Sitting of 20 March 1969

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

    Prize Competitions (Publication of Solutions)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in competitions by many commercial firms the winning line or solution is not published, although lists of winners are published; and if he will introduce legislation to make it necessary for the winning line, combination or solution to be published in all commercial and newspaper competitions.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): My right hon. Friend has noted this matter for consideration when legislation is next introduced to amend Part HI of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 dealing with lotteries and prize competitions.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the millions of people who enter for these competitions will welcome his statement that the Department intends to look at the problem? Will he accept that it is not a question of the marking or judging being unfair but of information? It is not a matter of justice being done but of justice being seen to be done.
    Mr. Morgan: Yes, I accept that suspicions can easily be aroused as to whether or not results are fixed, and that it would therefore be appropriate to look at the operation of Section 47 of the 1963 Act.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If there were a legal requirement for such winning lines to be published, could that be the basis for legal action by aggrieved losers?
    Mr. Morgan: The law at present does not impose safeguards on the manner in which competitions are to be held or the results declared.

    Medicines and Drugs (Accidents to Children)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest statistics available of accidents to children resulting from swallowing medicines and other compounds in tablet form; and if he will consult with sweet and confectionery manufacturers with a view to taking steps to prevent the manufacture of sweets which are similar in appearance to medical preparations.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in order to reduce the accidental consumption by children of dangerous drugs whether he will have consultation with the pharmaceutical and sweet-making industries with a view to taking steps to cut out the similarities between some dangerous drugs and some children's sweets.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Particulars of fatal accidents to children from swallowing medicines and drugs were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) on 14th March: there is no precise information about non-fatal accidents. Consultations on this problem have already taken place between the industries concerned and the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. Although no complete solution has been found, the pharmaceutical industry is attempting, by means of special packaging to reduce the risk of medicinal tablets being mistaken for sweets. But the best safeguard is for all medicines to be kept in a safe place out of the reach of children.—[Vol. 779, c. 379–80.]
    Mr. Roberts: Whilst we welcome the consultations which have taken place and the steps which are being taken, will my hon. Friend accept that there is an increasing fear that the advertisement of sweets which are sold loose in their thousands will result in a rapid increase of accidents of this kind?
    Mr. Rees: We realise the nature of the problem, which is not an easy one to solve. We put out a great deal of publicity in various ways to bring it to the notice of parents.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that packaging by itself does not go far enough? It is the absolute similarity of the drugs and the sweets which is a danger to children. The cost falls ultimately on the Government through the Department of Health and Social Security. Will the hon. Gentleman see if anything can be done about the similarity of pills and sweets?
    Mr. Rees: The question of the colour and shape of medicinal products comes under the Medicines Act, 1968, and any Question on that ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

    CS Smoke
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the effects of CS smoke in cases of riot control.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: There is no intention that CS smoke shall be used by the police for controlling rioting crowds and no review is being made of its effects when so used.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is no review to be made?
    Mr. Morgan: No review in this connection is to be made. I should like to make it plain once again to my hon. Friend that there has been no change since the statement made by the then Home Secretary in this House on 20th May, 1965, to the effect that CS smoke would be used only for the dislodging of armed criminals or dangerously insane persons.

    Brockhill Remand Centre (Women)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women on remand from Birmingham have been sent to Holloway and elsewhere since the closure of Brockhill Remand Centre to women: and what is the total number of journeys involved for these women and their escorts.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Up to 5th March, 94 women were received at Holloway prison from Birmingham Magistrates' Court. Their transfer and the reappearance of some of them before the magistrates' court involved 137 journeys for the women and 88 journeys for prison escorts. In addition eleven women were produced at Birmingham Assizes and fourteen at Birmingham Quarter Sessions, involving an additional thirteen journeys by prison escorts. There were also 22 prison escorts to the assizes and quarter sessions at Birmingham to take custody of women surrendering to bail.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that all these journeys are excessively time-consuming, exhausting and harrowing not only for the women but for their escorts and their drivers? Bearing in mind that it turns out that there was no valid or legal reason why Brockhill Remand Centre should have been closed to women, will the hon. Gentleman consider reopening it and, therefore, earn the gratitude of the Birmingham City magistrates, the Birmingham City Council and all the women concerned?
    Mr. Morgan: I dealt with this matter in the Adjournment debate on 22nd July last year. I do not accept the hon. Lady's contentions, in that it is quite clear that it was absolutely essential for that remand centre to be closed—
    Mr. Dance: Nonsense.
    Mr. Morgan: The position with regard to the Midlands is being kept under review and, in the event of a new remand centre for women being necessary, priority will be given to the Midlands.
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has in hand to deal with women remanded from Birmingham courts in the future.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Accommodation is available at Shrewsbury prison for detention overnight during trial, and will soon be ready at Birmingham prison; but my right hon. Friend has at present no other plans for changing the existing arrangements.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that his assurances that the situation is merely being kept under

    717
    review in his former Answer and in what he has just said will be deeply disappointing to many people connected with the courts, because Brockhill was set up recognising the need for this type of accommodation?
    Mr. Morgan: I think that it would be appropriate for the hon. Lady to acknowledge that, because only a small number of women are committed in custody, it means that, wherever a centre is set up, because the catchment area is so large, of necessity, it entails substantial travelling distances.
    Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in a very populous area like this, which could be repeated three or four times across the country, the lack of suitable accommodation for remand purposes is more than likely to interfere with the final judgment of the court? In view of that, should not urgent steps be taken to review the position, taking into account the difficulties of magistrates' clerks in trying to find appropriate accommodation?
    Mr. Morgan: It is not the lack of suitable accommodation which is responsible for the situation, but the size of the catchment area itself.
    Mr. Danceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost per journey of taking women remanded at West Midland courts to and from Holloway Prison following the closure of the women's section at Brockhill Remand Centre.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: About £17 per prisoner for an average return journey.
    Mr. Dance: This amounts to a very large sum of money. Why is the Home Office so obstinate over this matter, against the advice of local magistrates and against local opinion, which knows all about Brockhill? It was built in the first place as a tailor-made remand home. Will he reconsider this decision and, if needs be, build two houses to accommodate nurses?
    Mr. Morgan: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, owing to the lack of medical staff at Brockhill, it became absolutely necessary in the interests of the inmates and their safety that it should be closed.

    Metropolitan Police Officers (University Courses)
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to restore the compensatory grant, corresponding to payments in lieu of rest-days, to officers of the Metropolitan Police undertaking a course at university; and if he will backdate payment to June, 1967.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Police Council for Great Britain, which is the negotiating body for police pay and allowances, is examining the question; and my right hon. Friend will await its recommendations before making a decision.
    Mr. Silvester: Is it not true, however, that the initial allowances were granted without reference to the Police Council, that the question has been raised with the Home Office since July, 1967, and that the reference was made only at the end of 1968? Will he, therefore, expedite this consideration so that we can get a restoration of these grants that were promised in the first instance?
    Mr. Morgan: I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the Police Council. But, before 1967, most Bramshill scholars who went to universities went in the rank of sergeant. As a result of changes in the promotion regulations in 1967, they now go in the rank of inspector, and it was considered that the increased pay on promotion would compensate for the loss of overtime pay.

    New Police Station, Crediton
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why he authorised expenditure on a new police station at Crediton, Devon, in view of the need to economise in Government expenditure;
    (2) whether, before reaching his decision to authorise the building of a new police station at Crediton, Devon, he took into account conditions at the present station and the number of man-hours to be saved by the erection of a new building.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: A larger sub-divisional station at Crediton forms part

    719
    of a scheme which the Devon and Cornwall police authority are considering for a reorganisation of police cover in the surrounding area with a view to the more efficient use of manpower and other resources. A new building is required because the existing site is too restricted to enable the necessary facilities to be provided by adaptation and extension of the present station.
    Mr. Mills: That is all very well, but, in view of the economic problems and the squeeze that we are experiencing, why should this money be spent? It is a complete wast of time. I think that it is monstrous that we should be going on with this at the present time. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter and see that this decision is reversed?
    Mr. Morgan: While I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern for economy, nevertheless I cannot accept his contentions There is no room at the present station for garages or parking. More police vehicles will be based on Crediton and will need facilities at the sub-divisional station under the new policing arrangements.

    Justices of the Peace (Payment for Loss of Earnings)
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when payment for loss of earnings to justices of the peace will commence.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I regret that I cannot yet say when payment will begin
    Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend accept that, by refusing to pay justices of the peace loss of earnings, he is placing the working men who serve the community in this capacity at a very serious financial disadvantage, and, further, that if he continues to refuse in this way he will deter men from accepting these positions?
    Mr. Morgan: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's views. As the House will know, when Section 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1968, comes into force, it will be possible for these payments to be made. In the debates on the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear that the financial loss allowance could not be introduced at present in the economic circumstances obtaining.

    Commission on the Constitution
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on when he now expects the Commission on the Constitution to start its work.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Commission on the Con stitution will commence its work.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend hopes that the Commission will start its work within the next few weeks
    Mr. Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why more than five months have passed since the Government announced the setting up of this Commission and why, since then, nothing has happened except the appointment of a chairman? Is he aware that, during this period, the Constitutional Committee on Scotland, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in the chair, has been hard at work and getting on with its job?
    Mr. Rees: That Commission which the Conservative Party set up is at a much lower level than the one which the Government are setting up. This is a high-level Commission. It is not just a matter of thinking up a number of people to sit round a table. This is important work which will last a large number of years; in other words, it is not party political.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not this show appalling complacency, in that six months will have passed before any work has been done? Is not the Government's lack of success in hawking round places on this Commission due to the fact that it is now crystal clear that the Government will be out of office before any report can be produced?
    Mr. Rees: This Commission will make deep investigations. It is not intended for the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is good at—writing a letter to the newspapers. This is real stuff, and it takes time.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: When will this slow-moving constitutional elephant ever

    721
    get anywhere? In view of the fact that my hon. Friend says that its work will last a number of years, when will it arrive at any conclusions about Scotland?
    Mr. Rees: I have answered the question. It will be set up very shortly.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: When will it do anything?
    Mr. Rees: It will consider, in the sort of way that my hon. Friend is good at, all the various points which have to be taken into account.
    Mr. Hogg: While not entering into competition about whether this Commission, when it exists, will be real stuff, will the hon. Gentleman realise that some of us are very much dismayed to know that it will in advance be committed for several years? Cannot we expect some mouse to emerge from this monkey in a shorter period of time?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot compete with the length of time that it requires to get results in the sense in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts it. They are important matters for many people, especially those on the periphery of this Kingdom. They should be considered and, taking into account all the facts and all the people who will take a part in it, five months is not too long to prepare for this sort of thing.

    Breathalyser Tests
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made to achieve standard reading of breathalyser tests under different coloured artificial lights at night.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: My right hon. Friend has advised the police that in some conditions of artificial lighting the breath-testing device should be read by the light of a torch, an interior car light or the light of a headlamp.

    Immigrants (Admission of Dependants)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dependants of immigrants have been admitted since the passing of the Immigration Act, 1962, giving men, women and children, separately; how
    722
    many more he estimates will be admitted; and how soon he now estimates this type of immigration will end.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Between 1st July, 1962, and 31st December, 1968, 257,229 Commonwealth dependants were admitted. I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the numbers of men, women and children included in that figure. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) on 2nd December.—[Vol. 774, c. 421–2.]
    Sir C. Osborne: Since I cannot remember what the hon. Gentleman said to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), that Answer is useless and stupid. Is not the hon. Gentleman and his chief anxious about this flood of people coming into this country? Has he no thought for the survival of the English race in their own country?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot remember that Answer, which is germane to this matter. Has he bothered to read it?
    The 4,000-odd Commonwealth immigrants who came into this country last year with vouchers was the lowest figure since the introduction of the 1962 Act. Last year the number of dependants fell for the first time for a number of years. To state, in the face of that information, that there is a flood is ignoring the facts of the situation.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nature of the Question and the blanket term "immigration" is designed to camouflage the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about coloured immigrants, and that white immigrants far outnumber coloured immigrants? The nature of such a Question can only make a situation, such as that in my constituency, ten times more difficult.
    Mr. Rees: A smaller number of Commonwealth immigrants is now coming into this country than for many years past. In face of that, it really is nonsense to use the word "flood".
    Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of

    723
    that reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.
    Following are the figures:

    Commonwealth Citizens Admitted as Dependants: 1st July, 1962 to 31st December, 1968.

    Men

    8,599

    Women

    87,088

    Children

    161,542

    257,229

    Dangerous Wild Animals
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the law so as to ensure that when dangerous wild animals such as pumas, jaguars and snakes are kept as pets by private individuals adequate security is ensured.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that escapes of dangerous wild animals are so numerous as to create a need for legislation.
    Sir B. Janner: Does my hon. Friend realise that the escape of a small number of fierce animals which could do, and has done, considerable damage to other animals is something about which due care should be taken, because not only the lives and safety of other animals which have been attacked, but of human beings who are likely to be attacked, should be protected?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend seeks to know whether we need to amend the law. It would not be easy to devise a system of licensing for the keeping of wild animals which could distinguish between dangerous or potentially dangerous wild animals and others. Of course there is concern, but the problem is extremely small. There is always recourse to the civil law.
    Mr. Costain rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Costain.
    Sir B. Janner: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is too late. Mr. Costain.
    Mr. Costain: Will the Minister confirm that there has been less damage to the human race from wild animals than from wild dogs?
    Mr. Rees: I am sure the answer is right—yes.
    Sir B. Janner: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Fairmile Hospital (Mrs. B. F. Browne)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has given his consent to Mrs. Barbara Frances Browne being granted occasional leave from Fairmile Hospital near Wallingford.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Consent was given in the light of the advice of the responsible medical officer, who reported that occasional leave was necessary for the patient's rehabilitation and would not involve any risk to others.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: While gratefully acknowledging the Under-Secretary's courtesy in discussing this case with me, may I ask whether he understands that the granting of occasional leave so shortly after the trial, which was on 29th April 1968, inevitably arouses anxiety in the area concerned? Can he give an assurance that, before the Home Secretary gives permission for the person concerned to be totally released, very careful consideration will be given to the aspect of public safety?
    Mr. Morgan: In all these cases my right hon. Friend must bear in mind the representations made by those who have the custody of such patients and the clinical factors involved. In addition, he is always mindful of the factor of public safety. This case will be dealt with in the same way as every other case.

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to provide for the observance of 21st March, Sharpeville Day, as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have sent to the Chairman of the United Nations Association a special message in this connection reaffirming the Government's support for all those working for the elimination of racial discrimination.
    Mr. Hooley: While welcoming that action by my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware that the General Assembly of the United Nations has specifically asked all Governments to mark this day as an expression of solidarity against the oppression that is going on in South Africa? In view of the historic share of responsibility of this country for the situation in Southern Africa, does he not feel, perhaps, that some further action should be taken?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the best way to deal with this is to leave the observance of international days of this kind to non-Governmental organisations to decide for themselves. The Government have taken many practical steps in recent years—in particular, the Race Relations Act. In view of my own responsibilities, I think that it is a much better idea to work for good race relations on 365 days of the year.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: If ever it is thought unwise enough to commemorate man's inhumanity to man, will the Government bear in mind that the number of place names which could be considered as candidates is almost legion?
    Mr. Rees indicated assent.

    Criminal Trials
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to expedite the bringing to trial of defendants in criminal causes.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on 19th December last.—[Vol. 775, c. 443.]
    Mr. Gower: Will the hon Gentleman take account of the fact that there have been many cases in recent years where the delay has been years rather than months? Without expressing anything about the subject matter of any particu-
    726
    lar case, is it not intolerable and unfair to defendants when they have to wait five or six years before cases are brought to trial, as in the case of Rolls Razor and others that I could mention?
    Mr. Morgan: I will not comment on any particular case. I understand that the average delay, concerning assizes, is about two months. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions has made a special study of delays and their causes in criminal proceedings, and will be publishing its findings.
    Mr. Hogg: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the problem of comlicated financial frauds is quite separate from the rest of this group of cases? Can he not think, where the inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade have reached a definite conclusion, of a quicker way of disposing of a case than starting all over again and entering the 18th century buggy provided by the present law?
    Mr. Morgan: Despite the temptation, I cannot and must not comment upon this particular case on this question.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Following on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, if, as is often the case, a person desires to go straight to trial without committal proceedings, why must there be all the expense and time of committal proceedings?
    Mr. Morgan: There is no question of a person going direct to trial without committal proceedings. The 1967 Act enables committal proceedings to be greatly shortened.

    Murder
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to bring up to date and republish the Home Office Research Unit Report on murder in order that the public may be fully and accurately informed on this issue.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: My right hon. Friend has arranged for the publication, entitled "Murder" to be supplemented by a further report, to be published later this year.
    Mr. Deedes: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that this is as up to date as possible? In view of the public debate that is bound to take place between now and July, 1970, the importance of making the discussion a well informed one on the basis of information provided by the Home Office can hardly be exaggerated.
    Mr. Morgan: The publication will cover the years 1957 to 1968. I am afraid that in so far as the figures for any year are concerned it is necessary for all the cases to pass the courts, and that does not normally happen until about May of the following year.
    Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the report contains figures showing the trends and practice in other countries so that a more intelligent comparison can be made?
    Mr. Morgan: I note my hon. Friend's remarks.

    Cock-Fighting (Police Inquiries)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable on the action taken in respect of the cock-fighting that has recently taken place at a farm in Sussex, details of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I understand that the police are making inquiries. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would be justified in calling for a report.
    Mr. Lipton: As this monstrous so-called sport of cock-fighting has been illegal for so many years, is it right that the Home Secretary should sit in his office and not take further action and call for some report while we await these long drawn out investigations, in view of the factual evidence, accompanied by photographs, which I have sent to the Home Secretary, and which appeared in the Daily Sketch on 12th March last?
    Mr. Morgan: It is not the prime responsibility of the Home Secretary to prosecute cock-fighting cases. That is the prerogative of the chief officer of police for the area concerned. I do not think that this case is such that it could properly justify the expenditure of police time by calling for a report.

    Easter Act, 1928
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the provisions of the Easter Act, 1928.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend awaits the result of the consultations being undertaken by the World Council of Churches.
    Mr. Booth: Does not my hon. Friend think that the 40 years which have passed since the Easter Act was put on the Statute Book have afforded ample time for consultation with all these bodies, and that it ill-becomes a modern dynamic Government not to have taken a decision on this matter before now?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend may care to know that the World Council of Churches has sent a questionnaire to 230 member Churches, and that so far there is a majority in favour of a fixed Easter. Although the Catholic Church, through the Vatican Council, has declared in favour of the principle of a fixed Easter, it has let it be known that it will not go ahead until agreement is reached with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Consultations are now to take place between the Commission of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Secretariat for Unity. I think that this is not a matter in which a good dynamic Government should interfere at this pitch. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that a great deal of progress has been made in the last five years in this respect, just as he knows a great deal of progress has been made in other respects.
    Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of having a fixed Christmas Day as well?
    Mr. Rees: I think that in all these things it must be one thing at a time.

    Unlicensed Vehicles (King's Cross Area)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Metropolitan Police at King's Cross Station took as a result of the breaking of the law requiring a vehicle to be licensed by F. G. Radia Cars Limited, Calshot Street, N.1; and whether a prosecution will be undertaken.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The police reported to the Greater London Council particulars of a number of apparently unlicensed vehicles in Calshot Street and Collier Street on 11th March, including the vehicle to which the hon. Member refers. It is for the Council to decide what action to take, including whether or not to prosecute.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend and the police for that action. Is my hon. Friend aware that this firm runs a fleet of these cars, that they are unlicensed, and that the firm has refused to license them? Is my hon. Friend also aware that these cars are run with the name-plate of minicabs? As this is illegal, will my hon. Friend ask the police to take some action about that?
    Mr. Morgan: I shall relay that information to the police, but, as my hon. Friend by now no doubt appreciates, it is a matter for the G.L.C. to decide whether a prosecution should take place.

    Parkhurst Prison (Inquiry)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he ordered an investigation at Parkhurst Prison on the basis of alleged evidence supplied by felons to a newspaper; and why he did not require the prisoners concerned to use the normal channels available to them for making complaints.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: My right hon. Friend decided that immediate inquiry into these very serious complaints was in the public interest and that of the prison service. A first aim of the inquiry is to establish whether there is foundation to any of the allegations.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it rather disgraceful that this is the second occasion in the last 12 months when his Department has taken the word of a felon and initiated inquiries without going through the normal processes? We had the occasion last year when Prison Officer Jackson had to stand trial and go through all the mental anguish that that involves, only to be acquitted. Why cannot the Government go through the normal processes, instead of taking notice of what is published in the newspapers?
    Mr. Morgan: I am not willing to prejudge this issue in as flagrant a way as the hon. Gentleman has done. I am certain that it is in the best interests of prison officers, and in the general public interest, that allegations as serious as this, to which 120 persons seem to have put their names, should be investigated.
    Mr. Murray: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the machinery for complaints within prisons is adequate? It seems wrong that the Home Secretary should take notice of an article in a Sunday newspaper without taking a more careful look at the machinery of complaint.
    Mr. Morgan: I think that the machinery is generally adequate. A prisoner's normal channel of complaint about prison treatment is by petition, by seeing the visiting committee, or the board of visitors, or the visiting officer of the Secretary of State. If a prisoner has used one of those means and is not satisfied, it is still open to him to write to his Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Deedes: While accepting what the hon. Gentleman said about the matter now under inquiry, may I ask whether he will accept that this sort of device could be used in a way very damaging to the prison service?
    Mr. Morgan: I concede that it is open to abuse.
    Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  POST OFFICE

    Mail (Time and Date Stamping)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Postmaster-General for how long the practice of using a time and date stamp for postage collection has been in existence; and why, in many instances since the introduction of the two-tier system, time is missing from the stamps and in some instances the date is also missing.
    Mr. Ioan L. Evans (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): I have been asked to reply.

    731
    Date stamps were introduced in 1661 and time stamps in 1794. Omission of times is not new. Since 1922 they have not been shown on the lower paid mail because they serve no useful control purposes. Dates were omitted on some second class letters posted when the second class service was recently suspended.
    I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the absence of the Assistant Postmaster-General. He is away ill.
    Mr. Lewis: I congratulate the new Postmaster-General, and wish him well in his appointment. May the House be assured that the reason for dropping the time and date stamp is not so that the public will not be able to judge whether the postal service is now as efficient on a time basis as it was prior to the two-tier system?
    Mr. Evans: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the abolition of clocking off is one of the more laudable objectives of the party opposite, and of these benches, the abolition of time stamping is to be welcomed?
    Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Balance of Payments
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the factors that caused Her Majesty's Government to borrow £1,300 million in 1967–68; to what extent these factors ceased to operate to enable this borrowing to be reduced to nil in 1968–69; and what special new action Her Majesty's Government is now taking to produce a surplus in 1969–70.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): In 1967–68 the central Government more than covered its direct expenditure from receipts other than borrowing. This surplus helped to finance part of the Government's lending to the rest of the public sector; the remainder was met by borrowing. In the current financial year, public expenditure has been firmly contained, and the
    732
    Government's receipts are higher than in the previous year as a result of measures taken in the Budget and on 22nd November. As regards 1969–70, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since the Chancellor and his predecessor were both wrong in their forecasts for the coming year, why should the House believe that the present Chancellor's forecast of a surplus for the current year will prove correct?
    Mr. Diamond: Every Minister of every party tries to give the House the best information that he can.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Treasury considering following the example of the Gas Council and borrowing large sums of money from Germany to pay the cost of Polaris submarine material and American aircraft?
    Mr. Diamond: That question does not arise immediately out of the Question on the Order Paper.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    R.A.F., Bentley Priory (Radar)
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Russian military aircraft have been detected by radar from Royal Air Force Bentley Priory in each of the last convenient 12-month periods; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I am not prepared to release figures which could be used to give an indication of the efficiency of our air defence radars.
    Mr. Roebuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Harrow Observer and Gazette of 11th March, the air officer commanding was reported as having said that his radar screen has revealed a large number of Russian aircraft? Is it not right, if that is so, that the public should have access to the fullest possible information? Surely it is wrong that the air officer commanding can give this information to the Harrow Royal Air Forces Association but my hon. Friend cannot give it to the House? What will he do about this matter?
    Mr. Boyden: The Harrow Observer was a bit inaccurate.
    Mr. Eimrys Hughes: Resign.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Closed Circuit Television
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for the chimes in the closed circuit television sets, showing which right hon. or hon. Member is speaking and the business being discussed on the Floor of the House, to take place a few seconds before a change is announced rather than after one.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I understand that it would be technically feasible to arrange for the chimes in the closed circuit television sets to be altered to take place a few seconds before rather than after a change is announced. I will place the hon. Member's suggestion before the Services Committee for its opinion.
    Sir T. Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that such a change would be sensible, since one could then tell what has taken place as well as what is about to take place?
    Mr. Peart: I have noted what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says and I will put this to the Services Committee.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend take some steps to stop phasing the Division bells through the television apparatus, because it makes a hideous and quite unnecessary extra row?
    Mr. Peart: I will also put this before the Services Committee.
    Mr. Shinwell: Who was the "person"—I use that expression because it is a mild one and Parliamentary—responsible for this contraption? In view of the waste of time and money involved, would my right hon. Friend return to the old-fashioned and practical annunciator?
    Mr. Peart: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I was not responsible. This occurred before I took up office as Lord President. I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Speaker: We are ahead of time, so I can call the Prime Minister's Questions
    734
    if the hon. Gentlemen concerned are here and the Prime Minister is willing.

  ROYAL MINT PREMISES, WALES
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the new Royal Mint premises in Wales.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: That is a great pity, but when the right hon. Gentleman gets around to it, can he, on his way to the Royal Mint, stop off at Bristol and make once again that speech about buying food in the cheapest markets of the world and how he dislikes the levy system? How does he reconcile his dislike of the levy system with his passion for entering the Common Market?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must have some connection with the original Question.

  OCEAN FLOOR
  Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Final Communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, he will take steps to secure a standstill agreement on further national expropriation of the ocean floor.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that such a standstill would be useful or desirable but we shall continue to be guided in this matter by the internationally agreed provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.
  Mr. Archer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, very properly, these agreements take time and that, unless there is an embargo in the meantime, by the time that we have an agreement there may be nothing left to agree upon?
  The Prime Minister: I do not feel that there is that danger. Of course, the urgent question—my hon. Friend knows what I have said on this matter before—is the international effort now being made with

  735
  our full support to ensure that the sea bed is not used for nuclear installations or other weapons of mass destruction.

  PRESIDENT DE GAULLE AND BRITISH AMBASSADOR
  Mr. Henigasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions he had with the Federal German Chancellor on the recent conversations between President de Gaulle and the British Ambassador in Paris.
  Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek an early opportunity to meet the President of France so as to resolve present misunderstandings.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I have already told the House on a large number of occasions during the past four weeks.
  Mr. Henig: Did Dr. Kiesinger approve the idea of bilateral talks between the British and French Governments? Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the idea of British adherence to the Franco-German Treaty of January, 1963, as a means of furthering our European policies?
  The Prime Minister: On the first point, I am sure that I answered that question when it was put last week. When I met Chancellor Kiesinger and we had the discussions of which the House has been informed, I said that we were, of course, very willing to enter talks with the French Government, and I had every impression that the Chancellor welcomed that approach on our part. On the second part of the question, that also has been fully answered in the debate.
  Mr. Turton: As, on 4th February, the President of France suggested talks on the creation of a wide free trade area, will the right hon. Gentleman now swallow his pride and apologise for a betrayal of confidence which is preventing the opening of such talks.
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of pride or of an apology being required, although, if one were given, I should have to apologise to five other European countries for going back, as I would have done if I did what the right
  736
  hon. Gentleman wants, on our undertaking to all the other countries to keep them fully informed, as they do us, on all exchanges in Europe on matters of common concern. On the free trade area, we have made it clear over a long period that any proposals from the Six as a whole on the question of free trade arrangements between the Six and Britain and other countries we should be ready to discuss with the Six.
  Mr. Mendelson: While clearly no case for an apology arises, would it not be in the interests of all concerned if the Prime Minister were to consider initiating discussions between Eastern and Western European Powers in response to the recurrent declaration of the Warsaw Pact countries? Would it not be much more fruitful to consider an approach to a European security conference rather than harking back always to what has happened between ourselves and President de Gaulle?
  The Prime Minister: At the right time, as we have often said, a discussion between Eastern and Western European countries could be helpful, but my hon. Friend will know that, before Czechoslovakia, at the conference in Iceland of N.A.T.O. countries last year, we put specific proposals to the Warsaw Pact countries for mutual troop reductions Unfortunately, they were not taken up, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia happened soon after.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman undertook, in answer to a supplementary question from me, to inquire into the reports that, at their recent meeting, the President of France told Dr. Kiesinger that France would not take any further part in W.E.U. Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained any information yet on this?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the Press report that He had in mind—I have looked into this—was one by Agence France Presse, based I think, on what was said to be briefing from the Quai d'Orsay on this matter. I have looked into this and other reports that we have had on these discussions and it seems clear to me that the line indicated by General de Gaulle, if the report was right, was exactly in conformity with what the French Government

  737
  had already announced before the talks took place and arising out of the decisions at Luxembourg and the action taken to follow u p those decisions. It had nothing to do with what is called the "Soames affair".

  NIGERIA
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with the Prime Minister of Nigeria about steps towards the achievement of a peace settlement there.
  The Prime Minister: In my talks with General Gowon in Lagos later this month, I hope to have a full discussion of the deep problems facing Nigeria, of the prospects for progress towards a settlement, and of the scope for assistance by this country in reaching such a settlement. I hope also to be able to get the fullest information about food and other relief supplies, and about other questions which greatly disturb hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the good will of all those who wish to see an end to this war? Is it his intention to see representatives of the Biafran side, including Colonel Ojukwu? Will he try to convince the Nigerian Federal Government that there must be a political solution and not a military one?
  The Prime Minister: There are no plans for meetings with Colonel Ojukwu but, of course, that would not be ruled out if circumstances, from every point of view, appeared favourable. I would regard it as very problematical, so far as forecasting such a meeting is concerned.
  As I have already made clear, the purpose of this visit is not to propose any further mediation. My right hon. Friend and I have both made it clear that there is no lack of mediators. Most of us agree that, where mediation is needed, this is fundamentally an African problem and not a problem for Western nations.
  Many issues have been raised in debate by hon. Members, whatever may be their general view of the Nigerian war, and it is, therefore, right that I should look into some of these problems and try to get
  738
  for myself a full and accurate account of the situation.
  Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these problems will include the question of tabling at the United Nations a motion for an embargo on arms supplies to the whole of Nigeria and the policing of it?
  The Prime Minister: The question of arms supplies naturally arises out of any consideration of Nigeria, as it did in the debate in the House last Thursday. I have previously said in the House that, because of the supplies which arrive through clandestine channels, I would be very doubtful indeed of any effective embargo based on an agreement by the arms-supplying countries, even if we could get such an agreement.
  If it were a question of having an effective means of stopping arms arriving, this would mean not only international policing, but it would be totally ineffective without a cease-fire, and a cease-fire would be ineffective without arrangements or prior agreement to have negotiations and, therefore, the three questions are closely bound up together.
  Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman make known to the Federal authorities the horror which is felt in all quarters of the House about the bombing of civilian targets by either side? To get a balanced view, will he make an effort to see Colonel Ojukwu and possibly the Emperor of Ethiopia, who has also been closely concerned?
  The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the Federal authorities will have read the full account of the debates which have taken place on this subject in the House and the statements which have been made in other connections. I have equally no doubt that Colonel Gowon and the Federal military Government are determined to do everything in their power to stop the bombing of civilian targets. That is what they have made clear not only in public statements but in the instructions which they have given to their military authorities.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Can my right hon. Friend hope to achieve a cease-fire if he sees only one side? To achieve this, will Her Majesty's Government disavow any commitment to a military settlement

  739
  and underline to the Biafran leadership security, personally, if they should need it?
  The Prime Minister: To comment on my hon. Friend's suggestion, I have made it clear that the main purpose of my visit is not to try to negotiate a cease-fire. This has been tried, with our help, on many occasions. For example, we were instrumental in getting the two sides together at one of the earlier meetings, and the Emperor of Ethiopia has also been successful in this context. I made clear the grave limitations on any hopes of mediation from outside in this matter and the fact that, if it were from outside, it would have to come from Africa.
  Mr. Wyatt: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that he is going to Nigeria as a friend and supporter of the Nigerian Government and not as an emissary of the Biafran rebels—[Interruption.]—or to try to obtain for them terms which the Nigerian Government do not wish to concede?
  The Prime Minister: Without relying on provocative langauge from any source, I am going there as the representative of British interests, as the representative of the views of this House as expressed clearly by hon. Members of different shades of opinion and as one who, in common with every other hon. Member, desires to see the earliest possible end to this carnage and a political settlement in Nigeria which will preserve the unity of that country and which will preserve full security for the life, liberty and future development of the people of Eastern Nigeria.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: While the whole House, whatever may be our individual views, must, on this matter, wish the Prime Minister the best of good fortune on his mission, may I ask him to ponder the fact that what applies in the granting of self-determination to the 6,000 people of Anguilla is an equally strong argument in the battle for self-determination on the part of 16 million Biafrans, a population four times that of Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: To answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and considering the very strong commitment into which he has entered in expressing his views in
  740
  the House, I am grateful for what he said about my visit. The answer to the second part is that I can see no parallel whatever between the two cases.

  FORMER MINISTERS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS (COMMERCIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Prime Minister whether he will include in his proposed review of hon. Members' relations with extra-parliamentary bodies the conditions governing the movements of retiring Ministers and senior Government officials into commercial bodies with which they have had Departmental relations.
  The Prime Minister: On retiring Ministers, I would refer to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 20th June, 1968. As regards senior officials, I see no need to review the existing rule that they must obtain Government approval before taking up an appointment with a firm or organisation which has some contractual or financial relationship with the Government.
  Mr. Edelman: In view of the increasing involvement of Government in industry, would it not be desirable to have clear and formal rules about the employment of ex-Ministers, as is the case with ex-senior civil servants?
  The Prime Minister: In connection with Ministers, as I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 20th June, 1968, these matters are better left to the discretion and good sense of the individuals concerned. A number of ex-Ministers of all parties since the war have, on ceasing to be Ministers, taken up positions in British industry. As far as I am aware, in every case their position within industry has been known to their fellow hon. Members, to Ministers, to civil servants and to the public generally, and I see no case for any change.
  Mr. Lubbock: On the question of having a register of the interests of hon. Members, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is more than three years since he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that he was in favour of having such a register? Since he last reaffirmed this

  741
  policy, what consultations has he had with the Leader of the Conservative Party and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party to implement that policy?
  The Prime Minister: That is a separate question, since the Question relates to ex-Ministers and Government officials. However, since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, it might help if I point out that I have made it clear that we are considering this subject urgently and I hope to make a statement in the near future. I will certainly consider the question of consulting the leaders of the other parties, since that would be a necessary part of any action which might have to be taken.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that the precedent set by Mr. Baldwin in about 1935 of firing a senior civil servant who applied for a commercial job while serving with a Ministry is a precedent which he will follow?
  The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend says, I think that that case arose in 1935. I have not had such a case put before me, but I would certainly want to consider all the aspects of the case and I fully understand what my right hon. Friend has in mind.

  COMMERCIAL RADIO STATIONS
  Mr. Bostonasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has received for setting up commercial radio stations; and what action he is taking.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend accept that such stations would endanger the local Press throughout the country by siphoning off advertising revenue? Would he, as a positive alternative, encourage the B.B.C. local radio experiment and resist any proposals for 100, or any other number, of commercial local radio stations? Does not he think that the "phoney" figure of 100 underlines the gimmicky nature of these mischievous Tory proposals?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first three parts of my hon. Friend's
  742
  supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir." In this connection, I was interested to note the speech made yesterday in Leeds by the Chairman of the B.B.C., who has considerable experience in both public sector broadcasting and commercial broadcasting, in which, in relation to local newspapers, he said that if there were commercial advertising to finance these stations, then even if the newspapers got a modest share of it, local newspapers would be ruined; and that would not be the desire of any hon. Member.
  As for the proposals which have been put forward, I am not clear whether they are the proposals of the Conservative Party—or whether it matters if they are—but they are, I think, proposals put forward by the shadow Postmaster-General, and I do not believe that the local press is afraid of shadows.
  Mr. Heath: Is it not characteristic; of the Prime Minister and hon. Members opposite that they should so bitterly oppose a proposal which it is quite obvious the majority of people in this country want? [Interruption.] Is it not particularly foolish to do so on the fallacious ground that the local Press will suffer when it is quite plain that the local Press, having an interest in local commercial radio stations, will stand to benefit in the same way as the national Press is benefiting from national commercial television. In this matter—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are too many local stations at the moment.
  Mr. Heath: In this matter the present Chairman of the B.B.C. can hardly be described as a disinterested body.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet made clear in his supplementary question whether the statement by the shadow Postmaster-General carries his authority, or whether it is another case of pressing what he thinks will be popular in the country and half going along with it without committing himself. Not every newspaper, many of which are facing very serious trouble, would agree that commercial television has been in the interests of the British Press as a whole. Some have gained from it, of course, but not all have and it is arguable whether the Press as a whole has done so. As to local broadcasting, I still say that the Chairman of

  743
  the B.B.C., who has vast experience of it, both of commercial broadcasting and public sector broadcasting, spoke with great authority yesterday. I should have thought that, as he is a former colleague of the right hon. Gentleman in the Cabinet, the Leader of the Opposition would not make such snide remarks about him today.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend pay full heed to the experience of Australia and the United States in this connection and take every opportunity of exposing the sordid commercialism of the Leader of the Opposition and his friends?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of commercialism in this way. I have said all I have to say about him. Maybe if there is a register of lobbies in any form or if interests are to be declared we shall learn a great deal more about Questions which are put from all parts of the House. I am not referring to any party or any individual hon. Member. So far from looking at the experience of America and Australia—and some of us have experience of part of that at any rate—I should feel that the whole House would agree that the experiment so far conducted in local broadcasting is extremely interesting. We must all review it coolly and impartially and without ideological bias—and as soon as it has been running long enough there is to be a review, this summer—but my impression of it from what I have seen of it is that it is very good. There are still financial problems but some have been highly successful in raising finance from local interests who want to see local views expressed in broadcasting.
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I direct your attention to this conspiracy on the part of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to prevent me from putting my Question No. Q8? Is it not obvious to you that this is a Question which they find disagreeable and that probably they have no adequate or satisfactory answer to it? I am entitled to put my Question. It was obvious that they were just wasting time. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not alone in having the
  744
  experience of a Question being just missed—
  Mr. Shinwell: They are always doing it to me.
  Mr. Speaker: —because other hon. Members ask supplementary questions. I have never known the right hon. Gentleman to be backward in asking supplementaries.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: While fully appreciating the anxiety of the Prime Minister to ingratiate his Government with the local Press, may I ask if he has also seen the remarks of a former colleague of his, the Chairman of I.T.A? Is there any reason to believe that his party is more likely to be right about independent radio than it was about independent television which it first strenuously opposed and then promised to modify or to abolish?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member the shadow to the shadow Postmaster-General will no doubt be aware that his Government opposed commercial television until, in June, 1952, facing an extremely desperate situation with a narrow majority, they gave way to a very strong pressure lobby—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the answer.
  The Prime Minister: The then Government in rejecting it, and ours in opposing it, have both proved to be wrong. We have all said this publicly. That did not make more honourable the particular circumstances in which the then Government changed their mind.
  Mr. Thorpe: May we at least take it that the creation of 100 commercial radio stations, unlike the decision of the Opposition, is not regarded by this Government as of the highest social priority for the nation?
  The Prime Minister: This figure of 100, which was plucked out of the air by the shadow Postmaster-General, is not a serious proposition before the nation at this time. I am responsible for Government action. I do not even know whether it has the support of the Leader of the Opposition. I do however, know that the Chairman of the B.B.C. yesterday gave an indication that with various

  745
  technical improvements and for other reasons we could look forward to every major town in the country having its own public broadcasting service.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance Mr. Speaker? Last week, you very kindly allowed the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to answer a Question after the hour had passed. Would it be possible to follow that precedent and to allow the very distinguished right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well)—
  Mr. Shinwell: I do not want any help from the hon. Member.
  Sir C. Osborne: Will you allow one of the oldest Members of this House to ask his Question, in which both he and the House are deeply interested?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This reaching across the Floor of the House by one old Parliamentarian to another is touching, but I have not had any request from the Prime Minister for permission to answer the Question.
  Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. I would not have said this but for your comment. The last person from whom I would accept help is the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH MARCH. Supply (15th Allotted Day):
Debate on foreign affairs, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
At Ten o'clock the Question will be put from the Chair on all outstanding Votes.
Motions on the New Towns (Scotland) Act, 1968, Order, on the Bacon Curing Industry Scheme and on the White Fish and Herring Subsidies Schemes.
TUESDAY, 25TH MARCH. Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 26TH MARCH. Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Motions to extend Sections of the Post Office Act, 1961.
Motion on the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Horserace Betting Levy Bill.
Motion on the Police Amalgamation (South Wales) Order.
THURSDAY, 27TH MARCH. Lords Amendments to the Representation of the People Bill.
Remaining stages of the Decimal Currency Bill.
FRIDAY, 28TH MARCH. Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 31ST MARCH. Committee stage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
The House will wish to know that the present intention is that we should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 3rd April, until Monday, 14th April.
Mr. Heath: May I ask three questions? First, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make an early statement about amendments to the Land Commission Act which he has promised to make? In view of the high cost of the Ford dispute and the urgency of improving industrial relations, can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will introduce legislation this Session? Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contrast between the promise by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to expand farm production which he made last November and the Price Review which he announced yesterday is so great that we must have an early debate on the future of the farming industry? Can he promise time for that?
Mr. Peart: I cannot specify the date when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make an announcement. I will certainly

747
consult my right hon. Friend and put to him the right hon. Gentleman's point of view.
On the point about the Ford dispute, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said that she would consider this. I will again convey to her that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues regard this as an important matter. I cannot go beyond that.
On the question of the Price Review, when I introduced my first Price Review and the Opposition expressed their displeasure they chose the date themselves for the debate. It would be interesting if they were to do that.
Mr. Heath: In this case, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement last November in which he promised a very large and immediate expansion in agricultural production. He is not now providing the wherewithal for this. It is therefore important that, because of this contrast, the Government should provide time for an early debate.
Mr. Peart: I should have thought that the procedure I have mentioned would have been satisfactory.
Mr. Grimond: When will the final composition of the Commission on the Constitution be announced?
Mr. Peart: I cannot say. I will certainly bring the right hon. Gentleman's question to the notice of my right hon. Friend when he returns from the conference he is attending.
Mr. Mapp: Has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seen Early Day Motion 228?
[That this House, noting the contributions made in the Second Reading Debate on Tuesday, 11th March, 1969, on the Children and Young Persons Bill, regrets the decision of the Committee of Selection to remove the names of the hon. Members for Oldham, East, and Wellingborough from Standing Committee G in respect of the Bill, as reported in the Votes and Proceedings of the House on Friday, 14th March, 1969.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that usually this Committee sits once a week, on a Wednesday. Last week we had on
748
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday three different decisions on three succeeding days. What happened on the last occasion makes it clear and evident that this Committee has been influenced by Ministerial pressure. In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the working of the Committee?
Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's Motion on the Committee of Selection. His is the second signature to the Motion. This is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I cannot find time next week.
Earl of Dalkeith: On the proposed business for Monday, 31st March, does this mean that it is the considered view of the Leader of the House and of the Cabinet that there is nothing more urgent facing us than the reform of the composition of the House of Lords?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a collective decision. This is the Government's view.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the mounting danger of war in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it would not be wise to have a debate on the Middle East rather than a general round the world review which never succeeds?
Mr. Peart: It is expected that the Front Bench spokesmen will concentrate on two matters—Europe and the Middle East.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: On the proposed business for Monday, 31st March, has the Leader of the House seen reports in the Press that two further days are to be given in that same week for discussion of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in Committee? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to do that and to give priority to the discussion of Motion 171—
[That this House applauds the declaration of President Nixon in his Inaugural Address that he seeks an open world, open to the exchange of goods; and urges Her Majesty's Government to examine the possibilities for the creation of a free trade association of countries based on the United Kingdom, Canada, the United Kingdom's partners in the

749
European Free Trade Association, and the United States of America and open for all, including the European Economic Community, to join.]—
which is a far-seeing, imaginative and constructive Motion and which has great support on both sides of the House, asking for an exploration of the possibilities of an Atlantic Free Trade Area?
Mr. Peart: I am intrigued by the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pressed the case for his Motion. I know that it is an important matter. No doubt he will be able to raise it, if he so wishes, in the foreign affairs debate. I am not responsible for Press speculation.
Mr. Dobson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the debate on mortgage rates yesterday brought some criticism from back benchers because four Front Bench speakers—two on each side—were balanced by only four back bench speakers and some hon. Members who wished to take part in the debate could not be called because of shortage of time? Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter and provide some time next week, or at least before Easter, for a further debate on this very important subject, which has not yet been properly aired?
Mr. Peart: The question of the length of speeches comes up from time to time. I will look into this matter.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the great relief to the Government's programme for the next year or so which would result from a collective decision on a free vote on Early Day Motion 232—
[That further consideration of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill be suspended, seeing that the question of the future composition and powers of the House of Lords is within the scope of the Royal Commission on the Constitution.]—
will the Leader of the House consult his own interests and find time for a debate on it next week?
Mr. Peart: I have noted with interest the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I know the right hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but he
750
knows full well what the Government's policy is on this.
Mr. Albu: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the procedure of Select Committees, especially their practice of sitting in public, in view of the selective and sensational reporting in the Press, which seriously distorts the evidence of witnesses?
Mr. Peart: I note what my hon. Friend has said. This is an important matter affecting procedure. I will examine my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Leader of the House ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement next week on the problems affecting the management of B.O.A.C. and the pilots bearing in mind that if this matter is not resolved in a matter of days there could be another serious strike losing millions of £s of foreign currency to Britain and causing great inconvenience?
Mr. Peart: I will have a word with my right hon. Friend on this matter.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On the proposed business for Monday week—something to do with the Lords Bill or something; I am not quite sure—has my right hon. Friend already taken action, or will he take action, to get the secret document in time for that debate? Will he tell us how we are going to get it? Does he intend to circulate it? Does he intend to put it through the Whips' Office?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows, if he has attended, that I made a statement yesterday, assuming that he heard it. The procedures are going forward.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I asked about the secret document.
Mr. Peart: That was precisely what I was talking about.
Mr. Turton: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), is it not so that a vote of censure on a Select Committee cannot be a matter for the Select Committee but must be a matter for the House, and merits a certain degree of urgency of consideration over other business?
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has great experience in these matters. I

