions of the Bill, I should first say a word about the provisions in the Harbours Act, 1964, to which it relates.
  Section 11 of the 1964 Act, as later amended by Section 40 of the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, gives the Minister power, after consultation with the National Ports Council and with the approval of the Treasury, to make loans to statutory harbour authorities for certain expenses of a capital nature incurred
  1372
  by them. Section 12 of the 1964 Act gives the Minister power to make grants to statutory harbour authorities and also to other persons engaged in harbour operations.
  These grants are at present payable at a standard rate of 20 per cent. on all eligible expenditure—basically harbour works which make a substantial and desirable contribution to international trade, and specialised mechanical equipment used in handling cargo. Both loans under Section 11 and grants under Section 12 are subject to the limit I have already mentioned, and it is with that limit that this Bill is concerned.
  Section 13(1) of the 1964 Act provides that the aggregate amount of loans and grants taken together shall not exceed £50 million or, if so authorised by a Resolution of this House, £100 million. As the House knows, such a Resolution was passed in June, 1968, and the limit now stands at £100 million. Issues of loans and grants to 30th June, 1970, total about £81 million, about £54 million of this being in loans and the remaining £27 million in grants.
  Taking into account the other loans approved but not issued, and the estimated grant payments which are becoming due, the limit of £100 million is likely to be reached within the next few months. I think it fair to make clear the position of the previous Government. They intended that under their Ports Bill the limit in Section 13 of the Harbours Act would disappear and that other arrangements would be made for parliamentary control of the totals of loans and grants. It was against that background that commitments continued to be made, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) explained during the discussion in Standing Committee on the Ports Bill. This is one of the reasons, as I have said, for needing further provision now.
  The Bill itself is simple. Clause 1 repeals Section 13(1) of the 1964 Act and establishes a new limit of £75 million, or, if so provided by a Resolution of the House of Commons, £125 million, on loans by the Minister under Section 11 of the 1964 Act after the passing of the present Bill. Clause 2 is purely formal.
  I call the attention of the House to one change in the scope of the provision,

  1373
  in that the new limit does not apply to grants. Loans under Section 11 of the 1964 Act are issued by the Treasury out of the National Loans Fund, and it is right that there should be a statutory limit to the amount which may be made available. Grants under Section 12 of the Act, however, are provided on a Ministry of Transport Vote. The inclusion of grants in the limit in Section 13 is, therefore, I suggest, unnecessary, since Parliament controls the amount of grant through the annual Estimates. I propose, therefore, that the Bill should provide only for a limit on loans under Section 11 of the 1964 Act.
  Before explaining the amounts contained in the Bill, I should remind the House that loans under Section 11 of the 1964 Act are available only for that part of the port industry which is not nationalised. Loans to the British Transport Docks Board—and to the British Railways Board and the British Waterways Board which both manage ports—are made under the Transport Act, 1962. Moreover, Section 11 loans may be made only to statutory harbour authorities and in respect of specific types of capital expenditure on works, equipment or land. They cannot be used for the general capital expenditure of an authority. The limit which we are today discussing is, therefore, in no sense an indication of the prospective total capital expenditure in the ports as a whole.
  The new limit will apply to all loans which are made after the passing of this Bill. The first charge is, therefore, the amounts which still have to be issued in respect of loans already approved by my predecessor.
  Loans for schemes not yet formally approved or otherwise committed have to be considered rather differently. I shall come to them in a moment. I must, however, digress to explain to the House that these proposals in no way prejudge the possibility of changes in the arrangements for Government financial assistance to harbour development. The Government will be reviewing the general question of assistance to industry, whether by way of grant or loan, and in that context we shall be looking at the special problems of the ports. It is possible that new arrangements will be arrived at which will supersede for the ports what we are proposing today.
  1374
  It would, however, be plainly wrong to impose an arbitrary slowing down of major port investment by withdrawing loans and grants without warning. I am, therefore, taking this early opportunity to seek the necessary parliamentary powers so that help can continue to be provided without interruption.
  Apart from the £19 million of outstanding commitments which I have mentioned, there are about £12 million of outstanding loan applications. There are also other schemes, some of them large, for which harbour authorities may well wish to seek loan assistance. To allow for all these known and possible schemes, I consider that the basic limit on loans should be £75 million, and that is what is proposed in Clause 1. That £75 million does not cover requirements for loans which might arise over, say, the next two years for harbour developments which cannot now be foreseen. It seems to me, therefore, that, just as the 1964 Act provided for a two-tier limit, it would be prudent to provide some flexibility in the arrangements and so avoid the need for a further Bill. The present Bill provides, therefore, that the limit of £75 million may be increased by affirmative Resolution of this House by a further £50 million.
  I think that the House would wish to have some examples of the works which would be provided for by the Bill. Existing commitments include the balance of loans towards the first stage of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board's important new dock at Seaforth, interest loans related to previous loans for the new entrance lock at Leith, and important dredging works at Milford Haven.
  Loans have been approved towards other new developments at Liverpool—a car ferry and container terminal for the British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited—and on the Tees mainly for the new iron ore terminal at Redcar.
  Major new schemes awaiting approval for loan and grant purposes include two important projects in Scotland. First, there is the new entrance lock at Grangemouth. My predecessor formally authorised construction work for the purposes of Section 9 of the Act, but it was not possible for him to enter into a formal commitment to make a loan and pay grant as, once a Dissolution had been

  1375
  announced, there was no longer a Bill before Parliament to justify such a commitment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman considers that I have put his position fairly. He did, however, accept in principle the case for loan and grant, and this work is urgently needed to replace the existing lock, which is in poor condition, and to make it possible for larger ships to use the port.
  The second of these schemes is the construction of an extension of the Greenock container terminal on the Clyde. This work has not yet been authorised under Section 9 of the Act, but after considering the Clyde Port authority's application and the recommendation of the National Ports Council I am satisfied that it should be so authorised, and I am informing the Authority accordingly.
  Both these proposals seem to me sound and desirable investments which should not be held up. I have no intention of doing so or delaying Government assistance for such valuable developments while wider problems are being considered. Without the powers the Bill contains, I cannot proceed with the port authorities of the Forth and Clyde on the subject of loans and grants.
  Mr. James Johnson: Can the Minister give us an indication of what he is doing for the fishing ports? I understand that the working conditions in docks like St. Andrew's, Hull, Lowestoft and elsewhere for filleters and those processing fish need careful attention. Has the right hon. Gentleman any schemes for the renovation of such ports?
  Mr. Peyton: I would not dream of having such schemes without careful attention, but it would be premature for me this afternoon to seek to go into details on any port other than those I have mentioned. Projects will come forward. They will be considered by the National Ports Council, whose advice I am obliged to consider. The hon. Gentleman may be certain that the interests of the ports to which he has referred will be very carefully considered.
  For the moment, may I express the hope that for the reasons I have given the House will give a Second Reading to the
  1376
  Bill, which will enable finance to be provided for essential developments in this vital industry.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: I should first like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and to wish him success in his Ministry. All of us realise the vital importance of transport in its full ramifications to the efficiency and prosperity of our industry and the convenience and enjoyment of all our citizens. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will work on the basis of building on the policies he inherited, rather than spending his time dismantling them. There were some signs in his speech that he would work on that basis. We shall see as time goes on.
  I also hope that he will find the work at the Ministry of Transport both exciting and challenging because, perhaps as much as or more than any other Ministry, it impinges on the daily life of practically every citizen. For that reason he will often be thought to be wrong. In my experience, it will be very rarely that he receives any tributes for the wisdom of his policies.
  I should also like to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous services I had at all levels in the Ministry. The Minister may already appreciate that he has a body of able dedicated advisers. I should like it to be clearly understood how I benefited from my time at the Ministry.
  I also congratulate and welcome the Parliamentary Secretary. He has already made his first appearance at the Box in his present capacity in a previous debate. He has the advantage of having had a lengthy apprenticeship in the subject during the passage of the Transport Act, 1968, with which I was at no point concerned, and more recently in our consideration of the Ports Bill, in which I was involved. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will have benefited from his education, although I am bound to say that I noticed that he was sometimes a little more anxious to instruct than to learn. It will be extremely interesting to see how his thoughts and ideas on transport develops with his present responsibilities.
  It is perhaps appropriate that the new Minister should have made his initial

  1377
  appearance on the subject of ports, in view of the enormous amount of Parliamentary time I spent on the subject in the previous Parliament. Since it will be his fortune to be thought to be wrong more often than right, perhaps I should tell him at the outset that after, in the current fashion, taking a long hard look at the Bill and after calm cool and collective consideration of it, we have no opposition to its principle. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman very fairly said, the need for increasing the maximum existed some months ago. It was to have been taken care of, if the previous Administration had remained in office, by the Ports Bill that was before the last Parliament. In view of the demise of that legislation, it is clearly necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to take a step of this kind.
  I join in the tribute he paid to the work of the National Ports Council and, in particular, to the work and leadership of its Chairman, Sir Arthur Kirby. I am glad that the Minister will continue to have the Council's advice, but we shall want a little more information about the policy framework in which the future loans are to be made. We quite understand that in the future there may be other arrangements, but the House is being asked to approve additional borrowing powers and we should like a little more information about the kind of structure of the ports industry in which the loans and grants will be made. Many of my hon. Friends with constituency involvements will want assurances that the amounts proposed will be adequate in the longer term for the considerable developments envisaged.
  We certainly do not want to oppose or hold up the Bill, because we believe very much in the development of our ports. One of the achievements of the last Government was the increasing rate of investment in the ports industry. The Minister may cause one or two of his colleagues to raise their eyebrows at his rashness and precipitate speed in having the Second Reading today and the remaining stages of the Bill on Friday, but we shall not object, because we do not want the modernisation of the ports to be held up.
  The matter was well summed up by Sir Arthur Kirby at the Press conference at which he introduced the Annual
  1378
  Report of the National Ports Council on 7th July, when he said:
  "We make the point in the Report that, apart altogether from any reorganisation, a phase in port development and planning is coming to fruition. This is the phase during which major works have been undertaken to modernise port facilities which had remained little changed for several decades. One can now say that our ports have the tools which are required to provide a service fully up to modern standards, and all that now remains is for them to get on with the job; and getting on with the job will be largely a matter of resolving labour problems in cargo handling."
  It is widely recognised that a great many capital works were undertaken in the past few years, and we want to do nothing that will hinder or delay that process.
  But it is necessary to know what criteria will be applied when applications are made for loan approval when, as I am sure will happen, individual ports authorities and so on come forward with schemes that they think should have grants.
  To get some guidance about Conservative thinking on the subject of the ports, I looked carefully at the document "A Better Tomorrow" which was issued as the Conservative manifesto. It said:
  "We will prevent the waste of £76 million on the nationalisation of the ports. We will end the uncertainty hanging over both large and small ports by giving them the freedom to build in competition with each other but co-ordinated through a strong central authority".
  While one appreciates, as the Minister has said, that it would be premature for him to disclose today any of his thinking on the kind of structure for the industry, or the way in which grants and loans should be made in future, someone in the Conservative office should have given thought to this matter before those words appeared as the policy in the election campaign.
  I hope that it is not the case that, having no regard to what they were likely to provide in the kitchen, the Conservatives just put this in the window as their most attractive menu to get people into the shop. It may well be that many people who bought the menu will find that they are getting quite a different diet from that which they contemplated. However, there should be some indication of what is meant by "co-ordinated through a strong central authority" and it would be helpful if we could be given

  1379
  some idea of the lines on which this policy is to develop.
  I should like in parentheses to deal with this reference to £76 million. This was the most misleading statement made by the Conservatives in the election, and that is saying a great deal. There was to be no payment on the implementation of public ownership of the ports. The £76 million was to provide for three elements. About £50 million was for the acquisition of the port businesses, which by common consent are the profitable part of the industry. The then Opposition bitterly opposed the acquisition of these businesses, which are clearly the remunerative part of the industry. Another £20 million was to be spent on the acquisition of the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Although I did not accept it, the whole of the Opposition's criticism was that we were acquiring those shares at less than their true value. The small residual sum was to be spent on acquiring the Bristol port, again at a figure which the then Opposition argued was too low a valuation.
  The whole of the £76 million was for items which the Conservative Party said we were acquiring at less than their proper value. It could not have been a waste of public money, but a prudent investment on behalf of the British people, who would have acquired assets in ports which, by the standards of the Conservatives, were being acquired at less than the proper market price—although I do not accept that it was less than the proper market price. It was extremely misleading to say in the manifesto that this was a waste of £76 million.
  We are here considering what may amount to large sums of public money without being given any guidance as to the policy and the steps to supervise the expenditure and to ensure the increasing efficiency of the ports industry. I know of no one knowledgeable about ports who is content with the present situation. Clearly, if the Conservative manifesto means anything, it means that the Conservative Party, at least in the pre-election situation, shared that opinion. The speeches of both the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, indicated that
  1380
  that was their view. While I understand the pressure of time, I hope that going back to the Harbours Act, 1964, does not suggest that no changes are desired.
  The recent report of the National Ports Council put the matter extremely clearly. In operations under the Harbours Act and in the loans presumably to be made under these new provisions, I hope that the Minister will be guided by the advice of the National Ports Council, which makes it clear what difficulties it has had in discharging its duty over the years. In paragraph 5 of its Report it said:
  "The Council, not being responsible for the financial results of port authorities, have not thought it right in assessing a potential successful profitable scheme at one port to weigh against the scheme any possible losses of revenue which might result at another port. Indeed, without any definite national plan, each scheme had to be considered on its individual merit. Furthermore, since the Council were not in a decisive capacity, no other course was practically possible."
  The report went on:
  "The Council have always been conscious of their limited responsibility, especially in the field of industrial relations and they would subscribe to the view that the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context he wholly satisfactory on a longterm basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation. It is all to the good that the setting up of an N.P.A. will do much to remove the anomalies and unsatisfactory limitations within which the Council have had to operate without executive powers or responsibilities."
  We are therefore bound to ask the Government for some guidance on their view of the future of the industry. Although we had protracted debates in Committee, the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friends was always one of opposition, and we had no indication of the kind of organisation of the industry which they would like.
  I remain convinced that the principles underlying the previous Government's Bill were right and that we will not get a satisfactory organisation in the ports unless we deal with them on three basic principles: public ownership, the acquisition of not merely the ports authorities, but the port businesses; and the introduction of an element of worker participation in the management of the industry.
  As is well known, all the ports to have been taken over—and this would apply to any system for creating a strong central

  1381
  body—are public trust or public bodies with no element of private ownership. The exceptions are the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which is a privately-owned company, although much of the drive and the finance derive from Manchester Corporation, and Bristol, a local authority. The major ports are all in some form of public ownership, but not a publicly accountable form of ownership and not with a structure conducive to efficient management. Certainly there is not the cohesion between various public trust bodies which is clearly necessary if one is to get a plan for the new capital developments for which loans and grants may be required, or anything else.
  Therefore, while I personally believe in public ownership and welcome the opportunity to extend its sphere, I do not have a doctrinaire view that it is always the solution to a particular problem. The real doctrinaire people these days are those who oppose any proposal with an element of public ownership simply because it has that element. Now that the party opposite have achieved office, I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to try to consider the merits of a new scheme of organisation and put aside the political prejudices which they might have had when they went through the doors of St. Christopher's House.
  Second, it is essential in any reorganisation—this may be equally applicable to the public money by way of grants or approval of loans for the ports—that the Ports Authority should manage and operate the ports business. A good deal of the industrial relations problems with which we are all familiar in this industry, together with the very serious financial situation of a number of our leading harbour authorities, stems from the fact that the profitable part of the cargo handling business was often in private hands, while the public body was providing the harbour facilities.
  We were frequently given in our debates—we may hear it again today—the example of Manchester's success in terms of industrial relations and their financial record, as compared with a number of other ports. The real moral of Manchester was not, unfortunately, taken by the party opposite. The real difference between Manchester and the other ports
  1382
  is that in Manchester there is a single employer and not the plethora of port businesses which give difficulty to management—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I am listening intently to what my right hon. Friend is saying about Manchester, but I cannot allow to pass his reference to good industrial relations. Unfortunately they do not exist in that port; I was hoping that public ownership would have considerably improved them.
  Mr. Mulley: In the ports industry, as in most others, all these things are relative. Over the last decade in Manchester, there has possibly been less difficulty, because of the single employer concept, than in a number of other ports. I was thinking of Liverpool and London by comparison. But I agree that public ownership would have assisted the general climate of opinion.
  That, of course, brings me to the third point—the importance of workers participating, as I propose they should, in the management of our ports. This is not the time for a long dissertation on the subject, but I believe that, in the long run, British industry of all kinds and at all levels must pay much more regard to bringing in workers—not merely by way of negotiating about hours and wages, but so that they are part of and understand all the problems of management. The experiment proposed in the Ports Bill should be preserved and built on in any reorganisation of the ports industry of the future. For historical reasons, the ports are a particular example of where this experiment should be tried and where I think it would have succeeded, although I concede that the same underlying arguments can be applied to other industries as well.
  Certainly, before we decide to approve the Bill—I urge my hon. Friends not to oppose it, since I am sure that the Minister is right in saying that the amount of loans for which there is parliamentary approval is near to running out, and we do not want to delay the legislation—we should like to have a little more knowledge of the kind of ports industry envisaged, the kind of criteria which will be applied.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been extremely eloquent on this subject in the past, will do what,

  1383
  understandably, his Minister could not do—give us a preview of the statement of Government policy in this field. If for any reason that is not possible, I am sure that, in deciding to conduct a bitter battle against my Ports Bill, they had at least thought what kind of industry they wanted before they went with a prospectus to the British people, and did not just write in these words to fill up the page—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary laughs, but I hope that we shall have some explanation of the cryptic phrase "co-ordinated through a strong central authority".
  If we can get those assurances, obviously we shall be very interested, but if we cannot have a complete statement today, it would be of great interest and help not only to us but, I am sure, to the whole industry and the people in the ports, to know when a definitive statement of Government policy here will be made. With that, I invite my hon. Friends to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Considering that we are a maritime nation, we have been strangely neglectful of our ports and harbours. My own constituency is entirely composed of islands, which necessarily depend entirely on sea transport, yet even at this date there are several without any port or harbour or even a pier.
  I was interested in what the Minister said about the development of vehicle ferries across the Irish Sea, because that is also a matter which should have been tackled long ago in the North of Scotland across the Pentland. I appreciate that it does not come directly under the Bill or the Minister's responsibility, but he clearly has an interest in all these kinds of maritime communications. I hope for some indication that the Government will, as a matter of urgency, examine not only the trans-ocean communications but those within the British Isles itself.
  It is common form, when a Bill of this sort is presented, to ask whether it is enough, but it is a very pertinent question in regard to certain developments which are likely in the near future. The Minister said that we must not take this as necessarily laying down the lines of Government policy, that they might in-
  1384
  troduce new legislation to deal with the whole question of ports and harbours. I appreciate that, but this is an occasion to draw their attention to the situation in Scotland.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three developments in Scotland—the improvements to the entrance of Leith Harbour, the new lock at Grangemouth and the extensions to the container port on the Clyde. It is a strange fact that, at the moment, in spite of the amount of deep water which surrounds Scotland, particularly on the West, there is only one place at which a medium-sized passenger liner can tie up in normal circumstances, and that is under the command of N.A.T.O. and therefore generally unavailable. This is something of a reflection on our failure to develop deep sea routes.
  Second, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the developments which are either being undertaken or about to be undertaken on the Forth? There is no doubt that masters of vessels have experienced difficulty in getting into the new basin at Leith, although it has not been built very long. What is the draft of vessels which it is expected now will be accommodated either at Grangemouth or at Leith?
  The Grangemouth lock is almost on its last legs, and the question is whether the new one will be big enough to take the type of vessel which will want to use that rapidly expanding port. This links up with the general question of what has been called the "land bridge"—that is, the possibility of landing bulk cargoes on the West of Scotland, transporting them across land and shipping them to Europe from the East Coast ports. This is already happening to some extent. The container port on the Clyde is invaluable in this respect. It is the best container port in Britain because it is the one which can be most easily approached. The lower reaches of the Clyde are not overcrowded with shipping and there is plenty of deep water in which to manœuvre, which is the essential feature of a container port. If there are delays in getting to it, the advantage of quick loading and unloading disappears.
  The Minister said that this port was to be extended. I take it that there is to be an extension of the face of the container port to enable it to take bigger

  1385
  ships or two ships at once. But there is the very important matter of access to the container port. As the Minister well knows, the idea of container ports is that the cargoes are assembled inland. Greenock is not a very easy place to get to. If the container port is to be used to the maximum, it will not be enough to improve the face of the jetty. The whole system of communications will have to be expanded and improved, together with expansion of the port. This links up with the question of whether the Government are giving thought to the concept of bulk cargoes and large cargoes being landed on the West of Scotland and taken across land and, if so, what type and size of ship will use the Forth.
  My next question relates to the general situation in the North of Scotland, an area in which there are many places with deep, sheltered waters. Scapa Flow, in my constituency, is an obvious place and there are others all down the West Coast. The oil port at Finnart is already making use of a very sheltered loch in which there is very deep water. I am told that the future of sea traffic to Europe will make this type of facility extremely valuable. Not only are the Continental ports overcrowded and very limited, particularly in draught, but even the Channel is becoming a very difficult piece of water for very large ships. There will be an increasing tendency for these ships to transfer their loads in less crowded waters and the West Coast of Scotland is a place where this might increasingly be done.
  There is also the question of our possible entry to the Common Market. It would be disastrous if this meant that there will be an immense increase in the traffic going to the South of England and out of Dover and the Port of London and other Channel ports. It is very necessary to consider our direct links with the Continent. The area with which I am particularly concerned is Scotland, but the situation must be the same in the North-East of England. Even with the improvements, I should not have thought that Grangemouth and Leith offered very good facilities looking to the future. I do not wish to criticise them, but only now are they being brought up to reasonable standards. I do not know
  1386
  how far the Minister will be able to assure us that he has looked ahead so as to ensure that they are in a position to cope with the traffic which might arise were we to enter the Common Market.
  Going north of that, there are Dundee and Aberdeen principally which no doubt are excellent ports in their way, but if we go into the Common Market there may be a considerable increase in trade—for instance, in beef—from the North-East of Scotland which should be taken direct to the Continent, with cargoes being brought back from Rotterdam and other places to Scotland.
  It is legitimate to raise these questions on this Bill because this is the first indication which we have had of the Government's thinking about the development of the ports and sea transport. If they are contemplating introducing other legislation, I urge them to remember the situation in Scotland and the great opportunities and problems which almost certainly will arise in the very near future. I am glad to say that considerable use is already being made of the Clyde and the improvements on the Forth, but, to my mind, greater expansion could take place. Therefore, while I support the Bill and the extra £50 million to which it refers—and that is not a firm sum;—it is only a limit—it is not such a great sum when we consider what needs to be done, not only in Scotland's ports, but in ports all round the country if we are to remain in the forefront of world trade.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Prescott: I crave the indulgence of the House so that I may embark on the ritualistic ordeal associated with maiden speeches which I hope will be neither too lengthy nor too boring.
  Commander Pursey, whom I have the honour to succeed, made a distinct impression during his 25 years' service in the House. He was an orphan who joined the Royal Navy as a rating where his ability was quickly recognised. He was promoted eventually to the rank of commander—a considerable achievement in those days. This experience, combined with a period in journalism when he wrote on naval affairs, gave him an unparalleled range of experience and detailed knowledge of naval matters, from

  1387
  anchors and chains to the broader philosophy of naval policy. He was able to use this to great effect in debates in the House on naval matters. Divorced of personal ambition, he sought to use his skill and energy to improve the lot of those less fortunate. Many will remember his efforts on behalf of orphans in the debates on the Royal Naval School for orphans at Greenwich.
  The House may not fully appreciate the extent of Commander Pursey's constituency work, which included his efforts, against tremendous opposition, in bringing about the raising of the banks of the River Hull, whose continual flooding caused a great deal of anxiety and misery to people in the East Hull constituency. He was both colourful and controversial, and his presence will be sorely missed in the House.
  Kingston upon Hull is the home of Britain's largest port. It is third in the value of tonnage handled and is surrounded by a diversity of industries of national and international repute. Their importance has been recognised by the number of awards which have recently been made to them for their export performance.
  Hull is equally renowned for its advance health and welfare services, well-established comprehensive education and architecturally-awarded council housing estates built by its own direct-labour department. They are the evidence of the foresight and planning of a post-war Labour local authority.
  However, Hull's greatest asset is its people whose warm Yorkshire hospitality and generosity and shrewd judgment of character and appreciation of value are universally renowned. Never was this so amply demonstrated than in the recent General Election when the Labour candidate was elected with no evidence of the national swing against the Labour Party. I like to think that this was due to the personal qualities of the candidate, although I am prepared to accept that the advent of Hull's first 12 months of rule by a Tory council since before the war in which rents were raised from £3 to £9 a week played no small part.
  Kingston upon Hull has a consistent record of electing Members with seagoing experience and understanding. As long ago as 1890, it offered Samuel
  1388
  Plimsoll the opportunity to represent it in this House. Commander Pursey served his period in the Royal Navy, whereas I served for 10 years as a seaman rating in the Merchant Service. In fact, I am the first seaman sponsored by the National Union of Seamen to be elected to the House. Of that I am particularly proud. I will endeavour to put the point of view of the British seafarer and that of the East Hull constituents, many of whom are seamen, particularly on legislation affecting the welfare of seafarers and the shipping industry. Indeed, I shall be pressing the Government to implement legislation to correct many of the faults which have been made obvious in the recent Reports of the Rochdale Committee of Inquiry into shipping, the Pearson Inquiry and the more recent safety report.
  May I also advise the Government that the seamen sincerely hope that they will honour the promise of the previous Government, who in their much-awaited reform of the Merchant Shipping Acts promised to review the penal clauses within a three-year period. The seamen will not tolerate those penal clauses remaining in the Acts. I hope that the Government will take due note of this, particularly as this was the running sore which led to the problem of the 1966 strike.
  It is fortunate and appropriate that I have been given the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a Bill directly affecting the future of Hull. No constituency is so dependent on the future growth and development of its port. Much of the local industry is in some way or other, directly or indirectly, associated with the development of a transport economy and the port of Hull.
  The port covers seven miles of river bank, 12 miles of quays and 11 docks. The new £7 million container berth, which is evidence of its desire for greater trade, was recently opened by Her Majesty the Queen. It is situated on a major undeveloped estuary, recommended for consideration as a maritime industrial development area, ideally suited as the gateway to Europe and serviced by canals which transport over 50 per cent. of its exports and imports to the industrial heart of the Midlands and Yorkshire. It enjoys a potential not unlike that of Rotterdam 10 years ago.

  1389
  The Port of Hull has all the assets but is prevented from success, like Cinderella, by her ugly sisters, represented in this case by the lack of capital and imaginative co-ordinated planning.
  The Government could go some way in using their powers to raise the loans referred to in the Bill to correct some of the glaring examples of the failure to co-ordinate the overall planning of a port system and an overall transport network. Ports are purely the links between internal transport systems and sea transport systems. These sectors are part of a vertically integrated industrial system in which each part is vital to the operation of the whole.
  Failure to appreciate that important principle has led to the building in Hull of a container berth which is required to pay for itself without the essential requirement of a container crane. Indeed, the Rochdale inquiry into the docks, reporting in 1962, pointed out in paragraph 280 of its Report that the ports of railway origin, of which Hull is one, should provide a choice of transport. Those who have taken the decisions concerning the development of Hull's port have taken this extremely literally and have proceeded to rip up all the railway lines on the dock, losing the vital traffic of coal and timber and providing no rail line on the new container port, which is one of the essentials of a container transportation system, resulting in the rundown of the railway and the shutting of workshops. The excuse which is continually given for these activities is a rundown of traffic, which is the direct result of faulty planning decisions. We have recently heard that a restriction is to be placed upon the freightliner centre, which is situated on the wrong side of the city. We are now, apparently, to lose or to have the freightliner services very much restricted. We shall certainly be saying something about this to the Minister.
  The Port of Hull is serviced by, possibly, one of the worst road systems facing any port in the country. We will be pressing to have something done about the infrastructure, which includes the roads, on which the Government were elected. We hope to enjoy the benefit of road works. It is essential that we have immediate access to the industrial
  1390
  hinterland, from where we must draw the cargoes for the very survival and expansion of the port.
  In 1962, Lord Rochdale recommended the provision of a bridge crossing the river and said that this should be provided if the Midlands continued to expand and exports to Europe continued to develop. Both these things have happened. We therefore look to the Government to make a definite statement about a Humber bridge, which is essential to regional development and to the port.
  In giving the Minister that advice, however, I must confess that it would fail to meet the essential ingredient which has been so lacking in the past: that is, developed, co-ordinated planning, which could be envisaged only by a National Ports Authority with executive powers. In presenting the Bill, the Government have made it clear that, as they promised, they intend to reject the essential provisions that were embodied in the previous Government's Bill and were designed to tackle the fundamental problems facing port development.
  I should, therefore, like to point out to the Government that in their consideration of the alternatives, they should give due weight to the innate conservatism which bolsters traditional attitudes with little prospect of change among those who have mismanaged this vital sector of our economy. To my mind, this can be changed only by a fundamental reorganisation of the industry, beginning with public ownership and accompanied by the implementation of industrial democracy, so that the vast knowledge and experience of the port workers are fully utilised and there is a breaking-down of authoritarian management's attitude which is typical of both ports and shipping industries.
  It is no coincidence that the criticisms made of the port industry by Lord Rochdale in his 1962 Report on the ports were followed and repeated almost word for word by the recent Rochdale Inquiry on shipping. Both industries are fragmented by both growth rates and the multiplicity of ownership, documents and procedures, contributing to their visible decline, and accompanied by bad industrial relations and low wages for dock workers until

  1391
  they were recently changed by a Labour Government.
  It is not my intention to discuss the present dispute, which is a further manifestation of the organisation of these industries. It should be noted by the Government that almost exactly the same problems are peculiar to both docks and shipping and, I suggest, for exactly the same reason. Both have a history of casual labour, controlled in the supply by the employer, disciplined by means of fines and penalties, plagued by a higher record of occupational accidents and deaths and further soured by the lack of welfare facilities and amenities. The means of trade union representation through shop stewards, so fiercely resisted by both these industries, has only recently been implemented.
  As labour has become less cheap, both industries have found means of securing cheaper labour, with the exploitation of Asiatic seamen for shipping and, in the case of the Port of Hull, by the diversion of cargoes to fly-by-night non-registered ports such as Flixborough, Howden Dyke, New Holland and Whitby, using cheap labour, unsafe working practices and little capital investment which is required by the major ports to develop.
  The Rochdale Inquiries on both ports and shipping found that one of the cardinal reasons explaining the failure of both these industries could be traced to the general low quality of management in those sectors. This has recently been confirmed ten years later in the Report on shipping. Private management has visibly failed in both these important sectors of our economy.
  The only solution is to take both industries into public ownership in the interests of the nation. As a first step in regard to the docks, I suggest that the Government should implement Sir Arthur Kirby's recent suggestion to rid the docks of the private employers and go on further, I hope, to take the docks into public ownership. Those are the only sort of actions that will solve the major problems in both docks and shipping.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: It is always a pleasure for a veteran Member of this House to offer congratulations to a new
  1392
  Member. Those which I offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are not merely the conventional expressions that are normal on these occasions. All who heard him will agree that his speech, on its merits, had he been a Member of 10 or 20 years' standing, would have commanded the attention of the House, combining, as it did, the fruits of personal practical experience and manifestly a good deal of research, with not a little wit.
  It is one of our traditions that maiden speeches are not controversial. Whatever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may think, I did not find my hon. Friend's speech in the least controversial, in the sense that I could not detect a single syllable from which I would dissent. I express, with more than conventional warmth, the conventional wish that we shall often hear my hon. Friend in our debates. I hope to have him for long with me in the battle which we on these benches will conduct to reverse the Government's policies for the ports and eventually, I am sure, successfully go back to a Ports Bill similar to, but rather better than, the one which died with the Dissolution.
  I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in extending a welcome and congratulations to the Minister. If we must have a Tory Government, I can put up with the right hon. Gentleman sitting there. We all knew him in the last Parliament and in previous Parliaments as a cheerful, swashbuckling back bencher. Many a buckle have I swashed against him, and the two of us have thoroughly enjoyed it.
  I look forward with some trepidation to discovering whether his sharp, sometimes mordant, but always delightful, wit has its edges nibbled away by the cares of office. Indeed, I am sorry to say that I detected today, in the way that he ploughed through his brief without any of his past cracks, a certain unfortunate departure from his quondam effervescence into a ponderous solemnity. Without any personal unkindness, I hope that he will soon be back in his old place so that he can be cheerful again and enjoy himself as much as in the past.
  As my right hon. Friend said, during the last Parliament the Conservative

  1393
  Party's only policy with regard to the essential port transport industry was purely negative. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like what the Labour Government were proposing to do. They said so fairly in clear and often strong terms. But at no stage did they ever suggest, by a single scintilla of information, what alternative they would put in place of the policy which they were condemning.
  I saw a television programme about the docks last night. Taking part was a gentleman who was described as the spokesman of the Conservative Party. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary seem surprised. So was I. I wondered why one of them had not been chosen as the spokesman of the Conservative Party. Doubtless that is not their fault. However, this gentleman more or less admitted in terms that the Conservative Party had no policy. He said that they had now got to sit down and think out a policy.
  That is not a great deal different from what the right hon. Gentleman said today. He said that he did not want to anticipate the results of a long look that they will have at the problems of the industry. I think that this is nonsensical. We do not need any research into the industry to discover what its problems are.
  Over the last 15 years the industry has had more commissions, committees of inquiry, investigations and publication of facts than any other industry, except possibly crime and psephology. Apart from those two matters, this is our most investigated industry. It has been dug up by the roots more times than I can count, and exposed to public gaze.
  In the decade from 1956 to 1966 there were five major and two minor inquiries into the industry. Out of that lot the Rochdale and Devlin Reports between them provided a completely comprehensive review of the industry. That review has since been up-dated by the successive Annual Reports of the National Ports Council, by the reports of many specialised studies commissioned by the National Ports Council, and by one which was commissioned by the British Transport Docks Board. They have been up-dated by the work of the
  1394
  Modernisation Committee, and recently we have had the Bristow Report.
  It does not say much for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that in their years in opposition they could not find time to study all this factual material and they are now starting from scratch with a blank sheet of paper to find out about the port transport industry and what to do about it.
  Unfortunately, the industry's problems cannot brook this delay. If we had time, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, "God-speed with your studies". But we have not got the time. There are crucial, urgent problems in the industry which will not brook the leisurely studies of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. For one thing, while the Government are taking a year or so to do their highly belated homework, our competitors in the continental ports are not standing still. A great deal of research, development and new technological expertise is being put in. While the Government are enjoying their homework, we shall be falling further behind.
  One thing that is universally agreed, whatever else we may differ about, is that the industry cannot carry on as it is now. That is manifestly obvious. Everybody knows it to be so. The trade unions in the industry know it to be so. The port employers know it to be so. Most of them were not only reconciled to the coming of nationalisation, but were positively welcoming it as providing a solution to problems with which they could not cope. That was true of most of the port employers, including the chairman of their association who is their spokesman in the current wage negotiations.
  The most authoritative body in the industry, the National Ports Council, has said in the clearest terms that the industry cannot continue as it is. The Minister paid tribute to the Council. So did my right hon. Friend. I ask the Minister to remember that there are more years of experience in the port transport industry represented on that Council than he has days of experience in the industry. He really ought to take note when the Council says that there have to be fundamental changes and goes on to say, with becoming and fair modesty and clear understanding, that it is not competent to

  1395
  make the necessary changes. The Council has said more clearly than anyone else that its powers and functions are inadequate to cope with the industry's problems.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read the Council's Annual Report for 1969, which was published last week, from which my right hon. Friend quoted one or two passages. That Report not only underlines some of the major defects in the industry, but it also lists a number of ways in which the Council expected those defects to be remedied by the coming of public ownership which, it says, could have been remedied only by the kind of National Ports Authority provided for in the Labour Government's Ports Bill.
  The language of the National Ports Council could not possibly be clearer. There is one passage in the report—my right hon. Friend quoted part of it, but I must quote it again—which encapsulates the whole thing. The report says:
  "… the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context be wholly satisfactory on a long-term basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation It is all to the good that the setting up of an N.P.A."—
  this was written before the General Election—
  "will do much to remove the anomalies and unsatisfactory limitations within which the Council have had to operate without executive powers or responsibilities."
  I have never made a speech as strong as that in favour of the nationalisation of the ports, and certainly I have never made one as authoritative and as convincing as that passage.
  I want to refer specially to four problems in the industry at which the Minister ought to have a close look, because these are problems at which the Council has had a close look and which it says are not being coped with, and show no signs of being coped with.
  The first is one which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and that is overall planning, including the overall planning of the capital expenditure, for which the right hon. Gentleman is taking powers in the Bill to raise the money.
  1396
  The report says, and again my right hon. Friend quoted one bit of this passage:
  "The Council would be the last to claim that what they have done"—
  the Council sets out what it has done, and takes some justifiable pride in it—
  "adds up to a national ports plan.… Since the Council were not in a decisive capacity no other course was practically possible. By contrast, a National Ports Authority will have to be decisive."
  The second of those four points concerns the important development called M.I.D.A.s, the maritime industrial development areas which, if they are carried out properly, may make a really startling contribution to economic growth in this country. This is the concept of a major industrial area linked to a large port, with, nearest the port, primary industries taking off the raw materials from bulk carriers at the port, and behind them secondary industries using the raw materials from the primary industries. There is a whole chapter about M.I.D.A.s in the Council's report, and it has something very clear to say:
  "In the longer term the studies of the M.I.D.A.s concept may result in advance provision for large industries, but in the shorter term the offer of adequate capacity will depend upon the liveliness and forward looking planning of the port boards, stimulated by a National Ports Authority …"
  There are not now to be ports boards. There is not now to be a National Ports Authority. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to carry forward this important development of the maritime industrial development areas?
  The third of the four points concerns research, and again the Council describes what it is doing, and the limitations upon what it is doing. Having done that, the Council admits freely:
  "… there remain wide gaps to be filled, not least because of the Council's limited rôle in relation to personnel in the ports."
  The Council cannot solve the problem; nor would the problem be solved, the Report makes clear, if we change the National Ports Council into a National Ports Authority with wider powers, because the report says that, whether it is a council or an authority, it cannot fully carry out research unless it has an executive relationship and a control relationship with the chaps who work in the ports. The Council can do the pure

  1397
  research, but the most important part of the research is the applied research, and the council cannot do that in the laboratory. It can do it only in the docks, but it cannot do it in the docks with its own personnel. The Council do it only with the dock managements and dock workers, and it cannot instruct the dock managers and workers to carry out any research work on its behalf.
  Fourth, and last, is the problem to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which I suspect will crop up again in the debate, that of labour relations. Nobody can doubt that labour relations all round in the port transport industry leave a great deal to be desired. Nobody can doubt that something must be done about them, and on this I propose again to quote shortly from the Council's report. The Council thinks, as I do, that this is the most important problem facing the industry; the one which needs to be solved, because unless it is none of the other developments such as technical training, research, capital investment and planning will get us very far.
  Referring to the Bill of the last Session, the Council says:
  "… the Bill dealing with the acquisition of port businesses within the nationalised sector … carries with it the possibility of the most important change of all, the development of a new framework for the employment of labour in the industry …"
  That is the most important problem facing the industry at the moment. That is particularly the case because of the structural changes in the labour force and the huge rundown in the labour force due to technical developments, and here I make possibly my last quotation from the report, because we ought to learn a lot from these experienced gentlemen on this Council.
  The report says:
  "The Council are not equipped with powers to plan manpower recruitment, selection and development for the industry but they are nevertheless aware that this is one of the most intransigent problem areas … Indeed, with some 25 per cent. of the industry's managers, 30 per cent. of its foremen and supervisors and nearly 30 per cent. of its dock workers over the age of 55 … it is apparent that it will be necessary to establish planned recruitment and management development policies if the industry is to develop a well-balanced labour force in the next quarter-century …. The lack of a recognised career structure throughout the docks … is a constant handicap to mutual understanding. The Council suggest that only an organisation with greater powers to set
  1398
  standards than they possess at the present time will be able to make the real progress needed."
  To my mind that is the most important thing that the Ports Bill was about. That was the most important element in the Bill. That was the most important element in the previous Government's policy for the port transport industry, and I think that as a concomitant of that we should have been able, through the development of participation procedures, to get into a position of substituting participation for autocracy, and co-operation for conflict.
  The only thing that saddened me about the long Committee stage on the Ports Bill, during which I had one or two battles with the Parliamentary Secretary—it was a good Committee stage; we had our bash-about, but that is what we were there for—was that the Opposition, as they then were, were so hostile to the Bill that it seemed to me at times that they were arguing for the maintenance of conflict rather than the creation of co-operation.
  I remember the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who has now been translated into a different plane in heaven but who was then a very active member of the Committee, saying:
  "Strong, powerful, trade unions should have the right to advance their own interests in their own traditional ways, using traditional weapons, disciplines and responsibilities."
  I agree with every word of that. The hon. Gentleman went on to define what he meant by "traditional weapons". He referred to:
  "consultation, negotiation, strikes … from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 19th March, 1970, c. 1355–1356.]
  Later, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said the same thing. If we have a strike this week—if our hopes for tomorrow's meeting are dashed—whoever can complain about it it cannot be the hon. Member for Cathcart or the hon. Member for Tavistock, because that is the sort of thing that they seemed to be urging.
  I agree that we must have a strong trade union movement, using its traditional weapons, but it is a pity that we could not at least, in 1970, start to see to what extent we can limit the use

  1399
  of those weapons and create a situation in which the need to use them is lessened.
  If through this delay in making their study—if, through doctrinal obstinacy, ignorance or inaction—the Government allow the present uncertainties, inefficiency and frictions in the ports to go on, they will bear a very grave burden of guilt.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: This Bill asks for the authorisation to spend money. As Members of Parliament we are entitled to ask for what purposes the money will be spent. It would seem that in terms of policy the cupboard is bare. The Tory Party, as usual, seems intent on retaining the inefficient and inadequate system still to be found in the ports industry. There is still some truth in what Sir Arthur Kirby said in March, 1965, namely, that
  "To anyone making no more than a cursory study of the ports it must surely seem that if we had set out to devise the most difficult way to work our ports we could not have succeeded better than the existing state of affairs."
  I point to the Labour Party policy document, presented by a body of which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was chairman. In passing, I would point out that my hon. Friend's expertise on these matters is now recognised throughout our ports. Paragraph 3 of the document reads:
  "The industry has been shaped by historical accident rather than economic planning and this has resulted in some startling anomalies:

  A. Various types of port ownership.

  B. A marked difference in the powers and constitutions of the port authorities.

  C. A fragmentation of responsibility for port functions.

  D. A multiplicity of agencies and documents at every stage of port life.

  E. The maintenance of a system of casual employment."

  That seems to be the situation even now, despite certain improvements made in the past five years.
  I was one of those hon. Members who spent no fewer than 94 hours in Standing Committee on the Ports Bill, which was an attempt to bring a measure of rationality to the ports industry. It was essentially a mild Measure, but it attempted to tackle the difficulties to
  1400
  which Sir Arthur Kirby has so often referred. Those of us who supported the Bill were nevertheless attacked from time to time as Maoists, as Trotskyists, as wanting worker soviets, and so on. To my way of thinking those attacks portrayed the Tory mind, which has never advanced beyond the nineteenth century.
  I venture to suggest that if the Bill had become law our ports industry today could look forward to a much brighter and more confident future, as could all the workers employed in the ports. Our economy would certainly have been better if the Bill had become law. I also venture to suggest that if it had become law the present dispute would have been headed off long before now.
  In opening the debate the Minister of Transport indicated that there was no policy vacuum. In other words, he indicated that it was merely a case of "back to 1964". Just over a week ago we had the report of the National Ports Council which, in paragraph 20, said—referring to the content of the Bill:
  "The Council have always been conscious of their limited responsibility especially in the field of industrial relations and they would subscribe to the view that the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context be wholly satisfactory on a long-term basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation."
  To a large extent that was what the Ports Bill was about. This small Bill makes no attempt to tackle the difficulties of the industry; it merely asks for a blank cheque. But spending money will not necessarily improve industrial relations—a factor that is essentially the crux of the problems facing the industry. What we need is, first, public ownership of the ports transport industry and, secondly, a major extension of the measure of industrial democracy that already exists in the running of the industry; and a building on the experience of 25 years of joint operation of the register and of discipline and of the Dock Labour Scheme.
  From debates that I have heard on the port industry and from those in which I have participated—added to my experience on the Standing Committee of the Ports Bill—I have gained the impression that the Tory Party has little conception of the real problems facing the industry. Hon. Members opposite seem to be turning back to the days of Adam Smith.

  1401
  They call for competition, but cannot they see that there is a host of competition in terms of the ports on the other side of the Channel—such a short distance away? We are too small a country to be able to afford all these little tinpot concerns in our ports.
  As a South Wales Member I noticed particularly that in his appointments to the Ministry of Transport the Prime Minister has appointed two West Country Members. Although I congratulate them on their appointment—
  Mr. Orme: They are not here, so my hon. Friend cannot do that.
  Mr. Hughes: —I wonder whether it is by accident or design. I am a little suspicious about these appointments. I see that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has just returned. I was about to ask whether the appointment of two West Country Members to the Ministry of Transport means the opening of the old vendetta between South Wales and the Port of Bristol. Of course, I appreciate that many promises have been made to the Port of Bristol for purely narrow electioneering purposes. Hardly a weekend went by in the months and years before the General Election without a senior Member of the Conservative Party being in Bristol and making these promises about development schemes for the port.
  Therefore, is part of the money in the Bill to be allocated for a new form of Portbury scheme? I sincerely hope that there will not be a further attempt to play politics with our ports in the Bristol development. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), when Minister of Transport, went into this matter in detail and pointed out Bristol's lack of industrial hinterland and the fact that exports were generated within a very short radius of the port. I hope that the present Ministers will maintain the same level of impartiality.
  Also, any tinkering with haphazard developments in the Bristol Channel could have grave effects on the long-term planning of the area. There is, of course the M I.D.A. site to be considered, because, together with Humberside, and the Thames and Medway area, the flats to the east and west of Newport was one of the three key areas to be considered
  1402
  for this type of project, which could provide undeveloped land for large-scale industry alongside deep water, so that the large carrier ships which are now in use could berth nearby. Nothing should be allowed to jeopardise such wonderful potential, even if it is essentially for the long term.
  The Bill is essentially about money. I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to the situation in my part of Newport. There have been some technical difficulties with the lock gates which have necessitated a partial closure of the docks. It can receive only small ships at present and this has been the case for the last two months. From 1st August, the docks will be closed completely for three months for essential repairs. This brings important problems to the town and particularly to the port workers and their families. May we be assured that the cost will be no impediment to carrying out these repairs speedily, so that Newport docks can be reopened at an early date, to prevent long-term damage to its prospects?
  Therefore, the new Tory Ministers have a very difficult job on their hands, particularly in persuading the people of South Wales that they are concerned about the welfare of the area. The people of South Wales have an abundance of experience to the contrary.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I am pleased to take part in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has stated the Labour case very clearly in relation to the Ports Bill and this Bill, which is a financial memorandum for necessary payments. In fact, it is in place of the Ports Bill, which a Labour Government would have put on the Statute Book: that would have made this form of payment unnecessary and would have allowed much wider development in our ports.
  I want to speak particularly about the Manchester Ship Canal, which, although it is called the Manchester Ship Canal runs mainly through the City of Salford, part of which I have the honour to represent. This issue raised a good deal of controversy in our debates on the Ports Bill and inspired the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to make some of his most flamboyant

  1403
  speeches in defence of it as a bastion of private enterprise within the National Ports Authority. In fact, as my right hon. Friend said, the Manchester Ship Canal Company is composed of various facets, including Manchester Corporation and private shareholders.
  The hare raised by the then Opposition about public ownership of the canal and the terms of compensation was out of all proportion to the facts. I received 400 letters from shareholders and, after sending them the Ministerial reply, I received not one complaint from any of the shareholders who had sent to me the photostat letter with which the company had supplied them.
  I have recently talked to the dockers who work on the Manchester Ship Canal. When my right hon. Friend was talking about labour relations in the docks, which are vitally important, and are highlighted by the present negotiations, he referred to the industrial relations in Manchester. As I said, that is only relative, because the dockers on the Manchester Ship Canal are very disturbed about industrial relations. This can be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) who visited the port only recently and spoke with all his authority to several hundred dockers, who impressed upon me and my hon. Friend the fact that the urgent need for ports nationalisation was not just to improve the economic structure and the method of production and use of the ports but also the industrial relations, which had deteriorated to such an extent. The present cavalier action of the Manchester Ship Canal Company is deprecated by the port employees, and I was hoping that the Ports Bill would have eradicated this.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a distinguished maiden speech. It is often said that maiden speeches bring a breath of fresh air to the House. This one had a tang of the sea and the cutting edge of the North-East Coast. I am certain that many hon. Members opposite will feel that cutting edge in the months to come, when many of these issues will be much more fully debated.
  I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Transport. Not long ago he was sitting in Opposition on the bench
  1404
  behind the one from which I am speaking and we frequently exchanged pleasantries, particularly when debating Finance Bills. I hope that his waspish sense of humour, if I may call it that, has not completely disappeared and that he will stand up well to the great pressure which my hon. Friends and I are bound to put on him in future about the ports industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that time and again we shall return to the subject of rationalising and modernising this industry and the arguments for taking it into public ownership. It is on this industry that not only our exports but our whole economy depends. I hope the port workers will put as much pressure on the Government as they put on us when we were in office, though only when a Labour Government are back in power will all the vital changes that need to be made in this industry really be implemented. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg now. We warn the Minister that we shall be returning time and again to the fundamental and basic issue of the ports.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), being an old colleague of mine, will not mind my saying that I had the curious feeling as I listened to him that by some sort of levitation I was not in this Chamber but had been wafted on high up to the Committee Floor and was, in Room 10, listening to one of his speeches about port nationalisation. I enjoyed every word of it but we are really talking about the money that needs to be spent on the ports in the near future.
  Seated near to me is my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who made an eloquent maiden speech. Maiden speeches are always sincere but they are by no means always so eloquent. He will be here long after I have left this House. He is a young man and can expect to be 20, 30 or 40 years in this place. After all, his seat is not only safe but cast iron safe. They do not count his votes. They shovel them in.
  Commander Pursey used to be called a colourful and controversial figure. I am sure that many of the phrases which used to apply to Commander Pursey will in time be applied to our new colleague who

  1405
  represents Kingston-upon-Hull, East. After all, he is the first hon. Member on this side to be upon the sponsored panel of his union. Years ago we had Havelock Wilson—not on our benches.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) widened the debate somewhat by speaking of Britain being a maritime nation. I intervened earlier to mention something that affects not only my constituency but all fishing areas. When I intervened the Minister could not answer me. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will speak on this topic later. I refer to the fact that the fishing docks do not have the capital expenditure which applies to other major docks.
  In my part of the country, in Hull, we have the third biggest port. I welcome the fact that in the last five years the Government have spent £19 million on the Hull docks, including King George V dock and the Queen Elizabeth Dock. Our filleters and other fish dock workers do an excellent job and they are represented by my union, the General and Municipal.
  As the fish dock workers engage in their daily tasks they are swept by northeasterly winds of gale force that blow off the North Sea. The Minister might look at these conditions in the fish docks and he will agree that facilities need bringing up-to-date. If we are a maritime nation, we are also a fishing nation. We have a magnificent fishing fleet but we do not have the on-shore facilities and conditions to match the new vessels mainly stern-fishers which we send out to catch fish.
  Comment has been made on the Common Market. No estuary is better placed, by geography and oceanography, than the Humber from the point of view of supplying goods to and receiving goods from Common Market countries. We have Europe and the Baltic before us and we have our roll-on and roll-off container services available. We are an are par excellence from the Common Market point of view, and I hope that the Minister will pay us a visit. He will be extremely welcome, and he will see at first hand the favourable position which we occupy, though we need the good will and good services of the Government to expand as we should.
  1406
  I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about the siting of the freight terminal. In the West Hull constituency there are two cargo docks and a fish dock. Nevertheless, most of the cargo goods come into East Hull Docks beyond the Hull river. Although there is this freight terminal in my constituency, goods are landed on the other side of the river. Many of the railway lines have already been taken up. We have the ludicrous situation of timber and such like cargoes being docked in East Hull and having to be taken through the middle of the city, causing congestion to traffic and being taken further past West Hull to the Al and the Ml. This is a glaring example of inefficient and inadequate planning.
  As a major port, we are the gateway to Europe, but we ask the Minister to consider particularly the fishing sector. Fleetwood, besides Hull, needs to be looked at as do Grimsby, Lowestoft and many Scottish ports.
  Sir Arthur Kirby, of the National Ports Council, has been mentioned in this debate more than once. Whatever he says is worth listening to. I knew Arthur Kirby 20 years ago when he was in charge of docks, harbours and communications in East Africa and did a magnificent job, with the High Commission in what was formerly Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. I commend to the Minister one thing that Sir Arthur has said. He has said that each port should have a single authority; none of this huggermugger of 10, 20, 50 or 80 employers, but a single employer.
  At our fish dock at West Hull we have fish porters who are employed by the vessel owners whereas all the other port workers are registered by the docks board. We should like the new Minister to carry out the job which was suggested in the Committee on the defunct Ports Bill. The fish "bobbers" are members of my own union, the G.M.W.U., and they want to join in the same ports labour scheme that all the other dock workers enjoy in Hull. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note this suggestion.
  I make this most parochial speech quite unashamedly, because those of whom I speak are my people. I hope that the Minister will look at the physical conditions of all the fish docks in the

  1407
  United Kingdom and see that they get equality of treatment with the cargo docks. I also hope that he will give specific consideration to special terms of the working conditions of the fish "bobbers" of the dock in my constituency.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I believe this to be a unique occasion. It is the first time, and may be the last time, when all three Hull Members speak from the same side in the same debate and on the same subject. That is quite right and proper, because all our constituencies are linked with the port—with our lighterage, our commercial and fish docks, interests. It is therefore right that we should speak with a single voice about the problems affecting our own important port, but affecting also the port industry as a whole.
  Before I develop my speech I have one observation to make which I am sure the Minister would have made had he now been on this side of the Chamber. With this particularly important industry, with its workers regarded, as the miners were regarded immediately after the war, as dangerously militant people in the industrial work force, with so much heated opposition in the last Parliament to the Ports Bill, we have not heard one backbencher opposite speak on this Measure. It is most regrettable.
  I think of some of my friends who were replaced at the General Election—John Ellis, for instance, who represented Bristol, North-West, and others of my friends who represented Preston, Dover, Southampton and Ipswich. Competition then on the Government side to join in a debate was so keen that they would have wanted to intervene even for only a few minutes. Yet today not even the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has spoken from the Government benches. This is typical of the attitude the Conservative Governments have taken towards the ports in the past, and I think that the present Government are likely to take the same attitude in the future.
  The Bill meets existing commitments, and provides, as a holding operation for
  1408
  the next two years, a paltry £50 million—in order to have something in the kitty against whatever future commitments there may be. When we came into power in 1964 the average investment in the dock industry was about £18 million a year. By 1970 it had risen to £50 million—a considerable improvement. What we have not had yet is any indication from the Government of their future thinking on the ports. How do they see the ports develop? What is to be their principal function? My right hon. Friend said that all the Government could say about it was in "A Better Tomorrow"—and what a mixed up contradiction that was! What sort of competition do they envisage if there is a strong central authority in control? Where is the investment to go, and how is the industry to develop? We are entitled to know such things.
  The Government, with all their talk, and with all the working parties and subcommittees which the Prime Minister set up, have come here on issue after issue with no set pattern for anything and, in particular, for something of such vital concern as the docks. We have a right to expect something better from the Government. When we were in Government, we did much to clear the relics of a bad industrial history. We were able to have serious talks on the second stage of the Devlin scheme, and we got rid of the casual nature of dock employment as a result of the 1966 Act, one of the most important Acts passed, which paved the whole way to modernisation, improved labour relations and modern techniques to be used in the docks. Until we got rid of casual labour we had an industrial jungle and could get nowhere.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has said, the industry has a tremendous imbalance in its age structure, quoting Sir Arthur Kirby's report that we must get the register opened again for recruitment. But in present circumstances, dock workers will be suspicious of the effects of these new techniques on earnings and on their own prospects unless we have a definitive statement of what is to happen. We could then open the register and get the infusion of young people at all levels which will give us the proper age balance and the continuity we need. Instead, we