751
will carefully examine what he has said and, if it is so, we shall have to deal with it.
Mr. C. Pannell: I know the anxieties of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this issue: therefore, can he say that, if not next week, at any rate before Easter, we shall have some sort of debate on the acceptance of the Report of the Select Committee on the law of privilege, a matter which seems to grow in urgency with every case of privilege that we discuss?
Mr. Peart: I will do all I can to fix a debate on this matter as soon as possible. I know that it is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend alone is interested; it affects all hon. Members. I will try to arrange a debate.
Mr. Hogg: May I press the Leader of the House further on Motion No. 228 on the Committee of Selection? When, as the right hon. Gentleman has promised to do, he reviews what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, will he take into account that we on this side are greatly concerned by what has happened? Will he remember that, if he wants to get his business on the subsequent stages of the Bill at all rapidly, he must satisfy us that he has not rigged his side of the Committee on the Children and Young Persons Bill?
Mr. Peart: I said that I would examine this. I gave that promise. I will treat it as an urgent matter.
Mr. Mendelson: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) on the subject of the foreign affairs debate? Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter and, after consultation with the Opposition and other interested Members, table a Motion enabling a more precise debate to take place? Did not the Biafran debate show beyond doubt that when there is a definite subject the best possible debate follows and that general tours d'horizon are no use at all? Whether the subject under discussion be the Middle East or Europe, it should be a precise subject.
Mr. Peart: I have always said, in the House and elsewhere, that I have sym-
752
pathy with my hon. Friend's view on this matter. I find that debates which are focused on one subject are usually more effective. However, we cannot follow his suggestion because of the pressure of time and the urgency of discussing the Middle East and Europe.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I support the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a debate on agriculture before the House goes into Recess. It is absolutely vital that Members should have a chance to debate it before they meet their constituents and before the Budget debate starts when we return from the Recess. It is scandalous that the House cannot find time to debate the White Paper, and to do so by the end of the week after next.
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman heard my answer and what happened on a previous occasion. If right hon. Members feel strongly on this, they can follow that procedure and have a Supply Day.
Mr. Wyatt: Cannot my right hon. Friend give some indication of when legislation will be introduced on industrial relations? Is not it much more important to reform the trade unions than to reform the House of Lords, which is not doing any particular harm to anybody at present?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give any indication.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the current concern about Land Commission operations, has the right hon. Gentleman noted that Early Day Motion 211—
[That this House, noting the failure of the Land Commission to achieve its objectives, urges the Government to dismantle it with urgency, at the same time seeking a more radical approach to soaring land prices based on a need to curb speculators and safeguard potential home owners.]
—is a three-party Motion which seeks consideration of radical alternatives to the Land Commission? In view of that, will he arrange for it to be debated at an early date?
Mr. Peart: I have noted the terms of the Motion and will convey those views to the Minister responsible, but I cannot promise a debate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the very serious and unhappy situation in North East Scotland, where great unemployment has been created recently, will my right hon. Friend find time to debate my Earl Day Motion 233—
[That this House expresses its distress at the drift south from north-east Scotland of skilled craftsmen and other workers accentuated by the closure or threatened closure of Inverurie Locomotive Works, by the concentration of industry in Southern Scotland, and by the uneven spread of industry throughout the rest of Scotland; is of opinion that the future substitution of advance factories after the skilled craftsmen and other workers shall have gone south will be no solution to the relevant problems which by then will have broken up homes and inflicted loss and sorrow on the families concerned; and now urges the Government to use the advances of science, technology and communications to increase trade, industry, commerce and employment throughout north-east Scotland.]
Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend has pressed me on this. He is aware of the Government's policy on help for the development area. I cannot find time.
Mr. Peyton: Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the time of the House should not be wasted, and his understandable lack of interest in the debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, will he reconsider the Government's decision to squander the time of the House further in this disgraceful way?
Mr. Peart: I take a great interest in the speeches, even those of the hon. Member, on matters like this. He knows what the position is.
Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety about the Government's inability to introduce the promised legislation on merchant shipping? There is very little time left for this. Cannot we at least have a statement from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Government's intentions in the matter?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has pressed me on this. I regard it as an
754
important matter, and the Bill will be introduced as soon as it is ready.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the Leader of the House noted Early Day Motion 196—
[That this House notes with concern that the first sailing of the first British deep-sea containership, 'Encounter Bay', took place from Rotterdam, and that the container terminal built at Tilbury specifically for this service could not be used, despite the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement with the employees directly concerned, and considers that the permanent diversion of this valuable trade would seriously damage the British shipping industry, the export drive and the balance of payments.]
As it deals with Commonwealth trade, the balance of payments and the export trade, instead of saying that he cannot find time, could he give me an assurance that he will get in touch with the Prime Minister about it? The matter is very important to the prestige of the country. If the Prime Minister would interest himself in it we need not have quite so much to-ing and fro-ing. We could get on quicker if we could get at the Prime Minister.
Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion and accept what the hon. Lady has said. It is an important matter, and I will make quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of the feeling.
Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the snowballing confusion that the Committee stage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill has revealed, will my right hon. Friend take it back to his right hon. Friends and have another think about it? We do not like wasting the time of the House, but we would be betraying our trust as M.P.s if we did not put on this kind of pressure.
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend is strongly opposed to the Bill, and I respect his point of view. I can assure him that I was not responsible for the snowballing of confusion. I gave a promise to assist yesterday, and I have taken action. I hope that our next debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part, will be helpful.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: In view of the speech by the Minister of State, Welsh

755
Office, at Taunton last Saturday on the subject of an international airport in the Severn Estuary, will there be time for a debate on the subject between now and Easter?
Mr. Peart: I could not promise that.
Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposal to discuss the Parliament (No. 2) Bill further on Monday week is hanging by a silken, silken thread? Will he explain why the author of the Measure, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, has not yet changed his mind on it? Is not he going out of character?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merits, I think.
Mr. Peart: There are many people in the House who change their minds, but my right hon. Friend has consistently supported the Bill.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Leader of the House realise how important and urgent the merchant shipping Bill is? Can he still guarantee that it will go through this Session, and that it has not been held up because of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
Mr. Peart: I have already given a reply on that. It will be introduced as soon as possible.
Mr. Eadie: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Early Day Motion 194 on the newspaper industry—
[That this House, believing that it is necessary to have a strong local and national newspaper industry, urges Her Majesty's Government to consult newspaper proprietors and the appropriate trade unions to counteract the threat by a Conservative Party spokesman that a future Tory Government will spread 100 commercial radio stations throughout the country.]
—standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends? In the light of the exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition today, and because of the implication of a threat to the newspaper industry by the Opposition, will he consider having a debate?
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this, and
756
the Motion is important, but I cannot find time for it.
Mr. John Hall: As we are not to have a debate next week on the Land Commission Act, and in view of the very grave anxieties expressed by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the injustices and hardships caused by the operation of the Act, will the right hon. Gentleman see that Orders are brought forward under Section 63 of the Act which will enable the Commission to lift the liability for levy on many people?
Mr. Peart: I said in reply to a previous question that I would put this point to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Member for Derby, South that there is no second round of business questions.
Mr. Orme: May I return to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and the proposed debate a week on Monday? There were reports in The Times this morning that we shall carry on the debate for two days, on the following Tuesday and Wednesday which will take us up to the Easter Recess. Does not my right hon. Friend feel in view of the number of urgent issues that need to be debated, that the Bill should be withdrawn? Where is the pressure for it coming from? Is it from himself, his right hon. Friends, or the Leader of the Opposition? Not one word do we hear from the Opposition on this matter.
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this. He knows that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried by a large majority, and he represents a small minority on this. I respect his views, but this is the Government's policy, and it is a Government decision.
Mr. Dance: In view of the unsatisfactory Price Review announced yesterday, may I press the Leader of the House once again on whether it is not essential to have an agriculture debate before Easter?
Mr. Peart: I have given my reply on that. The hon. Gentleman knows my position.
Mr. MacArthur: In view of the many questions asked and the shameful ignorance shown by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in their replies, can we expect a serious and informed statement next week about the loss of 35,000 jobs in Scotland over the past four years?
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend replied in great detail. I cannot provide time to debate the matter next week.
Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend has just remarked that those who are opposed to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill are a small minority. Are small minorities in the House to be disregarded? Was not there a time when my right hon. Friend was one of a small minority and thought that it was right?
Mr. Peart: I agree—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman was, it is not a business question for next week.
Mr. Peart: I have noted the views expressed. It is my duty to try to protect minorities. I have stated the Government's view.
Mr. John Smith: We have the whole of the future in which to discuss the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. Does the Leader of the House think that it is more important than the merchant shipping Bill? If he does not get on with that Bill, it will not get through this Session.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that I have made my position known. I would only be repeating it.
Sir Knox Cunningham: In order to save time next week and before the Easter Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman not seriously consider taking the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and cutting its throat?
Mr. Peart: I know that hon. Members feel strongly about this. They have lobbied me and have put pressure on me. I have stated the position.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Faulds: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief personal statement.
I am persuaded that courtesy does not come amiss in the conduct of our business in this House, and I should therefore like to express to you and to the House my regrets at the remarks I made yesterday afternoon which reflected on your conduct of the Chair. My respects, Sir.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: The House always accepts wholehearted and generous expressions of regret. I say from the Chair and on behalf of the House that we accept the hon. Gentleman's statement.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL (DEBATES)
Mr. Speaker: I have one useful statement to make to right hon. and hon. Members about the Consolidated Fund Bill. It will help right hon. and hon. Members if I remind them that, for the debate on Tuesday next on the Second Reading of the Bill, they may hand in to my office their names and the topics they would wish to raise by ten o'clock on Monday morning. The ballot will be as last time—for name plus topic and not just name. A right hon. or hon. Member may hand in only his own name and his own topic, and I will put out the result of the ballot later on Monday.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL (DEBATES)

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1969–70

    Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £102,882,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expenses of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.
    4.2 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is my first debate opposite the new First Lord of the Admiralty—and what a much better title that is than "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy". The Royal Navy has almost always been fortunate in its First Lords, and I am sure that the present incumbent is no exception. But he will understand when I say that I can only wish him today a successful but not prolonged term of office.
    Today, we come to the end of a long defence marathon, and I hope that we have got beyond what I might call the "competitive insults" stage. I want to summarise the main queries which still worry the Opposition and upon which we do not think the Government have given satisfactory replies. Then I shall pass as quickly as I can to the next Vote. If I am as brief as possible, it will leave plenty of time for the Minister to give full replies and enable the Army and perhaps the R.A.F. Votes to be reached before ten o'clock.
    Vote 1 is for the pay of officers and ratings of the Royal Navy, and the Opposition's first objection to the sum of £102 million is unusual perhaps for an Opposition—that it is not a sufficient sum. We say that it is not sufficient, firstly, because we believe that the number of officers and men provided under it is insufficient. This was well summed up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon),
    760
    in the recent defence debate, when he said:
    "Either we are adequately defended or we are not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 248.]
    The Opposition believe that at the present time we are not adequately defended, especially on the naval side, in view of the vast Soviet maritime expansion world wide, which has been discussed earlier this week, and the possible threats to our interests and to our shipping, both in the N.A.T.O. area and, just as important, in other parts of the world.
    We also believe that the insufficient number which we maintain is provided for by the money granted under this Vote leads to over-stretch. Over-stretch was a very popular term at the time of the Defence Review. Can the hon. Gentleman give any figures to show the House that over-stretch has been reduced by the policy of the Government? I wrote to the hon. Gentleman some time ago about this and also asked a Parliamentary Question, when I was told that it was not in the national interest to provide figures. The hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty, and perhaps he can, with a little ingenuity, prove his case that over-stretch has been reduced.
    The second reason for our opinion that this sum is not sufficient is our belief that the pay and allowances detailed in Appendix 1 to the Vote are insufficient for the men getting them. Appendix 1 shows what these sums are in detail, but the recruiting figures show that they are inadequate. It is difficult in these figures to compare like with like, and the Opposition fully realise that there are many advantages in a Service life which are not apparent from tabular statements on daily rates of pay. I am the first to appreciate these advantages of a Service life.
    Nevertheless, some comparisons are interesting, and one may be sure that young men who are considering or might be considering joining the Royal Navy do such comparisons. I thought that an interesting comparison was made recently by the hon. and supposedly gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) from the benches behind me in the defence debate on 4th March. He said:
    "Now consider an able seaman serving in a minesweeper on home sea service. He gets basically £12 a week. If he is married with two

    761
    children and not living in married quarters it may go up to about £18 a week. Of course this able seaman has an interesting and exhilarating life, which he no doubt enjoyed. But he must compare his weekly earnings with those of the average home trade seaman in merchant ships around the United Kingdom. His average earnings are from £23 to £25 a week, according to the latest figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 333.]
    Under the Grigg system, Service pay already lagged behind comparable civilian rates by anything from nine months to two years and nine months, because the Grigg interval was two years and the statistics were taken in March based on civilian earnings of the previous July. The situation is worse under present conditions as industrial rates outside are rising so fast.
    As the Grigg awards were based on existing civilian rates already passed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, I cannot see the argument for re-referring Service pay yet a second time to the Board, because it will merely mean a comparison with what has already been referred to the Board. It means cantering round the course for the second time unnecessarily and greatly to the confusion of Servicemen.
    The third point about rates of pay is: why did the Secretary of State allow this matter to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board? The Opposition think he was absolutely wrong to do so for a number of reasons. First, because the Grigg formula is understood by the serviceman and the serviceman is accustomed to clear-cut orders and instructions. Secondly, we believe the Secretary of State is neglecting his responsibility to the serviceman.
    There was an interesting reply to a Parliamentary Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for Administration on 1st May last year. He was asked about the well being of the Forces and why the pay had been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. He replied:
    "I accept that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers in the Ministry of Defence wear two hats: one as the employer and one, in effect, as the trade union general secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 1084.]
    We believe that by referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board the Secretary of State is fulfilling only one of
    762
    those responsibilities, and certainly not the responsibility to the serviceman. It was wrong most of all because the Secretary of State allowed control of this vital matter to pass out of his hands altogether. What could be more important for the Secretary of State than to control the rates of pay and the size of the Forces which defend the country? He has handed this over to a statutory body over which, by his own admission, he has no control. He had in his hands some £480 million for Service pay, £108 million for the Navy alone, and he voluntarily surrendered this responsibility—he handed the helm to somebody else. Having done that, his control over his own Ministry and the Services must be vastly decreased.
    The most important questions we ask the Minister on this Vote 1 are: first, why has naval pay been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board? And secondly, why has the Secretary of State taken no effective action to increase recruiting by improving pay and allowances for our naval officers and men?
    There are some other points arising from Vote 1 which are detailed but nonetheless important to serving officials and ratings. The first is in relation to the doctors and dentists. Why have they been allowed to fall so far behind? Secondly, some of the naval allowances which are in Appendix 1 to this Vote are absurdly anachronistic: fourpence a day for good conduct badges after each four years of undiscovered crime. This was threepnce a day 35 years ago when I was a midshipman. I see that it is only threepence a day to the W.R.N.S. for good conduct. Threepence a day is not much to give a girl for saying "Yes, sir" all day and "No, sir" all night. There is also the long service and good conduct medal which carries £20—that is also a figure from the early 1930s. If we delve into the details, we see a "harmonium" allowance of 4s. for every occasion.
    More seriously, the Opposition welcome the education allowance for officers' and ratings' children. This is excellent and appears to be a good allowance. We are concerned, however, with the rules for awarding separation allowance, which are very complicated and really amount to nit-picking of an extremely high order by the Treasury. Who could be more expert in this process than the Treasury?

    763
    A fourth specific point, which I hope the Minister will answer, is in relation to a discussion a year ago about the rates of local overseas allowance to people in B.A.O.R. and other parts of the world. It is the local overseas allowance for officers and men, following devaluation, and whether it had been properly adjusted. This was supposed to be under very active review. Has this review of local overseas allowance been completed?
    The assistance with house purchase for ratings is an extremely successful scheme and widely appreciated in the Royal Navy, but will the Minister say why this assistance is only provided for ratings? Why is there no similar scheme for officers?
    Footnote in Appendix 1 states that certain ratings are paid a re-engagement bounty of £100. This creates differences and bad feeling between ratings. Could the Minister explain why only certain categories of ratings are paid this re-engagement bounty?
    On the subject of re-engaging, the Opposition very much welcome the fact that the re-engagement figures have improved somewhat. It shows that men appreciate the life in the Services. The figures given for nine-year men had increased from approximately 29 to 31 per cent. Five years ago the figure was something like 60 per cent., double the present re-engaging rate. Any improvement in this is obviously welcome.
    The last detailed point is in respect of Appendix II, on page 51, where there are shown to be 73 flag officers and officers of equivalent flag rating. Admirals are useful chaps to have around the place, but will the Minister say whether the figure of 73 includes the Admirals of the Fleet who are always on the active service list?
    To sum this up, I hope the Minister will comment upon the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, why there has been no interim pay award to help recruiting, and also the smaller details which I have mentioned.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: It might be instructive to reflect on the "undiscovered crimes" of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I do agree with him regarding the detailed
    764
    matter of doctors' and dentists' pay. It is a very real point, and those of us who have talked to individual service doctors are under no illusions as to just how serious this is.
    As he has said, this is not the time to indulge in insults nor would I wish to do so during a defence debate. But there is one thing which ought to be said: that is, when rhetorical questions are asked there ought to be some kind of answer given. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what the Government are going to do to provide sufficient sums. The Opposition's complaint was that the sum of money under discussion was not too big but too small. I would ask what, in the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a sufficient sum? I am not indulging in party politics. He says it is an insufficient sum; we simply say, then, what is a sufficient sum?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: If the hon. Member is asking to see a fully detailed naval statement prepared by the Conservatives, he is knocking at the wrong door. He should ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have a General Election and then he will have what he wants to see. This is the quickest and by far the most certain way of getting that.
    Mr. Dalyell: That is a very Delphic answer. It is also a totally unsatisfactory way of handling defence. If one makes criticisms one has to progress chase them through. I am not silly enough to ask for any detailed reply, but to the nearest £10 million. Why make the charges of insufficiency in the first place unless one is to be reasonably specific? This is what throws Parliament in the view of many people including myself, who are interested in defence, into disrepute sometimes. Politicians should be much clearer about what they are doing.
    I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on writing so quickly to myself, my colleagues and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite on the points raised during the Estimates debate. It is very refreshing to have such full replies and extreme punctuality from a Government Department. As he knows, I dealt in great detail with the subject of oceanography and the marine environment. If, as is indicated, the Navy Department are to take more interest in the development of the marine

    765
    environment and perhaps have point enterprises with industry, could it also be made clear that the naval wages, incurred for oceanography, will be compensated from a Vote other than the Defence Vote?
    I have raised this subject in one form or another four times in the past few days. I will not go into it at any greater length. It is not only a question of putting capital equipment on to another Vote, but also the wages if the Government are to go in for this kind of enterprise in the way that we would wish. If the Navy does this, who knows, the recruiting problems and the pay problems might become relatively easier.
    4.22 p.m.
    Captain Walter Elliot: Under this Government, the Navy is being reduced So puny proportions, far too small to meet our needs. I want to make quite certain that our teeth are not being cut out of proportion to those cuts made on the "tail". If we look at Vote 1, dealing with pay and National Insurance of officers and ratings, it will be seen that these are cut because there are fewer officers and ratings. On Vote 7—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We can only discuss Vote 1 at this stage.
    Captain Elliot: I want to make comparisons, and it is rather difficult. I will only do so briefly, but I cannot bring out my point unless I make this comparison between these two Votes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It puts the Chair in some difficulty if it allows any degree of latitude. Perhaps the hon. Member can pursue his point without going into too much detail on Vote 7.
    Captain Elliot: I am grateful. If we look at Vote 7, pay and allowances in H.M. Dockyards, we see that the figure has gone up on 1968–69. Again, we see that in Vote 7 "Ships (other than Royal Fleet Auxiliaries), hulls and machinery, &c, purchased and repaired by contract", the figure has gone down, as it has with weapon equipment purchased. Yet pay and allowances on the design, production, inspection and staff has gone up. I am worried that the cuts are falling disproportionately on Vote 1.
    I would like an assurance from the Minister that careful consideration is
    766
    being given to this, because the manpower being provided for in the front line of the Royal Navy is pitifully small, and anything that can be done to ensure that the teeth can be kept up to strength should be done.
    4.24 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for replying to so many points which I raised in the previous debate. I would also like to suggest that, as his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is coming to Plymouth this weekend, he might like to drop a hint that it would be best to keep off naval matters. I want to deal first with the Royal Marines. I am sorry to see, and the hon. Gentleman has explained the reason, that the Royal Marines Band will have to be cut down. I would like him to reconsider this. It is very good for morale and, as it earns 40 per cent. of its cost, it seems to be rather a mean economy. It is said that the bands will be at Darmouth and Lympston. That will not make up for the loss of the band in the city of Plymouth. I am glad to see that the Marines are to do their training abroad. This was mentioned in the Green Paper. I understand that there are to be about 30 countries involved, and perhaps we could have a list.
    The amount of money for the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service is to be increased. It is one of the few limbs of the Services that have gone up in numbers. I would like to know where they will serve in future, because there are less and less places for the nursing service. Is the hon. Gentleman considering that they may, perhaps, go on ships as they used to do in Nelson's days?
    I have had a Question down about the age of majority, and since this is to be lowered I want to know whether the marriage allowance will be brought down to the same age. Now that there is no need for parental agreement, marriages will take place earlier.
    As to the Wrens, the record is not too bad, but it is not very good. It could be better if the Wrens did not have to go to H.M.S. "Dauntless" for their initial recruiting training. There is some suggestion that this may be moved. It would be beneficial if they could get into the right naval atmosphere instead of being

    767
    in the middle of the country near Reading. It would be much more conducive to recruiting.
    I see that the lodging and London allowances for officers are being increased. On the other hand, allowances for ratings and others are going down. Living in London is very expensive these days, and officers very often have relations or friends with whom they can stay. I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider this because, in all the other sections, ratings are getting an equal rise, yet in this particular instance they are being left far behind.
    I wonder whether there is a misprint in Appendix 1 on page 43. In the last two columns, under "W.R.N.S. Officers" and the nursing services, in the third line the rates of pay are 57s. and 78s. 6d. and 57s. and 70s. 6d. If he looks at the other rates of pay he will see that they rise equally. He may not be able to answer this point now, but it may be that a mistake has been made. I, too, saw the 4s. for the harmonium player, but I was struck by the difference between that and the shorthand-typists, who are very precious these days, who are receiving only 9d. I would prefer to have a shorthand-typist rather than a harmonium player; they are far more useful.
    Then we have the flying allowance. I could not understand officers getting only 5s. while ratings get 9s. 6d. I could not see the reason for the difference. Looking at page 47, Married Quarters, I see there is a difference in the allowances for removals. I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider a point I have raised time and time again. Why cannot ratings and N.C.O.s have some unfurnished accommodation? This is always being asked for. It would cost the Government less, considering the cost of storage, and considering also the way in which furniture deteriorates in store. It is a great problem for people now they are to remain in home service much longer.
    Also, I could not understand why officers and nobody else should get a fuel allowance. The hon. Gentleman will know that quarters are often damp. Such an allowance is surely equally necessary for ratings, who do not have central heating in these places. My last point concerns the marriage allowance to married officers, ratings and widowers. I am glad to see that W.R.N.S. who are
    768
    widows are also to get that allowance. This brings up the point as to the age at which the marriage allowance, particularly for officers, is to be payable, because since the age of majority will be going down we should also bring down the age at which the marriage allowance starts.
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: During a previous debate on the Navy, we heard about the lack of recruits and the shortage of manpower. I would very much like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy if he is using to the best of his ability the manpower that is already there; because I can see that a lot of manpower, both officers and men, is being wasted in the ship known as the "Britannia". I know that I raised the matter this year and it was agreed at that time that greater use should be made of the "Britannia", but I am rather disappointed because, during 1968–69, the manpower wastage in the "Britannia" continued, and I am afraid it is likely to continue until the House and the Government assert themselves over the Admiralty.
    Surely, at the time we are entitled to question whether the men in the Navy are really doing the job for which this House votes the money. I find that in the "Britannia" at the present time there are a rear-admiral, five commanders, five lieut-commanders and a crew of 234; and the total expenditure last year was £500,000. This is an extraordinary amount to be spent on one ship, and when I look at the prospects for this year I find that the expenditure is not going down but is actually going up. What has the "Britannia" been doing during the past year? What have these officers and men been doing? As a result of a Question I put down, I learned that the "Britannia" had been at sea for 30 days, going to South America, to be at the service of the Royal party. But the Royal party did not go on the "Britannia". It used aircraft to go to South America, and the "Britannia" was not used for any real purpose until it got across the South Atlantic. It stayed a comparatively few days and then returned.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): This is rather interesting, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can assist

    769
    the Chair by indicating on which page of the Estimates or Vote 1 the "Britannia" is referred to.
    Mr. Hughes: Obviously, that on the Vote on the number of men.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair appreciates the point which has been made, but I do not think we need pursue the "Britannia" across the Atlantic and back.
    Mr. Hughes: That is an entirely novel Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are not to discuss what the men in the Navy are doing and what is the purpose of a ship, then I fail to see what purpose there is in having this debate at all. Your predecessor in the Chair last year allowed me, not to pursue the "Britannia" over the South Atlantic, but at least to ask what the officers and men were doing. I submit that this is relevant to the debate. I would argue that these men could very well be doing something else more in the national interest. I feel that at a time of national emergency to spend £9,000 a day on the "Britannia" doing this kind of work is not justifiable; and from the last Question I put to the Minister the cost is going up.
    We are to spend more this year. The number of voyages that the "Britannia" will make for ceremonial purposes is likely to increase; and so is the expense. I see in the Press, for example, that in July the "Britannia" is to go on a voyage to the Menai Straits. What is it going to do there? I have heard of the Free Welsh Army, but I have never heard of a Free Welsh Navy. I understand that the "Britannia" is to be in the Menai Stairts accompanied by two other warships, to be on ceremonial duty during the time of the Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Hughes: If hon. Members are saying "Hear, hear" as a note of appreciation of the services of the Prince of Wales, then I quite agree with them. But I suggest that it is merely a waste of manpower to take this expensive vessel up there for a few days so that the Prince can stay aboard. I do not see why, with the hospitable people of North Wales who are supposed to be enthusiastic to welcome their Prince, he cannot find hos-
    770
    pitality on land. Instead, there is to be this expensive vessel with all these men who, presumably, could be engaged on other naval duties.
    I renew my request to the Minister to see if he cannot ease the burden on the national Exchequer and utilise this ship for something else. One of the suggestions I made last year was that it might be chartered out to somebody in America, or even to Mr. Onassis, for the purpose of bringing in money in connection with the tourist trade. I was told last year that the "Britannia" was to be used in other ways, and I have noted that it took part in the N.A.T.O. manoeuvres in the Mediterranean; but the "Britannia" is not suitable for naval warfare. What has happened this year, and what I am afraid will continue to happen, is that the services of those men will be utilised purely for ceremonial purposes at a time when we are told that there are not enough sailors and officers to carry on the normal work of the Royal Navy. I would ask my hon. Friend to look into this matter again with a view to seeing whether it is possible to make some economy.
    Then I want to ask him some questions about the Polaris. One ship, the "Resolution", is already in commission. What will it do? Recently, I put a question to the Minister about the Polaris missile, and I did not get a very satisfactory answer. This Vote provides a sum for a number of men, including those who will go out in the Polaris submarines where, presumably, they will be called upon to take part in the practice of firing missiles. They are very powerful and deadly weapons which, if delivered in other parts of the world, could do enormous damage. What about the warheads? Is it the intention to equip the Polaris submarines with the very expensive Poseidon weapon?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As long as the hon. Gentleman relates his remarks to the men engaged on the Polaris submarines, he is quite in order. But it is not in order to discuss the missiles.
    Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not understand how the missile can be dissociated from the men who are to fire it. It will not go off automatically, we hope. It takes men in the Polaris submarines to

    771
    fire the missile. I suggest that the effectiveness of the work that these men are doing depends upon the missile.
    When I pressed the Minister on this point during his speech in the preliminary debate, he said that it was not the intention to equip submarines with the Poseidon missile. Then he added something which is a bit of a mystery to me and which I hope that he can clear up today.
    There has been criticism of this submarine in America, because it is regarded there as obsolete or obsolescent. In view of that, I cannot understand why we should vote a number of men to equip and manage an obsolete submarine. But, when I pointed this out to the Minister, he said that the Government would not be buying these expensive American weapons but would hold our position in reserve. I would like some explanation from the Minister. Are the sailors who are going out in these submarines and who are classified in this Vote not entitled to know what exactly is to be their rôle in any future warfare? Are they to have the new kinds of missiles, and are the Government preparing to spend £20 million according to the Daily Mail—equipping the Polaris submarines with new weapons? I hope that the Minister will be a little more candid and tell us whether there is to be a vast new expenditure on the Polaris submarine.
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is underestimating his ability to raise the same subject year after year. I remember the "Britannia" being referred to in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and so on. He has the feeling that the sailors may not be usefully employed. Having listened to 12 years of defence debates, I cannot help wondering whether I have been usefully employed listening to his speeches. I have been totting up the number of hours that I have put in, and I am not sure that they are cost-effective in the terms that the Government like to use.
    I always give full credit to the fact that Mr. Attlee, as he then was, had the courage to lay down and order "Britannia" during the General Election of 1951 because he thought that any succeeding Government would feel it impossible to order a Royal yacht. It was in-
    772
    tended for two purposes, of course. It is able to undertake hospital services as well as its Royal duties.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it was built as a hospital ship?
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I think that this debate is the best argument for an all-party Select Committee on defence—
    Mr. Hughes: Hear, hear.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would find himself a member of it. Probably what would happen is that, like a weathercock, as he came on, I would go off and vice versa.
    We find it very difficult to probe some of these points in depth, and such investigations would be more appropriately conducted in an all-party Select Committee by people who specialise in these very considerable problems.
    A point was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) about marriage allowances for our personnel. I would urge that we do not introduce marriage allowances at 18, 16 or at any other age which is suggested. I very much agree with Lord Montgomery, who said in the other place that it would pay us to bribe bachelors with something like £2,000 a year to join the Services. However, I can see that there would be other oncosts which might arise if everyone in the Services was a bachelor, and I do not think that that is a very practical suggestion. However, we should not put any incentive in the way of young people in the 18 bracket to marry. It must be remembered that, once given, an allowance cannot be taken away. If we are to increase the marriage allowance, in my view it should be done at the age of 25, when one's children are beginning to get to an expensive age in terms of the destruction of shoes and clothes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must apologise in advance in that I shall have to leave the Chamber at 5 o'clock in order to attend a Committee. However, I shall read the Minister's reply with interest.
    I want to turn for a moment to Vote 1, subhead Z, Appropriations-in-Aid. It is a little worrying to see the steady fall in receipts in respect of personnel lent to other Governments. I will give the

    773
    House the figures first and then put my question. In 1962–63, the figure was £1·18 million. In 1967–68, it was down to just over £1 million. Last year, it fell to £938,000, and this year it is down to £615,000.
    The best possible way of keeping ex-Commonwealth countries in our sphere and, incidentally, adopting our training methods and, above all, our equipment is to lend personnel from our Services for training purposes. I am sorry to see that the figure is going down, though there may be some other explanation which is not directly apparent.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that here is very good value for money. We need them in Muscat, Oman, the Gulf, Malaysia and Singapore. Perhaps we need them in the Caribbean as they begin to train up their own defence forces rather than rely on ours.
    When I was in Singapore last autumn on a defence visit, I learned that a wing-commander lent to the Singapore Government was charged for at the full rate plus all the overheads. It was not just a matter of the salary and allowances of a wing commander, but a full assessment. It occurs to me to ask whether this is really necessary, because it seems to be very expensive. Once the wing commander has been trained, I suggest that we should lend him to friendly Governments at the cost which it is on the Service Votes and not make them bear the overheads as well.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: I had not intended to intervene on this Vote, but the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has succeeded in bringing me to my feet. I do not feel nearly so calm as the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). I thoroughly resent this campaign, year after year, that the crew on board H.M.S. "Britannia" are wasting their time. This country lives by sea trade, and sea trade alone and the hon. Gentleman ought to know that as well as any other hon. Member. We are a maritime nation and shipbuilding is very important too. It is right, therefore, that the Sovereign should have the finest yacht in the world, which is what she has.
    If the hon. Gentleman had done his researches properly, he would have found that the crew of the ship have a full-
    774
    time job. She is used very frequently by various members of the Royal family, and she is used as one of Her Majesty's ships in exercises. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thought that she did not work as one of Her Majesty's ships in the Mediterranean—or whatever was the phrase he used; that is entirely incorrect. I suggest to the House that the expense incurred for the officers and crew of H.M.S. "Britannia" is fully justified to a maritime nation, and I resent this unenlightened campaign which I am sure has no support from the Royal Navy. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that the Royal Navy is very proud to provide for the Royal yacht.
    4.52 p.m.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The first point which I would like to raise with the Under-Secretary relates to the admiral superintendent. The functions of two admiral superintendents, in Devonport and in Scotland, are to be amalgamated with the ordinary local flag officer.
    In the past it has been recognised that the admiral superintendent had special functions, and the man who could best perform those functions was not necessarily the man who could best perform the functions of a local command. Great trouble was taken in selecting the right person for the job of admiral superintendent, one who would be able to preside over the Whitley Council, for example, and who understood labour relations; these aspects being rather outside ordinary naval work. The Admiral superintendent is also involved in the construction and repair of warships, and this demands special qualities. Otherwise, it tends to be rather "Juggins's turn" in appointments of this kind.
    Are we now to understand that an admiral superintendent will be selected simply as the best local flag officer who can be found, and that the attempt to appoint an admiral superintendent who has special knowledge of the problems which arise is to be abandoned?
    My second point is that the first Polaris is now on operational patrol. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench visited the American Polaris on the same occasion as I did, and he will remember that we studied the special problems affecting the crew, which are quite unlike

    775
    those arising on an ordinary ship as such a long time is spent away from base.
    In the American submarine, for example, smoking is allowed all the time and there are special provisions for welfare. I have read in the newspapers that a service will be provided whereby families can send special messages to ratings and officers working in Polaris submarines. I have also read in the Press about the reading matter which will be provided.
    The Polaris poses completely new problems, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what provision is being made at the start of this important new task for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said that he was tempted to intervene because of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Whilst I do not agree completely with my hon. Friend's views about the usefulness of H.M.S. "Britannia", I think the remarks of the hon. Member for Haltemprice were a little vitriolic and unnecessary. My hon. Friend was not saying that those employed on the Royal yacht were not fully employed but that they were unnecessarily employed.
    I go a great distance with the hon. Member for Haltemprice and his colleagues. I think there is a place for the Royal yacht, and its scope has been considerably widened. He was stretching it rather far when he claimed in support of the Royal yacht and its activities that it was engaged in trade and commerce. [Interruption.] This was my impression, and we shall know tomorrow from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think that he made a reference to commerce, and this is precisely the point which my hon. Friend has made time and time again, that it should be used for trade and commerce.
    Mr. Wall: I said that, because we are a great trading nation and we live by sea trade, and because we build ships, it is important for our Sovereign to have the finest yacht in the world, which she has.
    Mr. Ogden: The impression I received was that the hon. Gentleman was saying that the Royal yacht was engaging in
    776
    trade. It is an honourable profession, why should it not be engaging in trade?
    4.57 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): I have been asked a large number of questions, and I will do my best to reply to them. The question which is of over-riding importance on this Vote, and I can understand the concern, relates to pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) raised this question, and I thank him for his kind personal words. I do not think he meant to give this impression to the House, but what he said led me to believe that there had been major delay and almost that there had been no increases in pay because of the reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the giving up of Grigg, about which there has been much argument between the two sides.
    The House will recall that Service pay was made the subject of a standing reference to the Board from 1st November, 1967, and that the first Report was accepted by the Government in May, 1968. The main recommendation, which was implemented without delay, was an increase of 7 per cent. in Service pay from 1st April, 1968, and it was always stated that this Report was of an interim nature. The House was informed on 30th May, 1968. that the Government had asked the Board to complete its review within a year.
    In the meantime, the Board has devoted a great deal of time and labour to the whole subject of Service pay. It has involved a searching study of the whole Services' pay structure and the important and extremely complicated task of examining the relativity between the work of Service officers and other ranks in various employments and that of civilians in comparable tasks. In the latter task it has been making extensive use of the services of industrial consultants. Members of the Board have visited and are still visiting Service establishments in the United Kingdom and Germany.
    As stated in the first Report, the Board has been paying special attention to the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the Services, and I will deal later with this in more detail.
    I cannot, of course, anticipate the conclusions which the Board will reach as a

    777
    result of its inquiries and deliberations, but I hope that a solution will emerge which will be scrupulously fair to the Serviceman and woman, and which will stand the test of time and also provide an improved pay structure. So the Government are very conscious that Service pay is a major element, and probably one of the most critical single elements, in recruiting; it is not something that we have tried to disguise. We have also said that we attach particular importance to the concept of a Service salary which is demonstrably more comparable with pay in civilian life. In taking up the hon. and gallant Member's specific point in which he compared Service salaries with merchant salaries, there are many disguised advantages which people, rightly, claim to be part of Service pay, but there are some things which tend to be overlooked when direct comparison is made. I cannot anticipate the report of the Board, but I am sure that it has not overlooked the possibility of a Service salary, and we await the Board's thoughts on this with considerable interest.
    The Secretary of State has already said a little about the shortage of doctors—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for answering my question about the N.B.P.I., but he did not quite answer the point that we on this side believe that this should be the function of the Ministry of Defence and cannot see why it should be sub-contracted to the N.B.P.I.
    Dr. Owen: In no sense is it subcontracted. The Board advises the Government. It is then for the Government to make a decision. This is the collective decision of the Government. The Ministry of Defence has in no way abrogated its prime interest in ensuring that the Services are given full financial compensation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tend to think that we must accept what the Board says. This is not the position. The Government decide whether to accept the recommendations of the Board. I do not think I should go into that matter any further while the Board is still sitting.
    The shortage of doctors has caused some concern, and I will deal with that matter in a certain amount of detail. Until about six years ago the method
    778
    by which the Navy obtained its doctors was by the direct entry of qualified doctors. We found, however, that we were getting insufficient officers in this way. The House will know that in 1962 a scheme was introduced whereby undergraduates could enter the Navy while at university and receive appropriate rates of pay during medical training. They then enter on a five-year short-service commission on completion of that training.
    I am pleased to say that, although recently there has been some fall-off in cadet entry, the scheme is still proving attractive. The entry of short-service doctors into service with the Fleet is improving as the earlier entrants under the scheme complete their medical training.
    Unfortunately, even with the present level of entry for short-service officers, we have a significant shortage of doctors in the middle ranks. This is because very few short-service officers now find the prospects of transfer to the permanent list of medical officers sufficiently attractive. This is basically a question of pay. They feel that their prospects outside the Service are considerably better than if they remained with the Navy. This aspect of the question is part of the general review now being carried out by the National Board for Prices and Incomes into Service pay. We are hopeful that the result of that review will be to restore the confidence of short-service doctors in the attraction of a continued Service career. We hope, too, that it will prevent a further fall-off in cadet entry, which we fear would otherwise be likely. It is important that Service medical officers should not feel at a disadvantage compared with National Health Service doctors and consultants. In addition to their medical duties, they are subject to the inconvenience and disturbance which life in a disciplined force must inevitably involve.
    Mr. Victor Goodhew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trouble is that Service doctors are suffering a disadvantage compared with civilians in the Health Service? Though it was intended that they should be kept about 15 per cent. ahead of the G.P.s in the National Health Service, today they are about 34 per cent. behind. It is no

    779
    use the Government saying that they are anxious about this position if they are not going to correct it.
    Dr. Owen: We have taken action. This has been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We have expressed anxiety about the situation. I explained it very openly to the House. However, we must wait for the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We are trying to achieve a Service salary structure which makes sense throughout.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester raised the question of over-stretch. He has asked a Question about this for 26th March. He knows that there are real security difficulties about giving an answer in the terms that he suggested. I note that he has a Question down to be answered next week asking for figures relating to over-stretch. I will bear his points in mind when I come to consider my Answer. There is no intention to hide this information deliberately. I believe in giving the maximum amount of information possible.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised a point about separation allowance. He said that there were delays and difficulties in getting it through. I agree that it is a valuable allowance. Subject to the views of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, we foresee this allowance continuing in any new pay structure. Service life inevitably involves some family separation. This is one factor of the Service way of life that we consider should be recognised in basic pay. However, we think that separation beyond a certain point will still need to be recognised by additional payment to the individual concerned at the time of separation. I will look into any particular cases where the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers there has been long delay in how it works.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked about local overseas allowance. We have had discussions on this in the House. Following devaluation of the pound, interim rates of local overseas allowance were approved pending detailed review of local conditions and costs in each country which did not devalue its currency in line with sterling.
    This programme of urgent reviews is virtually complete and firm revised rates of allowance have been assessed and
    780
    promulgated for almost all the countries affected. Good progress has been made by the limited numbers of expert staff available, and priority has been given to the most important areas in terms of numbers of personnel and of expenditure on this allowance.
    Increases in allowance determined by the reviews are paid retrospectively to the beginning of March, 1968, but decreases apply only from a convenient pay day following review. I am in no doubt that the new allowances fairly reflect the difference in the serviceman's cost of living abroad compared with that of his compatriots in the United Kingdom.
    Routine periodic review of local overseas allowance for countries such as Malta, which devalued in line with the pound, is being resumed. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will feel that we have looked into this.
    The long service advances of pay scheme was introduced in September, 1965. It allowed married leading rates and above an advance of pay to be used to assist them in purchasing a house when they re-engaged for pension. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that it is generally a popular scheme. I have no doubt that it has been one of the factors in improving our re-engagement rate. It may interest the House to know that the total number of advances since the scheme's inception is something over 6,600.
    I am aware that there are many who feel that this attractive scheme should cover officers as well as ratings. There are difficulties here since the present scheme is related to re-engagement, which does not apply to officers, but we are at present considering a variety of alternative schemes. Hon. Members can be assured that as soon as we have reached a firm conclusion we will make an announcement.
    On re-engagement, I think I have been extremely honest about recruitment and the problems facing the Navy. There is also a good side to the story. Re-engagement rates for Royal Navy ratings who had completed nine years' service improved substantially to 31 per cent. in 1967–68 from 25 per cent. in 1966–67. The rate has remained at the higher level during the first half of 1968–69. The nine-year re-engagement point is the

    781
    point at which the highest number of ratings become eligible for re-engagement. Re-engagement rates are highest amongst senior rates, and much of the improvement in overall rates has been brought about by improving advancement times to the higher rate.
    I am not complacent about it, but it is a matter of great importance that we continue the improved re-engagement rates. These people have been trained. We have put a lot of money into their training, and they still have very valuable service to do.
    A point of detail on bounties was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. There is a relatively small amount of money in for two bounty schemes. One is a £100 re-engagement bounty of general application, which was discontinued in 1956. Certain ratings who were serving then as juniors or apprentices retained reserved rights which are still being taken up. The other is a £130 bonus payable to W.R.N.S. who enter on a six-year engagement upon completion of that engagement. I hope that this will be some compensation to those who think that good conduct money is not sufficient for W.R.N.S.
    I was also asked detailed questions about the number of flag officers. The figure of 73 in Appendix II on page 51 of the Defence Estimates does not include any Admirals of the Fleet. It would do so if there were any on active service.
    The number of flag officers borne in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines today is about 74. It is difficult to be precise. As most people know, we share appointments in the centre. This is subject to small variations, but I must point out to the House that, comparing today's figures with those for 1964, we have achieved a fall of 11 per cent. in flag officer numbers.
    For those who saw the cartoon in the Daily Mirror, the number of flag officers includes not only those in national operational commands but also those in N.A.T.O. administrative and professional posts.
    With the phasing out of the separate admiral superintendent posts which were referred to in the recent Navy Estimates
    782
    debate, the number of flag officers will fall still further in the next few years.
    This might be an appropriate time to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who asked about admiral superintendents. I would be the first to pay tribute to the extremely valuable work that admiral superintendents have done, and are doing, for dockyards. But we have to take account of the management changes which have taken place in dockyards and which were started by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The idea was to give greater authority to the general managers. I think it is in keeping with giving more authority to the man who is managing a major industry—we tend to forget this—at the same time to take away some of the detailed powers of the admiral superintendent. We still believe that we shall need to retain the admiral superintendent, as the new title at Chatham shows—Area Flag Officer Medway and Admiral Superintendent. We believe that he will still need to have the responsibility for the base as a whole. We are more and more keen to push the attitude of looking at the base as a whole, not identifying and reporting out any one item within it. This will be the responsibility of area flag officers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see the eventual abolition of the separate post of admiral superintendent as part of the new concept of giving greater authority to individual general managers.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House examples of the power which is to be taken from the admiral superintendent? Will this officer continue to preside over the Whitley Council, which is a good arrangement?
    Dr. Owen: No decision has been made about his presiding over the Whitley Council. I think we should discuss this with the trade unions to see what their general feeling is, and I should not like to commit myself about that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not here, but he apologised for having to leave the Chamber. He asked whether we ought to have special Estimates for oceanography. I do not think that I can go any further than I did on 10th March, when I said:
    "The Royal Navy undoubtedly has a contribution to make here,"—

    783
    I was talking in terms of oceanography and ocean technology—
    "but, unless other financial arrangements are made, it cannot be expected to be funded against more relevant defence research within the Defence Estimates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1118.]
    That is the position. The Select Committee on Procedure is currently examining the Government's proposals for a new form of Defence Estimates, and if my hon. Friend feels strongly on the subject presumably he can influence the Committee's deliberations.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) raised a matter which is of concern to all Servicemen, namely the question of cutting the tail to match the teeth, and asked the Government to ensure that not all cuts and economies fall on the teeth. I refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to page 6 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, where it says:
    "Although it is not easy to reduce overheads in direct proportion to reductions in defence tasks or activities, the Government is determined that cuts in the teeth arms of the Services shall be matched by cuts in the tail."
    That remains our determination.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised the question of Royal Marines' bands. I have written to the hon. Lady about this. The total reduction is relatively small, and I join the hon. Lady in saying that the bands are a very important factor in recruiting and general morale, both of the Marines and of the Royal Navy, and that they will continue to be so.
    In my letter to the hon. Lady I said:
    "… the band of H.M.S. "Raleigh" is due to be disbanded in 1971–72 and the Flag Officer Plymouth's band will then be accommodated in "Raleigh". The bands at Dartmouth and Lympstone will remain, and I am sure that these three bands will be able to serve the Plymouth area as well in the future as they have done in the past."
    The hon. Lady also raised a question about the W.R.N.S. and said that H.M.S. "Dauntless" was rather daunting—I hope the House will forgive the pun—for a new W.R.N.S. intake. The hon. Lady should know that a few weeks ago we said that we would move "Dauntless" to South-wick Park, which will be part of the Naval complex, with all the attractions that that offers for the W.R.N.S., and I hope that
    784
    this will please them. They have wanted this move for some time. We are satisfied with the figures for W.R.N.S. recruiting, and I pay tribute to them all for what they do for the Service.
    The hon. Lady also raised the question of marriage allowance, and referred to the recommendations of the Latey Committee. We had somewhat opposing views on marriage allowance from the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). I was not certain whether he was totally opposed to it, but he seemed to say that we could not do away with it once it was here. I think we showed during the recent defence debate that we have been considering the wider question of marriage allowance, even whether it should disappear altogether. It is a big subject. and it, too, has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, whose report we await. I do not think that I can comment further on that.
    The hon. Lady also raised the question of lodging allowance and London allowance. Both of these form part of our Service review. Lodging allowances were fixed in 1965. We are reviewing these at the moment, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    The hon. Lady also referred to the free fuel allowance. I draw the attention of the House to the statement on page 47 of the Defence Estimates:
    "Officers, occupying large official residences and married quarters which have excessive fuel costs may receive an allowance to meet the cost of the assessed extra need."
    Anyone who has received hospitality at some of these residences knows that to heat them without any form of allowance would be a massive expenditure for the person concerned, and while officers continue to live in premises of this kind, some of which are extremely attractive buildings, I think that this is a reasonable allowance to pay them and it is not one to which I object.
    Mr. James Ramsden: No one objects to officers getting the allowance in the circumstances described by the Minister, but ratings do not get it. My recollection of the same allowance in the Army context is that it is payable in circumstances where married quarters put up by the Ministry of Public Building and Works are inadequately insulated and it is judged that extra fuel is needed to keep people reasonably warm. I do

    785
    not know whether Royal Navy families do not have such quarters, but I think we should be told why ratings are not entitled to this allowance.
    Dr. Owen: I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Lady drew attention to the fact that there were some damp houses, and I would be prepared to consider the matter if there were a demand for the allowance to be paid. Generally, however, I think that if there were too many allowances we should create immense difficulties. I think there is a lot to be said for paying people a basic rate which is the rate for the job.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say this—made a ritual attack on what to him are subjects of concern, one being the Royal Yacht "Britannia" and the other the Polaris submarine. I shall not deal with the Polaris submarine, except in the context of manpower. My hon. Friend said that it was wrong to use men for this obsolete submarine. It is not obsolete, far from it. It makes an extremely effective contribution to the deterrent.
    My hon. Friend claims that the Royal Yacht "Britannia" was not used in South America. This is not true. It was used, particularly in Brazil. I spoke to our Ambassador there, and he told me that it had made a very useful contribution to the visit. It took out visiting businessmen, and then took part in a naval sales drive which was very valuable at the time. It contributed greatly to the success of the visit, and I strongly rebut any criticism of the Royal Yacht "Britannia" on that score.
    We have given considerable thought to the manning of the Royal Yacht. My hon. Friend knows that we have decided that wherever possible it should be used with the Navy in naval exercises, and steps are being taken to ensure that this can be done. As a Welshman albeit somewhat Anglicised, I welcome the proposed visit of "Britannia" to the Investiture
    Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
    Dr. Owen: I shall not give way.
    786
    The hon. Member for Hendon, North raised the question of personnel on loan, and quoted figures which showed a marked fall. The fall in the appropriations in aid for personnel loaned to other Governments does not reflect a fall in the number of naval loan personnel. It is the result of a variation in the accounting procedure. There is a slight increase on the estimate for next year, but the long-term forecast remains fairly steady. There is a fall in some countries, but this is offset by increases elsewhere.
    I have tried to answer most of the points which have been raised during the debate. I do not want to make this a mud-slinging exercise. But it behoves hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly when speaking from the Front Bench and saying that the sum for the expenditure on this account was not enough, and making claims in other debates for cutting public expenditure and reducing taxation, to try—I say no more than that, particularly on this Vote, which deals largely with personnel—to cost some of their suggestions.
    Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance, then, that he thinks that there will be no increase in forces' pay in the coming year? If he does think there will be an increase, will he give us his estimate of it?
    Dr. Owen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must think me very naïve if he thinks that I would give any such pledge. He knows that all I have said indicates that I hold the opposite point of view. This is a tendency which occurs throughout these debates and is likely to be more in evidence on the later Votes. It helps in these debates if we cost some of the differences of view. That is all I am asking for; particularly in the atmosphere of these Votes, this is more possible.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: I apologise for not having been here during the debate. I thank the hon. Gentleman for having written to tell me that the pensions of serving men will be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances which have arisen as a result of the national pension intention. Will this also apply to the pensions of dock-yard workers? Will they, too, be reconsidered in view of the new situation?
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £102,882,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

    Vote 7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £202,363,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of new construction, repair, etc., of H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970.
    5.22 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is always a difficult Vote to discuss, because the Opposition are apt to feel more and more out of touch the longer they are in opposition, although this predicament will soon be ended for Her Majesty's present Opposition. Equally, the Government feel, rightly or wrongly, that they must tread delicately because of security considerations. The Minister of Defence for Equipment gave us a useful summary on the first day of the defence debate about naval equipment, for which we were grateful.
    The Opposition feel concern principally under this Vote about the following points. First, will the Government genuinely reconsider the question of the fifth Polaris submarine?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is the first time I have found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—
    Mr. Hughes: You are coming on.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It s not my purpose to tease the Minister about the Labour Government having adopted the independent British nuclear deterrent root and branch. We are only glad that they have done so. Discussing this, the Secretary of State said that with four boats we could normally have two on patrol. To have five, he said, would make certain of it. But "normally" is a vague word, and apart from unexpected
    788
    breakdowns, which in complicated machinery of this sort must be at leas! a possibility, there are such things as navigational errors. When I hear of someone running his ship aground, I do not think, "How on earth did he manage that?", but, "There but for the grace of God went I." These things can happen; so five Polaris submarines would be a great improvement on four.
    Is it not a fact that when we made the original purchase of equipment for Polaris we bought a great deal of the lead items for a fifth boat which was in the plan at the time? Is much of that purchase from the United States already in our possession?
    The second point is the fleet submarine programme—what are sometimes, but rather old-fashionedly, called the "hunter-killer" submarines. The White Paper says that only two of these fleet submarines are in commission, one is refitting and one is entering service now. The next three are still under construction, and one of them is not yet even laid down. But the Minister of Defence for Equipment said on 10th March that an order for an eight would be placed very soon indeed. That was over a fortnight ago. Has he any news yet?
    The Opposition are not satisfied that the rate of building of these ships, which the Secretary of State called "the principal striking force of the Navy", is sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for Administration said the other day that I was looking very worried and he asked me not to. But this is the sort of thing which makes us worried, because the Government do not appear to be paying enough attention to this vital programme.
    Our next point is the weapons for these fleet submarines. We believe that the anti-submarine torpedoes are reasonably well advanced. I must be careful here from a security point of view, and I do not want to step over the line. The anti-surface ship torpedoes which were available for these very sophisticated submarines were, at any rate until recently, gravely behind hand. I have heard it said that going into action in one of these fleet submarines with the existing, or at that time existing, anti-surface ship torpedoes was rather like going into action in a Chieftain tank waving a spear

    789
    out of the front. Could we hear something about this torpedo development and something, without infringing security, about any form of anti-surface ship weapon to be incorporated in these submarines?
    As to the building and refitting of these submarines, the Opposition are far from satisfied that the arrangement to build at only one yard, Vickers, is satisfactory or that it is sense to scrap the equipment and expertise at Cammell Laird, which could be used for refitting as much as for building. We do not see the sense of simultaneously dismantling all this equipment and expertise and building up the expensive facilities at Devonport Dockyard. This was rather pooh-poohed by the Secretary of State, who has just come in, when he said that this was a matter of building and not of refitting. But, of course, Cammell Laird could refit just as well as it can build.
    On aircraft carriers, the Opposition detect a very welcome death-bed repentance. I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary by pressing them on this point. I have been banging on about this ever since the defence review, as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Tied to the Government like a tin can attached to a dog's tail is this sentence from their Defence Review:
    "We believe that the tasks for which carrier-borne aircraft might be required in the '70s can be more cheaply performed in other ways."
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I do not want to embarrass the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but has he read the carefully scripted series of answers by the Leader of the Opposition in The Guardian recently, in which his right hon. Friend said that the Opposition had no intention whatever of providing carrier-borne aircraft to protect their Forces in the Far East, if ever they put any there and if ever they were returned to power?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That was in reference to conventional C.V.A. aircraft carriers. I am not on that subject.
    It must be remembered that the Soviet Union has surface-to-surface missiles. This fact was well known 15 years or more ago by Naval Intelligence, and a
    790
    decision was taken by the Government of the day not to follow the Soviet Union down that expensive path of development, particularly since we had aircraft operating from carriers able to do that job. Carrier aircraft are more effective in this rôle and are also better for the reconnaissance work which the Secretary of State boasted the other day was so necessary to keep an eye on what the Soviet Fleet is up to in the Mediterranean.
    If one were to adopt the only other means postulated in the defence review—that is, surface-to-surface missiles—the time must come when somebody must make the difficult command decision or whether or not to discharge a missile and perhaps start a third world war. That person might see a flashing light on the screen and it might appear to indicate that something hostile is happening. If the only form of defence is a missile, he may have no alternative but to press the button and discharge it. The alternative is to have a man in an aeroplane equipped with a "Mark I Eyeball" able to fly over what is thought to be the target, report back and perhaps avoid a dangerous confrontation. In this rôle aircraft operating from carriers of this sort can be useful for preventing rather than starting war.
    Mr. Ogden: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman describe the sort of carriers he has in mind and the type of situation he envisages?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am coming to that.
    My hon. Friends deduce from the arguments that can be made about the review that some sort of flying from flat-tops will be needed. In the long run, it will probably be better and more economical to have special ships for the purpose and not botched-up adaptations of other types of vessel. It is obvious that the facilities, including manpower, for servicing the relatively complicated aircraft of the present day will be difficult to provide. It would, therefore, probably be more economical to provide them in one ship which has been especially designed for the purpose, rather than to adapt a cruiser or similar vessel with a platform on its deck enabling it to carry a few aircraft.
    We believe that an unsophisticated vessel—"carrier" is an emotive word

    791
    and conjures up all sorts of considerations; for this reason we prefer to use the expression "flat-top"—not designed for top-notch warfare and not equipped with anti-nuclear devices could perform this task. It could be built on a merchant hull with a flat top and be large enough to carry sufficient facilities for flying off the Harrier type of aircraft. The Harriers are a godsend for this purpose and the Opposition welcome the advent of the Harrier, particularly in view of the success it has had in its trials so far and the possible export orders implied in this morning's Press.
    It is ludicrous to suggest that helicopters armed with footling little missiles beneath them can be sent against Russian-built missile patrol boats or destroyers. Would the Minister of Defence like to be the pilot of such a helicpoter sent on such a mission? When I put that question to his hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment the hon. Gentleman merely smirked, but he did not reply.
    In connection with aircraft carriers, this quotation is interesting:
    "Let us not forget that, if we are to have a really effective military capacity outside Europe, we must provide air cover for it in the form of naval aircraft … If we are really going in for air cover, whether we build one or two very large carriers … or whether we build many small carriers or a new form of vessel with VTOL aircraft aboard, we are likely to incur very heavy costs. These commitments are commitments which we cannot avoid and which in my view … we should not seek to avoid in the years to come".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 475–6.]
    That impeccable statement of policy was made by the present Secretary of State for Defence in February, 1964, but at that time he was seeking office.
    Apart from the broader issues I have raised, my hon. Friends have few other detailed points to raise on this Vote. Under Vote 7D, we are concerned because the figures show a run-down of war stocks and weapons and equipment. Although it is a relatively small rundown, I hope that our fears will be set at rest on this score.
    Under Vote 7C, we are concerned about the reduction in the size of the reserve fleet, a point made in the defence debate by my hon. Friend the
    792
    Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). We particularly want to know why H.M.S. "Maidstone", a large depot ship which was specially converted for the Polaris Fleet, is being scrapped.
    We welcome the announcement in the White Paper that there is to be a smaller and more simplified type of frigate. In the confrontation with Indonesia I witnessed the absurd spectacle of a frigate costing £12 million or more stopping a canoe containing two bare-bottomed Indonesians. We also welcome the announcement about the building of fast patrol boats.
    I hope that we shall be given more information on the subject of hovercraft for the Navy since these vessels are useful for many purposes; indeed, perhaps they could occasionally be used to invade very small islands. My hon. Friends and I feel that hovercraft have a big future in anti-submarine work. It is not necessary for me to emphasise the overriding importance of all forms of vessel for anti-submarine warfare in the Royal Navy.
    Can we have more details about the delivery of the Sea King helicopters, because these, too, have an important part to play in anti-submarine warfare? In this form of warfare Britain has a big contribution to make to the alliance. The Royal Navy, through accident of history and geography, has concentrated on antisubmarine warfare to the extent that some of its techniques, weapons and equipment are second to none in the alliance.
    My next point concerns the export of warships. Appropriations In Aid, Subhead Z, under this Vote seem to somewhat reduced. The export of warships is an important part of the Navy's work and an important aspect of this Vote. It is particularly important to keep in touch with Australians and New Zealanders, with whom we have worked closely for many decades. I do not wish them to get out of our orbit from the equipment point of view.
    It is important to keep to the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement. It is implicit in that agreement that the ships and equipment we have sold to the South African Navy shall be provided with ammunition so that the South African Government do not have to set up their own

    793
    production line, as they have had to do. The Government should look at this closely in view of the immense importance to us of the Agreement.
    The Opposition formally congratulate the Government on keeping H.M.Y. "Britannia" in such good order. She provides useful service and is widely used in naval exercises nowadays. The staff on board look after an increasing number of visitors every year, and she is a fitting background for royal visits abroad which do much for exports and for our national influence.
    I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will be able to cope with the broad issues that I have raised and also with the detailed points that I have made.
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for the few words of encouragement he gave me when referring to the Polaris submarine. He gave me more encouragement than did the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) when he was speaking last night about the Royal Air Force. I went to sleep when he was addressing the House. Then I woke up to hear him referring to a million aircraft belonging to the Warsaw Pact. Then I went to sleep again and when I woke up I had a nightmare.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester knows something of what he is talking about. When political fortunes are reversed and he comes to this side of the House, I am sure that he will give more attention than we have had from the rather condescending Minister who has arrived on the Front Bench.
    The hon. and gallant Member referred in his final sentences to repairs to the Royal Yacht. I think it must need a lot of repair. We have heard about the time it spends at sea, but what about the time it spends in dockyards? For nine months of the year it rests at Portsmouth. Probably it is going through a process of repair. I still find difficulty in understanding the economics and whether the country is justified in spending so much money—£9,000 a week—on a ship which goes to sea for only three months a year.
    I suppose I am rather out of touch with hon. Members opposite on that subject, so
    794
    I turn to the question of Polaris. I thought the hon. and gallant Member made a very good contribution to the debate. He put some pertinent questions. The questions I put are, of course, considered impertinent and I do not get any answer. I do not expect one. I refer to the Polaris because I am one of the unfortunate individuals who live near the Polaris base in Scotland. It does not give me any sense of security. Neither does it give any sense of security to all the people living in that area.
    There has recently been a very interesting discussion about Polaris in a seminar organised by the Church of Scotland. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) laughs so much about the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is interested because it is interested in the people who live there. At that seminar the civil defence scientific organiser of the area, Mr. J. M. Reid, gave evidence about the danger to the locality caused by the presence of the Polaris base. He referred to the fact that one H bomb from a Russian submarine or a Russian plane would make a crater ten miles in diameter over the most populous area of Scotland. He argued that according to the way in which the wind was blowing, over a radius of 100 miles there would be desolation.
    I happen to live in that radius of 100 miles, so I feel rather less secure than I did before the Polaris base arrived. I am thinking merely in terms of self-preservation. I remember the time when the dispute arose over Cuba and there was the confrontation between the two giants. I remember wondering that week how if the mechanics of Polaris strategy worked out and if there were confrontation between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. it might occur to some Russian to put the Polaris base out of action. I believe I speak for the majority of the people in the West of Scotland who strongly object to the presence of this base because they know there is a possibility of infinite danger to them.
    Mr. Hector Monro: As I also live in the West of Scotland, will the hon. Member soon realise that the majority of people in Scotland are thoroughly fed up with his long-winded

    795
    attacks on the Polaris base? If he is so unhappy about living in Scotland, why does he not return to Wales?
    Mr. Hughes: That is a very pertinent contribution to the discussion, but it does not do away with the fact that I happen to live in the West of Scotland and the hon. Member does not. I do not understand how he can have the slightest claim to speak for anyone in the West of Scotland. I speak for all local authorities in the West of Scotland and the people who live in that area. The little piece of impertinence at the end of the hon. Member's intervention I treat with the contempt that it deserves.
    The explanation by the Minister was that the Polaris base would contribute to the deterrent, but that was not the original purpose of Polaris. The original purpose was that it should be a substitute for Skybolt. When Mr. Macmillan went to Nassau he negotiated a deal which has brought this country into deadly danger. Labour defence spokesmen, before the General Election, looked at the Polaris programme and said that Mr. Macmillan had made a bad deal and they would look into this when they got into office. When they got into office they looked at the programme and said, "We will build four and cut one off the programme". It was a purely arithmetical and economic consideration; there was no strategic idea behind it.
    The Minister says that it is a useful part of the N.A.T.O. deterrent. That was not its purpose. In fact, N.A.T.O. did not want it. America was alarmed when we went ahead with the programme. Once the theory of the independent nuclear deterrent was abandoned, what were these enormously expensive submarines for? They did not add anything to the destructive power of the deterrent, because America has 41 Polaris submarines. Our couple of submarines—I presume that they will be in operation only two at a time—do not contribute to the destructive power of the deterrent. The Secretary of State has these submarines and does not know what to do with them.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a destructive power of 30,000 Hiroshimas is too little for his liking?
    Mr. Hughes: We have moved a long way from Hiroshima in destructive power. I will come to Hiroshima later. I have been there.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I am tempted to believe that the hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he did come to Hiroshima.
    Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was beguiled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am talking about destructive power in terms of present standards. When I say that the destructive power of 41 submarines is an enormous one, I am speaking relatively. Our contribution to the strategic deterrent is almost negligible.
    It is certainly not negligible from the point of view of finance, though. The Polaris submarines cost £350 million. This is at a time when we are finding it difficult to make both ends meet. In a fortnight we shall be talking about the financial crisis. In this Vote we are piling up £202,363,000. It is all adding to the problems that will confront my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Do other N.A.T.O. nations contribute any Polaris submarines to N.A.T.O.'s deterrent power? Norway would not have the American Polaris submarine in her waters. Holland has none. We need not talk about Western Germany. We are the only country in Western Europe which is spending this enormous sum upon nuclear submarines. If ever one of these nuclear missiles is fired towards Lake Baikal or somewhere in the centre of the U.S.S.R. or Siberia, there will come something back from a nation which is infinitely more powerful than we are in the matter of nuclear weapons.
    I come to the question of the base in the West of Scotland. When the first Polaris programme was announced, we heard very little about the base. The base has now become a very expensive item. It affects our economy in many different ways. During the last four years about £40 million has been spent on the Polaris base at Faslane. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite would care to visit Faslane, they could see for themselves what an enormous project it is. In building this base there has been concentrated the energy and the raw material that

    797
    should have gone into building up the economy, the factories, the schools and the hospitals that are so badly needed in the West of Scotland. I do not regard the Polaris scheme as an asset from any point of view.
    The only other country in Europe that has a Polaris-type submarine programme is France. A recent article in the Daily Mail stated that France has had to put off her own Polaris-type submarine programme until 1975 because she is in a difficult financial situation. If France finds that owing to her financial situation she cannot afford one submarine, are we in such a good economic position that we can afford four?
    Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that France is building five submarines, unlike Britain where the Government cancelled the last vital one?
    Mr. Hughes: I am talking about Polaris submarines.
    Mr. Wall: I am talking about Polaris, too.
    Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is a quarrel between him and the Naval Correspondent of the Daily Mail. My information is that France has had one Polaris submarine on her programme and has now decided to cancel it because of the economic situation.
    Mr. Wall: One is already launched and there are four proceeding, but the programme has been put back a couple of years. The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong.
    Mr. Hughes: That may be. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I rather think that he is misinformed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I think that we are getting into a general defence debate, which is out of order on these Votes.
    Mr. Hughes: I still think that the Minister has not given us the information that we require about what kind of missile heads are to be utilised in the Polaris submarines. He has dodged and ducked and obscured the whole issue. It cannot be dodged. Informed American naval
    798
    opinion says that the misslie head that is to be allotted to Polaris submarines that we have is obsolete. The Americans say that this head cannot pierce the Russian defences. Yet the Minister tries to get away with a smokescreen of words. He tries to hide the realities of the situation behind his condescending platitudes. I hope that he will give us a little more information, because ultimately it will come.
    Is this enormous sum for building ships and repairing ships justified from the broad economic point of view? Are we justified in spending such a considerable sum on ships, on repairing ships, and on armaments of this kind at a time when we need all our shipbuilding skill and resources for building merchant shipping? I believe that we are sinking an enormous amount of capital into something which will be unproductive from the point of view of the national economy.
    Japan, one of our foremost competitors, is not sinking her money to such an extent in this kind of shipbuilding. Japan is no longer a great naval power. She is using her shipbuilding resources to build tankers. In the case of the Clyde, we have had case after case in recent months and weeks of orders which cannot be fulfilled on time because such a vast amount of labour is held up in naval shipbuilding which is irrelevant to the big economic problem. Those of us who study the Clyde, the economics of the Clyde, and shipbuilding on the Clyde, believe that we are investing too much labour, resources and material in building ships which are not relevant to the economic situation. If this continues, Japan will be building the merchant ships, and what will be the position of the countries that do not follow her?
    Therefore, I cannot support the spending of the £202,363,000. We are far too casual in giving this money to the Admiralty. I know that for many years it has been a very powerful institution. It is a very powerful political institution, and it exercises enormous political and outside pressure. But, as Winston Churchill used to say, it is a Department which ought to be watched very carefully. I do not believe that the House is doing that at present. We are incurring tremendous expenditures which are not in the national interest.
    6.1 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow what he said. I shall concentrate particularly on the future of the dockyards. The Minister will obviously know of my interest, and I hope that when he winds up he will give a detailed account of the future set-up and new general management structure of the dockyards. We do not know in detail what it is to be.
    I should like to draw his attention to the leaflet, "Dockyard Review", circulated at Devonport Dockyard on 20th February, which stated:
    "As one small way of showing our confidence in the future we will offer establishment to all our industrial employees who have five or more years service and are willing to accept it."
    How many workers does the hon. Gentleman think this will involve? They must be mobile; they must go anywhere the Ministry wants. They will be pensionable, and this will increase the cost considerably. How will the hon. Gentleman be able to run down the dockyard if he gets too many established people? Will this mean redundancy pay?
    I gather from what the hon. Gentleman has said that those who become unemployed at Devonport will be given priority to go to Rosyth if they have the skills. I hope that this will be made clear to them. The leaflet also spoke about the aim of the dockyard review as follows:
    "It has also been to plan a dockyard organisation which will match the reduction in the future size of the Fleet, and in naval support as a whole."
    I am rather worried about the words "in the future size …". I thought that the White Paper had decided what the future size would be. This sounds as though there will be a further reduction. It may be unfortunately worded. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say something about that when he replies.
    There is also the question of Devon-port Dockyard becoming the "lead" yard for the Leander class frigates. When does the hon. Gentleman think this will begin, and does he think that we may be able to have another ship built there? It is very soul-destroying only to do repairs.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) has
    800
    mentioned the proposed nuclear refit, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I should like to know more about this. There will have to be great structural alterations in the dockyards if these are to take place.
    Reference is made in the White Paper to the needs in the 1970s. The 1970s are very close; does this refer to 1971 or 1979? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where in the dockyard it is proposed to have the facilities for these nuclear refits, and would he also say something about the cost?
    We have heard that there is to be an Executive officer with an overall eye on the administration of the dockyard. I gather that his headquarters are to be at Bath. I have not had a reply to my question on what will be the exact job of this new executive officer, what will be his pay, and how he will co-ordinate the workings of the dockyard. I raise the matter because the leaflet says:
    "… to follow up the improvements in management which we have made in recent years by giving greater authority to General Managers …"
    How will this overall administrator fit in with the general managers? Most of the admiral superintendents in the Devon-port Dockyard have been engineers, and I am particularly keen that they should know something about engineering. Will the general managers have any knowledge of the engineering side? It is of paramount importance that they should, for it gives confidence to the men for the future if somebody over them has real knowledge of the work they are doing.
    There is also the question of partnership with the trade unions. There are at least 18 of them in the yard. Are they getting together on retraining? We are short of skilled workers in certain sections, and so there is a need for retraining. But will there be any demarcation difficulties?
    The leaflet states that productivity working parties have already been set up in the dockyards with the object of getting improvements and sharing benefits. Apparently they have already been set up in the dockyards. How are they working, and how long have they been in being? Will they be really useful in the future?

    801
    We always hear about lack of communications, and this is one of the troubles between the Admiralty and the dockyard. As the Minister will know if he saw our local paper, there was, unfortunately, a protest by hundreds of workers in the dockyard recently. They had a march in the yard because they wanted equal status for all. One of their slogans was, "We want all or none". The question at issue was grading. They sent a deputation to the admiral, who later said, as reported in the paper:
    "I have taken note of today's demonstration against the agreement on Grade I craftsmen and I shall be reporting to the Ministry of Defence that it has taken place."
    Later, he said:
    "I have been directed by headquarters to implement the agreement which has been negotiated at national level between management and trade unions on the subject of Grade I craftsmen.
    The decision was not reached locally, but for all Government industrial establishments.
    As far as I am concerned I am honouring the agreement, not imposing it on the local work force."
    This kind of demonstration was necessary—and it is the first time it has happened since I have had the honour to be the Member for Devonport—because of lack of communication. Therefore, I hope that in the new set-up the Minister will try to be a jump ahead of things. The period ahead will be very difficult. The changeover in the dockyard and the running-down of the number of employees will not be as easy as it sounds, and those working there have the right to be taken into the Admiralty's confidence if there is to be a satisfactory changeover.
    That is all I have to say about the details of the dockyards, but I have two other points. First it is said that in the future girl apprentices will train along with the young men. Will they be employed in the dockyard if they wish?
    Second, I have been in touch with the Minister about employees in Singapore. He said that he had not understood my question in the debate on the White Paper, and probably I did not express myself very clearly. On page 5 of the White Paper there is the following statement:
    "The number of local civilians employed by the Services in Malaysia and Singapore will have been reduced by about 5,500 and the
    802
    number of United Kingdom civilians by nearly 300 by April 1969, chiefly as a result of the dockyard transfer; …"
    What is going to happen to these 300 people—many of whom happen to be from my constituency—when they leave Singapore? Will they be employed in British dockyards? How can they be if the dockyards are run down? Are any more dockyard people going to work in Gibraltar? Quite a number of them are there at the moment and I think that they enjoy it.
    Under Vote 7, I want to ask why the figure for repairs by contract has gone up so much—from just under £3 million to just under £7 million. I cannot find anywhere in the Estimates giving details of how this figure is made up.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I apologise for a somewhat short visit to the House on this occasion. It is accounted for by the fact that there is not a large press of speakers on my side of the House and I have an engagement not very far away connected with the Staff College this evening. I was the spokesman for my party on this subject for some years and had the very great honour during the war of serving in Her Majesty's Navy.
    I want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on the question of nuclears. I happen to share his opinion that these are a misuse of our limited funds for defence capacity, and I hold the view that a territorial army properly manned and equipped would be more effective to our defence than these submarines.
    This is not in the least because I underestimate the incredible damage which these submarines can inflict. Let one use, somewhat inaccurately, the naval term "broadside". One of these submarines possesses a broadside of greater explosive power than all the explosives let off in all the wars the world has ever seen. That is the kind of figure we are up against. In this realm of deterrency, explosive powers are really beyond our capacity to imagine. What we are dealing with is the credibility of the threat presented.
    As a threat to deter what is termed "non-nuclear action", I think that the nuclears have no credibility at all. After

    803
    all, Suez occurred almost coincidentally with our becoming operational in the nuclear sense. It had a nil effect on deterring the relatively trivial power of Egypt. Again, in the Far East, during the confrontation with Indonesia, what entered into no one's calculations at all was Britain's nuclear capacity. What, therefore, are nuclears to deter? I think, realistically, only other nuclears. But, in this game of deterrent and counter-deterrent, if we are deterring other nuclears we are equally deterred by them—and that we are deterred by them is only too obvious.
    I remember going through at random an analysis of the bombardment which this country could stand and yet remain a viable community capable of central government. The figure was 13. This would almost totally destroy our communication system and our major areas from which government could develop. We are within range of intermediate Russian missiles, required for no more distant purpose and numbering at a minimum 500 and probably well over 700. That provides a somewhat formidable picture and puts us in a position in which our threat to deter it will convince no one. Not even the most nervous Russian will consider that possibility any more than the most nervous Egyptian considered it. It is just not on.
    To my mind, nuclears have passed through three distinct phases. They were, first, credible if one had got them, and the Japanese found that they were credible at Hiroshima. The next phase was far more sophisticated, and to be credible one had to have an effective delivery system. We have passed right out of that phase now. I do not believe that nuclears are credible now unless one is capable of deterring the reply, and that is a capacity which exists only in the hands of the Americans and Russians.
    If the Russians were to attack Turkey in circumstances in which the Americans would find it extremely difficult to come to Turkey's assistance, a threat to put a nuclear on to the invasion ports would be perfectly credible because the Americans would say, "You reply, and Russia as an industrial and urbanised society ceases to exist". One must have the capacity to deter the consequences of the limited use one makes of the nuclear.
    804
    In American hands that may be credible, but in ours it is not.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I refer the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to Erskine May, which states that, even on Vote A, general defence matters are out of order on Defence Estimates.
    Mr. Paget: The point had been made earlier as to whether nuclears have proper priority in the provision of these sums, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire discussed this at some length and, in a speech which will be very short, my argument is that nuclears depend as deterrents upon a credibility which the extraordinary vulnerability of our situation makes quite unreal. I am arguing that for us this is a posture that no one can in any circumstances believe, and that no sane Government of this country could authorise their use, so long as something else was left to destroy us.
    Captain W. Elliot: Surely that is absolutely wrong. The deterrent deters because it is liable to inflict unacceptable damage when the aggressor, whoever it is, might return it for any prize which he might think of winning.
    Mr. Paget: That is a false analysis of what deterrent means. I am quite certain it is now hopelessly out of date. This idea of a capacity to give an acceptable damage has ceased to be relevant. What must be credible is the will, in any given and foreseeable set of circumstances, to exercise that power. One cannot have deterrents without the concept of being deterred. Comparing two possessors of deterrents, the one with other vulnerability and other limited capacity must inevitably be deterred in this competition in deterrents by the man with the overwhelming power and the wide expanses.
    This is the argument of deterrents as I believe it exists today. This being so, this particular effort in our hands is a waste of very limited resources which would be far better used elsewhere.
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. Wall: During the last few years, I have asked the Minister certain questions and have not yet elicited a reply.

    805
    He will recall in the recent Navy Estimates debate, and last year, I asked why it was that our new destroyers—the type 82, H.M.S. "Bristol", and the type 42—were to have only one Sea Dart. The "Devonshires" have one Sea Slug, in comparison with American and Russian ships which are double-ended, that is they have one launcher either end and can engage two targets at the same time. Though it may mean a limited increase in size and presumably in expense, it would probably be better to have one double-ended ship than two single-ended. I suggest this is a false economy. I would like to know the reasoning behind it. It is not only a question of discharger or launcher, but it is a question of guidance radar. The "Devonshires" can only engage one target at a time, which must affect their vulnerability and effectiveness.
    This brings me to the small missiles—the Seat Cat and, in the future, the Sea Wolf. Here again, frigates are fitted with one set of Sea Cats. In other words, they also can only engage one attack at a time.
    When I was in charge of the Anti-Aircraft Defence for a certain battleship during the war, the ship was four-sided. That is to say, there were four sets of weapons so that we could engage attacks from either side—forward or aft. We found this essential as we were often under simultaneous attack. The same principle surely applies to missiles? I cannot see why when we have excellent weapons like Sea Cat or Sea Wolf, designed as anti-missile weapons, we should not fit two in the smaller ships and four in the larger ships. I understand that commando carriers have no such weapons at all; this seems extraordinary.
    Another point I raised last year was the question of the new cruisers which are to replace the "Tiger" class. I understand this will cost £30 million to £40 million. I should like to know their purpose. They are referred to in the Command Paper as "cruisers", yet in the debate I thought the Minister let slip that they would carry helicopters. Are they therefore to be designed similar to the "Tigers" with guns or missiles one end and a helicopter platform aft? Would it not be better to build the type
    806
    of flat tops my hon. and gallant Friend (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has described in his speech? They would be of more use in the protection of our shipping than would these cruisers. Will the Minister let us know what he can about the design of these cruisers and, above all, what is their rôle.
    A third type of ship which has not been mentioned in this debate is the fast patrol boat. Britain used to lead the world in this kind of midget craft. Before the last war Vosper's were the first to develop this form of vessel. During the war, they were engaged in many famous battles in the Channel and Western Approaches and they were used a good deal in the Mediterranean.
    The Minister said recently that we have three of the Dark and Brave class in operation but they are ending their life in about 1970. For the first time in many years we are ordering three new F.P.B.s from Vosper's. These vessels will do only 40 knots as compared with the 55 knots of the Dark and Brave class. They are designed as radar targets. I concede there is a need for radar targets, but I would have thought it better to have a vessel which could be used as an offensive weapon in the event of hostilities.
    There is a rumour that they have room for a third engine to be fitted, which would increase their speed. Though they are to be unarmed, it is said there are facilities for installing either guns or missiles. I should like to know if this is true, as I believe these ships will have considerable value in war or peace—for example, in fishing protection.
    My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the hovercraft in an anti-submarine rôle. Would the Minister give us more information as to the use of these vessels as landing craft for marine commandos and stores? That is the primary rôle for which they are likely to be developed at the moment. Have they any use in an anti-mine capacity? Are the hydrofoils which are being developed in an antisubmarine capacity in the United States Navy being developed in our Navy? Is there any research and development going into this form of anti-submarine warfare? It seems to some people hydrofoils offer better anti-submarine capacity than do hovercraft.

    807
    Turning from ships to weapons, which are also included under Vote 7, it has been pointed out in past debates that the Soviet Navy has surface-to-surface missiles with ranges of 20 to 300 miles. The Minister has said—and we accept the reason why this is so—that the British Navy is nor going to develop surface-to-surface missiles as such, although surface-to-air missiles will have a surface-to-surface capability. How does the Minister expect to defend shipping in, say, the Indian Ocean area, where they are out of range of land-based aircraft? The then Minister of Defence for Equipment on 20th March last year answered this—and I think it is the only answer we have on record, though the question has often been asked:
    "Defence against missile-firing destroyers will be provided by shore-based aircraft and Fleet submarines."—[OFFICIAL REFORT, 20th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 392.]
    I suggest this explanation is not good enough. Shore-based aircraft may be available in the Mediterranean. Where are they going to be based and where are the aircraft coming from of sufficient range to reach convoys in the Indian Ocean or Pacific?
    Mr. Burden: Surely an important point is that, in order to be effective, these aircraft must have a continuous operation over the ships they are supposed to be protecting? Have we enough?
    Mr. Wall: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). Not only have we not enough aircraft in the Royal Air Force—as was stated last night—but as I have suggested in the past the Minister should study the value of carrier-based aircraft which would give shipping immediate cover over any particular area of sea at the minimum cost. I pointed out that the apparent cost-effectivenes of carrier-based squadrons, as compared with the land-based squadron affording cover at sea, is about 1 to 9 in squadrons. In other words it is far better and cheaper to have aircraft based at sea.
    What about airborne early warning? This is a very important subject. The present carriers operate Gannets. When the carriers go out presumably the Gannets will go with them. I understand that a proper long-range airborne early warning system can only be carried
    808
    in the Sea Kings. Where will the Sea Kings be carried? The three "Tigers" will carry four Sea Kings each, but other than that, unless carried by some new helicopter carriers, or existing commando carriers, or proper assault aircraft carriers, such as "Eagle" and "Ark Royal". where will they go?
    The Ministry is, however, ordering 60 of these Sea King helicopters. This is a large number if they are only to operate from three cruisers. What other ships will these craft operate from? Would the Minister agree that this is the only helicopter which will carry adequate early warning? He must agree that this is esential for the defence of sea communications. If this system is not to be carried in the fleet, how are we to get our airborne early warning?
    The AS12 has also been mentioned. I hope that the new development, available for use in bad weather or at night, will come into service very quickly. I have very little use for the AS12, with a range of ony 7,500 yards. It was a development of the French weapon, which was proved unsuccessful in the Middle-Eastern war. I was appalled to hear last night that this weapon is to be introduced into helicopters to deal with tanks, and I hope the Minister will read the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on this subject.
    Many Russian ships and aircraft are fitted with mine-laying equipment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester pointed out last year how difficult it was to sweep or destroy many of the modern mines. I asked the same question last year; what research and development are we devoting to this technique? I asked a question at the end of the debate last year. I asked:
    "… how will we free our ports from enemy mines, and how do we propose to lay our own mines in order to interrupt the sea communications of any potential enemy?"
    The reply I got from the Minister of Defence for Administration was:
    "… I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speaks to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who said it was impossible, anyway."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1101–2.]
    That might have been thought to be funny, but I though it was remarkably

    809
    stupid. It is clear that mines will be a danger to this country if ever we get involved in a war, certainly with Russia, probably with any middle power. How are we to be able to sweep these mines? Will we be able to use mines, which are a comparatively cheap form of warfare? I understand that no aircraft are now fitted for minelaying though there were many hundreds so fitted during the last war. I hope that we will get an answer to these questions, as I understand that there are ten mine counter measures ships in service and another being designed. Presumably we are not producing these vessels if it is impossible to sweep the mines.
    The Simonstown Agreement and the Beira Patrol were raised in the last debate, when the Minister said of me:
    "I found it amusing that a lot of his speech was devoted to the Simonstown Agreement and the Beira Patrol".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1110.]
    Why was it amusing? Why are we not supplying the ships that we are bound to do, in full implementation of the Simonstown Agreement, if not legally then morally to South Africa? Is it amusing that we have lost £300 million worth of exports to that country? The Minister knows that South Africa wants to replace its frigates, that it wants to buy three submarines and that it has placed an order with France. Will the Minister place these submarines on wheels? How can he possibly use these vessels to support a racial policy of which this House may disapprove? It is absolute folly that we are prepared to accept everything from South Africa. We take Royal Navy ships into Simonstown, we use her ports, and yet we will not supply the ships which South Africa wishes to acquire, not for implementing apartheid but to fulfil its obligations to this country, our joint obligation to protect the Cape routes.
    No one can pretend that the Cape route, with the Suez Canal shut, is unimportant. It is Opposition policy to supply defensive equipment to South Africa when we come into power. I only hope that we will have the chance of undoing the damage done by the present Administration over their policy regarding the supply of defensive arms to South Africa.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. Ogden: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members, for my absence from the Chamber for a large part of this debate. If I explain that I was at a meeting upstairs, seeking to secure some help for the merchant shipping part of our naval operations, the House may accept that as at least a commendable resolution. I have four points to raise. The first concerns the "Ark Royal"; the second the disposal of Service vessels; the third is the simplification or over-sophistication of our weapons and ships; and fourthly a local or parochial matter concerning the disputes that have occurred between the Government, Cammell Laird, and Vickers on the matter of submarine contracts and extensions of those contracts.
    As to the "Ark Royal", there are disturbing reports coming out of the West Country about the state of chaos and confusion in the equipment and re-equipment of that vessel. Where there are doubts about the future of vessels it appears that one does not get the best out of craftsmen or management.
    Dealing with the weapon systems, we are told that this new £30 million refit, which will enable the vessel to fly Phantoms, is being accompanied by an abandonment of any of the shipborne weapons on the carrier. It might be worth bearing in mind the experience of the American Navy. Its ship the U.S. "Enterprise" began life as a vessel depending entirely on long-range defence. Within a very short time experience had led the U.S. Navy to decide that it was prudent to instal at least some shipborne defence system, guided missiles, anti-aircraft defences and so on. Can the Minister comment about this contrast between what we are doing with this naval vessel and the American experience?
    As to my second point, the disposal of surplus Service vessels, are we doing this at too fast a rate? I wonder whether the time-span between the decision that the ship should go into reserve, the time it is allowed to stay coccooned or laid up, and then the disposal is too short. Having decided that a ship has to go, we should bear in mind our traditional sources of help, and aid and supply our Commonwealth and allied navies, as well as those countries to whom we have

    811
    been traditional suppliers. It is now possible, if one has £31,000 to spare and is a reader of "Motor Boat and Yachting", to pick up a nice coastal vessel capable of 40 or 50 knots. That might be enterprising on the part of the Navy, but is it the best destination for these ships?
    As to the simplification or the over-sophistication of our ships I have a recurring nightmare in which I see ploughing through the Western Approaches one of our larger super tankers, in conditions of difficulties and international tension. It is assumed that there is already a limited war at sea—pray God it never happens—this enormous vessel bringing tremendous supplies to our country is sent to the bottom by a little 1,000-ton submarine which slips from Continental waters to our side.
    I wonder whether, in certain fields, we are giving too much attention to the degree of sophistication and efficiency and should not perhaps also be bearing in mind that things go in circles, and that sometimes very complicated weapons and defences can be disabled by simple attacking weapons. But my main purpose in coming into the debate was to ask my hon. Friend if, he can comment on the unfortunate dispute which has occurred over the last few weeks between the Government on the one side and Cammell-Laird of Birkenhead on the other, with the intervention of another company—it is a triangle which I hope will not be eternal.
    The dispute is about the placing of contracts for the nuclear-powered submarine programme—the renewal and extension of contracts regarding not only six Hunter carriers but four Polaris submarines. I suggest that it is time we were able to move away from the period of public dispute, public acrimony and public argument about who said what at a particular time in a particular place. Doing that has taken us to the stage where we are chasing each other's tails. It is time to end a situation for which no blame can be attached to the Government, who took an honourable course in difficult circumstances. It is time for people to say, "We believe one thing and you can believe another, but let us now move forward and see how things go."
    812
    I do not believe that Barrow-in-Furness wants to rely wholly on purely Royal Navy defence contracts. That would not be good for the yard. Nor does Birkenhead want to rely entirely on defence contracts for its shipyards. There is some anxiety in Mersey at present because a very large number of shipping companies based in the Mersey, drawing their prosperity, interest and investment from there, are placing a very large proportion of their shipping orders in yards as far away as Hong Kong, on the Continent and elsewhere. There may be good reasons for doing so at this time, but I would hope to see a rather different emphasis coming along.
    My main point is to ask the Minister whether he can tell us what efforts have been made to end these difficulties between the various shipping companies in Barrow and between Cammell Laird and the Government so that we can say, whatever may have been the agreements and misunderstandings, that it is a phase better forgotten and set aside so that we can now go ahead. These are first-class yards with first-class skilled men and good management and it should be possible to use these yards to the best advantage to move ahead from the present unhappy stage.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Burden: I realise now why the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question which I posed to him at the end of the last debate about dockyard pay and allowances and pension rates resulting from the new national pensions scheme. I would like to ask him if there are already active negotiations going on, or consideration being given, to the position with regard to the dockyards and dockyard pensions. Is it the intention that dockyard workers and members of the forces shall receive the same pensions as the civil population or will they receive, or have the right to, an increased pension on some terms?
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of the people at present employed in the dockyards regard their past pension entitlement as a very important part of their remuneration. In many cases it has influenced them into entering dockyard service. That position will be changed. I would also ask the Minister whether in view of these circumstances and the bigger

    813
    contributions that will be called for from dockyard workers and presumably members of the Service, investigations are going on into the raising of their present wages; because this, too, will have to be taken very seriously into consideration.
    This point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) when she raised the question of establishment and the effect that establishment will now have on the dockyard worker in view of the realignment of national pensions generally. During the debate on 10th March I expressed my concern—and I am most grateful to the Minister for the reply he gave on this—with regard to Table 2, Ministry of Defence (Navy), Annex C and the disclosure that was made that, compared with last year, the amount that was to be spent in 1969–70 on the purchase and repair of weapon equipment and for British fixed-wing aircraft deliveries was shown at £16 million in the Table. I drew attention to the real facts—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am in some difficulty. We are discussing Vote 7, which includes Vote A, concerned with pay and allowances.
    Mr. Burden: Vote 7 covers weapons, which includes a whole list of items.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: But not pensions.
    Mr. Burden: I have left pensions and am now referring to something entirely different, the disclosure in Table 2, Ministry of Defence, Navy, on the cut in the amount of money set aside for the construction of ships and purchase and repair of weapon equipment and for British fixed-wing aircraft, which I believe is quite in order, Sir.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will proceed and I will seek to make sure, as he proceeds, that he is in order.
    Mr. Burden: I am delighted to know that I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I felt quite sure I was. I would point out that these cuts seemed to have been obscured by some offsets which were mentioned. The Minister kindly wrote me a letter in which he disclosed the very disturbing fact that the total amount of cutback in expenditure on the
    814
    reduced permission for construction of ships, purchase and repair of weapon equipment and for British fixed-wing aircraft delivered was not £16 million but £24 million. I really wonder whether this might not be a procedure that has been followed in other areas and whether—and I hope the Minister can give us a categorical denial of this—the real cuts have been obscured by offsets; because it would be a serious matter if we were not getting the real facts.
    I turn for a moment to a matter which I consider to be of very great importance. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred to the number of Polaris ships. I do not intend to go into a general defence debate but as those hon. Members have referred to Polaris submarines I will refer to them in another way. The way in which I would refer to them is this. We know that there are now three and that we shall have four. I am wondering whether the Ministry of Defence really thinks, as the Minister himself disclosed, that one and sometimes two on patrol will make for a really efficient deterrent.
    Arising from that, I am brought to what I consider to be a much more important point, because it sets the pattern. We shall have a total of seven and possibly eight Fleet submarines by the mid-1970s. I believe that it takes about four years to build one. If the order for the eighth is given later this year, as the Minister hopes, it is possible that it will come into commission in the mid-1970s.
    This is the most vital defensive weapon in the whole naval armament of the future. If, out of four Polaris submarines, it appears that sometimes we shall have only one or possibly two on patrol, how many of the vital Fleet submarines so essential for our defence are likely to be on patrol at the same time, even when we have the projected total of eight, which appear so far to be the number that the Government envisage? Is it to be only eight, or are there to be more? If there are eight, and as the Minister felt that he was free to disclose to the House that of the present Polaris submarine fleet there will be sometimes only one on patrol, what is the assessment about the number of Fleet submarines which will

    815
    be on patrol at any one time, and will they be adequate to defend the country? I believe that this is a very important point, and I would like to know the answer.
    I now come to dockyards. We are now to have two, at Chatham and Devonport. After a period, Chatham will be used solely for repairs and refits of nuclear submarines, though in the meantime, it will continue to maintain our conventional submarines—
    The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The hon. Gentleman has also said this outside the Chamber. Let me correct him. Chatham will be the main yard for the repair of nuclear Fleet submarines. However, it is not correct to say that that is the only work which will be done there. That will be its main load, but other work will be done; indeed, it must be, in order to balance the labour force.
    Mr. Burden: I am grateful to know that, because that is not the impression that has been created. The Minister says that other work will be done at Chatham, and presumably some assessment has been made of what that other work will be. I would be grateful if he could indicate what it is.
    Mr. Reynolds: A wide range of jobs is done there now. It is said in the White Paper that Devonport will become the leading yard for the Leander frigates. However, it will not be able to cope with all of them, and some will go to Chatham.
    Mr. Burden: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. So we shall have some Leander frigates there, as well as the nuclear submarines.
    My point is that, in the mid-1970s, Devonport will also be a nuclear yard. I am glad that Chatham is to be the main repair and refit yard for nuclear submarines. However, that implies that, if two yards are to be engaged in the repair and refit of Fleet submarines and will be kept busy mainly on that job—Chatham especially—there will be a fairly big input of those vessels during the year. If that is true, it seems that the point which I am raising about the number of Fleet submarines which are likely to be on patrol is a very valid one—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister will be
    816
    able to give us some indication of this. It may appear to be a laughing matter to him, but if, perchance, we were at war and our Fleet submarines were charged with the defence of convoys bringing food to this country, it would not be a laughing matter if there were not enough of them on patrol to carry out that vital service to the nation. That is why I pose the question.
    I hope that the Minister will treat it seriously, because many of my hon. Friends who have close associations with the Royal Navy are extremely concerned about the point. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assessment and assure us that there will be enough in commission and on patrol.
    I understand that it is probable that the system of servicing the Fleet nuclear submarines will vary somewhat from that which has been pursued in the past. Instead of the withdrawal of parts and their repair and replacement in the refit, there will be withdrawal and replacement by alternative or new parts in order to get a rapid turnround. If that is so, what is the estimated time of refit and repair? That brings me back to the point on which I started. How many Fleet submarines of the eight, when we get them, are likely to be on patrol at any one time? I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House some information.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. George Willis: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) referred to the increasing use of completed spares in the repair and refit of ships. At a time when the size of the Royal Navy has been reduced and when the process of refitting is becoming a matter of replacing certain parts of equipment with completed parts, I find it difficult to justify the continued maintenance of four dockyards.
    When we had a much larger Fleet than the present one, we had three main dockyards. Rosyth was almost run down to nothing. For a long time it dealt simply with the Reserve Fleet. Now that we have a much smaller Fleet and now that the kind of work involved calls for less expenditure of time and labour, we have four dockyards. I find this rather puzzling.
    For many years, I have questioned the wisdom of maintaining Chatham. I know

    817
    that the hon. Member for Gillingham will not agree, and I have greatly admired the manner in which he has pursued the case for Chatham. But it has always seemed to me to be a dockyard which ought to have been closed. I can only assume that the real reason for keeping it open is that it is handy for London and that people like to be able to travel easily to and from London. I would like the dockyard in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) to have more. Chatham is in an area of full employment, yet we are diverting work to Chatham. I thought we were to say goodbye to Chatham some time ago.
    Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman imagines that from Chatham one can get up and down to London easily, I wish he would travel by one of the commuter trains in the morning; it is diabolical.
    Mr. Willis: It is not possible to commute from Rosyth to London so easily, and this is why Rosyth was allowed to be almost closed down between the wars. There is this attitude of mind that it is necessary to be near London. Is there not a case for closing down Chatham and expanding the dockyard in the hon. Lady's constituency, which is in an area which requires jobs? If we are serious about the policy of regional development and the deliberate use of Government institutions to carry out this policy, this is something which should be done, rather than continuing with Chatham.
    When the Polaris programme was first introduced, we were assured by the experts from the Front Bench, who must have been briefed by experts in the Admiralty, that it was highly dangerous to take nuclear submarines to Chatham, that it could not be done, that the Channel was too narrow and too winding, and that large populations were living in the area. This policy is then suddenly reversed.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that £6 million has now been spent on Chatham, and, therefore, it is a little late to cry over spilled milk? Would not it be better to direct our attention towards the question: why should we duplicate this at Devonport rather than use facilities in development areas in the North?
    Mr. Willis: I agree that £6 million is a lot of money, but we have spent many millions of pounds on the Polaris programme, which was not necessary either. When it comes to matters of defence, this argument does not carry a great deal of weight with me. We are spending large sums of money trying to spread industry into areas where it is needed. Sums larger than that are spent on attracting civilian employment into the West Country, Scotland and the North.
    I find all this exceedingly puzzling. Instead of reducing dockyards to smaller and smaller units, which we are doing with three of them—I forget how many thousand men are to be taken from each dockyard—would not it be better to concentrate on two dockyards, say at Portsmouth and Devonport, and make them good ones?
    There is great difficulty in obtaining and keeping highly skilled labour capable of dealing with nuclear submarines at Rosyth. May I ask to what extent this difficulty is being overcome, and what steps are being taken to meet these shortages, particularly in view of the extra work now involved in this dockyard? This is highly relevant to the increase in the amount of nuclear work at Chatham. If there is such a shortage of labour in a development district, there must be a much greater shortage in an area of relatively high employment. Once men have become trained, knowledgeable, skilled and experienced in electronics, they tend to leave and go to private firms, and this happens at Rosyth because of the enormous growth of the electronic complex in the west of Scotland. This is likely to happen even more in South-East England with all the industries that are there.
    The Admiralty has always been biased about Chatham. Chatham was built, and was a sensible dockyard, in the time of Charles II; it has not been a sensible dockyard for the last 50 years. There was the difficulty of approach long before nuclear submarines. I remember that when ships like the "Repulse" and the "Renown" were attached to Chatham for manning purposes they could get nowhere near Chatham, which was their home port. This did not make sense, but the Admiralty has always had this ability to carry on in spite of commonsense arguments.