  1409
  have the Minister trying considerably to restrict the area of debate.
  It is because of existing suspicion that we need a clear statement on the future of the employer-employee relationship. We must have a system in which there is only one employer. The 1966 Act went a long way to getting rid of many anomalies. Nevertheless, it had some important anachronisms and defects. For example, the sharing of workers between one employer and another can lead to industrial dispute and discontent in connection with the awarding of forms of work which attract different rates of pay.
  These are some of the things which have to be met. They can be met only if we have one employer of labour, get to a realisation of stage 2 of the Devlin proposals, and get certainty in the docks now that the old Ports Bill has gone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston up Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a notable maiden speech. I say that not only because I have to travel up and down the country with him by train every week, but because it is true. He has not only a wealth of experience, but the ability to get out very complex and difficult ideas so simply that even I can understand. That is a considerable ability and valuable not only for this House but for his constituents and people generally. Hon. Members may have been surprised at the quality of his maiden speech, but if they had listened to him as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and I have done, they would not have been surprised.
  My hon. Friend made the point about the use of unregistered ports for off-loading cargo and then the vessels being taken to registered ports for the rest of the cargo to be taken off. That is an abuse of public investment. It is using the publicly-owned ports as a convenience for the shipper of goods. We ought to make very strict regulations to ensure that ships should not be able to use publicly-owned ports and the facilities provided by the taxpayer purely as a convenience. Severe restrictions should be put on the use of ports where there is unregistered labour. It is not only an abuse of the taxpayer and of persons working in the docks. It affects their wages and employment. Very often these men are working for rates of pay considerably lower than registered workers.
  1410
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West spoke about the future of M.I.D.A.s. On this we ought to have a definitive statement from the Government. Although my hon. Friend extolled the virtues of Hull he left out one of the most important aspects—the estuary with its deep-water facilities, and the great advantages this has for an an expansion of an oil terminal and bulk ore cargo traffic. There is great need for an examination of the M.I.D.A.s idea particularly in relation to Humberside.
  What is to be the future of our ports? Are they to be set in abrasive competition one against the other depending on from where the vested interest comes? Or are we to treat the whole of the United Kingdom as an enormous M.I.D.A.s. and use the limited resources we have as a nation in the best possible manner by planning, careful execution and building up of the infrastructure properly? This will be the keynote in the development of our docks in future. It was sadly lacking in the years up to 1964 and was only just beginning with the provisions of the Docks and Harbour Act of 1966 and the lamented Ports Bill of this year. It is something about which we shall have to know.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his closing remarks touched on a theme I wish to develop, because I am primarily concerned with getting information. A matter of interest on which anyone might philosophise for a moment is how far back our thinking often is in relation to practice and how difficult it is to keep abreast of practice.
  I recognise this among my colleagues in the Socialist movement. We like to think of ourselves as progressive in our thinking, but on many things our thinking is behind the practice which has developed about us. If I can say this about my hon. Friends I can say it with greater emphasis about hon. and right hon. Members opposite. Practice goes ahead despite us in many cases, certainly despite our understanding of that practice, while we keep reiterating the old theories and dogmas. I am rather afraid that hon. Members opposite will find themselves compelled time after time, despite what they think they believe, to act in ways contrary to those imagined beliefs. This

  1411
  will work out on the question of docks and harbours and what kind of national policy we are to pursue regarding harbour and dock facilities.
  We must recognise that changes are taking place and have taken place which will certainly completely outmode the facilities which exist at present. If hon. Members opposite think that it is merely a question of setting harbour authority against harbour authority and that out of this general competition the best facilities will emerge for the country, they will very quickly find that they are completely out of date. It is already being found that as a nation we have to think of the relatively few points of entry and exit of the country and how best we can utilise the facilities we have—natural facilities or facilities which arise from the fact that certain areas are near to other areas.
  I am thinking particularly of the Clyde estuary and the Forth estuary and their relationship to Scotland as a whole and also to the United Kingdom as a whole. I have not generated these thoughts out of my own head, but from what I have heard and seen it seems that there are certain natural advantages in that part of the United Kingdom which ought to be developed in the interests of the whole kingdom. I was happy that when the Minister listed some of the projects for which this Bill will enable money to be found he mentioned the container development on the Clyde estuary at Greenock. That has been a very successful venture. It started with facilities for one container ship but it was soon found that facilities were needed to enable two ships to come in together.
  We have the facilities in terms of depth of water, sheltered water and no question of tides, and we have exceedingly good industrial relations there. Perhaps one should keep one's fingers crossed but for a very long time the industrial relations have been exceedingly good. There has been much expedition in the handling of ships and this has impressed the various shipping lines. One after another of the shipping lines have taken decisions to call regularly at this container port. So I was glad to hear that the Bill will enable the existing plans to be fulfilled.
  These plans consist of more than the mere extension of the container berth
  1412
  facilities. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that it is not just facilities at the docks. There is the problem of moving goods into the hinterland. One of the developments for which the Clyde Port Authority has pressed and received sanction is the development of the railway system to come right into the docks. I do not claim to be conversant with all the details, because it is not in my constituency, but I understand that the Port Authority must find a substantial part of the cost of making it possible to take freight liners right into the dock to transport goods throughout the country. How do the Government view this? Do the provisions made for extending the container berth facilities relate also to the rail transport facilities behind the dock which are so necessary if the project is to proceed?
  I come to a point which is particularly important to me, because I represent the main steel-producing area of Scotland. Some time ago the Clyde Port Authority proposed to build a deep water ore terminal at Hunterston at an estimated cost of £12 million. I know that we have not yet had a decision. The Steel Corporation has stated in principle that it wishes the development to take place. If it does not take place and if the building of facilities for bringing ore in are not begun speedily, the Scottish steelmaking industry will be in for a rough time; the existing steel-making industry will be phased out—over a lengthy period, admittedly—because existing facilities just will not enable the industry to meet the conditions that exist in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world. The present facilities are meeting the needs at the moment, but those facilities are quickly becoming inadequate and it is essential that a decision be taken quickly on the deep water terminal question and it is important that we know whether the Authority will be able to carry on with its proposed project of building a deep water terminal. I hope to receive information about this.
  The opinion is held virtually unanimously in Scotland that, apart from the nationalising of the ports, the Clyde and Forth Authorities should merge and form one authority. This view has been strongly advocated by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), which is

  1413
  not a labour organisation. Influential members of the Scottish Branch of the Confederation of British Industry also think along these lines. When representatives of the Scottish Branch of the Federation gave evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 15th December, 1969, this question—No. 2,777—was put to them:
  "If the Clyde and Forth were brought together under a single unified control, this would seem to be something you would favour?"
  Mr. Miller, who led the team of representatives, replied:
  "It is under consideration at the present moment. We have not expressed a view, but the individual views round this table would be yes."
  In reply to the question:
  "This is a measure you would urge the Members for Scotland, all of us irrespective of party, should push ahead with?"
  The answer was, this time by Mr. Grant, the Secretary of the Scottish Branch of the Confederation, "Yes". So both the chairman and the secretary made definite statements of support for the merging of the two Authorities.
  Perhaps even more important, both authorities wish to merge, because they could then function in a way which would be of immense benefit to Scottish industry as well as to the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not know whether this has been made public, but it has been put to me. It has been put to me, for instance, that with the developments now taking place in terms of big ships a regular shipping line might have a ship crossing twice a week, unloading at the nearest port of call—the Clyde—with goods being sent across the narrow belt of land that forms the central belt of Scotland and loaded on to ships at Grangemouth or Leith for transhipment to Northern Europe. This has been called "ocean span", which is perhaps an ambitious title. If these two Authorities could merge, Canadian and American shipping companies would be able to deal with one authority in Britain and not two authorities. Ships are becoming larger.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying a little far from the rather more narrow confines of the Bill. I should be obliged if he would return to the strict terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Lawson: I would not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in view of the extent of the discussion which has taken place I find it difficult to see in what respect I have strayed beyond what seems to have been in order up to the present. To bring myself within order, I am talking in terms of expenditure on harbour and dock facilities, of the possibilities of development, and what the Government should have in mind.
  I began by saying that, very often, practices go ahead of our thinking. One practice going ahead just now is the building of bigger and bigger ships, ships which will spend more time at sea, the economics of their operation to a large extent determining that they are in harbour for only short periods. In the autumn of last year, the shipbuilding division of Vickers released details of an atomic-powered ship which was visualised as potentially as large as 450,000 tons. I do not say that such a vessel will appear tomorrow or even next year, but the evidence is that ships are becoming bigger and faster, and the ports will have to handle them much more expeditiously than hitherto.
  Our facilities on the Clyde are, so far as I am able to learn, in no way behind anything else, but one of the great advantages which Northern Europe has had over our own country has been the great development at Rotterdam. I understand that Rotterdam will take ships up to about 200,000 tons and that it might be possible to extend on that. But one of the problems confronting Rotterdam is that ships have to reach it either up the English Channel or round the North of Scotland and across the North Sea, and vessels larger than 150,000 tons going up the English Channel already have serious difficulties. This being so, it seems to me, and to many others, that it is urgently necessary to press ahead with the development of our facilities on the West Coast of Britain to handle the very largest ships likely to sail the seas.
  I return to my requests for information. Do the financial arrangements now proposed permit the Clyde Port Authority to go ahead with the development of rail facilities as well as container berth facilities, and would the Clyde Port Authority, if the decision be taken to proceed, be enabled under the Bill to go ahead with

  1415
  the building of the deep-water ore terminal? Finally, what is the Minister's view about the coming together of the two port authorities if they themselves express the desire to do so? Quite apart from any prejudices which one may have about nationalisation, would the Minister bless it and enable the amalgamation to take place quickly? I assure him that it seems to be the opinion of most people in Scotland who have given thought to the matter that the two authorities should combine.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: First, I apologise to the Minister for not being present throughout his speech. I heard only part of what he had to say and then had to go to another meeting. I apologise to him and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), and I hope that they will accept it.
  I have grapsed the drift of the speeches which were made, and I understand the reasons for the Bill, but I regard this as a sad day for the House and the country. Instead of an important Bill which would really have modernised our ports and ensured that vie had a system of national investment to make our industry as good as, or better than, the European, all we have before us is an amendment to a previous Act so that we may continue ticking over with the situation as it is now. I had great hopes that we should have passed the Ports Bill and thus made real strides towards the genuine modernisation of our ports.
  This Bill is very much an interim Measure. It cannot be anything else. It cannot of itself make any long-term contribution to the future of the British ports industry. It is interesting to recall that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now a junior Minister at the Ministry of Technology, came to Liverpool a year or so ago, at the request, I believe, of the Chamber of Commerce, and produced a report. He was there about two days and then came up with a report on the future of the port of Liverpool. He said in his report that public ownership was totally unnecessary and that what we had to do was to give free enterprise a chance in the port of Liverpool. Free enterprise has now got that chance in Liverpool.
  1416
  I shall be watching the situation closely to see what free enterprise does in the Port of Liverpool and what contribution the Government make towards the development of the port. In the past, free enterprise has totally failed the Port of Liverpool, as it has failed the nation through our ports industry.
  We have a series of problems which must be aired and on which it is important to know the Government's attitude. If we are not to have the sort of planned national investment envisaged under the Ports Bill, what will happen, for example, about the Port of Liverpool and the Summers steel works near Chester? What will happen to the proposal which has been bandied about for some time that there should be a deep-water berth able to take the iron ore ships which are essential if there is to be development of both the Port of Liverpool and the steel industry in North Wales? What ideas have the Government on that subject? It is true that the project has not been fully worked out on Merseyside either, but many people have been concerned about it for a long time, and I want to know the Government's view.
  The question of labour relations has been discussed at some length in the debate. In the ports now, modernisation is going ahead—part of it is containerisation and palletisation—and this is leading to a reduction in the number of dockers required to do particular jobs. In the port of Liverpool there has been a fairly rapid reduction in the number of dockers. The dockers are now saying, as they did in San Francisco on the West Coast of the United States when they, as it were, sold their rule book, "If we are to have modernisation, we wish to participate in the benefits of it".
  In Liverpool the shop stewards have put forward a proposal—a long-term proposal, though some people thought that it was a sort of overnight scheme—for £60 a week for 20 hours. Some people thought that a fantastic suggestion, but if the number of dockers is to be run down so that the labour force is almost halved within a matter of years, obviously they wish to benefit in the modernisation processes. It is not silly to suggest that there should be a reduction in hours, and that if extra profits are to be made the dockers should receive their just reward for being prepared to agree to

  1417
  the modernisation of their industry. It is an essential part of the modernisation process that there should be modernisation of labour relations just as of the docks themselves.
  The shop stewards in Liverpool have been proved to be essential and a very important part of the improved industrial relations on Merseyside. We did not have shop stewards until the modernisation schemes were introduced. We often hear statements about all sorts of difficulties in the docks, but people do not seem to understand that because of the system of shop stewards which now exists many of those problems are ironed out before they cause dispute and trouble. The system of shop stewards has been proved to be absolutely correct. I am glad that it is developing, and I hope that it will continue to grow.
  The Port of Liverpool has a number of problems. One which could well get worse is our declining trade over the years—not in certain spheres, but in passenger traffic. A number of our great companies have gone to Southampton and elsewhere. If we enter the Common Market we could face much more serious problems, because trade will obviously be oriented towards Europe. Liverpool, a west coast port, will face the problem of getting the goods that come in over to the east coast, many of them to be shipped straight to Europe. We must ask the Government whether they have any ideas on how they envisage the future of the Port of Liverpool in the Common Market set-up if we enter the Common Market. I am sure that they have not at this stage, but that is not their fault because they have not been in for long enough. It is not an academic question for us. It is a matter of great importance because, despite all the new industries brought to Merseyside, the people of Liverpool and Merseyside accept that the prosperity of our area still largely rests upon the prosperity of the port. If the port is not prosperous, Merseyside is not prosperous, despite the new industry. It is essential that we should have positive ideas on this.
  This is a sad day for the workers in the ports and for the future of the ports. I well remember the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), now the Parliamentary Secretary, making a
  1418
  statement in a discussion before the General Election, which I said had without doubt ensured my return to the House. I am certain that he contributed towards that, because the dockers in my area voted solidly for the Labour Party to ensure that we had public ownership of the ports. They will be bitterly disappointed that we are discussing the Bill before us instead of a Bill that would really put the ports on a proper, modernised basis.
  But we have not heard the last of the demand for public ownership—and not because it is merely a dogma which we on this side of the House trot out. We have had private enterprise in the ports, and it has largely failed. If we are to have a proper, modernised port system with nationally-planned investment, we shall need to extend public ownership and to plan our ports throughout the country. We shall continue our pressure for that throughout the years, and I hope that when we have another Labour Government, which I believe will be after the next General Election, we shall come up with a further Bill for the public ownership of the ports—and an even better one than we had before.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Brown: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in congratulating the Minister on his appointment and in congratulating his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine).
  I also join in the tribute my right hon. Friend rightly paid to the Department that we have just had the misfortune of leaving, and particularly on the work it did in the preparation of the Ports Bill. I hope that it will not be too long before its staff are bending their backs to the preparation of another Ports Bill when we nationalise the ports.
  The man who should have been standing at the Dispatch Box instead of me now is Albert Murray, who was the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the ports side of the Ministry of Transport whilst I was in charge of the other side of the Department. I am sorry that Albert is not here today. I pay tribute on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself—and, I am sure, of my hon. Friends—to the work Albert Murray did

  1419
  in the Ministry of Transport and particularly in the Standing Committee considering the Ports Bill. He took a great deal of the brunt of the work in Committee. I am sure that everyone recognised Albert as a first-class Member and a first-class Parliamentary Secretary. We are all sorry that he got scant justice and very little reward from the Gravesend constituency, which he represented extremely well in the House. His successor has a tremendously high standard to live up to if he is to serve the people of Gravesend as did Albert Murray.
  The only maiden speech today was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I understand that he is the first seaman representative of the National Union of Seamen in the House. We were all delighted with his clarity, and we all enjoyed the quality of his speech, which displayed his tremendous knowledge of the problems of those who go down to the sea in ships. His knowledge will be invaluable to the House. I am certain that we shall hear very much of my hon. Friend.
  After hearing many worthies at the Dispatch Box in the past week or so giving the much-worn replies, "We are giving consideration to this matter …", "This and other issues are being looked at …", "I hope to make a statement next week ", "Sometime", "Possibly before the Recess …" and so on, I am grateful to have heard from the Minister a positive proposal. Although this is a minnow, or a tiddler, of a Bill, at least it is a positive step by the Government, and that is good to see. I am happy to help it on its way to the Statute Book.
  I note how interested Government supporters have been today in the subject of the docks. They have been conspicuous by their absence. At the election, the Labour Party lost no fewer than nine port members, two from Bristol, two from Preston, from Southampton, Ipswich, Manchester and Tees-side. We lost John Ellis, who represented Bristol, North-West. I remember the absolute filth which the editor of the Western Press used to peddle about John Ellis. I wonder where John Ellis's successor is. We are entitled to ask where these
  1420
  worthies are today, because, as this is the first debate on the subject of the ports in this Parliament, they should have been sufficiently interested to attend, but they have been conspicuous by their absence.
  Mr. Martin McLaren: I am the successor of Mr. Ellis. I am back for Bristol, North-West. I think that this is a very good Bill, and I welcome it. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to clap in the Chamber.
  Mr. Mikardo: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I was absolutely carried away!
  Mr. Brown: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). It is interesting to note that he has found out where the Chamber is.
  What my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said is worth repetition. He said that no industry had been more investigated than the ports industry. Almost everyone, except the Conservative Party, agrees that the only solution to the problems of the industry is full public ownership.
  Sir Arthur Kirby has been mentioned ad nauseam, but I do not apologise for referring to him again. At his Press conference, introducing the report of the National Ports Council, he spoke of labour problems and cargo handling problems, and said:
  "These problems are likely to persist for so long as there is fragmentation of employment and split control of labour in the port industry. The problems will be solved only by patience and by adopting means of bringing management and labour together in greater confidence. The docker himself, understandably, is very concerned about his future when he sees the new technologies of cargo handling bringing about a drastic reduction in the labour content. This is why we sound a warning with the danger of a critical collapse of confidence if this effect of new technology and procedures are not brought to a solution and adequate provision made for people's livelihoods, stature and security.
  The nationalisation of the major ports was one possible road towards a solution of the problems, but it was certainly not the only one, and I am confident that if the ports authorities can become the major employers of labour and be masters of all operations within their own ports, this should open the way to a much better standard of industrial relations."

  1421
  No clearer statement is needed to show that the future of the ports lies in a fully integrated system of public ownership.
  I permit myself a luxury which for nearly three years I have been denied; I refer to my own constituency. As a Member representing a Tyneside constituency, I believe that there is a clear need for the Minister to get together with the Minister responsible for regional development—I am not sure whether he is a Privy Councillor—to discuss the development of the Port of Tyne. Development on the banks of the River Tyne is needed so that there are activity-producing industries to increase the prosperity of the North-East of England, which is one of the hardest pressed areas of the country.
  I fully accept that the Tyne will never be a major international seaport, but it has an important part to play in the prosperity of the North-East. With all the wealth of knowledge of city and business matters which it constantly reminds the country it has, surely the Tory Party should have been able to say something of its intentions for the future of the ports, but the Minister has said nothing. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some of the Tory pearls of wisdom for the future. I promise him that when we return to the Government benches, as surely we shall, and, I hope, after the next General Election, we will take the necessary steps quickly to bring the ports into public ownership and thereby improve the prospects for our national trade.
  6.38 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This has been a wide-ranging debate, as was expected, on a narrow Bill. I should like to begin by expressing my personal thanks to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for his kind words about me at the beginning of his speech. I much appreciated his generosity, as I always did when we worked together in another Parliament.
  I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman where he is: we worked long to bring him to that position, and I hope that he will have the chance to spend a long time gaining stature and experi-
  1422
  ence on those benches. He suggested that when we worked together on the Ports Bill I was guilty of wishing to instruct rather than to learn. In the circumstances, it seemed appropriate, just as it now seems appropriate to reverse the process and to learn more than one instructs.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask what criteria would be applied to individual schemes coming before the Minister for approval for loan or grant. He will remember that the decision is based on the widest national and economic considerations of the totality of a scheme, with the proviso that its financial return shall be sufficient to cover the loan charges.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked a long series of questions which were of major importance to those interested in the Scottish ports. He asked what was the draught of vessels using the Grangemouth and Leith ports. These ports have considerable potential, which we hope will be more widely used. The sill depth at Grangemouth will be 38½ feet, which will enable vessels to a draught of 32 feet to use the facilities, with a maximum of 37 feet at spring tides. In Leith there is a depth of 40 feet allowing a maximum loaded draught of 39 feet.
  The right hon. Member then moved on to the question of the container port on the Clyde and raised the interesting possibilities, which have to be fully considered, of the new ideas of a land bridge and the implications following from that. We certainly will want to look at these ideas and form clear views about them.
  When the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the implications of the Common Market on the Scottish ports situation he was not fully taking into account the fact that any growth in demand which might have effects on the South-East of England does not necessarily mean that there will be a retraction of demand in the northern part of the United Kingdom. There could be such an overall increase in growth that there would be extra growth for everyone. It is much too early to predict now what the effect will be.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) went on to amplify the right hon. Gentleman's last point, dealing with

  1423
  the Greenock container berth. This is an extension of the existing 850 ft. container terminal quay and is intended to provide an additional 336 ft. with facilities, and six acres of land for container stacking, which is needed to provide further for the estimated build-up of traffic by 1972 so that we can avoid the delays which would otherwise take place.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell amplified this point and asked for information about the co-ordination of development in the railway system and freight liner terminal at Greenock. Our view is that this is a commercial arrangement in the first place between the Clyde Port Authority and the various local authorities and inland transport authorities in that area. It is for them to devise any scheme thought necessary or desirable. If, within the context of the powers available to my right hon. Friend, they wish to submit proposals to him for consideration and he is able to deal with the matter, it will be for him to decide whether they come within the general criteria he lays down from time to time.
  The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) made a speech which I have always enjoyed on this subject. I have great sympathy with him that he should now be on that side of the House looking at the problems of the port industry in much the same way as he has done on so many occasions in the past. It was a little harsh for him to lecture my right hon. Friend about the urgency of the situation so soon after my right hon. Friend has taken up his new position. The hon. Member knows that it was his Government which introduced legislation in the ports five years after his proposals were adopted and then cancelled them in the middle of a General Election to conform with a parliamentary timetable which the Prime Minister of the time told us had been designed four years before. It is difficult for the hon. Member to come to this House and demand that within about 10 days of taking office my right hon. Friend should have solved all the problems of the ports which the previous Government ignored so conspicuously for six long years.
  The industry will welcome the determination of the Minister to consult it and look at it calmly, consider the facts, weigh up the evidence, a great deal of which
  1424
  has been produced this afternoon, and then make up his mind in the context of consultation and full reflection, without taking precipitate action.
  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) raise the question of the regrettable accident that happened to the lock gates at Newport. I know that he will be delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend has authorised the expenditure necessary for the repair of the gates. I hope that the minimum disruption of traffic will ensue in this most regrettable situation.
  I was sorry to miss so much of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), although I think he will forgive me if I say that I feel that there was a certain familiarity with the arguments. I appreciate that he feels strongly about this subject, and he has made this clear.
  The speech about which I would like to say more came from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in one of the most remarkable maiden speeches I have heard in the House. I congratulate him upon it. I was amused by the remark he made about there being no swing in his constituency against the then Government, saying that he liked to believe that this was a tribute to the personality and integrity of the candidate. I would go along with that view, because there can be no other explanation for the fact that there was no swing against the then Government.
  I was slightly dismayed to hear some of the hon. Member's comments about the British Transport Docks Board ports in his constituency. It has always been my view that the British Transport Docks Board has been a rather well-managed nationalised industry, and I was sorry to hear that after six years of partnership with the Socialist Government there should be so many difficulties yet to be solved. Certainly we will look at the arguments put forward.
  I want to say a word about the arguments put forward by the three hon. Members representing Kingston upon Hull. They raised a range of problems of real concern locally meriting the closest consideration. There are certain problems. First of all, they asked for general indications about the future of the fishing industry. I am sure that they

  1425
  will appreciate that that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Their views will be drawn to the attention of the Minister. It is not, specifically in terms of the fishing industry, within the power of my right hon. Friend to make grants for the improvement of fishing facilities.
  Secondly, we are concerned with British Transport Docks Board ports, and, therefore, the loans granted come under the powers in the 1962 Transport Act and not the Bill that we are now considering. This is not to say that the general well-being of the Hull port is not something that comes within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, because it is. I ask hon. Members to believe that we are anxious to take their views wholly into account in all our considerations. I couple this general view and observation about Hull with a warm commendation to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East who made his maiden speech. I am pleased to have the opportunity of congratulating him from this bench, and I am sure that we shall hear from him on many occasions with equal enjoyment in the near future.
  In opening the debate my right hon. Friend explained the purposes of the Bill. He said that he hoped hon. Members opposite would not expect him to enter into a wide-ranging debate on the industry and its problems, although he made it clear that he did not expect hon. Members opposite to contain themselves within the same discipline. He has listened to what has been said and will want to consider the many valuable points raised. I would not want to pretend that they were all totally consistent but they are part of the broad picture that he will be absorbing in the course of the ensuing months. Hon. Members opposite will not expect me to follow the generality of observations. My right hon. Friend will be considering the broader aspects of port policy.
  Mr. McNamara: Can the hon. Member say whether his right hon. Friend will be producing a White Paper on the future of the ports soon?
  Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend will want to make up his mind about what to put in another White Paper before deciding that a White Paper is necessary. We must allow him to con-
  1426
  tinue his consultations and deliberations before committing himself to the form in which he expresses them or to the time when they are expressed.
  I appreciate that hon. Members opposite will be mourning the loss of their Ports Bill for one reason or another, but we must get one thing clear and that is that there is now an end to the awful uncertainty which has been hanging over the industry for the last six years.
  Mr. Mikardo: It has just started.
  Mr. Heseltine: It was an intolerable situation, to say in 1965 that the ports were to be nationalised and to do nothing about it until 1969. This was to inject the most unforgiveable uncertainty into the industry. Now the port industry knows that the shadow of nationalisation has been lifted. I am only sorry on personal grounds that it should have cost hon. Members opposite the loss of nine of their colleagues' seats in our ports to show quite clearly what the electorate thought about the policy they advocated.
  I do not pretend that the industry has no problems. We are all aware that it has very real problems. Any developing industry in an expanding economy is bound to have problems. Some will be day-to-day problems capable of being handled by the ports and the industry within the framework of Government help and encouragement, but other more serious problems may need legislation from time to time to deal with them. But we are absolutely certain that we should be very careful about introducing legislation which would have the effect of standing the industry on its head. The Government have not the slightest intention of finding instant problems to match preconceived instant solutions put forward by hon. Members opposite. If major changes are to be made in the ports, they will not be made until we have looked at the problems comprehensively.
  Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to deal with the practical problems as they arise in a practical manner, and a practical approach is provided within the Harbours Act, 1964.
  Mr. Mulley: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not making a statement of policy today, but it would help not only the House but the industry if some idea

  1427
  could be given when a definitive statement will be made. Not only will vague statements that this or that is being considered or studied cause many people anxiety and concern, but there is on record the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman's party fought the election, and surely the people working in the industry are entitled to an explanation of what is meant by it. We have already had the statement that there is to be a strong central body. May we have some idea of what is meant by that or when we shall be told what is meant by it?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that those in the industry will greatly appreciate the desire to consult them and the wide-ranging discussions which we shall have with them and the measure of agreement which we shall be able to reach with them. I do not think that they want us to state an arbitrary date line for an arbitrary policy which we have not announced. The right hon. Gentleman must allow my right hon. Friend time to do the job as thoroughly as he is determined to do.
  The main problem with which the Bill deals is not exactly of our making. On the other hand, we accept that the statutory limit laid down for port finances by way of loan or grant had to be reached at some stage or other. In view of the importance of port development, it is very desirable that we should have these powers to continue in the way explained by my right hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal section 13(1) of the Harbours Act 1964 and impose a limit on future loans under section 11 of that Act, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums which under the Harbours Act, 1964, as amended by subsequent enactments,
  1428
  are to be or may be issued out of the National Loans Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, or paid into the National Loans Fund, as results from any provision of the said Act of the present Session removing the limit imposed by the said section 13(1) on the aggregate amount of loans and grants made by the Minister of Transport under sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964, subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount of loans made after the passing of the said Act of the present Session by that Minister under the said section 11 shall not exceed £75 million or, if so provided by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, £125 million.—[Mr. Peyton.]

  FIJI INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Queen's Consent signified.
  6.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill will make provision for Fiji to become an independent sovereign country. It marks a new and decisive stage in the relations of Fiji and the United Kingdom. But there was always something very special in that relationship. It was at the request of the Fijian leaders of that time that in 1874 the British Government of the day accepted the cession of Fiji to the British Crown. In the same way, in response to an approach from the Chiefs in the island, Rotuma was ceded to Britain and annexed to Fiji in 1881.
  Since then great changes have taken place. Fiji has become a multi-racial country. Her forces have achieved valiant exploits in the Far East and Malaysia. Her medical school has become renowned in the Pacific. Her rugby teams have won friendship and admiration. Her economy has shown steady growth with a rapidly developing tourist industry earning valuable foreign exchange to buttress earnings from sugar and other local crops.
  Racial co-operation in Fiji has become part of the normal way of life. But this mixed racial population presented difficult constitutional problems. The two main political parties each had their own ideas, for example, about the composition of the future legislature and about the electoral arrangements.

  1429
  In the course of 1969, talks began between the two main parties to seek agreement on constitutional advance. Early this year Lord Shepherd, then Minister of State, visited Fiji, and his report is to be found at Annex A of the White Paper (Cmnd. 4389) which was published last week. It records that the two parties had agreed that Fiji should proceed to Dominion status; that is to say, that Fiji should become a fully sovereign and independent State with the Queen as Head of State and that Fiji should seek membership of the Commonwealth. They had also agreed that Fiji should proceed to independence after a constitutional conference and without an election before independence. And they had agreed that it should have a bicameral legislature with an Upper House to provide some degree of safeguard for traditional interests. But they had not yet resolved their differences over the future electoral system. Therefore, a constitutional conference was convened in London on 20th April this year and the successful outcome of that conference is recorded in the White Paper.
  As recorded in paragraph 5 of the White Paper, a statement was made by the Chief Minister, on behalf of both Fiji parties, setting out the terms of an agreed compromise solution on the future electoral system. The most significant feature of the proposed new Constitution is that it is the work of the elected representatives of the people of Fiji themselves. The Deeds of Cession were the result of initiatives by the Chiefs of Fiji and of Rotuma. The Constitution of an independent Fiji is similarly the fruit of local initiatives.
  Though I did not myself have the good fortune to take part in the constitutional conference, I hope that I may be permitted to pay tribute to the Fiji delegation and to their leaders, whose mutual co-operation, tolerance, good will and true sense of patriotism enabled the conference to reach a successful conclusion. I am also glad to record my thanks to my predecessor in office, Lord Shepherd, for his untiring work. This spirit augurs well for the future of Fiji.
  Turning now to the provisions in the Bill, Clause 1 names the date on which Fiji is to become independent, 10th October, 1970, which will be the 96th
  1430
  anniversary of the Deed of Cession by which Fiji originally became a British dependency. Clauses 2 and 3 make provisions on the usual lines regarding national status and citizenship. Here I would refer honourable Members to paragraphs 15 to 17 of the White Paper, which describe the citizenship provisions which are to be embodied in the Fiji Constitution. The result of these will be that the vast majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are living in Fiji will automatically become citizens of Fiji at independence.
  With certain exceptions mentioned in Clause 3, all these categories will lose their United Kingdom citizenship when they become Fiji citizens. Thus, the only substantial group of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who will remain in Fiji after independence will be those having some special connection with this country or one of its remaining dependencies. Clause 4 of the Bill, together with the Second Schedule, serves to modify various Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament to take account of the granting of independence to Fiji. These are the main provisions of the Bill, which are very much in accord with other ordinances of this kind. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House join me in expressing their good wishes to the people and Government of Fiji for a happy, prosperous and peaceful future. Britain's association with Fiji has been a fruitful one in which both countries can take pride. I am confident that our new relationship will strengthen friendship and co-operation between our two countries which we in Britain, just like the inhabitants of Fiji, so greatly value.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Foley: It falls to me to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill and on the high office which he has achieved, and to pay tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Shepherd, for his valiant work at the constitutional talks that were held earlier this year.
  The greatest congratulations, however, must be paid to the leadership and the people in Fiji itself. As the Minister has said, Fiji enjoys a harmony between its

  1431
  various peoples of different ethnic stock. They live and work together in peace. This is not something which could be imposed from outside. This is the unique contribution of the people of Fiji which is their great investment in their own future.
  Since Fiji ceded to Queen Victoria the local Fijian people have been joined by people from the subcontinent of India. They now live together in their islands in roughly equal numbers, as well as with people of other races. The way in which they have approached their difficult problem of reconciling race and culture, history, language, land tenure, and so on, is a reflection on both political parties.
  I can do no more than reflect particularly the statement made by the Chief Minister at the constitutional conference earlier this year, when he said:
  "In a multiracial society, trust, understanding and tolerance are the cornerstones of peace and order. These qualities are nourished and developed by the traditions and culture of every race. Hence the provisions in the Constitution to safeguard the culture and interests of the various units which make up the multiracial society of Fiji."
  The Leader of the Opposition echoed that in a very brief statement in saying:
  "We cannot afford to condemn or hate any race. We will have to live like brother and sister."
  It is in that spirit of realism and idealism that Fiji approached the constitutional talks and reached agreement on the very difficult issues of the legislative assembly and its future constitution.
  I have two sets of questions to put to the Minister. The Bill was prepared by the previous Administration and contains no provisions for defence. Our policy on withdrawal from the Far East was well known and understood by those who participated in the conference. It would seem that the present Government intend to evolve a new policy in this respect concerning the Far East. This is reflected in the Gracious Speech and in the words of the Prime Minister in the debate on the Address on 2nd July, when he said:
  "In South-East Asia, it is a British interest that we should work out with our Commonwealth allies in Malaysia and Singapore, in Australia and New Zealand, a way in which we can join effectively with them in helping to maintain stability in that area."
  1432
  The Prime Minister continued:
  "It is also in the interest of many of their neighbours, about 200 million people in that area who share their need for security … we have reasonable time now to work out with our friends a new and up-to-date system of co-operation based on the realities of the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 80.]
  My first question, therefore, is whether it is the intention of the Government to involve Fiji in their discussions on defence in the Pacific. Will those discussions include matters relating to internal as well as external security? Will the Secretary of State for Defence, on his projected visit to the Far East, include Fiji in his schedule?
  My second series of questions relates to the fact that Fiji has moved rapidly to independence and has omitted the stage of fully internal self-government and proceeded straight away to independence. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Fiji's stability, its economic growth and development. In assuming the burden for their own affairs, the Fijians will retain links with us, but clearly, too, they will need help in aid and technical assistance. Will this be forthcoming? Is there any project, or are discussions expected with Fiji, on the level of aid and technical assistance? Will this reflect their new status? Will the present level of aid be maintained, or will it be increased? If such talks are to take place, when?
  It seems to me that the new Constitution recognises the problems created by a multiracial society and the need to give a fair place and a fair voice in that society to all communities, whether Fijian, Indian or representatives of other races who are part of Fiji. We for our part accept the Bill. We wish the people and the Government of Fiji well for the future.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I have yet to meet anybody who has had the privilege of visiting Fiji who has not anxiously awaited the next opportunity to go back to that delightful country. I had the privilege of going there with a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation in 1962. Not only did I find a beautiful country, but the people I met then have been some of my closest friends from that time onwards. I have had the privilege at intervals of going

  1433
  back to see them and they have the good habit of visiting this country, and so we see each other reasonably frequently. It is, therefore, with very real feeling that I express, on behalf of those who know the country, our very warm good wishes to Fiji on this occasion.
  It was only this morning, when I was listening to the news, that I learnt that the Fijian team which has come to the Commonwealth Games has gone to the trouble of arranging its own finance to get there. They deserve great commenddation for the spirit which they have shown and their determination to play their part in the Commonwealth Games.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister happened to mention that the Fijian footballers had been over here and had won many friends. To have seen a Fijian football team playing, sometimes without any covering on their feet, and the way they are able to control a football in those circumstances, is something which is always remembered.
  When the Fijians were here last time, they had the opportunity to go to Wales, where not only did they have some very good football, but they also found people who were able to sing with the same quality as do the Fijians themselves. Great bonds of friendship were built at that time between the Welsh and the Fijians on the basis of their mutual interest in music.
  Anyone who has heard the Fijians sing some of their own songs cannot fail to have been moved and would want to have another opportunity of going to listen to them. Their footballers are coming back again in the autumn and a good many of us are looking forward to the opportunity to welcome them here and see the excellent football which they will undoubtedly play.
  Another link which many people in this country established with the Fijians was when the Fijian Military Forces came here to take part in the Royal Tournament. They wore sulus, which are not very different from kilts. They found that the Gurkhas dressed in a similar way and marched with similar precision, and they established great friendships when they were here.
  I have had the privilege of taking the party that came to the Royal Tournament around this House on two separate occasions. I have never had a more interested
  1434
  or intelligent band of visitors in the Palace of Westminster. Most of them had never been in an underground train before. They had all kinds of adventures. Some landed up in Wimbledon or Hampstead. However, in due course they turned up here cheerful and happy.
  My right hon. Friend said that 10th October is the date on which independence is to be granted to Fiji. That is appropriately the 96th anniversary of the Deed of Cession. On 28th August 1874 King Cakobau and the Council of Chiefs said:
  "We give Fiji unreservedly to the Queen of Britain, that she may rule us justly and affectionately, and that we may live in peace and prosperity."
  It started with a very happy relationship which has continued through the years.
  On some occasions, after we have had Independence Bills before the House, hon. Members have in due course visited the countries concerned with a present from this House to wish the new independent members of the Commonwealth well in the new way in which they are organising their affairs. We will not need to send a Mace to Fiji. Some hon. Members will recall that the war club used by King Cakobau at the time of Cession was turned into a Mace, and it is still being used in the Fiji Legislature. It had a rather adventurous time. It was sent to this country to an exhibition at some stage and it then disappeared for many years. But an enterprising person decided to find out where it was. He wrote to The Times, and it turned up in the Library of Windsor Castle. It was returned to Fiji, and it is used there now.
  The Mace used in Fiji being a war club brings me to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) concerning defence and about which I want to ask my right hon. Friend. Anyone who has seen the Fijians' war dances and war clubs could have no doubt whatever that they are quite capable of taking any necessary steps to defend themselves in ordinary circumstances. But in the modern world something rather more sophisticated than a war club is required. Is any thought being given to the help which we hope that we can give to the Fijians in dealing with the defence problems with which they will be left after the Bill has been

  1435
  passed? I hope that it will be possible for the Government to be very generous in the aid that they can give to the Fijians so that they will be able to deal with this problem in the best possible way. There is no doubt that Fijians would put to good use whatever form of arms they were able to afford. Their record in the last war and the way that they fought with our troops gives us the greatest confidence in their ability. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that a generous arrangement is made with the Fijians in this respect.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to be more specific about the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. We have become accustomed to arrangements about British nationality and citizenship in the various Bills which have come before the House. But we also have some difficulties brought to our attention from time to time which arise from similar Bills which have been passed. I have read Clauses 2 and 3 with considerable care and I have also looked at paragraphs 15 to 17 of the White Paper. I have a certain amount of anxiety about what exactly the final result will be.
  I note that the Leader of the Opposition, in one of his speeches to the constitutional conference, said:
  "… we yould not have to face problems of the Kenya Asians who held British passports and citizenship after Kenya became independent."
  It may be that that type of difficulty has been well thought out and that it is covered by these two Clauses. However, I was not entirely persuaded by what my right hon. Friend said and I hope that he will be able to spell it out more clearly when he replies to the debate.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is present. On these occasions there is always something that ends up in his Ministry as a result of the actions which we take in passing such a Bill. My right hon. Friend will be aware that negotiations have been going on regarding the officers who will be entitled to compensation as a result of the passing of the Bill. I hope that he will carefully consider the representations that have been made.
  1436
  From time to time I have put down a number of Questions about the compensation which has been granted to a number of the countries that have achieved independence from 1960 onwards. The maximum compensation in East Africa in 1960 and a year or two afterwards was fixed at £12,000. By any calculation today, a comparable figure would surely be in the region of £16,500 as a result of devaluation, inflation, and so on. The last arrangement was made with Swaziland. The maximum compensation given in Swaziland was £14,000. In Swaziland only 2 per cent. of the officers entitled were qualified for maximum compensation under the scheme. The maximum that I have been able to trace in other schemes is 10 per cent. The information that I have from Fiji is that 40 per cent. of the entitled officers will receive the maximum. It is, therefore, a matter of great importance to those serving in Fiji that this matter should be given the most careful attention by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
  I have no doubt that there were conversations with the noble Lord when he was in Fiji. I hope that the impression which has got about in Fiji, that a scheme would be imposed upon the officers serving there and that their representations would be brushed to one side and overlooked, will be dispelled.
  I return to the place from which I started when I said that it is with genuine feelings that I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members wish to express their good wishes to Fiji in the events which are now taking place. May I just refer to a short passage in the speech of the Chief Minister on 20th April at the opening of the conference, when he said:
  "Our links with the British Crown are strong and treasured, forged in war and in peace. And all of us in Fiji, of whatever race or age, can look back in gratitude for the wisdom of the Chiefs of Fiji who ceded our islands to Queen Victoria. And looking back over nearly one hundred years, I can say that their wisdom cannot be questioned, and their trust has not been misplaced."
  The Leader of the Opposition set out a number of matters which he thought were of specific importance, and to which he wished to draw attention. Perhaps I may just deal with one of them, and that is the arrangement which has been

  1437
  included in the Bill for an Upper House. He said:
  "… it has been agreed that Fiji's future legislature should have an Upper House, not necessarily to act a a House of Review like the House of Lords in England, but as a House of Protection for the autochthonous race … it is interesting to note that the Upper House will give the Fijian people an effective constitutional power to prevent, in a sophisticated way, any legislation being enacted against their wishes which affects their land, their customs, their culture and their way of life. It is pleasing to note that this aspect of the proposal for the establishment of the Upper House was proposed by my party and graciously accepted by the Fijian people through its leaders and Council of Chiefs."
  I know that there is a unanimous warm feeling which the House wishes to have expressed on this occasion to the people of Fiji.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: I join the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) in what he said about the people of Fiji. I, too, had the privilege of visiting Fiji and enjoying the hospitality of the people of those islands. I also join the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), in paying tribute to the part played at the constitutional conference held in April of this year by my noble Friend the Lord Shepherd, who was then the Minister of State. It is due in no small measure to his visit to Fiji and to the encouragement and understanding that he showed in all the discussions that such a happy outcome was arrived at at the conference.
  It is also necessary to pay tribute to the politicians in the Alliance Party of Fiji and in the National Federation Party of Fiji for the great statesmanship that they have shown and the great leadership which they have given in bringing their varying points of view together to enable an agreed constitutional formula to emerge which we all hope will enable Fiji to move forward and open a new page in its history.
  There is something unique about the granting of independence to Fiji, because this is one of the rare occasions that I can recall when a British dependency is achieving independence not after a long terrible bloody history of tumult, disunity and revolutionary activity, but in the hopeful atmosphere of a united people,
  1438
  with united political parties sharing the same aspirations. We hope that the Constitution will follow precisely the lines laid down in the Blue Book issued to the House, and that it will enshrine the dignity of man and the liberty of the people of Fiji.
  In Fiji I visited towns, villages, factories and farms, and I was most struck by the kindness of all the races there and by the fortitude of the ordinary people who occupy their time in hard labour in the cane fields and in the other occupations that are open to them. It is a beautiful area, and the people are extremely hospitable to visitors, but I sometimes fear that when people visit a beautiful place such as that they are blind to the problems of those people. The people of Fiji are well aware that independence is no magic formula for solving the problems which confront them. It is, as they know, only the first vital step.
  For the ordinary man and woman in Fiji, the person working in the factories, in the shops, in the cane fields and in the sugar mills, national sovereignty and political freedom will have no meaning at all unless it is the runner-up to greater social progress and racial harmony, which is so essential. It is not just a question of who governs them; whether it is self-government or British government. It is really more a matter of how they are governed, and what will be done to ensure that there is social progress for the ordinary people of Fiji.
  We in Britain take pride in the part that we have played in the advancement to independence and freedom of so many countries in the world. We have a new rôle now. The old rôle of establishing order and good government in colonial territories has gone for ever. Our new rôle was touched on by the hon. Gentleman, that of giving financial aid and technical advice to developing countries such as this, and I join the hon. Gentleman in saying to the Minister of Overseas Development that we shall carefully watch the activities of the Government and expect them to be extremely generous to Fiji in the difficult years that lie ahead.
  During the course of the constitutional conference many fine speeches were made by the delegates and by the leaders of the two parties. I was particularly struck by a passage in the speech of the hon.

  1439
  S. M. Koya, the Leader of the National Federation Party. Dealing with his firm belief that we were now living in a one-world atmosphere where the problems of every country were the problems of the whole of mankind, he said:
  "This one world recognises a common responsibility for the common welfare, among as within nations.
  This one world needs a common discipline to ensure advanced science and technology serve man and do not destroy him."
  The Leader of the Fiji Opposition is absolutely on the ball, and it is, therefore, of great importance to this shortly to become independent territory that we embrace the concept expressed in those words and ensure that we play our part in seeing that the help and the finance are made available for the development of their economy, because we have a continuing responsibility. We have a responsibility to assist in the development of the Fijian economy, and the expansion of her trade and tourist industry. It is only on the basis of a sound and prosperous economy of Fiji. This industry employs harmony and provide the social progress which we wish for the people of those islands, and which they wish for themselves.
  That brings me to my main point. The House will be aware of the vital rôle which the sugar industry plays in the economy of Fiji. The industry employs about 30 per cent. of the total working population, and it is on the stability and viability of this industry that the future of Fiji will depend for many years ahead. Such arrangements as the International Sugar Agreement and, in particular, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement are absolutely vital to Fiji if she is to emerge as a prosperous independent nation in the years ahead.
  This country is about to embark upon very deep and perhaps meaningful negotiations for entry into the European Common Market. It is vital that the British Government should ensure the continuity of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement for emergent countries. If the Ministers can spare time from their very private conversation, I hope that they will take note of the point being made about the importance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is a vital necessity for Fiji. But it is important
  1440
  not only for Fiji but for the United Kingdom. If the entry of Britain into the Common Market should result in a breakdown of the arrangements for the production and marketing of sugar as expressed in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, it would be a disaster for British housewives as well as an absolute disaster for the producers and the ordinary people of Fiji.
  Britain receives her sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is a stable supply and we receive it at a fair price. In return, countries such as Fiji are able to sustain a stable economy, based on the sugar industry, and they receive a fair return. Failure by the Government to maintain this essential Commonwealth interest would not only be a blow to the British housewife but would undermine the whole effort of granting independence to Fiji.
  I welcome the statements made by the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who are responsible for negotiations for our entry into Europe. As I understand their statements, they intend during the course of the E.E.C. negotiations to pay particular attention to the question of maintaining the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The bond of friendship between Britain and Fiji—to which the hon. Member referred—is long and historic, and it has been a gallant one. As the Minister of State said, we are indebted to those from Fiji who served with us in two world wars. It is many years since the Deed of Cession. I am glad that 10th October will be the appointed day for independence for Fiji. I hope that the present happy relationship will continue between our two countries, and that the mutual benefit that both have received from that relationship will also continue.
  At the opening of the conference the Chief Minister of Fiji—Ratu Mara—made a speech using words that seem to me to sum up the feelings of this House as we wish Fiji well in the course upon which it is about to embark. He said that success would be achieved if the Constitution enabled them
  "to create a Fiji where people of different races, opinions and culture can live and work together for the good of all; can differ without rancour, govern without violence, and accept responsibility as reasonable people intent on serving the best interests of all."

  1441
  I am sure that it would be the feeling of this Parliament and of our people that it is in that spirit and hope that we wish well to the people of Fiji in the independence upon which they will shortly embark.
  7.34 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Last October I had the fascinating experience of visiting Fiji as a member of a parliamentary delegation. I want briefly to pay tribute to Mr. Harold Davies, who led us on that delegation, for the manner in which he performed this duty, which led to a happy delegation, and, I hope, to many full and fruitful discussions with the Fijian people while we were there.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) referred to the rapid move to independence in Fiji. It has been very rapid indeed. Perhaps this striving for independence has been inevitable, but the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) rightly pointed out that it has not come as a result of a bloody struggle against rulers from this country, as has been the case with other countries in the past, or from agitation of one sort or another. My experience there has led me to the conclusion that independence has come not as a result of pressure from the ordinary citizen. Pressure has not come from below. However, the die is now cast, and the wisdom of taking the decision will no doubt be judged in the future.
  The Bill seems to be a standard reproduction of similar Bills in the past—a dry-as-dust, legal document. I could wish that there was a little more panache about it, signifying more graphically the changes that have taken place and what they mean for the men and women of Fiji, because the changes will be very great. There might even have been a recognition, somewhere, of the loyal support in war and peace that has been given to this country by the people of Fiji.
  I want to raise one or two points about the Bill. The Minister mentioned the question of citizenship. Reading the Bill and other documents it seems to me that many people might be involved in claiming British citizenship. I shall not go into all the details, but do we really mean that all these people may become British citizens? If so, can the Minister give
  1442
  some estimate of what the numbers might be? We ought to know whether many thousands or many tens of thousands will be allowed into this country in the event of trouble. We do not want to repeat the experience of having to go back on our word as we did in respect of East Africa. There may be trouble in the future, and I should like to know whether, if there is, this country can take the numbers involved. It seems unlikely that we should have to do this, but it seemed unlikely many years ago in the case of East Africa. It may happen with Fiji, because it happened with East Africa, and we should know what numbers are involved. If they are very great, might it not be wiser to make the position of this country clear and not hold out promises that may prove to be false?
  My second point concerns Clause 5. It provides that "Fiji" means
  "the territories which immediately before the appointed day constitute the Colony of Fiji."
  We are accustomed to look at the map and see two or three major islands but as now constituted Fiji consists of hundreds of islands, covering a large expanse of ocean. Unless this is made crystal clear and recognised internationally seeds of trouble could be sown for the future. May I support what the hon. Member for West Bromwich said about defence? The Fijians have great military traditions. They fought gallantly alongside us. Their islands are strategically placed, with many fine harbours, and it would be of mutual value if we could retain some association.
  The decision has been taken to grant independence. I pay tribute to the loyalty and the service which all Fijians have given to this country. They are charming and friendly people. I hope that our association in future will be as friendly and as fruitful as it has been in the past. They will need help, as the hon. Member said. No former colony could be more worthy of it than Fiji.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. William Rodgers: May I add my word of welcome to the Bill and declare my membership of the club of those, who having visited Fiji, enjoyed the occasion very much? I was there within the last 12 months, and particularly enjoyed the kindly

  1443
  hospitality of Mr. Charles Stimson, the Minister responsible for communciations, works and tourism, who was a member of the constitutional conference. They are idyllic islands for visitors. Although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said about the importance of sugar, we must all accept that tourism will be a growing factor in the economy of Fiji as the years go by.
  As an incurable romantic, I hope that the development of tourism will not entirely destroy some of the primitive qualities which are still available to visitors to the island. I should still like to believe that it was possible to combine the romantic world of Sir Arthur Grimble with the necessary developments to give a decent standard of living to people in the twentieth century. This is not the case yet in the South Pacific, but there are still places where it is a pleasure to go, and where it is possible to get away from some of the worst and most soured characteristics of civilisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) mentioned racial harmony, and we all hope that it will persist, although we do not imagine that it will without a great deal of effort on the part of the communities in the islands to make the Constitution work and make a reality of the freedom which Fiji will enjoy under the Constitution. It is a good beginning, and I hope that it will continue in the same way.
  I should like the Minister of State to explain how our present relations with Fiji with regard to aviation are affected by the Bill. There is a reference in Schedule 2(9) to the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, but I do not think that this tells the whole story, even if I fully understood what that paragraph means. I hope that the independence of Fiji will not diminish in any way the United Kingdom's interest in aviation in that part of the world or the contribution which we have been willing to make in the past to the growth of aviation in the South Pacific.
  Under this heading there are three specific points. The first is the future of Nandi Airport, to which the United Kingdom Government, together with Australia and New Zealand, have mad a substantial contribution, towards both
  1444
  operating and capital costs over the years. Particularly, I wonder whether the United Kingdom still intends to make a substantial contribution to the capital expenditure involved in equipping Nandi Airport to deal with the new generation of jumbo jets. The second point relates to the negotiation of traffic rights in Fiji. This may be what Schedule 2(9) is concerned with. Who will in future negotiate traffic rights at Nandi?
  Third, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could say that B.O.A.C., with the full support of the Government, will maintain its interest in Fiji Airways. At present, I believe, B.O.A.C., Qantas Air, the New Zealand Government and the Fiji Government each have roughly a 25 per cent. interest in Fiji Airways. Is it the Government's view that this percentage should be maintained and that we should share fully in the planning of Fiji Airways and its future rôle in the area? In other words, will the Bill and the independence of Fiji in any way affect, in the short run and in the longer run, the present aviation status quo in the area?
  There is a mutual interest between Fiji and the United Kingdom in maintaining this status quo, give or take a little, For Fiji, there is the importance of Nandi for tourism, which will be of increasing importance as the years go by. In addition, it is a very important crossroads in the South Pacific, and even if the revenues from landing rights are relatively small, there is no reason to believe that in future they may not be considerably greater. The fact that the improvements are to take place at Nandi shows how far the new generation of jumbo jets still need a stopping place on the route across the Pacific, particularly bound for Australia.
  The third consideration for Fiji is that they cannot possibly bear the whole cost or even the very much larger part of capital and operating costs at Nandi, so they have an interest in that respect in mutual co-operation.
  I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will not enter upon useless and expensive further commitments east of Suez, but, on the other hand, will not, in a niggling way, seek to make the economies which they will require to compensate for such excesses as they may

  1445
  be foolish enough to embark upon by cutting services which we provide today which are of mutual advantage to ourselves and other countries. I have in mind here the need for developments in the South Pacific on the aviation side which will be valuable to Fiji Airways, to Fiji itself and also to this country, in so far as we wish to maintain our interest in that part of the world.
  I have always thought that, as our military commitments diminish, so our commercial interests, our aid and information services should expand, so that we can make a continuing contribution out of our experience to the stability of an area with all the mutual advantages which this will bring. I should have thought that maintaining our present association with Fiji by providing facilities at Nandi Airport and in Fiji Airways was fully worth while.
  I do not know whether the Minister would be prepared to say tonight, but I ask him to confirm the desirabilily of pursuing such studies as may be required in the South Pacific so that its full economic potential is seen from Fiji and they all contribute in the best way, at what I believe will be relatively small cost, towards the developments which will take place. Some of these will be the responsibility of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. That right hon. Gentleman will have to consider what aid should be given either by the United Kingdom or by our Com-wealth friends to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, to Tonga, to the New Hebrides and the Solomons, to mention only a number of the territories round about which are served by Fiji Airways and have a real part to play in the development of the economy and aviation in co-operation in the South Pacific.
  We celebrate the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. I only ask that, in this new chapter, in certain aspects like aviation, where there has been a robust co-operation, this should continue.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: I hope that the Hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the romanticisms of Sir Arthur Grimble, except to mention that having spent some
  1446
  time exploring the islands to see if what Sir Arthur has described in fact exists, I have reached the conclusion that he was a charming man and a very good journalist.
  Few hon. Members would have thought, say, four years ago that we would now be welcoming self-government and independence for Fiji, particularly in such a happy situation as exists today. There had been evidence of some unfortunate racial strife building up, but due largely to the statesmanship of Ratu K. K. T. Mara and S. M. Koya, in the last year or eighteen months progress has been made to such an extent that we are now able to welcome the emergence of a territory which has every reason to believe that it can be viable and have a happy and prosperous future.
  I wish early in my remarks to pay tribute to a Minister who went to Fiji on behalf of the Labour Government. I refer to Mrs. Eirene White, who, as a Minister, did an extremely successful job in getting the confidence of many people and starting a lot of thinking along the road to self-government in areas and communities where many people were determined not to think in such terms. I pay tribute to her for the magnificent job which she did.
  There are a number of races in Fiji, some of whom have not lost their identities, and in many respects I hope that they will retain them. Equally, I hope that a new name will soon be thought up—many people are trying to think of a suitable name now—for those who have been born in Fiji, whether they come from the early invasions of the Polynesians, Melanesians or Micronesians or the later invasions of the European, Indians and Chinese. I say this because those who have been born in Fiji must learn to live and work together, and the sooner they have an accepted unity of nationality the better. In this connection, I would like to see an end to the Fiji Affairs Board. I have no doubt that this matter will be worked out by the various races after independence.
  The subject of the future pattern of political life in the Pacific has given rise to much thought and anxiety in that part of the world. I can envisage emerging two centres of learning, one at the University of Papua in New Guinea and the