    819
    I have asked my hon. Friend about Rosyth and I have made the comment on Chatham because no one else seems anxious to do so. We could do with three dockyards instead of four, three dockyards in parts of the country which would be inaccordance with the Government's regional planning policy.
    The Polaris submarine has been the subject of much debate. The Polaris programme means the starving of other essential parts of the Fleet. I remember speaking as the Opposition Front Bench spokesman against the programme precisely for this reason. I understand that the programme has cost tens and twenties of millions of pounds more than was estimated—
    Mr. Reynolds: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was saying that certain facilities on land have cost more. The total cost of the Polaris programe as a whole appears to be coming out rather less than the estimates.
    Mr. Willis: I am delighted to hear that, because my impression was that it was costing more. Certainiy the cost of shore installations has escalated.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The shore installation at Coulport missile depot was estimated originally to cost £10 million and it is now £13 million, a £3 million increase.
    Mr. Willis: I accept my right hon. Friend's explanation. If it has cost less than the original estimate, all the better. Unfortunately, we were left with this programme by the Opposition. They placed contracts in America for much of the equipment, and did it very hurriedly so that this Government would be left with it. We had to decide what to do, and the arguments about the Polaris programme which were very heated and furious four or five years ago are relevant in considering what we should do with the Polaris in future. We should not be doing very much about it other than placing it at the disposal of N.A.T.O. Both in terms of manpower and money it has been exceedingly costly, to the detriment of more conventional forces. I still cannot see the arguments for it.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)
    820
    interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to ask whether it was not worth having 30 times the destructive power that was used at Hiroshima, but he missed the whole point. America already has hundreds and hundreds of times more destructive power. All that we are doing is to add a small portion to what is already a considerable over-kill. I can see no justification for this unless the situation is visualised where we have to go it alone.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into a general defence debate, which is not admissible on these Estimates.
    Mr. Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the estimates contain expenditures in relation to the Polaris programme.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may discuss Polaris, but not the wider defence considerations.
    Mr. Willis: I am questioning the expense in the Estimates. I question the wisdom of this policy and the value of this weapon in our armoury. I simply make the point about overkill and ask: how is this of value to us?
    I think that the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had a certain degree of relevance. From our experience over the past ten years, I believe that we are far better off with a number of conventional vessels which will enable us to deal satisfactorily with our problems than with something which does not seem to be relevant to the jobs that we have to perform in the world today. Therefore, I question the wisdom of this policy. I should like to see it dropped altogether, but I appreciate that we are committed to it as a result of the activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    I do not wish to raise any other points on the Estimates. However, I should like some reply from my hon. Friend about skilled manpower and the effects of the extension and development of the Royal Dockyards, which will call for even more skilled men. There is a shortage of skilled men in Scotland. We must not kid ourselves about that. I should like to know what the effect of this programme will be and how the Government visualise

    821
    being able to meet the demand for more manpower. Are they taking steps, together with the various local authorities, to ensure that proper training facilities and so on, are provided? I should like a reply from my hon. Friend on that.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. I have no authorisation at all, on behalf of Portsmouth, to put in a take-over bid for Chatham.
    I should like to refer briefly to reductions in dockyard establishments, because they are of considerable concern to me.
    The dockyards exist to service the Navy. I doubt whether they can adequately do this with the cuts which are proposed It is reasonable to suppose that the establishment can be adjusted to the size of the Fleet and also to the programme of repairing, refitting and reconstruction. On top of these requirements there must be some margin for emergency repairs and for any emergency. This margin is to prevent delay in other essential work. I understand that this margin does not exist sufficiently. I understand that in the disastrous fire in H.M.S. "Victorious" it was not possible to provide an adequate number of men to make good the repairs without delaying other programmes.
    As the Fleet is reduced in size, it becomes even more important that any accidental damage should be put right as quickly as possible so that the ship can be put back into service without undue delay. All this means a larger pool of skilled men. But it is difficult to keep this margin within reason and to keep these men employed. Nothing is worse for morale than that men should hang about day after day with little or nothing to do.
    I know full well that suggestions have been made by several hon. Members for yards to undertake commercial and industrial work. However, I am not satisfied that this is a practical proposition.
    There are two possible ways in which additional work may be found. First, there is the care and maintenance of the reserve fleet. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-
    822
    Admiral Morgan-Giles) expressed concern earlier about the reduction in the Reserve Fleet from 170 to 60 ships between 1964 and 1969. I hope that the Government are reconsidering this reduction and will halt it. This would provide considerable work of a most worthwhile nature, with the great advantage that the men working on that type of programme could be taken off for emergency work without interfering with the ordinary work programme of the yard.
    The second way is by new construction. It is alleged that costs are much higher than with contract work in private yards. But this is not strictly true. I believe that there is some confusion about the overheads borne by the Royal Dockyards. It is fairly clear that, with the nature of the work that they undertake, their overheads must be higher than those of a comparable private yard. But if commercial levels of overheads could be applied, I believe that we should find that the costs of construction in a Royal Dockyard would be comparable with those in private yards—and certainly delivery times can be met.
    I also appreciate the argument that it is essential that sufficient commercial yards should maintain their "know-how" in building naval vessels. The Government apparently do not attach a great deal of importance to this argument in view of their decision over Cammell Laird. If we could have one ship in each yard, not only would it help with employment and provide work for a pool of skilled men, but the men would have great satisfaction and morale would be improved.
    It gives me some satisfaction to know that the run-down will be gradual and will be met by normal retirements and resignations and by retraining. While I hope this will be so, I am afraid that it is unlikely to be achieved. Redundancies will be in the older and more traditional trades; expansion will principally be in the newer, more technical trades. In Portsmouth, for example, the average age of employees is quite high, so the numbers able and willing to be retrained will probably not be sufficient. The result will probably be that, as at present, there will be vacancies in some trades, but at the same time there will

    823
    be redundancies in others. The net result may be that the run-down will be greater than is foreseen. I am sure that it will help recruiting and avoid wastage if no further reduction is envisaged. But it is still essential that there should be better and more generous pay structures and conditions.
    I hope the Minister will seriously consider the effects of this run-down. I am concerned that the dockyards will not be able to fulfil their function of servicing the Fleet in peacetime and in time of emergency.
    7.18 p.m.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I do not propose to detain the House too long, but I want to raise two points.
    First, we had a considerable discussion during the main Navy Estimates debate about maintaining the refitting capability for nuclear submarines and refitting them at Cammell Laird. I do not think anyone argues that it would be sensible to undo the facilities which have been provided at Chatham. We have spent £5 million in repairing Rosyth for refitting nuclear submarines, mainly Polaris but initially hunter-killers, in order to leave the yard with know-how for refitting Polaris. We have also spent £6 million providing nuclear facilities at Chatham.
    I ask the Government to reconsider whether it makes sense to provide what must be a comparable sum of £5 million or £6 million and start making arrangements now to provide a third dockyard—Devonport—with nuclear refitting capabilities. At no cost to the taxpayer or the Government of the day, these nuclear refitting facilities are available at Cammell Laird at this moment because it is building, and will continue to be building until 1970–71, its last hunter-killer. There will be a nucleus of skilled personnel, and they can be kept, or perhaps even loaned to Barrow to keep their hand in with nuclear work so that when we need this third yard for refitting nuclear submarines we shall not have to provide it at great cost to public funds in a new dockyard but will be able to use facilities which already exist.
    The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) argued that it was unwise to provide these facilities at
    824
    Chatham. I am not contending that, because this has been done. What I am contending—
    Mr. Willis: I think it was the hon. Gentleman who used to stand at the Despatch Box and say how unsafe it would be to put this at Chatham. If there is a danger to Glasgow from the Holy Loch, how much more danger there is to London from Chatham.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I remember that when Sir Winston Churchill contradicted himself he said, "I adjust my mind to the movement of events". It appears that I have adjusted my mind to the movement of events, and that what was dangerous and far too shallow a channel for the 30 foot draft of the nuclear submarines has become possible and safe at Chatham. The technical advice that I received on that occasion was probably incorrect. I am not discussing what has been done at Chatham. This money has been spent. What I am saying is that it is ridiculous to provide another set of nuclear refitting facilities at Devon-port and to start making our plans now.
    Can the Minister tell us what the Government's thinking is about the R.N. aircraft yards at Sydenham and Fleetlands. We were told during the debate on the main Estimates that the future of Fleet-lands was being considered and that an announcement would be made. I should like to know what is being done about Sydenham. It is significant that today, when fixed-wing aircraft flying for the Royal Navy is unfortunately coming to an end under this Government's policy, these two yards are employing 3,422 people on 1st April, 1969, reducing by only 29 people to 3,393 a year later. This does not suggest that there has been a large rundown in these civil establishments, and this at a time when the carriers are being phased out, and perhaps the work is being taken over to helicopters.
    Are the Government getting value for money? Is there high productivity in these yards? Are they essential in this day and age? Could not more work be put out to industry, to the people who manufacture and modify helicopters for the Royal Navy? Does it make sense to maintain Fleetlands and Sydenham at their present strength?
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. Ramsden: This has been an extremely good debate, thanks a great deal to the excellent speech with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) opened it. It enabled the House to traverse a lot of ground, which has been extremely useful.
    Many detailed matters have been raised, and I am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity of dealing fully with them, but before he does so perhaps I might recapitulate what seem to me to have been the two main themes of the debate, and I hope that the Minister will take plenty of time and deal fully with them both.
    The first matter which has exercised the minds of those who have taken part in the debate is the future of the dockyards. I am no great expert on dockyards, and I lack the experience and technical qualifications necessary to give an informed judgment on the results of the Government's review, but having been concerned at one time in a somewhat similar review, on the military side, of the Royal Ordnance Factories, I can judge the importance which that review must have had in the minds and policies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have not yet had an opportunity to get a comprehensive statement of the reasons why the Government reached the determinations that they did in regard to the dockyards, and I hope that we shall have that from the hon. Gentleman tonight.
    The debate has shown that there is room for two opinions about the results of the Government's review. To judge from his speech, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) would have come to a different determination from that which has been reached by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) would not agree with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I shall not seek to judge between them, I have more sense, but the debate has shown that there has been room for an alternative exercise of judgment, and what particularly concerns me is how, in their review, the Government treated the relative claims of civilian and naval dockyard capacity.
    This matter has been referred to in the debate. A number of hon. Members on
    826
    both sides have referred to the decision not to use the Cammell Laird yard for future construction and refitting. This is an example of where a case can be made for the retention of some civilian industrial capacity, and also an example of the Government having come down on the side of the job being done in the naval dockyards. I hope that the Minister will give us some account of the balance which has been struck between those two possibilities.
    The second matter to which reference has been made by almost everyone who has spoken today is that of the Fleet submarines, and lying behind that there is the wider question, which is very pertinent to this debate, whether, on their present plans for expenditure, the Government will give the Navy the resources it requires in the way of ships and equipment to do its principal job of safeguarding our sea communications.
    We know that the Government's original intention was to have a larger programme for Fleet submarines, and to complete it at a faster rate of building. We have never been given details of the cut—and I do not think we shall get it tonight—that was imposed in January, 1968, and there has been anxiety about that on both sides of the House ever since. We have had it from the Government's mouth that their original intention was that these submarines should be the main striking power of the Royal Navy in the future. The question therefore arises whether it is the Government's intention, for the foreseeable future, to be content with the present reduced rate of building, and with the reduced target in numbers.
    Would it be the intention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, should the economic climate improve and should they achieve their objects over the balance of payments and so forth, to redress the Fleet submarine programme to its original proportions, to go for larger numbers and a faster rate of building? Do they still believe that these are ships which the Navy requires and, if it is to do its job properly, in greater numbers than is planned at present? If they do—one must hope and imagine that they do—are they content with the decision to close Cammell Laird and concentrate the facilities for building these ships in only one yard?

    827
    These are the two main anxieties which have emerged from the debate and we shall look forward to the hon. Member's comments.
    7.31 p.m.
    Dr. Owen: I do not dissent from the analysis of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) of some of the major points which have come up in this debate. There have also been a large number of detailed points which I will do my best to answer. As in the Navy Estimates debate, I will write to those whom I cannot answer.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) mentioned the cost of a fifth Polaris boat. He should know that the boat itself and the missiles had not been ordered and the bulk of the long lead items relating to the weapons system have been used as contingency spares to back up the four boats in the Polaris force. I have nothing to add to what has been said from this Box many times, that it is not our intention to buy a fifth Polaris submarine.
    The total cost of the programme is estimated to be £350 million, of which £300 million or over 80 per cent. has been spent to date, and most of the balance is already committed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made an interesting speech, but I should be out of order if I went too far into the merits of the Polaris force and its effectiveness as a deterrent. I have told my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that we do not intend to buy Poseidon and have no plans for introducing a new generation of nuclear weapons in relation to the Polaris programme. New advances in ballistic nuclear weapons technology are always being made, and the effectiveness of the Polaris weapons system is under constant review.
    Rightly, we have devoted a good deal of attention to the Fleet submarine programme, and the Government have not hidden the fact that we think it is a very important part of our naval forces. We are under some limitations, because it has never been the practice to reveal building rates. In January, 1968, we decided to slow down the rate, and we have given an estimate that the cost of speeding up
    828
    the building of the nuclear Fleet submarines to the rate planned before 1968 would have been at least £30 million over 10 years.
    The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) wanted us to give a definite total figure for the Fleet submarines. He is under a misconception in arguing from the Polaris force to the force of nuclear Fleet submarines. The circumstances of the two are quite different. In the first place, nuclear Fleet submarines are being brought into service to succeed conventional submarines, mainly of the Oberon and Porpoise classes. These new submarines are first rate. The eighth is the next to be ordered, and this is part of the continuing build.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume—not that I think he did: he was trying to draw me on the total figure—that we are intending to order only eight. But he can draw his own conclusions from the fact that we think it necessary to provide further refit facilities in the late 1970s as to what is obviously envisaged. We have said that if it were necessary to change the build rate, to go back or to increase it, we think there is capacity to do this in the Vickers building yard. As I have said many times, the decision would be based not just on the financial climate of the day but also on the priorities at that time in our Fleet submarine programme.
    There is a problem here of the balance of the Fleet. At the moment, it is a very important part of our overall fleet package, and it may well always stay the same. On both sides of the House particularly in the atmosphere which pervades our debates today, we know that a defence decision must change. We are working in a rapidly changing environment of research and development and technology, and it would be foolish of hon. Gentlemen on either side ever to adopt too rigid positions on this. There is a tendency in the political badinage for us to forget that it is right to be able to make a change in direction, in this field above all, and it would be wrong to stick to any—
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: May I say that we on this side absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman? We hope that his words will be noticed by the present Secretary of State, who seeks to quote

    829
    plans which were made in 1962 and 1963 by his predecessors as if they were firm plans never to be changed.
    Dr. Owen: I will not be drawn into this, but I think the Secretary of State has shown a much more rational and pragmatic attitude to the development of a coherent defence force than has been shown by anyone who has ever held that office before. Although we may have our political differences, the degree of intelligence and the depth of thinking which have gone into defence problems over the last five years by him personally have been of a very high order.
    The next point is the question of the armament for nuclear Fleet submarines. Further progress will be made this year with the studies into ways of improving the effectiveness of the submarine-launched anti-ship missiles. The antisubmarine capability of the nuclear Fleet submarines will be increased when the new Mark 24 torpedo comes into service. A question on this was asked by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). This torpedo, which was listed as a major development, is now in production and is undergoing acceptance trials.
    On Fleet submarines, I should say something about refitting facilities. We should go back a little in history. The decision to develop Rosyth as the first nuclear refitting yard was taken in 1963 by the then Conservative Government. A further review of requirements for nuclear refitting was carried out between August, 1963, and the summer of 1964, when it was clear that further nuclear facilities would be required in 1968 and that these would be best provided at Chatham. This was announced in the Navy Estimates debate in 1965.
    The capital development of both these dockyards to meet their respective nuclear rôles is nearing completion, at a cost of £5 million for Rosyth and £6 million for Chatham. Since this money is now almost entirely committed, it would be foolish to waste facilities which are almost completed and this was one of the major factors that we had to consider in preparing the dockyard review.
    Between them, Chatham and Rosyth should meet our nuclear requirements up to 1973–74, when additional nuclear docking facilities will be needed and then
    830
    further refit facilities. It has been announced in the White Paper that Devon-port will be our third nuclear dockyard. It may be argued that when Rosyth and Chatham facilities are fully taken up it might be possible to use those at Cam-mell Laird. That has been mentioned, although somewhat tentatively, by hon. Members. But this overlooks the real problem of time scale. There would be a gap of several years between the completion of Cammel Laird's last new construction nuclear work and the first nuclear docking, and it would not make economic sense to preserve the nuclear facilities and specialised labour force over this interim period. Some additional capital facilities would also be required before nuclear refuelling work could be done.
    In those circumstances, I am satisfied that it does not make sense to consider using the nuclear facilities at Cammell Laird to support our nuclear submarines. The question whether, in the past, the Government should have decided on Cammell Laird instead of Rosyth and Chatham is so academic that there is little point in discussing its merits. The decision was taken and the money has been spent.
    The Government's position on the decision not to place further nuclear submarine construction work with Cammell Lairds was made clear in the House on 10th March during the debate on the Navy Estimates. The company has no complaint about the manner in which this decision was communicated to it, although the chairman, to whom I have now spoken, has satisfied me that the company, for its part, believed that the information that it had been given would remain highly confidential until towards the end 1968. The company's real objection is to the decision not to allow it to compete for further nuclear submarine work.
    I cannot agree more with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), and I congratulate him on his statesmanlike speech. Whatever disagreements there may have been, the time has come to use these yards to the best advantage. We have been at pains to ensure that both of these valuable shipbuilders, Cammell Laird and Vickers, shall be able to submit tenders.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: But not nuclear ones?
    Dr. Owen: Yes. That is what I said.
    A wide range of questions has been asked by hon. Members about the ability of the Fleet to defend itself—I have particularly been questioned about missiles—to strike back and against missile attack. It may be helpful if I recapitulate some of the arguments that have been adduced.
    When the aircraft carriers are phased out of service—and this is the time scale with which hon. Members are principally concerned—the maritime air strike task will devolve in the main on the Royal Air Force's Buccaneers, which will be armed with the new Anglo-French standoff air-to-surface missile Martel. A sizeable part of the R.A.F.'s front-line strength of Buccaneers and Phantoms will be primarily earmarked for this maritime task. Both types of aircraft can be refuelled in flight to gain extra range and endurance; and they and the long-range maritime reconaissance aircraft, the Nimrods, will be able to operate from numerous shore airfields in the European theatre.
    It will be nothing new for the Fleet to draw upon land-based air support in this way. Even before the decision was taken to give up the aircraft carrier force, it had been planned to complement the reduced carrier force, in the N.A.T.O. sea area by land-based aircraft in the 1970s. The intention remains to keep H.M.S. "Ark Royal" and H.M.S. "Eagle"in service until the withdrawals from east of Suez are completed and our maritime effort is concentrated in the N.A.T.O. area.
    It must be remembered, too, that in any future conflict involving N.A.T.O., the Navy will be operating as part of an alliance and that the Fleet will be able to call on the air forces of our allies as well as the R.A.F.
    At sea, the Navy's main striking force in the post-carrier era will be provided by the nuclear Fleet submarines. Although, as announced in 1968, there has been some slowing down of the naval new construction programme, our force of nuclear Fleet submarines will be growing during the 1970s. When the aircraft carriers phase out after the completion
    832
    of the military withdrawals from east of Suez, six or seven Fleet submarines will be in service, and others building, to provide our main anti-surface ship and antisubmarine capability. This should not be under-estimated.
    The striking power of these submarines in the latter rôle will be increased by the new Mark 24 anti-submarine torpedo which is now in production and undergoing acceptance trials. Hon. Members will be aware that the studies to improve the effectiveness of submarine-launched anti-ship missiles, which were announced in the Statement on Defence Estimates, 1968, are continuing.
    After the aircraft carriers go, the main long-range strike task at sea will, therefore, be undertaken by land-based aircraft and by the growing force of nuclear Fleet submarines. But, as hon. Members are aware and as my hon. Friend has stated in an earlier debate, a light strike capability, directed primarily at the missile-firing FPB threat, will be widely fitted in surface ships to complement the shore-based aircraft and the nuclear submarines.
    Originally we thought in terms of a small ship-launched surface-to-surface guided weapon to counter this threat. But study showed that a more flexible and economical means of delivery would be to arm the helicopters which ships will carry for anti-submarine work with an air-to-surface missile with sufficient stand-off capability to protect the helicopter from the anti-aircraft defence of the FPB.
    Anti-submarine helicopters carried in ships will, therefore, be armed with the AS12 missile, which out-ranges the present anti-aircraft armament of the Soviet FPBs; and we are planning to introduce a second generation weapon with a greater stand-off range and improved performance.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the improved helicopter missile out-range the anti-aircraft armament of the guided missile destroyers, leaving aside patrol boats?
    Dr. Owen: No. This will be used primarily for fast patrol boats. We are trying to keep ahead with developments that might be made in this sphere with Russian patrol boats. We accept some of the criticisms that have been made about

    833
    the AS12 but we should realise the importance of this weapon and the fact that it is coming into service at a time when it is most needed.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that it is an all-weather and night capability with which we must be concerned and that the AS12 has limitations, although we recognise that it is a useful weapon?
    Dr. Owen: It is right that hon. Members should express their concern on this issue, but it should be remembered that fast patrol boats are also limited, particularly by bad weather. A great deal of work is going into trying to develop an all-weather capability with helicopters. Much experimentation is going on into the development of new equipment. This is an important area, and I assure hon. Members that their remarks have ben noted.
    The helicopter and its missile together will, therefore, provide the Fleet with an independent capability—without relying on land-based aircraft—over a range exceeding, for example, that of the Russian Styx missile or of any other missile likely to be developed for use by fast patrol boats of the Komar type. But I must emphasise that this will be a supplementary capability.
    I am not talking about a counter to the heavy Russian missiles—firing destroyers of the Kynda and Kresta type with medium range missiles. We have always made clear that our answer to this, after the carriers go, will be the nuclear submarines and the R.A.F's. shore-based strike aircraft.
    The Fleet, and its helicopters, will operate under the defensive umbrella of the new surface-to-air weapons, including Sea Dart, which will deal with enemy targets out to considerable distance; and in more intensive operations the Fleet will also be able to rely on fighter cover from shore airfields. It is worth emphasising the effectiveness of the new generation of surface-to-air weapons. Both Sea Wolf and Sea Dart will have a very considerable anti-missile capability.
    There remains the question of V/STOL aircraft. This has been fully covered in debates, and at this stage I would not wish to do more than repeat briefly what has already been said by my hon. Friend and myself.
    834
    There is no doubt that V/STOL aircraft operating at sea would provide the Fleet with a quick reaction capability for probe and identification, strike and a degree of air defence in the absence of continuous shore air cover. Recent developments in the V/STOL concept make this an option which will be worth considering.
    Our intention is, therefore, to evaluate each new development within the V/STOL concept as it occurs; and design studies for new ships will, as a matter of course, take account of developments which may take place in aircraft as in other weapons systems during the life of the ships. But before taking a decision whether or not it would be worth while to deploy V/STOL aircraft at sea, we must, of course, take full account of all relevant considerations; the operational effectiveness of aircraft operating at sea in this mode, the cost of providing this additional capability and the defence, strike and reconnaissance support which shore-based aircraft of the R.A.F. will provide.
    Questions have been asked about the performance of the Fleet's surface-to-air missile systems and, in particular, about the capability of our frigates and destroyers to defend themselves against missile attack.
    For reasons which hon. Members will readily understand, it is not possible for me to disclose details of the performance of our weapons systems. But as regards Sea Dart, about which the hon. Member for Haltemprice has particularly inquired, I can confirm that Sea Dart will be capaable of dealing with more than one attack at the same time, whether by aircraft or by missile.
    It must not be forgotten, of course, that in maritime operations ships will often be operating as a force, and in these circumstances the effectiveness of the missile systems will be increased when ships lend each other support if under missile or aircraft attack.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester referred to the Sea King helicopter. The Sea King anti-submarine helicopter will be entering service with the Royal Navy during the coming year. It is a more powerful and longer-range version of the Sikorsky SH 3-D, and is

    835
    being built by Westlands under licence. It is powered by twin Bristol Siddeley Gnome H.1400 engines and will carry advanced British anti-submarine equipment.
    The Sea King will, largely, replace the Wessex III helicopter and will remain in service throughout the 1970s. We expect to receive the first aircraft within the next few weeks and to form an intensive flying trials unit in the summer. We plan to deploy squadrons of Sea Kings at sea in the aircraft carriers and the converted Tiger class cruisers and later in the new class of cruiser which will succeed the converted Tigers.
    I shall deal with a few points raised during the debate. It has been stated in the Defence White Paper that decisions about the design and construction of a new but smaller frigate are at an advanced stage, and final decisions are expected to be made in the immediate future. This has been welcomed on both sides as a good example of co-operation between private industry and the Government.
    The reduction of money provision under Vote 7D does not arise from a planned run-down of war resources. It is linked with our ship-building programme which in turn is based on our reduced plans for the size of the Navy. It is nothing more serious than that.
    The reserve Fleet has been referred to by many hon. Members. The House will readily appreciate that it is expensive both in money and in skilled manpower to maintain large numbers of ships in the state of preservation. We are anxious to keep in reserve only a small number of vessels to make good any breakdowns in the active Fleet. We also keep a number of maintenance ships in reserve. Reductions in the strength of the active fleet will react on the strength of the reserve fleet, but broadly, our policy remains as in the Explanatory Statement to the Navy Estimates of 1961–62, Cmnd. 1282.
    Exceptionally, however, requirements for coastal and inshore minesweepers in the light of the more sophisticated mines likely to be used in any future emergency showed that we could no longer keep a large number of these in reserve. I shall
    836
    look into the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester about H.M.S. "Maidstone", and I will write to him.
    I shall try to deal with a number of individual points made by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and then with the major point about the dockyards and why it was thought necessary in view of the dockyard load to continue with the present four dockyards. The hon. Lady asked about the paragraph in the White Paper referring to the chief executive. We intend to appoint a high grade executive to take charge of the dockyards. We want to make sure that we have the best man available and the best organisation to press ahead with our plans for the reorganisation of the dockyards and to expedite the introduction of the latest management methods with drive and imagination. We realise that such an individual may prove difficult to find and that he will command a substantial salary. He would report direct to the Chief of Fleet Support who is the responsible member on the Admiralty Board.
    On the question of productivity bargaining, we are very conscious that future increases in wages must come from productivity bargaining designed primarily to improve the efficiency of the dockyards. Discussions on this subject have already been opened with the trade unions, and each dockyard has its own joint production consultative committee. There is also a separate committee in each yard for the Port Auxiliary Service. The first task of these committees is the collection of factual information which will enable us to work towards a much better use of working time. I am satisfied that there is a great deal of room for improvement in this matter, and we look forward to being able to conclude an agreement with the unions which will be to the advantage of both the management and the employees.
    Mr. Burden: This affects the issue which I raised about the difference in pay and allowances which will come about as a result of the new pensions scheme. This obviously could not be dealt with under productivity.
    Dr. Owen: If the hon. Member will wait, I shall try to deal with the points he

    837
    made. Since he has raised this point now on the question of pensions for dockyard employees I may say that it is obviously of concern and could be affected by the Government's superannuation scheme. It would be right first to have negotiations with the trade unions and also with the Civil Service Department. This we shall certainly do.
    I take up a point about establishment which the hon. Member for Gillingham and the hon. Lady mentioned. The offer of establishment to men with five years' service will affect 890 men. I am under no illusion that not everyone wishes to be established. One of the reasons for announcing this offer at this time was that when people hear the term "run-down" they are anxious. Any who are willing to transfer to Rosyth in trades required there will willingly be accepted. We are satisfied that we can absorb these men in the dockyard labour force having regard to existing age grouping.
    Also in replying to the hon. Lady, we certainly intend to employ girl apprentices as craftsmen in the dockyard on completion of their apprenticeship. There would be little point in doing it otherwise.
    The hon. Lady said that communications with dockyard employees had rather fallen down in the past. I agree with her. Any hon. Member representing a dockyard constituency has experienced occasions when unnecessary annoyance is caused through the breakdown of communications. This is why we have extensive consultation and why each employee has received a copy of the relevant part of the White Paper. In the last few weeks a number of bodies have paid tribute to the Ministry for its handling of the public presentation of the dockyard review. It was hailed as a model of how to deal with a matter of this sort both at national and at local level. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration and I attended a symposium at Greenwich with members of the industrial and non-industrial unions and management from all levels at the dockyards. There the future of the dockyards was discussed and some indication was given of the future loading and what we are doing in some of the major changes. I hope that this will be just a start to improving and making changes in methods of communication.
    838
    I shall write to the hon. Lady about repairs by contract. This is a complicated question. The apparent increase is largely due to the fact that Singapore dockyard has been turned over mostly to private use and this gives the appearance of its having a greater increase in contract work.
    The matter of future ship construction in the Royal Dockyards is one of concern. The main new ship construction project going on in the dockyards at present is the building of the Leander frigate "Scylla" which is due to complete early in 1970. It is impossible to forecast at this stage when another frigate will be built in the dockyards or what type it will be, but there has been no change in our general policy regarding ship construction in the dockyards. We shall continue to consider from time to time, having regard to the future load of repair work and other factors, whether a particular ship or ships should be built in one of the dockyards rather than by contract. We have just decided, for example, to build four dumb craft in the dockyard in the forthcoming year because temporary variation in the workload allows us to fit this task in economically. This again is an attempt to reduce waiting time.
    I am very conscious of the great enthusiasm within the dockyards to undertake new construction work. They have a fine record in this respect. Apart from frigate construction at Devonport and Portsmouth, I mention particularly the construction of Oberon submarines for Canada at Chatham. The dockyards like to do this work because, apart from the obvious attraction of building something from scratch, new construction provides them with a unique opportunity to exercise their wide range of skills and with training opportunities which tend otherwise to be lacking in repair and refit work. We are devoting ever-growing attention to the concept of what is called "through costing" in relation to ships. This means that, instead of simply worrying about the cost of building a ship, one takes into account all the other cost factors involved in running it throughout its Service life. In this connection, the more the dockyards can learn about a particular ship from the moment of its conception to the time in which it sails, the better it is.

    839
    A large proportion of this depends on the dockyards being competitive in price with private industry. This also means that we must look at the allocation of overheads. We shall see that this is not unfair on the dockyards. This I promise to do.
    The hon. Member for Haltemprice asked about the new cruiser and for some definition. It is too early for me at this stage to be firm about it, but we hope it will provide command and control for air naval forces and will be armed with the Sea Dart surface-to-air guided weapon system and carry the large new Sea King helicopter. I have dealt with the question of design. I have also dealt with the question of guided missiles.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby raised the question of H.M.S. "Ark Royal". I do not understand the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend about the refit of "Ark Royal". Our intention remains to complete the refit early in 1970 within the planned period of three years. When the refit is completed, "Ark Royal" will be able to deploy our latest fighter aircraft—the Phantom—and will play a full part in the Fleet until the military withdrawal from east of Suez is completed in 1971. The refit is going ahead entirely to programme. We intend to complete it by the planned date. It will be an achievement if it is completed on time. We attach great importance to its being achieved on time.
    I want now to deal with the question of the dockyards in the wider context. Many points have been raised on these. There seems to be a misunderstanding about how complex the task of refitting warships is at present. I make no secret of this. It has been part of my education to realise what an incredibly technological and new industry dockyards are and are increasingly becoming. This is one of the major points that answers the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). He called into question the need for four dockyards. There is no doubt that by cutting one out completely we could have made rather larger cuts in overheads. The basic fact to be borne in mind is the body of capital decisions made in the past—I have already indi-
    840
    cated some of these—and also the question of the future load.
    The load is determined by a number of factors. I want to deal with this in some detail. We are faced with the task of refitting extremely complex and congested vessels, most of the systems in which are interdependent. Their high cost demands the highest possible availability for service, in spite of higher usage; and hence greater reliability in spite of higher performance and less stand-by machinery and equipment on board.
    Much of this complexity is the result of technological development and the outcome of huge sums spent on research and development. These developments not only make it possible to design ships of greatly increased performance, but make it essential to keep up-to-date if the Royal Navy is to remain an efficient fighting force and a credible deterrent in face of the lethality of modern weapons.
    We have only time to glance at some of the more recent technological developments that pose a challenge to which the dockyards must respond. In the naval construction field, I point out that we are challenged by new hardened and tempered steels demanding new welding methods and non-destructive testing techniques; glass reinforced plastic construction for increasing sizes of vessel; increasing mechanisation to reduce ships' complements such as hydraulic power for hoisting boats and handling stores. More ventilation has given place to full-scale air conditioning as much for the equipment as for the men. There are new devices to reduce under-water noise and increase resistance to under-water shock that require patient understanding and attention to detail.
    In the main propulsion field we are challenged by the introduction of aircraft-type gas turbines, extremely sophisticated and highly loaded reduction gearing, variable pitch propellors, and automatic and remote control. In the escort force, gas turbines will reach parity with steam by 1985. We face the close integration of machanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic techniques, calling for a systems engineering approach at all levels.
    In the electrical field each new generation of ships makes increasing demands for electric power. Four megawatts

    841
    are required for the Type 42 destroyer, much the same as for a small town. Additional power means more cables and makes the repair problem more difficult. New techniques using quick-action steel strap suspension are being developed to speed this up.
    Automatic control of weapons communications and machinery is increasing, and the trend is towards miniaturisation and micro-miniaturisation of electronic devices. Many of the components cannot be repaired and must be thrown away and replaced by new.
    In the nuclear field, the refitting of the reactors of nuclear submarines calls for the application to heavy engineering of techniques and standards of hygiene and accuracy hitherto associated with instruments. The requirements of health physics, the new materials, the difficult environment and complexity all contribute to the difficult and exacting nature of the task we have set ourselves.
    I want to deal very quickly with some of the techniques of refitting.
    Mr. Ramsden: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman during that last passage, but he said before he embarked upon that interesting essay that if one dockyard had been closed down it might have resulted in a greater saving of overheads. I realise that this is not the only factor. Was any estimate made of what the saving would have been had that solution been adopted? Was a figure ever worked out?
    Dr. Owen: These figures were gone into in very great detail and calculations of this sort were made. I certainly could not give them to the House at the moment, and I do not think it would be proper to give them to the House. The decision has been taken. Too much looking back, particularly publicly, would not do too much good. It is right that I should explain to the House some of the problems we faced in making this decision. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, judging fom some of his interventions, has rather implied that he agrees with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East that this would have been a simpler solution. There were attractions to it—no one would deny that—but I think the overwhelming argument is the question of the load and our capacity to meet the
    842
    demands of the Fleet. The dockyards are there to serve the Fleet. The factor which is so vital is to have minimum turn-round time and to get the ships out, because the high capital cost of mooring up alongside is incredibly wasteful. We need to put more capital equipment in.
    Coming to the techniques, I want very briefly to talk about repair by replacement. This is one of the techniques we hope to be using. We can take defective pieces of equipment and machinery out of the ship and replace them by new or refitted items. The replaced machine is then repaired and tested under controlled conditions and then preserved and returned to store for future use. We have used this principle in the weapon/ radio field and we want to extend its use wherever practicable.
    Secondly, line and batch overhaul. The latest design policy—nicknamed "Symes"—is to establish well-developed standard ranges of machinery and equipment. It will take some time for us to see the fruits of this policy, but it should be feasible and economic to set up further facilities for line and batch overhaul aimed at greater productivity and greater reliability of the end product.
    Thirdly, typing of dockyards and streaming of refits. This promises the following major advantages. I have announced the decision on typing and which yards will be typed. The advantages are concentration of capital injection on really imaginative special-to-class refitting facilities; economy in the overheads of proper specification, planning and production control and quality control documentation; familiarisation with the task; and smooth manpower loading.
    If we are to justify, as I have already argued, the large capital expenditure on a sound business basis, we must use the facilities during more work hours in the week. This will mean consideration of shift working and staggered working hours. But the scheme promises a greater productivity from which everyone will benefit, and also quick turn-round of ships.
    Fourthly, design for refit. Yarrow-Admiralty Research Department has finished the first stage of an investigation into devising procedures that would force

    843
    designers to pay much more attention to ease of maintenance and repair. We hope that this will lead to much better specification of what needs to be done during a refit and thence to better planning and work definition.
    I could go on to mention many other things, particularly computers and the advantages of using them, and the need to introduce new machine tools into our dockyards. The dockyards have got to change, because the Fleet and the ships are changing and becoming more and more complex. It will pay us to improve the efficiency of the dockyards. There are a number of ways in which this can be done, and I think it is of considerable importance both to the upkeep of the Fleet and to the effectiveness and increased operational availability of the Fleet.
    Not least will it be important to dockyard towns and cities in their being able to justify increased wages for the work force and make the dockyard what it used to be—the best employer in the city, providing jobs that any young person wished to go into. This is the challenge, and I believe it is vitally important for both dockyard civilians and the Navy. To this task we have now set ourselves. I hope we shall be successful.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £202,363,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of new construction, repair, etc., of H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

    Vote 8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £14,335,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.
    8.10 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the of the hour and the needs of the Army, I shall deal with the Vote as quickly as I can, confining myself to one substantial subject and two or three very small ones.
    The substantial point concerns subhead B, "Publicity and Recruiting Services."
    844
    About £90,000 has been added to the Estimate for the coming year for these services. It is common ground on both sides of the House that recruiting is down again, and it should be emphasised that the effect of bad recruiting for one year after another is cumulative. It is not simple but compound interest.
    The whole problem of recruiting worries the Opposition, and we do not want to say anything to make it worse. We believe that good careers are still available for young men who are good enough and enterprising enough to join the splendid young men already in the Services. But the Opposition are mystified by the Secretary of State's policy on the matter, because he seems to be doing absolutely nothing about it. There have been plenty of statements in the debates and the White Paper about how bad recruiting is, but there have been practically no concrete or practical suggestions by the Secretary of State on what should be done.
    On page 69 of the White Paper, under the heading, "Recruitment of Ratings, Soldiers and Airmen", there is just the following statement:
    "Efforts are being made to improve methods of selecting recruits and so reduce waste."
    What is the good of concentrating one's efforts on selecting recruits who are not coming forward?
    The right hon. Gentleman also says by way of explanation of his difficulties that there are too few young men in the appropriate age groups. He can hardly have just recently stumbled on that very basic fact of life.
    As the Department is in competition with other employers, he should put up the pay offered to the young men he is trying to take in. He would be in a position to do so if he had not handed over responsibility to the Prices and Incomes Board. This is a basic question of the law of supply and demand, which is sometimes difficult for the Socialist mentality to grasp but is a basic law for all that. One might almost feel that so few suggestions come from the Secretary of State that he does not want recruiting to improve. If that is too high—and the Minister is demurring from that—we must at least say that the right hon.

    845
    Gentleman is guilty of a most astonishing lack of any sense of responsibility about it.
    I now come to my small subjects. Under Subhead F there is a reduced sum for external Naval training, and we believe that it is too small. It is stated that the Estimate:
    "Provides for miscellaneous training courses and for training allowances paid to Merchant Navy personnel being trained in the defence of merchant ships."
    The tiny sum of £56,000 for 1969–70 indicates that not sufficient attention is being given to this vitally important matter. The primary task of the Royal Navy throughout the ages has been the protection of overseas trade and shipping generally. The Merchant Navy makes a vast contribution to our invisible earnings, and it is time the Government understood that we cannot live in these islands just by taking in one another's washing. Giving these piffling sums for the encouragement of the protection of the Merchant Navy is all too indicative of an inward-looking frame of mind, which we saw in the Government's east of Suez defence policy.
    Subhead H is concerned with married quarters. It is rather surprising that, according to the White Paper, there seem to be only 82,000 married quarters for the 250,000 men of all three Services who are stationed in the United Kingdom. Navy married quarters used to be provided to enable families to be united when the men were at home. But I believe that that is the wrong way of looking at the matter, and that they should be provided to enable a man to go back to sea and leave his family in good, settled married quarters, and have no anxiety about where the family is living while he is away.
    This leads us to a concept that needs more attention, the concept of fixed homes in the United Kingdom for the Service man so that he knows where his home is, what schools his children go to and so on. Great economies might result if the Defence Department did not have to provide all those ancillary facilities for families.
    This also leads us to the concept that when men go overseas for any reason they should go unaccompanied. They should be shuttled to and fro for leave as often
    846
    as possible by the splendid transport that Support Command of the Royal Air Force now has. A new look at this question is required. Instead of flying women and children round the world we should leave them at home in fixed, settled positions and shuttle the men to and fro as required.
    I now come to subhead I, dealing with Naval and marine museums. Here I should like to declare my interest, though it is not a financial one. What is happening about the suggestion that H.M.S. "Belfast", the last of our large pre-war cruisers, should be put into permanent dry dock as a memorial to the steam age in exactly the same way as H.M.S. "Victory" is a permanent memorial to the Navy's sail era? H.M.S. "Belfast", which has already been paid off, is the last of these old cruisers, but she is in a very good state of preservation, because a lot of money was spent on refitting her for her last commission, in which I was her captain in the Far East. That is why I started by declaring an interest in the future of this fine old ship. The suggestion has already been put to the Government. If this could be done it would be a financial success in the long term, because a charge could be made for people going round her, and would be the sort of imaginative measure required to help recruiting and a better attitude by the public towards the services.
    I end on this point, in the hope that we shall get an imaginative outlook from the Minister on it. There is no doubt that imagination is what is very sadly lacking in the Government's defence policy as a whole.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. Dalyell: I strongly support the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in asking that the "Belfast" should be retained as a kind of museum. Perhaps our nation loses something if the great monuments of industrial archaeology and recent Service history are not preserved. It is unfortunate that one of the old "ironclads"—"Ramillies", "Resolution" or some other battleship—was not preserved.
    I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having heard the whole of his wind-up speech on the last Vote. I was at a memorial meeting.

    847
    I should like briefly to say something of a "thank you" to his Department in relation to Subhead C, relating to conveyance of personnel. I had the unfortunate experience of a constituent dying in the village of Linlithgow Bridge. Her son was serving with the Navy in Singapore. It happened one weekend, and, for reasons which I need not go into, the funeral had to be fairly urgent. I rang up on Saturday the night duty officer at the Ministry of Defence. Immediate action was taken and within 36 hours that man was home. There was not, I understand, any obligation on the Navy to send him home and I want to express some gratitude for the efficiency with which the Ministry, the duty officer and the people in Singapore acted. This kind of humanity makes quite a difference to the forces.
    Having worked 18 months on a Merchant Navy ship it seems to me that the kind of training envisaged in Subhead F is meaningful and worth while. This is the sort of thing I would be in favour of expanding.
    If the Navy is to do all these things that I have gone on about at great length—at perhaps too much length—in the development of marine environment, there must be a separate system of financing. Perhaps my hon. Friend may care to give some reflections on whether or not the Ministry is prepared to consider this proposition seriously before next year.
    8.22 p.m.
    Dr. David Owen: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) dealt with wider aspects of recruiting and questions of re-engagement which do not really fall within this Vote, but we have had a reasonable debate.
    I must say, however, that I resent the personal nature of some of the attacks the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes repeatedly on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is fair enough to attack the Government, but I know that, on the issue of recruitment, my right hon. Friend is as concerned about it as any of the Service Ministers and has given considerable personal attention to finding ways of increasing recruitment. As no one knows better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman,
    848
    there are no easy answers. This is a very difficult complex of factors.
    On this Vote, we are dealing with recruiting publicity. The financial provision for 1969–70 under Vote 8b, which caters for recruiting activities carried out by the Navy itself, has risen by almost £100,000 over last year's figure. With this extra money, the Navy intends to improve the attractiveness of the displays in its own careers offices, and it will also participate to a much greater extent in exhibitions and local shows. Active service naval and marine personal will be assisting in many of the activities, and we regard their help as particularly valuable. We are also planning to replace part of the fleet of mobile display vans which tour the country with more modern exhibition caravans.
    However, apart from expenditure falling on Navy Votes, the cost of large-scale Press and poster advertisements on a nation-wide basis is borne on the Central Office of Information Vote, and this forms by far the major part of expenditure on Navy recruiting publicity. Here again, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration stated in last week's defence debate, the provision for advertising has been substantially increased for the coming year. This will enable us to make a far greater impact on potential recruits for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
    I come now to the question of married quarters. We have at present some 1,850 officers' married quarters in the United Kingdom and some 10,200 for ratings. Overseas, we have some 200 and 500 respectively. There are also, of course, a large number of official hirings which contribute significantly to easing local shortages of married quarters. During 1968–69, we completed about 1,250 naval married quarters, and we plan to build something over 500 new married quarters during the present year. We also plan to start building another 1,080 married quarters.
    The married quarter building programme has, therefore, been moving ahead at a considerable pace. Our general aim is to end up with enough married quarters to allow the Navy a roof to roof movement policy. By this, I mean that ratings and their families would move if they wished from one married quarter

    849
    to another when they received a new appointment on draft.
    It is difficult to prophesy when we shall reach this objective. For many reasons, the Navy lagged behind in the building of married quarters, and it is not easy to make this up overnight. Nor, indeed, is it easy to define closely the number and the siting of the married quarters we will need to achieve our object. We are, however, certainly moving with speed in the right direction.
    I have already mentioned that we attach considerable importance to the Merchant Navy. There has been a tendency, because of an attack on our decisions about Far East policy, to suppose that this necessarily means a withdrawal of support and lack of interest in the Merchant Navy. This is far from the case. There is considerable interest by the Government in the Merchant Navy, and discussions are constantly going on between the Navy Department and interested parties involved with the Merchant Navy. I repeat that this is something to which we attach considerable importance, and that we will continue to do so. Perhaps that also answers one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
    I am somewhat limited tonight in what I can say about H.M.S. "Belfast", because this is a problem for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, since it comes within the category of museums. It is well known that a number of naval ports have shown interest in having the "Belfast" should it be made available. This matter will have to be gone into and advice taken from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. But I personally agree with the general principle that this might help recruitment and keep up interest in the Royal Navy. There is a price to be paid, however, and it cannot be paid on the Defence Votes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian earlier referred to oceanography. I know that he had to leave the Chamber while I was replying, and I have no doubt that he will find my answer unsatisfactory. I said little more than I
    850
    was able to say in the last debate. With this sort of thing, unless the research is relevant to defence, it cannot be carried on Defence Votes. As I have told him previously, the Select Committee on Procedure is looking at a suggested form of Defence Estimates, and, of course, it is for the House to say whether it wishes to have them in a different form. This is one matter we would certainly look at, but I cannot now, from this Box, state any further policy.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is it not true that the price to be paid for H.M.S. "Belfast" is only the scrap value?
    Dr. Owen: I think that that is true. This is obviously a subject for negotiation, but there would be no point in doing it unless it was viable on other grounds, and the viability of H.M.S. "Belfast" as a museum, together with the other aspects, are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to decide.
    Mr. Dalyell: This is a matter of great consequence, and those of us interested in the National Trust, tourism and other organisations, and in areas developing as tourist areas, such as the Forth basin, believe that there is quite an argument for having such ships as H.M.S. "Belfast" on display. The "Belfast" is the plum, and it may well be that the South has the prior claim—I can quite understand that—but surely there must be an overall coherent policy. This must be discussed with the Board of Trade and various interests, including the educational and regional interests involved.
    Dr. Owen: I can say no more than that this is the overall responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If my hon. Friend feels that the interests of the Board of Trade and tourism and other organisations should be brought to his attention, I am sure that he will make it known to my right hon. Friend. I myself, of course, will have a slight vested interest in the siting of H.M.S. "Belfast", being a Member for the City of Plymouth, which is also interested in the ship. That is another reason why I do not wish to be drawn on this subject any further tonight.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £14,335,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

  DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1969–70

    Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Army
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £187,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.
    8.32 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Goodhart: Even if it were in order to discuss in detail the operation now taking place in Anguilla, I would feel totally disarmed this evening by the fact that the first man ashore appears to have replied, on being challenged by a British reporter, "I am from Beckenham." I once served in a regiment, and it makes me all the more conscious of the fact that we have men at risk, however ludicrous some people may thing the operation to be.
    Some armies have a combat allowance; we do not. I am sure we are all anxious, however, that our forces involved in Anguilla should draw every penny to which they are entitled. I note that an allowance of 2s. 6d. a day is payable to other ranks for arctic or tropical experiments. I would like the Under-Secretary to consider whether this allowance might not be paid to the other ranks taking part in this operation. Clearly this expedition is a tropical one, and clearly it is in the nature of an experiment. I suspect that the lesson we shall draw from this experiment is that it is far less expensive, in blood and in treasure to invade one's friends, particularly if their principal defence is a Napoleonic cannon, than getting into serious conflict with one's enemies. Meanwhile, the experiment continues, and I hope the allowance will be paid.
    There is also the colonial survey allowance of up to 9s. a day for officers and up to 4s. a day for other ranks. There has been no dispute about the excellence of the maps we have of Anguilla, but
    852
    there has been some doubt as to whether Anguilla is a colony or not. Surely establishing whether a place is a colony is a fundamental feature of any colonial survey? Many people believe that our action in Anguilla shows that this island is still legally a colony. I would ask the Under-Secretary to look at this allowance.
    There is "hard life" money, which, as hon. Members know, is a military and not a diplomatic allowance. How are our men going to subsist in Anguilla during the next few weeks? Clearly, they have not taken with them more than the most rudimentary sleeping and cooking equipment. That may be perfectly all right for a few days. I know that the Chief of General Staff has been quoted as saying that our forces would be withdrawn in a matter of days or weeks. Can the Minister say how long our forces will remain there, and how they will be supplied and supported? Clearly there is no available accommodation. There is one local hotel, which is unlikely to be sufficient, particularly with the Press of the world there. Perhaps Mr. Webster could put up a few, but his house can hardly—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We cannot pursue the argument of the Anguillan incident too far on this vote.
    Mr. Goodhart: I do not want to pursue it too far. It is clear that the troops involved will be entitled to a "hard life" allowance. There is also the question of an entertainment allowance. In the next few weeks, the forces in Anguilla will need to have considerable contact with the local population. I hope that they will soon get on to a basis of playing cricket and cigarette swapping with the local inhabitants. I trust that this will be a "hearts and minds" operation rather than one in which shots are fired. If cigarettes are to be swapped and drinks to be bought, some funds will have to be made available. I hope that this will not come out of the pockets of the men of the Second Parachute Battalion.
    The Minister will be aware that for years there has been a feeling in the Army that men put to most inconvenience and with the most family expense often draw less money in allowances than those more comfortably off. There is

    853
    some justification for this. Earlier, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) talked about Treasury "nit-picking" over naval separation allowances. This is certainly true with the Army. I hope that there is to be a root and branch inquiry into the shape and scope of allowances. We have been told by the Minister of Defence for Administration that there is such an inquiry into the shape of military pay. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who opened and closed the previous debates, scarcely referred to these studies which have been mentioned by the Secretary of State.
    When the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army opened and closed the debates on the Army Estimates, there was scarcely a reference in his speeches to the studies which have been referred to by the Secretary of State. Could the Under-Secretary now tell us how far advanced these studies are, as we on this side, as he knows, have expressed serious misgivings about the timing and nature of this particular concept? We would like to know whether they are likely to emerge from the drawing board stage within the next two years; in other words, before the next election.
    I turn now to the pay of the Gurkhas and certain Commonwealth, including colonial, and other troops. We know that, alas, the Government have plans to run down the Gurkha forces to below the level which many people think is an economic one when it comes to the overheads of recruitment, training and posting. But we will be virtually out of the whole of east of Suez by the end of 1971, and little has been said about the arrangements that are to be made for the rundown of those Malays and Chinese who are serving with our forces at the moment in both a military and a civilian capacity.
    A great deal of aid is being made available to both Singapore and Malaysia to tide over the economic problems that are going to follow our withdrawal. I hope that some of this assistance will go to those who have served us so well. Certainly, we shall provoke much ill-will if we turn away these men who have served in the forces without adequate compensation.
    854
    It will be within the recollection of this House that, during the closing stages of the debate on the Estimates, the Under-Secretary was exceedingly shy about telling the House of the arrangements that have been made by this Government for home defence in the event of war. The Minister made a brief reference to the fact that the Household Division was to be available along with men in the depots, training organisations and workshops; although my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out, quite rightly, that in the event of any conflict, however conventional and however limited, these men are going to have jobs of their own to perform. I would like the Under-Secretary to assure the House this evening that all the men involved—and he has referred to them as a considerable number of thousands—will be given some training during the course of the coming year in this home defence rôle.
    But surely, many of these men in the workshops and training depots will be deployed far away from the centres that are going to need assistance and perhaps defence if war should break out. The Household Division is presumably available for some defence and assistance in the London area, but what about Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds? Are there any forces earmarked for defence or to render civil assistance if bombs are dropped in these great centres of population in England, let alone in Scotland and Wales? Unless the Under-Secretary can give us assurances on these points, he must not be wholly aggrieved if we on this side of the House think that the statements on home defence which have been made so far are an empty sham.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I want, first, to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about the need to review the rates of pay and allowances of serving soldiers and officers. Not only does the whole concept need reviewing, but also the comparability between one type of allowance and another. For example, why is the additional daily rate of pay for parachutists 7s. 6d., whereas that for those engaged on colonial survey duties 4s., and of those engaged on arctic or tropical experiments 2s. 6d.? Not only does the

    855
    basis of these allowances need reviewing, but also the comparability between them.
    The most important question concerning rates of pay is when we are to hear about the new rates and scales. The subject has been covered ad nauseam in previous debates, and the Under-Secretary of State can be under no illusion as to the necessity of trying to bring forward the report as soon as possible, if only because the uncertainty does not help in recruiting.
    According to Appendix I, a second-lieutenant in the Royal Army Dental Corps starts at 35s. 6d. a day, whereas the standard rate of a second-lieutenant is 43s. 6d. Indeed, a dental officer of this rank is paid less than the equivalent rank in the Women's Royal Army Corps and non-nursing officers of Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. That seems a little strange.
    A Royal Army Veterinary Corps lieutenant gets 57s. a day, whereas the standard rate of a lieutenant is 49s. Why should that be the case? Why, indeed, should a veterinary officer get more than an Army Medical Corps officer who is only provisionally registered?
    One other small fact which is of importance concerns the Women's Royal Army Corps, to which there are two references under the heading "Rates of pay and allowances of British officers and other ranks". Throughout the rest of the Estimates, there is no mention of where these gallant ladies are employed or what they do. There is no indication of the offices that they fulfil and the functions that they carry out, other than the obvious ones.
    Another odd anomaly is that one sees in Vote A that the Women's Royal Army Corps has a strength of 300 officers and 4,000 other ranks. However, when one turns to Appendix II on page 109, one sees that the strength in 1969–70 is to be 285 officers and 3,515 other ranks. Those figures simply do not add up. I wonder why, and I wonder also in relation to Vote A which rate of pay they are receiving. There must be a reason for this. The ratio in the Women's Royal Army Corps between officers and other ranks is rather strange. I see that the Minister is shaking his head; I cannot think why.
    Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member is doing his usual trick in this debate of reading through the pages and asking whatever question comes into his head on whatever figures catches his eye. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman is renowned for his aggressiveness, but that remark is rather unnecessary. If he thinks I am doing that, the right hon. Gentleman is being excessively offensive. I am asking those questions because I want to know the answers. I am entitled, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to go through the figures in detail and to ask questions which he will answer, and if he is unable to do so tonight, then he will write to me. I do not do this lightly, for fun. It is difficult to debate in this House when one is mocked in this way by the Under-Secretary. It is the duty of Members of this House to query his Estimates and, if mistakes have been made, to expose them. I do not know if mistakes have been made, probably not.
    Mr. Rippon: Shocking!
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am not a bit surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's rudeness, he is renowned for it, and also for the speed of his talking.
    May I now turn to the Gurkhas. The use and deployment of the Gurkhas has been adequately covered, but I wish to reiterate one point. A reduction to 6,000 by 1971 is not viable, bearing in mind the number of people who have to be on leave at one time, because of the length of leave It is possible only to have two-thirds serving and one-third on leave. I would like to know what will be the rate of pay and the travel allowances which will be paid. Travel is relatively simple from Singapore and Malaysia, but from Hong Kong the cost of transportation to officers and other ranks going on leave to Nepal must be considerable, and some arrangements must be made for that. I do not know if such arrangements would come under this Vote, but I imagine so.
    The Gurkhas are amongst the finest soldiers that there are, and it is an awful pity that the Secretary of State has decided to reduce the number of these very fine troops to such a pitifully small figure as 6,000—I understand there are

    857
    now 10,000. This is not a viable number, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will reconsider that.
    My next point concerns the Maltese who are enlisted in the Royal Malta Artillery. Do I understand, as in times gone by, they are stationed solely on Malta and do not see service elsewhere, or do they see service elsewhere?
    Whereas there is a reduction in the whole level of the Services, the Vote in E (3) to Commonwealth, Colonial and other forces has gone up this year as compared with last year by about £50,000. This represents the payment to the local forces in Gibraltar, and so on. Yet I notice that the Trucial Oman Scouts were to be reduced during the coming year. Perhaps that is not so? I understand that the number of troops in Malta stays constant. Will the hon. Gentleman say why there is that increase in that heading of the Vote?
    I come back to the basic point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, which is that the existing pay and allowances for the Services need a complete review and not just a review of the allowances. We want to know what will be the new situation on pay, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade the Secretary of State to do something about this very soon.
    8.55 p.m.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: I should like to make one or two points concerning Vote 1. Before doing so, I should say that I did not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was going to refer to my hon. and ex-gallant self.
    The discrepancy in the ratio between officers and other ranks in the W.R.A.C. ought to be—and I emphasise this—accounted for by the fact that a very high proportion of junior officers are employed on staff appointments. I have been concerned lest the proportion had dropped. I stress the necessity of opening to the W.R.A.C. as many staff appointments as possible and offering a reasonable career on the staff side in this way. That means there will always be a considerable variation from the usual ratio between the numbers of officers and other ranks.
    858
    I want to emphasise a point which has already been stressed by many of my hon. Friends: that the hold-up in resolving the problem of pay is a major factor in our bad recruiting record. I hope that the emphasis which has been placed on this point will have got home to the Ministers the necessity of seeing that the position is rectified and that in future no such long period of dubiety should exist with its inevitable adverse consequences on recruiting.
    I turn now to overseas allowances, to which reference is made in Section B. I refer mainly to B.A.O.R. It is some months since I had the opportunity of visiting B.A.O.R. but there are several matters which should be mentioned which are too infrequently expressed in this House.
    A real problem which, to my mind, is the cause of inevitable added expenditure on transport for the families of servicemen in B.A.O.R. is that married quarters are situated between five and 60 miles from the area in which the husbands are working. I wonder whether proper consideration has been given to the position of a young wife with three small children situated in isolated married quarters in B.A.O.R. whose husband is away all day. She may have to travel anything between five and 60 miles to reach some form of community association. We have not yet been able to afford community centres for these young people. I appreciate and accept the expense involved in building community centres in these areas. Yet I think that here is a social problem of sufficient strength to warrant a great advance in the thinking towards this idea.
    Another point which has been emphasised in connection with allowances is that, first, through the results of devaluation and, second, because of the value-added tax which the Germans have imposed, shopping, which was to some extent done in the German shops has become concentrated on the N.A.A.F.I. I wonder how many N.A.A.F.I. shops the Ministers have seen. I am sure that they have seen the bigger and better ones. I do not know whether they have seen the less adequate ones. I am glad to see both Ministers nod their heads. Perhaps they will have some passing male sympathy for these young married women

    859
    who have to take their children shopping in hopelessly overcrowded conditions. We should recognise the increasing necessity to shop within the N.A.A.F.I. and give serious consideration to the extension of premises, where possible. I think it is possible to do better than we are now doing in certain areas.
    My third point—and I am deliberately concentrating on the young woman who is stationed in the B.A.O.R. in circumstances which are strange to her—relates to the shortage of general practitioner doctors. In this connection I refer to Vote 1A where, as far as I can see, there is no distinction which illustrates the number of R.A.M.C. doctors, what the present recruiting rate is, what the payment vis-à-vis the doctor in civilian life is, and what the prospects are of promotion not only within the R.A.M.C. but also as and when a doctor returns to civilian life.
    The R.A.M.C. plays a vital part in the lives of married families, because the young woman with her children in Germany is isolated from the sources of comfort, advice and help to which she is accustomed for as long as she is in this country. I think the R.A.M.C. has a special rôle to play, and it is a grave matter that we are as short of general practitioners as we are in Germany.
    That leads me to my next point, which relates to the public health service. It is quite clear that where there are a large number of young women with young families there must be some form of public health service. It is equally clear that the Army as such has not developed a service of this kind. I am aware that there are serving in the B.A.O.R. welfare officers who are called S.S.A.F.A. Sisters, but I have represented to the Minister's predecessor my grave doubts about the adequacy of this method of officering the public health service.
    I repeat what I have put in writing to the Minister's Department. I think that consideration should be given again to the question of a public health service being developed in Q.A.R.A.N.C. It seems to me that there is here a small section of people who are doing very good welfare work, but who are not under any form of Army discipline, and
    860
    who have no status beyond that which their usual fine personalities and character demand.
    When questions of Amry discipline arise through problems which are dealt with in the public health service field, I am not entirely happy about someone without military discipline, and without status, having to present, to a high level of Army authority, a case which vitally affects a serving soldier. The more I think about this problem the more reasonable it seems to me that the Q.A.R.A.N.C. should give consideration to adopting this branch of the service as part of its own.
    The final matter which I wish to raise is that of education. In Appendix 1 there is a reference to the education allowance. I hope that the Ministers will represent to their colleagues that many of our serving soldiers abroad are dependent on boarding schools in this country for the adequate education of their children. This is of the utmost importance because, as is stated clearly in the Appendix, the allowance is paid
    "for the purpose of assisting officers and soldiers who are liable to frequent changes of station, to ensure continuity in education of their children up to the age of 18 years."
    I hope that the Minister will represent to his colleagues the rôle of vital importance played by a wide range of boarding schools in this country in making possible an adequate education for these children. It seems to me strange to read in the Defence Estimates an item sponsoring private education of that kind, which is what it amounts to, while the same Government are doing their utmost to destroy this facility. The Ministers must represent this in the strongest possible terms to their colleagues and explain the usefulness of the service which is being provided.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. Wall: I want to ask the Under-Secretary about three special units, each with its special traditions, which are referred to on page 83 of Vote 1. The first is the Royal Malta Artillery, which has a fine record. The majority of the unit serves in B.A.O.R., and I would like to know what its future will be. I understand that it will be withdrawn to Malta. Do the Maltese Government intend—I know that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for this—to maintain an

    861
    active battalion in Malta? The unit in B.A.O.R. is a very special one and is the only Commonwealth body of troops which forms part of the British Army, so it has a special status. Will we give any assistance, by way of finance or training, to maintain this excellent unit.
    The second is the Gibraltar Regiment. It is very important, in a country like Gibraltar which can never be independent because of its size, but which maintains a special relationship with this country, that there should not be two standards for troops on the Rock. The standards of British troops on the Rock are very good. They have magnificent new barracks, which I have seen. The messes, accommodation and recreational facilities are very good. I know that it is not a Regular regiment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can about its standards—for example, the officers' mess—and will see that the small number of Regulars among the officers and so on receive the same pay and allowances and the same facilities and standards as British troops garrisoned on the Rock.
    The third is the Trucial Oman Scouts. This has perhaps the most active rôle of the three, and it has an important task to perform. What is the intention about its future? Is it to provide the basis of the Army of the Federation of the various independent sheikhdoms in the Gulf? If so, when will we relinquish direct responsibility and what connection will we have with the presumably British officers in the Scouts once the Federation is formed? Will they be on contract or on loan to the Federal Government? What connection will we retain with this excellent unit?
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. Ramsden: As we have the debate more or less to ourselves on this side, I thought I might take advantage of the fact to give the hon. Gentleman one or two more questions. I will take them at a reasonable speed. Some have already been touched on, and I am sure that we shall get answers from the hon. Gentleman just as good as those which we had from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who was very well informed and well served. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be equally well served.
    862
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) ingeniously managed to give the Under-Secretary the chance to say anything that he might want to say about the Anguillan operation. I will not follow him on allowances, which was his method of bringing his speech into order, but I greatly admire the way in which the Ministry of Defence has made the most of the possibilities of getting good recruiting publicity from this week's events. I was not surprised, in view of what the Under-Secretary said on the Estimates about the stimulus which a small operation might give recruiting, but the Ministry has done very well out of it. I only hope that it has not got into too much trouble with the Foreign Office. I hope the results will be all that it can expect.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) spoke of the Gurkha run-down. There are bound to be problems in connection with the steep run-down of the Brigade of Gurkhas after so many years. For example, there must be problems concerned with welfare and redundancy. Bearing in mind the feelings which hon. Members who are interested in this subject have toward these troops, I trust that the Under-Secretary will comment on the subject.
    I had intended to question the hon. Gentleman about the Royal Malta Artillery and the Trucial Scouts but my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) forestalled me. What is the position affecting the Royal Malta Artillery? At one time it sent two companies into the Royal Corps of Transport to do what were then R.A.S.C. duties in B.A.O.R. while the remainder was performing its traditional rôle on the island of Malta. In view of the present recruiting difficulties, has the hon. Gentleman considered retaining these troops in that B.A.O.R. rôle?
    Perhaps there is no longer a shortage of manpower in the Royal Corps of Transport and no need to consider inviting the Royal Malta Artillery to continue as a substitute. It should be remembered that it discharged that rôle effectively and that the continued employment of troops of this kind is of benefit to the economy of Malta. This should not be overlooked, particularly at a time

    863
    when it seems that we shall be encountering recruiting difficulties for some years to come. I will not question the hon. Gentleman about the Trucial Scouts because my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice covered the subject admirably.
    In the debate on Vote A we were told about the forthcoming reorganisation of some of the junior soldiers', or boys', units. The Under-Secretary will need no reminding of the importance of these excellent units to recruiting. At a time when the intake of adult recruits from civilian life is not more than about 9,000 a year and when the number of boys being recruited, having matured in young soldiers' units, is about 4,000 a year—I am not certain of the figures, but the percentage is of this order—this matter must be of great significance to the future of Army recruiting.
    I was somewhat apprehensive when the Minister spoke about the future reorganisation of these units, and I wondered what effect this might have on recruiting. I hope that the reorganisation will merely be a regrouping or rearrangement of accommodation and that there is no intention, expensive though the training of boys is, to reduce the intake and thereby reduce the proportion of recruits who mature from boys' service and who enter the Army that way. Through this form of recruiting they come into the Army at a time when the competition for their services from industry is perhaps not as fierce as it is later. Difficulties would arise if this source of recruiting were allowed to dry up.
    A matter has been worrying me and I question the Under-Secretary about it because of its possible effect on Government policy. It is difficult to get reassurance about this, but perhaps the Under-Secretary can give us reassurance. No one who contemplates the rate at which infantry battalions are being run down can fail to be a little worried, especially if one had connection with the Army in the early sixties when there was much trouble in various parts of the world and units capable of performing an infantry rôle were always short. One cannot forget the experience and the fact that infantry is an arm which is always short. It is true that we are to get a number of infantry battalions, but will there be
    864
    enough of them? I hope the Under-Secretary can reassure us because one cannot make a judgment about this without knowing about contingency plans, the arms plot and things which he cannot talk about in public. Without that information we cannot judge what margin of safety the Government are allowing and whether they are running it too fine.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might be able to answer in this way: Taking into account that he needs so many battalions for various commitments in B.A.O.R., Cyprus and other garrisons, and that he needs some battalions for public duties, one for the School of Infantry demonstration plan and so forth, is the Army leaving itself with infantry battalions extra to commitments so as to be sure in case calculations go awry and unforeseen emergencies occur? There have been such battalions kept spare, so to speak, in the past—mainly of infantry and sometimes of gunners. Sometimes they have had to be used, and the Government have been thankful that they were available. It would be reassuring if the Under-Secretary could say that the unforeseeable and unforeseen will be taken into account in planning the numbers of infantry battalions likely to be needed in future.
    9.18 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): One of the abilities required to answer this debate is an enormous speed of writing. It may be that I have not written fast enough to keep up with hon. Members questions, but I shall do my best
    In answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), the troops in Anguilla will get their share of Vote 1D—£10,765 million—and the Jamaica, West Indies, rate of local overseas allowance. If there is some problem, we shall certainly consider it. The point which seemed to emerge from the hon. Member's badinage about allowances appeared to rest on our reconsidering them. This is one of the things which is being considered by the Prices and Incomes Board. I am sure that after that consideration we shall have a more rational approach to the problem. Many of the allowances listed in the Vote are hardly ever brought into use. I do not know whether the

    865
    hard-lying allowance was paid. Certainly the allowances to which men are entitled will be paid and if there are difficulties we shall look at them.
    I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman was implying, that the British Army is excellent at hearts and minds campaigns and that it will in Anguilla do this with its usual excellence. I am sure that those concerned will be anxious to do what we are always being asked to do, to render aid to the civil community.] am sure that at least one of the things which will come from this event will be good relations between the people of Anguilla and the British Army.
    The very effect of considering a military salary and of having the discussions that we are now having will be for the benefit of the Army, because there will be new people looking at these problems, I am sure sympathetically. The teams that have gone round from the National Board for Prices and Incomes discussing the problems with soldiers and with the Ministry of Defence and everybody else have created a very good impression with the soldiers. In other words, the questions they have asked and the attitude they have shown the soldiers have been thought to be sympathetic and helpful. The whole problem is a tri-service one. We are hopeful that in a few weeks time when the National Board reports we shall not have quite the nagging that is going on from the other side of the House at present.
    I was asked by the hon. Gentleman about the scheme for locally employed personnel in Malta, Singapore and Malaysia, and about compensation for redundancy. This is similar to industrial compensation. The terms have been worked out and announced. As far as I know, they are satisfactory to the soldiers concerned, because these are soldiers. I have heard of no discontent about this.
    I was asked, too, by the hon. Gentleman about the home defence rôle and the need for training for men in the depots, the Sappers and the Household Division. The Army is extremely good at the types of military operation envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. Everybody mentions our soldiers. They are very well trained indeed for any kind of military operation which is likely to arise. This is the advantage of having a professional Army.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) when he was digging
    866
    out the pieces about allowances was only making a case for rationalisation. A shorter amount of writing in this book, with perhaps greater compensation for those concerned, will emerge. I am grateful to the two hon. Gentlemen for, despite their badinage, implying this.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Gurkhas. I have seen Gurkhas recently in Malaysia and Hong Kong. I was very impressed by their morale and by the excellent attitude of their British officers. We have had examples in the House of Members who have served with the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have heard about it theoretically here in the Chamber. Recently I had the opportunity of seeing it for myself in operation. It is excellent. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there was anything going wrong we should quickly hear in strong and determined terms.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has three times been to Nepal. I rather envy him. I wish I could join the queue. He has taken a great personal interest in this. When there have been problems—for example, the problem of porterage to East and West Nepal from the places where they are finishing their training—these problems have been considered and the right solution—which is not always a money one, but often is—has been brought into operation. I assure the House that the Gurkhas are satisfied with the conditions which are being provided for them and the transport arrangements have been looked at and improved. The training has been much improved, Things are running smoothly.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Under-Secretary say a few words about the future of British officers serving with the Gurkhas and of those who would like to go into the Gurkhas next year or the year after?
    Mr. Boyden: I should like to take a little more time to consider that, but I think that they will be treated like any other officer and be able to move around where they wish. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) asked me a number of questions about

    867
    the W.R.A.C. I agree that W.R.A.C. staff officers are most acceptable, and that we need as many as we can get. I am sure that the Army shares that opinion. I have met a number of them, and they are always charming and efficient, things that are not always easy to combine.
    The reason for the discrepancy between the figures quoted from Vote A and the Appendix is that the Vote permits maximum numbers for the Army and the W.R.A.C., while the Appendix forecasts the likely average numbers for the year. The very fact of the W.R.A.C. officers being in staff appointments means that they do not affect the ratio with other ranks.
    I am very sympathetic to one of the points the hon. Lady raised about the position of young married women in married quarters in B.A.O.R. The local units do their best to see that the quarters are as good as they can be, but part of the problem is being in a strange country where there is no English television, for example. This has been discussed many times and the expense has ruled out its provision. Another aspect is that they do not know German. I would make a plea that as many as possible make an effort to learn some sort of German. The Army is excellent at providing courses from which it can be learnt quickly, and knowledge of the language would very much enhance their life in Germany.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: If they want to go to class to learn German, they have nowhere to put their children, because of the lack of a community centre. Much more complicated organisation is required to achieve this quite simple thing than at first appears. Some other wife must take the children for the day and so on, and in practice this does not happen. It would be a great help if the provision of such centres could be urged.
    Mr. Boyden: I was coming on to this. This was very much borne in on me on my first visit to Germany. The youth organisation is now being set up, and it will help to stimulate the forming of community associations. The provision of accommodation is not normally particularly difficult in the blocks of flats where there are good quarters. A room
    868
    is usually set aside for community activities; the authorities are pretty good at finding places where people can meet. I agree with the hon. Lady, and we are making progress here.
    I want to put in a plug for trying to get the soldiers and their wives to speak German more, because this is one of the keys, though by no means the only key, to good relations. Many of the commanders are excellent at encouraging good relations between the Germans and their soldiers, and are trying to encourage their men and their wives to learn German and to feel more at home. This is more than a matter of the provision of better facilities, although I agree that we must do all we can in that way.
    The subject of the N.A.A.F.I. does not arise on Vote 1, but perhaps the Chair will allow me a minute to digress I am shown good and bad N.A.A.F.I.s. There has been a tremendous improvement in the past 18 months to two years, which meets many of the requests made by the hon. Lady.
    The hon. Lady also asked me about the comparison between the pay and conditions of doctors in the R.A.M.C. and O.A.R.A.N.C. and those in civilian life. The Defence Department has submitted proposals to the Prices and Incomes Board about this, and so have the B.M.A. We are hopeful that relations between the B.M.A. and the Department will be much improved in the near future. Again I return to what has been said several times in our defence debates: we are waiting for the report. If I did not say anything about it in the debate the other day, it was because it has been said by so many of my colleagues that I thought it was a bit otiose. But I repeat that this is another of the factors which are being considered to get a comparability, so that we can have the full support of the B.M.A. for our doctors' jobs and go ahead.
    The hon. Lady made an interesting point about the S.S.A.FA. Sisters and this kind of welfare work. I would be glad to discuss it with her. I do not immediately react favourably to it. I have seen many of the S.S.A.F.A. Sisters in operation and have been impressed by what they do. I have heard no criticism from women, or the families or officers concerned with their activities—indeed.

    869
    nothing but praise. Perhaps this is too starry an idea, but the hon. Lady is coming to see me on another matter in the near future and perhaps we can extend our discussion to the S.S.A.F.A. Sisters. I will be glad to see what can be done. I hope I do not sound complacent, but I have been impressed by what is done. It is first-class and people who experience the work approve it very much.
    The hon. Lady twitted us about boarding education. I shall not go into the pros and cons of the great argument about public schools—I do not think she wants me to. But I assure her that, wherever an officer or other rank wants to send a child to boarding school in England, this is encouraged. We have been encouraging soldiers to leave their children in boarding schools because very often this is the best solution. It is a difficult decision for parents, especially for mothers with girls who, perhaps, particularly want to go with them, although very often it is probably more in the interest of the girls to go to boarding schools. We do all we can to encourage parents to make the best choice in the interests of the children.
    Perhaps I may be allowed to expand a little on something which no one else has mentioned in the debate. We have been trying to make special efforts to improve the education of mentally handicapped children of officers and other ranks. This is a specially difficult problem. Places are in short supply in local authority schools. Just as we have difficulties with housing, so sometimes we have difficulties with local education authorities in finding places for Service children who are mentally or physically handicapped.
    Mr. Ramsden: Is this because of the general shortage of such places?
    Mr. Boyden: Yes. It is because of the general shortage. An added difficulty for Service parents is, of course, that they are not quite sure whether it is better to leave a handicapped child behind or whether it is better to have it with them. The position exaggerates the ever present problem of looking after handicapped children properly. I have seen distressing cases where the mothers have come home with their handicapped children, leaving the fathers behind at the Service station,
    870
    in order to give the maximum attention to the children. We have been doing our best to get over this and improve the situation.
    The estimate shows a diminution in the amount of money for this problem, and this is why I particularly wanted to mention it. It represents no diminution in effort. The explanation is that the estimate last year was a bit too high for reality. It has been reduced but that in no way represents a decline in our attempts to meet the needs.
    The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked three questions. The first concerned the Royal Malta Artillery. There is an R.T.C. Squadron in B.A.O.R. The Maltese Regiment will go to Malta in February 1970 and the Maltese, I think, are going to continue at least part of them. They will pass from our control in October, 1970.
    The hon. Gentleman then referred to the Gibraltar Regiment. I am grateful for his remarks. I hope to visit Gibraltar fairly soon—I have not been there—and will bear in mind what he said and see what needs to be done on the lines of his suggestion.
    Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Trucial Oman Scouts. As the House probably knows, General Willoughby has been there fairly recently and is looking for their advice on the future organisation of the Scouts and the whole situation in the area. It is the British hope that the Trucial Oman Scouts will form the basis of a Federal Army. There is a difficulty about the local force as opposed to the federal force, but the Trucial Oman Scouts have had an increase in pay and General Willoughby is trying to sort out the problem to the best advantage of the seven emirates as a whole.
    I was asked a question about apprentices and boy soldiers by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). I am grateful to him for the tone of his remarks on the training given to the boys themselves, quite apart from their value to the Army. Very many more parents would wish their sons to go to apprentice colleges or junior leader training regiments if they knew the effect it had on the boys—the good education and training and the good career it gives them afterwards. I have seldom been

    871
    moved so much as by some of the occasions I have experienced in seeing some of the boys' units and the effect it has on young men. I find it difficult to find the right words, but it has an effect in turning them into good citizens with initiative and an approach to life they would not have had if they had missed the Army. I am sure everybody here would support me in this.
    As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Miller Report on boys' training is a little out of date. We have been considering it and the review of the recommendations that have been carried out in the Miller Report coincides very neatly with the need to concentrate boys' training to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Perhaps some improvements could be made here.
    An example of the concentration namely, the closing of Carlisle and the concentration at Arborfield—which is a pity from the point of view of the North but good from the point of view of the Army—is the sort of situation which arises and which we are examining. We will report these changes to the House; we are not yet quite ready with our plans. It involves an improving of the facilities, bringing them more up to date—although they are very good already—and also economising. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman it will have no adverse effect at all on the training of the boys. We very much hope to get more than we are at the moment, although we are doing fairly well. I can give an absolute assurance on that.
    As far as the final request is concerned, which he put to me very reasonably, about the spare capacity and capability with the infantry battalions, I can give him the assurance that certainly unforeseen emergencies are taken into consideration in the arms plot and the present strength of the infantry battalions. I cannot spell this out in detail, as he obviously appreciated.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £187,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970

    Vote 2. Reserve and Cadet Forces
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £9,930,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the Regular Army Reserves (including other ranks to a number not exceeding 50,000), Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (to a number not exceeding 80,000, all ranks) (including within these Reserves the Special Army Volunteer Reserve to a number not exceeding 2,400, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970.
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. Goodhart: We have only a little more than 20 minutes for this debate on the Reserve and Cadet Forces but one does not need long to consider this Vote and to ask whether we have our priorities right.
    Last year the Army spent a net figure of rather less than one five-hundredth of our defence budget on the Army Reserve Forces. This year, when appropriations in aid are, fortunately not so great, we are still spending less than one two-hundredth of our overall defence budget on the Army Reserves.
    In reply to the last debate, the Under-Secretary dwelt for some time on the education provided by the Army. We spent twice as much on army schoolchildren, for Service children overseas, as we did last year on the Army Reserves. We are all grateful that the run-down of the drill halls is starting. Where is it still going on, and is there a chance—I certainly hope that there is—that the amount that the Army expects to get this year, £1,600,000 from the continuing disposal of Territorial property, will not come up to expectations?
    The Under-Secretary was almost lyrical in his reference to the boys' units that he has visited. If the flow into the boys' units is to continue, it is essential that the cadet forces in the schools should continue to operate effectively. I am glad that the grants for the Army Cadet Force and the Combined Cadet Force show no reduction, indeed a slight increase, for the coming year.
    I see that the provision and maintenance of accommodation for the cadet force has been cut almost in half. When one turns to Appendix 8 for an explanation, all that I can say is that it is the

    873
    least informative Appendix in a list of not very informative appendices. Why is it that the provision and maintenance of accommodation for the cadet forces shows this drastic drop? I hope that this is a book-keeping exercise and does not represent a real slash in our effort devoted to the cadet forces. If we cut down on this and are put in jeopardy again, a valuable aid for Regular recruiting is lost. As one looks at the Vote as a whole all one can really say is that its size and the amount of energy now devoted to the Reserves surely underlines the fact that when one is faced with an absolute famine of reserves for the Army, it is total folly to try to economise on our reserve forces.
    9.43 p.m.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: I should like to re-emphasise my belief of the need for adequate reserves. It depresses me inordinately to recognise that this is not a belief shared by the Government. One of the saddest things in the Defence Estimates is the rundown of T.A. accommodation. I have always believed that once accommodation is sold it is very difficult to begin again, and resuscitate at short notice, as I am sure we shall have to do in the foreseeable future, a reserve force of great strength and considerable magnitude.
    As far as I can see from the Vote, the Regular Reserve has no liability for training. We have extended the period of Reserve commitment recently, and it would seem that those who ceased to serve in 1963 and are now on the Reserve must be, to say the least, considerably out-of-date in their knowledge of the modern and very fine equipment which the Army now has. This is one reason why the Regular Reserve is not what it may appear to be on paper. With no trained reserves, this leads to the added consideration of referring to as Government spokesmen have done recently, the Sixth Infantry Brigade as a reserve, This seems curious when it could only be deployed in something like ten days and apparently have nowwhere to live. Therefore, the circumstances in which it could be used as a reserve are very limited.
    Finally, given a highly trained and efficient professional Army in Europe today, if it has not adequate reserves then it must have adequate air cover, and it may be that here is the most serious
    874
    feature of the whole consideration of the European scene in relation to the Army.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I wish to make three brief points. First, I want to reiterate what my hon. Friends have said about the drill halls. There has been anxiety in the part of the world from which I come, Derbyshire and the East Midlands, because people are not clear what the future holds for them while existing drills halls continue to be disposed of. I would support the plea made to the Under-Secretary of State that we do not dispose of any more drill halls. They are of tremendous value, and I am sure that they will be of even greater value in the future.
    My second point relates to the voluntary cadet force. One detects a growing lack of enthusiasm in our schools for the force. I find it difficult to make this point without being too damning, because I should like to try to encourage as many boys in schools to join the voluntary cadet force, especially the Army side of it. It seems however, that there is a growing disenchantment in schools with the cadet forces as they exist at present. It is probably due to a lack of imagination in the way that they are run at that level, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can through local Territorial officers and Regular officers in the area to encourage enthusiasm and the spirit of adventure in these cadet forces. They are a reservoir of future recruits to the Army in years to come.
    My last main point concerns the Reserves. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) are extremely valid. The Regular Army Reserve does very little training. There are few complete units. I agree that there are medical, ambulance and specialist units, but there are no "teeth" units in embryo in the Reserve Army. The Reserves are filling gaps in the existing Regular Army. This is greatly to be deprecated, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this matter again.
    In Vote 2, Subhead B, there is an item in respect of travel and travelling allowances. Presumably this sum allows for the TAVRs to get to their places of training. Does it also include the transporting of units and men in the summer

    875
    to the units to which they are affiliated in Germany?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I wish to raise only one question. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether the Army has any contingency plans for the protection of vulnerable points in Great Britain in any emergency? If so, how are they manned, with no provision for TAVR III?
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. Boyden: One difficulty with the TAVR Votes is that they are scattered over several heads. The actual figure of expenditure is over £20 million, so that the percentage worked out by the hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. For example, pay and travel, £6·75 million, is in Vote 2 B; civilians with units, caretakers and so on, Vote 4, £4 million; fuel, petrol and so on, Vote 6, £0·4 million; equipment, clothing, Vote 7, £3·7 million; and rations are on the Navy Vote. P.S.I.s and Regular Army personnel are not included in the figures, and they come to about £2·75 million, and they will be in the Army anyhow. The figure is rather higher than it appears; it comes out at £20 million of £600 million, which may not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but is rather better than his figure.
    The reason why the cadet figure is lower is that while the T.A. centres were being sold provision had to be made for cadet huts. This expenditure has now declined. Last year's figures were swollen by this special provision, which is no longer required. I agree that we need to encourage cadets and we should do all we can to this end. As was said yesterday, the R.A.F. has recently had a great deal of success in reviewing its cadet organisation. Without committing myself, it is quite possible that we shall have something to learn from that, and we may decide that it would be desirable to have a review to see whether improvements can be made.
    Mr. Ramsden: When I heard yesterday about the changes proposed by the R.A.F. in its air squadrons at the universities, I wondered whether this would have implications for the O.T.C.s. It would be a relief if the hon. Gentleman would assure us that they are not affected.
    Mr. Boyden: I did not have in mind the O.T.C.s; I had in mind cadets. We have been considering this for some time and we thought recently that it would be appropriate to look at the cadets. We considered the O.T.C.s 18 months ago and some changes were made, but at the moment there is no proposal to look further at them. It may well be desirable to look further at the cadets.
    The hon. Lady asked about the Reserves, and I want to draw attention to the position of the A.G.R. with its 15,000 Reservists who are likely to be called up in grave emergency. These are nearly all specialists who do a civilian job which interlocks with their military job, such as medical people, those concerned with pay and other specialists with good military training. So they are not so much out of touch with military activity as she was suggesting.
    There are T.A. formed units, and I referred to these in the recent Army Estimates debate. I then suggested that hon. Members would be welcome at the training activities and camps of these units, where they would get the feel of the unit working as a unit, with unit spirit and fitting in with the Regular soldiers.
    I was asked about the disposal of T.A. centres. The main disposal is almost finished. They have not all been sold, but they are in the process of being sold. The number now available, including the 150 for TAVR III, is 405, and they are better distributed to fit in with the new proposals to increase the Reserves than they were in the past. Perhaps the best way of dealing with this would be for me to write to the hon. Gentleman giving the dispositions of the centres.
    Mr. Goodhart: Before the Under-Secretary sits down, may I ask him another question? I appreciate that he may not be able to answer this off the cuff. What proportion of those now serving in the TAVR II and in the defunct TAVR III have not had some previous Service experience with the Regular Forces?
    Mr. Boyden: I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman off the cuff. To the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) I should say "Yes".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £9,930,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the Regular Army Reserves (including other ranks to a number not exceeding 50,000), Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (to a number not exceeding 80,000, all ranks) (including within these Reserves the Special Army Volunteer Reserve to a number not exceeding 2,400, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

    Vote 8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £8,420,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. Ramsden: Unfortunately, there are only four minutes left. That means that we shall not have time to get beyond this Vote, and we shall not have time to say much that is useful about it.
    It covers a very wide area, and I should have liked to pick up many interesting points. The best thing I can do is to bowl the Under-Secretary one or two hard volleys which will give him an opportunity to get an answer in so that we can conclude the day kindly.
    During the previous Estimates debate, the National Army Museum was mentioned and applause was expressed from both sides that building has now started. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the running costs would be met from public funds. I may have been stupid, but I did not hoist in a satisfactory answer when I asked whether the capital contributions privately raised towards the building fund were to be matched by any grant from the Government. If the answer is "no", which is not unexpected but possibly a matter for regret, then if the privately raised funds fall a bit
    878
    short I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise that this would present an opportunity for making a strong case for whatever was deficient being made up from public funds to complete the building of the project.
    Mr. Boyden: The sum in the Estimates is £4,000 for the Museum at Sandhurst, £1,500 for the purchase of exhibits, and £2,500 for maintenance. When the new Museum is operating the same kind of grants will be made by the Government. The running cost of the museum, which is considerable, will be looked after by the Government. Of the £800,000 which has been raised, about £181,000 has come from the Army, some through the Army Board. There have been two reasonably large grants from non-public funds; but there is no intention that for this or the R.A.F. museum there will at this stage be a grant from public funds for the capital.
    Mr. Dalyell: I hoped at one stage to make a speech on research, design and development covered in Section J. I will confine myself to saying that when the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has gone into these matters in great depth, publishes its report, I hope it will be urgently studied by the Department.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £8,420,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

    VOTE 9. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £59,170,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

EGGS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES)
10.0 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 187), dated 17th February, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.
This Order is solely concerned with the protection of the eggs guarantee. The guarantee arrangements themselves are unchanged by it. It carries out the Government's intention to remove the obligation to stamp eggs eligible for subsidy which was announced by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question in the House on 19th December.
In recent years an increasing proportion of eggs has been sold unstamped. The stamping requirements have been criticised by most sections of the industry on the ground that consumer preference for the unstamped egg as such has operated as an artificial handicap to the sale of eggs through the packing station where they have had to be stamped.
The Reorganisation Commission for Eggs noted the existence of a consumer prejudice against stamped eggs and considered that the obligation to stamp had had the effect of creating two separate markets for eggs—stamped and unstamped. The Commission believed that this would inevitably continue to be the case so long as the stamp was retained and it felt that it would be quite inconsistent with the achievement of a smooth transition to a free market—which it regarded as of fundamental importance.
The Commission thought that the strain which this situation placed on the viability of the system of marketing through packing stations was undesirable. It therefore recommended the removal of the obligation to stamp and this conclusion was endorsed by the industry generally. It was against this background that the Government decided last December to remove the obligation to stamp.
The 1969 Order makes only one major change in the provisions for the protection of the egg guarantee which was
880
contained in the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1958 as amended. The change is in Article 3 which removes the obligation on the packing stations to stamp first quality eggs on the shell with the weight grade—if they are hen eggs—or the word "duck" and the packing station code number and instead requires the bulk container into which the eggs attracting subsidy are packed at the packing station to be marked. This is necessary so that checks can continue to be made on the testing and grading of eggs at the packing station.
A consequential change which is made by the Order is contained in Article 4, which, subject to a modification in the wording made necessary by the removal of the stamp, effectively continues a prohibition which has been in operation since 1961 on the sale or use for hatching of eggs which have attracted subsidy. This prohibition continues to be necessary because a proportion of hatching eggs are used to produce table birds, eggs for this purpose cannot be distinguished from eggs for eating, and the intention is to pay subsidy on eggs for human consumption and not on poultry.
A further consequential change is the addition of a definition of "container" in Article 2.
The remaining Articles of the Order, as in previous Orders, deal with such matters as the keeping and production of records, the right to demand the production of books, accounts and records, and the service of notices. These Articles are primarily concerned with audit requirements.
The provisions of the 1969 Order were first contained in the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1968, which this Order revokes. The reason for making the 1969 Order is a technical matter. It was made to meet a criticism by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments of this House.
The Select Committee pointed out that Article 7 of the 1968 Order required persons engaged in certain types of egg business to produce on demand, books, accounts and records relating to the purchase and sale of eggs. The Article as drafted, however, did not specifically say that these records should be in the possession or control of the person to whom the demand was addressed.