  1447
  other at the university in Fiji. I hope that once Fiji attains independence we shall not forget the Fiji University. Indeed, we should do everything possible to encourage it to develop.
  The University of Fiji is an extremely poor relative of other universities, particularly when one thinks of the amount of money that has been pumped into the university at Port Moresby. This university is in great danger of becoming a second-class organisation. Just because there is harmony in Fiji, a part of the world which does not hit the headlines and which is virtually exactly the other side of the world, we must not forget the need for opportunities that exist at this university.
  Although a federation with the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and with the Solomons and the New Hebrides may not be possible, any more than from the north it will be possible for the other islands, from the Solomons, to merge with Papua and New Guinea, there is a possibility that we may get what might be called a "talking area" in this part of the world from which a stronger identity of involvement might be built up.
  I hope that Australia and New Zealand will continue to look benevolently, particularly from the financial point of view, at the development of Fiji. The New Zealanders have provided some teachers and school places to enable a few Fijians to go to New Zealand. Many New Zealanders have gone to work in the island. Australia has provided much of the money and banking facilities as well as a certain number of people, but not many.
  It is essential that Australia expands its aid in the Pacific through A.S.T.A.P. and makes available loans to Fiji to enable certain tasks to be undertaken. A limited amount is being done but more must be done. I hope that relations between Australia and Fiji and New Zealand and Fiji will continue friendly and helpful, not only for the development of Fiji but because of the unity of interests that they have.
  I regret that the Denning Report made it impossible for Pacific Sugar Mills to continue beyond 1972 in Fiji. However, while this organisation is withdrawing, it is doing so in the most helpful way and has offered technical and supervisory
  1448
  assistance in the form of managerial and marketing assistance over any transitional period. I also welcome the fact that the Ministry of Overseas Development has been able to secure the services of Sir Ronald Leach of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Partners to advise the Fiji Government on the future of this industry, which is of vital importance to the island.
  Tourism is, of course, of vital importance, and I share with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, if not a love of Grimble, then a desire that a number of the dude islands should be preserved so that future generations will be able to see them. I have in mind one dude island on which I shall be staying for a while during the Summer Recess and where I shall be doing a bit of reef diving and deep-sea fishing.
  I hope that the strong sentimental and practical bonds that exist between Fiji and this country will be maintained and that Fiji will itself be able, through its university, to be a leader in the Pacific area, both to the North and to the North-West, and that further links will be forged between Australia and Fiji and New Zealand and Fiji, as well as between all those Pacific islands where, happily, the thought of fighting a war is today only a memory from the past.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome the Bill, and I thank the Minister of State for the manner in which he introduced its provisions. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new Ministerial appointment. His translation from agriculture to foreign and commonwealth affairs will be a very severe loss to his party's agricultural forces. Nevertheless, we can hope that he will tutor his new departmental colleagues in the importance of agriculture, and especially in the importance of the international problems which affect the future of that great industry.
  As the Minister of State appreciates, the Bill is founded on the work of his predecessors, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) has played a distinguished part in the winning of independence by colonial countries. I know that it is a proud occasion for my hon. Friend, because no one

  1449
  here has made a bigger contribution than he to liberating colonial peoples.
  Everyone who has been to their islands knows that the Fijians are a remarkably friendly and industrious people. He has not been to Fiji who would not pay tribute to the warm hospitality of the people of every race there. This is a momentous occasion for them. There are men there who have achieved what only a very few years ago seemed an impossible dream. It looked then as though tension could destroy the bright prospects of sovereign independence based on racial harmony. I pay tribute to the leaders of all parties in Fiji who have contributed, with my hon. Friend, to the making of the present Measure.
  Sovereign independence is one thing, but it can become meaningless unless economic survival is assured. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred in particular to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I am sure that hon. Members who know Fiji will agree that that agreement is at present central to the economy of the islands. Fiji is very heavily dependent on her sugar and other exports to the United Kingdom, and the continuance of the agreement is of vital importance to her people. Nothing will contribute more to Fiji's political and economic stability than a definite assurance that we shall not in any way damage the agreement.
  It is here, I suggest, that the right hon. Gentleman's previous expertise should inform his new responsibilities. I hope he will very strongly emphasise that there can be no phasing out of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. If in negotiations with the Common Market countries we were to weaken, or phase out that agreement, we would be doing a major disservice to the people to whom we are now granting independence. There are people in agriculture, as there are people working in other industries, who see that their future is bound up with the continuance of the agreement. There are those who say, as my hon. Friend will appreciate from his deeply honourable record in working for the freedom of colonial peoples, that freedom comes before bread; that it is more important that Fiji and other dependencies should be independent than that
  1450
  we should guarantee their economic future. But there is no reason why they should not have both freedom and bread, both sovereign independence and economic prosperity.
  The present danger is that there are so many developed, prosperous countries which are now themselves producing what is one of Fiji's most important crops. I have been looking at the F.A.O. Provisional Indicative World Plan for Agricultural Development. In its treatment of the importance of sugar production to the poor and developing countries, it states that in many developed countries
  "… the level of protection is such as to permit the export of sugar at prices substantially lower than in domestic markets, exports being subsidised either indirectly by domestic sugar consumers or by other sectors of the economy through explicit export subsidies."
  The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the price for beet sugar in much of Western Europe and, in particular, in the countries of the European Economic Community is unreasonably high. He appreciates that the price of beet sugar in the Community is a threat to the poorer countries producing cane sugar and, in particular, to countries like Fiji and Mauritius. The F.A.O. report goes on:
  "It would be difficult to transfer a part of the resources currently being used for sugar production in many tropical countries to other uses without causing a serious fall in income whereas, at least in the longer run, the greater diversity of potential resource use in temperate, high-income countries would allow this to be done."
  Thus the F.A.O. emphasises that it is much easier for developed countries in Western Europe to diversify their economies than it is for poorer countries like Fiji to carry through the diversification which many people advise.
  I appreciate that on both sides it is recognised that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a matter of fundamental importance in negotiations with the Common Market countries. I hope that from this debate the cane growers of Fiji, with many of whom I have personal contact, will appreciate that there are those of us on both sides who will campaign, and campaign again, for the continuance, and indeed the strengthening, of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
  In congratulating the people of Fiji on achieving their independence, I say

  1451
  to them that they have loyal friends on both sides of the House who are deter- mined that Fiji's economic future shall be assured. It may be, as one of my right hon. Friends said in a debate here in 1967, that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement could be a breaking point in negotiations with the Common Market. If that happens, so be it. We shall have broken on a matter of honour, for the C.S.A. is a matter of honour between Britain and our poorer friends in the Commonwealth. If the Common Market countries are not prepared to accept the importance of instruments like the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, there can be no question of our wishing to join them at the cost of causing damage to the economies of countries such as Fiji.
  This is a very happy day for people throughout Fiji. As has been acknowledged in this debate, they fought alongside the people of this country and they have always cherished their link with this country. They are honoured by everyone here who knows them and their islands. I wish them well. I hope that not only will sovereign independence be assured but also that their economic future will be vouchsafed.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Evelyn King: I wish first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the first Independence Bill he has introduced in his present office. I join with everyone who has spoken in wishing well to the new independent country of Fiji and in sending the best wishes of this House.
  I listened with care to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). I quarrel with hardly anything in his speech, but I wish to amend something he said when paying tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), to whom I also pay tribute. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that his hon. Friend had given freedom to more colonial countries than anyone else. I cannot let that go by in spite of my deep regard for him, because it is known that independence was given to more Commonwealth countries during the 13 years of Conservative Government up to 1964.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I did not say that my hon. Friend had liberated more colonial dependencies than any Minister or ex-Minister, but I recalled that he played a very distinguished part, as I know from my association with him, in movements which had the purpose in the late 1940s and early 1950s of giving freedom to colonial countries.
  Mr. King: I join in the personal tribute, but I do not think the hon. Member for Wythenshawe phrased it in the way I would have chosen.
  However, that is not the point I wish to make; it is rather a point not of criticism but of interrogation. I find it hard to interpret Clause 2(2)
  "Except as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if he becomes on that day a citizen of Fiji."
  That by itself is reasonably clear until we come to Clause 3. There is a reference to those who will not cease to be citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, from which I deduce that there will be at least two classes of person, those who remain citizens of Fiji and those who remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When the Minister winds up the debate I hope he will clarify who are which and in what circumstances.
  I think all of us feel that this phrase,
  "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"
  is not a fortunate phrase. It has already given rise to a great deal of trouble and misunderstanding, and I cannot see why we should perpetuate it. It seems illogical if we say in Clause 1 that the United Kingdom no longer has any responsibility for the government of Fiji while at the same time we are to create citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies based on residence in Fiji, which at least raises a question of what is meant. I fear the precedent of the damage already done in Africa and elsewhere by the creation of such a type of citizen. If the Minister, when he winds up, can ease my mind on these matters I shall be grateful.
  I join with other hon. Members in wishing this ex-colony every prosperity.
  8.15 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Unlike many hon. Members who

  1453
  have taken part in this debate, I have never visited Fiji, except for a landing, fuelling and taking off again in pitch darkness, if that counts as a visit. So I have no qualification to speak about the constitutional arrangements in this Bill.
  But the importance of Fiji, underlined for me even by that very short visit, lies in its position, forming one of the main crossroads of the air routes of the Pacific. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware how when one is flying hour after hour over wastes of apparently limitless ocean it is a comfort, as well as something of a navigational miracle, to find a small island conveniently located with an airfield. Navigators of small ships have not always found it easy to locate little islands. I remember finding even Malta difficult to locate. As I was flying the White Ensign I signalled the captain of a merchant ship in convoy "Report your destination". He replied "Malta". So after a decent interval I turned round and followed the convoy!
  The geographical position of Fiji enables me to make the wider point about the importance of adequate protection and surveillance of the trade routes used by British shipping and British aircraft world wide. The late Government, I am sorry to say, were very much lacking in understanding at this basic fundamental point. For the first two or three years after 1964 their Front Bench struggled manfully to maintain a presence east of Suez. HANSARD is full of stirring speeches by the former Secretary of State, for example, about the importance of peace-keeping and how small British forces can stop a minor incident turning into a major one, and so forth.
  But then, as we know, after 1967 all this was cast aside and we were told that only in the N.A.T.O. area was there any threat. One of the difficulties facing small and newly independent countries such as Fiji is how to achieve any valid defence posture in a world which—however remote the threat—has clearly by no means abandoned force as a way of settling disputes. Even more applicable to Fiji, it is a world in which one of the Great Powers has 400 U-boats and many other ships ranging all over the oceans, not necessarily to fight wars, but certainly available as a ready means of landing
  1454
  agents to pursue the objectives of an ideological struggle.
  One of the lessons of the present decade is how a very small minority of trouble makers trained, supplied or financed from outside can make trouble especially where different races are working together in harmony to try to achieve unity, as I understand is the situation in Fiji. I emphasise that I am speaking not about Fiji fighting a war, but of Fiji or any other country needing the facilities for surveillance of its own coastline and the waters surrounding it.
  I stress the need for some sort of defence agreement to be made simultaneously with or immediately after Fiji's independence. This will be needed by Fiji for the very limited objectives I have mentioned; and by the United Kingdom because of Fiji's geographical importance on the trans-Pacific route to Australia and New Zealand, which may—we never know when—be of the greatest possible significance to us. This is another opportunity for taking the joint action with other Commonwealth countries which has been suggested in the east of Suez-Far East situation.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is recognised in the House as being a leading exponent of his party's defence policy. Will he go a little further in respect of the defence of Fiji by indicating what he thinks would be a minimum requirement there both from a coastal defence and from an internal security point of view?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is entirely a matter for the Fiji Government, newly independent, to make representations to the United Kingdom Government. The only point I am making is that I hope that the United Kingdom Government would look favourably on any request which might be made for the requirements as the Fiji Government see them.
  I agree with what right hon. and hon. Members have said about the importance of overseas economic aid. The basic statistics of Fiji are that she not unnaturally imports much more than she exports. In cases such as this we have a continuing moral obligation from the past to be as helpful as we possibly can from

  1455
  the economic aid point of view to newly independent countres.
  I join in sending very warm greetings and a message of good will from the House to Fiji as she achieves independence in a very wicked world.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: I, too, support the Bill and wish Fiji well as she achieves independence. My only purpose in rising is to underline once more the importance of the sugar industry to Fiji, as it is an important industry to many other parts of the Commonwealth.
  I underline also the enormous value of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Fiji's sugar industry has been passing through a difficult time. The situation may well be aggravated in the future as a result of some commercial decisions. Notwithstanding that, I believe that sugar will remain an important industry in Fiji for a long time to come.
  My right hon. Friend and neighbour, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), is more than familiar with the problems of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. He has expressed his ideas on the subject on numerous occasions. I am glad that he is now in a position to wield some influence in the matter now as regards Fiji.
  If Fiji's sugar industry is to contract, we can only hope that other industries will emerge. We have heard much of Fiji's tourist potential. I understand that there is also some mineral potential. It is to be hoped that the explorations now taking place will prove successful. It is certain that there will be a need for other industries to emerge and to flourish in Fiji if the sugar industry plays a lesser part in its economy. So long as it plays a part in its economy, I urge my right hon. Friend to bear in mind, as I know that he will, the enormous value of the Agreement, not only to Fiji, but to other parts of the Commonwealth.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: With the permission of the House, I will respond to some of the points which have been made. I want straightaway to pick up the thread which has run right through the debate in the speeches which have been made from
  1456
  both sides; namely, the tremendous friendliness and good will which has been shown towards the people of Fiji. I hope this message will go out to the people of Fiji tonight as the feeling of the whole House towards Fiji as she takes this step to independence.
  I will deal with as many as I can of the individual issues which have been raised. I join in the expressions of gratitude to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) for what he did in this field during the time that he was at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject with a great deal of knowledge and sympathy.
  The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. He asked, first, whether we would be involved with Fiji in defence talks, a point which was taken up by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) managed to bring into that point a reference to our policy east of Suez, which I recognise must have some bearing on this. We shall be very happy to debate our policy east of Suez with the hon. Gentleman in great detail as we come to elaborate that policy, but I do not think that it fits very well into this debate.
  I am thinking of this in the wider context. The normal position of countries within the Commonwealth reaching their independence will be maintained in the case of Fiji, and after independence the United Kingdom will have no formal residual responsibility for defence or external affairs. This is merely a repetition of the position in regard to other countries as they reach independence.
  The Chief Minister of Fiji and the Leader of the Opposition understand and accept that Britain will not retain any precise defence commitments for an independent Fiji. This does not for one moment preclude a continuation of the existing informal arrangements for military training and for collaboration in any other suitable ways.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) rightly referred to the interests of Australia and New Zealand in this regard; they play an importants part in relation to the future of countries in that area, and I believe that already New Zealand has certain arrangements with Fiji. We shall always be happy to talk with the Fijians about

  1457
  any particular problems, and we recognise their need for consultation from time to time on defence matters. At the moment, there is no foreseeable external threat to Fiji, and long may that situation continue.
  The second specific question raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich referred to the future of aid. The Government of which he was a Member had certain specific aid arrangements in relation to Fiji, and arising from them there is still the proposal put forward by the then British Government in April for capital assistance in the form of the unexpended balance of the Colonial Development and Welfare schemes approved at the end of March this year, estimated at £2·4 million. There is also the unexpended balance of the Colonial Development and Welfare higher education allocation for the University of the South Pacific, estimated at about £1 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon referred to that university, and there is that definite commitment.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this assistance to the university is about one-third—or even less—of what is going to the University of Papua and New Guinea?
  Mr. Godber: I was not aware of that precise comparison. I apologise for not having all these figures in my head, but I am merely stating the position as it is now. It will always be open for consideration, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is glad to look at particular points of that nature.
  I was about to add that there is also the £1,354,000 for development schemes to be approved in the financial year 1970–71, and there is a sum estimated at £245,000 for commutation and compensation payments falling due before 1st April next. That is the present position as regards grants.
  As regards loans, after we have had discussions with the Government of Fiji on their 1970–74 development plan, the Government will be ready to offer further support for the plan on loan terms, and when doing so we shall recognise the specific position of the University of the South Pacific and the development of the British dependencies in the region. In addition, there will be the question of technical assistance to be made available
  1458
  on the same basis and at much the same level as hitherto. We shall welcome discussions with the Fiji Government on all aspects of aid, being anxious to give such help and assistance as we can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) made some interesting comments about Fiji and told us of the mace. We have no intention of depriving Fiji of its mace. I was not aware of its unique significance. I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend was suggesting that we should adopt a similar sort of mace in this House—a suggestion which I should choose to resist, I think—but he gave us an interesting piece of history in that connection.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke of sugar as being at the centre of the Fiji economy, as did several other hon. Members. It is absolutely right to stress the great importance of sugar to Fiji, and hon. Members were right also to remind the House of the problems in this respect. Obviously, with discussions going on in relation to our possible membership of the E.E.C., we must all bear closely in mind the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and all it means to a number of territories such as Fiji and Mauritius, and others in the Caribbean, where it represents a notable part of the contribution which Britain makes to the economies of some of these countries, a contribution for which, incidentally, Britain is not always given full credit, particularly when international comparisons are made, and one hears of the requirement for certain countries to provide more from the economies to help the under-developed world. This is one form of very material help which Britain provides and to which it is as well to call attention.
  Obviously, the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement must depend on the outcome of negotiations, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends most closely concerned with it will have much in mind the points raised in the debate. In any case, the agreement goes forward in its present form till 1974, and there is ample opportunity for discussion and consideration. This House, I know, will carefully watch the aspects of the matter which have rightly been stressed tonight. We recognise the continuing need of the people of Fiji for help in this regard, and

  1459
  this need will certainly be to the fore in our thoughts and consultations on the matter.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) referred to the problem of Clause 3, on United Kingdom citizenship, and those who are affected. A number of other hon. Members mentioned this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), who asked a specific question about numbers. We are following the practice of recent independence arrangements. Clause 2 covers the great majority of citizens. A relatively small number of citizens come within the definition of Clause 3. The best estimate I have been given of the number of people involved—and it must be a very rough estimate—is that the number of persons possibly affected by Clause 3 would not be more than a few hundred. This is nothing like the problem which has been mentioned concerning parts of Africa. But we must make provision for people who have a special connection with the United Kingdom, and we are following very closely the pattern developed over the past few years. I do not see that any particular problems are likely to arise.
  My hon. and gallant Friend also spoke of the reference in Clause 5 to "Fiji". Although we all recognise that a large number of islands come within this generic term, I understand that that is the normal way of referring to the Fiji islands. There is no difficulty about this.
  The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees raised one or two specific points about aviation. Fiji will be in a position to negotiate on the points he raised in its own right after independence. Matters concerning civil aviation in the South Pacific will have to be discussed with our partners there, including Fiji. I can assure the House that we expect to continue our help to Nandi Airport with any requirements that are evident there. It must be a matter for discussion, and Fiji as an independent sovereign State will play her full part in discussions. We recognise the need for the maintenance and improvement of Nandi Airport, and shall certainly play our part.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), after
  1460
  some kind references which I appreciate, also talked about the importance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I do not think that I can add very much to what I have already said, except to repeat that we recognise that the future health of the economy of Fiji is closely bound up in the matter, and we shall keep this very much in mind.
  I very much appreciate the close attention which hon. Members have paid, and have shown in the debate, to the continuing health of the economy of Fiji and the wellbeing of her people. It is with this encouragement and support, as Fiji enters upon her new independent existence, that I should like to send a warm message from the House. We have a strong feeling for Fiji, and shall look with interest and continuing sympathy to her proper requirements, and shall continue to help her in any way we can.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  CASTLE SCHOOL, SHEFFIELD
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: Having sat under your wise guidance for many hours in Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I express my pleasure and my congratulations to you on your being elevated to the Chair of the House? Secondly, may I express gratitude to the Under-Secretary for coming here tonight? I apologise for causing him to be on parliamentary duty for two late evenings in succession—I noted that he was on duty at an even later hour last night.
  In a sense, the subject of the Adjournment is somewhat unusual, because I am not pressing the Under-Secretary to announce a decision tonight. I should be delighted if that were possible, but I gather that there are some statutory procedures still to be followed. It may be

  1461
  unusual, but I think it to be right to present the case to a Minister before a decision is taken rather than to complain after the event if the decision is unfavourable, although by raising the matter tonight I do not preclude myself from raising it again if the circumstances warrant.
  This is a local issue. It is a proposal to build a new school, provisionally designated the Castle School because it is thought to occupy the site of the ancient Manor Castle in my constituency. I should have thought that this was properly a matter for local decision and I bring it to the Floor of the House of Commons because, under the Section 13 procedure, whereby objections may be made to such proposals, it has been brought to the Minister's attention and, I understand, in a way which invites the Minister to intervene in the whole gamut of considerations—and I accept that in this proposal, as there must always be with the siting of a school, there are pros and cons where priorities are involved.
  As I am informed, there are no local objections. None of the people living in the area has objected and nor have any of the parents of children who would be likely to go to the school. This will be an early test case of the doctrine which the new Secretary of State has annunciated in Circular 10/70 issued on 30th June concerning the organisation of secondary education.
  Although I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the background, perhaps I should briefly explain to the House the circumstances of the proposal. The need for a new school in the area arises from the reorganisation of secondary education in Sheffield which took place on comprehensive lines last year. Although locally this is a matter of controversy, as it is in the national context, I believe that it is right, particularly when it is so decided by the people in the area concerned, for secondary education to be organised on comprehensive lines.
  This meant the closing of Wybourn Secondary Modern School in my constituency because the premises were wholly required then for the junior and middle school and there was no room for the secondary pupils. It would have been impossible in the premises as they are to give them the kind of secondary
  1462
  education that everyone wanted them to have.
  There was strong local opposition to the closing of the school. I should explain that it is in the centre of the oldest council estate in Sheffield, one classified as an educational priority area in a recent report and singled out in Sheffield as the area of greatest need on social and economic grounds. The area of the new school would involve not only this estate, but a 1950 estate called Manor Park and the more recent Hyde Park flat development so that one would get a balanced intake into the school.
  I stress the need for the environmental consideration. A secondary school gives a community a focus which is otherwise lacking. Many say that because of the social difficulties which abound in the area—many are in difficult economic circumstances—it would be better if children were forcibly sent to other schools all over the city so that they would have the benefit of mixing with, as it is put, their social and educational betters.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that an inspector of the Department of Education recommended that it would be to the advantage of these children to move away and to have the benefit of broader horizons?
  Mr. Mulley: I do not know what an inspector of the Ministry of Education may have said, but I have represented these people for 20 years and I form my own view about what is good for them and their children. In doing so I am substantially guided by the parents of the children concerned. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will see that I am coming to the main reason why this school has done such tremendous work for the estate. One of the reasons for concern about the school was the wonderful record of the then headmaster, Mr. Bland, and his staff. In a very difficult area they produced a remarkable response from the children. These achievements were recognised not only on the estate and in the city but were given national coverage in the educational Press as well as being the subject of a special television programme.
  Mr. Bland's methods made a great impact in developing a community spirit and atmosphere in a socially deprived

  1463
  area where children were by no means the easiest to teach. It is because of this that people want to have this school in their area. The parents there have produced a petition signed by 1,500 people asking that it should remain there. This can be contrasted with objections which have come from outside the area and in some cases actually from outside the city. I pay my tribute to the parents who have worked for a long time on this project, particularly their leader, Mrs. Rita Jackson. The reason the parents are fighting is partly educational and partly to do with the problem of low incomes. Many of these people work on difficult weekly budgets, and extra fares or special clothing would be difficult to provide for if the children moved to different schools. This would be a severe financial hardship only part of which the local authority would be able to meet.
  The kind of problems met with when children from such an estate are sent outside of it was put very movingly to me by a parent just before Chistmas when she said that her child was busily engaged making up little Christmas presents for the old people in the neighbourhood of the school. However, not one of those packages would go to an old person on the Wybourn Estate or anywhere in the area where the child lived. Schools encourage their own children to visit the elderly people but because there is no school in that area, an area which probably needs such voluntary service more than most, the children are encouraged to do such missions of mercy on other estates.
  I reluctantly accepted that the secondary school had to close to make the new primary provision, but I feel very strongly that an area of 19,000 people, as this will be by 1981, is large enough to have a secondary school of its own. Although the estate is very old, there are new buildings, and the difficulty which we face in my part of Sheffield is that, perhaps because of playing field requirements, all the recent secondary schools have tended to be in the same area on the periphery of Sheffield. Where there is, as there is in this case, a site which will provide adequate playing fields near new housing development and the centre of the city, I should have thought that there
  1464
  was an overwhelming case for building the school.
  Some people believe that the site is too local. I have never understood what they meant. Apart from the economic and financial considerations, if we can minimise the amount of travelling for the children and have a school as a focus for the community, this must be an advantage. While there may be a small surplus of school places in this area, if the school is not built immediately 360 extra places will have to be found by extending another school and, in the longer term, by extending all the other schools which are grouped together in one area. It is nonsense to make large schools larger when there is a suitable site and the possibility of giving the people the school that they want.
  The site of Monar Castle is an historic site, with the possibility of providing 25 acres of playing fields. I understand that it is the wish of the local education authority to follow the advice in the circular of the previous Government, which I hope will not be rescinded, to encourage the use of school playing facilities by youth clubs and other organisations where appropriate. This would give a tremendous uplift to the community. The identification of the school with the community was fostered very much by Mr. Bland in his period as headmaster of Wybourn School.
  It is regrettable that a number of people approach these questions on a political basis. When I first became involved in receiving representations about the school, there was a Conservative chairman of the local education authority. I went to see him, as I have since seen the Labour chairman who succeeded him. Broadly, the reorganisation of education in the city as a whole was accepted by both parties. When I first raised the matter, the aspect of finance was important. The sum of £200,000—and special sanction was given for this to be deferred—from educational priority area funds which had been designated to the area about which I am concerned would be used to finance the extension of a eschool in another area which does not qualify on educational grounds if this school is not built.
  The balance of the amount required—about £130,000, I understand—has been

  1465
  allocated and there is therefore no financial difficulty about going ahead with the scheme. Although, until a final decision is taken on Section 13 objections—that is also a reason why one hopes that this can be done as soon as reasonably possible—detailed design work cannot be done, I think that preliminary design has been considered and that there is not only the possibility of an exciting design, but the great advantage of having a purpose-built comprehensive school.
  This proposal initially is to have a school of 600 with a five-form entry, but with the growth of new housing in the area—it is the new housing which attracts people with families or the newly married who later have families—there is no doubt that space would be required for its extension as the school population and the school leaving age require more places to be made available.
  If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was correctly reported in the Press, he objected because it was to be a comprehensive school. Oddly enough, I should be a little surprised about that because, as I understood their arguments, some of the Conservative councillors in the city and teachers complained not because it was a comprehensive school, but because it was too small. They would be more satisfied if it were built to take 1,000 or 1,200 pupils.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: The most important issue here is priorities in finance. A certain amount of finance is available for secondary school or comprehensive development and so much is available for primary development. I hope to be able to outline that there is a genuine fear that money may be taken from the primary school building programme for the secondary school building programme. That was the reason for my objection as reported in the Press about two weeks ago.
  Mr. Mulley: I was coming to that. The hon. Member may want me to rush through my speech: I assure him that there is plenty of time.
  As I thought I had made clear, there is no financial problem about this school, because all the steps that need to be taken—approvals, finance, and so on—have been taken. Only at this stage does the notice appear in the Press inviting
  1466
  residents to object under the Section 13 procedure, and then the only requirement for the scheme to proceed is the Secretary of State's decision on the objections which have been received. They may be from residents who object to the noise of the school in their area, but some people in Sheffield, for reasons best known to themselves, have sought to use the Section 13 procedure—I make no complaint; they are free to do so—to stir up the whole question and invoke the validity of Circular 10/70. It has, perhaps, become out of all proportion to the question of whether there is a case for a school in the area when the allocation of money for educational priorities of this kind should be the main item.
  If the school is not built, alternative facilities will be required. One of the first possibilities would be an extension of a school called Beaver Hill. I understand that the teachers there are extremely disappointed, because a substantial extension of their school would mean an increase in their status and prestige, possibly even a financial advantage. One understands their attitude. While, however, teachers' organisations must be consulted on all these matters, parents and children also have a right to be heard.
  If it happens to be in the interests of the neighbourhood to have a school although it may upset the professional plans of some of the teachers, that is unfortunate and there are other ways within a local education authority of providing for promotion of teachers without necessarily having to build an expensive extension to their school.
  Some of my hon. Friends might criticise a comprehensive school of only 600 pupils, but it is envisaged that it would cover pupils from 12 to 16 only and that sixth form provision should be made elsewhere. I do not believe in the standardised form of comprehensive school. I do not believe that comprehensive schools must be very large and of an exact pattern. I believe that there is room for an experiment for this kind of variation and that the judgment should be left to the local education authority. We will develop new forms of secondary education only by allowing this kind of experiment. As I have already said, there may in future be a need for an extension

  1467
  in the size of the school. But clearly in any sphere where resources are scarce people can always make an alternative bid to use the money. It would be a public scandal if the money specially allocated for E.P.A. areas was used elsewhere. It would be contrary to what was intended. However, a case can always be made.
  I do not want to repeat the reprimand that was delivered to the hon. Member for Hallam by the editorial in the Morning Telegraph. It is not the case that Sheffield has a bad record of primary school development. Unfortunately, all over the country there are a number of slum schools that are very much overdue for replacement. It is also a fact, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, that it is only in recent years—I do not wish to make a party political point—that money has been made available to local education authorities to replace slum schools. During the whole period of the previous Conservative Government and for several years of the Labour Government the only money made available for new schools was where there was a redevelopment and a need for more places. The replacing of a school because it was a disgraceful slum school was not possible until money was provided a couple of years ago.
  I know that some people in Sheffield—I deplore their motivation—have gone around suggesting that if there was not the Castle scheme people could have this, that, and the other school. People can create a great impression around Sheffield on that kind of argument. They can give away a dozen or more schools on that kind of circular argument.
  The St. Catharine's Roman Catholic primary school in Burngreave in my constituency is urgently in need of replacement. I have met the parents and managers and I have been round the school. There is no doubt that it is an absolute disgrace and urgently requires replacement. Nothing can be done by way of improving or repairing it. It is clearly a case of replacement. I understand that this school is rightly at the top of the local education authority's priority list. I told the parents and the managers that I would do all that I could to get this replacement at the earliest possible date. But it was con-
  1468
  ditional on the Government, of whichever party—this was prior to the election—making money continually available for this purpose. I told the parents that we should not try to cancel the Castle scheme, for which there is a need. However, I assured the parents that if the new Government made clear that money would be available for this purpose in the next financial year, perhaps some re-phasing could be done to start the rebuilding of St. Catharine's early rather than late.
  Such candour may not gain votes, but I do not believe in telling one group of parents a different story from another group. I made clear that I fully supported the Castle scheme, but that I would do my best, as I had for the Castle scheme, for St. Catharine's. I did not try to do a deal and set one group of parents against another. I deplore the idea of people casting covetous eyes on a scheme which has been approved for part of my constituency and arousing hopes and expectations in almost every school in other parts of the city.
  We have plenty of time left for the debate, but I wish to conclude because I do not want to take unreasonable advantage of the House. Everything is set to go. All that is required is the Minister's decision on objections under Section 13. In view of Circular 10/70 I believe that these matters should be left primarily to the decision of the local education authority. The phrase in paragraph 2 of the circular is rather wide:
  "The Secretary of State will expect educational considerations in general, local needs and wishes in particular and the wise use of resources to be the main principles determining the local pattern".
  In this case there are the right educational considerations. There is clearly local need, and the wishes of the people who live in the area are crystal clear. They want this school, and I think that in the short-term, and certainly in the long-term, interest it is the right use of resources to go ahead with it. I am asking not for any allocation of funds, but merely for a favourable and early decision on the Section 13 objections.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that, when faced with problems of this kind, local education authorities can work on the basis of Circular 10/70 meaning what it says. I hope that theirs will be the paramount

  1469
  view in deciding the form of organisation, and that arguments about whether the school is too small because it is comprehensive, and other such arguments, will not be brought up every time. This is the sort of thing that happens with every new plan, be it for a primary or for a secondary school. I hope that we shall not have the Section 13 procedure used to bring the whole of the argument at local level up for national decision in every case.
  I know that, because of the statutory procedures to be followed, it may not be possible for me to get a clear and full answer, but I hope that the views which I have put forward will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State when she comes to determine the issue, and that in view of the urgency of getting on with the job the decision will be taken at an early date.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has put his case for a Section 13 application for a change of plan, and it is only right that the House should know that this is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of controversy in Sheffield. I suggest that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to give judgment she will need more than the wisdom of Solomon to decide what course of action to adopt. My task tonight is to deploy some of the reasons why the Under-Secretary of State—and we are pleased to see him here—should be very careful about taking the advice offered to him by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I hesitate to intervene in an affair which concerns the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—
  Mr. Mulley: I want to get one thing clear. This concerns my constituency, but the decision to proceed and to make the application is not mine. It is that of the local education authority. I am merely sustaining the right of Sheffield to determine its own education policy.
  Mr. Osborn: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find me disagreeing with him too much on that, but there is a controversy about the rights and wrongs of the development of the Castle Compre-
  1470
  hensive School and it is right that the House should know about it.
  This issue involves priorities in education expenditure—
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside) rose—
  Mr. Osborn: I should like to get on with my speech, but I shall, nevertheless, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman spoke about controversy. Does he consider that the controversy is basically about education, or are he and his party turning it into a political controversy? Indeed, is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman went to Sheffield this week to be briefed by the Conservative opposition on the city council on their point of view?
  Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) would be well advised to let me make my own speech. If I do not cover the points that he wants to raise he will be entitled to intervene later.
  This is definitely a local issue. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park has deployed his arguments about a local issue with skill, and has put forward the point of view of parents in his constituency. This I acknowledge. But he would have gained more support from me—I am not entirely in disagreement with him on every issue—if he had put forward a case for more expenditure on new schools in Sheffield. But the new Secretary of State for Education will have to keep within a budget. I do not know the extent to which Sheffield is spending less money in running schools and providing education and in terms of capital expenditure on new schools than are the other major cities, but I understand that Sheffield is not top of the list in terms of the amount of money spent per head of population or children involved.
  I intervene, first, because a petition has been sent to the Secretary of State for Education from many people involved in the issue; indeed, the Conservative deputy chairman of the Sheffield education committee will have sent a letter to the Secretary of State outlining the difficulties and disagreement with the party in power in the Sheffield City Council.

  1471
  Already I have sent the Minister correspondence from other parents—including correspondence from a parent-teacher association that has written to all Sheffield Members of Parliament—connected with St. Catharine's School. I have been in touch with the people involved, and they have expressed concern about the priorities affecting even my own constituency.
  This involves the Church of England development at Broomhall and the closure of primary school places in my constituency. The distortion of priorities could affect the whole school programme in Sheffield, and Sheffield citizens want an assurance that this will not happen.
  The right hon. Member referred to the St. Catharine's development. It is not a questoin of being for or against the Castle Comprehensive School but, as I understand it, in a letter earlier this year the Minister's predecessor pointed out that funds for raising the school-leaving age could not be diverted to a programme of this type. The letter implied that the Castle Comprehensive School might well have to go ahead at the expense of other priorities. That was the information given to me. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could confirm or contradict the earlier correspondence on this issue.
  Mr. Mulley: I think that I can clear up that point. The major part of the cost—as I said in my speech, if the hon. Member had done me the courtesy of listening to it—comes from a previous allocation for areas of special educational need. There was a balancing sum, which was determined not by the previous Secretary of State but by the local education authority. That authority provided that from a sum to replace schools in difficult social areas part would be allocated for the Castle School. This decision was made by the local education authority, and it must be borne in mind that the Castle School is replacing a former secondary school, thereby making additional primary provision in an area of great need. In that sense, therefore, primary education has gained and secondary education has lost. It is in that sense that the Castle School comes into consideration.
  Mr. Osborn: The right hon. Gentleman has taken me away from what I was
  1472
  saying, but this has been debated fully in the Sheffield council chamber. The Minister should know the arguments for and against. But I have already written to the Secretary of State asking for her view on the likely expenditure in Sheffield on the priorities which she has approved. I have already asked the director of education to give me full details of the programme agreed as of now. I am still awaiting this information from both sources, but it is a matter of debate. The information should be available to all Members of Parliament for Sheffield.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it must be the local authority which determines its own priorities. This is the Conservative view also, and no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that, to a greater extent, the local authorities must determine their own needs and priorities. But, after all, the local authorities require funds from the Secretary of State. There must be some dialogue. I am convinced that there has been a dialogue between the director of education and the Ministry officials during the few months of the election period.
  The right hon. Gentleman made one or two imputations about my views on comprehensive education, and I should like to make two points clear. First, I endorse the views of the Secretary of State in our major education debate last week, that it is possible, in certain circumstances for grammar schools to be run alongside comprehensives. I regret that two grammar schools have now become comprehensive in Sheffield, but this has happened. This is history now: I accept that there are no grammar schools in Sheffield and that the city is developing its secondary education on comprehensive lines.
  Second, because of the nature of the ruling party on the city council, if we have to accept, as the city has accepted, that comprehensive education is the development of the future, I would be much happier if there are shortcomings in a comprehensive programme, if they were met and dealt with.
  I wanted to make clear those two points—that I agree with the views of my Conservative colleagues about the education pattern for the future, but that,

  1473
  because of the nature of the city council, I recognise that Sheffield is comprehensive and the debate is about the best priorities of expenditure on a comprehensive programme of secondary school development again expenditure on primary education and the other needs of the city. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) reminded me that I had been in consultation with the Conservative members of the city council. Of course I had. Surely, if I am going to speak in this debate, I should obtain their views. I have spoken to the deputy chairman of the education committee, Councillor Frank Adams, and the past chairman, Alderman Peter Jackson—
  Mr. Mulley: As a matter of fact, as I understand it, there are no Conservatives holding chairmanships or deputy chairmanships in Sheffield. The custom there is for the ruling party to provide the chairmen and deputy chairmen. He may be chairman of the Conservative group, but not of the committee.
  Mr. Osborn: He has an office: I understood that he was deputy chairman of the committee. He is a senior Conservative representative on that committee. But I will not split hairs with the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Mulley: I am sorry, but it is important to get the facts right, because, when an hon. Member talks about expressing the views of a deputy chairman of a committee of a local authority, he tends to suggest that that is the view of the majority of the local authorities. This is not so in this case, and, if the hon. Member will be good enough to check, I am certain that he will find that no Conservative holds office as deputy to a Labour chairman, just as Labour did not have any deputies to Conservative chairmen when the Conservatives were in power. The party in power picks the chairman and deputy. The other party may have a shadow chairman, or something of that kind.
  Mr. Osborn: I have obtained the views of the Conservative representatives on the appropriate committee, and perhaps I stand corrected on their exact title—namely, shadow chairmen.
  Is my hon. Friend aware that the education committee met yesterday and
  1474
  that I understand from the Conservative representatives on that committee that the chairman, Councillor Peter Horton, is believed to have completely altered the draft letter replying to the Minister; that he has not accepted the draft put forward by the director of education?
  This information has been given to me and I understand that there is to be a censure motion at the city council on the way in which the chairman has handled this matter. I do not know the exact details of this issue—of the rights and wrongs of it—and I draw the matter to my hon. Friend's attention only to point out that the views expressed by the majority are not shared by—
  Mr. Mulley: I would like to clarify—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a duologue.
  Mr. Osborn: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to continue my speech without interruption.
  There are certain interesting aspects to be taken into account. The secondary school development in the Wybourn area is a long story, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us more information about it. One of the arguments for this school has been that there is a lack of facilities locally and that local youth clubs could benefit from using these facilities. However, there is a contrary argument; that it might be better to spend money providing facilities for clubs and not having clubs use a school as a vehicle for such facilities. This contrary argument is being deployed.
  I understand that the teachers in the area are opposed to the development of a small comprehensive school in the Wybourn area on both social and educational grounds. Educationists hold the view that it would be better for children to go to school outside the area—thereby meeting children from other districts—possibly at Norfolk Park and Hurlfield. Apparently this was a recommendation put forward by an inspector of the Ministry of Education, though again the question of funds arises.
  I gather that about £250,000 has been allocated to Sheffield and that some of it has already been allocated to the Beaver

  1475
  Hill School. I understand that materials have been delivered but that the contract for the extension of this school has had to be cancelled. May we be given an explanation of this and its implications, including the views of the headmaster and teachers, who thought that they would be in a larger school?
  Obviously, parents in the Wybourn area have objected to the extra travel and cost involved in sending their children longer distances to school. I imagine that this pressure has been on the right hon. Gentleman, who has been guided by the views of local parents. These views are bound to have been taken into account by him in raising this subject tonight.
  One of the great arguments for a comprehensive policy, at any rate in the Sheffield area, has been the virtue of larger schools, say, 1,500 pupils. Thus, the building of yet another small comprehensive school of 600 places removes some of the initial argument that had been put forward in Sheffield for a comprehensive policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Castle site as being available. I understand that there is some difficulty about the site and that there may have to be an alteration of planning priorities in this matter. It would be useful to know what the exact planning position is.
  Mr. Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You indicated that I should not intervene further, so I have not done so. But I would point out to you the difficulty that an hon. Member is in when another hon. Member intervenes in matters concerning his constituency and puts a whole series of pieces of inaccurate information to the House. Apparently, I cannot intervene to correct him. I cannot have leave to speak again. I want to make it quite clear, therefore, that by my silence I am not assenting to the correctness of the information which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) is putting forward; and also to give notice that I shall in future feel free to intervene in the discussion of any education issues in his constituency as he has intervened on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker: I have only suggested that interventions should be reasonably brief.
  Mr. Osborn: The right hon. Gentleman gets more and more barbed as the debate goes on. I have pointed out that, quite rightly, he has put forward a case in his constituency, and I hoped that he would regard my understanding of this case as reasonable.
  I come back to the question of land. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should make absolutely certain that the site is available. My information is that there is some doubt about availability of land for the school. Planning procedures may be involved.
  The Minister should know that there are alternative proposals for the provision of secondary school places in this area. She should be satisfied that the construction of a small comprehensive school here is the best alternative. If she is so satisfied, however, what guarantee can we have that the project will not disturb priorities for the provision of new secondary school places elsewhere in Sheffield? Promises were made by the Conservatives in the last municipal elections, and certainly nationally at the General Election, that we would give priority to primary school places. There are priorities in Sheffield which must not be jeopardised by the development of the Castle comprehensive project whatever the rights and wrongs of it are.
  I have intervened in order to assure the Under-Secretary that there are many good educational and social arguments against the Castle Comprehensive School. My hon. Friend should make himself aware of the contrary arguments, and know of the reservations that others have had about this project. I regret that it has seemed necessary to bring to the House of Commons for debate this evening a subject which should be debated in the council chamber at Sheffield. The issue is essentially a local one—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not rule himself out of order.
  Mr. Osborn: I certainly do not want to rule myself out of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister will be receiving a letter setting out fully the contrary arguments to secondary school development of this type, and indicating some of Sheffield's needs. I very much hope that either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have time to visit

  1477
  Sheffield and see the nature of the problems we are debating.
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I in no way intend to make any observations on the case he has put forward so lucidly and clearly to the Under-Secretary in favour of the confirmation of Castle Comprehensive School.
  I intervene briefly because I am very indignant that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) should have intervened in a debate on what would normally be considered a constituency matter which my right hon. Friend wished to bring to the notice of the Minister. The hon. Gentleman used the bulk of his time to promote what is a minority political view in the City of Sheffield and in this Chamber, but I believe that the normal channels available to an education authority, to political figures at local level and, indeed, to the Department, are sufficiently open without having to use these tactics in the House.
  I appeal to the Under Secretary. It is invidious that this whole matter has developed into a political charade. There is danger for the educational future of children involved in this comprehensive conurbation and the primary school children at St. Catherine's and other underprivileged schools and under-privileged areas. I hope that he will look objectively at the case. I remind him of the strong case he made in the recent debate on education when he said that it is the intention of the Government to honour and respect the local democracy of local authorities. I assure him that rightly or wrongly, this scheme of the Castle Comprehensive School is needed in the view of the locally-elected democratic Labour council. I hope he will think twice before interfering even though he has plenty of prodding from the minority Conservative body in Sheffield.
  There is a great deal of neglect of primary schools in my constituency. In the Gracious Speech the Government strongly asserted that they want to improve standards and facilities of primary education. This conflict in Sheffield has got out of all proportion. It is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman and the
  1478
  Government to settle it by releasing a little more money so that these primary schools, with St. Catherine's at the top of the list, can be helped in the very near future. If he takes that course he will raise education out of the political cauldron and possibly satisfy all parties which feel aggrieved.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): At the start of his speech the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was kind enough to make a courteous reference to my having been on duty late last night in a cause which had the heart of the whole House. I was very much obliged for that courteous reference and I am glad that there is such great interest in education in this House. Tomorrow night the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are to raise another important matter dealing with education. As the only Under-Secretary to the Department in this House, I shall be happy to be on duty.
  It is part of my duty to the House to reply to this debate. My task is made easier because the right hon. Gentleman also began his speech by announcing that he did not expect a decision from me tonight. It is always so very much more agreeable to be able to start by agreeing with what an hon. Member has said. I can, therefore, confirm that I am not going to make an announcement of a decision tonight. The reason, of course, is a very proper and good one. The proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is now before my right hon. Friend under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944. The proposal has been the subject of objections, and my right hon. Friend is in a quasi-judicial capacity at this precise moment. It would clearly be discourteous to Sheffield and those who express views on both sides of this controversy if I were in a casual way to announce a decision on the matter tonight.
  As was explained to us very helpfully by the right hon. Gentleman, the background to this matter has a long and complicated history. It might be helpful if I put on record that the Sheffield local education authority's plans for the reorganisation of secondary education in the city were approved by the then

  1479
  Secretary of State in November, 1968. It provided for a system of 5–8 first schools, 8–12 middle schools and 12–16 and 12–18 upper schools, the 12–16 schools being grouped with 12–18 schools which would provide sixth form facilities for the group. This was a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).
  The authority's formal proposals under Section 13 for the implementation of this scheme as from September, 1969, were approved by the then Secretary of State in July of that year. Under these proposals the existing secondary modern school in Wybourn was closed to allow the premises to be used as a middle school. Secondary pupils from Wybourn began in September, 1969, to attend other comprehensive schools outside the immediate Wybourn area, and it was the authority's original intention as the right hon. Gentleman explained, that this would be a permanent arrangement.
  As has been made clear to us, subsequently, after representations by parents living in the Wybourn area, the local education authority reconsidered this part of its scheme and accepted the parents' argument that Wybourn should have its own comprehensive school. Accordingly, in March last it submitted to the Department a proposal under Section 13 for the establishment of a new 5-form entry comprehensive school to be known as the Castle Comprehensive School, in the Wybourn area. This represented a modification of the proposals previously approved. The proposed new school would be provided in place of the extensions to another comprehensive school—Beaver Hill School—envisaged in the authority's original plans.
  When a local education authority makes a proposal to establish a new school, the Act requires that it publishes Press and poster notices of its intention and allows a period of two months within which objections may be made to my right hon. Friend. The Sheffield authority duly published notices of its proposal to establish a new comprehensive school at Wybourn, and a number of objections—I think that this has not been objections have been received.
  It is fair to mention that one of the mentioned so far—comes from the Sheffield Teachers Association. I know
  1480
  that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned teachers. I make this point not in any way to give weight one way or the other but to show that some of the objections received were not of the type of which any Secretary of State would take no cognisance.
  The Department has asked the local education authority for its comments on the points raised by the objectors. This is following the ordinary statutory procedures.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a fairly substantial objection. In the circular saying that there was local freedom to develop secondary education on whatever lines a local authority chooses, did not his Government choose not to take any notice of the strong representation by the N.U.T. on this point?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer to that question is that nothing in that circular changes the law. Indeed, last week my right hon. Friend made that point extremely clear. We should not be having this debate if the circular had altered the law. I am saying no more than that under that law which remains and which is an essential part of my right hon. Friend's policy, if a new school is to be established certain procedures have to be followed.
  I was doing no more than pointing out that certain objections have been received, but wishing to shade the matter in this way—helpfully, I hope—I would add this comment. All of us realise, in our representative capacities, that there are people who will object, perhaps wilfully, to almost anything, and we are, shall I say, used to receiving such objections in our own postbag and giving them the weight which, over the years, we have felt it appropriate to give them. Here, on the other hand, one objection has come from the Sheffield Teachers Association, which. I imagine, both the hon. Gentleman and I would regard as not a body to be ignored. I make no more point than that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam asked me a number of questions on detailed points. I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not answer them, for this reason. The position which we have now reached, as I have explained, places my right hon.

  1481
  Friend in a quasi-judicial position, and if I were to attempt to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend I might inadvertently prejudice her dispassionate consideration of the matter. My hon. Friend was kind enough to say—a little alarmingly, I thought—that my right hon. Friend would need more than the wisdom of Solomon. Happily, I am able to say that that is precisely what she possesses, for Solomon was a mere man. There will, therefore, be no difficulty in that regard.
  We have yet to receive the local authority's comments on the points raised by the objectors. My information is that they will not come to my right hon. Friend's Department until after meetings which are to take place at the beginning of September. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that it would not be proper for me, therefore, to comment on whatever internal arrangements there may be within the city council. When those comments are received, it will be for my right hon. Friend most carefully to consider the objections and the authority's comments on them, together with, if I may say so, the points so cogently made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, as he will, I know, accept, the points made, and the point of view represented by, my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.
  Since this matter has its ramifications within the whole city, although I do not wish to intervene on this occasion in the white heat of internal dissension within the city, I think it perfectly proper for any hon. Member who has the privilege of representing any part of Sheffield to express a view upon the matter.
  Mr. Mulley: I was not concerned to protest against the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hallam. Obviously, he is entitled to express them, and, no doubt, they will be taken into account by the Minister when she makes her decision. I was objecting to inaccurate information which the hon. Gentleman was putting to the House. Understandably, he is not so intimately informed, not having had almost day-to-day contact with the parents, and so on. I mention, for example, the doubt about land being available. I understand that there are two sites to choose from, and, further, that there is no question of planning diffi-
  1482
  culties, Sheffield being its own planning authority. I hope that the Minister will check the points made before taking neat what the hon. Member for Hallam says.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Those hon. Members who have not been in the House for as long as the right hon. Gentleman will greatly respect the skill with which he got in his debating point. I merely say that all these are matters which must be taken into account.
  I can give the hon. Member for Brightside the definite assurance that my right hon. Friend will look at the matter objectively when she comes to make a decision, and the political complexion of the Sheffield City Council at the time will not be a factor entering her consideration.
  I hope therefore that with the assurances I have given showing the timetable, which perfectly reasonably—I make no criticism of this—at present rests with the City of Sheffield, and showing that my right hon. Friend is therefore following the judicial procedures, I shall have discharged my duty to answer the debate very properly raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

  CAMMELL LAIRD
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: I am very grateful that I have, perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, caught your eye this evening, Mr. Speaker, to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents.
  I am also very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology for being present. The Under-Secretary of State, who I understand is to reply, may take the view that the matters which I am about to raise are matters of which he has received insufficient notice, and that therefore he cannot give me any firm assurances upon them this evening. I would not find that argument too easily acceptable, on the ground that I am raising not matters suddenly brought before the House or Ministers but pledges made to my constituents—in particular, the employees of Cammell Laird, one of the main employers in my constituency—by

  1483
  the Conservative candidate in the General Election with, I am told, the knowledge and approval of the Shadow Cabinet. These pledges were made two days before the General Election, and were made clearly with the intention of influencing the result. Although they did not have that effect in my constituency they may have had an effect in the neighbouring, rather more marginal, constituency of Bebington. It is sometimes thought that all those who work at Cammell Laird's live in my constituency, but my estimate is that no more than a third do so. Large numbers of them live in neighbouring constituencies, including the constituency of Bebington.
  It was stated that the pledges to which I shall refer were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, with its knowledge and approval. I have no knowledge of how its approval was obtained. All I know is that that claim was made and published in the local Press before the election. I can only assume that in the course of preparing the statement to which I shall refer the Conservative candidate in Birkenhead had consultation at the very least with those members of the then shadow Cabinet who appeared to be most relevant to the issues raised in his circular. One was the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), then shadow Minister of Technology, and the other was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and is now the Minister of Technology. I have no personal knowledge that either was consulted, but they seem to be the people who may have been consulted on the matter before the circular was issued.
  I am saying that it was a circular issued with the knowledge and approval of the shadow Cabinet, or at least asserted to be so. Yet I was surprised to find during Question Time yesterday that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology had no knowledge of it. I put to him a supplementary question in which I asked:
  "Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the election campaign, specific pledges were made to Cammell Laird workers and were stated to have been made on behalf of the then Shadow Cabinet? Is the hon. Gentleman aware what those pledges were, and does he intend to implement them?"
  1484
  He replied:
  "I am not aware what those pledges were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1132.]
  Later during Question Time I had another opportunity to put the point to him, and he kindly said that he would make inquiries to find out what the pledges were. This if anything inspired me with a sense of urgency to put the matter before him. I am prepared to provide both Ministers with copies of the circular if they have so far been unable to obtain one.
  I wish to refer not to all the pledges made in this document, but to certain of them. Those which I mention come mainly within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, although one is within the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology, and that is why I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being present. Item 5 of the Circular says:
  "The Cammell Laird Settlement will stand exactly in accordance with the agreement made between the Government, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, and Cammell Lairds."
  That, of course, is a reference to the agreement made by my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster-General before the election.
  It was yesterday confirmed in the House categorically that that settlement would stand and I therefore have no complaint about that assurance. I have only two questions about the assurances which I was given in that respect. One is whether it is intended that the 50 per cent. share ownership now in the hands of the Public Trustee will be maintained in public ownership in the hands of the Public Trustee, or whether the Government have any intention of selling the half share which they now own. The other question is whether it is intended to bring legislation on the matter before the House this Session.
  I go on to other pledges made in the document. The first sentence of item 7 says:
  "The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of hunter killer submarines to their original level; i.e. reverse the cuts made by the Socialists."
  There is no dubiety about that categorical statement. It is a pledge. I therefore

  1485
  put a question to the Minister of State for Defence:
  "Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to expand the building programme of Hunter/Killer submarines."
  The answer was:
  "Any consideration of this subject would form part of wider studies of future defence policy which are now in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 142.]
  The House will agree that that is far from the categorical statement made in the circular issued to employees of Cammell Laird.
  The second sentence in item 7 of the Circular said:
  "This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Lairds as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers, who already have the existing business."
  I asked the Minister a question about this, too:
  "Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence when he proposes to allocate an order for the construction of a hunter/killer submarine to Cammell Laird (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Limited."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "A contract for a hunter/killer submarine was let to Vickers (Barrow) on 20th May, 1970. There are no further orders in prospect in the near future".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 12.]
  The fact that there are no further orders in prospect for the near future does not mean that further orders will not be given to Cammell Laird. What I want is an assurance that in fact the categorical statements in the circular issued on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet will be fulfilled and that additional work in the construction of hunter/killer submarines will go to Cammell Laird.
  I turn now to item 9 of this circular which reads:
  "The Conservative Party pledges itself also to restore the naval construction programme, generally, to its previous level. This should result in orders for surface vessels in Cammell Lairds."
  I ask the House to note the difference between the words in the previous point when it said "must come" and the words here "should result". Obviously this is less categoric. Here we come into such things as tendering and competitiveness in which one would expect the Ministry of Defence to be interested. I note this and I hope that this firm will
  1486
  be given equal opportunities for tendering and that it will benefit from orders within the general naval construction programme.
  The first sentence of item 10 of this 11-point programme reads:
  "The Conservative Party believes that for reasons of national security the naval shipbuilding capacity, both nuclear and conventional, at Cammell Lairds must be preserved, and the only way to do this is to keep it working."
  Very well, once more the test is whether orders are placed with Cammell Laird. Certainly there is here an assurance that orders will be placed with Cammell Laird because it is necessary, according to this document, to keep Cammell Laird available for naval shipbuilding. The second sentence of that item reads:
  "The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary."
  I therefore put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Defence, answered at column 105 of 10th July. It read:
  "Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to use Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, for the refitting of nuclear submarines."—
  The reply was:
  "We have no plans for refitting nuclear submarines outside the Royal Dockyards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 105.]
  The Minister will appreciate that this last, point, like the others, is of crucial importance to the people working at Cammell Laird. Many of them have felt that even if the construction of hunter/killer submarines is taken away they should nevertheless have the right to refit nuclear submarines. The previous Government made it clear that the refitting of nuclear submarines would take place within the Royal Dockyards. This decision was contested during the General Election campaign and in the circular, in the name of the Shadow Cabinet. Here is a categoric statement, but in replying I have the statement that there is no change in policy.
  These are the commitments made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, or said to have been made.