881
Article 7 of the 1969 Order makes it absolutely clear that the records to be produced by such persons are those in their possession and control.
In relation to the protection of the guarantee it was part of the original justification for the stamping requirements that they operated as an automatic safeguard against the fraudulent representation of eggs which had already attracted subsidy. This particular argument has, however, lost much of its force since for some years the prices the Board has paid to the producer have normally been below the Board's wholesale selling prices so there is effectively little or no financial incentive to offer eggs to packing stations a second time. The effectiveness of the arrangements for quality and audit control at the packing stations will not be impaired by the removal of the stamp on the egg itself.
10.6 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: We welcome this proposal and believe that it will benefit the egg industry. But our criticism, of course, is of the delay in doing this, which has been serious. Weeks passed before the Minister made up his mind; the industry has, consequently, been kept waiting much too long, and there is nothing more damaging than delay like this. The Minister may have had his own problems, but the delay is to be regretted. It is true that this is only a partial measure. This Order, coupled with a subsequent measure, will require a much longer debate at another time and certain aspects, like the decline in the subsidy payments to remote areas and the social problems, must be probed very fully. We have certain reservations on this, and our concern that they were not taken together—
Mr. Speaker: Order. But they are not taken together; we are talking about this Order.
Mr. Mills: To me, this is only the first stage in the reorganisation of the egg industry. Much more needs to be done, and it is vitally important to decide on a course and get it into action quickly. The removal of the stamped egg will have a profound effect on egg marketing. There will be no tears for the loss of the "little lion". It will be for the better. Very few people liked the little lion, and stamped eggs certainly have lot sold so well. The house-
882
wife seems to have rebelled against them.
The most notable effect in the past of this dislike of the stamped eggs is that about 35 per cent. of direct sale eggs reach the shops, where they are in direct competition with the packing station eggs, and direct sale of eggs has gone on increasing. There were 12 million eggs sold in this way in 1964–65, 13·5 million 1966–67 and 15 million in 1967–68. This shows the trend and the dislike of stamped eggs. The Egg Reorganisation Committee made this very clear, and the N.F.U. has also expressed its dislike.
With the removal of the stamp from the eggs themselves and this Order, which insists on the stamp being on the box or the crate, several things will happen. First, it will mean that quality must come to the forefront as brand marketing is bound to be encouraged and will increase rapidly. Eggs will sell in branded cartons which will mean quality and reliability.
Also, the retail buyer will insist on this, I believe, because the housewife will only come back again if she trusts the branded carton of eggs rather than the stamped egg. This is vital, and the egg industry must turn its attention more and more to quality. The Order makes a start in that direction, and that is a good thing.
The third effect will be that packers will be more choosy in selecting their producers. They will be looking for producers who will guarantee both regularity and quality of supplies. Indeed, egg producers who have, so to speak, chopped about in the past and have used the packing stations as a dumping ground for their surplus eggs are less likely to get away with that in future.
Although on the surface this seems a simple Order, it is designed to make important changes and its effect on the whole industry will be great. For some years the quality stamp—that is, the little lion—has been a bit of a farce and has tended to frighten away the housewife. The little lion did not reassure her, as it was supposed to do. This farce will now be at an end, and perhaps this freedom will mean that the "farm egg" will no longer be so desirable compared with the "shop egg", which was stamped. In future both farm egg and branded

883
carton egg will be competing against each other, and quality and freshness will be the key words.
I notice that the Order is brought in by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is important as well as significant, for under the Order and the reorganisation in the egg industry Scotland and Northern Ireland producers will be in difficulty and the situation will need watching. One just cannot leave them without a period of readjustment.
On the subject of the marking of containers, the Order says that it must be an approved mark. It is difficult to see how this can be done except by means of a label; otherwise empties will have to be stacked or graded into different types because the marks will still be on them—that is, large, standard and small. It will be a different matter if they are in cardboard because they can then be easily destroyed. Labels are probably the best way of ensuring that eggs are properly graded. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter, since it could lead to confusion and perhaps even to the consumer being deliberately misled.
There is also a restriction on the sale of eggs for hatching. How will this be implemented and what safeguards are there? It seems likely that some people will put their eggs through a packing station for subsidy and then use them for hatching purposes. This could be a danger.
The Order refers to subsidies. Packing stations only will get the subsidy. This presents a problem for the producer-retailer. I draw the Minister's attention to the concern that is felt by the National Egg Producer-Retailer Association. In a letter to me, the Association states:
"While we welcome the Minister's statement that the industry is to move to a free marketing system, we regret that the Minister has failed to mitigate the effect upon producer-retailers of removing the obligation to stamp eggs while retaining the subsidy for packing station eggs only. … Thus the Minister's action may damage producer-retailers' businesses, but it is accompanied neither by mitigating factors nor by the prospect of any compensation".
Can the Minister reassure the Asociation in this matter?
We look forward to the future, which will remain uncertain for producers until
884
we have seen and debated in detail the Minister's proposals. I repeat that we welcome this proposal, although we await the larger proposal. This action will get rid of the little lion, and I hope that the industry will get down to the task of taking quality most seriously. It must pay attention to the type of egg the housewife wants. It is high time that we began to worship at the shrine of the housewife more than concentrating on what the producer wants and what he wants to produce. We must in future produce what the housewife wants: the right type of egg at the right price. This is a challenge to the industry, and I hope that it will accept it.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department for the action they took over the Order which this Order supersedes. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, when examining the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1968, considered that the then Article 7 was an unexpected and unusual use of the Minister's powers and might have been an unnecessary encroachment on the liberty of the subject. As is normal when the Select Committee has a doubt about an Order of this sort, it asked for a memorandum from the Department in explanation of the way in which that Article was drafted. The House would like to know how rapidly the Department moved. The Select Committee considered the memorandum from the Department during one afternoon, and it happened to be the afternoon when the Order was on the Order Paper for debate that evening. When the Committee had considered the memorandum and was still dissatisfied and considered that the drafting of the Article was defective, it reported at once and informed the Leader of the House. Within half an hour the Order was taken off the Order Paper for that day.
I am grateful to the Department for treating the report from the Select Committee with the seriousness it deserved. As a result, that Order was withdrawn and the present Order is now before the House in a form which is satisfactory. Not only that, but similar kinds of Orders have come from that Department since with the correct drafting of similar provisions to those contained in Article 7

885
of the present Order. This had a very happy result. The Department and the Select Committee working together have produced an Order which is no longer a possible encroachment on the liberty of the subject.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I join in the welcome given to this Order and say how glad I am that the litle lion is at last going. It had a long service in the egg industry and served a useful purpose.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member please speak up? Then the Official Reporters can hear him better.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I did not want to shout.
I welcome this Order. The "egg" sign served its purpose during the years, but I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken the right action in bringing in this Order. The only qualifying point I make, and I made it about the original Orders, is that in Article 4 we still have the word "dirty" in relation to hen eggs and duck eggs. What a pity it is that we still have to use the term "dirty" and what a pity that the eggs come from the farms in that state. I know that this is inevitable at present but I hope that in due time this word will drop out of the vocabulary.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Hoy: I wish to reply to the points that have been raised. Another Order will come before the House very soon. Perhaps we can discuss the point which hon. Members have raised when we have that Order.
In answer to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), we were grateful to be able to co-operate with the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in putting this Order right. The hon. Member will realise that we inherited the Order from our predecessors. It had gone on for a number of years. If we were doing things which were not correct I am sorry that we followed the example of those who went before us, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). When the hon. Member for Crosby and the Select Committee drew our attention to this matter, we were happy to co-operate. I do not
886
think it is any secret that I was involved, and I decided that if there was this defect we should withdraw the Order and put the matter right by putting another Order before the House.
Having done so, I got a complaint from the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Mills) that we took too long to produce the Order. We must not be blamed for doing what was right. We cannot be congratulated for doing what was right and then be blamed for taking some time to do it. The hon. Gentleman knows that when the recommendations were made the Minister had to consult certain people about them and about the findings of the Commission. This took time. If the Government of the day do not take time to do these things, they are accused of having rushed something through without consulting all those concerned.
On the question of stamped eggs, I want to say a few words about the little lion. It has been a sturdy little creature which has lasted a long time. On its demise, let us remind ourselves of its original purpose. It was introduced to give some sort of guarantee. Its main purpose in life was to protect the guarantee itself. It was not a guarantee that the egg was a good one. The protection was to protect the guarantee.
Under the new system the boxes will have to be stamped so that the person who produced the eggs for the market can be traced. The customer will have a great say in the matter. The buyer has already expressed his preference for a particular type of egg. He will still have his protection. If anybody attempts to sell eggs which are not what they are claimed to be, there is the protection that the Act passed in 1968 gives to the consumer.
I am grateful to hon. Members opposite for coming and saying even these few words. We know that this is a short Measure and that another one will have to come. I am grateful for the co-operation of hon. Members opposite. I hope that I can now have the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 187), dated 17th February, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

HOUSING, SHEFFIELD (CONSTRUCTIONAL DEFECTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
10.23 p.m.
Mr. George Darling: I am grateful for being allowed the opportunity to have another bite at this cherry and that I can also direct my remarks to the right Department and to the right Minister. I want to draw attention to the housing conditions of hundreds of my constituents who live in two new housing estates and whose homes, because of constructional defects are unsatisfactory, below the standards of comfort which they are entitled to expect, and in many cases not fit to live in.
My purpose in raising this matter is not to ask for an inquiry to discover who is to blame for the faulty conditions of the flats, maisonettes and houses on these two estates—the Foxhill Estate and the Stannington Estate in Sheffield. It is to find out what needs to be done to make these homes properly habitable. I shall, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend's support for that purpose. I hope that he will be able to answer my request.
Most of my comments concern the Foxhill Estate, which consists of about 450 homes, most of them in blocks of two- or three- or four-storeyed flats and a number of maisonettes and houses. This estate, like many of the housing developments in Sheffield, is built on a steep hillside. The hills in Sheffield make the laying-out of attractive and well-designed estates very difficult but, because of the shortage of land within the city boundaries, the City Architect immediately after the war and the Public Works Department, which did most of the work, found ways and means of overcoming the difficulties, and they have since created several large and excellent housing schemes on hillsides.
However, the Foxhill Estate, which is properly named, because it is on a hill, was not laid out, and the buildings were not designed, by the City Architect. The building contract went to a private firm.
888
No one can complain about the way the estate is laid out. It fits into the hillside well, and its design is quite good. But the general opinion of the tenants is that whoever designed the flats had never experienced winter conditions on an exposed hillside, and had never felt the full force of the strong winds and driving rain that come over the hills and moors of the Pennines. The rain drives straight into the fiats and houses on the higher ground.
This is the main cause of the most frequent complaint, which is that rain pours through the window frames and for most of the year makes all the rooms, at least in the higher flats, persistently damp. But this intolerable dampness, which turns plaster into black mould, causes wallpaper to peel oft and cracks to appear in ceilings and walls, makes clothing, shoes, handbags and furnishings go mouldy, ruins carpets, and contaminates food, is not the only complaint about the structural defects, neither are ill-fitting window frames the only cause of this unbearable and ruinous dampness.
I have visited scores of these homes and seen for myself the deplorable state they have fallen into in a very short time. The first residents went into them only about seven years ago, and the estate was completed about two years ago. The Tenants Association has provided me with a list of complaints made by individual tenants to the Sheffield Corporation's housing manager. I have made a summary of about 250 requests by tenants for repairs to make their homes properly habitable. The housing manager and his department have tried to remedy some of the worst troubles, but it is clear that patching up will not put things right.
As I have said, most of the complaints are about dampness, and the major cause is faulty window frames, but it is not the only cause. Many tenants report water lying on the balconies outside their living rooms, and a heavy downpour brings it under their doors. This is clearly a fault in design, and it seems to be a fairly common fault that the drains and downpipes cannot cope with rain water after a heavy downpour.
A further allegation as to the cause of so many flats being almost perpetually

889
damp, given to me by skilled building workers among the tenants, is that the contractor used inferior materials, such as sub-standard bricks, unseasoned wood and so on. If that is true, and I am not saying that it is, it may explain why in some of the flats there seems to be dampness seeping right through to the interior walls and not just on the outside walls.
There are distressing features about dampness in homes. To have clothing, furnishings and carpets sodden and mouldy, with the continuing cost of replacing them, and to have food spoiled is bad enough. But even worse is the deleterious effect on the health of tenants who are susceptible to chest and bronchial complaints or rheumatism. Numerous cases have been brought to my attention of old people continuously ill and children developing chest complaints which their doctors attribute to the damp conditions in which they live. It does not need much imagination to understand what these people have had to endure during the past few months of severe weather. There is still about two feet of snow on this hillside.
I have not time to go through the whole list of structural defects which the tenants have reported to me. I must, however, try to show my right hon. Friend the scope of the inquiry that I, on behalf of the tenants, ask him to discuss with Sheffield Corporation. There are scores of complaints about faulty and ill-fitting doors; about stair banisters coming loose; about warped woodwork; about wash basins coming away from walls; broken gutters and leaking roofs; loose gas pipes; no ventilation under floors. These all point to skimped construction work or faulty materials, or both.
These and other faults, apart from the dampness, which is bad enough, seem to indicate bad design or failure to follow the architect's plans. A large number of the flats have or did have an open fire in the living room with a back boiler to supply hot water to radiators throughout the flat for central heating. Many of these fire places are completely useless. The chimneys are too narrow. They have too many sharp bends in them or, as some tenants believe, are blocked up At any rate, they do not
890
take up the smoke and the tenants cannot even keep the fires alight.
So the Corporation has replaced these open fires with gas fires which now stand in front, which means that the central heating radiators cannot be used. They are still in the flats but are useless because there is no means of getting hot water into them. Where this has happened, in more than 50 flats according to the Tenants Association, the tenants have had to buy electric heaters. But this poses another problem because in some of the flats the pervading dampness has rotted the plaster in the walls and loosened electric plugs and sockets and made their use dangerous.
I have gone into some detail to explain the worst of the structural defects that I have seen or had reported to me so that my right hon. Friend can gauge the extent of the faults, which I am sure he will agree must somehow be remedied—not just patched up, as is now happening and has gone on since the first blocks of flats were built but without putting right the root causes of the defective conditions.
It is heart-breaking to talk to the tenants who went into these flats gratefully and happily expecting to live in modern, comfortable and delightful homes. They have spent a lot of money on good furniture and household fittings only to see their dreams of decent housing turned into a long, miserable grumble about bad faults and substandard work. I am saying that repeated patching and mending will not put these homes permanently into a good state of repair. Unless something more drastic is done, this estate, which should be a show piece of design and construction, will become a squalid slum.
I am not asking for a witch hunt. Neither the tenants nor I are looking for scapegoats. They have their own ideas about what went wrong with the building operations and who to blame, and so have I. Their main concern is to get things put right. I have been assured by the Tenants Association that I have the tenants' unanimous backing for the request I am making to my right hon. Friend for an expert technical inquiry into the structural defects to see what needs to be done to remedy the basic faults.

891
Such an inquiry is not only needed to make these homes comfortably habitable but it might well help the Corporation and the City's ratepayers. I understand £30,000 has been spent on repairs during the past five or six years, repairs which have had only a temporary effect. It is a very heavy bill, and it is a bill that will go on, year after year. It may well be that the assistance of my right hon. Friend's Building Research Directorate, if it can advise on the structural work that is needed, and if the work is properly carried out, will remove this need for continuous repairs and that the cost of the operation may well, over a period of time, actually save the ratepayers and the Corporation a vast amount of money.
I quite understand the Corporation's attitude in this. I think it is wrong, but it is understandable. The Housing Committee and the Housing Department do not know what they would be letting themselves in for if they asked for an expert inquiry of this kind. The Corporation has spent a lot of money—public money—Government money is involved—on building this estate, and it goes on spending a lot, trying quite unsuccessfully to keep it in good repair. It is a losing battle, and something ought to be done.
The other estate which I wish to refer to briefly is the Stannington Estate. It also has the problem of dampness, mainly in the end houses of terraced rows. The cause of the trouble seems to be a fault in design. The Corporation's housing manager puts it down to condensation. I know condensation is a problem in many types of modern buildings. I can quote from a letter he has sent me:
"I am convinced from my own examination that the condition derives from excessive condensation which is a problem that is undoubtedly on the increase. Unfortunately, the application of heat to the whole house, which is part of the answer, is a costly business and I am afraid that few tenants can accept this advice and act on it."
This seems to suggest that inadequate ventilation is provided in the design of these houses. This is something that has been suggested to me as one of the causes of the trouble. Of course, it is no comfort to the tenants concerned to be told what the cause is. They also have shown me mouldy clothes, furnishing and rotted carpets, due to the damp-
892
ness in which they live. Something needs to be done to remedy the structural faults. I therefore ask my right honourable Friend and his Department to have speedy discussions with the Sheffield Corporation. They might then persuade those who are responsible for the city's housing administration to consent to an expert technical inquiry into the structural defects that I have described, and I would hope that the Corporation would act on its findings. My right honourable Friend will, I trust, be able to give me, and the tenants I represent, a favourable reply.
10.39 p.m.
The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the courteous way in which he has made his points this evening, and I fully appreciate the problems which his constituents are facing. I share his concern that faulty or inadequate design and construction should cause so much personal discomfort and misery. The particular contract in question was in no way the responsibility of my Department and it would not be proper for me to comment on it in any detail. I can, however, let my right hon. Friend have my views on the general application of the results of building research into construction problems such as those he has outlined so vividly. The difficulties which have affected his constituents in such an acute form arise, in some degree, only too frequently.
The situation he described is an example of an important general problem—how do we get the results of building research across to the industry?
Let me say at once that I am very willing to place at the disposal of the Sheffield Corporation, or of any other interested local authority, the considerable expertise and advice of my Department in dealing with questions of building technology or management control. My officials have already given help of this type to a number of public authorities and I shall give examples of this in a moment.
Most of the difficulties that arise in recently completed construction could have been avoided had the results of past research been fully used. The fact that problems like condensation and

893
dampness arise so frequently when the basic answers are known is a serious reflection on the machinery for translating research into practice, and on the alarming lack of knowledge on the part of many builders. One reason for this situation lies in the newer methods which designers and builders are now adopting. Traditional practices evolved over the years have had to be adapted to the reasonable requirements of high building and exposed sites. Designers must also take account of people's changing habits and expectations, such as the demand for warmer living conditions, which can change the performance requirements for ventilation.
None of this imposes insuperable problems on building technology, provided those concerned with the building are aware from the outset of the difficulties which may arise, and get the advice which they need to deal with them. In the past it has proved very difficult to get the results of research across to the industry. I must at once say that no one is more conscious than I am of the need to get research applied, and that my Ministry is working hard to get this done, both directly and through other bodies.
Let me first take the Building Research Station. From its beginnings in 1921, it has always concentrated on real problems faced by the industry or by the Government as a client. These have ranged from the need to improve productivity and quality in house building to the best methods and material for repairing the stone-work of the Houses of Parliament. More recently, B.R.S. has played an important rôle in mechanisation and in the development of tests for building components on behalf of the Agrément Board. Above all, the last couple of years have seen a thorough reappraisal of B.R.S.s rôle in relation to the industry. Its research programme, which is now published to the industry, is based on two main guidelines. The first is that research projects must be related from the start to the marketing prospects of its results. Secondly, that the Station must concentrate its research resources on major problems and direct its results to those most likely to make effective use of them.
The Station has sharpened up its service information about its work. Some
894
50,000 copies of each research digest are circulated to the industry and professions. It runs short courses and seminars on its recent work, which have so far have been aimed at the teachers of building subjects in universities and technical colleges. It is now able to extend it to Government and local authority architects—a factor of particular interest to my right hon. Friend. It is also establishing an applications section, to study how past research has been applied and bring this experience to bear on the choice of new projects and the effective marketing of results. What the Station cannot afford to do is dissipate its expert resources.
There are in the industry 50,000 professional qualified men and women, engaged in the design and management of building and civil engineering work and there are nearly 80,000 firms of contractors and specialists, and several hundred public authorities. B.R.S. deals with thousands of inquiries each year from all these, but it is significant that the overwhelming majority raise no new issues requiring fundamental investigations. For every inquiry that reaches B.R.S. there are many more never asked, simply because people do not know that there is a problem to be solved.
This is why I should like to see a country-wide information and advisory service. It would take from B.R.S. the burden of offering advice based on existing knowledge, and would set about the job of ensuring that information on good practice and new developments penetrated into the dark corners of the industry. It was our hope that the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, we call it C.I.R.I.A., would tackle this important question as part of its work. The difficulty has been that, despite the early hopes of substantial support, the Association has drawn few new members from the building industry and its professions. As a result, shortage of funds has prevented the Association from any significant extension of its work into building matters.. In particular it has not permitted the introduction except on a pilot scale, of the national information and advisory service, which many people in the industry think so important—rightly in my view. This serious situation cannot be allowed to drift much longer,

895
and I am already re-examining with leaders of the industry on my National Consultative Council, how this can be given a bigger push. This is a body set up some time ago, and the levy is voluntary. It just cannot get the money to do the job for which it was set up.
Quite apart from B.R.S. activities, my Department is doing important work to accelerate the use of technological developments by the industry and its clients, particularly those in the public sector. We have given a lead in various ways to architects and engineers in the public sector, for example by co-ordinating the efforts of Government Departments to introduce rationalised dimensions, based on the metric system, and to move towards objective specifications of performance which will widen the scope for informed choice by designers and for innovation by manufacturers. We have specialists on the management of design and construction organisations and processes, who have acted as consultants to several local authorities on the organisation of their architectural and building departments.
My Directorate General of Research and Development, in addition to its direct functions, was originally responsible for establishing three independent bodies with key roles in this applications process—the National Building Agency for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now responsible, the Agrément Board which is making considerable progress in extending objective quality control over new products and methods, and the Construction Industry Research and Information Association to which I have referred.
We are also a production organisation, with great experience in designing an unparalleled range of building types, from offices and telephone buildings to defence installations and radio telescopes; and we are ready to use all this experience to help solve the problems of others. The inquiry into the Ronan Point disaster called in the expert advice both of my Department's structural engineers and of the Building Research Station. This is not the only example of our advice assisting in problems in the local authority field. Sir Donald Gibson, the Controller General, investigated the circumstances in which Bedford County Hall
896
needed structural modification after building had started. One interesting example was when the Scottish Laboratory of B.R.S. was involved in the investigation of storm damage in Glasgow last year. The problem of gales is not unknown in the North of England, and was one of those which affected the Foxhill Estate in Sheffield.
I should like very much to see still wider recognition of the expert resources of my Ministry, and further growth in its contacts with local authorities on matters of building technology. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are most willing to help Sheffield Corporation in any way possible. I see this, above all, as one important way of building up co-operation throughout the public sector and improving the flow of knowledge, so that standards are not only maintained but improved.
As condensation is apparently one of the troubles at Foxhill, I should mention that we recognised some months ago that condensation was a general problem, on which existing knowledge was insufficiently used. We have produced a film on the subject, and my Directorate General of Research and Development is about to publish a handbook prepared by an interdepartmental working party. We have also mounted a series of highly successful conferences on prevention of condensation.
Finally, there is the question of building standards. While I cannot say what went wrong at Foxhill, in general clients would be well advised to insist on more rigorous quality control under British Standards. The Greater London Council's Scientific Advisory Service is a model for local authorities. Clients should also insist on Agrément Board certificates for any new components and, in the case of system-built housing, an appraisal by the National Building Agency. The tests that B.S.R. undertakes for the Agréments Board would ensure that windows, to which my right hon. Friend made special reference, and other external components could withstand the most severe weather conditions they were likely to encounter. We are moving into a period when there will be no excuse for failures in use of components. I should like to see the situation shortly when not only Government Departments, but every designer in

897
the country, demands an agrement certificate before using new methods or products.
To sum up, whilst I cannot comment on the specific circumstances of the Sheffield case, as, I am sure, my right hon. Friend will understand, I repeat my offer that if Sheffield Corporation feels that expert advice would help it to master this problem, my Department will be very glad to help.
I have been more concerned tonight with the general passage of information between research workers and those in the field. I believe that good building practice depends as much as anything on the contacts between practising designers and builders and those responsible for research and education. It is in this spirit that I wish to make the resources of my Ministry available to other public building authorities.
I started by commending the way in which my right hon. Friend introduced this debate. Although it may seem that this is a matter, as he put it, which concerns only a certain number of people in Sheffield, there are very few of us who, as Members of Parliament, do not know of similar problems in our own constituencies. We have long gone beyond the day when local authorities should not be too proud to seek the best advice they can get and to seek it from those whose experience might help.
I say once again to my right hon. Friend that I offer him the services of my Department to help in whatever way We possibly can, and that his constituents can well be proud of the way he has handled the problem tonight.
10.52 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I thought that the Minister started his speech by putting the Building Research Station rather on a university pedestal, but we all know that it enters into field work and engages in practical matters. The Glasgow storm damage, Ronan Point and the Bedford County Hall are good examples.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) tonight made a good case for another practical application of the Building Research Station. I should like to support him in his request to the Minister to put the services of the Building Research Station, in any way that is possible, to help these unfortunate people in these homes where something has gone very wrong. I think that it has gone as wrong there as it went wrong at Ronan Point and at Bedford County Hall—
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member will understand that Sheffield must come and ask us. It would be quite impertinent of us to go there.
Mr. Page: Of course. It puzzles me why Sheffield Corporation has not asked the Minister.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Chief Constable, Durham
  Chief Constable, Durham
  Domestic Electrical Appliances
  Domestic Electrical Appliances
  Experiments on Animals
  Experiments on Animals
  Police Patrol Cars
  Police Patrol Cars
  Greek Immigrants
  Greek Immigrants
  Replies to Members' Letters
  Replies to Members' Letters
  Police (Strength)
  Police (Strength)
  High Inflammable Risk Buildings
  High Inflammable Risk Buildings
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Automatic Dry-cleaning Establishments
  Automatic Dry-cleaning Establishments
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Crown Court (West Midlands)
  Crown Court (West Midlands)
  Bus Crews and Taxi Drivers (Assaults)
  Bus Crews and Taxi Drivers (Assaults)
  Sunday Entertainments Bill
  Sunday Entertainments Bill
  Fire Service Equipment (Wolverhampton)
  Fire Service Equipment (Wolverhampton)
  Immigration (Areas of Special Need)
  Immigration (Areas of Special Need)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Amusement Arcades (Admission of Children)
  Amusement Arcades (Admission of Children)
  Police (Acton)
  Police (Acton)
  Small Boat Sailing
  Small Boat Sailing
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Programme Companies (Contracts)
  Programme Companies (Contracts)
  Radio Programmes (Blind Persons)
  Radio Programmes (Blind Persons)
POST OFFICE
  Commemorative Postage Stamps
  Commemorative Postage Stamps
  Advertising
  Advertising
WALES
  Service Establishments (Closure)
  Service Establishments (Closure)
  Betterment Values (Haverfordwest)
  Betterment Values (Haverfordwest)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wales (Taxation and Government Expenditure)
  Wales (Taxation and Government Expenditure)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies (Taxation)
  Building Societies (Taxation)
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Current Account Overseas
  Current Account Overseas
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Manpower and Productivity Service
  Manpower and Productivity Service
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  HOME OWNERSHIP (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  HOME OWNERSHIP (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
TRANSPORT
  Sikhs (Headgear)
  Sikhs (Headgear)
PORTS
  London
  London
ROADS
  Devon
  Devon
  Landscape Advisory Committee
  Landscape Advisory Committee
  Heaton Moor Road, Stockport
  Heaton Moor Road, Stockport
BOARD OF TRADE
  Sao Paulo Trade Fair
  Sao Paulo Trade Fair
  "Security Advice About Visits to Communist Countries" (Leaflet)
  "Security Advice About Visits to Communist Countries" (Leaflet)
  Export Figures (February)
  Export Figures (February)
  Short Documentary Films
  Short Documentary Films
  Trade Figures (March)
  Trade Figures (March)
  Imports (Butter)
  Imports (Butter)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Conservation of Nature
  Conservation of Nature
  Drugs and Driving
  Drugs and Driving
  Teachers (Leave of Absence with Pay)
  Teachers (Leave of Absence with Pay)
SCOTLAND
  Murder, Homicide and Assault
  Murder, Homicide and Assault
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  General Hospital and Maternity Wing (Rutherglen)
  General Hospital and Maternity Wing (Rutherglen)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ceylon
  Ceylon
HOSPITALS
  Medical Staff (Hours of Duty)
  Medical Staff (Hours of Duty)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Doctors, Worcestershire (Prescription Payments)
  Doctors, Worcestershire (Prescription Payments)
HOUSING
  Luton
  Luton
  General Need Cases
  General Need Cases
  Caravan Estate, Rainworth
  Caravan Estate, Rainworth
  Flats
  Flats
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Grants (Bradford)
  Grants (Bradford)
  Amusement Arcades (Legislation)
  Amusement Arcades (Legislation)

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

ANGUILLA: PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD CHALFONT
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a brief personal statement. I notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's proceedings in this House that I said that copies of the Anguilla (Temporary Provision) Order 1969 would be laid before the House. I am afraid that this is technically inaccurate. This is not an Order in Council which is required to be laid before Parliament. What I should have said was that copies of the Order would be generally available to-day; and in fact the printed Paper Office now has 75 copies of the Order available for your Lordships' House.

POST-CARDS AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
LORD AIREDALE: 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, seeing that a 4 oz. package containing as many as 45 picture postcards can be sent by first-class mail for 5d., they will henceforth provide first-class service for single post-cards each hearing a 4d. stamp.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, no. There is little difference between the average costs of handling a card and a letter in an envelope. The 4d. and 5d. rates are based on average costs.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged for that reply. But did not the post-card get rather a raw deal last September when the rate was put up from 3d. to 4d. and cards were at the same
1016
time downgraded from first to second class mail?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with the greatest possible respect to the charming and noble Lord, I find that he cannot possibly seem to understand what is going on in the Post Office at the moment—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I took great pains to explain matters to the House in a long debate for which very few noble Lords cared to turn up. I do not know how many read the debate. I say that the only distinction now is between first-class mail, which is 5d., and second-class mail, which is 4d. In that sense the post-card no longer exists.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's reluctance to give first-class service for the post-card with a 4d. stamp on it, can be say when the Government intend to ensure that letters with 5d. stamps get first-class service?

DUTIES OF THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY
3.8 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: 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, under what duty, if any, the Custodian of Enemy Property is, or was, in relation to the 1939–1945 war, to hold property under his control, or vested in him as trustee or agent for the original owner or his successor in title; and, if there is or was such a duty, under what Statute or Statutory Instrument it arose.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the Custodian of Enemy Property came into possession of enemy property as a result of Vesting and other Orders made under Section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939. These Orders were made by the Board of Trade with a view to preventing the payment of moneys to enemies and of preserving enemy property in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace. In a case decided in 1920 it was decided that the beneficial ownership of property then

1017
in the possession of the Custodian under the 1914–18 Trading with the Enemy legislation was in suspense while the legal ownership was in the Custodian. The Custodians are not the trustees or agents of the original owners of property in their possession and no court of law has ever so held. In 1954 the House of Lords decided that the Custodians were Crown Servants whose duties involved the holding of property and the receipt of income until further instructions were given to them.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that extremely elaborate reply which I shall study between now and the Third Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill. I am grateful to him.

GIBRALTAR: COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT
3.9 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to make public the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry which was set up by General Lathbury to investigate the events which occurred on April 6, 1968, in Gibraltar, and the action taken in respect thereof and to make recommendations.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I understand that the Report has been received by the Governor and its recommendations are at present being considered in Gibraltar. No decision about publication has yet been taken.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask the following supplementary questions? Do the Government believe in the principle of adequate compensation for innocent victims? Is it true that one of the recommendations contained in the Report is that the innocent victims of these riots be compensated in full and immediately? If so, what is the Government's interpretation of the word "immediately" in that context, since it is now nearly a year ago since the riots occurred?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as the Report has only recently been received by the Governor, and as he is still considering the matter, I think it would be premature for me to confirm anything tint the noble Lord suggests appears in the Report, or to comment on it. I think the first part of his supplementary question goes outside the realms of his original Question and I cannot comment oil this until the Report is available.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, may I ask two supplementary questions? First, how recently has the Report been received by Her Majesty's Government? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that the principal victims of the riots involved, having been publicly accused of treachery, sedition and illegality, themselves insisted on this inquiry being made? Is it not unfair to the victims to keep the results quiet for as long as this, in view of their wish to have the whole affair cleared up?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Hear, hear!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have said that the document was recently received by the Governor. I do not have the exact date, but I can let the noble Lord know that. Although much of the evidence was given in public, the recommendations of this Report are still confidential and will remain so until considered by the Governor, who of course appointed the two Commissioners and set up the Commission of Inquiry. I think it would be improper for me to comment on the recommendations until the Report is published.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the attitude of the members of the Gibraltar Coalition, which seems quite reasonable, is that they will not vote any compensation to the victims until such time as they have seen the Report? Is it impossible for the noble Lord to give any indication of when the members of the Gibraltar Coalition themselves will be able to see the Report?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, they will see it when it is published.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.14 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has kindly indicated his agreement to the proposal that we should take the Motion on the subject of a Return of Attendances before the noble Lord's own Motion on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House. I hope that the Motion I am intending to take will be disposed of fairly quickly. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with this day for the purpose of allowing the Motion on Lords' Attendances to be taken first.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I raise one question on this Motion? Before the Order Paper contained this very important Motion which the Leader of the House is going shortly to move—and I am sure it is one which your Lordships will agree must be taken as first business—the Order Paper had Lord Ferrier's Motion as the second item, by Resolution passed by the House a few days ago. In front of it is now the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. To that Bill there are approximately five pages of Amendments. There may be some Divisions, and my appeal to the Leader of the House is to consider whether that Bill could not be postponed to some later date. It has a much narrower interest in your Lordships' House than has Lord Ferrier's Motion, which has a wide interest affecting all your Lordships.
I am informed by the usual channels on our side of the House that the Committee stage for the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill may take one and three-quarter hours, which means that the de-
1020
bate on Lord Ferrier's Motion would start at an inordinately late hour for a subject which is of such wide interest. Would not the Government consider postponing the Committee stage of this Bill until some later date? It is not for me to say when it could be done; that it is for the two Front Benches to combine to do. Let me only repeat that I always find things difficult when the two Front Benches agree.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the difficulties. When any item of business goes on the Order Paper we never know how long it is going to take. I gather that his remarks are directed to the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill rather than to my Motion, which I hope will be pretty brief.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Certainly.
LORD SHACKLETON: I put my Motion on deliberately to-day because, although it is a small matter, Thursday, apart from being the first convenient date, is a day when a large number of noble Lords are present, and it seemed appropriate. I hope that my Motion will not take very much time. Of course, if we found that there was a lengthy debate on it we should have to think about the question. But I am in some difficulty over the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. It has been on the Order Paper for quite a long while. We chose this day, and indeed we advanced Lord Ferrier's Motion before some other business. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, knows that we tried hard to suit him and to get his Motion on early, and we picked a Government day for it, which I think is appropriate.
From the Government's point of view, we should be perfectly willing to consider postponing the Committee stage of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, but the only day that would be convenient would be Monday. We have given some indication through the usual channels that there is always the possibility of sitting on a Monday, because we are getting up early for the Easter Recess. On the other hand, I am not sure whether it would now be convenient for the House if we were to postpone the Bill from to-day. My own view (this is in no way a reflection on the importance of Lord Ferrier's Motion) is that we ought to see

1021
what progress we can make on the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. On the whole, the House has had a rather more respectable earlier part of the year than we had last year, though it is true that we sat until half-past twelve on Tuesday night. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will just take it that we have heard what he has said, and that my noble friend Lord Beswick will consult through the usual channels if we find ourselves getting seriously delayed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I make a suggestion to the noble Lord the Leader of the House? He said that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, had been very accommodating about his Motion to-day. Would it not be possible, even at this stage, to arrange that Lord Ferrier's Motion should come before the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill to-day, and then see how we get on? That is an alternative to postponing the Committee stage of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. I should have thought there was a strong case for giving my noble friend's Motion priority, as he has been so accommodating, and then we could see how things go. So far as sitting on Monday is concerned, I think it would be very inconvenient for a great many of your Lordships to have to attend at such very short notice.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said and for the facilities he has given for my Motion to be put down at all. So far as the business this afternoon is concerned, I regard the matter of your Lordships' attendances as of greater importance and urgency to your Lordships than my Motion. But when I agreed to that, I had not realised that some of those who had put their names down to speak for me, and who are interested in the Bill, were not so happy that it might come on very late in the Sitting to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble and learned Viscount's proposal is not really practicable. We cannot change the order of business without a Motion on the Order Paper. Flexible as the procedure of this House is, there are limits to flexibility, and the vehicle drivers and motor users would be rather disturbed by an altera-
1022
tion in business as it affects them. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier has acknowledged that the Government have been accommodating. I am sure my noble friend will consider the suggestion that we should adjourn the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, but my view is that we ought to see how we can get on, and I hope that we shall make rapid progress with it. It is not unreasonable that we should stay as late as necessary to do justice to the important Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. Perhaps I may point out that when we came to wind up the debate on Tuesday evening, although it was midnight fifty noble Lords were present, which shows what can be done when there is interest.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS' ATTENDANCES
3.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to move, That the Clerk of the Parliaments do prepare and lay before the House a Return of the Number of Days on which each Lord was recorded as being present in the House during Sessions 1963–64, 1964–65, 1965–66, 1966–67 and 1967–68. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to give a short explanation of the background and my reasons for tabling it. In particular, I should indicate why this seemed to us, after consultation through the usual channels, to be an appropriate action. I ought also to say that I regret having to take up the time of the House on what is essentially a small matter, but we are in some difficulty, despite the flexibility of the procedure of your Lordships' House. When I was asked privately to make this information available, I pointed out that I had no more authority than any other noble Lord in this matter. May I say that, although this Motion concerns the Clerk of the Parliaments, your Lordships will have seen that he is not in his seat to-day. That is because of a sad bereavement he has suffered, and I am sure that the whole House would wish to express our sympathy to him.
Obviously the Motion bears on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, and it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that

1023
there is some discussion going on in another place, perhaps not always on the Bill but on matters that occasionally may be related to it—but I think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the proceedings there. I have been asked by another place, informally, that this information should be made available. After careful thought, I believe that to be a reasonable request. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Motion instructs the Clerk of the Parliaments to prepare and lay before the House details of attendances over a number of Sessions. Nobody has asked me for anything quite so long and detailed as this, but I think that if anybody wants figures he may as well be given the lot. If there are conclusions to be drawn, obviously it is useful to show the figures over a longer period, which, if it does nothing else, shows the increasing assiduity of your Lordships in attending this House; and the figures for one Session are certainly not statistically significant.
Perhaps I should explain that the information which this Motion seeks to provide is in effect already available. It is contained in the Lords' Journals which, as soon as they are published, reveal the attendance on every sitting day. Your Lordships' House, as some of your Lordships, though not all, know, is a Court of Record and, as such, the Journals of out proceedings are open to public inspection. But the way in which the daily attendance is set out in the Journals is based on ancient custom, and the order in which the names of individual Peers are placed is arranged according to the provisions of the Act for the Placing of the Lords, Chapter 10.31, Henry VIII; and the degrees and styles of individual Peers are set out in Latin—but Latin which most of us would be able to translate.
Your Lordships will appreciate that while this information is available to the public, it is not in a convenient form and does not lend itself to easy digestion. For a number of years the Clerk of the Parliaments has caused the Clerk of the Journals to prepare each Session an Alphabetical List of those Peers who attend our debates during that Session, showing the number of times that each attends the House. This is prepared for reasons of convenience connected with Leave of Absence and other matters.
I think it is right to say how often statistics of this sort are open to misinterpretation. Let me emphasise that I would not guarantee, and I am sure that the Clerks would not guarantee, that in every respect these lists are correct. There may be as much as a 1 or 2 per cent. statistical error. Furthermore, a noble Lord might be assiduous in his attendance on some occasions and then, for reasons of public duty or of ill-health, or indeed because it is the custom of the House, might not wish to attend except occasionally. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that, whereas one has a high regard for those faithful Members of the House who do attend regularly, one should not attribute infidelity to those who do not attend regularly. This is part of the freedom and the value of your Lordships' House, and I think we can say with some certainty that we have no skeletons to conceal in our 19th century Gothic cupboards.
I would suggest to your Lordships that, since this list is already available, we should instruct the Clerk of Parliaments to lay before the House the information which he has hitherto had compiled and properly used for such purposes. Once the House has received this information, we would then, in accordance with our normal custom, automatically make a printing order and the figures would thus be available to your Lordships and to another place. In due course, we should consider in the Offices Committee whether this information should be made available regularly, but for the moment this seems to me a reasonable thing to do. I think that this House should agree that these figures should be made available. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Clerk of the Parliaments do prepare and lay before this House a Return of the Number of Days on which each Lord was recorded as being present in the House during Sessions 1963–64, 1964–65, 1965–66, 1966–67 and 1967–68.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.28 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is right. As I understand it, the information is available and all we are doing now is to give another place the advantages of the additions and multiplications done by the Clerk of the Journals. I do not think it would be

1025
reasonable for us to expect Members of another place to undertake a lot of mathematical labour which has already been done. Nor do I think that this House, reformed or unreformed, has any need to preserve its dignity by standing on its exact rights. One of the more agreeable features of this House is that we look upon our privilege in a thoroughly tolerant and sensible way. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether comparable statistics of the attendance of Members in another place are available? I am sure that no Member of another place would have anything to fear by their publication, and I have no doubt that all of us, in and out of Parliament, would be very interested if the figures were published.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I should like fully to support this proposal, not only because this information is already available but because I think we ought to do this. There is no need for secrecy between the two Houses of Parliament, and there is definitely no need, in my view, for antagonism between the two Houses. I hope it will be conveyed to another place that we are more than willing to co-operate with them on any reasonable request that is made. I should only like to venture the comment that it is a pity this request was not made earlier, so that we could have saved valuable Parliamentary time in another place. I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said (I had already made a note of this point): that the day may come when we may want the statistics of another place, and we should be grateful if we could have them fairly quickly.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I too, should like to support this Motion. But while supporting what my noble leader has said with regard to it, I wish to refer to one or two other matters related thereto. It is no secret to this House that this Motion really comes about because of a document which, somehow or other reached the Library of another place—and I am not concerned as to how it got there, or indeed as to what has happened to it. I do not know what that document contained; I have never seen it. It may
1026
be that it contained nothing more than the information in relation to the five Sessions which will be provided in consequence of this Motion being carried. In that connection, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whether he can say when that information is likely to be printed and made available, because if it is information of any value there is a certain degree of urgency about it.
But, as I understand it, the real reason for this information being of value is that it was thought, rightly or wrongly, to be the basis for the calculation that in a reformed House a membership of about 230 voting Peers would suffice. Many of us feel some doubt whether that is a correct estimate: it may be too large, or it may be too small. But if I am right in thinking that the figures of attendance have any relevance to what is the size of a working reformed House of voting Peers, and that the Government made calculations based upon those figures of attendance, could not thy: Government go a little further than merely provide, by moving this Motion, that records of this House, in a summarised form, should be available to another place, and disclose now (I think they will have to disclose it at some time) the calculations and the reasoning which has led them to the conclusion that 230 voting Peers is the right number for this House?
I do not want to develop the matter at great length to-day, because I have put down an Unstarred Question to raise it, as I think it is a matter of great importance. But it will avoid my having to do so if the noble Lord, here and now, bearing in mind the object for which this return is required, could say that the Government will make available the calculations on which they base their conclusion that 230 voting Peers is the right number for a reformed House.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should just like to say that I hope it will not be carried to the extent of inquiring into the attendances in another place. After all, these attendances are not available. Here a record is kept, but there is certainly no record kept in the other place; and to suggest that a record ought to be compiled in order to meet the wishes of this House would, I think, be going a little too far.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and for the characteristic reaction of your Lordships' House. I absolutely echo what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that we do not stand unnecessarily either on our privileges or on points of order. We try to get on with the business. Let me first deal with the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I have listened to what he said. I know that he has a Question down for next Thursday, and obviously the Government will reply to that. Before then, I will give consideration to what he has said, but I am sure he does not expect me to say anything further on this point now.
I should emphasise that this list to which I have referred consists purely and simply of names and the number of attendances. There is no further information. I believe there may be some figures which might usefully be given about the average attendances in your Lordships' House, which I think is running at somewhere between 200 and 250 per day.
On the interesting and, if I may say so, original suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should ask the other place to supply comparable figures, I rather suspect that those figures are not available—and I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, had to say. We keep our figures rather meticulously, bound as we are by custom and the Act of Parliament. There is the further point that it is the reform of your Lordships' House which is under discussion, and not the reform of another place, although people may occasionally get ideas on that subject, too.
As I have said, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Motion. The advantage, if we pass it to-day, is that I hope the details will be available by about the middle of next week, or by Thursday of next week. They will take some time to prepare and to print, but they should be available long before the other place or this House comes to resume discussion on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. In passing the Motion, if I can be of any assistance to the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, by perhaps making an advance copy of the details
1028
available, I imagine that your Lordships would not regard this as too serious a breach of confidence. Perhaps I should mention that this document had been lent to another place in order to enable statistical work to be done. We note now that there will be nothing confidential in the House of Commons Library, but that is a matter for another place.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am not quite clear from what he says whether he accepts the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Carrington that the other place should produce similar figures. As a former Member of the other place, I should like to register my view in contradiction of what the noble Lord opposite said, and to say that I can see no reason why similar information should not be given by another place: indeed, it would be of great interest to many people in the constituencies.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, speak again, I would say that I shall be happy to convey this suggestion (it is, of course, on the Record) to the Leader of another place, who will certainly discuss this matter in a most friendly and courteous fashion. But it is my understanding—though I speak subject to correction—that they do not keep such a record.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Why not?
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may say so, that is not the matter we are discussing now. I do not wish to be drawn on this, but there are, of course, Division records open for the public to inspect, and no doubt there are assiduous people who compile records from them. But I am told that there is no daily attendance record. I am, as I say, grateful to your Lordships, and I hope that this Motion will be passed without further ado.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, without wishing to delay the House, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord to keep one matter in mind—it may be that it is already being attended to. It is possible that in this list some noble Lords who are named have during the period which the return covers had Leave of Absence.

1029
It seems to me that it might be convenient if the return made that clear in respect of any noble Lord who during that period did have Leave of Absence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to add to the figures. Let us get out these figures first. I think I made clear that noble Lords may be absent for all sorts of good reasons. Many have Leave of Absence. This is a different type of set of figures. I will discuss with the Clerks whether figures are available on Leave of Absence, but we are not asked for these, and I think we might confine it now to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Winterbottoin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provisions supplementary to s. l.]:
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("() No order made under this section shall operate so as to enable the transfer to the Minister for more than five years from the transfer date of any premises held by the authority for the performance of any relevant functions which form part of premises held for the performance of any other of their functions.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This Amendment arises out of the anxiety which is felt by some local authorities in connection with this Part of the Bill. The pur-
1030
pose of the Amendment is to limit the period for which the Minister of Transport can take over local authority premises for the purposes of vehicle licensing functions. The Bill provides a transition period of five years during which the Minister will be establishing and equipping the new national headquarter office and computer at Swansea. At the end of the transition period all licences will be issued from Swansea, based on the computer operation. Local authorities have agreed to make available their existing vehicle licensing buildings and staffs to act as agencies for the Minister during the transition period. They recognise that the use of their premises during the transition is of course essential to the Minister.
This Amendment seeks only to ensure that at the end of the transition period the Minister will then release these premises so that local authorities may recover their use for general administrative purposes. In many cases the buildings concerned are adjacent to, or even part of, the main administrative building of the county authorities or county borough authorities, and they are therefore of some importance to the local authorities concerned. I feel sure that it will be the general intention of the Minister to do just this, but my Amendment is put down in the ho3e that the Government will accept it so that it will be in the Bill and the Minister therefore will give up these premises at the end of the transition period. I beg to move.
LORD ILFORD: I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accepting this Amendment or something very like it. This is a matter, as my noble friend said, upon which the local authorities feel a certain sense of uncertainty. Local authorities have devoted a good deal of space in their premises in all parts of the country to this work of licensing which calls for a good deal of accommodation, and accommodation in a central and public place. It is quite common for a local authority to devote part of the town hall to the work of licensing. Here, in London, the Greater London Council have devoted, I think, the whole or greater part of the basement and semi-basement at County Hall to the work of licensing. They are quite ready to do this so long as the accommodation is required, and provided that at

1031
some reasonable time they can be sure of getting the accommodation back again.
As my noble friend has said, the Bill will enable the local authorities to continue to occupy the premises now being used for licensing for a period, and after that there is power for the Minister to continue the occupation. So far as the continued occupation is concerned, the local authorities are apprehensive. They would be seriously handicapped if important accommodation and central buildings were taken from them for an indefinite period; and I hone that the Minister will give some assurance that the Amendment, or something like the Amendment, will be included in the Bill.
I believe that the Minister has been willing to give an assurance about this matter, but really this is a case where something ought to go in the Bill and we ought not to rest solely upon an assurance. Of course the Minister will carry out his assurance if somebody remembers at the appropriate time that an assurance was given. But Acts of Parliament are being hung round with assurances given by Ministers to avoid putting an Amendment into a Bill when an Amendment really ought to be put in the Bill. I would submit very strongly that this is a case where an Amendment ought to go into the Bill. There ought to be no uncertainty about it. It ought to be quite clear that at the end of the period of five years the local authority should have their accommodation back.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I foresaw when this Amendment was put down that in fact it had been prompted both by the G.L.C. and by local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, with his experience of local authority needs and wishes has expressed their disquiet I think very clearly and cogently. But this problem has already been faced by the Government. I want to stress—and it has been stressed to both the G.L.C. and the local authorities who have approached the Minister—that Clause 2(1) is a reserve power for use in the last resort to cater for the remote possibility of the Minister's being unable, at the last minute, to obtain accommodation to exercise his functions. In the public interest he will have no option, if the licensing service is to be maintained, but to take over the local authority
1032
premises for these purposes. But, of course, he would do this for only so long as it took the Ministry to get its own accommodation, if that were the wish of the local authority concerned. For instance, a local authority might not wish, for some reason, to enter into agreement with the Minister to act fully as his agent. It is hoped, nevertheless, that the local authority would agree to make their premises available. But if they refused to do so an order would, if necessary, have to be made under Clause 2(1) transferring the premises to the Minister.
I think your Lordships will agree that in a tremendously complex operation such as this is the obstructionism of one or two local authorities should hardly be permitted to wreck the scheme. I can only repeat to your Lordship, an assurance given by my right honourable friend in another place, that the Ministry will always endeavour to obtain its own accommodation, and that if it should, unexpectedly, be necessary to use local authority premises the duration will be kept to a minimum if that is the wish of the local authority concerned. That is a firm undertaking given by my right honourable friend. But if this assurance were to be expressed in legal terms—this is the important point which I should like to put to your Lordships—the five-year period from the transfer date proposed in the Amendment would not be long enough to cater for all the possibilities.
As already described, one of the remote circumstances in which the Clause 2(1) powers might be needed could be shortly before the stage at which the agency agreements with local authorities are planned to be terminated. The date of termination is expected to be at the beginning of 1975 so, to be on the safe side, the period would have to be at least seven years, and probably 10. The time mentioned in the Amendment is insufficient. But including in the Bill a specific period during which the powers of Clause 2(1) may be used could give a misleading impression that it is expected that the powers will be used, when in fact it is most unlikely that they will be. However, the interest in this matter expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House will, I am certain, ensure that the Minister of Transport of the day will not abuse the powers given to him under this particular clause.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his reply, but I have to confess to being not entirely satisfied with it. The first answer that he gave us—the first ground for refusing this Amendment—was the ground given in the other place. It seems to me that the right point was not being taken, because the local authorities are agreeable to the five-year transition period—or a period of six years, if the noble Lord likes—but what they want is to make sure that at the end of the transition period the premises go back to the local authorities. I should have thought that this is a very reasonable request, and indeed the noble Lord concedes that this is the Minister's intention. All we are asking for is certainty. If five years is too short a period, I am quite happy to settle for seven. But the local authorities do want certainty here. I should have thought that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend had an obligation, with the local authorities playing such a very important part in this connection, to give them the certainty that they are asking for.
I do not think that this is something that I should press to a Division to-day. I feel that this is something we should have further talk about, perhaps before the Report stage, because I hope that the noble Lord might be willing to meet us in finding a formula on this point. Certainly we must ensure that the Minister has full powers in the transition period—of course he must have these premises where he can cover his needs during the transition period—and I hope that in 100 per cent. of cases local authorities will act as his agents; but at the end of the period I think it is equally reasonable to expect that the Minister will let the local authorities have their premises back again; and five years may be too short a time. We can make it seven years, but may I ask the noble Lord if he will be willing to have conversations with us in the interval between now and the next stage of the Bill to see whether we can devise a formula which will relieve the reasonable anxieties of local authorities and still preserve the position which the Minister wishes to keep?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Since noble Lords opposite have felt it neces-
1034
sary for me to repeat the assurances given by my right honourable friend in another place this is obviously a matter of concern. I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said about being unwilling to press his Amendment to-day but reserving his rights for Report stage. I believe I can say that if the term of seven years would satisfy the noble Lord, this is a proposal that might receive sympathetic consideration. So perhaps I may convey his views to my right honourable friend to see whether we can produce something which will satisfy both sides.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for being so accommodating. I have not put this to the local authority organisations—the C.C.A. and the A.M.C.—but I would certainly advise them to accept it. The practical necessities of the position are well understood, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. I raised this point on Second Reading and I have put down this Amendment, first, because the subject has not been properly discussed in either place during the passage of this Bill; and, secondly and more importantly, because in some cases the residents of the Isles of Scilly have never paid any road fund licence. Some of the growers in a very small way of business and who own a van would be put to great hardship and disadvantage by having to pay the sum of £25 when they are working on an extremely small margin. A couple of bad flower seasons might mean that a man would have to give up his livelihood, and I feel that this position should receive more sympathetic consideration than it has done so far. In another place this subsection was not in the existing Bill. It was "popped in" at the Committee stage, and the honourable Member who represents these Islands had no chance to plead their cause.
I raised this matter on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and I am sorry to say that the Minister in charge of the Bill treated it in a most cavalier

1035
and almost rude way. In his speech he at first ignored the point that I had raised—although in fact very few points were raised in the debate—and when I pressed him for an answer at the end of his speech he brushed it off by saying, "We cannot make exceptions for a group of islands". That is nonsense, because from the Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands in the South, up to the Shetlands and the Orkneys, and including places like Lundy Island, special arrangements are always made to suit their special conditions. Indeed, on a larger scale this applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, because Scotland, Wales and Ireland have special arrangements made for them. So in fact it is rather stupid and unfair to treat the Islanders in this way. They are intelligent, hard-working and a gallant people. Their record in life saving cannot be beaten by any other place. In fairness to these Islanders I ask the Government to look at this again in order to see whether something can be done for them.
I understand that a vehicle is not liable for a licence fee if it runs for less than six miles on a public road. In fact it is questionable how many of these roads are public, but that being so the figure of £4,000 that the Treasury will receive will be reduced, and indeed reduced still further by the expenses of collecting the road fund licence. I ask the Minister to look at this again in all fairness to these hardworking Islanders. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I should like to have the pleasure of supporting the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in his moving plea. I, too, have been a guest of these most delectable Islands and I know that they are in an altogether exceptional position. I believe they have only nine miles of roads in total, and therefore the Islanders are paying a high rate for a comparatively small place. I feel that this is a case where something should be done to help these Islanders who are handicapped in so many ways, and not least by the continual difficulty they experience in times of storm.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In the first place I wish to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, if he felt that I did not treat the point he made in the Second Reading debate with the thoroughness that he felt it deserved. I regret to say that it slipped my mind completely. Un-
1036
fortunately, my mistake does not cause the Government to change their minds on the subject. We must realise that for the first time we are proposing a new national system to deal with vehicle licensing, and because of the peculiar historical accident that until now has freed the Scilly Islands from vehicle excise duty, there is no reason why this should be allowed to perpetuate itself. It is true that we can argue, as the noble Earl has done, that costs are higher in these off-shore Islands, and that they have the high cost of reaching the metropolitan market. But although one has great sympathy with the wishes of the Islanders, I am afraid it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to meet them.
The argument put forward by the noble Earl about the status of public roads in the Islands is an interesting one. As he pointed out, vehicle excise duty is chargeable only if vehicles are kept or used on public roads. I think he will not dispute the fact that there are some public roads in the islands, in Hugh Town. The status of the roads owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which forms a large proportion of the island roads, is at present under discussion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, that is the point I was making. A vast number of these vehicles that will be liable for licence will not come into Hugh Town. In Hugh Town there are a few odd cars belonging to shopkeepers and other people. Two or three people will be subject to licence and the vast majority of the islanders will get away with it. It seems that we are getting into one muddle after another over this very knotty problem.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We are trying to create a national system, and if we make one exemption there is no doubt that other people will come along and ask for exemption on exactly the same grounds—the Outer Hebrides and so on. So we believe, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that we have to have a national central licensing organisation, and if this Amendment (or a similar one) were accepted we would have to say that there is something so unique about the Isles of Scilly that they and they alone would have to be excluded. I see no way of doing

1037
this unless we begin to consider the other off-shore islands and not only being able to exclude them but being forced to choose between them. It is for this reason that we are unwilling to give the Isles of Scilly special exemption in this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord about the other islands round our shores, the really small ones, Sark, Benbecula, Lundy, Coll, and so on. They presumably do have a mile or so of road. Is the vehicle licence levied in all these islands?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I should imagine if that mile of road is a public road they would be levied for licence. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord and confirm that.
LORD HAWKE: I think we ought to have the answer before we consider this Amendment. I have no doubt that the noble Lord could get the answer in a minute or two. It is a matter of some importance. If there are other islands which do not pay this tax, I have no doubt that we shall be quite justified in voting for the noble Earl's Amendment. On the other hand, if the Scilly Isles are completely unique, I must say I would find it difficult to support him, much as I sympathise with the unfortunate islanders who seem liable to be mulcted in excess of anything that has ever been levied before. They have one or two other misfortunes which come upon them each year, and I would not wish to add this one.
LORD FERRIER: May I ask for further information arising out of what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh said? I take it that there are nine miles of metal road in the Islands—there is more than one island. Is there any one island on which there are vehicles on which there is no metal road; and if there are any motor vehicles on that island would they have to pay this tax?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: As the noble Lord suggested, advice is not far away, but I cannot see that it produces clarity. It is rather like the theory of relativity because the element of time is introduced into the equation. The position is that farmers using public roads to get from one part of a farm to another
1038
are exempt if they do not travel more than six miles a week on public roads. So if they went up and down one mile of road six times in a week they would be liable to tax. Otherwise everyone must pay duty however small a length of public road he uses. I do not know whether that helps noble Lords, but that is the situation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Issue etc. of temporary licences by motor dealers.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the answer he has sent to me in reply to a point raised during Second Reading? However, additionally, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom is in a position to answer a further point in connection with Clause 6(3)(c)(ii), which deals with the regulations that may be made to ensure that certain requirements as to test certificates and insurance are complied with by the motor dealer before he issues a temporary licence.
It occurs to me that the temporary licence is issued purely as a temporary measure, pending satisfaction of the licensing authority as to the correctness of the application. As the subsection is written, it would appear that the motor dealer will have this responsibility placed upon him. Therefore, I should like to know, first, whether the motor dealer will be required to accept this responsibility, and, secondly, whether, in the event of his failing to discharge the responsibility correctly, he will have caused an offence. Further, the facility is being provided for what one might call cut-of-hours business; that is to say, that where a motor vehicle, new or used, is sold late in the evening or on Saturday or on Sunday, where that is permissible, the motor car can immediately he upon the road with a road fund licence. In many instances the motor dealer's principals—for example, the secretary of the company or a director, or an authorised signatory—may not be upon the premises at the time of sale so that this kind of responsibility may devolve upon somebody in a rather junior capacity. I think perhaps it may

1039
be helpful to know exactly how this subsection will be interpreted.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The situation under subsection (3)(c)(ii) is that the dealer will be required to check, if the vehicle is subject to the testing regulations, the current test certificate which is required to support a licence application. He will also be required to check that the licence applicant has the necessary minimum third-party liability insurance. The test certificate, where appropriate, and the insurance certificate will have to be forwarded to the local office with the other documents; that is to say, the dealer forwards the documentation to the local office to confirm and finalise the licence for the vehicle he has sold. I understand that we shall require the dealer to send the certificate to the central office for checking before the full licence is issued. If the dealer does not check properly he will be committing an offence. I presume that this applies also to his agent. If the proprietor is absent and a junior member of his staff is on duty, I presume that the owner is responsible in law for his agent's actions. But since this is a matter of law, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would permit me to write to him to give a precise definition in this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Surrender of licences]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("of duty") and insert ("by reference to which duty was").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Before I launch away to inform your Lordships about it and other Amendments standing in my name, I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible. My Amendments are not of the same weight and substance as those of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent; they are mainly Amendments to drafting. So, if the Committee will for-
1040
give me, and if those who record our discussions will also forgive me, I shall go swiftly through them, dwelling only on those which have some matter in them.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord. My great anxiety is that I have booked a sleeper at 10.50 to-night from Euston.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The purpose of this Amendment is to put beyond doubt the intention that rebates of duty paid on surrendered vehicle licences should be calculated on the basis of the annual rate of duty appropriate to the vehicle at the time the licence was taken out, and not, in the case of four-monthly licences, the four-monthly rate. This is the current practice under Section 9(2)(b) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I raise a small point on subsection (3) which appears at page 9, line 16? In connection with the value of the surrender of licences fractions of a penny are to be disregarded. It is a small point, but which way is the fraction to be disregarded? And are we talking about the current penny or the new penny? Obviously, this can make a considerable amount of difference to a used-car dealer with a high turnover in motor vehicles, where the practice is to surrender the licence pending reconditioning, and so on, of a motor vehicle. The amount of money in such terms is not large, but in aggregate it could be quite considerable.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Again, this is a complex legal point. I should imagine that the word "penny" means the value of a penny at the time when the sale takes place. But, again, I will write to the noble Lord and give him the true meaning of the interpretation, whether "penny" means a current penny or a new penny later. I find I am correct; it is in the terms of current pennies. Fractions are ignored and are rounded down.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Duty on vehicles placed on roads
".For the purposes of sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1962 and of any other provision of that Act and any subsequent enactment relating to the keeping of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads (including such an enactment contained in this Act and in particular section 10(3) of this Act), a person keeps such a vehicle on a public road if he causes it to be on such a road for any period, however short, when it is not in use there."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to define the phrase "keeping a vehicle on a public road" in the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 and subsequent enactments with the result that duty is chargeable on a vehicle when it is kept on a public road for any period, however short. Under Section 1 of the 1962 Act, duty is chargeable on a mechanically propelled vehicle used on a public road, and under Section 4 it is also chargeable on a vehicle kept on a public road. Section 7 makes either unlicensed use or unlicensed keeping of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road an offence.
The difficulty with the word "keeping" is that it implies keeping for an unspecified period of lime, and this was made explicit by a ruling in the course of a Divisional Court hearing in 1962 of an appeal against conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle. It is becoming difficult to bring prosecutions and will increasingly become so if the Amendment is not agreed to. Since the Divisional Court hearing it will become necessary for an enforcement officer to keep a parked vehicle under surveillance for a continuous period, of unspecified length, in order to establish the duration element implied in unlicensed "keeping". The Amendment, by operating on the word "keeping", makes it clear that the mere presence of an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is sufficient to enable an offence of "unlicensed keeping" to be pursued. That is to say, the mere presence of an unlicensed vehicle on any road is "keeping". This situation has arisen entirely because of the interpretation of "keeping" in this context. The use of "keeping" in this Bill to denote overall responsibility for the vehicle (for example, continuous liability bites on the
1042
person who "keeps" the vehicle—Clause 10(1) to which we shall come later) is a further complication. Although the interpretation of "keeping" in the duration context has been amended, the interpretation in the "responsibility" sense of course remains unchanged. I hope I have made this clear. The Amendment has been requested by the Greater London Council and by local authorities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Provisions supplementary to Section 10]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7:
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned")
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned")
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7, together. These are all drafting Amendments to subsection (2) of Clause 11, which all achieve the same end. They ensure that the intended reference to the subsection is to a notice of non-mechanical propulsion, and net to a subsequent revocation of that notice. Clause 1112) requires a notice to be given revoking a notification of non-mechanical propulsion when a vehicle becomes mechanically propelled, and both notices of non-mechanical propulsion and notices revoking these notifications are mentioned there. Three references are made in the subsection to "the earlier notice", meaning the original notification of non-mechanical propulsion. But such a phrase is not appropriate if a later revocation has not been given, as there cannot then be an "earlier" one. The phrasing is therefore altered by the Amendments so that the "first-mentioned notice" correctly and unambiguously refers to the original notice of non-mechanical propulsion.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 16, after ("period") insert ("or at any time")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment rectifies a minor omission. Under Clause 11(3) the Minister may make regulations including provision, under paragraph (e), for a "deeming" notice to have been given under the provisions of Clause 11(2)(b) revoking a notice of "non-mechanical propulsion". Paragraph (e) of Clause 11(3) provides that such a notice is deemed to have been given "in respect of any period". But this is inappropriate as such a notice can only have effect at a point in time. The Amendment accordingly provides that notice is to be deemed to have been given "at any time". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("()A person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Minister that he is liable by virtue of subsection (1) of this section to pay duty under the Act of 1962 in respect of a vehicle may, after giving to the Minister notice of his intention to do so, appeal to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which he resides or, if he resides in Scotland, to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction he resides; and on any such appeal the court or sheriff may make such order as it or he thinks fit and the order shall be binding on the Minister.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 in my name on the Order Paper. This is an Amendment of some importance which, for technical reasons, was not moved in another place. The background to it is that these two clauses, Nos. 10 and 11, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, knows, are the two most important clauses in the Bill, in that they introduce the new principle of continuous liability for the licensing of vehicles. This means that in future the owner of a vehicle will be continuously responsible for payment of the excise duty on the vehicle, unless he has notified the Minister that the vehicle has been laid up. This is a big change from the present position, where a vehicle owner now becomes liable to pay excise duty on the vehicle only when he puts the vehicle on a public road. There is no obligation to inform the licensing authority if he intends to lay it up. I do not myself join in the opposition to this change, and I accept it in the interests of checking the present widespread evasion.
My Amendment is designed only to provide what I think is a reasonable safeguard for over 10 million vehicle owners who will have to adjust themselves to this very big change. The obvious points of difficulty with this new arrangement will be, first of all, the non-receipt by the vehicle owner of the notice of renewal from the Ministry of Transport when he is due to renew his licence, and, secondly, the non-receipt by the Ministry of Transport of notice of intention to lay up the vehicle from the vehicle owner when the vehicle owner has in fact sent a notice and it has not been received.
It is only necessary to consider for one moment the infinite variety of circumstances in which 10 million vehicle owners may behave to recognise that inevitably there will be a number of cases of dispute. For example, when the notice from the Ministry arrives advising that payment is due, the vehicle owner may be away on holiday; he may be abroad on business for several weeks; he may have changed his address and not told anybody. Alternatively, a vehicle owner may have sent back a notice of intention to lay up the vehicle, and it may have been lost in the post, as occasionally they are, or mislaid on arrival—strange mistakes do happen in Government Departments. I had an instance of one the other day. A collector of taxes wrote to my old friend Sir Ernest Gowers, and the letter arrived six months after he had died in August, 1967. The letter was addressed to Sir Ernest Gowers, G.C.B., G.B.E., deceased, and reads as follows:
"There appears to have been no response to the previous demand for payment. You are now requested to make immediate payment of any sum which is due."
And so the letter ran on. I am sure my old friend Sir Ernest Gowers would not have complained about the words "not been paid", but he might have said they were on the wrong target.
The fact is that mistakes will be made with this enormous volume of requests. One has to think not only of the annual renewal of licences but the immense number of licences which are taken out just for the summer period, for one quarter, and the cars are then laid up for the winter. So one can see that there will inevitably be a number of cases of dispute. The Bill has tried to meet this situation. In Clause 11(3)(e), it has given

1045
the Minister some powers of discretion to deal with hard cases, and I do not doubt that the regulations which the Minister will make under that clause will set out the circumstances in which he will use his discretion. So far so good, but inevitably there will be cases where there is a conflict of evidence between the vehicle owner on the one hand, who maintains that he has sent a notice in, or that he has some special circumstances, and the Minister on the other, who maintains that he has not. My Amendment will provide that there will be an appeal to the magistrates' court so that there is an independent tribunal which will judge the merits of the case, as magistrates' courts continually do where there is a conflict of evidence.
I would only add that if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, says that he fears there might be such a large number of appeals that it would swamp the courts, I do not think so myself. I think there would not be very many appeals; in most cases the Minister, with his discretion, would be able to sort it out; and I am certain that where his discretion has not satisfied the vehicle owner in a case of dispute it undoubtedly will be referred to the local Member of Parliament. It will then presumably find its way to the Ombudsman, who will be asked to make an administrative inquiry to try to sort it out. But I should think that the magistrates' court would be the better solution. If it is decided there it will be done in the open. Justice will not only be clone, but will be seen to be done. I believe this Amendment would be an improvement to the Bill, and I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: The case for continuous liability, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent has given, I think qualified acceptance as a principle, is strengthened, we all know, by the rising volume of convictions for evasion of duty. When a continuous liability begins, the computer is presumably going automatically to inform the police. Whether they will be able to cope with it is another matter which doubtless the Government and the police have fully discussed. The point of this Amendment is that genuine grounds for appeal to a magistrates' court may arise from time to time. My noble friend Lord Nugent referred earlier on in
1046
his remarks to cases where things may go wrong in the post, either in the post from the applicant to the computer or perhaps more particularly the other way round. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may point out that so far as applicants' receiving reminders is concerned, there will be, I think, about five different reminders which will come along to somebody who ought to have a licence.
But suppose, for instance, a man has already departed abroad on business for two months before any of those five communications arrive. A fortnight after he goes his vehicle licence expires and then the reminders come. On return, that man will certainly be liable; but if he can prove, without question, that during his absence the car was not on a public road, here is surely a clear example where mitigating circumstances might well alleviate the matter for him the magistrates' court. I should like to make a very brief reference to a matter to which my noble friend Lord Nugent did not directly refer; that is, to cases involving vehicles not mechanically propelled. In the event of a car crash, with the driver killed, who is liable under the Bill for the continuous liability? Are the executors? How can they inform the computer that the car is no longer mechanically propelled under Clause 10, subsection (2)(c), when all the documents are destroyed?
To take the point one step further, suppose that there is in a farm barn a rusty old car which has properly been notified to the computer as being no longer mechanically propelled. If the owner dies, or the farm is sold, the executors or the new farm owner will, under the Bill, Clause 11(2)(b), immediately become liable for duty for what will now become a once more mechanically propelled vehicle. One can imagine many cases, for instance, when an extremely large farm is bought and when, quite unwittingly, the new purchaser may be running himself in for continuous liability without having any idea what he is doing. Those who, through ignorance or carelessness, fail to deal with a tax assessement can, I think, appeal to the General Commissioners. This Bill, under Clause 14, will give right of appeal to a magistrates' court against refusal or

1047
revocation of a driving licence. It would not, I think, undermine the principle of continuous liability if similar appeals were to be allowed for road fund licensing by accepting this Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Her Majesty's Government are as well aware of human foibles as are Her Majesty's Opposition. We are all human beings, and we in the Government know that from time to time we leave undone things that we ought to have done. Awareness of the increased demands of the new system will grow as people get used to it. I give your Lordships an assurance that the Minister's powers under Clause 11(3)(e) will be liberally used, in particular during the transition period, to let people off where there is a special and genuine reason for not being able to give a notification of non-use. He will be particularly liberal in the early days after the introduction of continuous liability. His powers to deem that the correct procedure had been followed will be used in cases of forgetfulness, and will also, I am sure, be used in cases of executors, new owners of farm property, and people who unwittingly find themselves in the possession of an immobilised motor car on their property, or a vehicle which has come into their responsibility as a result of an accident. Therefore, I feel that the examples which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would be completely covered by the powers of the Minister to "deem", and thus free the individual from liability.
May I comment upon the bid by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for a right of appeal to the magistrates' court? We believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary, since the right of appeal which it would provide is already, in effect, in the Bill. If a person, in the Minister's opinion, owes duty and has not used or kept an unlicensed vehicle on the public road, the Minister may seek to recover the duty owned in one of two ways. First, the Minister will be able to sue for the recovery of duty as a civil debt, and the person concerned will have an opportunity in those civil proceedings to argue before the county court registrar (or, in Scotland, the sheriff) that all or some of the duty claimed is not owed. Secondly, the Minister may deduct duty owing from the sum submitted
1048
with a subsequent application for a vehicle licence and direct that a licence be issued of a shorter duration than that applied for, though for not less than 30 days. In these circumstances, Clause 23 of the Bill already provides a right of appeal to a county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff for any person who considers that he has been wrongfully issued with a licence of shortened duration on the grounds that the Minister was not authorised to give a direction to issue that licence. The Bill envisages that a county court (or, in Scotland, the sheriff) will determine whether a duty is owed. This is a preferable tribunal to a magistrates' court because we believe that the issue is a civil one and not a criminal matter. For this reason we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will accept that, both during the period of transition, when we are rather confused by the new provisions, and in the long term, there are in the Bill as it stands sufficient safeguards of the individual's rights. I hope that he will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for his reply. I am not altogether happy that the right of appeal in Clause 23 meets my point. I am concerned with whether the vehicle owner has a reasonable case in regard to failure to renew his licence. He may contend that he sent in a notice to the Minister and that for some reason it did not arrive. It appears to me that Clause 23 gives a right of appeal only where the vehicle owner wishes to appeal against the Minister's decision to assess the vehicle owner for a certain period of licence. However, since this is a new point to my noble friends and myself, and since we feel that we ought to try to improve the Bill, we shall look at the matter again before Report stage and see whether the Minister's suggestion holds water. If we are not satisfied, we shall be able to come back to this matter at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("() The period in respect of which the keeper of a vehicle may be held liable to

1049
pay duty following the end of a period in respect of which duty has been paid shall not exceed 4 months.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is a simple point. The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the total amount which the Minister of Transport can claim where the vehicle owner has defaulted in that he has failed to give proper notice of non-use, so that the vehicle owner will be protected against possible administrative delays in the Ministry of Transport before action is taken against the defaulter. There might be a delay of some months during which time liability would build up, at the end of which the vehicle owner would face a considerable bill. The Amendment would have the effect of limiting the period to four months, which would seem to be sufficient time in which the Ministry to act and would be a sufficient penalty for the vehicle owner to have to meet. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I see the noble Lord's point, and there is no doubt that the risk exists. We have seen in the Press reports of gas accounts presented by computer running over a period of twelve months and causing severe hardship to the individual who has to meet an unexpectedly high bill. Such a situation could arise. The individual has the responsibility of informing the central office of any change of address, and he commits an offence if he does not do so. A situation could arise where an individual goes away with his motor car and does not inform the central office of his change of address or change of intention. Although the noble Lord's proposals are good in intention, we believe that they would curtail the intended effect of continuous liability. We lay great weight on this principle.
After the expiry of the four months' period, as proposed in the Amendment, the Minister would have no means of knowing whether or not the vehicle was in use on the roads if a notice of non-use non-mechanical propulsion had not been given. It is important for the keeper of the vehicle to have an incentive to regularise the position of his vehicle at all times—and not just within the first four months after the expiry of the last licence. It is a form of discipline—it may be tedious,
1050
but that is its intention. I repeat the assurance that I gave earlier. In order to go as far as possible to meet cases of genuine hardship, the Minister will use his powers in Clause 11(3)(e) to deem that the individual has not committed an offence, but has suffered one of the hazards of life and has thus omitted to give proper notice.
The powers which this Bill gives to the Minister will not be stupidly or rigorously used, but we believe that the system which we are introducing will be efficient. Provided that the individual lets the central office know of any change of address, he will get many more warnings than at present. He will be told that his vehicle licence is becoming due, that it is now due for payment, and that it is overdue. So the chance of his overlooking this involuntarily is rather remote. The principle of continuous liability is so important for the efficient running of the scheme, that we should be very loth to permit a loophole such as the noble Lord has suggested.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord and I recognise the force of his argument, but there is no doubt that there will be hard cases under this system. I accept that this system will give no less than five separate warnings and that it is very well conceived, but if the owner of a vehicle has changed his address and has forgotten to let anybody know he will not receive any of those warnings So his liability to pay tax when eventually the situation catches up with him may be very big indeed, although the vehicle may have been laid up all the time.
The last thing I wish to do is to weaken the value of the Bill to cope with the evasion which is now so serious But I urge upon the noble Lord that the Minister's discretion is going to be very heavily stretched to meet all the hard cases that will arise, and I should have thought that some limitation might have been put in here without tying the Minister's hands too much. I do not want to press this point, neither do I want to weaken the general principle, but with all the vagaries of human nature there will be many hard cases and I hoped there might be a little more flexibility. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Alteration of provisions as to physical fitness of drivers]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With the agreement of the Committee, may I move Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, together. Amendment No. 11 is a clarifying Amendment. The importance of a "relevant test" is that if a person who has a disability has passed a relevant test the licensing authority is not entitled to refuse the grant of a driving licence on the grounds of his disability, unless the disability has got worse or the disability was not declared at the time of the test. The purpose of the change is to bring out more clearly that a "relevant test" in relation to the application for a driving licence may be a current prescribed driving test or a "sufficient" test as defined in Section 99(5) of the Road Traffic Act. The actual test of competence which the applicant for the driving licence took may not be the correct prescribed test by reason of subsequent changes in the regulations, but if it was the current prescribed test at the time it was taken this will make it a "sufficient" test. Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that the test referred to may be a test of competence or a sufficient test. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 30, leave out from ("means") to second ("of") in line 31 and insert ("any such test of competence as is mentioned in section 99(1)(a)")
Page 15,line 34, after ("test") insert ("authorising the grant of a licence").—(Lord W interbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Alteration of provisions as to grant and duration etc. of licences]:
4.45 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which are drafting Amendments, together. For the sake of consistency the references should be to the "authority" rather than to the "Minister". Before the transfer date "the
1052
authority" will refer to local authorities who exercise driving licence functions on behalf of the Minister. After that date the expression will refer to the Minister. This becomes clear from Schedule 1, paragraph 1. In fact, however, the power envisaged by the new Section 101(1)(b) will not be used until after the transfer date. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 10, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("authority")
Page 16, line 12, leave out ("Minister") insert and ("authority").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. These are simply drafting Amendments to secure uniformity in the use of the word "granted", which is the expression used in Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1960. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 43.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With the permission of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20 together. All are drafting Amendments, but the key Amendment is No. 20. The words it is proposed to delete from the new Section 102(4) by the last of these three Amendments, No. 20, deal with three points in connection with exchange licences: the surrender of an existing licence, payment of the prescribed fee and the duration of the licence. The first two points are already covered in the new Section 101(1) and it is logical that the provision relating to duration should be grouped with the other provisions about periods for which licences shall be granted, which appear in the new Section 102(1) (Clause 13). Amendment No. 18 accordingly makes such provision. The first Amendment, No. 17, paves the way for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 46, leave out ("the case of a provisional licence") and insert ("a case falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection,")
Page 18, line 6, leave out (" and ") and insert—
("(b) in the case of a licence granted in exchange for a subsisting licence and in pursuance of an application requesting a licence for the period authorised by this paragraph, for a period equal to the remainder of that for which tote subsisting licence was granted;")
Page 18, line 44, leave out from ("granted") to end of line 4 on page 19.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Loan WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 33, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Other amendments of enactments relating to drivers etc.]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 9, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")
Page 20, line 23, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 45, at end insert—
("(4) In section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1962 (which provides for the issue of driving licences free from endorsements) for the words from 'either' 'to time' there shall be substituted the words 'on applying for the grant of a licence in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 101 of the principal Act and satisfying the other requirements of that subsection '")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships' Committee,
1054
I should like in moving this Amendment to speak also to Nos. 29 and 30, in Clause 22. The Amendment to Clause 15—that is, No. 25—is a drafting Amendment. It eliminates the references to the surrender and fee payable for the grant of a licence from Section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1962, and relates that subsection to the new Section 101(1), included in Clause 13, which already provides for these matters. It does not disturb the right, included in Section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1962, of a driver to be issued with a licence free of time-expired endorsements. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are consequential. The words to be omitted are redundant if your Lordships accept Amendment No. 25. The fee for the grant of a licence free of time-expired endorsements will be that prescribed under Section 101(1) for a full period licence or for an exchange licence, whichever is applied for. I beg to move No. 25.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) In section 85(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (under which the owner of a vehicle may be required to identity the driver of it who is alleged to have committed an offence to which that section applies) for the words owner of ' there shall be substituted the words person keeping '")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships, I should like in moving this Amendment to speak to Amendment No. 37 as well. These Amendments make two minor improvements in wording. They have the effect of altering references to the "owner" of a vehicle, in Section 85(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and Section 232(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, to the "person keeping" a vehicle. Section 85(2)(a) of the 1967 Act provides that where a driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of certain offences under the Act, the "owner" of the vehicle shall give, when required to do so by the police, information about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. Section 232(2)(a) of the 1960 Act makes a similar provision for certain other offences. The present wording is intended to mean, and is interpreted in practice as meaning, the

1055
registered "keeper", and the Amendments provide accordingly. Clause 27(4)(b) already provides for such an amendment to Section 18 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962, and paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for two similar amendments to Section 241 of the 1960 Act.
The present register of vehicles in practice identifies the "keepers" of the vehicle rather than the "owners", although the two terms often identify the same person. If the police wish to trace the driver of a vehicle whom they have not been able to apprehend, the only course open to them, generally speaking, is to identify the registered keeper of the vehicle from the vehicle registers and require him to state who was driving the vehicle when the offence occurred. I hope that I have made clear the intentions of these Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I make just one brief comment? I should have thought that, for the sake of the layman—one does not consider him very much in drafting a Bill—it might have been better to say, "owner or keeper". At least the word "owner" has a specific meaning to the general public, but to speak of the "keeper" of a vehicle would, I should have thought, have very little meaning.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: I was going to ask whether "keeping" in this clause is at all inconsistent with "keeping" in Clause 8, which distinguishes "keeper" from the person responsible for the vehicle when it is moving: the keeper of a vehicle is the keeper only when the vehicle is stationary.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: These are nice points. We have in fact found many shortcomings in the Bill as drafted in its transfer from one place to another. I will consult with my right honourable friend the Minister to see whether your Lordships' suggestions are of substance. After all, we are amending so many minor points of drafting to-day that I do not see why we should not have one or two more at Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Regulations with respect to the transfer and identification of vehicles]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("determined by or under the regulations")
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to enable the Minister to "determine" the persons to whom he may provide information from the vehicle records "by or under" regulations. Where persons are to be "prescribed" in regulations, as the Bill now provides, the normal implication is that the persons will be precisely described in the regulations. Since the Minister's intention is to describe in the regulations only some categories of recipient precisely (for example, the police) and to leave other categories less precise (for example, people who have "reasonable cause" for inquiring), it would be better to use the words "determined by or under" the regulations, since these are the words normally used in Statutes to provide for this kind of wording.
Regulations of this flexible kind will allow the Minister to make information available to people who have reasonable cause to require it, whilst leaving him discretion to decide who these are in particular cases. This is in fact the form of the regulation governing the release of information by local authorities under the present system. No complaints have been received that it is working badly, so it seems right to continue it and to reword the regulation-making power accordingly. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Information as to date of birth and sex]:
4.59 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
("() No information provided to any court or to any constable as to the date of birth or sex of an accused person shall be published unless there are special circumstances to justify doing so.")
The noble Lord said: We have been told that under this Bill all applicants for licences will be required to give particulars of their date of birth and sex, and that this must be given as the first information required for the working of the central computer. It may be in the memory of the Committee that during the Second Reading debate we had some discussion about this point, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, showed himself admirably sympathetic to the apprehensions of many people about giving such personal information. Here I would interpose that we in public life, who are accustomed to such personal information (and, indeed, a great deal more) being generally known, may easily underestimate the fears of private persons. They are real. Most people are very apprehensive about giving any personal information. I recognise that this basic information must be given in order to make the system work. My Amendment is simply concerned to prevent its being disclosed publicly in court unless it is essential to do so. I beg to move.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I must support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and ask the Minister to give this Amendment sympathetic consideration. The provisions of this Bill appear to be geared to mechanisation and computers. There has been little in it that dealt with human beings: forms, applications, notices and so on nowadays feed and give succour to machines which spew out the relevant information, regardless of the flesh, blood and bones of the people. By this Amendment some limitation can be imposed. It is right that people should feel that something about them is sacred to themselves. If this information is to be stored in some awful piece of machinery, I feel that it should be given out only for the most important reasons.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This was an interesting passage in our Second Reading debate. Her Majesty's Government are sensible of the concern people feel about the publication in the local Press of details of this kind. It may seem peculiar that we should mention sex. I should like to put that on one side for a moment. The date of birth of the individual is important because it is an integral part of his reference number in the computer. One has to have it in order
1058
to trace him in the machine. That is one of the facts of computer life. One would think that the matter of sex is self-evident; but I found when I was taking advice on this clause that, in fact, it is not, and that within the experience of the person advising me there is at least one case within the Civil Service of a change of sex brought about by an operation. This is something that an individual might well wish to be kept to himself. So we are in agreement that these are factors which must not be bandied about unless absolutely necessary.
It is the Government's intention that information should be used only for the intentions of the Bill and for no other purpose. It was to prevent publication of the date of birth by others, for instance, by the Press, that the Minister agreed to an Opposition request during the Committee stage in another place to provide that the date of birth given to the courts should be made in writing. The Minister is therefore very much alive to the need for the protection of the individual's privacy in these eases. But we are not empowered to lay down the actions of the courts in this matter. The courts may have to know and to record the individual's age before deciding what type of sentence they should give. But, by and large, it is the intention that the information required for the purposes of this Bill should be placed before the court in writing that is not exposed in public, and that it should be made public only if the courts believe it to be necessary. That is the reason why we are resisting this actual Amendment, although we are in sympathy wish its intention.
LORD AIREDALE: I do not understand this. It seemed to me as though the Minister's argument was leading to the conclusion that he was going to accept this Amendment, because, although it does not seem absolutely perfect in drafting, it provides at least in principle exactly what I thought the Minister had said to be desirable. So I do not understand why the Amendment is not acceptable.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his answer? I wonder whether I may pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The Minister has agreed with us in principle

1059
and has told us that his right honourable friend in another place has asked that the date of birth given in evidence should be given in writing. I accept that my Amendment is not perfectly drafted and that it may not fit appropriately; but I wonder whether the noble Lord at the Report stage of the Bill would accept an Amendment in terms which require that evidence of this kind should be given in writing. That, I think, would be an adequate safeguard. In special circumstances the courts may find it necessary to refer to it orally, but if the Bill were to provide that it be given in writing, that would give the confidence that is really necessary in this matter. Would the noble Lord consider that?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am informed that Clause 21(1) of the Bill already provides the words "in writing". The last part of that subsection says:
"If … the court orders his driving licence to be endorsed or orders him to be temporarily disqualified and does not know his date of birth, the court shall order him to state that date in writing."
Then in the following subsection it says:
"… if on convicting the accused it orders his driving licence to be endorsed … and does not know his date of birth … order him to furnish that information in writing to the court."
The "in writing" element is included in Clause 21 (1) and (2).
LORD AIREDALE: I think the Committee are anxious to secure words in the Bill to the effect that this information in writing shall not be disclosed publicly in court. I picked up these words, "prevent its being disclosed publicly in court" from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, when he moved his Amendment. Those words seem better than the word "published" which is used in the Amendment. To me it seems rather pointless to go to the length of saying that information is to be given to the court in writing and not going on to say that the information is not to be disclosed publicly in court, if that is the whole point of having the information in writing.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I have grasped the noble Lord's point; but I should like to take up the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to see whether the intentions of his Amendment,
1060
as expressed by him, are covered by Clause 21(1) and (2). I would remind the Committee of the point that I made in my original reply. We cannot lay down to the courts how they shall use this information. They may find it necessary to make public in court the age of the individual accused. But I will take advice on this point. If the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, are not covered by these subsections we can see about it at Report stage.
LORD HAWKE: I am sorry, but I missed the first moments of the discussion on this Amendment because it came on earlier than I had expected. I am not quite clear why the date of birth comes into the matter at all. A constable is to be authorised to ask somebody for his or her date of birth. Exactly why? Is it because, as the noble Lord said, that in order to get something out of a machine the authorities must know the date of birth of the person? Suppose someone has given a date of birth which is not correct. Many ladies give dates of birth which are not correct. Will the machine be any "forrader" in that event? Presumably, on being cross-examined by a constable—a formidable person—a lady will state her correct age; but if that correct age happens to be different from what is in the machine, how will the information get any further?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I imagine that if one says one is 29 when one is 39, that incorrect age continues for as long as one is alive—that is the age you have given the computer and the computer never forgets. This is a hypothetical point, but I will write to the noble Lord and let him know what the official answer is to this hypothetical situation.
LORD HAWKE: I do not want an answer to my hypothetical point. What I really want an answer to is, why must they know the person's age anyway?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Because, with the millions of people with whom we are dealing we have somehow to find an identity number which is peculiar to each one of us. That is our birthday and certain elements of our Christian names and surnames. Just being "John Smith" is not enough. There are very

1061
many John Smiths. We want to know the date on which a particular John Smith was born and possibly his second name. So the identification code number of a person is his birthday and a number of elements of his first forename and surname. I am sorry if this sounds a little technical, but that is why we have to have his birth date.
LORD HAWKE: Having got all this information, what is the purpose of gathering it? The gentleman is in court, you have his bodily presence there. You cannot get anything more out of the machine. What is the purpose in eliciting the further information? That is what I want to know. The fellow is before you in the dock, so why do you want information out of the machine as well?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The point is that the computer understands computer language and the magistrates do not. Therefore we have to translate "computerese" into English in order to help the magistrates who are trying the case.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: If you have two John Smiths both born on the same date, how does the computer differentiate between them?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I presume that that is a problem for the programmers. But it will not be a question of two people; I should think that there might be thirty or forty people born on any one day. Let us hope that they are not all just "John Smith": but that there will be "John A. Smith", "John B. Smith", "John D. Smith" and so on. According to the birth dates and other information we shall be able to distinguish one person from another.
LORD GOODMAN: If the Minister's explanation for the need for this information is that it is to enable the authorities to have an adequate filing system, there does not seem the slightest reason for this information to be divulged to anyone. It has nothing whatever to do with an offence, or the whole of the case. It is to enable a system of records to be made for the future. On that ground, surely, there is not the slightest objection to it being maintained as totally confidential in all circumstances.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is an eminent lawyer and he knows more about proceedings in courts than I do. But I am advised that information about a person's age may be required by a court before they decide the type of sentence which would be suitable, and that the court will ask for the information in appropriate cases. They may not publish it but they will ask for it and be given it in writing. They may then subsequently comment upon it. As I understand the position, normally this information will be in writing and will not be published for the Press and for the public to note. Nevertheless we cannot rule that a court shall not mention it if they see fit.
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to prolong this debate, but it would be extraordinary if, in a Bill relating to motoring offences, requirements were found in respect of sentencing which are not found in any Bill relating to other offences. It seems to me a very odd place indeed in which to find such special requirements.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not an eminent lawyer like the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am merely the chairman of a bench of magistrates, and I find that in many motoring cases it is necessary for us to know the ages, because some of the people concerned may qualify to be tried in a juvenile court. Age is, therefore, an essential factor in the situation. My noble friend Lord Winterbottom seems to have dealt with the question of age pretty thoroughly, but he said that he was sweeping sex aside for the moment. Now, my Lords, sex is something that you cannot sweep aside. I should like to hear what he intends to do about this provision which requires the sex of a person to be identified publicly to the court. I feel that it is eminently desirable that the sex should be stated, because many of the young fellows who come before me have long hair down to their shoulders and as they stand in the dock it is absolutely impossible to tell which sex they are. And it is hardly in keeping with the dignity of the chairman of the bench to pursue his own investigations into the matter.
LORD HAWKE: I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland,

1063
have, as usual, put their fingers on a perfectly valid point, and I heartily agree with them. Before you sentence a person for some motoring offence it is obviously necessary to know that person's sex and age. But I cannot see where the computer comes in. Why is it necessary to have this information in order to get some other information out of some computer? What is the other information going to be?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am sorry that my powers of exposition are so poor. The sort of information you would get out of the computer would be the chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle in question; its registration number and a whole series of other relevant pieces of information which are required by a court when considering a motoring offence. I am advised that there is an important element where the date of birth has to be known and must be known. The court may want to endorse a driver's licence, and to make sure that they endorse the licence of the right "John Smith" they must in fact get his birth date, so that the right John Smith gets his licence endorsed by the computer. They do not have to publish the date of his birth; it will be given to the court in writing. Nevertheless, they will have to know it. That is why the knowledge of the birth date is required for this special system.
LORD HAWKE: There must be different licences involved. There is the vehicle licence and the driving licence. Presumably, this will be filed under driving licence—"John James Smith, born on"—such and such a date. How are you going to distinguish and make certain that there is no other John Smith born on that particular date?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Having once entered the computer we shall go through our lives as, for example, "John G. Smith, born April 1, 1940". As we go through life, we shall change motor cars, renew our licences and so on. We remain constant; the trappings of licences and registration books will change. Therefore, the computer has one constant starting point which is the individual when he once gets recorded by the computer. The writers of computer language have deemed it desirable that one of the best ways to record the existence
1064
of an individual, so far as the computer is concerned, is to record his birthday and certain elements of his Christian and surnames. That is why it is so. I should shudder to compete in argument with the designers of computer language. I can only try to expound the reasons to the noble Lord as well as I can.
LORD FERRIER: Of all noble Lords in this Chamber, I am, I imagine, the most loath to have this debate extended. But I have discussed this matter of age and dates with certain people and it is possible that I might be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, by saying that the day may come when driving licences will not be granted to people over a certain age. The date of birth must be known now so that in the years to come it will be possible for the computer to tick off the people who are over 75, or whatever the age is.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for struggling so ably to answer the many points which have been raised. It is some relief to know that it will be only the date of birth and the sex of the person which is recorded, and that the chassis and engine numbers will refer to the vehicles and not to us. These words may not be the correct ones but there is a general sense that we should have some words of this kind in the Bill, that the courts should be as discreet as possible about the purpose of it. It is true that the Bill says "in writing", but I think that we would still like the court to have an indication that it is the will of Parliament that they should be discreet about this. Perhaps we could look at this point between now and Report stage to see whether we can find words which would suit the noble Lord and this purpose. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Powers to prescribe fees]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 29:
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 2.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 30:
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 24, leave out from ("Treasury") to end of line 29.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Institution and conduct of proceedings in England and Wales]:
5.22 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 28, line 1, after second ("or") insert ("section 11(2) of this Act or").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 together. These are all drafting Amendments. Quite simply, the references to Section 11(2) in Clauses 24(2) and 25(4) have been included, I regret to say, in the wrong place in each subsection. Clauses 24(2) and 25(4), as drafted, refer to summary proceedings for an offence being instituted under regulations made in pursuance of Clause 11(2) of the Bill. But there are no regulation-making powers in Clause 11(2), and the intention is, and always has been, that the proceedings may be instituted within the time limit stipulated by the clauses for an offence under Clause 11(2) itself. Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 provide that summary proceedings may be instituted within the relevant time limit for an offence under Clause 11(2) in England and Wales (that is in Clause 24) and Scotland (Clause 25). Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 delete the references to summary proceedings in England and Wales (Clause 24) and Scotland (Clause 25) for an offence in regulations made under Clause 11(2).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("11(2)").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Institution and conduct of proceedings in Scotland]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 11, at end insert ("or section 11(2) of this Act")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("11(2)")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of provisions of Act of 1960 relating to drivers etc.]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert—
("2. For subsection (5) of section 99 (which provides that certain tests of competence are sufficient to authorise the granting of a driving licence) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(5) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section a test of competence shall be sufficient for the panting of a licence authorising the driving of—