  1487
  It is up to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, to deny that they were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, but the electorate of Birkenhead was told that they were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet and I am sure that they believed it. I believe that constituents in neighbouring areas believed that too. It is clear from the Answers I have been given in this House that, whatever the intentions of this Government after they have given consideration to their policy, no such clear-cut statement should have been made to the electorate of Birkenhead during the election, because Ministers are not able to come to the Box and assert in categoric terms that they will live by those commitments. In reply to Questions I have tabled I have been told either that there are no plans or that such matters are under consideration. If that is the case no such categoric statement should have been made to the electorate of Birkenhead during the General Election and I would submit that it is a scandal that it was done, whether on behalf of the shadow Cabinet or not. These commitments were made. The Government pride themselves on their honesty, and, commitments having been made in their name, it is a matter of some concern to me as the representative of Birkenhead that those commitments—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
  Mr. Dell: I should have thought that it was a matter of some importance to the Government, to myself as the representative of Birkenhead, to my constituents and to all employees of Cammell Laird that these commitments should be lived up to. They were stated to have been entered into on behalf of the shadow Cabinet. Will they be lived up to?
  10.1 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said at the beginning of his speech that I might plead that I had had insufficient
  1488
  notice of the precise points which he intended to raise. I would not hide behind that. However, this is the first time that I have been informed that any undertakings were given by anybody on this matter. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology tells me that the first time that he heard about it was when the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter at Question Time yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman was interested in getting a reply to his allegations rather than just airing them again, he would have been wiser to have waited a little longer than 24 hours before rushing into the charge.
  Yesterday my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman:
  "On the latter point"—
  that was, the point of these allegations—
  "I shall certainly make the inquiries the hon. Gentleman suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1146.]
  Without giving my hon. Friend or any other member of the Government time to make the inquiries, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House tonight, at about three hours' notice, and repeated his allegations. This is the first time that I have heard the names of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology mentioned in connection with this matter.
  I have made urgent inquiries since the right hon. Gentleman began to speak. Neither of my right hon. Friends, neither of whom was given any warning by the right hon. Gentleman that he was to be attacked, is contactable this evening. Therefore, I do not know—and I say so frankly—whether the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which I have not seen, and neither has any other member of the Government as far as I know, had the authority of either of my right hon. Friends as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman or of the shadow Cabinet as a whole.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been less than responsible in the way in which he has raised this matter. I should like to go on to deal—
  Mr. Dell: I should like to clear up one point. I contacted the private office of the Minister of Technology to inform him

  1489
  that I would be speaking on this subject tonight.
  Mr. Kirk: My information is that my right hon. Friend was not informed that an attack was to be made upon him, and neither, as far as I know, was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If such an attack was to be made, they should both have been informed.
  I come to the factual points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, a review of defence matters is now taking place within the Ministry of Defence to carry out the undertaking which the Conservative Party gave in the election to deploy our defence forces rather differently from the way proposed by the Labour Party when it was in government. Obviously, the nuclear submarine programme is affected by this, as are a very large number of other parts of the shipbuilding programme. We have not completed that review, and it is not possible for me to give any undertaking about the rate of building nuclear submarines.
  What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, is that even if we were to restore the rate of building hunter/killer submarines to that which obtained before the previous Government cut it in 1968, it would not bring any extra work to Cammell Laird. It was made plain by my predecessor in the debate on the Navy Estimates on 10th March, 1969—and I refer to c. 1113 of HANSARD of that date—that Vickers, of Barrow, were the lead firm for the building of nuclear submarines, and that Cammell Laird was informed as early as February, 1968, that there were no further plans to give it any share of this work. Indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) went so far as to say:
  "It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that Cammell Laird's were not given the maximum warning of the decision. As the work on nuclear submarines is likely to continue until about the end of 1970, the firm as been given nearly three years in which to find other work, and it has been assured that it will be given every opportunity to tender for other naval work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1113.]
  That was the position adopted by the previous Administration. It is still the position of the Ministry of Defence today.
  Vickers is our main contractor and once the building of the present
  1490
  hunter/killer submarine which is proceeding at Cammell Laird's is completed, which, I understand, is likely to be next spring, we have no plans to place any further orders for nuclear submarines with Cammell Laird. As for surface vessels, of course Cammell Laird is in a position to tender in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm in the country. We have not yet fixed precisely what the naval shipbuilding programme is likely to be. As soon as we have fixed that—we have two particular ships in mind, the type 42 destroyer and the new cruisers—it will be open to Cammell Laird to tender for them in the same way as anybody else.
  I am, however, informed by my hon. Friend that plenty of work is available in the civil shipbuilding area and that it should certainly be possible for Cammell Laird, now that it has been put on its feet again and now that my hon. Friend has given the very clear undertaking which he gave in the House yesterday in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that we do not intend in any way to disturb the settlement made by the previous Government, to have a fair share of the ordinary commercial shipbuilding programme.
  A further point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, both in Questions and in his speech tonight, is the refitting of the existing submarines. Here there are considerable problems. For one thing, I am informed that Cammell Laird is not equipped to refit nuclear submarines and that to do so would involve the building of an extra dock. Even if that were done, it was the firm policy of the previous Administration, which is being maintained by the present Administration, that refitting of nuclear submarines shall proceed in the Royal Dockyards and not in commercial firms.
  At present, only two refits are in operation—H.M.S. "Resolution", which is being refitted at Rosyth, and H.M.S. "Valiant", a hunter-killer submarine, which is being refitted at Chatham. We have no intention of taking work away from Her Majesty's Dockyards and putting it to commercial firms, particularly work of the sensitivity, in every sense of the word, of the refitting of both the Polaris and the hunter-killer submarines.

  1491
  The position, therefore, as I have outlined it on the specific points raised by the right hon. Member, leaving aside his allegations against my right hon. Friends, is that we have no plans to place any orders for submarine building with Cammell Laird, that Cammell Laird is entitled to tender in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm for surface ships for the Navy and that it has wide opportunities for commercial shipbuilding in the country as a whole. Its debts have been paid off. I understand that the refitting side now belongs to the shipbuilding repair yard, which is no longer connected with the main yard but has been hived off, and that it is in a strong position to undertake commercial operations.
  It would be wrong for me, as the Minister responsible for the Navy, not to end without paying tribute to the work which Cammell Laird has done for the Navy in the past and, we hope, will do for the Navy in the future. That cannot, however, entitle it to preferential treatment. The Government believe that now that Cammell Laird has been put on a firm economic footing again, it is up to it to compete in the market place in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hesitate to take part in what might be regarded as a Liverpool debate, but as the representative of many of those who work at Rosyth I have a certain interest in nuclear submarines. I also have a general interest, as is known to the Department, in this general subject.
  First, it was unfair of the Minister to accuse my right hon. Friend of taking advantage and giving insufficient notice. We all know that it is difficult to get parliamentary time. Therefore, if a debate collapses through the mismanagement of the party organisation of the Leader of the House and those who work for him—I should not care to pursue that subject—then it is right to take advantage to raise these subjects.
  I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had copies of the document given to me earlier today by my right hon. Friend before it was learned that he would get an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Dell: I am prepared to give hon. Gentlemen opposite copies of this document. On the other hand, this document was issued on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet. Why should I supply hon. Gentlemen opposite with a document issued on behalf of what was then their shadow Cabinet? Nevertheless, I will do so.
  Mr. Dalyell: I believe in courtesy on these occasions. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have an opportunity of going through the document to which I propose to refer.
  I take the Minister's last point first. He revealed that Cammell Laird was apparently not equipped to do this work on nuclear submarines.
  Mr. Kirk: I was referring specifically to refitting, not to building.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am on that point. I should have made it clear.
  Item 10 reads:
  "The Conservative Party believes that, for reasons of national security, the Naval shipbuilding capacity, both nuclear and conventional, at Cammell Laird, must be preserved, and the only way to do this is to keep it working. The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary."
  I hold that if the Conservative Party is to make such statements it should at least take the trouble to discover whether Cammell Laird had the capacity to do refitting. Before issuing such documents to many thousands of electors, which I imagine happened in the constituency of my right hon. Friend and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and others, it should have taken the trouble to find out whether it was technically possible. My complaint is not only that it brings the Conservative Party into disrepute, but that it also brings politicians in general into disrepute with the technical world to issue ridiculous statements which, by definition, are untrue. I think that there should be an investigation into how this statement was made, what elementary inquiries were made of Cammell Laird before it was printed, and how, indeed, it crept into election literature.

  1493
  We heard in the debate that, even if the level of nuclear submarine work was restored to what it was before my right hon. and hon. Friends came to power in 1964, there would still be no work. This is very odd in view of Item 9, which reads:
  "The Conservative Party pledges itself also to restore the Naval construction programme generally to its previous level. This should result in orders for surface vessels for Cammell Laird."
  Where are these surface vessels to come from?
  This is combined with Item 7:
  "The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of Hunter-killer submarines to their original level; i.e. reverse the cuts made by the Socialists. This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Laird as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers who already have the existing business."
  My interpretation—and I shall give way to the Minister if I turn out to be wrong—is that this is exactly the opposite to what has been said in a Ministerial reply. Is this so or not? I am bound to conclude, either that the Department is badly advising its political masters—which I very much doubt—or the issue of this document—this is the only alternative—was totally frivolous.
  As there is another quarter of an hour to go, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology will have an opportunity to reply. It may be that my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and Liverpool, Toxteth, whose constituents are directly concerned will want to have their say, and it is my view that a Scot, be he interested in this subject or not, should give way to his Lancashire colleagues.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that the issue of this document, to which a good deal of reference has been made in this debate, may have been frivolous. As a Merseyside Member I suggest that exactly the opposite is the case. It was a serious document, put out at a serious time by people in that area who purported to be responsible people. The contents of the document were meant to be taken seriously, and, indeed, were
  1494
  taken seriously, and the Minister in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has done a service to the House, to Merseyside, and to the shipbuilding industry generally in putting in one clear statement exactly what are the intentions of the Government as regards Cammell Laird and the shipbuilding programme, and particularly the naval programme.
  What the Minister said tonight is in direct opposition to almost everything that the Conservative Party has been saying on Merseyside, not just over the past six weeks, but the past three months. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), who unfortunately is rather silent tonight because of his duties to the Government, is no stranger to the campaign which has been waged on Merseyside since the beginning of January in connection with Cammell Laird. These things not only were heard locally in Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside, but the effects of them have been known, heard and recorded in many other areas. There can be few Members who were in the previous Parliament who can plead ignorance of this and say that they have no knowledge of the background to the campaign, and I think that my hon. Friend, in bringing this issue forward tonight, deserves the fullest praise, both of his constituents, and of Merseyside, rather than criticism, because he of all people, due to his ministerial background, was almost gagged and silent and yet he was subjected to criticism by uninformed people outside the House during the election on the issue of what help had been given or was to come for Cammell Laird.
  We know that since January there has been a request for money. That was supported in many strange ways. The request for £11 million, almost without strings, was supported by Merseyside Members on the Conservative benches who in previous months had opposed every way of making these funds available.
  Then there was the strange manoeuvring of Conservative candidates and party officials over on the other side of the water which spread dismay and confusion—the yard was going to waste; it was not going to operate; it had to have nuclear submarines to keep it going; it had to have naval ships to keep it going, and so on. There was a clear

  1495
  pledge from the Conservative Party, from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) all the way down to junior Members in that part of the world, that they would support Cammell Laird by giving it naval refits, submarine work and work for aircraft carriers.
  There is no shadow of doubt what the campaign was all about, and whether the documents that were put out were authentic. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were fully aware of them. I do not believe that Conservative Members in that area were unaware of what was being said in their name time and time again. It was a most shabby campaign effective as it turned out, but the result will go through Cammell Laird to other shipbuilding yards.
  It may be necessary from time to time to support a private enterprise yard with Government money, but let it be noted that this is taxpayers' money which must be properly taken care of. Cammell Laird is a private yard building, in the main, merchant ships. This is its rôle, and it can do it extremely well if it is properly managed. If we are to go into the future, we have to get out of the way how this mish-mash arrived, and how this deliberate deception was used for political purposes.
  It is a very sad episode in the saga of a great yard. I hope that we can clear it out of the way—not tonight, because a great deal more must be said. This matter affects regional development, Government investment in industry, and other things. Because of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the reply of the Minister, some light has been thrown on the matter and some honest answers have been given to questions that we from Merseyside have been asking for a long time.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I shall limit my remarks to a brief intervention. I feel sorry for the hon. Members at the Dispatch Box. To be confronted with a document like this, of which they have no knowledge, is very disconcerting. They have my deep sympathy. But what rather appals me is that after 24 hours it has not been possible for any of the Departments to find out whether this is true or false.
  1496
  I respect the honesty of the hon. Member who replied tonight. He clearly knows what the programme is, and it is something completely different from what is contained in the document. Merseyside has had a difficult time for many years. Despite the Labour Government's efforts to do things for Merseyside there has been a great deal of unemployment, not least in the shipbuilding industry, culminating in the unfortunate events which almost brought the closure of the yard. For 20,000 people whose employment is in this yard this was a despicable trick for anybody to play. I level no charge at the Tory Party head office. I would not like to think that any head office had anything to do with a document like this. But somebody is responsible, and I hope that the hon. Members opposite will find out who it is.
  My hon. Friend has said that documents like this bring politicians into disrepute. It does not need any words from me to emphasise that. One of the main criticisms expressed during the past election campaign was that it seemed that a Dutch auction was going on as to who could offer the most. It is a terrible thing when politics are brought to this level. I do not say that hon. Members opposite have had anything to do with these pledges, but for 20,000 people whose jobs depend on naval construction, and who have been through very difficult times, to be promised, after the election, things that are well outside the scope of any Government to carry out is more than despicable. I cannot find words to express my feelings.
  I know from personal experience that this document had a tremendous effect on Merseyside. One of my greatest regrets is that a friend in the neighbouring constituency of Bebington is not here today, and I am certain that that is because of this document. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member who has answered the questions raised. If Conservative head office did not know about this document it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to answer my hon. Friend's point, but I hope that for the sake not only of their party but of politicians in general some statement will be made about the document put out on Merseyside, which undoubtedly had a tremendous influence on the General Election.
  10.24 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I rise briefly not only because several remarks have been addressed to me but also because it is right for me to comment on the last three speeches made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). The first time I heard of this so-called pledge was when the right hon. Gentleman raised it at Question Time yesterday. The full resources of the Library of the House, the Ministry of which I have the honour to be Parliamentary Secretary and the research department of the Conservative Party were put into action to trace the pledge to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. No Press cuttings could be found. I had wrongly assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Press cuttings. The right hon. Gentleman
  1498
  did not inform us of the nature of this document.
  The first time that it came into the hands of the Government was at 10.10 p.m. tonight, when it was passed across the Table by the hon. Member for Toxteth. So I hope that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I make no comment when it is obviously impossible to make comment on a document of this sort without having studied it and found out its origins. It is only fair to say to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have raised this matter that it will be investigated and that, in due course, an answer will be given about how it arose and what will be done about it. I do not believe that any of the hon. Gentlemen will expect me to comment at this stage and at such short notice, but I have undertaken that the whole matter will be looked into.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Local Government, South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire
  Local Government, South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Empty Property (Rating)
  Empty Property (Rating)
  Portsmouth (Minister's Visit)
  Portsmouth (Minister's Visit)
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Housing Demolition Areas
  Housing Demolition Areas
  Beaches (Removal of Sand)
  Beaches (Removal of Sand)
  Office Development Control
  Office Development Control
  Local Government Commissioner
  Local Government Commissioner
  Housing Advisory Centres
  Housing Advisory Centres
  Housing Completions
  Housing Completions
  River Tees (Pollution)
  River Tees (Pollution)
  Flats, Liverpool
  Flats, Liverpool
  Rating (Property Improvements)
  Rating (Property Improvements)
  Housing Estates (Chemist Services)
  Housing Estates (Chemist Services)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Greater London Development Plan (Panel)
  Greater London Development Plan (Panel)
  Local Authority House-building Programmes
  Local Authority House-building Programmes
  Housing, London
  Housing, London
  Rents and Housing Subsidies
  Rents and Housing Subsidies
  Francis Committee's Report
  Francis Committee's Report
  Swindon (Expansion)
  Swindon (Expansion)
  Birmingham Overspill Housing, Daventry
  Birmingham Overspill Housing, Daventry
  Lambeth (Minister's Visit)
  Lambeth (Minister's Visit)
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Domestic Rates, Hull
  Domestic Rates, Hull
  Transport Yards, Greenwich
  Transport Yards, Greenwich
  Private Housebuilding (Standards)
  Private Housebuilding (Standards)
  New Housing Estates (Pavements and Roads)
  New Housing Estates (Pavements and Roads)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Rents)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Rents)
  Pollution of Rivers and Waterways
  Pollution of Rivers and Waterways
  Portsmouth (Rents)
  Portsmouth (Rents)
  Central Lancashire New Town Corporation
  Central Lancashire New Town Corporation
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Medway Towns Sports Project (Swimming Pool)
  Medway Towns Sports Project (Swimming Pool)
  Local Authorities (Aldermen)
  Local Authorities (Aldermen)
  Housing Subsidies (Salford)
  Housing Subsidies (Salford)
  Tower Blocks (Strengthening)
  Tower Blocks (Strengthening)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Bricks
  Bricks
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Haulage of Cattle
  Haulage of Cattle
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  Dog Licences (Charge)
  Dog Licences (Charge)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Beer Prices
  Beer Prices
  European Economic Community (Sugar Prices)
  European Economic Community (Sugar Prices)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Africa (Investments)
  Africa (Investments)
  Motor Industry (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  Motor Industry (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  Gross Domestic Capital Formation
  Gross Domestic Capital Formation
  Local Authority Securities (Capital Gains Tax)
  Local Authority Securities (Capital Gains Tax)
  Royal Mint Project, Llantrisant
  Royal Mint Project, Llantrisant
  Negative Income Tax
  Negative Income Tax
  Inland Revenue Department (Staff)
  Inland Revenue Department (Staff)
  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue
  Taxation and Consumer Credit Facilities
  Taxation and Consumer Credit Facilities
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970
  Social Services Expenditure
  Social Services Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Local Authority Elections
  Local Authority Elections
  Otter Hunting
  Otter Hunting
  Fire Service (Departmental Committee)
  Fire Service (Departmental Committee)
  Community Development Project
  Community Development Project
  Magistrates' Courts (Witness Summonses)
  Magistrates' Courts (Witness Summonses)
TRANSPORT
  Old-age Pensioners (Travel Concessions)
  Old-age Pensioners (Travel Concessions)
  Midland Red Bus Company (Fares)
  Midland Red Bus Company (Fares)
  Welsh Ports (Roll-on/Roll-off Facilities)
  Welsh Ports (Roll-on/Roll-off Facilities)
  Drivers' Hours
  Drivers' Hours
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Virus Research Institute, Pirbright (Consignments)
  Virus Research Institute, Pirbright (Consignments)
  Comprehensive Education, Wales
  Comprehensive Education, Wales
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
TECHNOLOGY
  Flintshire
  Flintshire
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Tariffs
  Electricity Tariffs
  Kinghorn (Administration)
  Kinghorn (Administration)
  Library Service
  Library Service
  National Health Service Consultants
  National Health Service Consultants
  Housing Subsidies and Rents, Glasgow
  Housing Subsidies and Rents, Glasgow
  Rate Support Grants (Glasgow)
  Rate Support Grants (Glasgow)
WALES
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Hill Cattle and Hill Cow Subsidy (Carmarthenshire)
  Hill Cattle and Hill Cow Subsidy (Carmarthenshire)
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Bypass Express Route, Colwyn Bay
  Bypass Express Route, Colwyn Bay
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
DEFENCE
  Expenditure East of Suez
  Expenditure East of Suez
  Armed Forces (Widows' Pensions)
  Armed Forces (Widows' Pensions)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (WALES)
  PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (WALES)
  SCOTLAND (VISIT)
  SCOTLAND (VISIT)
  MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  DEPARTMENTS (CORRESPONDENCE)
  DEPARTMENTS (CORRESPONDENCE)
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, SCOTLAND (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, SCOTLAND (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  Statutory Boards (Part-time Chairmen and Members)
  Statutory Boards (Part-time Chairmen and Members)
  Ministerial Residences
  Ministerial Residences
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Bakeries (Night Work by Women)
  Bakeries (Night Work by Women)
  Form ED90
  Form ED90
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Ipswich and Suffolk Area (Remploy Establishment)
  Ipswich and Suffolk Area (Remploy Establishment)
  Industry (Pay Levels)
  Industry (Pay Levels)
  Metal Containers (Supply)
  Metal Containers (Supply)
  Refusal to Supply (Report)
  Refusal to Supply (Report)
  Wages
  Wages
  STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISION)
  STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISION)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Ceiriog Valley (Television Reception)
  Ceiriog Valley (Television Reception)
  Conway Valley (Television Reception)
  Conway Valley (Television Reception)
  Postal Codes
  Postal Codes
  Wrexham (B.B.C. Wales Television Service)
  Wrexham (B.B.C. Wales Television Service)
  Humberside Radio Council
  Humberside Radio Council
  Post Office (Investment Finance)
  Post Office (Investment Finance)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Doctors (Remuneration)
  Doctors (Remuneration)
  Hospital Doctors (Study-Leave Entitlement)
  Hospital Doctors (Study-Leave Entitlement)
  Doctors, Nurses and Hospital Porters (Salaries)
  Doctors, Nurses and Hospital Porters (Salaries)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Retirement Pensioners (Telephones)
  Retirement Pensioners (Telephones)
  Rent Allowances
  Rent Allowances
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Hospitals, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Waiting Lists)
  National Health Service Commissioner
  National Health Service Commissioner
BOARD OF TRADE
  Import Preference (Developing Countries)
  Import Preference (Developing Countries)
  Hallmarking
  Hallmarking
  Assay Office, Edinburgh
  Assay Office, Edinburgh
  Patents (Banks Committee's Report)
  Patents (Banks Committee's Report)
  Exports
  Exports

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD HOY
The Right Honourable James Hutchison Hoy, having been created Baron Hoy, of Leith in the County of the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shackleton and the Lord Hughes.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

WAR PENSIONS AND COST OF LIVING
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have it in mind to adjust war pensions and allowances upwards this year, to take into account the rising cost of living and standard of living.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): The Answer I must give, my Lords, is, No. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the need to maintain the purchasing power of war pensions and allowances but, for this year, it is not in mind to increase the present rates, which are still worth significantly more than the previous rates when they were improved last November.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that successive Governments over many decades have undertaken to keep these pensions and allowances in line with the cost of living and standards of living, and that Mr. Wilson himself, when he was Prime Minister, said within this year
418
that he contemplated doing something about this in the autumn?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I most willingly say to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, that the spirit of what he says is in the mind of the Government. When a similar Question was asked in May, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to the fact that special cases would be watched. After only three weeks in office I do not think I can improve very much on that. I would just add that we are aware that in practice the rates of war pensions have been reviewed every two years, and I know it is the view of the Government that war pensions are a debt of honour. The most that can reasonably be promised now is that in the light of the Conservative Manifesto the war pensions preference would we hope be maintained.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to honour the undertaking, which was not just an Election promise—it was, in fact, a Government Statement based on many months' consideration—that there would be a system of complete inflation-proofing of war and public service pensions? I do not know whether the noble Lord has had time to get briefed on that matter. That was decided some weeks ago.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think this formed part of the Pensions Bill which fell, and I suppose in a way it is another Question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to harass the noble Lord. He has not had long to learn about this matter. It was in no way part of the Pensions Bill; it did not arise in that connection. It was a definite undertaking. I suspect that the noble Earl the Leader of the House may have a little information about it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I feel that I should be rather guarded at this stage. This matter is under study, and under urgent study. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, if I venture to put down a Question, possibly for Written Answer, on the

419
day before we rise for the Recess, will the noble Lord on the Front Bench have had more time to look at it?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement made, to maintain war pensioners' preferences, will give very great satisfaction to Ex-Servicemen's organisations?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I put it to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that when members of the Government are about to give a negative Answer there is no need to say, "The Answer I must give is 'No'?"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, would care to put down a Question for Written Answer, I should hope that the Answer would be given before the Recess.

CHINA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.48 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 whether they will use their good offices to persuade the United Nations to admit China to that organisation.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the United Nations can only seat the representatives of the People's Republic of China in the place allotted to China as a result of a decision by the Member nations themselves. We have consistently voted in the United Nations for the seating of the representatives of the People's Republic of China, and we shall continue to vote in this sense. We believe that the representation of the Chinese Government and Chinese people is a prerequisite to the solution of major world problems.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, since these people are the most numerous in the world, is it not a little
420
absurd to have a committee talking peace in New York on which they are not represented?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, and that is why we shall continue to press for the admission of the People's Republic.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the very grave situation in South-East Asia, and the need for some consultation with the Chinese Government on that issue, will Her Majesty's Government take the initiative in the United Nations, particularly by discussions with Washington, with a view to bringing China into the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government appreciate his sincerity in this matter, and that we agree with it. The difficulty, of course, as the noble Lord knows, is that a great many of the Member States of the United Nations have very fixed and rigid ideas about this, but I think I can assure the noble Lord that his remarks will not go unheeded.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider, when the Foreign Secretary accepts an invitation to go to Washington, pressing this upon the United States Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly pass on that point to my right honourable friend.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not a fact that the present Government in Peking would not agree to enter the United Nations, even if invited, unless Formosa had been previously reunited with China?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that precisely is one of the problems. There cannot be two Chinas in the United Nations at the same time.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it not the case that, while the substantive vote on the seating of the Peking Government is subject to a two-thirds majority, yet there is a preliminary procedural question as to whether that substantive question should be subject to a two-thirds majority or, on the other hand, to a plain majority, and that in the vote on the preliminary

421
question the United Kingdom has inclined to the view that it should be subject to a two-thirds majority, and that this therefore makes it less likely that Peking shall be seated?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not answer that question directly, because I am not completely aware of the situation. I believe he is right but I should like to look into it.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, is it not the case that the preliminary vote to which the noble Lord has just referred is a vote on whether the question is an important one or not, and that Her Majesty's Government have always voted that it is an important question? It is difficult to see how else they could vote.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. That is the case.

RAILWAYS: WAVERLEY LINE CLOSURE
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: 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 the decision that was taken by the previous Government to close the Avenge line between Carlisle and Edinburgh is irrevocable.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the decision taken by the previous Government to consent to the closure of the Wavelet line is indeed irrevocable. My right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport has no power to revoke a statutory closure consent given by one of his predecessors.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, which finally dispels the very real uncertainty existing in the minds of many of the local population, may I ask whether he can tell your Lordships how much of the £2 million that was promised by the previous Government in 1968 for improving the Borden roads over a period of three to four years has in fact been spent? Also, what action
422
can be taken to speed up the work, which proceeds at a snail's pace? And have Her Majesty's Government any plans to improve the bus services in the landward areas?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to what has taken place already, of the £2 million which was promised over a period of four years over £843,000 worth of work has been, or is about to be, completed in this area. There is a plan in (two phases involving a link road between Galoshes and St. Boswells and although there have been one or two objections to the sale of land it is hoped that the first phase, Galoshes to Melrose, will start in three or four months' time. Phase 2, which will, like phase 1, cost £750,000. will follow, and on top of that in the next two years expenditure is planned in the area which will amount to a further £356,000. With regard to the third part of the noble Lord's question, that is a point which my right honourable friend will not accept as being true. Our information is that the bus services have been increased and are adequate.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government will give assistance and encouragement to private enterprise railway companies endeavoring to reopen the Wavelet line to the South?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that is rather another question but the only private; railway company which has come forward, as the noble Lord knows, withdrew owing to lack of finance.

BUSINESS
2.56 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain to your Lordships now it is intended that the debate shall be conducted this afternoon. Noble Lords will have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Ca radon, will be moving his Amendment at the end of the debate. The reason is a simple one: that had it been moved at the beginning technically we should have found ourselves bound in the debate to the rather more narrow terms of the Amendment. As it is, I hope noble Lords will feel free to speak either or.

423
defence and foreign affairs or to the Amendment, or indeed to both, and I hope this arrangement will commend itself to your Lordships. May I just mention that there are 28 speakers due to speak to-day and I am sure most noble Lords would wish that the Division should take place at a not unduly late hour and that therefore, as always, there is a need for brevity.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thought the noble Earl was going to answer a Question about the giant hog-weed. The arrangements which he suggests are, I am sure, entirely acceptable to the Opposition. Arrangements are never exactly right to suit everyone, but so long as noble Lords will restrain themselves from exercising the right to speak on the Amendment I am sure that this is the most sensible way to proceed, and they will be free to speak to it in the general debate. I should like to support the noble Earl's plea for brevity.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will only mention that I have been a keen, but I am now only a timorous, cultivator of the giant hog weed.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the four Amendments proposed to this Bill all deal with the same point, so perhaps I may be allowed to speak to them together, which will be particularly convenient in view of the long list of speakers! in the main debate.
It was assumed in the last Parliament that this Private Bill would receive the
424
Royal Assent last Session before a Public Bill, the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Bill did—and it would have done so but for the Dissolution of Parliament. On this assumption certain clauses and definitions were inserted in the Bill, but in fact the Public Bill, the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Bill, received the Royal Assent first, before the end of the last Session. Therefore these clauses and the definition are meaningless or unnecessary. The effect of these Amendments is simply to delete them, and as all four Amendments deal with the same point I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 16 to 19.
Page 22, line 15, leave out Clause 27.
Page 23, line 9, leave out Clause 28.
Page 23, line 34, leave out Clause 29.
—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Clwyd be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.59 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday, July 2, by Lord O'Neill of the Maine—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before I address myself to the substance of this debate I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his appointment and to say how pleased we are that one of the great Departments of State is to be in the hands of a Member of your Lordships' House. These may well be the last kind words I shall address to the noble Lord in this debate, or indeed in any other—we shall have to wait and see.
To-day we are concerned with defence and foreign affairs. The gracious Speech does not in fact tell us very much about how the Government intend to deal with these important matters, and the debate on the subject in another place did little to enlighten us. So apart from what we read in the newspapers we know very little about the part which Britain is to play in world affairs in the coming months. This is not a matter for great astonishment; it does not surprise me that the new Government may be finding some of the problems of international security less simple than they seemed in Opposition. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to-day to some of the more important issues which I hope will be answered by the noble Lord, the Defence Secretary, at the end of the debate. But first let me comment briefly on some matters which, although they are obviously important, I shall not, for various reasons, examine in detail to-day.
There is first the question of the Common Market. We are told here that Her Majesty's Government,
"will seek to reach agreement on terms fair to all concerned. …"
426
This is a reasonably safe and modest statement of aims, and to-day I want to make just two brief comments on it. The first is that we on this side will want to look very closely at those terms as soon as they emerge. Certainly the Government negotiators are beginning their task with the overwhelming advantage of the strongest economic situation which this country has enjoyed, possibly since the end of the last war. They inherited from us a very strong negotiating position, which I hope they will not fritter away in the pursuit of any doctrinaire policies. This leads me to my second comment, which is perhaps something that noble Lords opposite will find rather less amusing; namely, that the position might indeed have been seriously shaken by the behaviour of some members of Her Majesty's Government in the General Election. It could hardly have strengthened our hand, I think, in Brussels, to have given the totally false impression, for whatever reason, that this country was facing a grave economic crisis. However, I think it must now be clear to everyone that there was no basis whatsoever for this particular piece of scaremongering, and we must hope that those with whom the Government will be negotiating were not deceived by it.
As my noble friend Lord Caradon will be speaking later to-day I shall not take up much time with the special problems of the United Nations, upon which he is so uniquely qualified to speak, but I feel I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing my own deep admiration for the wisdom, dedication and patience which he brought to his task in New York, not only in the Security Council and in the General Assembly but in the endless, detailed and often frustrating round of unofficial contacts in the corridors and the committee rooms. I know from my own personal experience in New York that my noble friend has won for this country a reputation second to none in the United Nations, and although of course it is for the Prime Minister to decide how to organise his Government and their representation overseas, I very much hope that this invaluable asset will not be allowed to wither away by any downgrading of our presence in New York. There may be faults in the United Nations; indeed noble Lords opposite

427
are seldom slow to point these out. Of course there are defects of organisation, there are defects of procedure and there are defects of achievement in the United Nations, but I think there are few people in this House who would not agree that among international organisations it remains the one hope that we have of achieving a sane and a peaceful world.
The canvas of defence and foreign affairs is a vast one, and I want to concentrate to-day on one important aspect of it; namely, in general terms, how British foreign policy is to be translated into and served by British military policies—and in "military policies" I include not only the narrow definition of the strategy and deployment of our own armed forces but also our policies for arms control and disarmament, our attitude to the stage reached on international trade in arms and, not least, our doctrines and thinking about nuclear weapons.
Much has been made of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government to put into reverse what is now commonly known as the East of Suez policy. I believe that this is one of the areas in which the Government are already discovering that things are not always quite so easy as they seem. All that we have had so far from the Government have been some rather non-committal statements about consulting our Commonwealth partners and the leaders in the Persian Gulf about how our common interests might best be served. I must say that this seems eminently sensible, a good deal more sensible indeed than some of the statements made about this problem before the Election. No one on this side, I can assure your Lordships' House, will complain if the Government's process of education in these matters leads them to have second thoughts. Indeed, in the course of their discussions with the Trucial States in the Gulf and with the Governments outside, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, it must already be clear to the Government that our continued military presence in that area is not welcome. Already three important and authoritative Governments in the area have made it publicly clear that they would not welcome a continuing British military presence in the area. They argue, and others argue—and I ask noble Lords
428
opposite to take this argument seriously—that if British troops are not withdrawn from the Gulf, external pressures as well as internal political pressures may quite easily turn the whole of the area into a shambles of subversion, anti-imperialist propaganda and, eventually, guerrilla warfare.
If this happens in the Gulf, then the choice will be for the Government either to withdraw in the worst possible political and military situation, or to reinforce heavily the comparatively small force which presumably under their policy would be kept in the Gulf. This, of course, is the classic and dangerous fallacy of the small military presence overseas. It does not promote stability; it provokes hostility and violence. And when that violence comes the commitment is open-ended, it is ever increasing, it sucks in more troops, it raises the level of conflict and it wastes much of this country's blood and treasure.
With some differences of emphasis, the same arguments can be said to apply in South-East Asia. Once again, we do not really know what the Government have in mind. The Foreign Secretary has spoken of a modest military presence with forces contributed by Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. To date, that is as far as we have got. No one seems quite clear what this modest military force is supposed to do. If there were to be massive aggression by some external Power in the Far East, a force like that would be completely useless. Indeed, we should in that case be in a state of global crisis, if not of open war, such as would make this modest military presence totally irrelevant.
As noble Lords opposite well know, this is not the most likely form of aggression in South-East Asia. The most likely form of conflict is guerrilla warfare, and I must say again of South-East Asia what I said of the Gulf. If the hard lessons of Kenya, of Palestine, of Borneo and of Malaysia mean anything at all to the Government, they must realise two simple facts of military life: one, that the presence of foreign troops—which is what ours would be—is much more likely to provoke guerrilla warfare than to deter it; and, secondly, that once those troops are involved in such a war it

429
always turns out to be expensive, uncontrollable and indecisive. The Government must surely know, if they pay any heed at all to the lessons of the past, that in returning nostalgically to this theme of British troops East of Suez they are not only deceiving themselves but deceiving their allies as well.
The whole of this posture contains no kind of credibility. If this modest military presence, as they keep calling it, is ever faced with a real military threat there are only two courses which would then be open to the Government. One is to withdraw hastily and humiliatingly, hoping that our friends will understand why we have had to do it. I assume—here I make the charitable assumption—that it is not the intention of the Government to do that, although it is a course that may eventually be forced upon them. The alternative—and I imagine this must be what is in the mind of the Government, because there is only one alternative—is to reinforce on a massive scale; and noble Lords opposite will remember that even 40,000 men were not enough to deal with the confrontation that we faced in Malaysia. So if this is the intention of the Government—to reinforce when trouble strikes, not to withdraw—then Parliament and the country will want the answer to two simple questions; where is the money coming from, and where are the men coming from? This kind of commitment, the kind of commitment that we have heard talked about rather vaguely in recent months, cannot be undertaken without a very considerable financial cost both in budgetary terms and in terms of foreign exchange, and I think we must be clear about this.
Then again it really is time that the Government, although they have not been in office for very long, began to spell out the answer to this question of manpower. A s they reject, with a great show of indignation, any suggestion that they might need, in the terms of this policy, to return to some form of compulsory military service, will they please tell us where they are going to get the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen to carry out these grand ideas East of Suez? They are grand ideas; this is not a question of a modest military presence, and no one in your Lordships' House should be deceived into believing that it is. If this is indeed to be anything more than a hollow pretence
430
and some kind of nostalgic status symbol, then it is a very considerable military commitment, and we shall want to know precisely of what it consists and how it is going to be met. Certainly we on these Benches are no more likely than are the potential enemies of this country to be deceived once again by this stage-army device of under-strength military units, struggling to meet massive commitments at a heavy cost to the country, and not least to the morale of our own Armed Forces.
But, if the Gulf and South-East Asia are not enough to be going on with, let us look at another area of military delusion—or perhaps in this case we should say "naval delusion"—into which the Government show signs of stumbling. We are being told that the Soviet Union has 350 submarines; that these submarines might threaten the sea routes of the South Atlantic; and that if they do the Royal Navy must be there to put things right, and for the Royal Navy to put things right there must be a naval base at our disposal in South Africa. This really is the most extraordinary series of propositions for any military man to contemplate. Indeed, to any serious strategist they would be funny if they were not so terribly dangerous.
Suppose the Russians do have 350 submarines—and perhaps I might recall that some twenty years ago, or 19 to be precise, Mr. Macmillan was trying to frighten us with the same 350 submarines. He said, in fact, between 300 and 400, and he said it in February, 1951. At that time a very notable old salt, on hearing that not only were there 300 to 400 Soviet submarines but that in two years' time there might be a thousand, I believe commented loudly enough for the words to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT: "With snow on their boots". My Lords, we have not the 1,000 submarines to contend with: we still have the 350 that Mr. Macmillan was waving about in 1951. But does anybody really seriously believe that there is any kind of situation in which these submarines would be able to interfere with our shipping in the South Atlantic except in circumstances of such a grave crisis, if not a war, that the whole of the Western Alliance would be involved? Does anybody seriously believe that there are any

431
other circumstances in which this could happen? The only threat to our sea routes in the South Atlantic is the threat of war—and the next war is not going to be a war of naval engagements in the South Atlantic. The nuclear weapon has changed all that, and those who talk, as the Foreign Secretary talked last week, of "showing the flag in the traditional way of a great naval Power" are really indulging in the very worst of excesses of pre-nuclear fantasy.
All this in straightforward terms of strategic incomprehension would be serious enough, but perhaps the most alarming aspect of this rather bizarre strategic doctrine, which seems to come from another century, is that it is being used as one of the reasons for a proposal which, if it is eventually put into effect, as now seems likely, will in my view permanently and gravely damage the real interests of this country. I am referring, of course, to the proposal to resume the sale of arms to South Africa. Again it is not quite clear what the Government intend to do about this, but we have some indications. On June 23, for example, almost every newspaper in the country told us that the Government were about to sell arms again to South Africa. I wonder why they all chose to say the same thing on the same day.
Asked about this in another place, the Foreign Secretary said that he was not responsible for what the Press said on the subject. Really, my Lords, the Government will have to do a little better than that. I suppose it is just possible that all the editors in Fleet Street decided on June 23 to publish virtually identical reports on their front pages without any prompting from Her Majesty's Government at all. It is possible. Or perhaps there was a Press briefing at the Foreign Office, but all the reporters who went there got it wrong and got it identically wrong. That is possible, too. What is much more likely, and what I suggest really happened, is that the Foreign Secretary briefed the Press on this subject on June 22, and on the morning of the 23rd the reporters all got it right, and that it is the intention of the Government to resume the sale of arms to South Africa. It is just possible, of course, that, having heard the reaction to this, not only in this country but abroad, the Government
432
have taken wiser counsel; but I very much doubt it.
In another place last week the Foreign Secretary spoke of "communication" with our Commonwealth partners, and he seemed to be using this word quite deliberately. It is a word which sounds to me rather like telling our Commonwealth partners about a decision that has been made than consulting them before making it. If this decision has been made, if this is what the Government really intend to do, it might be worth taking a few minutes to look at the proposal in all its aspects; its military, economic, and political aspects.
First, let us have a look at the military arguments for this proposed step. I have already said that the Simonstown base, although useful, is not essential to our interests. There is no other NATO country which takes seriously this submarine threat conjured up by the Government—and if this is anyone's problem it is NATO'S; it cannot be the national problem of this country. So to us, and indeed to NATO, the Simonstown base may be useful. It may even, to put it at its highest, be important, but it is not essential. But even if it were important, let us be clear about one thing, because I think that a great number of people, both in this House and outside it, are not clear about this: there is no obligation whatsoever under the Simonstown Agreement for us to sell arms to South Africa; no obligation of any kind.
Under the Exchange of Letters which constitute the Simonstown Agreement we were to supply South Africa with a number of naval vessels. I will not go into the details of it now, for the very simple reason that the order was completed and the vessels were all delivered by the end of 1963. We have no further obligation whatsoever under the Simonstown Agreement. Even South Africa realises this, or else why would she have reaffirmed the Simonstown Agreement after the Labour Government had announced and begun its arms embargo? So, looking at the military arguments alone, the case for this proposed step falls to the ground. The Simonstown base is not essential to our interests; and even if it were, we do not need to sell arms to South Africa to retain its use.

433
What about the economic arguments? Here we are being told, by those who apparently approve of this step, that by refusing to supply arms we are putting at risk our whole trading association with South Africa. This is a proposition that seems to be very seriously put, and very seriously believed, by some people. It is a very strange proposition, because, since the arms embargo was imposed by the Labour Government after the United Nations resolution, our other trade with South Africa has shown no signs whatsoever of diminishing; indeed, quite the reverse. So on its own it is a curious proposition.
Or is it perhaps being suggested that the Government of South Africa might penalise a Conservative Government in this country, in a way in which it was not prepared to penalise a Labour Government?—a very curious idea, if that is what is in people's minds. I think it very unlikely, in fact, that the Government of South Africa will do any such thing, because while our exports to South Africa last year were worth £291 million, our imports from South Africa were worth slightly more; they were worth £302 million. And even if the South African Government really sought to end what is to them a quite profitable arrangement, let us remember that it is not only with the Republic of South Africa that we trade, and that our trade with the other African countries South of the Sahara, the black African countries, is worth as much if not more to-day than our trade with South Africa, and it is growing at a faster rate. And let us remember that it is this trade that will be at risk if we do sell arms to South Africa. So much, then, for the great economic argument on trade with South Africa. It seems to have, to be fair about it, a very close balance of advantage, and many people would say—and I certainly say—that the advantage lies in favour of leaving the present arms policy on South Africa unchanged. This leaves us—
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord claims that there was no diminution in our trade with South Africa as a result of the policy of the Labour Government on arms, can he say why it was impossible for a leading representative of a British company, only a
434
year and a half ago—and I can give details—to obtain orders for railway equipment from the South African Government, who claimed that they refused to deal with this particular company because of our policy over arms?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. I should be very interested to have details of that particular suggestion.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I should like to interject to say that many cases of the kind put forward by the noble Earl were investigated by the last Government, and in no instance was there any evidence that the South African Government had behaved in this way. Indeed, they have themselves consistently denied it.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I am quite prepared to give full names and cases.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we shall be delighted to hear all about that, I am sure. As I said this leaves us with the political implications to look at. I cannot believe that anybody is any longer in any doubt that the military and economic case really does not stand up to any kind of examination at all. Surely it is in the political field that the real damage is likely to be done. If the Government now, for no kind of military or economic advantage to ourselves that I can discern, choose to flout and ignore a clear United Nations resolution on this subject, what will happen? The United States and Canada—our North American allies—who sponsored the United Nations resolution on the subject, are unlikely to be very pleased about it. Indeed, it seems obvious now that the American Secretary of State made his position clear beyond any shadow of doubt last weekend. The countries of East, West and Central Africa will be outraged, as well they might be. Communist influence on the African Continent will be given new and fertile fields in which to work; and I cannot believe that that is something that noble Lords opposite want to see happen. And in the United Nations the patient and careful work of years will be damaged beyond repair.
But even if noble Lords opposite do not accept that the political, the economic and the military arguments all come down

435
against any change in this policy, is it any use, I wonder, appealing to them on the moral issue?—because if we do this Britain will have shown the world beyond doubt exactly where she stands in the most important issue that will face the whole world in this century—the great confrontation that is developing between the rich and the poor, between the white and the coloured, between the oppressors and the oppressed. And, please, my Lords, let us not waste any time, as I suspect some people may be inclined to do, on that old nonsense about "arms that can be used for repression and arms that cannot". In the kind of conflagration that threatens in South Africa, this kind of distinction has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, and if noble Lords opposite—
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to have to ask the noble Lord to give way, but his last statement really cannot go by without a short question—and we were both soldiers together. The noble Lord said that the base in South Africa was important, but is he saying that, however important it is, we must deny the very means of guarding it; or, are we to send more forces there to guard it ourselves?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will let me develop my argument a little further, I am sure he will see what I mean. In fact, I did not myself say that the base was important; I said that it was useful. I said that some people might argue that it was important, but that no one could say that it was essential. If noble Lords opposite do not want to believe me about this business of arms that can be used for repression and arms that cannot, I have made a fairly deep study of these problems over a number of years and perhaps they will accept it from a defence expert of greater distinction, who has said:
"The Government cannot guarantee that no weapon could ever in any circumstances be used for this purpose"—
"this purpose" being enforcing apartheid. He went on—
"Even naval weapons could at a pinch be used to bombard a land target."
It was no crusading Socialist who said this. I have quoted from a report of a
436
statement made to the British Council of Churches in 1963 by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Perhaps when he comes to speak he will tell us whether he still holds the same view.
I had hoped to say something about disarmament and arms control, but this must wait for another time. I shall confine myself to saying that, as I understand the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, is to be responsible for matters of disarmament in the Foreign Office, he will be able to spend as much time as he possibly can in Geneva and New York. There are a number of British initiatives in this field—and I am sure that he has already found this out—which are going to need vigorous, careful, constant political handling, and I hope that he will not allow them to fade away while he is preoccupied with his many other tasks in the Foreign Office.
I had wanted, too, to say a little about nuclear weapons and their dangers and limitations, but a detailed look at this will also have to wait until another time. I must, however, make one point; that is, that even if the newspaper reports on South Africa were the result of an official briefing, as seems obvious, I very much hope that the same is not true of the report written on nuclear doctrine and strategy in The Times of July 6. I must say that it is sad to see this great newspaper deserting the position of reason and sanity which it has maintained over the years on the question of nuclear strategy.
It is not for me to speculate on the identity of the writer of that article, but I can only surmise that he must have been asleep over the last ten years, or perhaps preoccupied with other matters, because otherwise no one in 1970 could seriously write a sentence like:
"A small fleet of nuclear submarines armed with Polaris missiles … gives this country an ultimate capacity to defend itself such as it can seldom have had in its history."
I leave that sentence to glow in the minds of noble Lords opposite. I mention it not in any way to attack The Times, but simply because the article bears a disturbing resemblance in many respects to a Conservative pamphlet which was published just before the Election, Towards Nuclear Entente, written partly by a distinguished Conservative who is now a member of Her Majesty's Government.

437
I hope sincerely that Her Majesty's Government are not going to be seduced by the idea of nuclear weapons as weapons of defence. They are no such thing, and no intelligent person in the 1970s can conceivably believe that they are. I also hope that we are not going to begin committing ourselves to new generations of these weapons in some fantastic and abortive attempt to match the super-Power race in nuclear weapons. I hope, 100, that we are not going to start talking recklessly about Anglo-French nuclear co-operation and European nuclear deterrents, without realising, and realising clearly, that the whole of this is an area which bristles with the most appalling difficulties and dangers—not only political difficulties, not only economic burdens of an enormous kind but very real military dangers, too.
My Lords, I have not touched on the immediate issues of foreign policy and defence. I have not mentioned the Middle East, Rhodesia, Vietnam, NATO, European security—all the immediate problems of foreign policy and defence to which I am sure noble Lords will be making reference this afternoon. I make no apology for not dealing in detail with those problems. I have chosen instead to concentrate on the major issue; the one single issue which in my view will be a test of the Government's whole approach to international security—and it is an approach which will inevitably condition their attitude to all the other problems across the field of defence and foreign affairs. The East of Suez policy and the South Africa policy (the Southern Africa policy to give it a more accurate name) will together demonstrate whether the Government have recognised the real nature of the problems with which their world, our world, is likely to be faced as this century enters its last quarter. They are not, my Lords, the traditional confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West, between Communism and capitalism which so seems to hagride the minds of noble Lords opposite. They are not to be expressed nor will they be solved in nostalgic terms of safeguarding our sea routes and showing the flag in the Gulf and in South-East Asia. They are not going to be solved by saying solemnly that NATO is the keystone of our defence and forgetting all the time what
438
we are supposed to be defending ourselves against. Of course we are and we should remain effective members of the Western Alliance, but we cannot accept that Europe is for ever going to be divided into two armed camps. Our aim now should be as much to break down the barriers in Europe as to man them; and in this context we welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the relaxation of tension between East and West.
My Lords, the great issues will lie outside Europe: let us be clear about that. They are the awful questions of what we are to do about the weapons of mass destruction—not only nuclear weapons but biological and chemical weapons as well. What are we going to do about the progressive poisoning of the environment in which man lives? What are we to do about the vast and in some cases uncontrolled increases in population; the terrible ravages of hunger and disease that torment two-thirds of the people on earth? And, not least, what are we going to do about the part which the People's Republic of China is likely to play in this very turbulent scene?
Here I should like to say that one of the most interesting developments of recent months has been the obvious growing interest of the Peking Government in some sort of effective dialogue with this country. One of my great regrets, among others, on leaving the Foreign Office is the lost opportunity to take advantage of this interest, because from what we know so far of the policies and attitudes of the present Government it seems unlikely that they are going to be in much of a position to do so. Because it is in this kind of issue that the future really lies. It lies in the confrontation between the contented of the world and the wretched, the white and the coloured, the rich and the poor.
Some noble Lords opposite seem to find this amusing. I personally do not find it amusing that 88 per cent. of the world's goods are in the hands of one-third of its population and that the other two-thirds have to make do with the remaining 12 per cent. I do not find it amusing that thousands of people go to bed hungry every night and that hundreds of thousands of children are dying of starvation, of hunger, in the Third World.

439
If noble Lords opposite find that amusing their sense of humour differs from mine. We have a new generation of young people in this country—and let us not forget these young people. They care passionately that in this confrontation, the great confrontation of this century, we should be on the right side. The young people in the schools and in the universities to-day who are making their voice heard more and more in the councils of the world are not interested in any empty nostalgia for national greatness; they are not interested in policing the world; they are not interested in looking for Reds under the bed or in gunboat diplomacy, nuclear sabre rattling or any of the other obsolete and outworn concepts of policy and strategy.
I would end, my Lords, by saying this—and perhaps the noble Lord opposite might do me the courtesy of listening to at least my last sentence. The young people of this world will not easily forget or forgive the Government or the Conservative Party if they do things now which are going to place us perhaps irrevocably on the wrong side in the greatest moral issue of this century.
3.35 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I, too, should like to begin by congratulating most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his appointment. We are all delighted that a man (if I may say so) of his great sense and ability should have this job, and we are also very pleased that the Minister of Defence should be in this House rather than in the other. My Lords, on an occasion like this it is really only possible to concentrate on one or two of the great issues which face us in the whole field of foreign affairs and defence, so with your Lordships' permission I should like to concentrate chiefly on Europe, and also, to a certain extent, on what is generally called "East of Suez".
All of us—that is to say. all who believe that we ought at least to try to move towards the formation of some kind of democratic Western European body which will have a real influence for peace in the world—rejoice that the negotiations for our entry into the European Economic Community have now started under the general direction of that dedicated European, the Prime Minister,
440
and we naturally wish them every success. We should all like them, of course, to be easy and short. Unfortunately, the signs are, I am afraid, that they are likely to be difficult and long. So one very real problem is how best to prevent the whole thing from, as it were, going sour, and to prevent strong pressure from being exerted on the Government to break off negotiations before a suitable compromise has been hammered out, if indeed that is possible.
My Lords, what we must recognise is that though a considerable majority in all the Parties—and indeed, as I should think, in the country—approve of negotiations, the Parties themselves, to say nothing of the nation, are divided on the fundamental issue, which is this: do we or do we not want to form part of a democratic entity of some kind; or is all that we are trying to do to form a loose economic association of totally sovereign nation States? I know, my Lords, that to put this question in this country is to risk unpopularity, because we do not like thinking in theoretical terms at all; but as it seems to me the Government ought fairly shortly to make it clear that what they favour, is, broadly speaking, the first alternative. Admittedly, if they do they might divide their own Party; indeed, they might even divide all Parties. But if they do not, they run an even greater risk, which is that of possibly prejudicing the outcome of these vital negotiations.
For, my Lords, let us consider the position. Our prospective European partners, as we know, are resolved to create, fairly shortly, a monetary union, and our representative, Mr. Anthony Barber, has said that this is our objective, too. If this is really so, we are proposing to accept in a few years' time, it would seem, a common European monetary authority, which certainly implies a common budget, a common currency and, consequently, a common political authority of some kind. Why, then, do we hesitate to make it clear what our general objective is; namely, a European Community of a new and modern kind with a very considerable political content? It is quite true that the French Government equivocate also on this essential point. But their attitude is probably due to the need to persuade the large Parliamentary majority in Paris that the Government are still

441
pursuing a Gaullist line, which it has in fact abandoned. I doubt whether we ought to follow this example here.
My Lords, there is a further point, and I think it is important. If we do seriously intend to enter an economic union there is no reason why we should not begin to talk with the Six about how to start up real integration in the field of foreign policy and defence. The present compromise, as I understand it, whereby the Six are to hold twice-yearly meetings on foreign policy, first by themselves on one day and then with the candidates on the second day, is obviously useless. In spite of what is commonly believed, there might be even less difficulty in forming some embryonic machinery for harmonising foreign policy—and certainly for standardising weapons, thereby saving hundreds of millions of pounds—than to get agreement on the right way of, for instance, running a common agricultural policy or, indeed, administering a common currency, to which, it would appear, we are now committed.
On June 8, at a lunch in London over which I had the honour to preside, the President of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the French National Assembly, quite an important person—a former Minister, incidentally, in General de Gaulle's Government—suggested that we (that is to say, the Six and the candidates) might now all agree to set up an independent political commission with advisory powers only, which would at any rate begin considering foreign policy from the point of view of the group as a whole rather than from that of any individual member of the group. That is what he suggested. To save time I have given the Government the text of what the Prince de Broglie actually said. I should be most interested to learn whether they believe that there is anything in the suggestion that he made, more especially since I am told—and this is really rather important and significant—that this proposal has now been substantially approved by no fewer than 244 French parliamentarians, including a number of Gaullists, and that the number of subscribers to this thesis in Parliamentary circles is apparently increasing.
I believe that if the Government were expressly to favour this idea they would go a long way towards convincing our
442
friends across the Channel, who are not yet convinced, of the real sincerity of our European purpose, and thus create an atmosphere which could favourably affect the progress of the negotiations. Alternatively, or additionally, the existing Western European Union machinery could be improved. But the great thing in any case, I am sure, is to try to convince the French, if we can, that in seeking ways and means of getting on in a practical way with the harmonisation of European foreign and defence policies we are not trying to get: into the European Economic Community by the back door, but simply proposing something which appears to be in the interests of all Western European democracies, whether the present European Economic Community is enlarged in the future or even whether it is not.
Nor can we, I suggest—and here I feel at one with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said—achieve this end by some special and separate nuclear deal with the French, unless it be within the framework of a Western European defence association. For if we do—and quite apart from the doubtful relevance of either nuclear force; unless we combine both and go all out to become a third nuclear super-Power—we shall merely alienate the affections of the other members of the European Economic Community, notably the: Germans, and thus make our entry into the Community even more difficult than at present. I would therefore ask the Government also to give us a clear assurance that they have nothing of this kind in view.
If, however, we are to take literally what the Foreign Secretary said in another place on July 6, the answer to my question about Prince de Broglie's proposal may, I fear, be a "dusty" one—although I hope not. Regardless of their Party allegiances, I fear that all convinced Europeans will regard the Foreign Secretary's attitude, as revealed in that debate, as strange, not only logically but on general grounds as well.
First of all, he laid down, very properly, that there would soon have to be "a European response" (that was the phrase he used) to an American demand that Europe should assume a greater share of her own defence and that—and these again are his words:
"Britain would have to make her response as part of the European reaction."

443
But Europe, in the political sense, does not exist at all; it is either a geographical expression or a figment of the imagination. It can exist only if there is an institution which, as it were, personifies it, even if only in a rudimentary way. And on this fundamental point the Foreign Secretary said flatly that he was opposed to any kind of political union, whether it was called integration, federalism or anything else, for the simple reason that the great national States of Europe would have to preserve what he termed "their own identity". Only when it had been possible, as he said, to "identify an area in which it would be advantageous to the partners to take common action" might a suitable institution be set up—though he did later admit that, for instance, the question of a European security conference might possibly be discussed in the existing Western European Union which, after all, is an institution of some kind even if so designed as to be quite incapable of collective action.
Good Heavens! my Lords, are we not blind if we do not "identify" Western European as an area in which it is now essential for certain democratic States to take common action, notably on defence, if they are not to lose but rather to preserve their famous identities and indeed their whole way of life? Is any constructive step towards the formulation of a common Western European defence and foreign policy to be condemned as a step towards a much dreaded "federation"? If so, we might as well abandon our attempt to enter even the present European Economic Community. But the kind of union which we shall eventually achieve in Western Europe will not really be at all like the United States of America and will certainly preserve the identities and personalities of our ancient nation States. Look at Holland! There is no apprehension there that their monarchy or their ancient constitution is in any sort of danger; none at all.
I think myself that we have been mesmerised by the very word "federation"—or at any rate I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary has. Frankly, unless the Government can at least contemplate the gradual emergence of a new form of European community they would do much better to wrap themselves
444
in their Union Jack, stop talking about "Europe" and adopt the scarcely very successful nationalistic policy of "free hands" advocated and practised until his downfall by the late President of France. So I sincerely trust that the Government will say that they favour the Prince de Broglie's proposal, in principle, if you like; or at the least that they will give it favourable consideration. Otherwise—and this I am sure is the case—they risk causing considerable dismay among all those in France who most favour British entry into the European Economic Community which, as I understand it, is still the first objective of the Government's foreign policy.
My Lords, I leave Europe and turn for a moment to the Middle East; and here it is not easy to see how, short of some real advance towards harmonising their foreign and defence policies, any of the Western European democracies, such as ourselves or the French, can have any great influence on the course of events. We can of course give wise advice to both sides, and indeed to the two super-Powers, on whose possible co-operation what chance there may be of a peaceful settlement primarily depends. But there is no particular reason, I am afraid, why such advice should be accepted; and if we and the French should pursue different lines we shall certainly get nowhere. We all recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, did very well, if I may respectfully say so, in the United Nations and we much look forward to his powerful intervention in our debates. But the trouble is, I think, that few in New York now attach great, or anyhow the greatest, importance to any British initiative, undertaken by whoever it may be. If we had a "European" presence in the Security Council, my Lords, things might be rather different.
This leads me on to the issues arising rather further East. Here I must say I trust that the Government will be able to assure us that they do not propose seriously to interfere with, still less to reverse, the planned withdrawal from the Persian Gulf by the end of 1971—and I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said. Apart from the fact that, as I understand it, all the local Governments, with the exception of one or two obscure princelings, are strongly opposed to any such reversal,

445
what would the Government hope to gain by the continued presence of a small British force in the Gulf? We need hardly worry about our oil in the event of general nuclear war, because we should all be dead. But in the event of a general "conventional" war, which I suppose is possible, it must be pretty obvious that our supplies of oil would be far more likely to be interfered with by a Russian blockade of these Islands in the Atlantic—that is, by submarines based on the White Sea and operating in the Atlantic Western approaches—than by any denial of oil at the source.
In the event of the "Nasserisation"—as it may be called—or even the 'Sovietisation" of the areas, it is not clear where the oil would go to unless it were to the West, which, incidentally, in the next ten years or so may not need it so much as Alaska, and even the North Sea, are fully developed. Nor is it in any case very probable that the existing Sheikhs will be Nasserised or Sovietised when we withdraw. So it would be far better, surely, to let all concerned work out what Mr. Enoch Powell, in one of his more regenerate moments five years ago, called "an Asiatic balance of power"; though I rather think that he was forced to abandon this genial idea as the result of Primrose League indignation—if that affects Mr. Enoch Powell at all.
My Lords, the same principle of an Asiatic balance of power applies in South-East Asia. I have not time to develop the argument, but I do not believe in the famous "Domino" theory in the sense that if the United States Army goes back to America, as it will one day, all the States in the area are bound to fall one after another under the domination of Red China. Malaya, of course, is the near equivalent of an island, and here I think there is much more of a case for the retention of some small military presence, in the sense of advice and some physical support, more especially in Singapore; on the strict assumption, however, that it will never become embroiled in any friction between the local Chinese and the local Malays.
Your Lordships may recall that over five years ago I made my own proposal, on behalf of my Party, for the gradual evacuation of our bases at Aden and in the area of the Persian Gulf, which so upset both sides of this House but more
446
particularly the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who I see is still in his place. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord said that I was encouraging anarchy in vast areas, while the noble Earl, Lord Longford, actually went so far as to say that I was "light-headed". I remember also that on the Tory side as well, it was greeted with almost universal indignation which is perhaps neither here nor there. Anyhow, I then said that our communications with Singapore, where we should preserve a small presence, might best pass through North America, the Pacific and Australia, using American facilities to the maximum extent. Well, my Lords, we on these Benches stand by that; always provided that the financial outlay really is a small one and forms part of a joint effort with our friends in Australia and New Zealand.
Should we maintain any small South-East Asia force in this way, it is difficult to see why we should want to use the famous base at Simonstown, and I entirely agree with the general thesis in this regard as developed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont In any case, if we can continue to use it only by selling arms to the South Africans we had much better let it go. On such arms sales we agree, I need hardly say, with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and we shall vote for it. For apart from the very important question of principle involved, it seems to us—as am sure the noble Lord will ably demonstrate at greater length—that by reversing the present policy of arms sales we should simply be losing more on the swings than we gain on the roundabouts.
My Lords, there are many other questions which I should have liked to put to the new Government if I had had the time. No doubt there will be another occasion in the autumn when I hope that some significant debates on the real issues and options now confronting us in the fields of foreign affairs and defence may be promoted by the noble Earl the Leader of the House to whom—not having had the opportunity of doing so in public before—I now, even in his absence, offer my respectful congratulations.
So I would just mention in conclusion the United Nations. It is very easy to be cynical about this organisation and I trust that the Government will not fall into the trap of believing, or seeming to

447
believe, that the United Nations bears no relation to real policy—as our Foreign Secretary, I am afraid, sometimes seems to believe. In spite of all its obvious drawbacks and present impotence, the United Nations is still capable of being used as a means of solving, or at any rate of assisting the solution of, the great problems of our time. It is still possible, for instance, that all concerned will come back to the evident desirability of invoking its action in some way in the Middle East. It could also be that if the super-Powers come to some major agreement on strategic arms limitation—as they very well may, thank goodness—the United Nations could be of the greatest assistance in smoothing the way for further disarmament. In any case, my Lords, this is the note on which I should like to conclude my few brief criticisms of some of the aspects of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
3.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is for me a great privilege and an honour to speak for Her Majesty's Government in to-day's debate, the first on foreign affairs in this new Parliament. With so many distinguished speakers to follow I feel that I should in advance ask the indulgence of the House in undertaking this task this afternoon which comes so soon after my taking up my present appointment. Among the speeches of those to follow I particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who after long and distinguished service in another place, has now entered your Lordships' House. We are delighted to welcome him, and we wish him well. I am sure that his contribution to-day will be lively, constructive and stimulating.
I have listened with interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I have noted their points. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington has also done so, and we shall be attempting to answer some of them during the debate. As the House knows, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, will be moving an Amendment towards the end of the debate; and my noble friend Lord Carrington will reply to this and, no doubt, to other points which will be
448
raised in the course of the next few hours. I thought, therefore, that at this early stage in the debate, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to set the scene and indicate Her Majesty's Government's policy on some of the major issues on the world stage to-day.
I believe that in these days people are becoming deafened and disillusioned by words which have no purpose, and therefore I shall attempt at the outset to outline how Her Majesty's Government intend to pilot their policy on the interlocking principles of stability and parity. In another place last week, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that:
"to seek political stability must be the object of British foreign policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT Commons 6/7/70, col. 340.]
And subsequently, he went on to say (col. 344):
"it is that theme"—
that is to say, reconciliation—
"and not intolerance, which should govern the efforts of statesmen to try and bring about a more tolerant and peaceful world."
I am sure that no one in your Lordship's House would dissent from this.
So, I repeat, the foundations on which Her Majesty's Government's policies are to be built are stability and parity. Stability not only for the great nations of the world that may be enabled to exercise their international obligations towards smaller and less fortunate countries; but, more particularly, stability for the poor and less developed that they may grow and prosper.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Marquess in full flow, but is the word he is using "clarity" or "parity"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: For the sake of clarity, may I say that it is parity. And by parity I mean that all men, in all nations, are equal under the law and the Constitution, where all men have the right to be respected. For this Her Majesty's Government will continue to strive.
But I need hardly point out that in seeking political stability we in Britain must take account of our own defence. Here again, it is obvious that the preoccupation of our country, throughout its history, has been related

449
Primarily to the problems of security resulting from our relations with Europe. In some way this preoccupation, tragic though it has been, has been forced upon us by harsh reality. In the past many British and Commonwealth lives were given to achieve our security. I think that we do well to remember this and to keep history in perspective as we evaluate the priorities of to-day. One essential is the role of NATO, the modern Great Alliance, which ensures the stability and protection of Western Europe. That is why our first priority is support for the NATO Alliance, an Alliance that has successfully achieved two conditions which enable us to live in peace—a Europe Lee from domination by a single Power and an Atlantic Ocean always open to trade.
In these contexts, there are two political situations which are of more than ordinary significance. The first is the most welcome post-war solidarity of interests that has developed between Germany and France which is a condition of European co-operation. Neither NATO nor the formation of the European Economic Community would have been possible without it. The second is the degree to which the United States of America has been and is willing to underwrite the security of Western Europe. This is a most positive contribution to the stability of Europe, which it seems quite certain neither Her Majesty's Government nor anyone else in the country would make the mistake of taking for granted.
The member countries of the European Community have demonstrated, in their past achievements and future plans, the importance they attach to economic integration and political cohesion. There are now clear signs that they believe Britain and the other applicant countries can contribute decisively towards this process. This, I submit, is not surprising in view of our unrivalled tradition of political stability and a record of technological achievement which is second to none. An enlarged Community could indeed serve to maintain and promote our collective interests to the benefit of Europe as a whole and to that of the entire Free World. Her Majesty's Government intend to respond to that challenge. It is indeed in that spirit that we have entered the
450
negotiations which began in Luxembourg on June 30.
But, my Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told his colleagues in Luxembourg, none of us can say at this early stage whether negotiations will succeed. That depends on whether we can reach a solution which is fair to all; and so far as Britain is concerned that means finding terms which, in the Prime Minister's words, are:
"tolerable in the short term and clearly and visibly beneficial in the long term."
In those negotiations we shall of course, as indicated in the gracious Speech, remain in close consultation with our Commonwealth and EFTA partners and with the Irish Republic.
But, as my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in a lecture which he delivered last November:
"It is important … to recognise that on the evidence the Community and the Common Market are here to stay."
Indeed, since The Hague Summit last December, Europe has taken on a new lease of life. They have made it clear that they intend to move beyond the Customs Union stage—in which they achieved new heights of prosperity for their peoples—and to work towards economic and monetary union—whose beneficial effects may well prove even more spectacular. This prospect is something which everyone in this country should think about very seriously.
When all the factors have been weighed, the question that will remain is this: should Britain be in or out of this forward-looking conception, which not only promises a greater degree of economic unity influence and prosperity for its members but also looks beyond that into the political field, towards greater political cohesion, so that Europe can speak with one voice on matters which vitally concern us all? This, my Lords, is a very serious matter, in a world increasingly dominated by the super-Powers and troubled by many new dangers and uncertainties, and one which will affect very greatly our children and our grandchildren. I was very interested in the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, concerning the European Political Community. I do not think

451
that he will expect me to answer him to-day, but I should like to look into that and communicate with him in due course.
This leads me on to a further important factor in European stability: that within Europe generally the process of reconciliation is making progress. The aims of developing better East-West relations in Europe, while highly desirable are not altogether easy to achieve, as your Lordships will realise. They are aims which must be patiently sought and are being sought—for instance, through the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the United States and the Soviet Union; through the Quadripartite talks on Berlin; through the development of Federal German relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; and through NATOS efforts to reach solutions to practical problems on acceptable terms. In these negotiations we, as members of the Alliance and one of the Four Powers responsible in Berlin and Germany, have a major interest and must play our proper part. But their success will depend to a large degree on Western strength and on our determination to dedicate ourselves to the cohesion and credibility of the Alliance.
Even so, if the facts basic to British foreign policy which I have mentioned remain reasonably constant, the emphasis may be on other factors. For example, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that Britain's contribution to stability, and therefore to peace, should be limited to the horizons of Europe, though, as I have said, the security and prosperity of Europe are crucial to us and provide the base for the influence of Europe in the world. A fact which I think all noble Lords opposite, as well as on this side of the House, appear to recognise is that if there is a failure to stimulate the economic growth of the nation, this endangers the effectiveness of foreign policy. As the Defence Review of 1966 put it:
"No country with a sense of international responsibility would surrender its position (that is to say, the position of British forces outside Europe) without good reason unless it was satisfied that others could, and would, assume a similar role."
In considering our priorities, then, this is the context in which we have had to review what our policy should be in the
452
Gulf and also in South-East Asia after 1971. These are matters which my noble friend Lord Carrington will be speaking upon later in the debate.
Reference has been made already to the Middle East, and I think there is no doubt that this is the most dangerous flash-point in the world at the moment. Many people expected direct negotiations to take place between Israel and her Arab neighbours after the war of June, 1967, but for reasons which will be familiar to all noble Lords these negotiations did not take place. I am bound to recognise that a settlement will now have to be achieved through the use of special procedures.
It is our belief—and this was expressed by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place last week that the procedure which offers the best hope of leading to progress is for Dr. Jarring to visit the various countries concerned in this trouble armed with agreed recommendations or prescriptions from the Four Powers. So equipped, it is our hope that he would succeed in generating a constructive dialogue between the two sides. I would not, however, under-estimate the difficulties. Nevertheless, the search for peace must go on. We will support any initiative which seems likely to promote this search, and do whatever we can to help bring about the comprehensive settlement which all concerned so badly need.
In the same way, we have a part to play in contributing to peace in the Far East. Shortly before the Dissolution, your Lordships had an opportunity to debate the situation in Indo China, and particularly the events in Cambodia and Vietnam. Since then, President Nixon has fulfilled his promise to withdraw all American troops and advisers from Cambodia by June 30. The American withdrawal from Vietnam also continues. But, regrettably, there has been no corresponding withdrawal by North Vietnamese forces. So while, on the one hand, these developments demonstrate America's desire to lower the level of fighting and to seek ways in which to reach a negotiated settlement of the conflict, at the same time we must hope that the other side will reciprocate. Our policy therefore is to do all that we can

453
to help the two sides negotiate a settlement in Indo China, in which all the external forces are withdrawn from the countries of Indo China, and in which the peoples of those countries will be able to choose their own Governments.
In this world context, too, my Lords, we cannot avoid taking decisions as to how best to protect our trade routes—and I am particularly thinking of those around the Cape. Reference has also been made to the problem of supplying arms to South Africa. Obviously, it is one which causes much concern. But I think that, if we are to guard against purposeless words and unrealisable theories, it is essential that we must try to achieve stability and parity through solutions which are objective and free from emotion. If I touch only briefly upon this subject, it is because my noble friend Lord Carrington proposes to deal with it when winding up the debate. I should, however, personally like to stress that it is most important not to confuse consideration of the question of supplying arms to South Africa in the context of the Simonstown Agreement with our policy on racialist practices. I must emphasise Her Majesty's Government's abhorrence of apartheid, wherever it is found and in whatever form, and also our determination to do all in our power to secure its removal from the face of society. This, I submit, so far as we in Britain are concerned, can most positively be done by showing the world that this kind of tiling is at any rate absent from every city, town, village, street and home in this country. I should like to emphasise again the fact that Britain yields to no one in its concern for democracy. But if we are to be realistic, this concern must be balanced by avoiding the risks of even greater dangers and suffering: for whenever our influence is removed from a country, the likelihood is that other influences are only too eager to replace it.
In the same context, the House will, I know, expect me to refer briefly to our policy on Rhodesia. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on July 2, it is our intention to honour our undertaking to make a further effort to see whether a settlement of the Rhodesia problem on the basis of the Five Principles is possible. This is our position. We all, I think, accept the
454
desirability of Rhodesia returning to a legal status which is internationally accepted. But, as I have said, this must be within the Five Principles. And in the meantime, sanctions will remain.
Another subject of importance concerns our policy towards our dependent territories and the proud and ancient peoples who inhabit them. On the second day of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, expressed some concern about the future handling, within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of our dependent territories. I can assure him that his fears are groundless. With one exception, the dependent territories division remains the responsibility of one Minister; and that exception, as I think he knows, is Hong Kong. As was, I believe, the practice when the noble Lord was Minister of State, Ministerial responsibility for Hong Kong has for convenience been linked with that of South-East Asia. I can assure the noble Lord that the welfare of the inhabitants of the dependant territories plays a large part in the thinking of the Minister responsible for them.
LORD SHEPHERD: Could the noble Marquess help me? Who is the Minister now responsible for dependent territories?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The Minister responsible for dependent territories is the Minister of State, Foreign Office. The noble Lord also referred to the Fiji Independence Bill, which is coming up very shortly. Here I should like to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Lord for the part that he played in paving the way for Fiji's independence. Anyone who is aware of the history of Fiji will know what a tribute it is to all concerned that Fiji is to become independent this year in an atmosphere of racial harmony.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I should like to say a word or two about our part in the United Nations. The United Nations, in my view, is so far the noblest attempt by man to give mankind a means to air its grievances and to solve its problems collectively. I want to state emphatically and at once that Her Majesty's Government's policy here is one of continuing support, an example of which, I think, is the fact that Britain

455
is the second largest contributor overall to the United Nations family of organisations. And despite its failings—and we all know that the U.N. has failings—which are essentially the failings of Member States, it is impossible to contemplate to-day's world, with all its needs for development and security, without the United Nations—and this in itself is a great tribute. I have been privileged from time to time to give some service to the United Nations in varying capacities and therefore fully reaslise that particular tribute must be paid to the work of United Nations specialised agencies whose great humanitarian contribution on a vast scale to the welfare of the illiterate, the sick, the hungry and the dispossessed cannot be too highly praised.
At the same time I must make clear the view of Her Majesty's Government that, within the context of the United Nations Charter, every nation, in the final count, reserves the right to take all proper steps to ensure its own security wherever and whenever it considers it to be threatened. And still on the United Nations, I must consider a prospect where internationally we strive to achieve real, integrated co-operation. I was grateful to the noble Lord for encouraging me in my duties concerning disarmament, and I assure him that I will take this very seriously, and that these vital matters concerning nuclear control, biological and chemical warfare and the placing of weapons on the sea bed, are viewed by Her Majesty's Government with no less seriousness and the same desire to continue the work carried on so effectively by, among others, the noble Lord and his team. For I am sure that we must all realise that disarmament must be man's best hope for the future; and that the next few years may be the last opportunity to safeguard the future for our children and our children's children.
My Lords, I have tried as briefly as possible to review Her Majesty's Government's policy on some of the outstanding world problems, and I am only too conscious that I have omitted a great many others which, no doubt, will come up later in the debate. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that on this contracting planet there seems to be an increasing number of problems. If I may bring
456
in a personal view, I see in some senses the old divisions dying down and new forms of what we might call "tribalism", in the sense of sectional interests, emerging as the greatest problem of 1970 and the 1970s. Aggressive associations that even if no longer, as in the past, exclusively made up of class, colour or religion, still set man against man. This is a new danger which can be tackled only by the qualities of courage, integrity, sympathy and caring which are characteristics of our nation—qualities which I am confident Her Majesty's Government will display. But, as I have said, fine words are not enough—it is the substance that matters. So we shall rightly be judged on our actions and by their results. And so with patience and perseverance we shall strive to the utmost to create that one world, referred to by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary last week, within which I believe the best endeavours in all nations may be enlisted to establish an international framework to ensure both parity and stability for all peoples.
4.24 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it would be discourteous if I failed to acknowledge the generous welcome extended to me by the noble Marquess. In turn, I offer my congratulations on a major speech on foreign affairs and defence. It was a gallant effort; the delivery was superb, even although the content (if I may say so with great respect, and meaning no offence) was imprecise. I would hardly blame the noble Marquess for his failure to be more definite. After all, the Government have not made up their mind either on foreign policy, defence, or, indeed, any other matters. But we shall come to that a bit later.
It is now almost fifty years since I made my first speech in the Palace of Westminster. On that occasion I failed to ask for the indulgence of another place. Perhaps it was inconsistent with my temperament and character. Since then I have acquired a profound knowledge of Parliamentary etiquette and, accordingly, I ask for the indulgence of the House. I must confess that I found the recent Election somewhat baffling. It was a grievous disappointment to me—a traumatic experience, deeply wounding.
There were compensations, despite the result, because immediately afterwards

457
I reflected on some of the statements made by those who are now in the Government and who were then courting the electors, and on their pronouncements, in particular on that of Mr. Iain Macleod, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose illness I regret. I hope he makes a speedy recovery, as do we all, despite the political polarisation. I recalled the statements he made about the reduction in income tax. That seemed to me a partial compensation in my financially precarious situation. I discovered, on further reflection, that the Government could not perform miracles. I thought all those miracles had been arranged at Selsdon and that their minds had been made up about this and other matters, but apparently not. So, despite the experience of the Labour Party at the Election and my disappointment with regard to income tax cuts not corning along as speedily as I expected, at least there is some compensation: if I suffer, so will noble Lords opposite.
May I congratulate my noble friend, Lord Chalfont, on an eloquent and able speech? There were, if I may say so, some omissions, but that was pardonable because it is impossible to cover the whole of the ground in foreign affairs and defence in a single speech—it requires many speeches. We shall have some later on, I hope, and perhaps I may be able to make some contribution. I observe that he made a passing reference to the subject of the Common Market—the proposed British entry. He was somewhat reticent about the subject, but it came all right, because the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made up for the omissions and the reticence on that subject. We had the usual special pleading on the subject—I am not going to enter into an argument about this. I have said on a previous occasion that I have no quarrel with the countries of the Six—I simply want to have nothing to do with them.
I want to ask one question, not of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but of the Government, and here, if I may be permitted, I would refer to the piece of paper I have in my hand. I have nothing up my sleeve. It is a letter sent by the Prime Minister, signed by him, to a correspondent on the subject of an aspect of the Common Market argument/discussion and the project generally. This
458
is important—never mind about the arguments, the pros and cons. For example, I noted the change and the alterations which have taken place over the years. At one time, a few years ago, it was definitive; they had made up their minds and were dogmatic; they were going into the Common Market willy-nilly—nothing was going to prevent it. Now they plead and argue. They are not quite so sure about whether we should go in or not. It is not because of the disappearance of de Gaulle—I do not mean his physical disappearance, but his political disappearance. It is simply because of a change of political opinion in this country. They argue now and express fears and apprehensions which never occurred to them a few years ago.
I do not want to argue about all this; I want merely to ask a question. But before I do so I preface it by referring to what the Prime Minister wrote to a correspondent. He said:
"From my twenty years' experience of Government and of the House of Commons, I am satisfied that no British Government could take this country into the Common Market against the wishes of the British people."
Very good, very clear; but what does it mean? What does it portend? Does it mean a referendum? Of course not. The Prime Minister is opposed to it; so am I, and, I believe, so are my colleagues. Generally speaking, we reject this concept of a referendum, asking every elector in the country to express an opinion by ballot. But what does it really mean?
I suggest it may mean this—and I am worried about it, but perhaps there will be a favourable reply from the Government on this matter in answer to the question, and a reply on what the Prime Minister said. Does it mean that if the negotiations lead to something that is regarded as acceptable, the Prime Minister will come to the House of Commons, but before he does so he will engage in a loving embrace with the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in the Opposition, and they will come to some understanding, and then will present the issue to the House of Commons with the Whips on—not only one Whip, but double Whips and quadruple Whips—impose it on the House of Commons and pretend it is a decision of the British public? But if they do, it is

459
jiggery-pokery and it will not work. But there may be some other answer to the question I pose and to what the Prime Minister has written, and I should like to hear what it is.
I should now like to refer to the subject which is to be divided upon later in our proceedings: that is, the question of the provision of arms for South Africa, the implementation of the Simonstown Agreement and the like. Here I may offer views which are not altogether agreeable even to my colleagues, or to all of my colleagues. But I preface my observations by saying this. I am baffled by the inability of this Government and the previous Government and a successive number of Governments to understand the nature of the military strategy required in order to provide the United Kingdom and its people with security. On this matter of defence, which is associated, obviously, with commitments entered into as a result of our foreign policy and the foreign policy of other countries, or allies and others, there are various lines of approach. For example, there is the line of approach taken by some of my colleagues in another place and by many electors in the country that we should abandon defence entirely, or perhaps should reduce the cost of defence; in other words, make it weaker, inadequate. I reject that. Far better to have no defence at all than to have inadequate defence, making ourselves vulnerable, or even more vulnerable, because we pretend we have some measure of defence capable of dealing with aggression if ever it should occur.
I recognise the sincere convictions that are the basis, the foundation, of the proposals that are made from time to time to abandon defence. It is of no value, they say; it is provocative; it is so costly; abandon it! I understand their principles, their convictions, their genuineness. I do not disregard them entirely. But, whether it is the United Kingdom or any other country—and this is obvious; we see it all around us, even in the smaller countries—with all the economic difficulties and tribulations, there must be a measure of defence, some kind of defence. Even the smaller countries have it. Indeed, no country can abandon defence entirely. Some of it may be sentiment. It may provide
460
security in imagination only, but there must be some measure of defence.
How is this matter related to the subject of the provision of arms for Africa? I disregard some of the arguments associated with this matter; for example, the trade argument, which was dealt with very adequately by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. It must be obvious that neither South Africa nor the United Kingdom can ignore the multilateral trading arrangements. We have a large market available to them; they have a large market available to us. This trading question is quite irrelevant. However, what about the military aspect? Why should we provide arms for South Africa? For the purposes of resisting internal disorder? No. That is out. There is agreement about that, on both sides of the House. But should arms be provided for the purpose—I ask the question—of resisting external aggression? And, by the way, it is suggested that if we provide arms to South Africa this would be a contribution to the defence and security of the United Kingdom. Let us examine it. Defence against whom? Defence against what? What kind of aggression is contemplated? Aggression from the Soviet Union? I will not in a short speech compare the statistics, which probably are familiar to every noble Lord. But just compare the relative weights, the strengths, the influence and the power of the Soviet Union with those of the United Kingdom with South Africa, or even with NATO. It is ludicrous, and we have to face up to it.
I propose, without further argument or criticism either of the present Government or of any other Government, or of those associated with military matters, to offer what I believe is a constructive suggestion, and it is this. Take, for example, the position of NATO. There has been some suggestion, I believe, that the Prime Minister favours the idea of coming to some arrangement with the French on nuclear matters. It is not only provocative; it is dangerous. I say something now with which I suppose nobody here will agree; but I say it, nevertheless. I would not trust the French in a matter of this kind. I recall their association with the Soviet Union; their terms of non-aggression, their treaties and understandings. I would not trust them.

461
Nobody agrees with me and I leave it at that. I continue to say it, nevertheless.
What is the position of NATO? France has contracted out. What is left? Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg; a number of divisions in Germany, some air-craft, and our might in military affairs. Why are we not sensible about this and recognise the facts? Of course our soldiers are the best professionally trained soldiers in the world. I knew that 41 years ago when I was Financial Secretary to the War Office. But what has that to do with the defence of the country in the present state of the world, with all the tensions that exist and all the dire possibilities that are associated with this subject?
So, my Lords, I make a suggestion. Who are our allies? Our principal ally, whether we like it or not, despite likes, dislikes and criticism, and all the rest of it, is the United States. Let us face that. We have to rely on the United States for our security. There is no other means. Can we rely entirely on NATO? Of course not. On South Africa? Of course not With the United States, with the Commonwealth countries, with NATO, with as much of Europe as we can gather together and with other nations equally inclined, why not engage in consultation to discuss our future defence strategy? I am not speaking of numbers and matters of that kind, but of what our strategy should be. Take the obverse side of the coin (I will deal with it only in passing), the subject of disarmament. My noble friend Lord Chalfont has spent several years trying to promote disarmament. He has failed, not because he lacks the capabilities in argument, discussion, deliberation and persuasion, but because it is a remote possibility. Therefore we have to rely on some measure which will provide a deterrent against possible aggression and, if not actual aggression, against interference by the Soviet Union.
I should like to say one last word about the United Nations. The argument about the United Nations resolution in connection with the provision of arms for South Africa is, in my view, invalidated, and I will explain why I hold that view. The Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations are prolific in their resolutions, but they sometimes take the wrong direction; and as
462
my noble friend Lord Caradon is to wind up this debate perhaps I may be permitted to ask him a question, which no doubt with his usual courtesy he will seek to answer. Why is it that the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, so ready to condemn the State of Israel for alleged acts of aggression, have never condemned the Soviet Union for involvement in the Middle East? It is a fair question, and I should like to have an answer to it. There must be some reason for this. Is it that we are afraid of the big battalions? May I remind my noble friend, and noble Lords generally, of what we used to say years ago? self-determination for small nations. That is a principle that the United Nations and the Security Council should not ignore.
I know that I have spoken for too long and that I ought not to have done so. I ought to have made a non-controversial speech—in fact I have made a non-controversial speech. I apologise for making a non-controversial speech, my Lords; I will never commit the offence again.
4.42 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, it is a very great honour for me, on behalf of your Lordships, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord claimed that he made a non-controversial speech. I think he is absolutely right, having heard him speak many times in another place. This is one of the mildest speeches that I have heard him deliver, and I am sure that all of us in your Lordships' House can look forward in the future to something very much more controversial even than he has given us to-day. The noble Lord has had an immensely distinguished Parliamentary career and I think we all agree that he adds lustre to your Lordships' House. We greatly look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak again in the near future.
My Lords, during the course of this debate over the last few days I have noticed that quite a number of noble Lords, and indeed noble Baronesses, on the other side of the House have been critical of the contents of the gracious Speech. That does not in the least surprise me. After all, the Conservative

463
Party are sitting on this side of the House because the electorate decided that they were fed up with Socialist policies and wanted a clean sweep. They wanted to be governed according to Conservative principles, and indeed for my part I would say that the electorate would be justifiably horrified if this Government were to carry on with many of the policies carried out by the Party opposite when they were in Government. I personally have the greatest confidence in the Government to-day and had the greatest pleasure in reading and listening to the measures which they propose to carry out during the next five successful years.
I am going to accede to the request of my noble friend the Leader of the House and confine myself to three points which I want to make, and I shall make them briefly. All three points concern the issue of defence. I have been brought up to believe that the first duty of any Government was to ensure the protection of their citizens, so far as they could, if the nation went to war. One of my greatest strictures against the Party opposite when they were in power was that they had totally run down the reserves of this country. Frankly, we have no reserves. We have the police and the boy scouts, but they are not military formations. We have no reserves whatsoever. The TAVR, about which so much has been said, is in fact totally committed to bringing the Army of the Rhine to war establishment on mobilisation, and there is nothing left in this country. One of the commitments to which the Conservative Party has put its name in its Manifesto is the urgent review of the Territorial Army. I saw in the newspapers an initial figure of 25,000 quoted. I have no knowledge whether that figure is right or wrong, and indeed I would not expect my noble friend to give any indication when he winds up this debate. Nevertheless, 25,000 is a reasonable figure to start with.
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who is an eminent General. I spoke about this matter of the reserves. He did not think they were so important from the point of view of physical defence, but thought that by re-establishing the Territorial Army in this country we would have an alternative system of communications which we should so badly
464
need if war were to come. Secondly, he thought that the whole spirit of the country would be improved if we were to re-introduce voluntary effort by the people of this country. I very much hope that the Government will re-introduce the Territorial Army and give its blessing for it to go ahead.
My second point concerns aircraft carriers. During the past Government I was one of the United Kingdom delegates to the Western European Union. I have been fortunate in serving on the small but hardworking defence committee, and we have gone round Europe a great deal. We have visited virtually every front in Europe. The last visit we made was a little over a month ago to the Mediterranean. There, for a day, we were guests of the American Admiral commanding the American Sixth Fleet and he entertained us on his flagship, the guided missile cruiser "Little Rock" We spent a long time there and were briefed on a great many aspects of the American naval presence in the Mediterranean, but I wish only to speak of the tactical purpose of the American Fleet.
The American Fleet is divided into two task forces and the core at the centre of each task force is an aircraft carrier. I believe one is the "Arkansas" and I am afraid that I have forgotten the name of the other. The Fleet is not only protected, but is serviced by the carrier. This is only incidental information but it was extremely interesting to see. It was serviced by heavy helicopters off the carrier. These helicopters simply flew to the land base, picked up an enormous parcel, flew to the ship, dropped the parcel on the deck and flew off. That is only one example of what can be done to service large ships from a carrier. Much more important was the protection and the defensive power which the carrier-based aircraft gave to the Fleet. The Admiral was very precise on the point that carrier-based aircraft were infinitely more effective than shore-based aircraft. They have far more flexibility; they can stay in the air over a target, whether offensively or defensively, far longer than shore-based aircraft, and the Admiral made no secret of the fact that his aircraft carrier was the core of his defence and that he set immense store by the aircraft carried on the carrier.

465
When I was listening to the briefing by the Admiral, I could not help but think bitterly of the decision made by the previous Government to phase out our own aircraft carriers. The second point I want to make to the Government—and again I expect no answer to-day—is that they should carefully reconsider the policy of this country towards our aircraft carriers.
My last point concerns the Simonstown Agreement Unlike certain noble Lords who have already spoken, I very much hope that this Government will re-negotiate the Simonstown Agreement. I do not wish to contradict anything the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, in the speech preceding mine, but I personally believe that the defence of our trade routes round the Cape, and indeed of our naval routes, is of absolute importance to this country. The Suez Canal at the moment is closed. The Mediterranean has a pretty large Russian complement of ships: it averages, I believe, about 50 at any given time. And of course there is this great change: that whereas a year ago Russia had port facilities in the Mediterranean, she is now beginning to have permanent bases in the Mediterranean, which very much alters the picture.
Secondly (and I have no knowledge about this other than what one reads in the newspapers), if the Suez Canal is to be reopened in the foreseeable future, it would appear that it will be reopened under Russian dominance. Therefore I believe it is all the more important that we should make absolutely certain that we are clear with our routes round the Cape, with our communications with the Far East and elsewhere. And I hope again that the Government, in spite of whatever Amendments may be moved to-night, will show the courage we expect of them and will go forward with the policy which they believe to be right. I think it was Mark Twain who said:
"Do what you believe to be right, and you will please some people and astonish the rest."
My Lords, I hope the Government will astonish the rest.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and we leave the American humorist, may I ask what he means by "re-negotiating" the Simonstown Agreement? It is in effect.
466
We have fulfilled our side of it by supplying the arms in 1963. The base is available to us now. What does he mean by "re-negotiating" the Agreement?
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, sitting up here one does not have available the best advice from all the Ministries; one only knows what one reads in the newspapers. My newspapers tell me that the South Africans are anxious to re-negotiate the Simonstown Treaty, and if that is so, and if it involves giving heavy armaments not used for internal business, I hope that the Government will re-negotiate it.
4.53 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, may I join the last speaker, Lord St. Helens, in proffering from these Benches congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on his maiden speech, a speech full of wit, point and, above all, relish. We shall all, I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, said, look forward to many other contributions of a controversial character.
Whatever arguments there may be as to whether our national economy was weaker or stronger when the present Government took over this year than when the Labour Party came into office in 1964, there can hardly be any rational dispute that the international scene is now" far more dangerous and difficult. The first depends largely on the angle of vision; that is, whether you direct your attention to the current balance-of-payments figures or whether you concentrate on the total wealth of the country, taking into account assets and debts outstanding. There is no such comfort to be derived in changing the angle of vision in the foreign scene.
Two sizeable wars are in progress. The Russian high seas fleet—with however many hundred submarines you may wish to supply it—has developed into a formidable force and has become a potent if not the dominant factor yet in the Mediterranean, with its support points in convenient places. The Suez Canal, once an international waterway, is not now even a wholly owned Egyptian ditch, and it is in danger of becoming a base of Russian power, and perhaps later a passageway for Russian men-of-war on their far from innocent occasions and so on.

467
I do not draw your Lordships' attention to these uncomfortable truths in order to imply that the last Government are principally, or even largely, to blame. Far from it, though from time to time we may all, in our different ways, wittingly or unwittingly, have made our modest contributions. Personally, I should ascribe some of these contributions to our overlooking Adam Smith's warning that "defence is greater than opulence", and persisting too long in a national determination to consume more than we produce and to achieve this on borrowed money. But that is another and a long story, and others more qualified than myself will be speaking on defence. What is more, for the purpose of this debate time certainly does not allow for a balanced analysis of these six crowded years. Meanwhile we are here because we are here. We have to take things as we find them, not as we should wish them to be, and the deterioration in the national scene has to be faced.
How? With respect to your Lordships, I would suggest by recognising the gravity of the moment and keeping in front of us the need to establish as much unity as may be had in the maintenance of our national interest. Each Government in its turn is a passing trustee of those interests and of the nation's safety, and its duty is to pass on to its successor not a Party platform nor an emotional impulse, no matter how keenly felt, but a hand that can be played for the continuing health of the country as a whole.
If I may digress here, the further concern of any Government is to care for and foster the services of the Crown on whom they must depend. So, while the Government are reviewing their policies and consulting their friends, may I express the hope that they will also give some thought to one of the instruments in their hands; that is, the Diplomatic Service? There are a number of recommendations in the Duncan Report which the previous Government said were under consideration but on which no decision has yet been announced. One concerns adequate compensation for those who have been declared redundant before the normal term of their service had been reached. Another is the recommendations for the management of the Government's buildings and estates overseas. In
468
both these cases performance has been a great deal worse than that which would be thought tolerable in any efficient business concern in this country. As the Government must nowadays wish to give a lead to industry in many fields, surely this can be best done by setting an example rather than by lagging far behind. I do not ask a question; it is obviously far too early to do this. But I do express the hope that the present Government may, before too long a delay, make some announcement at least on these two points.
May I now revert to what I said earlier about the role of any Government in foreign affairs and the fact that I am far from wishing to imply that the deterioration in the world around us was to be laid principally or even chiefly at the door of the last Government? Indeed, I should prefer to go on to pay a tribute to the fact that over so much of the field there can be profit in continuity. The last Government began a renewed attempt to enter Europe. The new Government are to carry it on. The last Government declared that they were set to achieve this result provided that the terms were right, and the present Government are pledged to the same purpose "on terms fair to all concerned", or in the words of the Prime Minister on terms which would be tolerable in the short term and clearly beneficial in the long.
Again, the last Government put NATO first. So does the gracious Speech. The last Government, if they will allow me to say so, and the last Foreign Secretary, in particular, showed courage in handling the highly charged question of Vietnam and Indo-China, keeping some first things first: notably (and here I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell) in not publicly abandoning an ally when he is in difficulty. This is also implicit in what the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has said to us this afternoon. The last Government stuck to their guns over another highly charged issue, Nigeria; and their fortitude has had some reward, and so far as I can see there is no likelihood of that policy being altered now.
But in view of the dangers and difficulties that beset us in the Middle East and South-East Asia, and in view of the

469
magnitude of our interests in these areas, is it not only right and proper that any new Government should have a fresh look at the scene not excluding our posture East of Suez—this, and with it at our relations with South Africa and Rhodesia? Would it indeed not be negligent if they failed to do so? Here I imagine that the last Government could hardly wish to claim that complete success had as yet attended their policies in these areas.
According to the Press, the South African Government is apparently considering the possibility of reviewing the Simonstown Agreement and has turned to others, indeed to a Member of the Security Council of the United Nations and a NATO ally, to replace us as a supplier of arms and other equipment in support of her defence needs. That country has, no less than we have, a need to promote accord between different races, has great interests at stake in Africa and is a country with whom we now seek to associate ourselves even more closely in the European Economic Community. In Rhodesia we are committed to sanctions, though we know that they are not going to achieve the purpose for which they were imposed. So, as over Abyssinia in the 1930s, we are faced by a dilemma of no one's deliberate choosing. If we continue sanctions we do so, not from conviction in their effectiveness but for fear that if we abandon them we shall not only look foolish but may even have to face a charge of perfidy.
In the Middle East, though we may hope that Bahrein has been taken out of politics, Burami has raised its head again as a source of dispute between those whom we should like to count as our friends. And whatever our hopes may be, there are no arrangements as yet made in the area as a whole to provide for its stability or to stay those from fishing in troubled waters who have no care for the maintenance of oil for this country, and indeed at the present time for Europe as a whole. I know it has been argued that Western Europe does not wish us to expend our resources in trying to secure this stability. If so, Europe may be wrong. Seeing that so many members of the E.E.C. at one time or another in the war made miscalculations, this would show that they are as open as any of us to error.
470
It is only fitting that those who have recently had authority in government should, from their own experience, warn the Government of the day of the pitfalls. Equally, the Government may themselves, after review, conclude that, after all, the last Government were pursuing the least bad of the various practical possibilities. This is all for the future, when the Government have come forward with the result of their review. But to say, here and now, that no review should take place on certain points, or to seek to shackle the Government with an Amendment such as on the Order Paper, is surely not in the country's interests. The Amendment looks reassuringly simple, like the Peace Pledge; but noble Lords know—and who knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell?—that great affairs of State and of the national safety are not to be reduced with success to these unqualified pledges, or to be resolved by general expressions of intent regardless of circumstances. Perhaps someone from these Benches may be allowed to say that.
I realise that this may not be the view of all noble Lords. In particular, if I understand him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, from what he said earlier in this debate, appears to think that the national interest should be advanced in this House only by representatives of the political Parties exchanging amenities, or abuse dressed up as amenities, across the Floor of the House. That may be so in some places and in some cases—I would not know—but I still hope that in this House and on this subject there is room for someone from the Cross-Benches to make a non-Party appeal for restraint and for refraining from taking to a vote this first occasion of a debate on foreign affairs and defence and thereby underlining our differences rather than our common purposes.
If I may be allowed, I shall repeat that the last Government showed courage and steadfastness over Europe, Vietnam and Nigeria. They must surely admit that the world is now no safe place for faction. Can they, then, not also accept that certain of their policies—by the obduracy of foreigners, if they will—have not altogether succeeded as they no doubt wished or intended that they should? Consequently, these need to be reviewed. While this is being done, can they not

471
be content to caution and warn their successors? At any rate while the remembrance of responsibility in government is still with them, I should greatly hope that they would not press for a vote at this stage. Would not this be instant rather than responsible Opposition? What the new Government must be concerned with is the security of this country at a dangerous time.
These are considerations which I know will weigh with the noble Lord who opened the debate to-day, and the noble Lord who is to wind up for the Opposition, both of whom have in the past spoken from the Dispatch Box and for Britain abroad and in the United Nations. No one would impugn the absolute sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, least of all myself. What I would plead is that, whatever he may feel about the wisdom and morality of the Amendment, he would on balance recognise the doubtful wisdom and, above all, the inopportuneness of dividing the House before any decisions have been announced by the Government who are now responsible for our destiny.
5.7 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence as I rise to make a maiden speech. It is now 39 years since I had a similar experience in Parliament; consequently, I am afraid that I am a little out of practice. I further ask your Lordships' indulgence for missing the beginning of this debate. I landed at 2.30 this afternoon after a short visit to Israel. There, in Israel, I have seen what I expected to see, a civilised family carrying on their daily life in spite of external pressures from enemies who are attempting to destroy them. For destroy Israel they will if the world allows them, and if Israel does not protect herself at the same time. One talks to those who are taking part in the daily task of defending that country: men and women who leave their desks at the universities or their other work to man a plane or take some other action, or work in some other active capacity to defend their home, returning a few hours later to their desks or their work and to the civilised family of which they form part.
I am speaking of this in the context of the Middle East situation. I think your
472
Lordships will know that for many years I have watched the situation there, and I am most anxious that at this critical time we should be aware of what is actually happening—we in this country who, incidentally, are followed in our characteristics, in our Judiciary, in our way of lite, by the people of Israel themselves. They have a passion for looking after their family, from wherever they come in any part of the world, and afford them opportunities of a livelihood on their arrival. It is often overlooked that some 500,000 to 600,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries have found their place in Israel itself. They could not understand why the 1967 war was forced on them. If Egypt had not intended to destroy Israel, as she had said time after time that she did intend to do, there certainly was no reason for bringing up the enormous forces which were brought to destroy that country. I do not think anyone can deny at least the possibility of there being that intention.
I should like to refer for a few moments to the question of the Soviet penetration of the Middle East. I think it is a matter of considerable importance in so far as our foreign policy is concerned. Soviet penetration of the Middle East is in my view the result of the old Russian Imperialist aspiration to expand to the South in the direction of the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. The Soviet Union exploits the Arab—Israeli conflict in order to promote its own global policy. At the start in 1948, the Soviet Union gave all out support to Israel, perhaps as a devious means of dislodging Britain from the Middle East. Then it swung to absolute and unquestioning backing of Arab belligerency, by anti-Israel calumny and execration, by unscrupulous casting of its Veto in the Security Council, by gigantic shipments of arms to Cairo and Damascus, and so on. In 1967, the Kremlin braced the Arabs into forgetting the lessons of successive military reverses and, where it might have inspired peaceful coexistence, plunged Nasser and his misguided colleagues into a third catastrophic adventure. In my view, the Six Day War of June, 1967, was the inescapable outcome.
I am sure that noble Lords, when dealing with this tremendously important matter, will reflect that within the past

473
three year; the Soviet Union has supplied Egypt, Syria and Iraq with 2,000 tanks and 800 fighter aircraft, besides other military equipment, to an overall value of some 3·5 billion dollars—two-thirds to Egypt alone. This armament was purveyed with practically no monetary payment. Thousands of Soviet specialists are engaged in training the Egyptian forces. Soviet advisers are guiding and instructing the Egyptian forces within units which are actually in combat. Unless Israel is placed in a position by the supply of adequate arms to her in which she is able to defend herself—because "defend herself" is the correct expression in these matters—it is not only a question of Israel being affected: for noble Lords will appreciate that the position arising from Russian penetration, with its resulting effect upon the rest of the world, is a very perilous one. Indeed, I go so far as to say that Israel itself stands in the position of being able, with the help of the civilised world, to protect not only itself but the civilised world against this kind of penetration.
I want to turn for a moment or two, if I may be permitted to do so, to one of the solutions that is being suggested in respect of the Middle East problem. It is a solution which involves Jerusalem being considered not as part of a whole settlement but on its own in the first instance. Having just been to Jerusalem and having seen again after very many other visits what is happening there, I think that possibly your Lordships will permit me to give my views with regard to that particular situation. The problem of Jerusalem entails deep emotional religious involvement, not only of the people who live there physically but of millions throughout the world. If you wish to start with Jerusalem in the context of war, there seems to be no chance of solving the problem as if it were in a vacuum. It is possible to make headway with the problem of Jerusalem—not merely for deep emotional reasons, but also for plain everyday reasons such as security, communications, commerce and so on—only in the context of peace and general trust.
It seems to me to be deeply illogical to start with Jerusalem as a separate factor. There is in fact no pressing need for it: life goes on there normally, and the coexistence between the two people in the
474
City gives a ray of hope which is almost sure to be extinguished if this idea of a corpus separatum under United Nations supervision in this overcharged atmosphere is adopted. Even from a mere practical point of view, it is completely unfeasible to maintain Jerusalem as a sort of no-man's-land between two warring countries. Accepting United Nations supervision will introduce new vested interests and introduce new tensions, in addition to the many existing in the City. I need hardly refer to the appearance there of a Russian element.
What are the facts? Jerusalem has always been a unified City, except for the 19 years under Hashemite occupation after being captured by Jordan in the 1948 war. Since its reunification three years ago there is a free flow of movement and trade between all parts of the City and its surroundings. My noble friend Lord Caradon has written of freedom of access to the Holy Places as an ideal to be strived at. Yet there is at the moment freedom of access to all—which was not the case during the Hashemite rule. Thus, Arab students, to the number this year of 20,000, have come to Jerusalem from Cairo, Beirut, Kuwait, Amman, Tripoli, and other places, to visit their families. As your Lordships may well remember, in spite of specific obligations under the Jordan-Israel Armistice Agreement, the Jordanian Government barred Jews from access to their Holy Places. To-day those who are barred from pilgrimage to their Holy Places are the Arabs of Israel, who are not granted permission by the Government of Saudi Arabia to go to Mecca.
All the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs alike, enjoy compulsory free education for children from the age of five to 15. For the first time the Arabs of Jerusalem have municipal pre-school kindergartens for their children. There are new municipal youth clubs, playgrounds, mother and child clinics, completely revised social welfare standards, and so on. The population of Jerusalem continues to retain its mosaic-like composition. Each community, whether Jewish, Arab, Armenian, Copt or Latin, maintains its own educational system without interference, yet there are numerous meeting places for children of the various communities, whether in art classes, in the museum, the sports field, or the summer camp. And municipal

475
summer camps, where hundreds of Arab children pass their summer holidays, are a new facility hitherto unknown to these children.
At present there exists among the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem a virtual social and economic revolution. There is full employment among the Arabs of Jerusalem, except for a small number of white collar workers. These people, who have lost the authority vested in them by the Hashemite Throne, have of their own free will chosen to remain outside the cycle of activity and creation in Jerusalem, and offer to those who wish to listen to them the most imaginary descriptions of life in Jerusalem. May I ask, in passing, how many cities in the world there are where a young woman, for example, can pass unmolested at any time of the day or night? This situation, my Lords, prevails to-day in Jerusalem.
The Arabs of Jerusalem enjoy complete freedom of the Press. Two Arab papers appear in the Old City, and they can print all the criticisms they wish against the Israel Government. They are subject only to the same security censorship as are all papers, whether printed in Hebrew or in any other language. These papers, indeed, print many critical articles against the Government, as against the Arab leadership. This was not the case during the Jordanian rule, when the Jerusalem Arab newspapers were often closed down and their editors were put in gaol or exiled. This, for example, was the lot of the editor of one of the Arab papers appearing to-day in Jerusalem, who now enjoys complete freedom.
I would not say that the situation is ideal and that nothing further remains to be done. I think that patience is required, and that the process of rap-prochment may take a considerable time. There is still greater room for the cooperation of Arabs in running the affairs of the City. But responsibility for their non-participation should not be laid at the door of the Israelis. The Mayor of Jerusalem, Mr. Teddy Kollek, for whom most of the Arab inhabitants of the Old City voted in the last municipal elections, has constantly invited them to take a greater share of responsibility in running their own municipal affairs. Many intelligent, open-minded Arabs had given
476
their consent to lend a hand in furthering municipal work for the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem. Later they withdrew their names, under threats of the Palestine terrorist organisations operating from the neighbouring countries.
I have taken the illustration of Jerusalem because I think that, in the course of the debates which are to come and the actions which are to take place, it affords a significant and important illustration of what in fact Israel wants to do. She wants to live in peace. She wants and assumes that all her inhabitants shall be of equal standing and have equal rights. She believes that she is a nation which has been entrusted by the world to build up a civilised entity; and, indeed, in my contention she has done so in an exemplary manner. I hope that in the course of the discussions that will take place in respect of the Middle East this fact, together with many other points of a similar nature, will be taken into account. Only yesterday a speech was made by the Foreign Secretary of Israel in the Knesset. He made it perfectly clear in that speech that he accepted in its entirety the resolution of the United Nations; that he wanted peace, that he was prepared to negotiate, that he wanted the Jarring venture, that Israel wanted to have a similar arrangement for meeting to the one at Rhodes. I hope that when Her Majesty's Government are considering this position they will study and take account of that speech, and will deal with the situation knowing that that, in fact, is the intention of the Israel Government.
5.25 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I had the pleasure of knowing the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in another place for perhaps twenty-five years, and I would remind your Lordships that he was himself a Member of that place for some thirty years. He comes here, therefore, as an old, experienced Parliamentarian, and, if I may, I should like on behalf of Members in all parts of the House to bid him a very warm welcome. He served in two wars. He has taken a very active part in public affairs in the world generally, outside of his own special causes, but of course he is most notable, as has been obvious to those who have had the pleasure of hearing

477
him to-day, as one who for two decades has spoken vigorously about his own people. And it has been a great advantage to the other place, and will now become an advantage to this place, that he brings so much special attention and knowledge to help us. He is indeed one of the most distinguished British Jews, and was President of the Board of Deputies for some nine years. I hope that we shall hear from him again; in fact, I am sure that we shall.
I intend to speak briefly, as we have been invited to do by the Leader of the House, and mainly about Southern Africa, but there is one observation which I hope I shall be allowed to make—because I thought it wise to speak only once on the Queen's Speech, and not two or three times—and that is to praise Mr. Heath and the Foreign Secretary and the others in another place, and also, if I may, to praise Lord Carrington here in this place. I think that his statesmanship in guiding us during the six years we were in Opposition made its own very real contribution towards our victory at the Election. I should like to couple with that thanks to the Chief Whip, still in office, and to wish the best of good luck to Lord Jellicoe.
I have only one other general observation, and that is to say to the Government that no Government is as popular as on the day it is elected. Since, therefore, there are many things which this Government must do and wish to do and could do in the interests of the country, I beg of them to do them as quickly as is compatible with their information, their knowledge and their capacity—as quickly as possible. If they take two or three years to implement some of the highly controversial policies which they have in mind, they will not leave themselves time for the good effects to be apparent. My advice, then, is: Get on with the job!
Now, my Lords, I turn to Rhodesia. Here I find myself possibly the only one—though not so very far away from some of the thoughts which were clearly in the mind of the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Bench—who will say exactly what I am going to say. I welcome the new initiative which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have announced and which is mentioned in the gracious Speech, but it is qualified by the statement
478
that the talk which is to come with Rhodesia must be based upon the Five Principles. There, my Lords, I beg for calm and, if possible, unemotional consideration of this matter. I picture Mr. Wilson saying to himself, and possibly to his Cabinet, "Yes, I will go and talk to Mr. Smith, whether on a ship or in Rhodesia itself, and perhaps I shall make a settlement, provided, of course, that he agrees to everything that I want to bring back with me." And I imagine Mr. Smith saying to his Cabinet and to himself, "Yes, I will go to see Mr. Wilson on a ship, or I will see him if he comes here, or anywhere you like, and I will make a settlement, provided, of course, I bring back all the points that my colleagues here in Salisbury want to see in the agreement and in the settlement".
Of course, there are in this world some things which are not negotiable, but in my view there is very little that is not negotiable between Britain and Rhodesia. The only thing that I think is not negotiable is the independence of Rhodesia, which exists now, in their minds, and which will exist because there is no way of ending it; and it is not Britain's intention to bring them under rule, subjection or even sovereignty. We have not the power; we have not the will, and we have not the wish. So that is not negotiable. I cannot think of anything else that is not negotiable. I would say to Sir Alec, whose wisdom and services in this House and the other place and to the country I so greatly respect, and to Mr. Smith, for whom I also have a regard, "Go into these talks with an open mind, and see how far you get". Above all, I would say to Britain. "Have the courage to admit that we have lost the battle of Rhodesia". It is no good pretending that we have not lost it. We lost it from the very moment we said that we would not send troops there. I am not advocating the sending of troops, or saying that I would ever have liked them sent; but from that moment we lost the power, and if you do not have the power you cannot rule. So our position there is one of extreme weakness, and the only thing we can do is to call it a day and make friends with Rhodesia.
Here I come to a psychological aspect of this matter which applies also to Southern Africa as a whole. I think it very important to recognise that you

479
cannot force men's minds into a mould by reiteration, by vituperation or by severe criticism. You cannot force men's minds. The Rhodesians are just as independent-minded as we are; just as capable of standing alone as Britain was in the first year of the last war. If you want to influence people, you must make friends with them. If you want to make friends and influence people, you must talk to them. Of all the unwise things that Britain has done over this whole matter, the most unwise of all and the most needless of all was almost the last act of the Labour Government in cutting off final communications with Rhodesia—fiddling with the penny or twopenny stamps; taking away people's passports; preventing old friends and old soldiers from meeting each other; interfering with our liberty and theirs. And for no good cause whatever, because the only way to understand men and peoples is to meet and talk and visit, and even, I may say, to play games together—cricket, if you like.
Now I turn to South Africa itself. It is said with regard to South Africa over South-West Africa, it is said with regard to Rhodesia over sanctions: "We had to do this because of the United Nations". Nothing of the kind. Take Rhodesia first. We called the United Nations in on it, most unwisely. Let us now see if we cannot terminate their interference in this matter. Rhodesia is an independent country. It will remain so. It ought to be allowed to have its own life without this interference from the United Nations.
Now may I come to the United Nations and South Africa. One of the principal bases of thought upon which the League of Nations and then, in a later age, the United Nations was founded, was that the member States would be free to have their own affairs in their own territories under their own control. I do not know the documents as well as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, but I think it was probably a fundamental writing in the documents of both these bodies, the League of Nations and the United Nations, that interference in each other's internal affairs should be avoided. Indeed, I do not believe that the nations of the earth would ever have come together to sit round a
480
table unless that had been agreed in advance.
So I suggest that the resolution of the United Nations about Rhodesia and the resolution about South-West Africa are both contrary, if not to the Covenant then at any rate to the basis upon which these nations came together in these organisations. When I was a soldier there was a room on a certain floor on the outside of the door of which were the initials "M.Y.O.B." A General passing by, perhaps having forgotten that he was once a subaltern, said to the chap who was taking him round, "What does that mean?", and the man replied, "'Mind your own business', sir." That is the only possible text for getting on with South Africa and for getting on with Rhodesia. Let us mind our own business; let us invite them to mind theirs, as they do.
Now may I deal very briefly with those aspects which were dealt with at such length and so fluently by the noble Lord who opened the debate from the other side of the House? First of all, he dealt with the strategic requirements, and asked: is it necessary? The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whom I greatly welcome to this House, if I may, made the same point, saying, "South Africa is infinitesimal in world strategy; do not let us bother with it." I do not agree with this at all. It is on a most important route—so important that we in this country depend for our daily standard of living, high as it is, upon the ships that pass round the Cape. Our oil cannot go through Suez any more, and a very great deal of the trade which provides us with our high standard of living comes round the Cape. To neglect it in peace is foolish: to neglect it in war is perilous. Our ships enjoy hospitality there; our naval vessels are refitted and revictualled there; we enjoy the advantage of all the goods that come to us that way; but we do not lift a finger to help to maintain, or to help to guarantee the maintenance of, that route should war or threats come—not a finger. I cannot see the slightest force in the argument that this is unimportant. With the Indian Ocean freely open to Russian submarines, with the Mediterranean packed with Russian ships, with so much of the supplies of this country and of Western Europe coming round the Cape, it seems

481
to me that it is quite obvious that we ought to support South Africa.
This is nothing to do with the Simons-town Agreement, but I should also like to appeal in regard to the Simonstown Agreement, because it was more than Lord Chalfont pretended. There were four letters passed and very many conversations, and the essence of the whole of this arrangement was that these two countries would be friends, friends in a military sense, and would co-operate. That was the essence of the matter; and we co-operated by selling them a few ships to start with and then a few aeroplanes, and then we cut off supplies promptly. The question has been asked: Why should the Simonstown Agreement be re-negotiated? It is not unnatural for South Africa, if they are going to buy expensive and long-lasting war goods from us, to want to know that there is not going to be a change of Government here in five years, a change which would prevent the supply of spares. They want some continuity. I do not doubt that South Africa had thought that Britain would keep her word. Britain did not keep her word—at least, not the gentlemen's agreement in the spirit of the agreement. It is not unreasonable that South Africa should say, "Let us now look at this as we should have been doing all the time. Let us consider the strategy and tactics of war in the South Atlantic. Let us re-write this Agreement."
My Lords, I must now say a word about the kind of arms. So much has been made of this. Even one or two speakers on the other side have said that it is agreed by all here that all that they are asking—they who are advocating that any arms should be sent to South Africa—is for what might be called coastal arms, naval arms. I do not agree with this at all. I can see no reason in the world why all arms should not be supplied to any country. I do not see any reason whatever for not doing so. I suppose that the Labour Government supplied arms to Lesotho—and if they did not, they ought to have done so because they were responsible for that country during the earlier part of their term and until it became an independent Kindgom; and it is still a member of the Commonwealth. I suppose that the Labour Government supplied arms to the
482
other two ex-British territories, Swaziland and Botswana—and if not, they should have done so. Police arms are a requirement of any Government at any time in any part of the world.
It is nonsense to say that it is immoral to supply South Africa with trade but not to supply her with police arms. Of course, it is true that you could take a battleship—even a "King George V" class battleship if they were not all outdated and gone—put it in Cape Town and shoot down black people at five miles distance. Of course you could. But who would be such a fool as to do that? People do not buy submarines or naval units or long-distance aeroplanes with all their highly sophisticated and extremely expensive apparatus in order to suppress minor riots or in order to give support to the civil power. First, I think that it is a nonsense to have this limitation at all and, secondly, it is splitting hairs, carrying argument to a ridiculous length, to try to say that no arms should be supplied because any arms could be used for any purpose. Of course they could. I suppose that if I wished to I could bring a walking-stick into your Lordships' House, ostensibly to support myself, and with it I could beat one of my noble friends over the head. But that is really rather nonsense.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, whose speech I admired (and I thank him for it) said this: Let. us make sure by example that we do not have apartheid in this country. That is a very wise sentiment. It is not our business if other people have apartheid, for example in Hong Kong, a colonial territory I think; and in Israel—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will not like my saying this—also in Ireland and in Cyprus—
A NOBLE LORD: And in Russia!
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Yes, my Lords, in Russia no doubt. But that is not our business. We do not go to war with all these countries or impose sanctions on them; we do not even talk about it. That is not our business. It is not necessary to apologise to South Africa because the subject of their internal policy is irrelevant to the considerations that I am venturing to put before the House.