(a) vehicles of any class or description, if at the time the test was passed (whether before or after the passing of this Act) it authorised the granting of a licence to drive vehicles of that class or description;

(b) vehicles of any classes or descriptions which are designated by regulations as a group for the purposes of the said paragraph (a), if at the said time tile test authorised the granting of a licence to drive vehicles of any class or description included in the group;

and if vehicles of any classes or descriptions are designated by regulations as a group for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, a licence authorising the driving of vehicles of a class or description included in the group shall be deemed for the purposes of the said paragraph (b) to authorise the driving of vehicles of all classes or descriptions included in the group.
The last foregoing reference to a licence and the first reference to a licence in tae said paragraph (b) do not include a licence which has been revoked in pursuance of section 102(2) of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose, strange as it may seem, of this long Amendment is to simplify and clarify the provisions of Section 99(5) of the 1960 Act. The existing provisions are extremely complex and difficult to operate, although we believe that their aims were not different from those of the simpler provisions now proposed. We have discarded paragraph (a) of the existing Section 99(5), which concerns only tests taken before March 1, 1957, which is now time-expired, because under the 10-year rule in Section 99(1) (a) such tests no longer qualify persons for licences if they have not held licences in the meanwhile.
The proposed new Section 99(5)(a) provides that for purposes of Section 99(1)(a) (which provides for driving licences to be granted to a person who has passed a test of competence or a "sufficient test" within the last ten years), a "sufficient" test is a test which was the prescribed test for a class or description of vehicles at the time it was taken. This means that if the requirements of the test are changed, the person who passed a test when the new requirement did not apply does not forfeit his entitlement. We think it right that in such circumstances a person should keep the entitlement he has earned. The proposed new Section 99(5)(b) provides that regulations may be made designating a group of vehicles, for which a licence may be granted to a person who has passed a test for a class or description of vehicles included in that group. This power will be used when a group is enlarged, if it is thought right that a driver should not be required to take a further test before being allowed the additional entitlement.
The proposed new Section 99(5) further provides that if regulations are made designating a group of vehicles for the purposes of Section 99(1)(b), a licence may be granted to a person who holds or has held a driving licence for a class or description of vehicles included in that group. Thus entitlement to a driving licence for an enlarged group may rest on a test of competence for a group of vehicles comprised in the group or the holding of a licence for such a group of vehicles where appropriate regulations are made. Such an entitlement cannot, however, rely on the holding of a driving licence which has been revoked under
1068
Section 102(2). Under this provision a driving licence may be revoked where it has been issued in error or contains an error in the particulars. It is also provided that the entitlement under section 99(1)(b) cannot be based on a licence revoked under Section 102(2). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
("7. In section 232(2) (a) (under which the owner of a vehicle may be required to identify the driver of it who is alleged to have committed an offence to which that section applies) for the words 'owner of' there shall be substituted the words 'person keeping'.")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 41. line 46, at end insert—
("11. At the end of paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 (which contains transitional provisions for the grant of drivers' licences for heavy goods vehicles to persons in the habit of driving such vehicles) there shall be inserted the following:
The reference in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph to the driving of a heavy goods vehicle does not include a reference to the driving of such a vehicle of a prescribed class or of such a vehicle while it is being used in prescribed circumstances.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to modify the transitional provisions for the introduction of the scheme for licensing and testing drivers of heavy goods vehicles. The scheme for licensing and testing drivers of heavy goods vehicles will be introduced compulsorily on February 2, 1970 (after a six months' period of voluntary operation). Paragraph 1 of the Fifteenth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act 1960 protects the position of existing drivers. It provides that a driver who is able to satisfy the heavy goods vehicle drivers' licensing authority that he has the relevant experience of driving heavy goods vehicles shall not be required to pass the special heavy goods vehicle driving test laid down in Section 19(2) of the Road Safety Act 1967.
But under Section 20(6) of the Road Safety Act 1967 the Minister of Transport may by regulation exempt drivers of certain classes of heavy goods vehicle from the requirement to hold the special

1069
licence. He intends to use this power to exempt certain vehicles which, although they strictly fall within the definition of "heavy goods vehicle" contained in Section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, are either vehicles of a specialist nature—for example, engineering plant—or which are used to a minimum extent on public roads—for example, dump trucks.
It would not be in the interests of road safety for a driver of a heavy goods vehicle for which a heavy goods vehicle drivers' licence will not be required, to be able to obtain, by virtue of his experience of driving such a vehicle, a licence to drive on the public roads other classes of heavy goods vehicle, without passing a test. We do not want a dump truck driver to go out and drive a semi-articulated lorry on the main roads without passing a test. The Amendment accordingly enables the Minister of Transport to provide by regulation that the entitlement under the transitional provisions to a heavy goods vehicle licence does not apply to exempted vehicles. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
GENOCIDE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BROADCASTING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
5.33 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to draw attention to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House, ordered to be printed on June 27, 1968; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion refers to the Second Report
1070
of the Select Committee on Televising Proceedings, but in fact it was the fourth Report on the subject which has been submitted to your Lordships. The reason for this is that there were two Select Committees, as I shall explain in my speech, and each submitted two Reports.
The first Select Committee lapsed, of course, at the end of the 1966–67 Session, and the second Select Committee, which was roughly of the same composition, has lapsed now, but it served through the Session which contained the experiment to which we are now addressing ourselves. So it comes that I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. And I would add that my object in doing so is not so much to discuss the narrow issue of last year's experiment—its success or otherwise; its impact upon the House or upon us as individuals—but rather the wider aspect of its bearing upon the place which television occupies in the process of Parliamentary democracy in the world in which we live, or indeed the place that it may occupy in the future.
The problem may well be: where does our Parliament stand in this respect; and what are the developments that last year's experiment portends? As the intention of my speech is only to initiate the debate, it may be as well if I begin by sketching in the background of the. Report which is the basis of my Motion. The House of Commons had a short taste of television and film lighting when Black Rod summoned the Members to the State Opening of Parliament in April, 1966, on which occasion, your Lordships will remember, the whole of the Opening ceremony was recorded and filmed. Some Members of the other place protested at the time, but nevertheless the Commons, in May of that year, set up a Select Committee to go into the question of a possible experiment.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was at the time Leader of your Lordships' House, made a passing reference to the subject of televising proceedings of this House, as distinct from the State Opening ceremony, in his speech on the first day of the debate on the humble Address on April 21, 1966. Whether this inspired the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, or not, I do not know, but on June 15 of that year he proposed his carefully worded Motion to the effect

1071
that the House "welcomed" an experiment. This Motion was carried by 56 votes to 31, and in the course of his penetrating but, perforce, brief speech the noble Lord said:
"… we ought to do more ourselves … to communicate more directly with all the people of this country whom we seek, in our deliberations here, to serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15/6/66; col. 66.]
As a result of this decision, the House appointed a Select Committee, after some dispute about its composition, to consider how an experiment could best be carried into effect. Much of the Committee's earlier work was necessarily done on the assumption that a closed-circuit experiment would be run jointly with the House of Commons. But in November, 1966, the other place, debating the recommendations of their Select Committee to this end, negatived the proposals of that Select Committee by one vote (131 to 130) and most of your Lordships will recall this narrow margin, in a small House, because of the surprise that it created.
So the Select Committee of this House proceeded on the basis of a closed-circuit experiment for the House of Lords only, a course which was made possible by the sanction by the Government of the necessary portion of the expenditure, amounting to £18,000. In 1967, the following year, this Committee recommended that the experiment should take place in early 1968, and sought your Lordships' approval to the inclusion in their terms of reference (and this is important) of sound broadcasting, which they, the Committee, had found to be almost inextricably interwoven with the television problems. The Committee's recommendations were approved.
The Select Committee lapsed with the end of the Session, and another of roughly the same composition, as I have said, was appointed. The actual experiment took place on February 6, 7 and 8 of last year. The playback extracts and various edited specimen broadcasts, both in sound and vision, were at the disposal of your Lordships, the Members of the House of Commons and the Press the following week. The Committee, of which I have been a member throughout, then prepared the Report which is the subject of my Motion. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the Lord Chairman
1072
of Committees, is to speak later, I need not refer to its recommendations in detail, because doubtless he will do so.
This Report was in the Printed Paper Office on July 5 last, and the only further step that I need mention to bring the record up-to-date is the appointment in November of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. This arises from recommendation No. 6 of the Report, which stems from paragraphs 25 and 26. The members of this Joint Select Committee are, with the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, in the chair, the Earl of Selkirk and Lord Stow Hill, and from the other place, Mr. Charles Pannell, Sir Peter Rawlinson and Mr. S. C. Silk in. They are now engaged upon the task of considering—and I quote:
"whether any, and if so what, changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament".
I myself am not clear whether the matter of copyright is covered by this remit, and perhaps the answer to this will emerge in the course of the debate. But all the evidence to the Select Committee goes to show that, as things are, the broadcasting media probably dare not undertake the public dissemination of the proceedings of either House, whether in sound or in vision, without protection similar to that which the Press possess. Australia, for instance, found it necessary to legislate in this matter before they broadcast live in Canberra. Lord Pearce's Committee may well find that their task is no easy one.
This, my Lords, brings the record up-to-date, though it may be mentioned in passing that the House of Commons had a four-week experiment in closed circuit, sound only, live, and recordings, over four weeks in April and May last year. This then is the position to-day. The Joint Select Committee of Lord Pearce have entered upon their task. The recommendations and the report of the experiment lie upon the Table and time has begun to mellow the memory of the experiment or maybe it is the other way about. However, before I sit down I should perhaps set out briefly some impressions of the work of the Committee and the efficacy of the experiment as they occur to me. In doing so, your Lordships will rightly expect me to give expression to the debt

1073
the House owes to the members of the staff and the technicians of your Lordships' House at all levels who planned, prepared and carried out the onerous and intricate operations connected therewith. There was no technical hitch. The inconvenience to the House was kept to a minimum, and the dignity of the Chamber and of the proceedings was well maintained. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is not here. As he moved an Instruction, which in fact was debated but not carried, on this subject of the dignity of the House, I hope he was satisfied with that. And all this, my Lords, within the budget.
But in considering the matter of cost, and not only that, it must also be remembered that, as can be seen from the printed minutes of evidence set out in all four Reports, the experts of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. contributed very largely in outlay of both time and trouble and of treasure to the whole undertaking; and indeed their skills and experience were freely at your Committee's disposal. I think the noble Earl will say this in his speech, but I should like to say from the Floor that this was deeply appreciated.
My impressions are, first of all, that the lights and the heat were intolerable. But it is perfectly clear that the technical developments, particularly the plumbicon camera or tube, will mean that any future televising will not require special lighting. My second impression was that playing to the camera did not in fact occur, even with bulky cameras and with their crews prominent in the Chamber. Remote control and plumbicon cameras unobtrusively mounted, probably suspended under the Galleries, would render it absolutely impossible to play to the camera, if anybody felt so disposed. In any case, I feel (this is a personal view) that sincerity in a speaker is one of the qualities which in a curious way comes across crystal clear on television; and that penetrating and delicate beam is for me, at any rate, interrupted abruptly as soon as there is a glance at the camera—and speakers should know it.
My third impression is this. I have become more than ever convinced of the failure of the Press—and this comes out throughout the evidence and the whole series of our Committee meetings
1074
—over recent years in their reporting of the proceedings of your Lordships' House. They have failed the House of Lords; they have failed Parliament, and they have failed the people. I admit that this is not the fault of the staffs in our Gallery; one has only to see the streams of faithful reports that continually go to the Associated Press to be satisfied of that. But I take the view that even the leading newspapers fail more often than not to give adequate space to reporting your Lordships' House. This morning was an example. The Press which calls itself the popular Press seldom, if ever, records that either House has even been sitting, unless there is something which it deems sensational or salacious. If it were not for the broadcasting media, the people as a whole would hardly know that the Upper Chamber did any work at all. Is this perhaps one reason why the televising of proceedings may eventually become inevitable? The Press have failed to take proper account of the more serious mood of the people which seems to be developing, and it would appear from recent reports that they are paying the penalty.
I would mention in passing that the Scottish and Provincial papers are in a difficulty because of the hour at which they go to press, but I feel that even they could do better. On the whole, the welcome to the experiment from the Press was not altogether ungenerous, although some of their people cannot help being rather "sniffy", despite the surprise to them that Members of your Lordships House turned out to be human after all.
As for the broadcasting media, the public and Parliament and perhaps democracy itself owe them a debt of gratitude. With its inevitable imperfections Today in Parliament, and perhaps Yesterday in Parliament even more importantly, have a widening circle of listeners. This is very important to people distant from London, and of course the Yesterday in Parliament programme, I believe, is widely listened to on car radios by people driving to work. They give ample coverage, I think, and a well-balanced share to Parliamentary business in their news broadcasts. The programme The Week in Westminster on the B.B.C. is not so good, perhaps because its title belies its content. For instance, in the last three consecutive programmes of The Week in

1075
Westminster there has been no mention of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, although there was some note of the proceedings in another place in respect of the House of Lords. Parliament may well decide one day that the people are entitled to see and to judge for themselves. Is Alistair Cooke perhaps right when he says that television is the new conscience of the civilised world?—I think I have his words right; I heard them ten days ago. Perhaps the latest factor in political consciousness is the public's increased awareness of what is going on. Many people now want to know not only the reasons for policies but they may wish—and indeed expect—to be kept informed. But the fourth and overriding impression in my mind is that surely there can be no question of the House of Lords "going it alone". If the House of Commons does not "dig it" then we do not. That is the way I look at it, and it is perhaps fortuitous that we had to "go it alone" with the experiment. In my view that was a pity, though it could not be avoided.
So interested am I in this subject that I could go on and on, but I have no intention of doing so. For instance, there is the problem of the archives and the records. Are programmes to be live or recorded and edited? That brings one to the whole question of editing. And what about the cost? It is clear that the willingness or ability of the broadcasting media to bear a share of the cost is distinctly limited, and that I can well understand in the present circumstances.
So I conclude with an expression of my belief that as time goes on and the future unfolds, the new shape of democracy may well require that the deliberations of legislatures should be televised. However, before that stage is even considered in your Lordships' House the problem of Parliamentary privilege must be resolved, the House of Commons must change its mind, and technical advances must be such that the physical conditions are acceptable. Also proper procedures for dissemination to the public would have to be determined, while the dignity of the House is maintained.
The noble Earl who was then the Leader of the House referred to this in April, 1966, on the occasion to which I have already referred. He said:
1076
"I am convinced that we in the House of Lords in modern conditions shall not make an impact on the nation appropriate to our talents until this House is well and truly televised …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/4/66. col. 37.]
"Well and truly" I believe were—and still are—the operative words. But on that same day the Speaker in the House of Commons, when challenged by honourable Members who wanted to know why the instruments of torture happened to be in their Chamber, in the course of his remarks on the subject of televising Parliamentary proceedings, described this as being,
"what I believe to be an historic question which the House will have to decide both for the merit of it and, as the right honourable gentleman pointed out, the procedural aspect of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 21/4/66. col. 44.]
I assure your Lordships that I take up your time with a sense of deep respect and regard for this House and utter confidence in its place in the Parliament of the United Kingdom—confidence tinged with regret and indignation at the ignorance of the mass of the people as to what we do and how we function—a situation which television might relieve. Confidence, my Lords, nevertheless. I beg to move for Papers.
5.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I rise at this moment only to intervene extremely briefly. I hope I shall have an opportunity to say something at the end, but I wish now just to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. It is entirely due to his initiative that this subject did not just slip away, and I am glad we managed to co-operate in arranging a debate before we had all forgotten what it was like to sit under the cameras. Secondly, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to express your gratitude not only to the two Committees but also to the Lord Chairman of Committees, who will shortly be speaking, and to those who have helped and advised the Committees. We should also express our thanks to the representatives of the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., who gave a great deal of time, I believe, to assisting the Committees in their deliberations and in mounting the experiment in closed circuit television in your Lordships' House in February of last year. We may have comments to make with regard to the sufferings some people had under the lights, while others

1077
may not have been bothered by them; but as to the correctness and devotion of those who were carrying out the experiment there is no doubt at all.
This is a subject in regard to which I think the saying "festina lente" applies. On the other hand we do not want that to be an excuse for not keeping the whole proposition alive and under active consideration, and proceeding deliberately towards the formation of ideas on the whole question of broadcasting. I should make it clear to your Lordships that when I speak later I shall not be putting the Government view. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I agreed—and again I am grateful to him for this—that this is an occasion when the House of Lords itself says what it thinks. Although I shall express some views, they will be my own personal views, in the same way as there will be views by any other Member of the House of Lords, and not just the views of the Government. I promise that the closest attention will be paid to the opinions expressed in to-day's debate.
5.57 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a few words at this stage of the debate about the Report of the Select Committee that we are discussing this afternoon, thanks entirely to the timely initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, whose speech, if I may say so, gave your Lordships a picture of the whole problem of Parliamentary broadcasting. I should like to say, first of all, how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the kind words he has said about us and our work. I think the members of this Committee realised from the start, when they undertook this inquiry into public broadcasting, that the House had entrusted them with an important and worthwhile task, and they hoped they might render some small service to Parliament by exploring a little further the possibility of projecting its image by means of the modern techniques of sound and television broadcasting. Perhaps I may say about one member of the Committee, the Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury, as she is no longer with us, how much we benefited from her eloquent wisdom, and how thankful we are that she was spared to work
1078
with us until the end of our inquiry. It is a matter of deep regret to all my colleagues that she cannot be with us this afternoon.
I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I deal with the contents of this Report. The first paragraph in the Report to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is paragraph 5, dealing with the interpretation placed by the Committee on the terms of reference which they received from the House. As this is a question which may give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding, I think I should quote the chief sentences in this paragraph:
"The Committee were appointed to consider the manner in which the proceedings of the House could best be publicly broadcast for an experimental period … While the Committee are conscious that some members of the House, and indeed some members of the Committee, remain unconvinced of the desirability of broadcasting its proceedings, they have not thought it to be their duty to set out the arguments for and against such broadcasting but have taken as their point of departure the decision in principle in favour of a n experimental period of public broadcasting that resulted from the debate on Lord Egremont's motion. The Committee have regarded it as their function to investigate the manner in which that decision could best be put into effect. It will be for the House to decide whether to endorse or rescind it in the light of the Committee's findings."
In other words this Report is simply a matter of machinery. It is concerned with seeking out an effective means of public broadcasting and is not concerned with the much more important question of the desirability of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament. I would therefore suggest that it would be perfectly open to any Member of the House present this afternoon, whatever his views may be about the principle of Parliamentary broadcasting, as it was to those members of our Committee who disapproved of Parliamentary broadcasting, to accept the recommendations about machinery contained in this Report.
The next paragraph to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is paragraph 6, which deals with the closed circuit experiment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred in some detail, I was glad to observe, in the course of his speech. The House will recall that we realised that it would be useful to all concerned, to the House

1079
and to the broadcasters if the broadcasting organisations were allowed to carry out a closed circuit experiment, a private experiment here, before any decisions were made on the form which experimental public broadcasting should take. Accordingly, the experiment in television and sound was arranged and took place in February of last year. I am sure the whole House would wish to join with me, and indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, in paying a belated tribute to the skill and tact shown by the broadcasters in organising that unique event. However painful it may have been to some noble Lords, I am sure they would all agree that it was at any rate unique. We state in our Report that the experiment itself, and the memorandum about it submitted subsequently by the broadcasters, were of the utmost value to the Committee in helping them to arrive at their conclusions.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report deal with the questions of selection and editorial control of broadcast material. I think this is extremely important. The House will remember that by referring to the televising of some of the House's proceedings, the terms of Lord Egremont's Motion, which gave us our terms of reference, precluded the consideration by the Committee of any proposals for continuous broadcasting, such as exists in Australia. However, anything less than continuous broadcasting raises the problem of selection and editorial control. There are two possible alternative courses which were considered separately by the Committee. One of these is the proposal to create for this purpose, for the purpose of editing and selection, a broadcasting unit employed by the House. The other is the proposal to leave the responsibility for selection and editing to the broadcasters themselves, subject, of course, to the ultimate control of the House.
The creation of a broadcasting unit to deal with the first of these alternatives would involve the direct employment by the House of a staff which would have to look after the broadcasting equipment, prepare material for the broadcasting of our proceedings and make it available to the broadcasters. The Committee thought that the recruitment and employment of
1080
the necessary personnel would involve considerable expense, especially as they would have to be paid all the year round although of course they would only work while the House was in Session. Furthermore, if the material derived from our proceedings was to have any news value it would have to be available quickly for immediate use. I think it is pretty obvious that if the House were to intervene in this process, in this editing process, it would have the effect of much reducing the news value of the material for those preparing daily programmes of current news about Parliament.
The Committee recommended, therefore, that the broadcasting organisations should be treated in exactly the same way as the Press. If public broadcasting were to be authorised, the whole process of selection and editing of the material should be left to the broadcasters. The Committee were conscious that some might say that this solution was over-permissive. We took into account, in making this recommendation, that the Press had in fact operated for many years under a comparable freedom, and that, unlike the Press, both the broadcasting organisations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., are under specific legal obligations to ensure that what they report is both accurate and free from political partiality. The House would, of course, retain ultimate control over the broadcasting of its proceedings, and its privileges would extend to broadcasting as they do to the reporting of its proceedings in the Press.
I think the most important paragraphs in the Report—and these also, I was glad to note, were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—are the paragraphs which deal with the recommendations in regard to the practical arrangements for an experiment in public broadcasting. I would emphasise that the Committee were acutely and continuously conscious of the need to keep to the minimum inevitable interference caused by the broadcasting equipment with the normal functioning of the House. In earlier Reports we stated our view that the most satisfactory solution from this point of view, in order not to interfere with the normal course of proceedings in the House, would be to install permanent equipment in the Chamber and to use miniaturised plumbicon cameras, which is a technical expression we became

1081
familiar with, thanks to its introduction by the broadcasters, for televising the proceedings of the House. These small cameras would have been fitted into the panelling on each side of the Chamber; they would have been flush with the panelling, and therefore unobstrusive, and would have made no difference to the conduct of our proceedings and no visible difference to the impression that we have of the Chamber. They would, therefore, have been ideal. They would also have been remotely controlled and in consequence we should have no cameramen on the floor of the Chamber.
But here comes the difficulty. The broadcasting authorities informed the Committee that the capital cost of installations of this type would be about £360,000, and this, of course, was at the time the estimate was made. The running costs would, of course, vary with the amount of use of the cameras, but would also be very substantial. While the Committee recognised, and I am sure your Lordships would agree, that in the long term permanent installations of this kind would be the best means of televising our proceedings, the Committee were unable to recommend them for an experimental period on the obvious grounds of cost. The broadcasting organisations have said that they would not be prepared to contribute to the cost, at least not so long as televising the House of Lords alone was envisaged. In view of this, the only possible course would have been to make the whole charge of £360,000 a charge on public funds, and the Committee naturally did not make this proposal.
There were two other considerations which influenced the Committee against the use of this equipment, besides the consideration of cost. The first is that the Committee were required by their terms of reference to make recommendations only for an experimental period of public broadcasting. The success of the experiment would obviously depend on the degree of public interest in televised debates, and this could not be assessed until the public had had a chance of seeing some actual programmes. If, therefore, the experiment had proved a failure the whole of this money would have been wasted.
The second factor that influenced the Committee was the future of colour television. We were informed that colour
1082
television, both from the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., would be, within two years' time, by 1971, the greater part of their televised programmes. As the ownership of colour sets becomes more general, it is inevitable that monochrome programmes will decline in popularity. While there is no colour camera at present available which would be suitable for use in this Chamber, the possibility of such a camera being invented certainly cannot be ignored. The Committee were also informed that there would be little chance of adapting the monochrome camera equipment for the requirements of colour.
For these reasons, the cost, the experimental nature of the public televised proceedings, and the future of colour television, we were unable to recommend that permanent equipment should be installed in the Chamber. We found that the only alternative course was to adopt the solution put forward by the broadcasting organisations. This is dealt with in paragraphs 16 to 23 of the Report. This proposal was that the experimental period should last for one year during which the broadcasters would be invited to come to the House on occasions which they would choose, on what is described as a "drive-in" basis. That is to say, they would bring the necessary equipment into the Chamber for a particular debate, a debate they thought would be of public interest, and remove it as soon as possible afterwards. This equipment would be similar to that used during the closed-circuit experiment last year. It might be possible to reduce the number of cameras in the Chamber from five to four, and to make a certain degree of improvement in the lighting; but I should be misleading the House—and that is the last thing I should ever wish to do—if I gave the impression that the conditions would be significantly different from those that we have already experienced in the closed-circuit experiment. But there was this mitigating circumstance: the broadcasters did riot expect to avail themselves of the opportunity to televise our proceedings for the experimental period of one year on more than two or three occasions.
In those circumstances, the Committee took the view that the discomfort, which we have all experienced, might be acceptable to the House as the inevitable price

1083
of a public experiment in broadcasting. If the "drive-in" method were adopted by the House, the cost would be limited to an initial capital expenditure of £2,000, and all the remaining costs, the capital costs and the running costs, would be borne by the broadcasters.
The Committee also considered the possibility of a public experiment in sound alone, without television. Their opinion was that such an experiment should be conducted on precisely the same lines as a television experiment. The cost to the House would be limited to an initial capital expenditure of £1,000, all other costs, including the whole of the running costs, being borne by the B.B.C. An experiment in sound alone would, of course, have the immense advantage that it would involve no perceptible change in conditions in the Chamber and, therefore, no inconvenience at all to Members.
Paragraph 24 of the Report proposes that the House should appoint a Broadcasting Committee for the duration of the experiment in public broadcasting. This Committee would act as a link between the House and the broadcasters. For example, it could indicate to the broadcasters debates likely to be of outstanding public interest, and transmit complaints or criticisms from Members of this House. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Report recommend the setting up of a Joint Committee to investigate the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings and, in particular, to deal with problems that may face the broadcasting organisations from actions for defamation. I am glad to say that this recommendation has already been carried out, and that the Joint Committee have begun their work under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, went into a great deal of detail, I thought entirely justified, about the composition and the terms of reference of this Committee. I should like to say only this about it: that in my view the solution of the problem of the law of defamation in relation to the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings is an essential prerequisite for any long-term system of Parliamentary broadcasting. Therefore I believe that this Joint Committee of the
1084
two Houses has an immensely important task to carry out.
Paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Report deal with the request by the Newspaper Conference for opportunities for still photography in the Chamber if our proceedings are to be televised. That seemed to be a logical and reasonable request on the face of it. The House accepted the Committee's earlier recommendation that still photographs should be taken during the closed-circuit experiment. The House will recall that some of the photographs taken on that occasion were shown in the Library Corridor, where I think many noble Lords had a chance of seeing them. The Committee gave careful consideration to the request of the newspapers for this facility. They did not take the view that it should be granted, for the simple reason that they could see no way of controlling the use, and therefore of preventing the misuse, of photographs which would be available to the whole of the Press. We were not unduly worried about the British Press; but of course there might be an element in the foreign Press here which could take advantage of this facility to give an inaccurate and misleading impression of how we conduct our business. My Lords, I hope that this short summary and explanation of what I think are the salient points in this Report may be of some assistance to your Lordships in forming an opinion about it.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee whose Report we are considering, and I should like to say at once that I fully support all its recommendations. I do not think I need detain your Lordships long, because the Chairman of our Committee has put the case for the recommendations so clearly and succinctly. May I say, in passing, what an excellent Chairman he was, and pay tribute to him for the Reports which have emanated from the Committee.
Already, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, more than a year has passed since we held the closed-circuit television experiment, and I should like to say, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House did, how much in debt we are to Lord Ferrier for giving us this opportunity to discuss it before our memories grow dim. My own personal

1085
opinion was that from a production point of view the experiment was an outstanding success. Technically, both the sound and the picture were excellent; and in my opinion the editing of the various programmes which we subsequently saw was not only skilful, as one would expect, but also well balanced; and I should like to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the B.B.C. and to I.T.A. on that account, and also to the staff of the House and the Ministry who made such admirable arrangements.
I think, also, that a tribute is due to your Lordships who had to suffer the unpleasantly bright lights and the obtrusive cameras: the work of the House continued without undue embarrassment, and nobody could be said to have played to the cameras. But good as the production was, I do not think any of your Lordships would be prepared to tolerate on a continuing basis, with the level of the lighting that we had to suffer on the experiment; and I would make it clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has done, that the Select Committee themselves never expected that you would have to do so. It was clearly understood all along that this was only for the experiment, and that in the event that public broadcasting of parliamentary affairs became a reality quite different equipment would be needed and would be installed.
The noble Earl has referred your Lordships to the miniaturised Plumbicon cameras, slung beneath the Galleries and remotely controlled, with a lighting level of some 20 foot candles, that would be used. As I understand it, we had to put up with a level of 30 foot candles for the Image Orthicon cameras used for the experiment. The lighting at present enjoys 12 foot candles, and for these new and modern cameras we should require a level of about 20 foot candles, which would be slightly between the two. Such a level, I hope, would not cause anything like the discomfort arising from the 30 foot candles level used on the experiment.
The noble Earl has mentioned the complicating factor of colour television. Will a black-and-white programme be acceptable when public broadcasting really happens? Speaking again in terms of
1086
lighting, the camera that operates for colour television requires a light level of 150 foot candles, which sounds as if it would fry us all. On the other hand, although, as the noble Earl himself said, colour production is making rapid strides, the sales of colour television receivers are not moving ahead quite so quickly. It will be a considerable number or years before even a significant proportion of viewers have colour sets; and even then, those who do will be quite used to seeing black-and-white inserts in colour programmes. I personally hope that broadcasting of television programmes from Parliament would not be delayed simply because we had to wait until there was a colour camera which was sufficiently unobtrusive and would operate with a tolerable level of light. I should hope that, if it were possible to go ahead, we should go ahead with broadcasts in black and white.
I would strongly endorse one other point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrier; and I hope that your Lordships will agree. I believe that it will be quite impossible to go ahead with broadcasting on a full-scale basis without both Houses of Parliament agreeing on it, and without the programmes covering the proceedings of both Houses. But in the meantime the Select Committee propose a continuation of the experiment bi this House on a "Drive-in" basis. As the noble Earl has explained concisely, this would give the broadcasters the opportunity to come to the House on two or three ocassions a year and early out the same sort of experiment as they did with the closed circuit, except that the result would be publicly broadcast. The broadcasting authorities are themselves sufficiently keen on the idea to put up £14,000 out of the £16,000 required to finance it.
It may be that some of your Lordships will not be prepared to put up with further inconvenience on even the few occasions that such further experiments would cover; and of course they are likely to be occasions of considerable public interest. I imagine that your decision will depend on your views as to the ultimate desirability of televising Parliament at all. My own view is that this is a desirable end, and for that reason I support these proposals. Television to-day

1087
is a major means of communication and wields a greater influence than all the newspapers put together. It seems to me inevitable that the proceedings of Parliament should be open to television, just as they are to the Press and the public. In fact, as I see it, such a development is the only real way to bring back a healthy general interest in the work of Parliament. I have no doubt whatever that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. would use their powers with great responsibility. They certainly showed it in the experiment. The B.B.C. certainly shows it in its radio programmes relating to the work of Parliament, and both organisations have statutory obligations.
The noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred to the legal position of the broadcasting organisations, and to the setting up of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that this would not delay any proposal for an experiment too long, because if it is delayed we may never get any progress at all. I hope that it will be possible to find some way in which the broadcasting organisations are able to risk their neck just for this one year—and, after all, it seems to me that their position is not very different from that of the Press today.
My Lords, I should like to comment on two other points before I finish. One concerns sound broadcasting; and on this I would say that all I have said about television I apply equally to sound broadcasting. I would certainly support any further experiments in this field, and with sound broadcasting, of course, no question arises of any physical inconvenience. I believe that recorded extracts from Parliament would enliven the present excellent programmes broadcast by the B.B.C. But here again any final decision would have to be dependent on the agreement of both Houses. In the meantime, I hope that, even if we cannot continue with the television experiment, we may be able to continue with the sound experiment.
On the question of Press photography, I support the view of the Committee that it should not be allowed. It seems to me that the object behind allowing broadcasting is to enable the public to have a better view of the proceedings of Parliament. Radio and television are
1088
channels of communication, just as the Press is, and in my view should be given similar access; but still photography is not a channel of communication and, by its nature, its exposure is so short that it can never give a balanced picture. Press standards so often depend on news-worthiness, and still photography could easily give a completely distorted picture of Parliament at work—and certainly the flash of bulbs and the click of shutters would be highly intrusive. We are not asked this afternoon to approve the Committee's Report—I am not really sure why. I thought we might have gone a stage further if we had been asked to approve it. But certainly I hope that the sense of this debate will be to approve of the Select Committee's suggestion that we should go ahead with further experiments.
6.26 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Byers, who sat on this Committee, would have spoken to you to-night but he did not think he could be here. Your Lordships have heard already from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the late Lady Asquith of Yarnbury was a member of this Committee, and I, too, wish to say how sorry I am that she cannot speak in this debate. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, told me that it was because of her death that he realised that this Report had not been debated, and that if something were not done about it all the rest of the members of the Committee might well be dead before it was discussed.
I wonder why it is nearly a year since this Report was received and we have not considered it. I wonder if I do not detect a certain reluctance on the part of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House—and indeed of other noble Lords—to discuss it, and I wonder why this reluctance should be there at all. The Report prefaces its recommendations with these words:
"If the House wishes to authorise an experimental period …".
et cetera. "If the House wishes"—I have a strong suspicion from what I have heard various people say, not in the debate to-night, that there is no very great wish to do this; that there is a reluctance to come to a decision; that there is a reluctance to debate this matter and that this is why it has been forgotten.

1089
I should like to touch upon some of those reluctances and to see whether they measure up to anything very much. The first reluctance that I see is a reluctance of Members of your Lordships' House to face the sort of change that would come about if we had cameras. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said he had not noticed any playing to the camera. Well, I am certain there was not any playing to the camera; but if you once have cameras you will have, not necessarily playing to the camera, but a different style of person; you will have a different style of speech. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw a very interesting article by Profesor John Searle, who is Professor of Philosophy at Berkeley University, California, in the Spectator last week, in which he was examining the emergence of leaders under television. He described how Daniel Cohn Bendit, who two years ago emerged under television as the leader of the French radical students, had not in fact been the leader before. There had been other leaders before, but this changed when television came on the scene because they were not the sort of people who are favoured by television. This raises interesting implications for the noble Lord, the Leader of the House: what kind of change might he see, or what kind of change might the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition see, in this sort of circumstance? Will they be able to stand up to it? I think this is something we have to face: that we shall have a change; we shall have different kinds of people emerging. This is where I detect reluctance.
The second reluctance arises because although the Committee were not considering the desirability of television, and in fact excluded it from their terms of reference, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, it is the ultimate desirability of whether or not we do this which will make us make up our minds. I thought we had in principle agreed, when we debated Lord Egremont's Motion, that it was ultimately desirable to do this, or at any rate that it was desirable to the extent of trying an experiment. I do not think it matters whether or not your Lordships are agreed that it is ultimately desirable. What is desirable is that we should have a go at trying it out.
1090
Another matter of reluctance is that many of your Lordships have an inferiority complex and are afraid that you might be a bore. Well, had we not better let the editors try it out before we funk it? Yet another ground for reluctance is that of "going it alone". Two noble Lords have already said that they think that it would be impossible to "go it alone" without the Commons coming in. I wonder. It might be an error of taste if we were to go into it without their agreement, but there is sometimes something to be said for committing errors in taste. I believe that we can hold our heads high in relation to the Commons. We have shown a much more liberal approach to many things recently—from hanging to abortion, from homosexuals to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. If we can show this kind of liberal approach to moral issues, can we not also be allowed to lead the way in this matter?
The Commons need feel no jealousy in the matter. Surely their attitude should be: "This is a difficult experiment. Let their Lordships make fools of themselves first." I am not sure that that is in fact their fear; I think that they are jeaous of us in different ways. I do not know if your Lordships knew of the famous remark by Walt Whitman, the American poet, about the "never-ending audacity of elected persons". I do not know whether the Commons want to be obstructive over this. But supposing they wanted to be obstructive—a good many of them wanted this innovation, but it was turned down, possibly by accident, late at night and by one vote—nevertheless they did in fact turn down the suggestion, and those who were defeated might feel that they would like to prevent us from doing it first. On the matter of money, are we to be hamstrung by the fact that money for this has to be voted by the Commons? Supposing there were a noble Lord who said, "Hang the Commons! I will put the money up myself", what then? It might be felt by a good many of your Lordships to be an unsuitable thing to do, but we might give it a second thought, just in case it is not as unsuitable as we think.
I should like to say a few words on the mechanics of the matter: first, the

1091
question of selection and editorial control. I have no fears on this account; it need not be one of the grounds for reluctance that bother your Lordships. The kind of professional expertise which we have learned to regard as always coming from the B.B.C.—or nearly always coming from them—in their programmes on Parliament is something we can look forward to with regard to editing and selection of television in this House. I know that it is a difficult matter; there may be "teething" troubles and it may be much more difficult than is the case with sound broadcasting, but it does not seem to me to be beyond the powers of the kind of people who do this work very well. Next, I do not think that the experiment need have any particular implications for the Press. Television has always had implications for the Press, and if this has implications—so what? As for the point about experience of televising in other Parliaments, I feel that their experiments are not really relevant to us in this country, since very often their form of Parliament is different from ours. Other noble Lords may have seen television at work in foreign Parliaments and I should be interested to hear their comments, but I suspect that it does not have much bearing on what we are discussing to-day.
Then one comes to the drive-in system and the discomfort that this would entail. It has been pointed out that if we have permanent installations there would be no discomfort because everything would be unobtrusive and hidden away and involve little extra lighting, but that if we have the drive-in system your Lordships would find it intolerable. I agree that it would be tiresome. Occasionally there would be bright lights and a certain amount of disturbance, with people buzzing about on cameras, and there would be a good deal of heat. But we put up with this sort of thing on occasions like the opening of Parliament, and it would not be asking very much of your Lordships to put up with a certain amount of discomfort half-a-dozen times a year when the broadcasting companies feel that they would like to televise something which is interesting enough for them to want to do so. It would be intolerable if it were to go on all the time but if it were to be on a drive-in basis at only fairly remote
1092
intervals of time, I do not think it would matter.
As to the matter of the timing of the Pearce Committee, I understand that that Committee is not likely to be able to produce for some time an answer on matter of privilege, copyright and all the highly technical problems which I do not understand. It might take them one-and-a-half to two years to evolve the right answers. We must be reasonably careful over these matters, but I should imagine that some kind of guarantee could be given in matters of privilege, and so on, to prevent accidents to the people who were broadcasting.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I warmly welcome the Report. It is an experiment which we ought to decide to take. It is not all that expensive or uncomfortable or obtrusive, and I feel that matters of privilege and considerations about editing and control can all be overcome. We ought to try it. The one thing that stands in our way is that we might be afraid to implement the proposal before the Commons agree, but I hope that we shall go ahead regardless.
6.46 p.m.
LORD EGREMONT: My Lords, I hang my head in shame as being the person who is at the bottom of all this. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who talked about reluctance. There can be reluctance on one side, but there is a question of wooing on the other. Slowly, slowly does it. Let us not be in any great hurry over this problem. I welcomed the speech which was made by my noble friend, Lord Ferrier. He asked who was at the bottom of the bright idea to televise your Lordships' House. It all came about as a result of a debate which I initiated in June, 1966. The matter is made plain in the various Blue Papers and Reports—and very good Reports they are. Tribute is due to the Select Committee not only for the able and sensible way in which they have done their job, but also for the able, terse, plain and yet fully explanatory way in which they have reported to us. Our congratulations must go to them.
A few words about my part in the matter. You start a thing going, as I started this one, thinking that it is a bright idea. Then it goes on, and on, and on. I almost feel like a poor man's

1093
Wilkes. Your Lordships may remember from the history books that at the time when everybody else was still rushing about shouting, "Wilkes for liberty", John Wilkes himself was quietly running around saying to everybody, "Drop it. Leave it alone. I left that thing a long time ago." I was never a "Wilkes-ite". I was thinking this evening of saying that I was never a "Televisionite", but, having heard what has already been said here to-day, I have changed my mind. And for why? The reason is that I think television is bound to come, and, when it comes, speeches in this House might be more brief. So I think we should go on preparing for it in the very sensible and sensitive and civilised and imaginative and forward-looking and lively way in which we have been preparing for it hitherto. That is the way we should go on doing it. But let us not be in any great hurry.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it is through the kindness and courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that I can intervene for a few minutes. In the 1966 debate I regretted the proposal for the televising of your Lordships' House. Subsequently, I was a member of the first Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the Chairman of Committees, and I signed the Report for the experiment. The experiment has taken place, and my misgivings have not been placated but rather intensified as a result. Having had one experiment, it is now proposed that there should be another experiment for a further year. My main objection remains as it was at the time of the original debate, and perhaps I am the first Member of your Lordships' House to have taken some objection to the proposals in the Second Report.
Parliament, to me, is essentially a debating assembly where, in an atmosphere of intimacy, views are advanced, exchanged and argued. I do not believe that that atmosphere can be conveyed over the television system to the television screen, and its introduction may well spoil and constrict debate. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that television is a new form of communication and is therefore inevitable. With respect, I think that is a non sequitur. Of course you can have new forms of
1094
communication, but they are not necessarily applicable or suitable to a debating assembly.
My second objection is that there is no obvious public demand for this, and I reject the contention that in the interests of the education of a democracy we have a duty to show ourselves at work. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, criticised severely the amount of Press reporting of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. Like all other Members of this House, I too regret that the daily Press does not find more room for reporting our proceedings. But the duty of the Press is to report news. It has no duty to report earnest, valuable, well-thought out debate on matters which are not perhaps of immediate news value; debates which are of immense value to our system of Government, but which have no particular appeal to the daily Press. Hansard is available for those who wish to take full advantage of the opportunities of learning what is argued in your Lordships' House.
"Today in Parliament" on the radio gives a summary sometimes mentioning, sometimes not mentioning, your Lordships' House. On balance, I think it is very fair. But I do not think it is right for us to try to impose ourselves on a not too interested viewing public, because the likely result will be a loud noise of clicking as people turn off their sets or turn to another channel. Trying to stuff the eyes and ears of the public with unwanted pictures and sound does no service to the authority or dignity of Parliament; and the listening figure; certainly do not show any great upsurge when "Today in Parliament" comes on. Indeed, one of the broadcasting authorities recently said, "If only we could get rid of the political broadcasts."
My third objection is that public finance, sums great or small, should no longer be voted for television presentation. We have had some public funds; I believe that we should have no more. I claim that the closed circuit experiment has broadly justified my objections. As one Press man said in his evidence to the second Select Committee, "The last experiment was a dreary affair." I agree. The pictures were not inspiring. They were interesting to us, because we knew our colleagues and it is always interesting to see how your fellow Members look

1095
on the television screen, some of them in action and some of them at times in a somewhat somnolent condition. The dignity of Parliament to outside viewers will not be enhanced by what we saw on the B.B.C. and I.T.V. closed circuit experiment.
There is an objection, which I support fully, against the taking of "stills". They would be unfair, and they might portray moments in Parliament which would give a thoroughly misleading impression to those who saw those photographs. It would be very unfair for "stills" to be taken in another place, and it would be equally unfair to television. I can imagine a Member in another place, who is sitting for a borderline, marginal constituency, appearing inadvertently on television, perhaps tired after an all-night sitting, and sleeping. His constituents would be appalled and it might just tip the balance and lose him his seat. Therefore, both "stills" and a general picture of the House may well be unfair.
The Second Report of the Select Committee is what I call a "turn-down" for regular television, but it proposes for one year a "drive-in" set up, which means television at the television editor's selection; and it is envisaged that this should take place on a few occasions a year. The occasion for those will therefore be chosen editorially by editors, not having regard to the seriousness of the debate or the greatness of the issue, but to the likely audience appeal of that particular occasion in your Lordships' House. That occasion might well be one which we think is not the right one but what they think is right having regard to their TAM ratings.
For these few occasions television cameras, equipment and staff are to arrive. There will be hours of preparation; there will be hours of recording under the lamps for just a few moments final transmission. There will be hours of dismantling; and, as we know from the last experiment, there will be staff to be catered for, to be looked after. I would not call it so much "drive-in" television as "drive in and bread and butter" television, because we shall have them with us a very long time if we carry out this experiment. Furthermore, on such occasions I do not believe that the House would be natural and unaffected.
1096
As to finance, it is recommended that £2,000 of the £16,000 should come from public funds; but if we are to go forward with this second experiment your Lordships must have in mind the possibility (or you would not support it) of permanent television. Therefore, the £2,000 is but the beginning of the expenditure of a much larger sum of public money; and I personally would object to the expenditure of £2,000 now just as I would object to greater sums in the future. If we are worth anything to television authorities educationally, let them pay for the experiment entirely out of their educational votes. If we are worth anything in general interest or entertainment, again let them pay for it entirely out of their general funds. Otherwise, I think we should leave it alone.
My Lords, I have one more point, if I may make it. Going through Parliament now is the Parliament Bill, proposing the reform of your Lordships' House. A new House is envisaged in the future. Surely we should let the new House decide whether they want a further experiment and further money to be spent. Let the present House thank the Select Committee upon its Second Report but take no action upon its recommendations, and let this House remain a Chamber for debate and discussion within itself.
My final words are these. If we start on this "drive-in" television for one year, we start on a slippery slope; and, once started, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, in the long run the horror of colour becomes inevitable. I do not think we look so "hot" in monochrome. In colour, most of us look deplorable—and I for one will fully admit my contribution to that end. I therefore hope that the House will avoid such dangers in the future by not proceeding with the proposals of the Committee contained in their Second Report.
6.54 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this Motion, and particularly for his broad approach to the subject, which I fully share. I must begin by declaring an interest. I am on the Board of the Yorkshire Television Authority. Although