483
My Lords, let us take the case of South-West Africa. It is 55 years since the South Africans, with very little help from Britain, conquered German South-West Africa. It was 55 years ago. They did not bring the natives of South-West Africa into the harsh, cruel tyranny of South Africa; on the contrary, they freed them from an infinitely harsher and more tyrannously cruel German rule. Ever since they have been in the South African political enclave in one form or another and they have been treated as are all South African natives—no better, no worse.
My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for his physical courage and his political courage. I am sure that he does not need reminding to-day that he had the courage to say in the United Nations that it was quite impossible to settle this South-West Africa business by force unless the world was prepared to mount a major war operation, perhaps even a war. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, remembers, as I do, that the Western coast down there is called the "Skeleton Coast". It is quite unviable unless you take with you an enormous fleet for your lines of communication.
There comes a time in the world's progress when matters of controversy become matters of history. I will not take up the time of the House by elaborating upon this argument. I will mention the American colonies. How bitter was that conflict! But now we have a special relationship with the U.S.A. And 300 years ago bitter relations existed between Scotland and England. Now we sit in one Parliament and continue to do so. History unravels itself and history takes the place of controversy. Is it not time that the history of the last 55 years took the place of controversy over South-West Africa—bearing in mind that no resolution of the United Nations has any possibility of being implemented, as Lord Caradon himself warned the United Nations? If you cannot do anything—as you cannot in Rhodesia—if your writ does not run, there is no use in patting yourself on the back and saying what a splendid chap you are and pretending that it does. The writ just does not run; and that is all there is to it. Let us say that the South African business has
484
passed into history now and there is no use in thinking otherwise. If we had the guts we would veto these matters in the United Nations instead of allowing such nonsense to go on to the record.
My Lords, I have noticed, to my deep regret because I respect them so much personally, that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark have both committed themselves recently—and perhaps they will do it again to-day—to say that for various reasons which seem adequate to them the policies of South Africa and of Rhodesia are anathema to them. Incidentally, other Bishops, not in this House, traipse around the country saying the same thing—that it is better to cut these people off from communication; that they are hardly fit to be talked to. Let us walk across to the other side of the road, my reverend Lords! May I remind the reverend Lords of this? In Matthew V, it says:
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way …"
It would do them good to ponder that because they do not help South Africa or Southern Rhodesia.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The end of that particular quotation is: … lest he take you to the magistrate from whom you do not emerge until you have paid the last farthing—which seems to destroy the argument.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, the word is "judge" not "magistrate", if the noble Lord looks it up. But never mind; I think that meant the judgment of history. Even so, it is a good warning to the noble and reverend Lord. I am glad to hear his voice; I know that he is going to speak later, so I am sure he will have something to say about it.
Now, my Lords, I am practically at the end of this story. There was one observation made by Mr. Stewart, the ex-Foreign Minister—and repeated at the end of Lord Chalfont's speech with such emphasis—that we must be careful not to be on the wrong side. That is very impertinent. Who is he to tell us which is the right side and which is the wrong side? I think it very impertinent. Mr. Stewart said that we must be careful what we choose. His words were, "The wrong side". The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont,

485
must have looked it up, I suppose. Black side or white side, we must not be on the wrong side. This, my Lords, is great nonsense. When we protect South Africa, or help to do so, we are not on the wrong side at all; we are helping to protect many more black men than there are white men there, because there are many more black men in Africa. We are helping to protect them all from subversion; from revolution; from Russian influence. And the Russians and the Chinese are already infiltrating into these countries. I read, I think only yesterday, that the Chinese are lending £150 million to the Tanzanians to build a railroad. I must say that I could have wished it had come from the West.
Believe me, my Lords, Russian and Chinese influence has already been felt in the politics of Central Africa and Southern Africa; and when we say we would like to take our part in protecting Simonstown Bay, or the Cape route, let us remember, for example, that Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho, those three ex-British Territories on the borders of South Africa, cannot live by themselves; they can live only with South African aid. They can be defended only with South African aid; and this is true to a degree for the whole of the rest of Africa.
I do not think that there is a country left in Africa now—not one—where there is adult suffrage and universal suffrage, and a Parliament of the kind which we here in Westminster would regard as free. I do not think that there is one in the whole of Africa. They are all either one-Party Stales or dictatorships, or near dictatorships—even Lesotho. Incidentally, I will interrupt myself to put in one word. Let Mr. Wood, the excellent new Minister for M.O.D. ("Ministry of Overseas Development", I think) be as quick as possible in sending to Lesotho the aid which it needs very badly and where there is famine and starvation. That goes to show how they cannot even grow enough food for themselves and are dependant upon the countries near them.
I come to the end, my Lords, with one more sentence. I started by saying that no Government are as popular as on the day they are elected. This Government could be on one more day; that is, the day of the next Election in four and
486
a half or five years' time; provided that they get on with the job.
5.55 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, for me, as the veriest amateur in your Lordships' House, to congratulate those two doughty professional; who have made their maiden speeches to-day would be like a newly joined recruit commending the style of the General's orders of the day. I can therefore: only stand in silent admiration. I hope, and indeed feel sure, that we shall hear them often, though I do not guarantee always to agree with every aspect of their assessment of the Middle East situation.
My Lords, there can be no doubts on either side of your Lordships' House that the Prime Minister in another place has correctly defined the main aim of our foreign policy, which is to make a modem and broadly based assessment of where British interests lie and to sustain those interests with all the energy and determination that we can command. Everyone must also agree with him that our interests coincide closely not only with those of our friends and allies, but also with those of the international community as a whole. There will always be differences of assessment of where British interests lie in specific instances, but I must admit that sometimes in the past it has seemed to the uninformed public such as myself that other extraneous considerations of domestic politics have been allowed to interfere: with the proper assessment of our interests. What we ask of the Government is that they should make their assessment of our interests and that they should follow that assessment down the line. That, clearly, applies to the question of arms for South Africa, and I would strongly support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, that your Lordships' House should not attempt to bind the Government on this issue at this point before they have made their assessment of the situation.
The Foreign Secretary has rightly emphasised that for all the purposes of British foreign policy we need economic strength at home. I hope that we have now passed that transitional period when sometimes it appeared that our policy was in excess of our economic strength. We no longer talk about our frontier being on the Himalayas, but I sincerely hope

487
that we do not make it appear that it is on this side of the Isle of Wight.
My Lords, I wish to comment on only one or two points. The first is the present position on East-West relations. I suggest that the former Foreign Secretary was going rather too far in saying in the other place that the tide is now moving away from the cold war in the direction of conciliation. The compulsions of the Marxist doctrine are strong, and I do not forget that a Soviet leader said to me, "You must understand that we are Communists and we shall continue to act like Communists". Soviet policy will continue to be based on the aim to alter the balance of power in favour of Soviet Communism. However, they recognise fully that nuclear power has fundamentally altered international relations and that human life on this planet rests on an understanding between the Soviet Union and the United States that they will avoid a major confrontation which will face either of them with the alternatives of a serious risk of nuclear war or capitulation. What can perhaps be said is that we are moving into a period of permanent negotiation.
This permanent negotiation should, I suggest, be viewed as having three branches. First there is the all-important American-Soviet negotiations on the limitation of nuclear weapons. That is not our responsibility, though we should do all we can to encourage progress in it, since it is of such vital importance to us all. Secondly, there is the search for European security, principally, though not exclusively, requiring negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Powers. I believe that the position could not be better set out than it has been in the last NATO communiqué, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote from it. It said:
"Ministers agreed that it will not be enough to talk of European security in the abstract. The causes of insecurity in Europe are specific; they are deeply rooted in conflicting perceptions of State interests, and their elimination will require patient endeavour. However, the Allies for their part remain willing to negotiate, in any suitable forum, those concrete issues whose resolution would enhance the security of Europe. The success of efforts to pursue genuine relaxation of tension will be a test of the willingness of all interested countries to deal meaningfully with real issues of security."
488
The Ministers went on to say that they were ready to enter into multilateral contacts with all interested Governments and that one of the main purposes of such contacts would be to explore when it would be possible to convene a conference on European security and cooperation. They said:
"The establishment of a permanent body could be envisaged as one means, among others, of embarking on multilateral negotiations in due course."
The late Foreign Secretary has said in another place that this idea of a Standing Commission on East—West relations was in the first instance a British idea. I believe that it has much to commend it. A major conference which attracts publicity is not a suitable way to deal with questions that are not susceptible of an immediate tidy solution. They can only too easily be converted into a purely propaganda affair. Quiet persistence is what is necessary, and a determination never to be deterred by the inevitable frustrations and never to give up.
The third branch is the complicated matter of relations with China, with which we shall be increasingly concerned in the years to come. I was glad to hear to-day that Her Majesty's Government's policy is that United Nations credentials as representatives of China should be given to the Peking Government which has controlled the mainland for the last 20 years. That of course is an essential preliminary to having permanent negotiations with China although it may not be too easy to get them to come in.
My Lords, we are faced with the most difficult and uncertain position in the Gulf. I have said previously in your Lordships' House that we should not be under the illusion that to cancel the previous Government's decision to remove our troops from the Gulf and, by implication (though I do not think that it was ever explicitly stated), to withdraw unilaterally our protection from the Gulf Rulers, would restore the previous situation. It is surely clear now that the making of that decision has produced a wholly new situation. New political alignments have been developed. The Shah has said clearly that he does not now, after what we have said, want us to stay. The Gulf Rulers will certainly not publicly ask us to stay. That would put them in an impossible position. If

489
we merely cancelled our previous decision, we should make it much easier for extremists in the Arab world to attack us and the Gulf Rulers. We should certainly not risk another Aden. The position was well summed up in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on July 5.
The Government are now consulting all concerned. No one who is not informed of the results of those consultations can make any helpful contribution towards a definition of policy, but I should like to make one point. Our aim is to determine what action will give the best chance of maintaining the stability in the area which British interests require. There is no obviously good solution. I trust that there will be no disposition on either side of your Lordships' House, or in another place, to increase he difficulties of the Government which, as so often in matters of international relations, particularly in the process of decolonisation, can do no more than try to determine what is the least bad course to follow.
I should like to make one point on foreign aid. There is no basic difference in general in your Lordships' House on foreign aid. We should give what we can within our economic resources. We shall do no good to anyone in the long run if we compromise our basic economic strength. There is no harm to the developing countries if we give our aid in such a way as to promote our exports. Indeed, this will enable us to increase our aid. We should clearly prefer to aid schemes which will be seen to be helping the people of these countries, but should not undertake to be the judge of a developing country's economic policy.
We must try to ensure, without appearing to limit the sovereignty of the recipient State, that our aid does not go into the wrong channels. We should not use aid directly for political purposes—that almost always fails—but should give it in a way that makes political sense. Aid is a branch of foreign policy and should be treated as such. I am one of those who believe that it should come under the general superintendence of the Foreign Secretary and that all elements of it, the economic, the commercial and the political, should be co-ordinated by him. I hope that this will be seriously considered by the Government.
490
Finally, I should like to say that I was very glad to hear what the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said about the Government's view of the United Nations. I trust that we shall always adopt a positive attitude towards the United Nations, as the Russians do. We shall do ourselves no good if we take a negative attitude to it in the light of the intransigence and double standards of many of its members. Above all, we should seek to restore to it some of the initiative towards the: settlement of disputes which it seems to have lost in recent years, and press for more energetic steps, through the United Nations, for a settlement of the present dangerous dispute in the Middle East. The resolution of November, 1967, was, I think, one of the achievements of the Labour Government, and we must hang on to that. It is the only possible basis, in my opinion, of the settlement of this extremely difficult and dangerous Middle Eastern situation. The United Nations is, and will remain, the great world forum, and we must take great pains to show that we value it as such and to explain clearly our policies in it.
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, at the outset may I wish the noble Lord who has just spoken every success on his appointment as Chairman of the British Museum. In the past we have sometimes taken an interest in that institution and we shall possibly do so again. Not so much perhaps in the interests of brevity but following the impressive speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, I do not propose to say anything about the Amendment. I think that all noble Lords who listened to his speech realised that he was saying something a good deal deeper than the usual superficial exchanges of debate. I doubt whether his advice will be taken, but anyone with experience of the House would know that it would be the wish of the House that his advice should be taken.
I wish to refer to two passages in the gracious Speech which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Lothian. First, he said that in our discussions with Europe we shall be in close consultation with our Commonwealth and EFTA partners, and later he said that the Government will of course further the development and progress of British dependent

491
territories. Bearing in mind these two passages, which I am sure are universally agreed, I was rather distressed to read the speech of M. Harmel, the Belgian Foreign Secretary, at the first meeting in Luxembourg. I daresay that this was a position of what I might call the lowest common denominator, an attempt to get the agreement of all members of the Council. I daresay it was only a negotiating position. But that it is directly contrary to the solving of the problems which were completely unresolved at the last meeting in 1963, M. Harmel knows quite well. I refer particularly to the problems regarding sugar and dairy produce, the latter particularly affecting New Zealand. There was no answer to those problems in 1963 and, so far as I know, there is still no answer. I do not need to mention them in detail.
So far as the Caribbean is concerned, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was the most successful of all commodity agreements. None of us is wholly satisfied with the standard of economic development in the Caribbean at the present time. If that Agreement were to be disrupted it would be a major disaster which we could not possibly tolerate. What makes the matter even more difficult is that there is no obvious solution to the problem. Europe can, and probably will, produce adequate sugar for all the members of the Community. There is the further problem that the French Islands—Guadaloupe, Martinique and Réunion—unlike Mauritius and Barbados, would come right into the Community. It is clearly unfair that such an arrangement should be made. This is a severe test as to whether or not the Community is looking outward to the world, a matter which continues to be of considerable importance to us. This problem cannot be met on a short, transitional basis at all.
The same remarks apply largely to New Zealand. In some ways the argument is even stronger, because E.E.C. countries are already dumping dairy products at prices about one-eighth of what they are in Europe. New Zealand cannot reorganise her form of agriculture without a complete change in its whole structure, something which would change the basis of her society as a whole. Not only is she selling 90 per cent. of her dairy products
492
here, but any form of variation of development of her industry is almost inevitably based on the continued sale of a substantial portion of her dairy products to this country. She could get variation, but it would necessarily turn on her ability to get rid of these commodities in this way. If we throw over New Zealand, we shall be throwing over what are in fact the most efficient dairy farmers in the world. I think we must carefully consider what system can be devised, within the rules if possible; or, if necessary, the rules must be adjusted to get over these problems.
I should like to say a word or two about Hong Kong. It is looked on with disfavour by many people. Here you have, in point of fact, an economic miracle; a combination of British and Chinese genius that has produced something where nothing existed before. Its problem to us is its very success. If it had failed, we should have said that it was an underdeveloped country and we could do virtually nothing more. Let us remember that it is probably the most important dependent territory governed here from Westminster. We are responsible for it, and although we may have to put up some barriers on the importation of goods from Hong Kong, there remains the fact that we are responsible for Hong Kong. If we go into these negotiations, it is for us to maintain our responsibility and to see that Hong Kong gets a fair deal in Europe. If Hong Kong were a backward country we could probably make an easy arrangement, but I am given to understand that, being as successful as they are, it is not likely that the Europeans will look with favour on them. It may be that they can climb over a 15 per cent. general tariff, and if they do so, well and good; but it is still our duty to see that they get a fair deal and that the result of their ability to create and develop their own territory is not thrown aside.
I am glad that EFTA has been mentioned. After all, we created EFTA, and it has been a success: in fact, 15 to 20 per cent. of our overseas trade is done with EFTA. It is most important that we maintain this link and see that it is not lost for the future. I mention these things because I believe that in a way this is the sterling test as to whether the E.E.C. countries, the Six, are looking outward,

493
or whether they will be simply looking inward; whether they are going to consider those parts of the world which we have always considered, or whether they are going to be concerned with the inside of Europe, as such, where in fact they seem to have a certain amount of difficulty. If they cannot look at the wider canvas, which is important, then it may be that we must think again of our position. I have no doubt that they will be tough negotiations, and that we must give our negotiators every possible encouragement. But we do expect to get from the Six some appreciation of our difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, frequently quotes the Six as saying of us: "Are they sincere?" We are entitled to ask: "Are they sincere in wanting us to come in and join them in their great endeavour?"
I should like to make one point on the speech of he noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, because he said things which seemed to me to cut corners, to put it no higher. He said that we are not wanted in the Gulf. The paper to which he says he is no longer attached, The Times, quotes a specific statement from the Sheik of Dubai saying quite frankly what I believe many of us know perfectly well, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said, but which is not generally said in public. The Sheik said: "Who asked them to leave?". And he went on to say that Abu Dhabi and Bahrain supported the presence of British troops in the Gulf. One finds it extremely difficult, of course, to say it in public. Many of us know that that is the situation, and it will require extremely careful diplomatic handling.
I have one other point. I should like to read from the "Mirror, A weekly almanac of current affairs", of Singapore. It says:
"A Conservative Government in Britain, with Mr. Heath as Prime Minister, will enhance security and stability in the area where British forces have been part of the landscape for over 150 years. This stability helps investment and development."
This was said by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore. Can we leave people who are struggling to build themselves up when they ask for our help?
6.15 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I propose to deal chiefly with the aspect of defence, and I can be quite short because of what has been said already. About four and a half years ago, in the Defence Review, I reacted quite favourably when I read that
"Defence must be the servant of foreign policy, and not its master."
Most of us agree that that is the way it should be. Unfortunately, finance took over and there were severe cuts, which I criticised only two months ago. I am therefore quite pleased to quote the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place, Sir Alec Douglas-Home (in whom we have a real professional, not only recognised as such in this country, but also, what is more important, recognised as such across the world), when he said:
"Our main interest is in political stability. We do not want to force our way in where we are not wanted, but where we are wanted and where our presence could contribute to political stability we think we ought to be there."
That is very good. But it remains to be seen how it will be carried out; and, of course, it is not fair to make criticisms of defence policy at the present moment.
I propose to make only one or two points. It will be interesting to see in about six months' time how the present Government execute that admirable policy. Incidentally, it is not quite fair to assume that that means acting for the status quo. It means what it says, which is preserving stability. For example, in the Gulf, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, it is no good imagining that you can go back straight away as if the last two or three years had not taken place. A new situation has arisen. Similarly in the Far East and in South-East Asia, which is our particular concern, the situation has changed over the last two years. I was glad to see in the gracious Speech the introduction of the word "consultation" with our Commonwealth friends. Again with reference to the Gulf, I think it said that we will "consult" the leaders concerned. That is the right way to do it. The wrong way to do it, to my mind, was to announce our withdrawal and then consult afterwards.

495
On the question of friends and allies—because it was agreed not so long ago that we should never fight without allies—Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in another place:
"… and our survival hung upon our policy throughout history to collect and to hold friends and Allies."
So far as I am concerned, if we follow that policy now, it could not be better. The only word of warning that I would make on it is to ask the Government to keep British forces small and in concert with our Allies on the spot. Never over-egg the pudding; always under do it. I remember recommending a year or two ago that in South-East Asia, for example, we should have one battalion, a couple of R.A.F. squadrons and two frigates. That will be different now, of course; but it is better to err on the small side than on the big side. We are likely to stay there, and remain with our friends longer. The same argument applies in the Gulf. Our main object there must be—subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said, put with considerable expertise—to help stabilise the appalling Middle East situation.
One more quote from this very interesting speech, and that is about sea power. The last time I spoke on this subject in your Lordships' House I regretted the fact that for five years sea power had never been mentioned in any single Defence White Paper. Well, here it is in this speech:
"Sea power is one of the, if not the, most important elements of all."
I am glad to see it written down there, because I have a feeling that our future defence policy will be based on sea power. Sea power brings me to the Simonstown Agreement. I should like to say straight away how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and his appeal not to divide the House this evening on this particular point. As he pointed out, the Government have not reached a decision; it is a ticklish subject, and we all know that there are very big moral and political considerations.
I would point out—the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised this aspect in his opening speech, and I am sure it will be touched on again by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon—that the political considerations
496
are only estimates. They are simply political considerations; they are not real, concrete things, such as defence. Before coming into the Chamber I checked on what was written in the Simonstown Agreement and found the following. It was an exchange of letters between Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Erasmus. The first paragraph said this:
"Southern Africa and the sea routes round Southern Africa must be secure against agression without."
This was written, by the way, on June 30, 1955. The second paragraph said:
"The internal security of the countries of Southern Africa must, however, remain a matter for each individual country concerned."
I do not think that it could have been put more clearly, and I would suggest that, if anything, the defence situation is more threatening, with the change of sea power in the Indian Ocean and with the fact that there are hundreds of Russian submarines. The defence threat is greater than it was when that paragraph was written, and it ought to be given priority.
Lastly, I must say a word about the Territorial Army, because important decisions are now going to be taken by the Government. In the gracious Speech they have promised this:
"My Government will review the role and size of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve".
That is very good news indeed. I would remind the Government that the 50,000 men of the present T. & A.V.R. are wholly allocated to the Rhine Army, which cannot, incidentally, fight without them. Beyond that there is nobody at all. We are the only country, I think, of 16 allies in NATO not to have a reserve of any kind. Our reserve ought to be small—I am thinking in terms of one division in the North of the country and one in the South of the country. It must obviously have a home defence role, and, if possible, a civil defence role as well, with perhaps special units for the latter purpose. Above all, irrespective of priorities which the Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State for Defence are fully qualified to decide upon, we must retain and revive the voluntary spirit in this country.
6.24 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to take part in this debate I am

497
conscious of the need for brevity imposed by the long list of speakers. I can only hope that brevity will not impair the value or force of what I want to say. I propose to address your Lordships on Southern Africa, including Rhodesia and South Africa, and the intervention in their affairs, both past, present and future, by that body so whimsically called the United Nations. Perhaps I may shorten my speech by saying at once that I agree with and strongly support every word that has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, who speaks with such intimate knowledge and authority on Southern Africa.
To begin with Rhodesia and the vexed question of sanctions. The Charter of the United Nations sternly enjoins the United Nations not to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, or to require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter. The First Commandment of the United Nations, Chapter 1, Article 4 also states:
"All numbers shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
We have what seems to me this ridiculous situation: ridicule with tragedy also involved. Since Rhodesia, by doing what it has always done and with which the United Nations cannot constitutionally interfere, incites less law abiding members to violate their solemn obligation not to use force, or the threat of force in their international relations. Rhodesia then becomes, at second hand, a threat to the peace and must be coerced. To use the words of that distinguished American, Dean Acheson, in a letter on this subject in the summer of 1966, he said:
"If this reasoning leads the reader to ask, 'who's looney now?', don't blame Rhodesia, blame the Security Council and Harold Wilson."
The problem of Rhodesian sanctions was, as has been said in America also, sold by the most expert British salesman to the United Slates of America and to the United Nations. At this point I should like briefly to summarise my conclusions about the merits of the United Nations Organisation in this sort of connection. It is impossible to exclude from this debate some comments on the United Nations Organisation—a dream that has
498
not come true. A dispassionate estimate of the value must recognise that it was idealistic in its conceptions and a hopeless muddle in practice. Examination of its record encourages the feeling that the machinery of the United Nations Organisation has no real relevance to the times in which we now live. It has outlived such usefulness as it may once have had. As has been said by an eminent writer:
"If the men of power can talk to each other at the click of a switch or meet together with only a few hours' delay, what is the point of having a vast assembly of minor representatives engaged in permanent squabbles in New York?"
One is increasingly made aware of their pressure groups, and the absence of any real world sense of high purpose, combined too with an irresponsible power of mischief. Indeed, the whole United Nations Organisation system, if you examine it, puts a premium on irresponsibility, and also within its own ranks there is flagrant defiance of its own rules for behaviour. Problems, for instance in Africa, will not be solved by emotional hysteria or by the incessant repetition of hollow slogans and platitudes; nor, incidentally, will the friendship of the black man be won by undermining the white man in Africa, as seems still to be believed in some quarters.
Take again the exclusion of China, with one-fifth of the world's population. That does not inspire confidence. Nor does the fact that a General Assembly's majority can be made up of States which provide less than 3 per cent. of the money to support the United Nations. Scores of members are in debt, and some are two years behind in their subscriptions. The majority of States belonging to it are not democracies and their rulers deny the fundamental freedoms of speech and political action to their own peoples, while, when it suits them, demanding them for others. The selective application to others of principles which are completely ignored in the administration of their own home countries does not inspire confidence, either. This, surely, is not the rule of law; it is the rule of uninformed prejudice.
Take South Africa. I seem to hear the voice of prejudice and misunderstanding of the praiseworthy aims of a great people whose courage, energy and constructive ability have built, and are continuing to build, a lasting example of

499
partnership, without coalescence, between neighbouring nations which will serve the cause of future progress of them all. The simple, basic human relations formula underlying the policy of South Africa is surely that every person is at his happiest within his own family circle, that every family is at its happiest within its own community, and every community within its own national environment. This principle is true of all people, of all races and colours, all over the world. Circumstances may change and modify, but there should never be any change of identity.
My own view of the United Nations is that there is no useful place for it in its present form in the present world, and that as a political power, which it seems to be aiming at being, we can only hope that it will fade away unhonoured and unsung. The assault by the United Nations and the United Kingdom against Rhodesia is indeed, despite a layer of bland sanctimony, a patent illegality. The United Nations has reached the stage of judging the law by the issues, instead of the issues by the law. They take the fig leaf of legal respectability to cover what is really naked aggression. It was Dean Acheson, again, who warned his own country that the United States is to-day engaged in an international conspiracy, instigated by the British Government and blessed by the United Nations, to overthrow the Government of a country that has never done any harm to the United Nations or threatened anyone.
To take a glance now at history, it is true that Britain asserted sovereignty over the Rhodesian countryside from the latter part of the last century, but Whitehall has never administered Government there; nor has it provided any funds or forces for its defence. Rhodesia has been self-governing since 1923, when the electorate voted for self-government and against incorporation in the Union of South Africa. In 1953, the British Government persuaded Southern Rhodesia to join in a Central African Federation with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. For a variety of reasons, the Federation was adjudged a failure.
In 1965, the Rhodesian Government were unable to agree with the British Government on a form of severing their
500
political connection after the break-up of the Central African Federation. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland achieved independence, and Southern Rhodesia had a Constitution generally understood to be a preliminary to independence. But, as time went on, Mr. Wilson, in order to force the hand of Southern Rhodesia, sought United Nations' support for a system of voluntary sanctions—the United Nations' term for economic warfare. It proved ineffective. He then pressed the United Nations to make sanctions mandatory. That also has proved a failure, and sanctions are hurting unintended victims and bringing about unintended results. The chief economic victims of this system are black people.
I suggest, my Lords, that the British Government, in a belated recognition of an initial injustice perpetrated on a legally untenable basis, should as early as possible withdraw from this unhappy position. Sanctions, in my view, should be abandoned as a dishonourable mistake. It seems to me that if the British Government want to negotiate with Mr. Smith the immediate removal of sanctions would help to restore an atmosphere of mutual trust. It is surely a matter to negotiate as friends rather than in an atmosphere of hostile duress.
I now turn to South Africa and another potent injustice and misjudgment. May I begin by quoting again from Dean Acheson, the leading American critic of the prevailing urge to use international pressure against South Africa and its management of its own affairs. He says to his own people in America:
"In a broader sense, however, we shall all bear responsibility for the growing political isolation of southern Africa which these emotional and ill-considered measures are bringing about. We"—
that is, of course, America—
"are the only Power of general, as distinguished from parochial, responsibility in the Free World. At a time when Arab nationalism has brought on the closing of the Suez Canal—perhaps permanently—and the Soviet navy has penetrated the Eastern Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the good will of southern Africa, the use of its ports, the co-operation of its governments—including their participation with immense resources and advanced technology in aiding the development of adjoining black States—would be of immense importance to the Free World.
"The mere existence of stability in so vast and important an area of an otherwise turbulent continent is an asset of the greatest

501
value. As the principal responsible Power in the Free World, it is our duty and responsibility to encourage good will, co-operation and stability in southern Africa. It is the height of folly to sacrifice these desirable ends to an aggressive, reformist intervention in the internal affairs of these States, an intervention designed to force upon them electoral practices that none of the black African or Communist States, and very few of the Asian, accept."
My Lords, the policy of separate development is not a fixed dogmatic scheme; it is a principle of flexible application which has been slowly but surely winning the understanding and approval of the Bantu tribes themselves. As has been repeatedly urged—and in the outside world repeatedly ignored—the problem of South Africa is unique. Nowhere in the world, and never in history, has a situation developed which is quite similar. The solution must therefore be unique. Yet everybody, apparently everywhere, whether knowledgeable or quite uninformed, would like to impose theoretical ideas and principles or solutions found to be—or thought to be—useful elsewhere on this different situation. The result has been grotesque. What we see is a cruel caricature of a country, its people and its Government, and a positively abhorrent image of that country's policy, of the motives behind it and the mode of its administration.
My Lords, inter-racial relations present a challenge, throughout the world. What many people fail to realise is that such relations, and the problems to which they give rise, vary from one country to another, and there is therefore no universally applicable solution. The racial set-up in South Africa with which we are dealing has no parallel anywhere in the world—it is sui generis; and from this follows that it requires a special solution. The South African Government has borrowed an example from the nations of the earth—live and let live—apart.
Some day perhaps the United Nations Organisation may deserve its title by adopting the principle of separate development as the only reliable road to peace on earth and the brotherhood of man: political independence and economic interdependence, friendly cooperation combined with recognition of the natural right of each nation to build on its own cultural heritage and traditions. As I see it, the United Nations
502
Organisation is travelling down the road to chaos and strife by aiming at a political hegemony. It is better, surely, for it to stick to what it does well in matters of welfare and charity.
Self-determination, like liberty, must be indivisible. If all African nations are entitled to self-determination then surely white nations have the same right. The response of the colonial Powers to this challenge has been a simple one. They have steadily withdrawn and left the African nations to rule themselves. But the white South Africans are not—and this should be repeated over and over again, owing to a popular misapprehension—and never have been, colonialists. They have firmly established their own distinctive nationhood in a homeland that they have not taken from anyone else. We all know the history of their beginning in a virtually empty land, and the magnificent achievements over three centuries built by their courage, energy and constructive ability—the creation of a prosperity which is the envy of Africa and the wonder of the world. One of the troubles of the troubled age in which we live is that too many people are trying to achieve harmony of interest by forcing everyone to harmonise with them.
In a striking speech—and this is the most important point that I have to make—delivered in June, 1966, Chief Matanzima, Chief Minister of the new Transkei State said, inter alia:
"The Bantu peoples of South Africa, as I am sure is also the case in other parts of Africa, are proud of their heritage. They do not automatically regard it as an unblemished and unmixed blessing to be required to exchange their national and cultural possessions for those, for instance, of a European society. We do not expect the white man to sacrifice the national and cultural attributes which he holds dear. The Transkei to-day has its awn Government, its own Civil Service, its own system of taxation. We can enjoy the fruits of our victories or suffer the bitterness of our own defeats, depending upon ourselves. This has been made possible by the same white Government which has so often been accused of being dedicated to withholding from the black man the opportunity of advancement and self-determination. We will do our utmost to secure a State in the Transkei founded on law and order—a State that recognises the dignity of the individual and will ensure equal justice for all."
Then he goes on:
"We reaffirm our friendship for the whites living in the Transkei and acknowledge our great indebtedness towards our administrators,

503
traders and missionaries. However, we also stand for the gradual withdrawal of the whites from the Transkei so that the territory can become our own exclusive homeland. Yet our policy remains one of intimate friendship with our Mother Country, the Republic of South Africa. The different parts of South Africa are interdependent and our future is tied up with that of greater South Africa. One can foresee that eventually South Africa will embrace a number of fully Bantu-governed States linked with the white Republic of South Africa in co-operative association."
Surely that speech from one of the most striking Bantu leaders shows how Bantu opinion has moved in favour of separate development and has begun to appreciate the bona fides of the South African racial policy, which in this Amendment we are asked to condemn while the Bantus approve it. The non-whites who over the centuries had increasingly entered the white man's country came solely to seek employment, safety, health, education—all of which were provided freely by the white man. Streams of black immigrants continue to flow across these borders from other parts of Africa because of the better wages and way of life in this land of so-called oppression. In modern South Africa it has been left to the white nation of South Africa—after its own emancipation from Imperialism—to set the pace and to devise a pattern of emancipation for the non-white population. This they are doing.
My Lords, I am astonished at the mental confusion and the non sequitur of the Amendment to be moved to the humble Address by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. It says:
"… in view of the vital need to promote accord between different races and mindful of the principles on which the Commonwealth is based and of the possible consequences to British interests in Africa and throughout the world, call on Your Majesty's Government to honour the United Nations resolutions on the supply of arms to South Africa."
If your Lordships will look carefully at the reasons for that as given, the reasons there stated to justify refusal to supply arms to South Africa are precisely per contra those which would justify refusal to accept or obey so monstrous an embargo. I venture to suggest that it is high time Her Majesty's Government started to restore their traditional reputation for honesty and fair play—an image
504
which has been somewhat soiled in recent years. That, surely, is the greatest of all British interests.
As for the first part of this Amendment, may I remind your Lordships of the speech made in London in March, 1961, by the South African Prime Minister? His words were:
"We want each of our population groups to control and govern themselves, as is the case with other nations. Then they can cooperate as in a Commonwealth—in an economic association with the Republic and each other … South Africa will in all honesty and fairness proceed to secure peace, prosperity and justice for all by means of political independence coupled with economic interdependence."
He elaborated on this in this way—and this I would commend to your Lordships:
"I envisage development along the lines similar to that of the British Commonwealth. In other words, I perceive the development of a Commonwealth of South Africa in which the white State and the black States can cooperate together, without being joined in a federation and therefore without being under a central government, but co-operating as separate and independent States. In such an association no State will lord it over any other. They will live rather as good neighbours."
Cannot we pay some attention at least to the public pronouncements of a man in the position of Prime Minister of South Africa?
I get very tired of hearing all the untruths about South Africa finding such a ready forum at the United Nations centre in America. It is a undisputed fact that the non-white people of South Africa already have medical services and modern housing which are second to none compared with the rest of the non-white world. Four out of every five Bantu children are at school. Already 80 per cent. of Bantu children between 7 and 20 years are literate.
But, my Lords, time presses and this fascinating subject invites a length which is impossible in our debate. May I therefore conclude by emphasising my respect for the South African Government and its policy so genuinely pursued. It takes time to evolve into wise action but its bona fides is above question. Perhaps I may borrow again from a distinguished American a final thought. He says:
"If the meek are to inherit the earth they might consider adding a clause to the Litany".,

505
It could follow:
"From all blindness of heart, from pride, vain-glory and hypocrisy, from envy, hatred and malice and all uncharitableness"—
and add—
"and from the United Nations Charter as distorted by some of its members, Good Lord, deliver us.''
6.55 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, if I do not attempt immediately to answer the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, it is not from any agreement with him about the United Nations. It is a desperate effort to obey the behest to brevity, in which I shall probably disappoint your Lordships anyway. I have accumulated in this debate a list of tributes which would do credit to a public dinner, but as they are genuine I will deliver them. First, I share the diffidence of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who have both been in politics longer than I have been in anything. But they are both great pillars of our political life, and I should only like to recall, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, one of the really dramatic moments in my diplomatic life. That was the occasion of the arrival of the noble Lord at Washington Airport brandishing an FN.76 rifle. This was the noble Lord's way of insisting that this was the best rifle in the world, which it was at the time, and I think it was an index of the noble Lord's blending of the picturesque and emphatic in pleading a case. I do not expect that the noble Lord will use this method in this House, but he will find other methods of disarming us and I hope he will find them often.
May I also pay my compliments to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, on becoming the spokesman of my old Department in this House. He bears a name very much honoured in diplomacy, the name of a man who in a short year of diplomacy in the most difficult post in the world accomplished more than might have seemed possible for any one man in so short a time at so decisive an epoch in our history and in the history of our relations with the United States. If I may suggest it to him, he might like to think over the slogan he gave us of stability and parity; there could be added, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Bourne,
506
suggested it, an element of progress in the slogan. I suggest that progress in stability is a valuable amendment, and if one does not add "progress", there are countries in the world who would mistake us for upholders of a perpetual status quo.
May I say also, before I get to the main subjects of my speech, how strongly I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said about certain diplomatic points. I would also join him most warmly in his tribute to the late Foreign Secretary, Mr. Michael Stewart. On several occasions in recent years the steadiness and courage of Mr. Stewart in moments of great emotion prevented action which might have misled our foreign policy. He kept his head and his courage, he did it in a way which I know will make people realise in the future that he was a very much finer Foreign Secretary than many people may have given him credit for at the time.
I have one other tribute. My connection with Ireland through my family relationship is very complicated, but it is near enough for me to wish to go right back to the beginning of this debate and add my tribute to the address by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, who began it. The Irish-English language is a very great gift to this country from Irishmen of all persuasions, and it was a real aesthetic as well as political pleasure to hear his thoughtful address in that very distinguished language.
It is very difficult to make up one's mind how to undertake a debate on the gracious Speech, because one is always told that to hammer one subject is the most effective thing to do. But the gracious Speech is not like that, and I have therefore tried to select certain subjects to deal with as quickly as possible. I should like to allude very rapidly to aspects of the European Economic Community, disarmament and also the Gulf and South-East Asia, and then proceed to a little more time on the Middle East and on Southern Africa. On the European Economic Community all that I wish to suggest is this. There has been some controversy as to whether the Government were wise to make an opening statement in somewhat tough language. My view is that they were. It is probably right just on one occasion and rather

507
a formal occasion to indicate to our prospective partners that we can talk to them the kind of language which they have not hesitated to talk to us. But I do not think we should make a habit of it, and I hope that from now on we shall proceed as partners in a great European enterprise, a great new attempt to expand the great experiment which our prospective partners have already begun.
I was happy to see in the gracious Speech mention of disarmament. The previous Government have a quite positive record in this matter. It has required great initiative, great expertness and great persistence, and I would join other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in expressing the hope that this subject will not become a routine subject, but will be pursued with the same persistence and energy. As a secondary nuclear Power we have a certain say in these matters, a certain special position, and we are therefore listened to, provided that we do our homework and present our case with all the patience that is needed in these very difficult discussions.
I hope, too, that we shall continue to take the whole problem of working in the United Nations with the greatest seriousness. But as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, used the phrase "downgrading" of representation I must quickly take up this point. I know exactly what that means. I would just put the point in this way and, if I may say so, lay it on the line. From the moment that Mr. Attlee (as he then was) chose a distinguished professional diplomat to be our first representative to the United Nations to the moment when Mr. Wilson had the services of a distinguished ex-Colonial Governor and highly active political character, we have had uniformly extremely skilful and courageous representation at the United Nations.
The job is a unique one. You have to be able to work, and indeed to like working in public as a good politician; and you have to be able, like a good diplomat, to argue, to draft with great patience and also constantly to observe the niceties of responding to every kind of international sensitivity. The merit in that job is contributed by the individual and not by the source from whence he comes, and I have no doubt that the consistently high level of representation
508
that we have had will be maintained by whoever is chosen in the future.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one second, only to say that in saying what I said about downgrading I was in no way casting any sort of aspersion on the quality of diplomatic representation that might follow my noble friend Lord Caradon at the United Nations? I was making the point which I had not time to make before: that I believe it important that the representative at the United Nations ought to be someone who is a member of the Government and not simply a diplomatic representative. I hope the noble Lord did not think that I was making any kind of adverse reflection on the quality of diplomatic representation, either in the past or, conceivably, in the future.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Indeed, I would not suspect him of any such thing. But there has been a certain amount of public supposition that the merit of performance at the United Nations depends upon the source of the person who performs, and I was most anxious that that misunderstanding should not persist. Certainly I had no intention of attributing it to the noble Lord.
If I may now proceed to the question of the Gulf and of South-East Asia, I have not changed my mind in any way since the remarks I made on May 13. But perhaps I might go over the situation in the Gulf once again, because it has certain nuances which I think it important to understand. Of course we hear many reports of Arab complaints against British behaviour. These are conscientiously handed to people who conscientiously report them here, and they should be disregarded as the small change of this kind of situation. What I think is the real psychological process that goes on is that in many cases people who deep in their hearts would like to see us stay have sized up the situation in the way that has been explained by many noble Lords and have decided that for all purposes, and particularly stability, it would be much better if we stuck to our decision to go. We should understand this; it is an important political fact, and I have no doubt that it leads to the conclusion that has been reached already by the previous

509
Government. At the same time, the gracious Speech, with great tact, mentions that consultations should be held with local leaders; and this clearly is the right way to proceed.
May I also, in connection with the Gulf, utter a certain warning to those who will be taking over? It is a very great risk and great responsibility that they assume because, while there is not exactly a Power vacuum, there is a tempting area for people who are stronger and less scrupulous than the people who live there at the moment; and we do not want to leave that area with the feeling that we a re handing it over, as one noble Lord said, to someone else from outside to wield authority there. That is what I take to be the true meaning of neocolonialism, and we do not want it. At the same time I would also suggest a warning to the Rulers of States in that area. They have an example of what you can do and what you cannot do in the Maharajahs of India, who, sadly from their point of view, at a particular point of time preferred their internal quarrels to their common interests. It is extremely important to those Rulers to put their common interests first if there is not to be permanent instability instead of progress in stability.
In regard to South-East Asia, I welcome the decision by the Government to enter into some consultation with our Commonwealth partners about future partnership in defence. I should like to pick up a suggestion made in another place, that in this context we should not forget the importance of Indonesia. I hesitate or enter into the appearance of further controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but I do not think he will wholly disagree with me if I say his argument was getting a little too near to saying that "a little help is as bad as no help at all". I think that there is a moral and political effect of even a small amount of help, given the whole history of that area.
But, having uttered this rather cautious welcome to what the Government have done—and I mean it to be sincere as well as cautious—may I again make a suggestion, but this time to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Defence? In offering this co-operation he should keep in his desk drawer two small pieces
510
of paper, on one of which would be written the foreign exchange cost of the average serviceman stationed in that part of the world, and on the other piece of paper the absolute cost. On a fairly recent calculation I made with expert help the foreign exchange cost worked out at something like £1,600 plus. That does not sound much, until you discover that one thousand people cost over £1½ million. In any case, that figure did not include the large sums in sterling which would be needed for purposes of ferrying. I do not attempt to be a statistician in this matter but I would simply sound a warning that while the principle which the Government have accepted is, I am sure, a good one, there are some nasty figures lurking in the background if those who manage this principle are not very careful indeed.
May I now come to the Middle East? I have been a little surprised that we have not at this moment of crisis gone into this area of the world in a little more detail this afternoon. Last time it was discussed in this House there was what might paradoxically be called a stable war situation, in the sense that the Israelis had supremacy in the Suez Canal area, there was an effort to get some progress in Four-Power Talks, and things seemed to be going on in a brutal way yet at a. steady rate. Now, suddenly, all this has changed. There is the great increase in Egyptian defence potentiality; there has been a constructive offer from the United States, and we hope that the Soviet response has been constructive, though we do not yet know; and there is obviously a great sharpening of the situation all round.
If I may diverge for a moment from this, it seems to be generally accepted that there are about 8,000 to 10,000 Soviet advisers of one kind or another in Egypt at this time, and I just pause to reflect what an uproar there would be if there were a quarter of that number of Americans in Israel. I know that the parallel is not exact, but I hope that at some stage we shall haul down the double standard.
In this situation it is quite right that there should be private discussion, but all the same there are certain things that one would like to see being done in public. At the basis of all one's thinking about this area we must be quite

511
clear on one point, that we are not in the presence of one war but of two wars. We are in the presence of the clash of hatred and mistrust between Arabs and Jews; we are also in the presence of exploitation of that situation to further the national aims of the Soviet Union. I am not going to describe them in any less neutral way than that. But this is happening, and I think it is now permissible to say so in public.
If one goes back over the history of recent years, there are two points that stand out extremely clearly. The first is that in May, 1967, this present emergency started with what could only be called the Israelis and the United Nations being "framed" by the U.A.R. and Syria, with Russian cognisance. The Israelis took a desperate counter measure and were successful. But unhappily, after their success, they were not able to infuse their victory with the generosity which would perhaps have brought about if not a solution at any rate a cessation of what was going on. What has unfortunately happened is that the Israelis have tended to insist on something which is really the shadow rather than the substance, that there must be a particular kind of a negotiation, a direct negotiation with individual Arab Governments. I think everybody who knows Arab peoples and Governments advises that this is simply not possible to start with. It may be illogical, it may be unreasonable, but direct negotiation was "not on". Unfortunately, this, given Mr. Eban's latest speech, is still the Israeli point of view. Of course, as the Foreign Secretary said, there must be direct negotiation at some time. But it seems absolutely clear that we shall not get started without third parties or a third party; hence the Four Power negotiations and hence the appointment of Dr. Jarring. Therefore, it is my contention that it is high time that Dr. Jarring got back in that area.
May I expand for a moment on that point? It is objected that there is nothing for him to do; that the situation is so bad, or that he needs further instructions, or that certain Governments will not receive him. Now I realise that the task of a United Nations special representative in the Middle East, sent there to promote efforts to make peace, as the resolution says, is one requiring total
512
personal dedication and total persistence, as well as total steadfastness on the part of the organisation which supports him, namely the United Nations; and that is a very great deal to ask. I should like to pay tribute to what Dr. Jarring has attempted, so far without success. But I did belong, in a very small way, to the hundreds of people who participated in the drafting of the United Nations Charter a quarter of a century ago, and I think those hundreds of people would have been horrified if they had thought then that in a quarter of a century's time there would be a grim and growing war in the Middle East and there would be no United Nations political or diplomatic presence at all. I cannot believe that this is right, and I hope, therefore, either that the Four Powers may be able to agree, if they have to agree, supplementary instructions, or that it will anyway prove possible for the United Nations special representative to be there again, and soon.
There were two other small points on that. The first is that it is a fortunate chance that he is in Moscow at this moment. That is relevant. The second point is that if any Government is reluctant to receive him (and I have been told that' some may be) that implies an extreme weakness of some kind in that Government's case. If so, Dr. Jarring should be there to help us to an understanding of what it is. So we need indirect negotiations, the presence of Dr. Jarring and, if I may put it in this way, some restraint by the Soviet Union, which I trust the Soviet Union will exercise, in the pursuit in that area of its national and doctrinal objectives. If there is that restraint, a great many lives will be spared and a great deal of destruction will be avoided.
If I may now come to Rhodesia and Southern Africa, I should like to consider them separately, but may I suggest one general principle which should cover all cases; that is, that the policy of any British Government in this context should be one of looking towards the future. There have been things in the past which have been pleasant and profitable; there may be things at present; but the eye must be on the future of a continent which is developing with such momentum and with such—shall we say?—pace.

513
In the case of Rhodesia the gracious Speech tells us that a further effort will be made to see whether a sensible solution can be arrived at, and we must presumably take it that the Government will indeed make this effort. It will, says, the gracious Speech happily, be made in accordance with the Five Principles. I think that whether you deal with it under five principles or six, there is a preponderant a paramount, principle, and that is the first principle of all. It is that the principle and
"intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed."
That does not mean majority rule tomorrow, or the day after, but it is the light at the end of the tunnel, and there cannot be any suggestion that the tunnel should be blocked or the light extinguished. That must surely be the guiding principle for any Government and for any negotiator in this matter. I have every confidence that that principle will be observed. If the effort is made and is not successful, I would also observe that it would be very unwise for this Government to be the one which took any initiative in the matter of slackening sanctions. That is an international political observation, and I believe it to be correct and important Now to come to the important problem—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? It is merely whether he means that sanctions, if necessary, be kept on permanently? I only ask for this reason: that he spoke about unimpeded progress to majority rule, but added that it might go, as I understood it, at any pace, fast or slow. He did not mention any limitation of time during the whole of that period, which might be years and years, that sanctions would have to continue.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, the thought that I have in this respect is that our position in this matter is particularly delicate. It may well be that in due course there would be a consensus that sanctions were not profitable, not effective, and there might be a motion towards relaxing them. I think that this country would only do itself and its interests harm if it were seen to be at the head of a drive to relax the sanctions way ahead of
514
other countries who might be more hesitant. It is perhaps a tactical point, but it is important. As regards the length, that of course would be a matter for negotiation, as it has been before.
As regards South Africa, I think, speaking from the Cross-Benches, that one has a slight advantage in that one can try to analyse this profoundly difficult problem free of either great emotion or a spirit of emulation and contest; and I have tried to do that, although necessarily, in the time available, my analysis will be too superficial. But if we go back to 1955 and the conclusion of the Simons-town Agreement, we find that it was produced in order that the sea routes might be secured from outside aggression, and that it was welcomed at the time by Mr. Attlee as "a satisfactory settlement of a difficult question".
Since that time things have altered, as it were, in both directions. In the first place, apartheid has become a much more active issue, understood or misunderstood by a great part of the world. Secondly, because of apartheid South Africa has left the Commonwealth and therefore there are differences in our relationship. There has also been "the wind of change" which brought independence to so much of new Africa. Working the other way, South Africa has become even more important to us as a market and the idea of outside aggression, which in 1955 was simply a "precautious" word, is now something which is constantly in people's minds. So that while this question may be one of emotion it is also one of very tough priorities for any British Government to consider.
I agree with the analysis which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, gave of the economic aspect. To put it very crudely, it seems that we can maintain a favourable balance of payments without receipts from the sales of arms to South Africa. I know that that situation may change, but, given that fact, I cannot see any case for the sale of arms simply for economic reasons. Of course we should earn more, but it is not a matter of life or ruin, in terms of the balance of payments.
There is another factor qualifying the situation. Certainly, we can use this facility of Simonstown, but I feel very strongly that as a matter of presentation

515
we must never get into the position where apartheid is a good ally against Communism. That is a fatal position to get into. There is a good economical Latin saying—non tali auxilio: not with help like that. I think, also, that one could settle for the definition of Simonstown as "useful", which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. But I think that that perhaps means that it is something that we want. It is not something that we can simply dismiss as an aberration, nothing to do with modern warfare. Of course it is not old-style protection of a trade route. It is a facility, and in this state of the world one does not despise facilities: one does not know whether they are going to come in useful some day. Another factor is that there is, as has been amply proved in another place and here, no obligation under the Agreement to furnish arms to South Africa.
Where does this bring us, my Lords? I think it brings us to this: that we do not know the answer to one vital question: will the future use of these facilities cause us any of the things that are being so strongly talked about? We do not know, and the Government, quite rightly, do not tell us. Therefore, at this stage of the argument, we can only hope that the Government will not do anything which will shock the conscience of this country or upset in a big way the new African world. We do not know what the price would be, and before we can make up our minds on whether we approve or disapprove of the policy we must know that. In the meantime, public opinion has been working on this subject and will continue to work.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, will make a formidable case for the point of view which we know he will put, but I would join with the three other noble Lords on the Cross-Benches—Lord Caccia, Lord Trevelyan and Lord Bourne—in putting to him very strongly—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the public conscience. Would he always feel that loyalty to the United Nations must override public security for this country?
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, if I may turn the point back on the noble
516
Lord, I think the public conscience would feel, even in circumstances of great strain, that it would be wrong to sell machine guns to the South African Government. If I may say so again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, having made his case as formidably as I know he will, will listen to the voice of a few modest people on these Benches and decide not to put this matter to a Division. I urge him for this reason. If, as would seem likely, the Government felt compelled to reject his Amendment on account of its inopportunity, which would be a quite logical thing to do, then what would happen would be misunderstood in the United Nations and in the new Africa as being the universal attitude of this country. That would not be true. But there could be great misunderstanding if this matter were brought to a head at this point, when perhaps a little more patience might still lead to the result which the great majority of our people would commend.
7.27 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I last addressed your Lordships in May when we had our defence debate, and there is little that I want to add to the remarks that I made then. The little I have to say concerns our maritime forces, both naval and air, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, will forgive me if I do not follow his most interesting speech too closely. Basically, I hope above all else that Her Majesty's Government will continue to keep Russia's 350 submarines in the forefront of their minds, for short of nuclear war it is those submarines which in my view, though not, I understand, in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, constitute the greatest threat to our country. And one of the areas of greatest threat will, I believe, be off the Cape.
In the last war I was for two and a half years, under that most distinguished Admiral Sir Max Horton, responsible for the operations of our submarines based in this country, and though I freely admit that I am now getting rather out of date I still have some knowledge of the subject, and I submit that as my view for what it is worth. We and our allies must between us be able to deploy a large enough anti-submarine force to neutralise that great fleet of modern submarines. Let us make no mistake, my Lords. Let

517
us be in no doubt. Those submarines are there to provide a mortal threat to our supply lines whenever Russia deems the moment ripe.
The other point I wish to make is that, like the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, with whose speech I wholly agree, I believe that if it is humanly possible we should keep our two large carriers, the "Eagle'' and the "Ark Royal", in commission or the next few years; in fact, until we have new small carriers and VTOL aircraft available for service with the Fleet.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask one question for clarification? I sometimes find myself confused about the strategic doctrines being advanced from the opposite Benches. Is this threat to the sea routes envisaged by the noble Lord as taking place in the context of a nuclear war, or is it envisaged in the context of some kind of conventional war taking place at sea without a major confrontation taking place between the major Powers?
LORD ASHBOURNE: The second, my Lords, before a nuclear war takes place. I regard this as a conventional war.
These two carriers will in my view be essential to work in with the Australian carrier to cover our trade routes in the Indian Ocean and to put out bush fires in that vast area bounded by the Cape, the Gulf and Singapore. As I understand it, there are two main difficulties to be overcome if "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" are to be kept going, one financial and the other manning; but I believe that the retention of these two carriers is so important that drastic steps would be justified to keep them in commission. I would in fact go so far as to say that I believe we should be justified in not building a fifth Polaris submarine, and justified also in paying off, say, four or perhaps even six County class destroyers to provide the necessary crews. If I had the good fortune to command a squadron in the Far East, I know that if I had the choice between a carrier and three County class destroyers in that squadron I would not have the slightest hesitation in choosing the carrier. Of course, if we are going to retain even a modest maritime force in the Far East, a modest naval base will
518
also be necessary, either at Singapore or in Australia; but with the closing down of naval bases that has already taken place all round the world this may not be an insuperable difficulty.
My Lords, I am not of course in a position to estimate the bill for the two highly important matters I have referred to, but I am sure that from the defence point of view it is vital that we should at all times be ready to contain and neutralise Russia's submarine fleet and that we should, to put it at its lowest, be very unwise not to have carrier-borne aircraft available in. the Indian Ocean to guard our oil supplies and general trade routes from attack by Russia's fast-growing maritime forces. As a welcome by-product of the two courses of action I have suggested, I believe it would soon become apparent to people up and down the country that the Navy is at last passing the dangerously low level it has reached, and that with its revival we should soon see a marked and beneficial effect on recruiting.
7.33 p.m.
LORD AYLESTONE: My Lords, in the first four and a half hours of this debate on the gracious Speech the subject of the Middle East has been touched on more than once, and I would assume that in the next four and a half hours it will be touched on again; but I make no apology for referring to it myself because I am more concerned at the moment, in a world of problems and crises, about this particular area than anywhere else, and. my apprehensions are not lessened at all by current happenings in the area. The supply and the use of ground-to-air missiles by the United Arab Republic, doubtlessly backed by technicians and. crews giving the know-how, can only lead to an intensification of the problem there and, in turn, to heavier reprisals from the Israelis. I think that possibly the Middle East is now more dangerous to world peace than South-East Asia itself.
At the time, many people in this country, and indeed throughout the world, doubted the wisdom of the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Most, however, would now agree that their fears expressed at that time were unfounded. The decision to create a State of Israel, as in fact the objective individual will

519
admit, led to a near miracle in that area. But I am afraid it has also led to a state of what one can almost describe as continuous war. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, in his maiden speech, upon which I should wish to congratulate him, mentioned the fact that since her inception in 1948 Israel has absorbed thousands of Stateless Jews, many of them from Europe, Asia and Africa, and many of them having memories, vivid memories, still in their minds of Hitler's camps and the death chambers. By irrigation and desalinisation of sea water, Israel has in this period of time reclaimed great tracts of former swamp and desert and made them into fertile land. She has done something else in that area: she has introduced a form of democratic Government which the majority of people in the area had not seen before. Few, if any of them, had ever had a vote. She has created a system of democracy in which there are many—from some points of view perhaps too many—political Parties, and here both Arab and Jew, most of them for the first time, are able to vote in an election for a Party of their choice. She has done this since 1948, despite continuous preparedness for and engagement in actual warfare.
I was thinking back yesterday, when making a few notes for this (as I hope it will be) short speech, about the position in May and June of 1967 when Egypt, backed by Syria and maybe Russia, decided to close the Straits of Teran to all shipping bound for Israeli ports—all shipping. We remember the newspaper comments at the time; the suggestion that perhaps British or American warships could escort through the Straits British or American merchantmen carrying goods to Eilat. But we were told that this was impossible; no ships could possibly get through under the Egyptian batteries overlooking the Straits. My Lords, those batteries were overrun from inland in a matter of a few hours, and that was Israel's reply. I mention this only to demonstrate that she has looked after and can look after herself, given an opportunity to do so. On the other hand, she would not wish to continue fighting, shooting, warfare, for one minute longer than is absolutely necessary.
The six-days war which followed gave Israel a great victory, but of course it
520
did not bring peace, and much land formerly inhabited by Arabs was now under Israeli occupation. It gave her at once greater security for her borders, but it also rendered thousands of Arabs homeless. I know and believe that Israel wants peace. Given the opportunity, she would be prepared to use her knowledge and skills for all the people in the area. She must, however, in her desire for peace, be prepared to make some territorial adjustments to her present borders. But in this, again, she could hardly be expected to agree, for example, to live under Syrian gun emplacements on the Golan Heights.
We must pose the question, if we look at the problem objectively: What of the Palestinian Arabs displaced and rendered homeless, not only in 1967 but in the several wars since 1948? The problem was difficult enough to resolve before 1967, and of course it has been greatly exacerbated as a result of the six-days war. However, at this point it is perhaps worth remembering (and worth realising by some people who often regard Israel as a place in which only Jews live) that nearly a quarter of a million Arabs have been living peacefully and, so far as we can judge, happily in Israel for over the past twenty years, and their ancestors for many years before—that is, from the inception of the State of Israel and before. There, in Israel, they are equal citizens, having equal rights for their own political Parties. One noble Lord to-day mentioned apartheid in Israel. There is no such division in Israel. Nevertheless, I am not saying that I believe that every Arab in Israel is as happy as perhaps he might wish to be—any more than perhaps are some of the Welsh or Scots in Great Britain. The Arab refugee problem is an extremely difficult one, but it is not insoluble. Israel must, and I believe would be prepared to, take her share in its solution; but of course there is a limit to the number of Arabs that she can absorb.
The United Nations has been mentioned on numerous occasions in the course of this debate, and like most other speakers I am a supporter of the United Nations. I believe in it; but nevertheless I am not always happy when the Great Powers differ over problems such

521
as the one in the Middle East. Fortunately, the result is generally acceptable. I do not think it is perfect because the problem is that while in pursuing this sort of "resolutionary" path the United Nations eventually arrive at a resolution acceptable to the signatory nations after a great deal of discussion, it seems to me that a resolution of that sort is not always acceptable to the participants in the conflict. Therefore, despite what has been said in the debate I doubt whether the Middle East crisis can be solved by outside agencies alone. I would encourage (and I am sure the Israel Government would be prepared to listen to them) any and every outside agency. But the final solution, the final details, must surely be between the Arabs and the Israelis. It is going to take time and it will take forbearance and patience.
The Arab nations refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a fact. If those Arab nations on Israel's border would, for a star:, give up all talk of destroying the State of Israel, of driving the Israelis into the sea, then that could be a first step. It is not exactly an acceptance of Israel, but it is a step forward and I think a big one. It recognises that Israel is there and, if they do not already know it, it recognises that Israel is a powerful if a small nation. But at the same time I believe that the Israel Government should accept some responsibility, and say so, towards the rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced Arabs. That, too, could be another step. She could give an undertaking to withdraw from some of the occupied territories—which I am sure she would be prepared to do. But, equally, she would have to be given guarantees of security for her borders.
These are the sort of seemingly unimportant little steps which are extremely important in themselves. If only these things are said, they could lead to the end of the shooting. That having been done, the solutions will come through the activities of outside organisations, through Four Power talks, and so on, and through the Israelis and the Arabs talking together. The short but important steps that I have suggested may be too much to ask or expect. I think, in fairness, that the Arabs may find them less easy to accept than would the Israelis; but nevertheless to me they make sense.
522
Both sides in this conflict must in their hearts want peace:, neither can afford the economic strains, the disruptions of normal life and the horrible fears which must be in the hearts and minds of both Arabs and Jews—fears which must be in every home, whether that home is a simple black Bedouin tent in the desert or a luxury flat in Tel Aviv. Israel is a small country, with a. population of something like 2½ million people of mixed origins, people who have come from all the Continents of the world but who have now welded themselves into a nation. Given the chance, and given peace, they could make an enormous contribution to the well-being of people in that area.
My Lords, I hope that the Four Power talks will go on; but I think that a solo effort, perhaps by the British Government acting as a mediator, could make an impression of some sort. If we could determine what are the minimum requirements from both sides for a cease fire and get that firmly established, at least that would be of some help. What a great tragedy it is that killing, bombing and destruction threaten the whole of this area, the whole of this land, which to most of the people in the world is the Holy Land.
7.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, began this debate with a thought which amounts to a picking out of what will be the leitmotif of this Parliament by referring to the great legacy that the new Government had received in the form of the strongest economy in living memory, or whatever it is. Therefore perhaps he will not hold it against me if I make a remark slightly in tune with that—or perhaps not in tune with that. Quite a long time ago I recall that the Prime Minister in the late Government said he was going to fight the next Election upon his Government's record. That remark emboldened me to lay a wager, at odds of 2 to 1 on, that we should have a Conservative Government by Christmas of this year. I have therefore nothing to complain about, either politically or personally, and I rise to address your Lordships in a state of euphoria and good will to one and all.

523
I hope that I shall not be thought to be deceptive as I go on, but I should particularly like to express a word of appreciation of the remarks at the end of Lord Chalfont's speech which, if I may say so, contained a great deal that impressed me as being more statesmanlike than many speeches we hear.
I am thinking of that part of his speech in which he was referring not to political matters but to the future problems of the world. I found it very striking indeed, and I personally agree with what he says on the nature of the problem. Where I depart from him—and I must do that—is that, having stated what the problems are, and identified, I think rightly, what he described as the great moral issue of this century, he went on to express the opinion that by selling arms to South Africa we should place ourselves on the wrong side in that issue. He said also (and he will forgive me if I paraphrase him wrongly; I am not attempting to quote him directly) that if we do this Britain will have shown to the world where we stand in the great conflict between the rich and the poor, the oppressors and the oppressed. I think that those are near enough to the noble Lord's words.
I should be inclined to offer that to the Guinness Book of Records for their non sequitur section if it were not for the fact that I read in The Times a few days ago a letter which contains these words:
"Not only would such an action"—
referring to the selling of arms to South Africa—
"destroy the prestige of Britain in the United Nations and with the developing world, it would inevitably create the impression that Her Majesty's Government supports racial policies at home and abroad."
I defy anybody to say either that we follow racial policies at home or abroad, say in the U.S.A., or that any serious-minded person in any other country could conclude from anything that we may do in the matter of arms to South Africa that we do give such support. That letter came from the Chairman and Secretary of the United Nations Organisation of Great Britain.
My noble friend Lord Lothian earlier this afternoon used a phrase, which struck me somewhat, to the effect that people are becoming deafened and disillusioned
524
by words that have no purpose. Words such as those that I have quoted certainly have a purpose, and it is one that I confess I do not greatly care about. I am inclined to wonder whether they have any meaning. They are supported by similar though less powerful statements, and I have no doubt that they will be again (as they have been during this debate) by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, when he comes to speak on his Amendment. The noble Lord himself has already said on the radio that selling arms to South Africa will show that we have taken a wrong turning in the—I forget exactly how he put it—great "contest between black and white", or something of that sort.
My Lords, all this, to my mind, is very nearly completely nonsense and I think that what we are suffering from is the utterances of the members—some of them unwitting members and some deliberately members—of a new cult that has grown up in the last decade or so: the cult of anti-racialism. There is nothing wrong with racialism, which simply means exerting or encouraging animosity on the part of one race against another. On that basis I can claim to be an anti-racialist myself. But we now have a new definition of the word "racialism", and it is upon this that the anti-racial cult, as I choose to describe it, is founded. To these people racialism does not mean simply what I have just said. It means that, with the modification, the proviso, the limitation, that racialism is something that can be practised by the inhabitants—either in part, individually, or as a whole—of certain white countries against countries inhabited by persons of another colour. These people must be white, for if they are of the same colour and they exert racialist tendencies against persons of another colour other than white or their own colour (black v. brown; brown v. black; black v. black or anything you like) it would be thought to be simply the continuation of an ancient feud or some totally normal state of warfare, animosity, or whatever it may be, between those races.
It does not apply to all white nations. The most completely and determinedly racial white nation, I suppose, is Australia, which from the very beginning has refused ever to admit any coloured immigrants. Nobody ever accuses the

525
Australians of being racialist. I think that their attitude is probably very widely approved: it is by me. I think that they have been absolutely sensible and right from the very beginning. But I have no doubt that if I were to say now, "What a mistake we have made! If only we had don; what the Australians have done and allowed no coloured people into the country at all!", I should instantly be branded as a "Powellite"—and probably "a dirty Powellite" at that.
This anti-racialism, represented by what I choose to call a cult, is selective. Not only is it selective, but it is carried to such lengths that it becomes at times, I think, almost hysterical; and it becomes most hysterical when it begins looking towards South Africa. The South Africans have given us reasons for this by inventing apartheid. They have actually given it a word, and so it is convenient to fix on that. It makes a good war-cry in Trafalgar Square, or outside Lord's cricket ground, or anywhere else you like to think of. But the matter is not quite so simple as that, and there is no reason that I can see why, simply because South Africans are undoubtedly racial in their policy, they should be singled out by the rest of the world—perhaps not by the rest of the world, but particularly by people in Great Britain, and indeed in your Lordship;' House—as being the black sheep of the world. However, I do not wish to argue that. I am not arguing in favour of apartheid, which I loathe and abhor as much as anyone else.
Then, my Lords, we get the strange situation that when anybody tries to do anything in concert with the South African Government, he is instantly branded as supporting the white South Africans against the blacks—which must, I submit, be nonsense. The next stage is reached when the matter becomes an issue of morality. The previous Administration and the present Government have sold goods (and nobody has ever suggested we should not) by way of trade to South Africa. Our trade in a general way is increasing, and has been increasing over the last few years. Our imports from South Africa, in fact, slightly exceed our exports. Thus the balance of trade is slightly in South Africa's favour.
One of the things we are doing in this matter is to provide South Africa with the one basic raw material of all
526
weapons of war, of whatever kind or for whatever purpose they may be used; namely, money. Very well, my Lords: the Government and the Parties accept that. I accept it. But having accepted it, I am inclined to think that if I were a Leader of a Government that accepted it, I should feel a little inhibited about the height of the horse on which 1 was to climb in proclaiming the immorality of sending to the South Africans the arms themselves—arms over which we should enjoy a complete power of veto as regards their design and their specifications.
Not everyone, as we very well know, feels inhibited in this way. The Leader of the Opposition himself has said (I do not pretend to quote him) that to turn our backs on the policy of not selling arms to South Africa would be to overturn policies based on morality—and he said something else which I forget. Those words are repeated, with greater or lesser degrees of unction and force, by politicians and others here and there. My Lords, sanctimony is never endearing, and when it is carried to this length I personally find it unpleasant.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He has succeeded in losing me completely' in this rather convoluted argument. He says that because we trade with South Africa, and they have a favourable balance of trade, they therefore have the means to buy arms; therefore it is illogical that we should not supply them with arms. Is this some new kind of doctrine? Because it seems to me, for example, that if you pay a man wages, you give him money which, if he wishes, he may use to buy dangerous drugs. Is it therefore moral and right to supply him with the dangerous drugs? I am not quite sure of the logic of this argument.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: No, my Lords, I see the noble Lord's difficulty; it is one that I myself have caused. The argument is this: that it is perfectly all right, and I do not object at all, to sell whatever it may be—pea-shooters, if you like, or any kind of trade goods—to South Africa. It does provide them with money which they can spend on arms, drugs or anything you like. But I do not accept that it follows from that that it would be in

527
order to say that it would be perfectly all right to supply them with arms. All I say is that if I am doing that, then, when I draw the line at selling them the arms themselves, I do not feel inclined to say that I am operating from some very high, lofty moral principle. Does that make it clear?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, it certainly makes it very clear.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: On the other hand, I do not approve of the idea of putting the whole thing on the basis of money. It is sometimes argued that we should sell these arms to South Africa because it is wrong, in our own interests, to deprive ourselves of £75 million of trade a year. But I do not believe that you can rightly put money against morality, for I can see that there is a moral element here.
What I do believe (and this is the point I wish above all to make) is that this matter is not one of morality; it is not one of apartheid; it is not one of racialism: it is one of defence. I have nothing to say on the rights or wrongs, or the necessity, of this particular matter of defence. I have spoken on this before and other noble Lords have spoken about it now. I would simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in particular (perhaps he does not know it all but he knows a great deal more than I do; I certainly admit that), why he says that the next war is not going to be a war of engagement in the South Atlantic. To state that is really asking us to address the noble Lord as "noble God". I do not think that anyone can lay down the law quite as firmly as that.
Let us remember that the Russians, whatever kind of threat they may be thought to pose strategically, are increasing their stranglehold on the Middle East. They have probably already got Egypt entirely under their thumb. They will probably open the Suez Canal, under Russian control; and Aden is waiting there as a further base. Nothing can stop this happening. In passing, may I say that we shall find that a great deal more importance will become attached to the situation of Malta in the Mediterranean. However one evaluates the position in the Middle East, the fact remains that there is a strategic threat,
528
and the question of whether or not we ought to sell arms to South Africa should be considered in the light of that threat and in the light of the Simonstown Agreement. The whole point, my Lords, is that this is a matter of defence. It is in the hands of my noble friend who sits immediately below me, and I look forward with confidence to hearing what he has to say on the subject, not necessarily this evening but in time, because I believe that the matter is in good hands. It should be remembered that for Her Majesty's Government the defence of Britain is much more important than some mythical defence of the Bantu.
8.2 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I am going to confine what I have to say to the Amendment, and for three reasons. First, it is one of the most important of all decisions which the Government of the day have to make. Secondly, it is right that it should be debated and that a vote should be taken. The evidence seems to be that the Government have not yet made up their minds, and I would disagree entirely with those noble Lords who feel it better to wait in a kind of vacuum until they do. I hope that, whatever the results of the Division, the arguments that have been deployed may have some influence upon the decisions which the Government have yet to make. Thirdly, this issue of arms to South Africa is the catalyst of so many other companionable and comprehensive issues, and I should like, with your Lordships' indulgence, to deal with a few of them.
I make no apology for dealing first with the proposition that this is in principle a matter of morality. This is my last, and though I may be a poor cobbler I intend to stick to it and do my own thinking to begin with. I have no doubt—in the words of the British Council of Churches—that whatever Her Majesty's Government may say by way of disclaimer, the sale of arms or the renewal of the sale of arms will be interpreted throughout Africa and in the rest of the Third World as a symbol of support by Britain for those who stand for white supremacy in South Africa and so as backing for apartheid." I believe that that is unanswerable as fact. It could be argued that there are reasons for which sophisticated people may doubt it, but the evidence is overwhelming that

529
here is a situation which would so be interpreted and therefore I believe that it would be wrong.
On this there is confluence of agreement of an unexpected and perhaps unprecedented nature within the Christian Churches. I had hoped that one of my professional friends, a right reverend Prelate, would be able to speak in this debate but inadvertently he excluded himself by speaking on an earlier date on the gracious Speech. But I have his permission and encouragement to say what I am sure he would have said better than I—that is, that the British Council of Churches has reiterated its total opposition to the sale of arms to South Africa, a decision made in 1964 and a decision which it feels even more relevant to-day because of the way in which apartheid has continued to be enforced with increasing ruthlessness in South Africa and because of developments in South-West Africa and Rhodesia. The British Council of Churches, through its Department of International Affairs, is at this moment seeking to represent its longstanding position to Her Majesty's Government.
The Congregational Church of England and Wales, in a resolution, calls upon all citizens to oppose the resumption of the arms trade with South Africa by all constitutional means. And in an ascending scale, the Methodist Conference only a few days ago passed the following resolution:
"That Conference declares its opposition to any supply of armaments to South Africa for any purpose whatsoever."
Your Lordships may remember that the Methodist Conference is not an ultra-Left organisation. If I mention that I sponsored the resolution, it will be probably recognised that sponsoring resolutions as I do from time to time in Methodist circles is counter-productive and there is no necessary correspondence between what I propose and what the Methodist Conference decides. But it is significant that with one dissentient—and I am not sure whether he was fully apprised of what he was doing—the entire Conference of over 640 members voted for that resolution.
Do the Government intend to take on the Churches on this matter? If so, we promise them a bonnie fight and offer them the expertise we can express in
530
any obsequies and funeral services. I do not believe that this is a matter which can be turned aside from its moral conspectus in terms of sentiment. I would not beat the drum any further, but would raise one issue on the question of morality of selling arms to South Africa which has not yet, I think—and I have been here most of the time—been ventilated in your Lordships' House to-day. It is this. I can illustrate it perhaps by a reminiscence. I once as prison chaplain knew Eddie Gerry, the notorious international criminal, who made a successful escape from Devil's Island, fell on hard times after being released, became a pickpocket at bus queues and was arrested and sent to Pentonville. I had to deal with him. He became a penitent, not on the broad issue of bank robberies, in which he was adamant in his support, but on the iniquities of standing at bus stops and picking pockets. I did not regard that evidence of repentance: as invalid because he did not yet commit himself to overall penitence for his misdeeds.
I believe that virtue is not necessarily wholesale. There is a profitable retail trade in repentance. Are we to say that because we have unworthy relations in trade and other matters with other countries and deprecate the behaviour and predatory nature of the Soviet Union and yet are in cahoots with them, it is wrong for us to begin to be on the side of virtue in a particular instance as emergent and important as this one? I believe it is wrong to supply arms to South Africa.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, but I feel that he is working on an entirely false presumption. The South Africans do not require arms for subduing the law-abiding Africans. There is such a thing as defence. That is what they need their arms for in a country like South Africa, the noble Lord must imagine.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. Perhaps I might read this statement to him:
"The charge that NATO arms were used against Zambian villages was investigated independently by three Members of Parliament at the beginning of 1969, when those arms were

531
supplied by NATO for external use to the country concerned (Portugal) and in fact the arms were used against Zambian villages and not for external defence."
If arms are supplied for external defence to South Africa, is it credible that people who have experience of what those arms have been doing in Portuguese hands will regard South Africa as sufficiently pure and unblemished in this regard to behave in a different fashion? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that a particular aircraft can be as expeditiously and usefully employed in internal subjection as it can be in external defence. I do not believe the argument that you can make the differentiation valid and stick between arms exclusively used for external defence and those which can equally be used for internal matters.
What I was going on to say was that the supreme practical impact of arms to South Africa will be, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, which I have no doubt he will use later on, in an article that he wrote in the Guardian some time ago, to shatter the credibility of this country in the eyes of many still within Africa who would like to be its friends. I think particularly of Mr. Kaunda, for whom I have deep sympathy; I would not pity him, but I think that he is one of the most unfortunate and disadvantaged leaders in Africa. Is it not credible, is it not possible, is it not certain that he will now be tempted to turn in despair away from this country for support? Will he not be under a strong temptation to follow Nyerere, and to seek some kind of comfort from the Chinese? There is no particular U.S.S.R. presence in that part of Africa, but there is a very real possibility that Kaunda and Zambia will turn Eastward. In that judgment I can claim at least the authority of representatives of the Zambian Government in this country. I believe, further, that embarking upon arms for South Africa will alienate some of our best friends in the Commonwealth.
Finally—for I would not seek to delay your Lordships—I noticed in the ebullient maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, a very large cat which he inadvertently took out of a big bag. It was, as he said, that inadequate arms are really no good at all. It is better to have no arms at all than to
532
have inadequate arms. I want once again to make my own plea to your Lordships, egregious as I know it to be, that there is still at the moment a disposition among many of our younger generation, and among more people in the churches, not only to resist this kind of extension of arms, which is regarded as an evil thing, but to regard the whole business of arms, for the first time perhaps, as subject to the kind of suspicion from which it has emerged more or less triumphantly in past generations but now may well succumb. I still, knowing it to be an egregious proposition, make my witness, in the presence of not a few of the Christian churches and their representation, to the truth, as I see it, that this is an opportunity for a wholesale and widespread programme of disarmament, which alone can rehabilitate us in the eyes of the United Nations, which alone can provide some kind of new dynamic in the emerging problems of Africa, and which alone, as I believe, can be reconcilable with the principles for which I, wearing this collar, stand.
8.14 p.m.
LORD POLTIMORE: My Lords, when I put my name down to speak I had every intention of talking on immigration from Kenya, in response to a very charming speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. However, as I see he is not in his place, and in any event I think that at this moment it would be very much out of place to talk of it, I do not propose to do so. I was much impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and was particularly struck by his saying that years ago he had been through German South-West Africa. Years ago as a young man I went through German South-West Africa. I spent some weeks there. The South African consul was very kind to me and showed me many things under German rule. All I can say is that if the African to-day does not like what he has, then let him go back and experience something of what happened in German South-West Africa as it was in the years between, say, 1900 and 1910.
Two years ago, in a maiden speech, I spoke of Rhodesia, and I implored your Lordships, with all the emphasis that I could command, to use conciliation. Those in power at the time did not pay a great deal of attention to that, and we are still waiting for this

533
conciliation. Do your Lordships really think that the fate and future of Rhodesia, which is 300 miles from the sea, is going to be decided 4,000 miles away in the Mediterranean by two men in a boat? It is ridiculous to think of it. The fate and future of Rhodesia is going to be finalised n Rhodesia and nowhere else; and it will be settled between the white man and the black man. Of that I am absolutely convinced. No politician, and nobody from Whitehall, is going to tell them what to do. You have to get into Rhodesia and settle it there.
I was particularly struck, and rather worried, if I may say so with due respect, about the attitude of the Church on this subject. I do not understand this penalty of sanctions. If a man goes wrong, he commits a sin, he goes before the magistrate and gets his punishment. If he is guilty, you do not send him to Coventry; you do not cut off his water, his electric light and his gas; you do not put a constable into the street and forbid the butcher, the baker and the milkman to deliver goods to his family. On the contrary, what you do, that man being a "wrong'un", is to arrange for him to be visited by a welfare officer, by all the people who can do him good, and especially by the parish priest. I say to the Church that instead of sitting back and imposing sanctions they should go to the country and preach a gospel of peace and conciliation. I do not see how anybody can deny that. They should go to the country, get the black man and the white man together, and get them to talk sense. Then something really will be accomplished.
I have had the opportunity in my lifetime to know the black man pretty well. I have worked with him, played with him, fought with him and fought against him. A greater friend and a more noble man you cannot have, but he has to be properly led. That leadership is bound to come; it cannot be denied. Africa and the Africans in a very short time will rule the world. The white man is going lower and lower down the scale, and the black man is going up. Africa, with all its wealth—its gold, its diamonds, its wonderful vegetation, its copper, its magnificent harbours and wonderful rivers—will rule the world. Make no mistake about that. When that time comes we do not want black domination,
534
any more than now we want white domination. We want the two peoples to work together in unity, peace and concord. That I believe they will do if only the people responsible will adopt a policy of friendship and conciliation.
8.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, with other noble Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, who is still in the House, spoke sympathetically and convincingly of Israel's concern for the Holy Places, and Lord Shinwell's fascinating speech struck me as something quite unique in this House.
I want to begin my own speech by saying that I regard defence as the protection of vital interests against a specific enemy, and we have on these occasions, unfortunately, to name the enemy: the Soviet Union. I hope before I am called to my fathers to reach a time when the Soviet Union is not the common enemy. Communism is changing, so is capitalism. When I am, as it were, pointing the gun at the Soviet nation and people, I try to imagine that I have beside me a delightful little Russian who entertained us in Vienna and who said to his fellows:
"Don't make my friend drink in this particular way. You tell him that if he does not empty the glass he is no friend of the Red Army, but that is rubbish. He is my friend, he is a heavy drinker, but there come moments with vodka when he wants to stop. Let him stop. He is still my friend and the friend of the Red Army."
Foreign affairs is the science of making friends so that you diminish the necessity for defence. You mollify your enemies, you endeavour to persuade them you are not an aggressor. You try to keep your old allies and remain, friends with all sorts of people in the wings who are not powerless and who have voices; for example, in Africa. It has been said by the Foreign Secretary in another place that we pin our hopes on a great alliance and that that alliance is underpinned by the nuclear power of the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, spoke of the necessity of arranging details of our strategy in consultation with the United States. Without it we are nowhere, and I seem to detect that the independent nuclear deterrent has disappeared happily

535
and we live under the nuclear deterrent of the United States.
There are two matters which we have been asked by the new Foreign Secretary to regard as the facts of life. One is that the United States has asked Europe to shoulder not the whole of its defence, but more, and I wonder whether that will not mean more troops, or something, more expenditure by Britain—a bigger contribution to NATO by us. If so, it has an impact on what we can do elsewhere. The second matter is that a détente of one sort or another is in progress in Vienna, with the talks which are referred to as SALT —some limitation of strategic arms. That is the kind of development that is our greater hope than the appalling balance of terror under which we have to live.
I took very careful note of what the Foreign Secretary said in what is to some extent my pitch—the development of influence on the part of the Soviet Union. He mentioned in the Mediterranean Syria and Egypt. He might also have mentioned Libya and Algeria. He mentioned in the Red Sea Aden and the Somali Republic. He might have mentioned the Sudan and Northern Yemen as well. That area is one where Soviet influence has spread, and I presume that, notwithstanding our hope that the Suez Canal will presently be opened. I suppose that if it is under Soviet control and any nefarious action is taken in time of war, it can be destroyed by anyone from a distance just as much as it can be by them, and revert to its present uselessness.
I came to this House failing to be convinced with the argument for a presence in the Indian Ocean and round the Cape to guard our lines of communication. I fail to be convinced that what is proposed would in any way achieve what we want. If our oil moves around the Cape—and I am not in a position to say whether the present large tanker will ever go through the Suez Canal—with all this additional influence that the Soviet Union has, surely if interference in the Southern Atlantic is a possibility the tankers will be "nobbled", or whatever else is done, 3,500 miles before they have reached the Simonstown defences and resources. The more modern submarines there are, the less is it possible for one or two carriers to protect our tankers if
536
they are subject to this attack. I regret to say that I cannot follow what the Government are trying to persuade us is the precise movement of tankers, their defence and so on. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, entirely demolished the case.
I personally welcome the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon—not that its wording pleases me very much, but it has produced a focus of interest in this debate and has focused it on a vital point. I hope he will keep a dark secret until after the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has replied whether he is going to press his Amendment to a vote or not. Personally I hope not. In that respect I join two other noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan.
I want frankly to say that on the evidence we have before us, notably the massive case of demolition by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I would on a future occasion vote against this particular aspect. I wonder whether we could get from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or his chief, some undertaking that the matter will be postponed tonight and brought up again before the arms are supplied to South Africa. Such supply would result in a grave angering of black Africa for an insufficiently grave reason. I am by no means willing to accept the argument with regard to the gravity of this particular reason. I have been a soldier for 27 years and the defence of this country is of vital importance to me. I notice that the United States does not seem to think that the supply of arms to South Africa is necessary, and it prefers that we do not do it. Therefore, cannot the matter be postponed until after the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been to Washington? These matters can then be studied there and with our Commonwealth partners and with Iran, which does not want it; and Iran is a very important area, buttressed between ourselves and the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, this increase in influence of the Soviet Union is something of which I have had a little personal experience, not in many parts of the area affected but in some—for instance, in the Somali Republic. In the areas I have studied there is no question that the Soviet Union is not the prime mover in intervention;

537
it is the local people who have gone to the Soviet Union imploring its assistance for one reason or another.
The mildest of the Arab States is, I suppose, Tunisia. It has not been named yet as under Soviet influence. Bourguiba's radio, a week before the Six Day War, gave it out that beyond question the establishment of Zionism in Palestine was an affront to human rights. The expression was only a little more extreme than that of our own Royal Commission in 1937, which declared that we had made two pledges; in other words, we had established two irreconcilable rights in the same place. I have watched since 1932 when the situation seemed to me to be bound to develop in that way—a clash of irreconcilable rights. We have in the course of time established two valid rights. It would be wrong to dispossess the Jews. It was wrong to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs. And it is between Zionists and Palestinian Arabs, and their patrons on either side, that the quarrel exists.
We have brushed the Palestinian Arabs under the carpet—we hardly ever mention them. Only lately they have seemed to be going to topple Jordan and we are obliged to take note of them. What is the solution? I cannot believe that two peoples like that, the Palestinian Arabs in particular, should be told to agree. It seems to me that this is one of the occasions in human affairs when the solution must be imposed by higher powers and enforced. It could be done. No doubt it would be camouflaged so that an agreement would appear to have been arrived at. I cannot accept that after fifty years of this situation, including three wars and five revolutions, agreement is going to be reached by the parties concerned.
Once that is over, once a solution has been reached, nine-tenths of our troubles with the Arabs are finished. We ended the First Great War fifty years ago with the Arabs everywhere eating out of our hands and regarding us as the champions of their liberty. It is by our own acts that we have forfeited this good will. If the problem of the Zionist colony which we established there is settled, back we go. There is no particular affinity between the Soviet Union and the Arabs. I have seen both on the spot. I have been round Berbera with a Russian engineer. He said, "I love 100 degrees of frost, and
538
here I am in 100 degrees of heat." There are many other irreconcilable complications. But the States in question have begged the Soviet Union to come and help them against policies for which we have been responsible. My Lords, that is all I will contribute to-day.
8.35 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, stability in the Middle East, through Four-Power talks or in any available way, including Europe speaking with one voice, would seem to be the Prime Minister's desire. As on July 2 in another place he referred to our long connections with the Arab world, and in view of France's long connection with the MAGHREB countries, a joint effort might be worthy of consideration. Should we not seek with France an economic meeting point to this Middle East problem? For is it not only by economic action that one can hope for an improvement in the political situation there?
Let us not forget, too, France's interest in Libya. It could truthfully be said that the present passions and conflicts which could so easily develop have an economic origin. The fear of certain MACHRECK Governments of being unable to ensure for their nationals the social and economic development to which they aspire is proof of this. The call to Arab unity tragically reflects this too. This is a call for brotherhood and solidarity among the economically weak to the stronger self-supporting States against a common danger. It is on this account that there are the present threats of coups d'états, revolts, civil wars and so forth. The Egypt/Israel war is therefore not the cause of the detestable tension in that area but a seriously aggravating factor.
A peaceful solution brought about by a global agreement between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., and acceptable to those concerned, seems so far off that one wonders whether it would not be preferable to endeavour to create conditions which would progressively reduce tensions and lower passions, and which might act as a drop of oil on troubled waters. This search for peaceful conditions—a peace treaty being as yet so remote a possibility—must surely start from a realisation of the basic economic and social necessities of that area if one is to seek stability. From a European aspect or concept, of

539
which we are part, a preliminary to this quest for peaceful conditions could therefore be a desire on our part to seek with France ways and means of coordinating our policies and interests in those areas. This should be done, I feel, in agreement with our E.E.C. and EFTA partners, with a view to exploring a common negotiating basis of possible talks with interested Middle Eastern and MAGHREB States. The increasing volume of exchanges between the Northern and Southern shores of the Mediterranean shows that there is a large field of common or mutual interest to be explored and developed.
I turn to another area in the Mediterranean. If one considers Western Europe as a valid entity, and European unity as important, then I feel that Greece must be considered as a part of that entity and as a valuable ally in that area of the Mediterranean. I should therefore like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on December 13 last. It was headed, "Greece Takes the Rap", and read as follows:
"Member States of the Council of Europe in their normal handling of international problems show the patience and ingenuity of professionals in avoiding ruptures, leaving doors ajar and so on. These methods were thrown to the winds in a paroxysm of mass diplomatic hysteria over the Greek question. The legitimate aim of pressurising the Colonels' régime into the restoration of freedom at a practicable rate with the least possible damage to Greece and to Europe as a whole was suddenly forgotten in a punitive frenzy."
Further on, the article continued:
"The British Government succumbed to the critics breathing down its neck",
and, still further on:
"All in all, thanks to a lot of Left-wingers, self-righteous prigs and Governments without civil courage, a most damaging dummy-run for European unity."
We now have a change of Government from whom I am seeking (I hope this evening, but at any rate at some later date) a clarification of their policy towards this member of the Western European Powers. After the General Election there appeared in The Times an article under the heading "Foreign policy taking shape". The author wrote:
"In their relations with Greece the British Government will be primarily concerned not to weaken the N.A.T.O. partnership. In other
540
respects no change is expected in their attitude towards the Greek régime."
My Lords, I hope this is not to be the case, for it seems to me to be quite wrong to say, on the one hand, "We shall have close and friendly relations regarding our mutual defence interests", but, on the other hand, "We wish to have distant relations in other spheres." Therefore in one particular area I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider at least encouraging the development of cultural relations between our two countries as one method of bridge-building.
There is at present in force an Anglo-Greek Cultural Convention (Cmd. 8418) under whose terms over the past year only 89 Greek persons visited this country on exchange schemes, and only six British experts in specialist fields visited Greece. I hope that at the next meeting of the Mixed Commission, which is to take place in London in September, Her Majesty's Government will avail themselves of the opportunity to seek an extension of these exchanges under British Council sponsorship.
The 17-country Royal Society European Programme (which includes Greece) was introduced in January, 1967, and is intended to further relations between research scientists in the university laboratories and other scientific institutions of Western Europe. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will assist the development of these contacts by cooperating, if required so to do, towards the provision of matching funds by those countries which have not yet done so. I understand, too, that the Royal Society, in conjunction with the British Academy, is considering extending this European cooperation to the humanities. In this context I hope that the recent contact between the British Academy and the Society for Homeric Studies in Greece will prove beneficial.
My Lords, I should like to refer to one other aspect. One would hope also that as, for instance, the Bucharest State Opera and Ballet, the Hungarian State Symphony Orchestra, the Bavarian State Opera and Chamber Music and the Czechoslovakian Philharmonic Orchestra will be performing this summer in Athens, our Musicians' Union will consider lifting their ban on Greece. I understand that

541
their decision was linked with the curtailment of liberty of Mikis Theodorakis, but he has now been released.
Then, with British tourists in Greece increasing by 39·8 per cent. between 1968 and 1969, our exports over the same period rising from £39·9 million to £59·4 million, and over 40 per cent. of the export tonnage on order with British shipyards being for Greek account, I feel that there are grounds for improved relations with Greece. We should also recall that the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papadopoulos, said this year, on the third anniversary of the 21st April Revolution—and I quote:
"The revolution's work will be completed, and Greece will continue her course towards economic development and the complete functioning of democracy."
I would just add that, according to an O.E.C.D. report regarding economic growth, Greece comes second after Japan, with an 8½ per cent. rate of increase.
In conclusion, my Lords, while we are developing our economic relations with Greece I hope that we shall build upon our cultural relations and that Her Majesty's Government believe that Greece is continuing along a course leading to the complete functioning of democracy. For I feel that by not repeating past mistakes much will be achieved in the realm of European unity, and in the context of seeking a European solution to the Middle East problem I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seek, with France, a co-ordination of our policies and interests in that area.
8.47 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, it seems to have become the fashion to open one's speech by making some complimentary remarks, and at the outset I should like to welcome the appointment of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. He is the only man in recent years to have held the posts in succession, and now he holds them in conjunction. He is obviously preeminently suited for this dual task, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, in expressing the hope that he will give urgent attention to the recommendations in the Duncan Report, notably on adequate remuneration for redundant staff, and overseas accommodation, which will do so much to raise the morale of the Diplomatic Service. I should also
542
like to welcome the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in opening on behalf of my old Departrment. He should be protected from the charge of any imprecision in his remarks, because it will be the theme of my brief comments this evening that the Government are entirely right to take time to reach conclusions on these difficult issues.
At this late stage there is clearly no time for a general tour d'horizon and I shall confine my remarks to a few brief points. With regard to the defence situation East of Suez, I would say that we cannot hope to exercise a world-wide role and we shall never again maintain bases of a size that were appropriate in an earlier era. In this sense the 1968 decision was entirely right, and certainly right in principle, but in my view it was not entirely right in timing and perhaps in method. As was made clear at the time, the decision was imposed for reasons other than those of defence or foreign affairs, and it came as a great shock to many of our friends. Therefore I think the Government are entirely right to join in consultation with our partners, particularly in South-East Asia, to see whether any modifications are mutually acceptable—and I stress the word "mutually"—which would improve the prospects of stability in that area. Nor would I quarrel with the intention of the Government to see whether, with a fresh approach, some settlement of the tragic Rhodesian problem is possible. In my view they are not only fully entitled to make the attempt; it is indeed their duty to do so. Alas!, on the other hand I can see little prospect of a successful settlement unless Mr. Smith is prepared to give up his present constitution, many of the provisions of which are in flat contradiction to the Five Principles. We have, after all, a duty to the Africans which we cannot give up. I think the Government are right to keep on sanctions in the meantime, to make the attempt to see whether a settlement is possible and to keep their hands free in the light of what any ultimate negotiations reveal.
This brings me to the nettle of arms for South Africa which, as has been said, is an extremely difficult and complex issue, and it is certainly not simple to know where to draw the line. I need

543
say very little more on this subject because my views were so admirably expressed in what I thought was a very eloquent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and I agree with every word he put forward. I would only add this. I am a little worried that there is a risk of exaggeration, perhaps on both sides of this particular argument. I seem to remember, for example, that the previous Administration took a little time to establish that such a strong moral principle was in fact involved; and, of course, once you get involved in arguments of morality the logical conclusion is that if no arms at all can be sent to South Africa why should trade or investment in South Africa be allowed? Certainly British investment in South Africa must provide at least some of the infrastructure of what their armed services can afford.
On the other side of the argument, if there is indeed a serious threat to our sea communications along the Cape route, I find it difficult to believe that it will be entirely dispelled by sending a few ships or aircraft to South Africa. On the contrary, there seems to me a real danger that the Soviets might acquire facilities somewhere on the continent of Africa at the invitation of Governments who would feel, however unjustly, that their cause had been betrayed. Of course, no one wants to sacrifice British interests to blackmail by African extremists, but I beg the Government to consider very seriously, as I am sure they will, the explosive effects round Africa that could be caused if anything that could be regarded as encouragement to apartheid were offered. However illogical, one must understand the cumulative frustrations in the African mind and weigh the consequences of rousing deep emotions.
For the reasons that I gave earlier, I hope very much, with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and other noble Lords who have spoken from the Cross-Benches, that this Amendment will not be pressed to a vote. If it is, I am bound to say I shall have to vote against, because in my view it would be wrong to tie the Government's hands in advance of their consideration of all aspects of the question, which I feel they are bound to give. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, to consider what would be the effect of pressing the Amendment
544
to a vote if it were to be defeated. That, I should have thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, mentioned, might be quite seriously misinterpreted round the world.
There is one small, final point I wish to touch on very briefly. I await with considerable anxiety the Bill to amend the law relating to immigration. Any proposals such as one has seen suggested, to equate the status of Commonwealth citizens with that of aliens, whatever practical effects are intended, could have utterly disastrous psychological results. I have had a good many enquiries from many of my friends in Commonwealth countries as to what is in fact intended. Is an Australian or a New Zealander really to regard himself as an alien if he comes to this country? What effect will the Amendment have on the Asians in Kenya who have been recognised as British subjects? Will the provisions for voting et cetera which have traditionally been accorded to British subjects be withdrawn, and, if so, will they still continue to apply to citizens of the Irish Republic? In that event, I can see very serious bitterness developing. These are some of the questions to which one will need satisfactory answers if the Bill when introduced is not to prove a seriously divisive measure. In conclusion, I would only repeat that I think the Government deserve time to build on the solid work of their predecessors, as it certainly was in so many respects, but also to review what new initiatives need to be taken; and I am confident that in their review in these circumstances they will take very much to heart the sincere anxieties expressed in the course of this debate.
8.56 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I trust the noble Lord, Lord Garner, will forgive me if I do not follow the line of argument he has taken up. I propose rather to follow the statements of my noble friend, Lord St. Helens, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, regarding the problems confronting us in regard to defence and the Army, and perhaps I may elicit some sympathetic understanding from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whose speech has delighted us to-day and given us an example of how to be uncontroversial.

545
There is one point for which we can be grateful regarding the troubles in Northern Ireland. It has made us take a hard look at the structure of the Army. When such a large proportion of the effective striking force of the Army is deployed on problems of internal security within the United Kingdom, it becomes our duty to examine whether the Army of to-day, with its relatively small spear-heard of fighting men and a swollen administiative tail, is really organised for the tasks which confront us. I think it is salutary to recall the words of the young Winston Spencer Churchill, written in 1900 or 1901, anyhow before he became the Member for Oldham:
"We shall have a look and see for ourselves, use the evidence of our own eyes and reasons, profit by our dear bought experience, and, leaving Continental armies to their own business, make our military arrangements in accordance with our particular needs and resources."
I will spare your Lordships my amateur ideas on the complete reconstruction of the British Army, but I should like to venture the deduction which we should make from our engagement in Northern Ireland at the present time. To my mind, it is clear that we require more light armour and, above all, more infantry. In the foreseeable future there can be no doubt whatsoever that bush fire situations will crop up both in the United Kingdom and outside it and outside Europe. We hope that the Northern Ireland disturbances will sort themselves out quick y; but, of course, we always hope that things like that will not drag on, and almost always they do drag on, at any rate in terms of Army manpower committed, even though the newspapers get rather bored with the whole subject.
Action to this end—more infantry and more light armour—can be quickly and effectively taken. There are certain regiments and battalions under orders for disbandment. I suggest that those orders should be cancelled, wherever that is possible and as soon as possible. It is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of urgency, and to delay a decision is to make the restructuring of the Army doubly difficult and doubly expensive. I think it is too late to save the Durham Light Infantry or the Fifth Fusiliers.
It may well be argued that the continuation now of certain units under sen- 546
tence of death is not just a matter of money, but is largely a matter of manpower. I understand hat in recent months there has been quite an improvement in recruiting, and it would indeed be churlish were we not to give full credit to the Labour Government for this. There are, I believe, two main reasons for the better recruiting. The first is the new pay structure which was introduced this spring. That, I believe, has had a quite substantial effect. The other reason, which we equally place to the credit of the late Government, is a substantial increase in the number of unemployed, especially, as I am led to believe, among those who have recently left school. That is the reason why so many of the junior soldier units are now so well up to establishment. For many centuries in times of peace recruiting for the Army has been in direct ratio to the number of unemployed. As a Scottish Nationalist, I know that I shall be accused of trying to push the claims of one specific regiment, but in my view one extra battalion is not anything like enough. We need several more, and some more light armour.
Like other noble Lords, I give a special welcome to that part of the gracious Speech which concerns the role and size of the Territorial Army and the Volunteer Reserve. I do so not out of sentiment for those magnificent units which have twice in a lifetime been ready at a moment of acute crisis; nor do I do it out of memory for those who gave their lives in two world wars. I join with the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in welcoming this statement in the gracious Speech for the simple reason that in times of crisis without some local volunteer force we are vulnerable to the enemy without the gate and vulnerable to the enemy within the gate; and when we are vulnerable we tempt trouble.
In implementing this statement I would ask the Government to avoid a cumbersome and sophisticated structure for the Volunteers and Territorials. There is always a temptation for that to happen when you have an expansion in the Armed Forces. While the volunteers (that is, TAVRII) as the reserve for the Regular Army units must have a considerable infusion of full-time professional soldiers, I submit that the Territorials should have the minimum, and

547
certainly no more than the old Territorial Army did in pre-1939 days; and the new Territorial units, I submit, should all be commanded by Territorials. Formation commands would be sufficient "plums" for the Regulars. It should be comparatively easy to resuscitate the old Territorial Army. I suspect that it is due largely to certain noble Lords on the other side of this House that the cadres of many Territorial units have been retained, and I think we should most gratefully acknowledge this.
There is another reason for having a substantial Territorial and Volunteer Reserve. It is of great help to recruiting for the Regular Army. Young men taste the Army and find that it is good. Each year, pre-1939, from my Territorial Army battalion an average of 30 men enlisted in the Regulars. There is every reason to expect that under the policies of the present Government the number of unemployed will steadily decrease. As this happens, so will the Territorial units become more important as a main source of recruits for the Regular Army.
9.5 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as I entered your Lordships' House a little while ago I was quite shaken by an Officer of the House who told me that this evening everything revolved about me, until I found out that he had a very lengthy list of speakers before Lord Caradon. I am guilty, as many other noble Lords probably are, of riding one or two hobby-horses, and to-night I want to refer to just two. First, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, very much on the question of our reserves. The second point I follow, as an Australian-born Member of your Lordships' House, concerns Commonwealth relations. Both matters overlap.
As Lord Balerno has just mentioned, Northern Ireland gives a very good example of the position in which the new Minister for Defence must find himself. I am sure he will have found that we are already scraping the bottom of the Regular Army barrel for Northern Ireland. In a way, this point is probably emphasised by the fact that we have sent Scottish regiments there. In a situation which is, in effect, one of tribal warfare, it is bound to be looked upon as provocative if one side thinks the other
548
side is in the umpire's chair—not that I believe for a moment the excessive accusations of Mr. Fitt and his colleagues.
This week-end's Sunday Times contained a report about a patrol from my old regiment through one of the areas in Northern Ireland and of all the gibes and things that our troops have to put up with. I was reminded then of the days in Palestine in 1940, when we were trying to hold the line between the Arabs and the Jews, and, putting it politely, how appalled we were when the American Jew, Mr. Ben Hecht, wrote that he "had a song in his heart every time a British soldier was killed". Some of the statements one reads about what our men have to put up with in the way of insults in Northern Ireland perhaps go a little that way. I also read that Russian correspondents have recently been sent there, and that some of their reports are equally inflammatory.
So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, my own opinion of the situation is that of the Osbert Lancaster cartoon in which Maudie Littlehampton asks why we gave up Ceylon, Cyprus, and so on, yet kept Northern Ireland. In days long past, my family were Stuart supporters, and therefore I can see no reason to celebrate a Dutch victory. I can find nothing to say on behalf of Mr. Fitt and Miss Devlin and the I.R.A., except that they are not as bad as the modern Schickelgruber (or whatever the acting, unpaid Austrian lance-corporal was called), Ian Paisley, and his henchmen. Such is the pathological dislike of England by the inhabitants of the rest of Ireland that, speaking as a Catholic, I am sure if England had not gone Protestant at the Reformation the Irish would have done so out of pure "cussedness".
Just as the Northern Ireland situation has highlighted the fact that the regular Army has been run down to a dangerous level (and I suppose that it would not be in the national interest to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, how run down it is), so the fact that we have 500,000 Irish Republicans who have settled in this country since the last war highlights the fact that we now have no adequate home Reserve Army: it was carved up and hacked to pieces by the previous Administration and the prospective C.I.G.S. On that basis, having no reserves, of course we should leave

549
Northern Ireland just as we did India, and save a lot of expense. I do not suppose that it would lead to any greater massacres than there were of Hindus and Mohammedans, but of course we shall not; and that means that it will be necessary to rebuild our run down forces. As, politically. National Service is a non-starter—though I personally believe it would be the best thing for the country—it means that the Territorial Army must be built up. But when eggs have been so thoroughly scrambled, it is very difficult to unscramble them. And in unscrambling them you must not do anything to harm TAVR II, which is, in effect, a reserve for B.A.O.R. only.
My Lords, how can we do it? Perhaps, by letting TAVR II have the large centres, as at present, and the home defence Army, TAVR III, the minor ones. This will not be made any easier by the fact that so many of our drill halls have been disposed of, especially in the countryside, where of course the best chaps have always come from. I have an interest to declare, in that I happen to be the honorary Colonel of a TAVR III unit. It is now known as the Royal Devon Yeomanry/First Rifle Volunteers and we did that to keep our options open for a change of Administration: whatever our role was, we should be able—we hoped—to choose which one we were going to be. I would emphasise to the Government that if, as I presume, they will build up a home defence Army again they must not treat such units as poor relations, otherwise they will never get off the ground.
Another point is that they must try to get the present Opposition to recognise that in their last run-down of our volunteer forces they went too far, so that there will not be this awful sword hanging over the volunteers' heads that they will be abolished again in another five years. Finally, on this subject, I should like the noble Earl the Leader of the House to remember points we made in the debate that he initiated when the previous Administration did away with the Civil Defence: because the home reserve Army must have interlocking functions with Civil Defence if the nation is to survive a nuclear fall-out, or anything like that.
If I may stray a bit, last week the noble Lord, Lord Segal, asked a question about the meaning of "the Gulf", and the
550
noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who replied, referred to the "Persian Gulf". Those of us who know the Gulf can correct him by pointing out that if we are to retain a presence there at all it will be in Arab territory; and they do not—I repeat, not—call it the Persian Gulf. For generations it has been the well-tried policy of England to try to keep Russian expansion away from the Mediterranean and the Arabian Gulf. We have surrendered in the Mediterranean, and if the Canal is reopened the Russians will have a base in Aden. They already have the harbour master there, as sure as the Almighty made little apples.
I do not intend to dwell on Simonstown other than to say that in the event of a war in which this country is involved that base will obviously be essential, and any responsible Government in this country must bear in mind that the continued existence of this country should always take precedence over dislike, or otherwise, of another country's internal politics. Referring to the "No arms for apartheid" sticker that people are putting on their cars now, I would point out that that brigade will not be allowed to shout about anything once we have been starved into surrender. I find it rather illogical that those who would not give arms to South Africa and still argue about whether or not Simons-town could be used—who say it does not make any difference—tire the same people who want to abolish the carriers, which would be the only possible way of avoiding the use of that base.
The real danger of war involving all of us, as I see it, is now in the Far East. It is the colossus of China feeling her oats. By 2030, one in three of the world's population will be a Chinaman, so the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, told us in a previous debate. A mere inexpensive presence in the Singapore area, together with Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, would do a lot to stabilise peace and security in that part of the world, added to which self-interest should dictate this type of precaution. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will bear out, we have close on £2,000 million worth of investment in Australia alone. Also. I urge the Government to retain the Fleet Air Arm, so that there are pilots trained and ready to fly the

551
next generation of Harrier jump jets from ordinary ships, which will then, and only then, make the carrier as we know it unnecessary.
Lastly, I come to the subject which I have raised no fewer than eight times in the last six years, and that is the insulting way we have been treating our Australian and New Zealand—not to mention Canadian—relations and visitors. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with his many connections and interests in Australia will, I am sure, know that in Australia and New Zealand this is an emotional issue which has done more to harm relations with this country than any other issue of our time, including the Common Market and the threatened withdrawal from Singapore. I have a letter in my file from an Antipodean judge who, visiting this country for the first time since fighting alongside us in the War, had a limit of six months stamped on his passport on entry. He had already reserved a flat in London for 10 months. "Why", he said, "must what we used to think of as the Mother Country do this to us? Paris and Rome do not treat us so."
I am told that action has been taken to remedy these extreme cases, but how petty it is to limit the young visitors who can afford to visit Britain and Europe only if they take a working holiday. This was a traditional right before these rules and regulations were brought in and, to my mind, it should be restored at once. There are many ways in which it could be done. It could be done on a reciprocal basis. Up to 70,000 a year emigrate from this country to Australia, and what harm is there if a couple of hundred want to stay here for more than two years? Those of us with relations and friends in that part of the world hear continued stories of the bad effect that these restrictions are having. To my mind they were invented by inverted racialists, who seem to argue that the only way to be fair to coloured people is to be unfair to our own relations, and I hope that the new Administration will find a way to remove this canker. One noble Lord suggested that one method might be not to apply the rules as they are at the moment to those countries which recognise the Queen as their Queen. To my mind the others want their cake and eat it, anyway.
552
Another way of improving relations on this subject would be to abolish the invidious division of passport queues at Heathrow. When returning from Australia last March my part-empty plane filled up at Karachi, and while waiting in the Commonwealth passports queue and watching a large number of "Karachi joiners" go through the British passports queue, a young Australian behind me said, "I suppose if I were Tariq Ali I should be getting the V.I.P. treatment." I must say that I do not see why we should have to put up with that gentleman and Malcolm X and hundreds of demonstrators against us and our institutions from Republican countries which are not noticeably friendly to us, while we restrict our friends and relations from countries which have stood behind us in our difficulties. It is all beyond me. I hope and pray that the new Administration will remove these insulting disabilities.
9.19 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I must say that with some of the last remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down I have a good deal of sympathy. Perhaps our only difference is that I would extend those remarks to other countries, such as one area I know well, the West Indies, where people also look on this as the Mother Country, whose people have fought for us and who in a certain way regard this country as home. I would also extend it to other parts of the Commonwealth, including India and Pakistan, whose people also, so far as I can remember, fought with us in both the last world wars and on other occasions. In other words, if we pay any attention at all to the Commonwealth, other than paying lip service, do not let it be a restricted Commonwealth. But I will resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord along those paths, important though they are, as I will also resist the temptation to follow other noble Lords in what they have said about Europe and the Common Market, the Far East and other important aspects. I will even resist the temptation to embark on a part of the world which no noble Lord has yet touched on but which is extremely important in our foreign affairs, and that is Latin America. I will confine myself solely to Southern Africa.

553
I listened with great interest, as indeed I am sure other noble Lords did, to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and all that he had to say. In particular, I welcomed very much his categorical statement of support for the United Nations and also his very firm assertion that our foreign policy was to be based on security and parity, especially when he went on to define parity as being "equality for all men before the law." I respected the words he used towards the end of his speech when he said, "Fine words are not enough; we must rightly be judged by our actions". My Lords, how do those words measure up when it comes to our Southern African policy? We do not yet know, because we are not yet informed, though I hope we shortly shall be, as to what Her Majesty's Government's policy in Southern Africa is, and, in particular, what Her Majesty's Government's policy is with regard to arms to South Africa. But it is impossible for us to supply arms to South Africa and at the same time assert with anything more than glib words our support for the United Nations; and it is impossible for us to say we believe in parity, in equality for all men before the law, and really mean it with our hearts, if at the same time we go beyond anything that is implicit or explicit in the Simonstown Agreement and supply more arms to South Africa.
I strongly hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, replies he will, by accepting the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Caradon, absolve the noble Marcuess, Lord Lothian, from any charge which otherwise could rightly be laid against him of sheer hypocrisy. I know he is not a hypocrite; I know his words, as he said them, were sincere: but it is up to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the Government to show that those words really mean something, and that when the Government are judged, as they ask to be judged, by their actions, we can give them a clean bill of health on their actions and not only praise for words which in fact turn out to mean nothing.
It is relevant, to know what is taking place in South Africa to-day, to know what has been taking place in the past years. I will not weary your Lordships with a long description: those of your Lordships who have eyes to see have
554
seen it; those of your Lordships who have ears to hear have heard of it. All I shall do is to read your Lordships one short paragraph from a book which has recently come out, written by a Roman Catholic priest, Father Cosmos Desmond, called The Discarded People. He there writes:
"Very many would agree that the migratory labour system, repeatedly condemned by various Churches, politicians and others, is wrong. But there seem to be few indeed who draw the obvious conclusion from this: that there must be something inherently wrong with a social system under which such atrocities can take place.
"The poverty, suffering, and broken families caused by the resettlement schemes are not accidental; they are an inevitable consequence of the policy of separate development. They are allowed to happen because they are part of the price of White economic security."
My Lords, we cannot get away from facts such as those. There are very many, far too many, of them. Things in South Africa from the moral point of view, from the moral standpoint of any of us in this Chamber, are bad. In some ways they are getting worse; but in some ways there is an improvement. There are signs that the policy in certain aspects, and particularly with regard to the neighbours of South Africa in the rest of Africa, is improving. There are signs that the actions and attitudes of the rest of the civilised world are having some effect upon what is happening in South Africa itself. I think that it would be wrong for us to underestimate the strength of world opinion, whether it be in such matters as South African cricket and the Olympic games or in other matters, such as public pronouncements by respected figures and by the United Nations itself—especially in this matter of the arms embargo. Above all, it would be wrong to underestimate the effect that the opinions of responsible people in this country have on not only South African opinion but the actions of the South African Government.
My Lords, so far as the Simonstown Agreement is concerned, what are the facts? The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that we should keep our word; and not only our written word but that we should also keep to the spirit of the agreement. Britain must keep her word, he said, not only in the matter of the written word but in the gentlemen's agreement. Those were his words. I

555
know nothing of any gentlemen's agreement that is not included in the written words of the Simonstown Agreement which I have studied. If there is any gentlemen's agreement which has not been published, if there is any—can one call it "secret"?—agreement, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will tell us. Obviously, if we are being asked to stick to a gentlemen's agreement which is not actually printed we must know what this is. If there is no gentlemen's agreement, then we are bound solely by the written words; to which, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont made it quite clear, we have adhered.
I am sometimes tempted to wonder whether in fact the South African Government itself has adhered quite so closely to the written agreement of the Simons-town undertakings. If noble Lords were to refer to a letter written by the then Minister of Defence of South Africa, Mr. Erasmus, to the then Foreign Secretary in this country, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, on June 30, 1955, they would find that the South African Government undertook, among other things, the following: The Union Government confirm that there will be no bar to the recruitment and employment of non-Europeans in the Simonstown area; that there will be no discrimination based on colour in the rates of pay for comparable jobs; that non-Europeans once recruited will have the same security of tenure as Europeans. It would be interesting to know just how far such agreements have been honoured.
I do not want to spend too much time on this particular aspect, on what one can perhaps loosely call the moral aspect of the Simonstown Agreement for the supply of arms to South Africa and our general relationship to that country. I should like to turn to the strictly practical aspect of it from the point of view of the security of our own country—which, I quite agree with noble Lords opposite, is of paramount importance and is one, but only one, of the main responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government.
First of all, my Lords, when we look at this problem we must not deal solely with South Africa itself; we must look at the whole of the Southern African complex. We must not deal solely with the Cape, with the Atlantic; we must look at the Indian Ocean and the sea
556
routes from the United Kingdom, from the United States, all the way across to Singapore, Australia and to the subcontinent of India. If, which Heaven forbid! there should be a third world war, a shooting war, we must not fall into the error, into which all Generals and all politicians in the past have always fallen, of thinking that the new war when it comes will be picked up at exactly the same point that the last war finished. Things will have moved forward—or will have moved, if not forward—since that time.
The new war, if it comes, will be—this has been said often by many people—above all for the hearts and minds of people. It will not simply be for the acquisition of territory; for the establishment of bases or whatever it may be. It will be for the people who live in those areas and that means that it cannot be won just by military weapons. It must be won by many other means unknown to the old-fashioned generation of soldiers—though not to the modern generation—and ignored by far too many politicians.
The struggle for hearts and minds goes on long before the shooting war starts, and if it is successful there never will be a shooting war. It is going on now in Southern Africa. We have been fighting it for many years, and I do not think it is in any way arrogant to say that over the last five or six years we have had some considerable success. In spite of many difficulties (the greatest of them is Rhodesia; the Nigerian war has been another, and there are many other factors which have come in) and in all the processes of decolonisation we have reinforced our position and the good will that is held towards us throughout most of the countries of Africa. If a balance sheet were drawn up there is no doubt at all that it would reveal that the strength of the Western World as a whole in Southern Africa to-day is much greater than it was in, shall we say, 1955 or 1960.
There are many reasons for this, and I should like at this stage to pay tribute to one man who I believe has done more than any other single individual to bring this about; that is, Mr. Malcolm Mac-donald. He has been able to achieve the most extraordinary understanding and create real confidence between himself and the leaders of African countries

557
which has helped them a great deal and has helped us a great deal also. The greatest wound we could possibly inflict on ourselves in this struggle, this continuing struggle, and the greatest help that we could give to any potential enemies—specifically to Russia and to China—would be in the first place to climb down in Rhodesia. That I do not for a moment contemplate; and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will confirm me when I say it. The second greatest harm we could do in this general struggle would be to provide arms to South Africa. I am quite sure that the gentlemen in the Kremlin and in Peking whose responsibility it is to promote the interests of their country in the Southern African continent, must be praying for just this sort of thing to happen because it would make their job infinitely easier.
We have heard a great deal about the importance of the Simonstown naval base, and of course naval bases have their importance. But far more important than a naval base at Simonstown, if there were to be a shooting war in the Indian Ocean and in the Far East, would be such things as over-flying rights over Central Africa; staging posts in a country such as Zambia, shall we say, or in Kenya; and the denial of military bases to our future enemies in those countries. We could have naval bases at Simonstown and all the way round the Cape, but if we lost our over-flying rights and bases in Central Africa and in them were established bases belonging to our enemies, our position would not be tenable. Our strategy for Africa and the Far East must be to consolidate our position with the whole of black Africa and so far as possible bring South Africa and black Africa together, and there are signs that this may be happening.
There can be no doubt that the present Government will find this particularly hard. I do not blame them for it. It is not their fault at the present time, though there may be reasons in past history which account for it. Rightly or wrongly, the Conservative Government are viewed by most African leaders with considerable suspicion. For one reason or another, there are few, if any, members of the present Government who have any personal contacts in Africa and with the leaders of Africa. What is worse is that the reduction of Ministers in the Foreign
558
and Commonwealth Office will make it even harder for those Ministers—the noble Marquess and his colleagues—to create these contacts and build them up and so do away with the suspicions and lack of confidence which exist in the minds of so many African leaders. There is no getting away from the fact that the position of the noble Marquess and his colleagues and of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his colleagues in the Government will be made infinitely harder if the United Nations resolution on arms to South Africa is ignored or is thought by the countries of Africa to be ignored.
Let me come briefly to two small, but I hope constructive, suggestions as to what can be done to make this position a little easier. I suggest strongly that the Government should consider the appointment of a very senior representative of Her Majesty's Government with responsibilities throughout the whole of Africa as a form of roving ambassador of Privy Council rank, on the analogy, but not following slavishly the precedent, of Mr. Malcolm Macdonald. That in no way would detract from the position of our present diplomatic representatives. Many of them I know personally and they are extremely hard-working, able people, some of them perhaps not ideally chosen for their particular posts, but some of them could not be better. But, however good they are, it is a bigger job than a formal ambassador in one country can do, and with the present small number of Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office it is a bigger job than those Ministers can be expected to do.
The second suggestion I would make is to reverse the lamentable decision, taken to my regret some time ago by the late Government, on overseas students. The bringing of overseas students here in increasing numbers and their good treatment is an earnest of our genuine desire to come closer to the countries which they represent, African and Far Eastern Asian countries in particular. It is also a real help to them in a way that help is needed most. It will continue to produce in those countries leaders who will have been brought up in this country during an impressionable stage of their careers and will have imbibed the best principles of this country and its forms of government, and it will for the

559
rest of their lives condition their attitudes towards democracy and freedom. To-day we are drawing great benefit from the presence in the past in our universities of these students, who are now the leaders of the countries. It would be sad for us if the future leaders looked, instead of to the United Kingdom, to France, Germany and the United States—and many more are going there now than are coming to this country—and it might well be a tragedy if they looked to the Soviet Union or to China.
I am encouraged in putting forward this proposal by the words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in February, 1967, when this matter was being debated. He then said:
"I believe with the noble Lords who have already spoken that the receiving of these overseas students into our universities and technical colleges is one of the best investments we can make for the future …. As well as engendering a great deal of goodwill for the present, it is a hidden export for the future. It must surely make the task of our overseas salesmen that much easier in the future if a number of people have had some advantage in the way of higher education in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 14/2/67; col. 221.]
He finished his remarks by urging the Government to see:
"whether, in terms of overseas aid, some help could not be given so that we may continue to receive gratefully and willingly the maximum number of overseas students of which we are capable." [Col. 224.]
These are two ways in which I think the inherent difficulties of the present Government can be mitigated. But, above all, it is essential for Her Majesty's Government and this country as a whole to-day to go on record as being on the side of those who are trying to implement the standards that we in this country stand for, and not to flout the resolutions of the United Nations in order to provide arms to a country which practises the apartheid of which we all so much disapprove.
9.43 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, because the hour is late. I find it quite impossible, in the few remarks that I propose to make, to follow all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. To me, this has been a most emotional debate. I, as a former colonial
560
civil servant, in the same category as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, the mover of the Opposition Amendment, know full well, as he does, that the issues raised in this debate have moral implications far beyond the precincts of your Lordships' House. As an officer in the Colonial Service of 30 years' standing (the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, was in the Colonial Service for 31 years) I must say that I wish the noble Lord had not brought this Amendment before your Lordships this evening; and, even now, if he could see his way to withdrawing it, nobody would be more pleased than I should be.
Of course, I see clearly the issues about the Commonwealth in the wording of this Amendment, but on the question of the supply of arms to South Africa (and no decision has yet been made, so far as I know, that South Africa should be supplied with arms) the issue to me is far greater than that. For if the issue of our Commonwealth friends is one of Communism or apartheid—and I know from the terrible sufferings that I experienced, with others, from Communism in Malaysia—then I think the worst of the two evils in that respect would be Communism and not apartheid.
May I say at the outset that when I read the terms of the Opposition Amendment I found it difficult to understand its motives. Why this haste? After all, only eight days ago, on July 6, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary stated in another place that he was consulting our friends in the Commonwealth and before very long would be making a statement on the Government's attitude to the Simons-town Agreement. It would seem, therefore, that the movers of this Amendment were rushing matters, with a new Government barely established in office. But if one looks back over the debates of the past few days in connection with the gracious Speech, one finds several instances of instant opposition on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Now, my Lords, may I proceed to say one or two critical things about remarks that have been made by noble Lords opposite tonight—though not in any sense because I do not respect the sincerity with which they speak. When I heard the

561
noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, opening for the Opposition, criticise the Government's proposal to consider stationing a limited force of British troops in Malaysia, alongside Malaysian., Australian and New Zealand forces, with the object of containing aggression, I wondered whether I had heard him correctly. I was in Malaysia during the Malaysian insurrection, and as I said at the opening of my speech was for 30 years a member of the Colonial Service. I know only too well some of the problems that faced that territory, and still face it to-day. They want us there in that country now, which is a tribure to the policies pursued over a long period of time by various British Governments and Parliaments.
With regard to the stationing of British troops, costs have not yet been worked out. I have seen from some speeches that the muter of costs has been criticised. From where does the noble Lord get the idea that a small number of British troops provoke aggression, and that a large number of troops would be necessary to contain that aggression?
LORD CHALFONT: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Perhaps I can save him going on with this very much longer, because the hour is late. I make this assertion from my own experience as one of the 40,000 troops who served in Malaysia during the emergency. I assure him that I commanded a battalion throughout the emergency, and I know how many troops are needed to deal with this kind of situation. It started off with a very small force indeed, when the emergency began. By the time it had finished there were 40,000 of us there. It is on that basis that I make my assertion.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I would be prepared to answer that statement. My views on the matter are that any success which one wants to obtain from there can be obtained by the presence of British troops and not by flying troops
562
out from this country. I just want to make this point in connection with that.
The presence of a British force inculcates confidence among the local inhabiants. This is what I found during the emergency. The whole criterion for getting on top of the Communist terrorists was information. If you had no information you could have had 200,000 British troops there and you never would have achieved anything. All we want is a small force in a country of which 70 per cent. of the area has the thickest jungle in the world. That is my answer to the noble Lord.
My Lords, the Amendment, which is drafted in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, refers to "the principles on which the Commonwealth is based". May I therefore ask the noble Lord, when he speaks, to tell us what he means by "Commonwealth principles" in this connection? I ask this because, with Chinese Communism active in Somalia, and now in the East Coast of Africa, where would our principles be if, by tying ourselves to United Nations' resolutions, we were so weak strategically that we not only endangered our own security but became physically incapable of going to the assistance of our Commonwealth friends, with our allies if necessary, whenever the necessity arose?
I could recount the horrors of Chinese Communism because I experienced it, but I will not do so because the hour is late. I will merely say this. When I spoke to Malays and Chinese who suffered in that situation (I see that the noble Lord sees something rather amusing about this, but I do not think it is amusing; I think it is very serious) they universally cared for only one thing: freedom to go about their daily work without fear. So I have no illusions of what could befall the peoples of Africa; nor have I any illusions about where their true interests lie. My Lords, if this Amendment goes to a vote tonight, I shall vote against it.
9.52 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I want to confine myself to just one point in the gracious Speech—the remarks about attempts to reduce East-West tensions in Europe and the closely similar problem of the tension between the United States and the People's Republic of China. On the other hand, what I want to do regarding this subject is to make rather radical proposals. I shall try to present my argument as quickly as possible. First, it seems to me that we ought to start off with the realisation that the basic causes of tension in these cases are simply psychological. In other cases—if one looks, say, at the Arabs and the Israelis, or the Indians and Pakistanis—the quarrelling is about some real, tangible issues. If you ask what reason have the people of this country for any quarrel with the people of Russia, I think the obvious answer is, "None". But I feel that what has happened has been a build-up of mutual suspicion.
The whole process of build-up of tension was something which no one expected. Certainly in 1945 the whole structure of the United Nations was built on the assumption that co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States would continue. To give an example on the Far Eastern case, I was reading the recently published State Department papers of 1945, and I came upon the report of an interview between Mao Tse-tung and an American foreign service officer, in which Mao said:
"Between the people of China and the people of the United States there are strong ties of sympathy, understanding and mutual interest. Both are by nature peace-loving, non-aggressive and non-imperialistic. … America and China complement each other economically…. America is not only the most suitable country to assist the economic development of China; she is also the only country fully able to participate."
That was said by Mao Tse-tung in 1945.
I think that if we look at the present situation we have to ask ourselves what has gone wrong. The case I want to make, rather rapidly, is that I believe a large factor in this build-up of tension has been the attachment of the Western Powers to conventional diplomacy. I think I can document that pretty com-
564
pletely in the case of the build-up of tension between the Chinese Communists and the United States. I saw something of the negotiations from the inside, and recently I have seen a lot more of the papers. It is quite clear that here we had a feedback of mutual suspicions. The Americans suspected that the Chinese Communists were really agents of the Soviet Union, and the Chinese Communists, on ideological grounds, were rather suspicious of the Americans. What I think can be shown is that the vicious circle of build up of mutual suspicions could have been broken at several points if either side had been willing to speak frankly.
There were several cases where the Communists could have made a test case as to whether the Americans were acting in good faith or whether they were predominantly anti-Communist. The Americans could have made test cases as to whether the Chinese Communists were independent or were agents of the Soviet Union. If these tests had ever been made, the people who made them would have found their suspicions were unjustified. So the whole problem in the Far East goes back to the fact that the United States of America were inhibited by the conventions of diplomacy and the Chinese Communists were inhibited by the conventions of traditional Chinese politeness.
Looking at it in a wider way, the conventional diplomacy was that which held good in other days and in a particular environment. For about 200 years, up to the time of the 1914–18 War, the major Powers in world politics were European. They all shared a common culture, had a basis of common understanding and also, except for a few years after the French Revolution, the issues were predominantly non-ideological. So conventional diplomacy is an extremely effective system for handling disputes arising between people with a common cultural background and involving issues which are non-ideological, and are really issues of bargaining.
In the modern world this whole environment has changed completely. First, there is no basis of common culture between many of the major World Powers. Also, it is clear that ideological

565
differences have a great influence. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, confirm my view about this in his remarks about the Russians, but if we read any of the material now published in Peking we see clearly that the basic motivation for the Chinese leaders is largely what I might define as their Marxist-Leninist-Fundamentalist belief. One meets the argument that simply because the United States of America is the major capitalist Power, therefore by various Marxian arguments it must be aggressive, it must be imperialist, it must be determined to attack the People's Republic of China. It is perfectly clear that as long as the leaders in Peking believe these theoretical views, any reduction of tension is going to be almost impossible. Therefore any effective diplomacy must be prepared to concern itself with ideological arguments in a way which is completely foreign to the traditions in which most diplomatists have operated in the past.
My Lords, I am summarising a very complicated argument, but it seems to me that two things are needed to reduce these tensions. First, we need to put across the absence of any real reason for quarrels between the peoples of our two countries, and to put it across, if necessary—which again is highly unconventional—by means which by-pass the Governments of other countries. This means resorting to the sort of ideological propaganda warfare which the totalitarian Powers have used. People get confused by this because the totalitarian Powers have not been effective, owing to the fact that they have been trying to put over a bad case.
Perhaps we might take the analogy of advertising. Advertising can produce its effect only by continual repetition. As soon as that stops, and people start to think for themselves, the effect fails. As an educationist I feel that if I have been teaching properly I need only to put over a case once, because the student can automatically reproduce the argument for himself every time he thinks about it. So the amount of publicity needed to put over a valid case for the people of Russia or China is vastly smaller and one does not need many contacts.
The other point I would make is this. Where I think there has been continual
566
weakness and ineffectiveness on the part of Western diplomacy is in the failure to react to the assumption of superiority on the other side. President Kennedy put it very well in describing his talks with Khrushchev in Vienna, when he said Khrushchev's view was, "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable". Obviously, as long as you are dealing with people who believe that because they represent in some cases the way of the future or the inevitable processes of history they are superior, and common arguments do not apply to them and you, you are not going to get anywhere in negotiation. I would say that the other task of effective diplomacy would be to break down this ideologically based arrogance.
Perhaps I have become sufficiently Chinese to think that there is a lot in the Confucian view of Cheng-ming, rectification of names; you will not get anywhere unless you insist on calling things by appropriate names. It seems to me quite intolerable that for the last 25 years the representatives of this country have endured continual abuse as imperialists by the representatives of what is now the leading imperialist Power in the world. There is a perfectly good case to be presented which has never been presented. You can quote the 1917 edition of Lenin's Imperialism in which he states quite clearly and explicitly that the position of Russia in Central Asia, in Courland—that is, the Baltic States, Finland, Poland and all other areas inhabited by non-Great Russians—was essentially the same as the position of the Japanese in Korea; that is to say, by the authority which the Russians themselves recognise, Russia is an imperialist Power.
This is an illustration of the kind of diplomacy I should tike to see. You make it a rule that wherever strict protocol does not call for its full name, you always refer to the Soviet Union as the Soviet Empire. As soon as that produces objections you would then cite these passages from Lenin, the campaigns of Skeboleff and Kaufman in Central Asia, and cite the fact that all the areas of the British Empire acquired at the same period have now been liberated, and the areas acquired by Russian conquest not. My case is that if you did that, the Russians would realise in practice that people in glasshouses should not throw stones,

567
and their references to British imperialism would fairly soon die down.
I can illustrate it by another example. Frequently one hears talk of possible non-aggression pacts between the NATO Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers. I think the obvious reply to that is to ask the Soviet leaders please to explain how this proposed non-aggression pact differs from the non-aggression pacts which the Soviet Union concluded in the 1930s with Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. I think that would be a perfectly serious question. If the Soviet leaders replied, "Yes, we admit that the Soviet Union under Stalin was an imperialist Power but we want to behave differently", there would then be some reason for trusting them. If they tried to argue, as they do in official propaganda, that the Soviet Union does, and always has, honoured its treaties, it would be perfectly clear evidence that any new non-aggression pact would be just as worthless as those in the 1930s.
May I give your Lordships one more example to show the kind of thing I want? If we wish to improve relations with China, I think a very good example was offered by the Chenpao Island incident between the Soviet Union and China. Here was a case, so far as one can study the facts, in which the Chinese were quite clearly in the right. According to the photographs and the maps, Chenpao Island was clearly on the Chinese side of the main channel of the Ussuri. I believe that if the Government of this country, or, still more effectively, the Government of the United States, had said, "Here the Chinese seem, as a matter of international law, to be in the right", this would effectively have punctured the belief in Peking that the United States and the Soviet Union, and others of the Western Powers, are ganging up against them. I think it would have been clear that where they had a case in international law they could gain support. I could go on for a long time with illustrations such as these, but I know that obviously everyone wishes to hear from the two noble Lords who are to follow me. But I wanted to indicate the kind of things that I should like to see carried out.
10.6 p.m.
LORD CARADON LORD CARADON rose to move, as an Amendment, to add to the Motion for an humble Address:
"but, in view of the vital need to promote accord between different races and mindful of the principles on which the Commonwealth is based and of the possible consequences of British interests in Africa and throughout the world, call on Your Majesty's Government to honour the United Nations Resolutions on the supply of arms to South Africa."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first of all I wish to join with many other Members of your Lordships' House in conveying my humble congratulations to the new Minister for Defence. I well remember when I first came to your Lordships' House the personal kindness which he extended to me. I know how well he is regarded in your Lordships House, and with what affection, and indeed admiration, he is held on both sides of this House. Therefore we congratulate him on his high appointment, and we congratulate ourselves that we have a Minister for Defence to deal with in this House in future.
I wish also to convey my most sincere congratulations to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. My previous connection with him has been in support for the United Nations. He has for a number of years held the position of highest responsibility in Scotland for maintaining the good name of the United Nations. I pay respect to him for what he has done. When I last served under a Conservative Administration I found, in the end, that it was intolerable and I had to resign. I hope that he has better luck.
I also wish respectfully to refer to the two maiden speeches which have been made this afternoon. I greatly regret that owing to my absence—I must admit, on duty—I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I must resist the temptation today of being drawn into any discussion on the Middle East, a subject in which indeed I have a great interest and in which I have been closely involved for a number of

569
years past. I have great respect for Lord Janner's views, and I have discussed the Middle East with him before. I shall take an early opportunity of discussing his speech with him.
I also wish to refer to the outstanding speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. It is not for me to pay compliments to him. But he did refer one particular question to me, and to that question I must reply. He asked me specifically to state why it was that there had been no condemnation of the Soviet Union in the United Nations, in particular in the Security Council. I think he knows the answer. The answer is that the veto is held by the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, and it is therefore impossible to condemn a Permanent Member of the Security Council unless that Permanent Member will acquiesce in the condemnation. That is a perfectly clear explanation of the veto. I would also add that I have had many opportunities of condemning the Soviet Union in the Security Council. I shall be glad to send a record of those condemnations to the noble Lord. I think that when he reads what I have said he will agree that in vehemence, if not in eloquence, what I have said about the Soviet Union would be up to his own high standards.
My Lords, I must look to you to extend to me the indulgence traditionally the prerogative of returning prodigal sons. I am more familiar with the far off lands in Arabia, Africa and the West Indies, and the wilds of New York, than I am with this country. I know the procedures of distant legislatures and of the Security Council of the United Nations much better than I know the procedures of your Lordships' House. I understand, however, that here it is a tradition to deal gently with a new Government. It is considered polite, I gather, to allow new Ministers a little time to measure their pledges against the possibilities of performance. They must be allowed a short interval to savour the fruits of their expensive victory before they go sour. Rather a hangover than a honeymoon, perhaps, but anyhow the awakening should not be too rude or abrupt, or too painful. That being so, what a pity it was that the first act of the new Government was to let it be known that they could not wait to consult, accommodate and
570
sustain the white racialist Government of South Africa, representing, as it does, the most cruel of racial repression in the world. Even so, I am told that we should, for to-day at least, show a considered restraint, and consequently I shall divide what I have to say into two parts.
First, I shall put forward propositions with which I trust we can all agree. I shall speak with studied forbearance. I shall, I hope, carry everyone with me in broad statements of patriotic aspiration, but before I sit down I shall allow myself to turn briefly to attack. I could hardly do less when we are faced with the possibility of a fateful and shameful reversal of British policy; when we may be invited to change sides and throw in our lot against the great majority of mankind on the side of a régime which every decent person in the world detests. I have been told in the course of this debate that it is unreasonable of us to talk about changing sides. That is what this debate is about. It is to debate on whether we are to change sides on the whole question of racial discrimination and racial suppression.
My Lords, in less than a quarter of a century we, in our Commonwealth, have enfranchised and brought into the councils of the international community more than a quarter of the population of the whole world. None of us claims that our imperial record has been above reproach, but all of us would, I am sure, take pride in our achievement. We take pride in the fact that progress towards self-determination and independence has been achieved by consultation and consent. We have taught what we believed in for ourselves; adult suffrage, independent courts, and free Parliaments. Our Commonwealth has been created and developed on the sure foundation of freedom and equality, a contempt for racial discrimination, and a hatred of racial suppression. It is these things which bind us together.
Speaking about parity, I need say no more when we recall the recent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on that question. There is precious little parity in South Africa; there is precious little parity in Rhodesia. Certainly we believe in parity. We believe in parity as between the races, and this is the essence of the debate which now takes place in your Lordships' House. All my working

571
life I have myself been engaged in this process of racial co-operation. I believe that the feeling we now have of brotherhood with the people of Africa and Asia is something admirable and something precious.
To convert the greatest Empire the world has ever known into a free Commonwealth—this has been the revolutionary triumph of this century. It has been a resounding victory over racial injustice. It has been a victory not in terms of territory or in terms of power, but in terms of universality and in terms of human dignity. I have come to believe that relations between the races of the world are the most important issue of all. I have come to believe that the greatest danger in the world is the possibility of racial conflict—conflict between the great majority of mankind, impoverished, overcrowded, discontented, the coloured people of the new nations on the one hand; and the minority, affluent, comfortable, complacent, the white people of the older nations on the other.
I have come to believe that this danger is so great and growing so rapidly that it can be dealt with only by international action. The danger of such conflict starting is greatest on the Zambesi and in Southern Africa, and we know that if conflict comes between the forces of African nationalism on the one hand, and white supremacy on the other, the whole of Africa will be immediately inflamed and the whole world involved. I am convinced that for this country, of all countries in the world, to turn round and go backwards in the direction of racial intolerance and racial injustice would be the greatest betrayal of all.
I have also learned to believe that our national interest does not conflict with international interest, as I think was the suggestion made in the relevant section of the gracious Speech. Our national interest is in conformity with international interest. No country in the world, let me suggest, needs peace in the world more than this country; no country in the world needs world prosperity and advance to higher standards of living in the world as a whole than this country. The national interest is also the international interest, and it is fortunate for us that it is so. I
572
should be very surprised if there were any disagreement anywhere in this House with those simple and straightforward propositions.
I would hope, moreover, that your Lordships would agree that our interests and our experience give us a unique position of potential leadership in the world. I said to a United States audience the other day that, having been the best colonialists the world has ever known, somewhat better than the Romans, we now look forward to being the best internationalists in the whole world, somewhat better than the Americans. It would not be unduly presumptuous to hope—so I suggest to your Lordships—that we can match our proud heritage in the world by our future contributions in international endeavour.
I might say in passing that Europe—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will agree with me here, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—should never be looked upon as a cul-de-sac. It should be a highway to honourable participation in wider world leadership. I trust that these obvious reflections are not unacceptable to your Lordships. They are the considerations which have been in my mind as I have had the honour to speak for this country in the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations for the past six years.
Let me say that I am proud of the British record at the United Nations—proud, but not satisfied. Certainly, we could have done more. No doubt we made mistakes. We have yet to formulate our future policies, for instance, in regard to Southern Africa, but we have already taken two main decisions: first, on arms for South Africa; and, secondly, on trade with Rhodesia. It was a start. The direction was right.
Let me speak very shortly about our record at the United Nations. When the Organisation was in grave peril as a result of the refusal of the Russians and others to pay their share of the Congo costs, we, with other good supporters of the United Nations, notably the Canadians and the Nordic countries, led the rescue operation. We were the

573
first to put down our voluntary, unconditional contribution—our contribution of 10 million dollars—although we were fighting at that time our balance of payments battle. We have been the second largest contributor to all United Nations activities. We have, in difficult years, increased our contribution to the United Nations Development Programme. We have supported every new enterprise, including particularly and most recently the United Nations Population Fund. And our contribution has not been only in money. We have taken a lead in every main international initiative. We have done so in the field of disarmament, and particularly in the non-proliferation treaty. We provide the main contingent for the United Nations Cyprus Force. The unanimous resolution on Rhodesia was a British resolution; the unanimous resolution on the Middle East was a British resolution. We have not done enough, but we have made a good start. We have earned recognition as protagonists of international understanding and international co-operation. We have earned the right to take our place in world leadership. Let me say that no delegation in the United Nations is more respected than the delegation of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I have said enough about agreement and achievement. We now face the imminent danger that the agreement will be shattered and the achievement destroyed. We face the danger that all we have striven to achieve in past years will be thrown away; that the advances that we have hardly won will be turned into an ignominious defeat. There is no time at this late hour to deal at length with the various contentions which have been put before us this evening. I tried to sum them up for myself by saying that there were three arguments which were put forward: one was on the distinction between arms and trade; and second was the question of a distinction between offensive or suppressive arms on the one hand, and defensive arms, on the other; and the other was the pernicious argument that if we do not do it others will. I wish to say just a word or two on those three main arguments which have been put forward earlier this afternoon and this evening.
There s a clear distinction between the sale of arms and other trade. I am
574
sure that the Minister for Defence will so confirm for us presently. I do not say that no pressure should be brought to bear on South Africa in trade; and I believe—and I am convinced—that without pressures the South African Government will never change its repressive policies. But whatever we can or cannot do in trade, we have shown what we can do in arms; and what we have done should be maintained, and on what we have done we should stand firm.
The second argument which was put forward by the other side was that you can distinguish between offensive and defensive arms. All I would say on that is that anyone who follows the ghastly war in Vietnam knows that there is no real distinction between suppressive and offensive arms, on the one hand, and defensive arms, on the other. In that kind of warfare every kind of heavy arms—aircraft, guns, warships—are all thrown in. If the conflict comes in Africa between North and South, between African nationalism and white supremacy, there will be no holds barred, there will be no weapons excluded.
Then, finally, the argument was again made—and I was sorry to hear it made again in this House—that if we do not provide the arms others will. It is the argument of the drug trafficker; the argument that you must do evil things because if you do not others will do them. The argument of the drug trafficker, as I say, is unworthy of this House and unworthy of this country. We have to decide what is right, and stand by it.
What has happened then in the great world issues of race since the Conservative Government took office less than a month ago? What new indication of leadership in international affairs have we been given? What has the Commonwealth had to say? How have the United Nations reacted? One of the first acts of the Labour Government was to accept the resolution of the United Nations to ban the export of arms to South Africa. The first act of the present Government was to let it be known that in defiance of the unanimous Security Council resolution, Great Britain was again ready to supply arms to the South African Government.
I was in New York attending a Commonwealth gathering when the news came through. The effect was immediate. On all sides there was dismay. The new British Government had made haste to take sides. What was the reaction to the Conservative victory elsewhere in the world? I remember saying to myself on the day after the poll:
"Tell it not in South Africa,
Publish it not in the streets of Salisbury,
Lest the daughters of the racialists rejoice;
Lest the daughters of the oppressors triumph."
While the Conservative Government caused dismay in the Commonwealth, its success at the polls was greeted, as everyone knows, with delirious delight by the white minorities in South Africa and Rhodesia. They remembered the Conservative pledges; they remembered the attempt by noble Lords opposite to prevent sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia. They had good reason to assume that the Conservative Government was instinctively and enthusiastically on their side—and I am surprised in some of the speeches this afternoon and this evening to have heard confirmation of that fact. Surely no one doubts that this is an issue of fundamental importance. Of the Simonstown Agreement I shall say no more. My noble friend Lord Chalfont has spoken very effectively on that subject. The famous pledge in Johannesburg was not made conditional on the Simonstown Agreement. The South African Government may now seek to make a new deal, certainly. It knows that it will be dealing with a willing and eager seller, an eager seller of British self respect, an eager seller of British reputation, an eager seller of the rights of millions of Africans.
What could be the justification for new arms sales to South Africa? We come to the depths of absurdity. The argument is seriously put forward that arms must be sold to South Africa as a defence against Communism. That is the most fantastic argument I have ever heard. Let me say, with absolute confidence, that a British decision to lift the ban on the sale of arms to South Africa would be the most effective action ever taken to strengthen Communist influence in Africa. It would be the greatest gain to Communist propaganda since the Aswan Dam. If the
576
purpose is to hand over African opinion and sympathy to Soviet and Chinese influence, that is the way to do it. Every submarine, every aeroplane, every gun that we sell to South Africa will be a straight propaganda gift to the Communists, a gift with interest. I can hardly believe that anyone can be so blind as to fail to see that. Every African and every Asian knows it; everyone with any knowledge of international affairs knows it. British arms for the South African Government are not in our defence; British arms to South Africa are directed against ourselves and against our interests.
We are told that no final decisions have been made; that possibly the decision may be put off until Parliament is in Recess or, worse still, that the poison will be administered in small doses. Let us hope that there is still time for the Government to draw back from the shame of supporting and sustaining racial régimes. Let them show that this country still has some self-respect and some belief in principle. Let them show that we genuinely hate racial discrimination and racial suppression; that we believe in the equal principle of the Commonwealth; that we respect the overwhelming votes of the United Nations; that, having ended an Empire, we have not forfeited an honourable role in world leadership.
My Lords, I respect what has been said in this debate in the request that we should not press the Amendment which is down in my name to a vote. I respect the motives of those who have so spoken, but I would say that we have no guarantee whatsoever that the arms sales will not go through. We have no assurance that the declared policy of this Government and the pledges made are to be withdrawn; and, consequently, I feel that it is important that we should declare ourselves, not after the event but before; we should declare ourselves when our declaration can have some effect. I myself should like to put it to the members of this House that in the whole of this Parliament we shall not have a more important decision to make than that on which we take our first Division in your Lordships' House in this Parliament.
I say that a vote against this Amendment is a vote against Africa; is a vote against Asia; is a vote against the Commonwealth; is a vote against the United

577
Nations. I should greatly hope that there are many Members of your Lordships' House on both sides who would hesitate and would draw back from such a vote; a vote which would do great damage to the name of this country and this Government. I therefore have the honour to beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the proposed Address ("but in view of the vital need to promote accord between different races and mindful of the principles on which the Commonwealth is based and of the possible consequences to British interests in Africa and throughout the world, call on Your Majesty's Government to honour the United Nations resolutions on the supply of arms to South Africa.").—(Lord Caradon.)
10.32 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I cannot exactly claim to be making a maiden speech, but this is the first occasion for the last seven years on which, addressing your Lordships, I have not either been the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition. And perhaps this evening I may be allowed to say a word of thanks, not only to those who sit on these Benches who have so kindly endured my leadership for so long, but also to noble Lords on the opposite side of the House who, generally speaking, have in these last years shown me much kindness and friendliness. I very much appreciate the things that have been said this afternoon, particularly by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and others. I know that noble Lords on both sides of the House will show the same kindness—though he does not need it—to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe.
My Lords, it is a great honour and responsibility to have been appointed Secretary of State for Defence, and it is a formidable task; but I can assure your Lordships that I shall do my best. Of course, we on this side of the House recognise that recent events have been something of a shock to noble Lords opposite, and I understand that. I remember the shock it was to me in 1964. In our system the rug is pulled very quickly from under the feet. The cars,
578
the secretaries, the speech writers, all disappear with terrible rapidity, and noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have to change their tactics. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, lately the Bobby Moore of the Labour side, has got to change his boots and his style, and take to scoring goals—he has not, I am afraid, done so to-day. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, formerly the goalkeeper—the Gordon Banks—of the Labour side, must take off his jersey and join us in midfield. And, of course, at first he will feel the cold. It will take a little time for noble Lords to get used to these new roles and some of them, if I may say so, by the speeches in the debate on the Address which we have been listening to, with some honourable exceptions—but not to-day—have led me to believe that, like Gordon Banks—the real one—just before the West German match, they have been suffering from stomach ache, no doubt due to a surfeit of sour grapes. But I expect that time will cure them.
May I, in common with many others, congratulate the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches—first, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on his wholly admirable and non-controversial maiden speech. The noble Lord, if I may continue my soccer analogy, is the Socialist Sir Stanley Matthews, a little too old for internationals (though I think he might do quite well on the Benches opposite) but a formidable player still. We enjoyed his speech and congratulate him on his promotion from the Second Division to the First Division down here. I must say that I was a. little mystified why he chose to sit on the third Liberal Bench; but I now see that he has moved to the second Liberal Bench. Perhaps to-morrow or next Monday or whenever it is, he will have taken over the front Liberal Bench. I do not know whether this denotes a wobble or a lurch to the Right. All I can tell him is that if he could see the alarm that his geographical position has brought on the faces of noble and Liberal Lords, he would enjoy it very much indeed. And may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on a splendid maiden speech, for he speaks with such authority on the Israeli question that what he says will be listened to and read by all noble Lords with great care.

579
I come now to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who has just finished speaking, and I shall have something to say about his Amendment at the end. Of course, we welcome him back personally after five years—is it?—at the United Nations; five years of very hard work. I agree with him, reading some of his speeches, that he has been extremely critical of the Russians and of others. He said that he must be kind to the new Ministers. We must be also kind to him, because he is a newcomer to this House. In five and a half years, I think he made only three speeches.
LORD CARADON: More than that.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think he has made three speeches—I looked them up. I read them and remember them. I comfort myself and noble Lords on this side of the House that the noble Lord is a very much nicer man than his speeches. I have only one quarrel with the noble Lord, and that is that he took the name of Caradon. In the last five years, I have been accused of saying some very extraordinary things.
We have had some notable speeches this afternoon from noble Lords all round the House, particularly from those noble Lords who have been in the Foreign Office, and not least, if I may say so, from the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, who, I thought, spoke under great difficulties but made a most interesting and stimulating speech. But if your Lordships will forgive me, I do not want to refer specifically to any of the speeches, because I want to say something of my own and if noble Lords have asked questions I shall be very glad to write to them afterwards.
I do not think that anybody will expect me to make an announcement this evening of detailed changes in policy or of timings and details of the way in which we intend to carry out the promises which we made in our Election campaign. It would hardly be wise after being in office for only three and a half weeks. But I thought that it would be useful if this evening, very shortly, because the time is late. I gave some idea of how I see the problems which confront us in
580
our defences. It is inevitable and natural, during an Election campaign, that the two Parties, the Press and television should concentrate on the differences between the two Parties rather than on those matters about which they are agreed.
There is, I am glad to say, much, if not most, in both Parties' approach to foreign affairs and defence which is common to both of them. Though there has been a great deal of discussion about a British presence East of Suez, it should not be forgotten that—just as the Labour Party did when we were in office for 13 years—we in Opposition recognised, and we recognise as the Government, that the cornerstone of our defence policy must be NATO, for it is on Europe ultimately that the defence of these islands rests; and we shall continue to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as we have done in the past, and as did the previous Government, to the utmost of our capacity. Europe could not have survived these last 21 years without NATO, and it is to NATO that our first priority must go.
I have also made it clear before that we support the current NATO strategy. NATO'S defence must continue to rest ultimately on the nuclear deterrent; but, particularly in a situation where a general strategic balance exists between the United States and Russia, we need a range of responses from which we can choose the one appropriate to the scale of aggression or particular emergency. We have at the same time to take account of the review of forces and strategy in NATO which is at this moment proceeding in the United States and in which some reduction of, or changes in, United States forces on the Continent of Europe must be one of the options being examined. I would make it clear that the United States has taken no decision to reduce its forces in Europe, and, in any case, we have been assured that no reductions will take place before the middle of next year. We also know that President Nixon has emphasised his continuing commitment to NATO; but there is no doubt that in the United States there is a feeling that Europe should play a larger part in her own defence. And, for my part, I think there is substance in this. The Europe of 1970 is a very different place from the Europe of 1949. In the

581
Euro Group of Defence Ministers, in which my predecessor, Mr. Healey, played such an active part, we must concentrate further on this question of burden sharing and European co-operation. Certainly I shall do my best in that respect.
Your Lordships will have noticed in the Queen's Speech the determination of Her Majesty's Government to
"work for … a genuine reduction of tension in relations between East and West in Europe."
The Warsaw Pact has been on notice since June, 1968, that NATO is willing to talk about the possibility of mutual and balanced force reductions; and more recently the invitation was renewed in more specific terms. There has now been an answer from the Warsaw Pact countries, and this answer is being studied urgently by NATO. I do not think that at this stage it would be wise for me to comment further than that.
I come now to the question of a British presence East of Suez. I do not intend to argue the case all over again. We are on record in our Election Manifesto as to what we shall do. We have always disagreed with the Opposition's decision to withdraw our forces from South East Asia by the end of 1971. To abandon our pledges to our friends to help generally in the defence of the Free World in that area seemed to us, and seems to us, to be against the wishes of the Commonwealth countries concerned and contrary to Britain's interests in the area.
I am at the moment studying very carefully the size and composition of the military presence we shall retain, and we shall have consultations with our Commonwealth partners. Indeed, as soon as Parliament rises I shall be visiting the Governments of Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore for preliminary consultations with them. Our presence there will be, as we have always said, on a considerably smaller scale than our present forces; but the very fact that we are there will be an indication of our interest in the stability and peace of the area. The warmth of the welcome that our partners have extended to the prospect of a continued British military presence shows how important they consider this to be.
If I may say so, it seems to me that the statement made by leading members
582
of the Opposition before the Election and subsequently repeated in another place, and repeated here in different terms this afternoon, that we do not fully understand the consequences of what we are doing, is not only really rather patronising, but also rather extraordinary. For they—the Labour Party—also encouraged our Far East Allies to believe that there were circumstances in which they would use what they called our "general capability" to help them. The only difference would have been that, by having no presence East of Suez, they would have made the circumstances we all wish to avoid more likely to arise and their obligations in this event more difficult to fulfil.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, if I understood him right, in the course of his speech said that a British presence in South East Asia, and our forces, would be regarded as foreign, and that foreign forces promote violence and guerrilla warfare rather than stability.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord very briefly? I did not say "promote" violence, I said "provoke" it; and I did not say that they would be regarded as foreign, I said they would be foreign.
LORD CARRINGTON: Well, my Lords, I do not really think that alters the substance. Does he, I wonder, take the same view of the presence of Australian and New Zealand forces on the mainland of South East Asia?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords.
LORD CARRINGTON: In which case I find it rather odd, because I remember that the previous Administration, of which the noble Lord was a shining ornament, greatly welcomed the decision of the Australian and New Zealand Governments last year in providing the basis of effective defence arrangements in that area after our withdrawal in 1971. I often remember the speeches of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Healey before the reversal of their policy East of Suez, making out a really splendid case for the retention of a British presence East of Suez. They really were very good speeches indeed, and I have often used

583
the material in them in different circumstances.
We shall, I must emphasise, be contributing, as one of the five Commonwealth partners, to Commonwealth defence arrangements to which our Allies will be making their own contribution. We shall be discussing the future character of our political commitment and the general question of the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement with the Commonwealth Governments concerned; and I do not propose, if your Lordships will forgive me, to discuss that this evening. Of course, I accept that our policy will entail the possibility of British involvement in military operations. Of course it does. But so did the policy of the previous Government, unless they had no intention of honouring their pledges. I believe the difference between us lies not in the degree of involvement but in the measures we think it right to take to prevent such an involvement from being necessary. I should like also to say one other thing. Having spent some little time in that part of the world I think we have a better understanding not only of our own interests but our own obligations in South East Asia; obligations to countries and friends who have made great sacrifices for us in the past.
As to the Gulf, I will only say this. The consequences of the Labour Party's announcement of withdrawal of British forces has not been in the best interests of peace and stability in the area, and peace and stability in the area are for us an important objective. We are consulting our friends in the area on how best we can achieve this. These consultations are of importance, and I must tell your Lordships that they may take a little time.
The issue which in the past three and a half weeks, since I have been at the Ministry of Defence, has caused me the greatest concern is the situation which I have found with regard to manpower in the Services. The previous Government took, or always seemed to take, pride in their achievements in making repeated major cuts in the Services and in defence expenditure generally, and in their successive announcements of the diminishing role of the Services and the withdrawal of British forces from South-East Asia
584
and the Gulf. In doing so they have, to my mind, dealt a series of blows to the Services from which it will take some time for them to recover. But that is not all. There has grown up a feeling among a number of people in this country that the Defence Services no longer have any importance; that their role is becoming negligible and that they come, or at any rate they came until the middle of June, very low in the list of priorities of the Government's thinking. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I do not share this view. The first role, the most important role, of any Government must be to ensure the safety of those who live in these Islands. It is indefensible that any Government should cut their spending on defence to the point where it imperils the safety of the country. I must say that I find my predecessor's attitude in taking credit for the fact that we are now spending more on education than on defence a very curious one—not because it is not better to spend more money on education, but because it is totally irrelevant. What matters is whether we spend enough on defence. It must have been strange to those who volunteered to serve their country to hear their Government spokesman making claims of that kind.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us how much smaller, in actual numbers, the British Army is now than when he went out of office.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his usual kindness, has just anticipated the next part of my speech. The strength of the Armed Forces on April 1 was 373,000–18,300, or nearly 5 per cent., below the number required to meet the last Administration's defence programme.
LORD SHACKLETON: And what were the noble Lord's numbers?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will get the numbers for the noble Lord; I do not remember the exact figures. I think noble Lords had better wipe the smile off their faces because the figure was very, very much more than that. I will ask for the numbers to be produced before the end of this debate—will very willingly do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to anticipate the noble Lord

585
a second time, but it would be helpful if we had these numbers. He has been at the Ministry of Defence for three weeks and I should have thought he might have obtained that information.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was at the Ministry of Defence in 1954, and I do not remember what the figures were then, either.
The Royal Navy and the Army are short of officers, but the main shortages are among ratings and other ranks. In the years up to 1966–67—and I ask your Lordships to note that date—the level of recruitment was relatively high: I repeat, relatively high, because even then there were gaps between targets and achievements. In 1966–67 nearly 40,000 other ranks joined the Forces. In 1967–68 the figure was 32,000, and in 1968–69 only 28,000. And by that time the situation was pretty desperate. Last year there was an improvement—a welcome improvement—to 34,000, although this was still 12,000, or one-quarter, short of what was needed.
I repeat, my Lords, the last Administration bear a heavy responsibility for this failure. The twists and turns of their defence policy, the sudden changes of plan, the reduction in commitments and capability and the obvious lack of interest or priority in defence have been a very major cause in all this; and we must change it. There is nothing disreputable about defence. Far from it. It. is one of the most honourable and important careers which anyone can undertake. From maintaining our proper share of our own defence and that of Western Europe, to safeguarding our national interests by helping to maintain peace and stability in vital areas overseas; to preserving law and order in Northern Ireland and giving help in civil emergencies, our Forces play an indispensable role, and all of us should recognise this.
LORD BROWN: Who does not recognise it?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may say so to noble Lords opposite I do not think that what they have done in the last five years has given that any recognition whatever.
LORD BROWN: Rubbish!
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it may well be that our plans in the Far East will help, for recruits are attracted by opportunities for adventure; but this by itself will not be enough. Changes are taking place in our society which will not make things easier, for boys are staying longer at school and there is a shrinking pool from which to take our recruits. I do not imagine that it will be easy to put this right and, if I may say so again, there will be no miracles about this. There can be nothing instant about this. I have asked Lord Balniel to inquire into and to take charge of our recruiting problems, and this brings me to the question of our reserves.
We have said that we will review the role and size of the TAVR. This is now being done. We believe that there must be a body of disciplined troops here at home, and we have never accepted the attitude of noble Lords opposite to this matter: and I agree with what so many of my noble friends behind me and alongside me have said during this debate. I am sorry to say that in many respects confidence in the need and purpose of the TAVR have been seriously undermined. Indeed, I venture to think that there are quite large numbers of people in this country who do not think that there is now a Territorial Army at all. Here again, it will be our first object to make plain the importance that we attach to the Territorials and to encourage more people to join.
This evening, because the hour is late, I do not intend to go into detail with regard to the Services; and I hope that we shall have a debate on the Armed Forces soon. I would just say this, however. I am studying the run-down of the Army and the future of the Gurkhas; the multi-range combat aircraft, about which I hope to make a statement very soon, and the implications of some continuation of naval fixed-wing flying to fill the breach in our naval capability in the early 1970s which has been opened up by the precipitate decision of the previous Administration to phase out the aircraft carriers before providing effective weapons for their replacement. And I note what my noble friend Lord Ash-borne and others have said about that. But in all these matters our choice will

587
be restricted because of the manning situation which we have inherited.
Before I finish, may I say that I had the opportunity last Friday of visiting Faslane, the home of the Navy's nuclear and Polaris submarines. It so happened that, as First Lord of the Admiralty some seven years ago, I started this programme, and on Friday the return of H.M.S. "Revenge" from doing her tests in the United States completed the programme and coincided with my visit. The submarines are now built and are fully operational, and they reflect great credit on all concerned who have kept to both the dates and the cost estimates which we set them in 1963—a quite remarkable success in the light of all the complications and sophistication of this programme. If I may say so, they also reflect great credit on the previous Administration who, despite some early protestations which I now see were attributable wholly to modesty, have really done a first-class job in maintaining our strategic nuclear deterrent. Incidentally, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on this subject earlier this afternoon I wondered how far and how fast he can back-pedal without falling off. After only three and a half weeks he seems tolerably practised.
My Lords, I come now to the Motion of Censure, or the Amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I do not intend to spend much time on it, not because I intend any discourtesy to the noble Lord but because he is moving an Amendment not knowing what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is, for it has not been announced and consultations are still taking place. This is a curious technique and one which we shall watch with great interest to see whether the Opposition develop it. Shall we have a Motion before the Summer Recess censuring the Government for not having taken 5s. off income tax in a Budget not due for presentation before next April? We had a whiff of it in Lord Shinwells maiden speech. The possibilities are immense. After five and a half years of instant government we are now having some pre-instant opposition.
Nevertheless, I will tell the noble Lord that of course, we recognise "the need to promote accord between different races"
588
and are "mindful of the principles upon which the Commonwealth is based"; and of course we recognise the need to take proper account of the views of all those interested. That is what the consultations we are having are about. But, equally, we would ask those concerned to recognise and understand the interests which are the basis of our concern. We wish to secure the sea routes in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and many noble Lords have spoken on those lines this afternoon. Nor are we unmindful of the United Nations resolutions. We made our position perfectly clear in 1963. We do not condone, nor will we ever condone, racialist policies. On the contrary, we condemn them. What concerns us is our defence interests.
Of course I recognise the motives of those who have supported the Amendment—noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, himself—but in my view it would have been very much better if the noble Lord and his colleagues had waited until they had heard what we had to say instead of making speeches of the kind we have had to listen to this evening. But that is not to say that I do not understand why we are having: this Amendment. Morale opposite must be pretty low. It is always better after dinner. It is thought that controversy and a little blood will improve matters. "Let us have a vote. What shall we have it about?" If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will take my advice, he will find that keeping his supporters walking through the Lobby so late in the evening will not be a very popular thing to do in the years that lie ahead. It will certainly not shake the determination of Her Majesty's Government to do what they believe to be right.
We intend in all these matters, whether they be defence or foreign policy or home affairs, to examine carefully and without haste the issues involved and where British interests lie. And having made our decision we shall inform Parliament in the usual way. In the meantime, I suggest that we should reject the noble Lord's Amendment and go home to bed.
11.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 184.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Foot, L.

Peddie, L.

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Goodman, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Bernstein, L.

Granville-West, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Birk, Bs.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blackett, L.

Hertford, M.

Samuel, V.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Scrota, Bs.

Bowden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackle ton, L.

Bowles, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brown, L.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Janner, L.

Soper, L.

Byers, L.

Kennet, L.

Sorensen, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Leatherland, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Caradon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chalfont, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chichester, L, Bp.

London, L. Bp.

Wade, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lytton, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wigg, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Milford, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Faringdon, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fiske, L.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Abinger, L.

Broughshane, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Buckton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Airlie, E.

Burnham, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Caccia, L.

Falkland, V.

Aldenham, L.

Carnock, L.

Ferrier, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carrington, L.

Forres, L.

Allerton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alport, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gage, V.

Arran, E.

Clwyd, L.

Garner, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gore-Booth, L.

Auckland, L.

Conesford, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Audley, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gowrie, E.

Avebury, L.

Cowdray, V.

Grantchcster, L.

Balerno, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gray, L.

Balfour, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Greenway, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Grenfell, L.

Barnard, L

Crathorne, L.

Gridley, L.

Barnby, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cromartie, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hailes, L.

Belstead, L.

Daventry, V.

Harlech, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

De La Warr, E.

Harrowby, E.

Bessborough, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Bethell, L.

Denham, L.

Headfort, M.

Bolton, L.

Derwent, L.

Hood, V.

Boothby, L.

Digby, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Boston, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilford, L.

Bourne, L.

Dudley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dulverton, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Bradford, E.

Dundee, E.

Jessel, L.

Brecon, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kemsley, V.

Brentford, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Killearn, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Eccles, V.

Kilmany, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Effingham, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Egremont, L.

Kinnoull, E.

590

591

Lansdowne, M.

Newton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Latymer, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Oakshott, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Somers, L.

Long, V.

Pender, L.

Stamp, L.

Lothian, M.

Penrhyn, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Lucan, E.

Poltimore, L.

Strange, L.

Lyell, L.

Poole, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McFadzean, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Redmayne, L.

Terrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Teviot, L.

Mansfield, E.

Rochdale, V.

Teynham, L.

Margadale, L.

Rockley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Townshend, M.

Merrivale, L.

Sackville, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Milverton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Trevelyan, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

St. Helens, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Mountevans, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Sandys, L.

Windlesham, L.

Nathan, L.

Savile, L.

Yarborough, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentierte: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: ordered to lie on the Table, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BARCLAYS BANK TRUST COMPANY BILL
Reported, without amendment.
TOR BAY HARBOUR BILL
The Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  WATER SUPPLIES: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  WATER SUPPLIES: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT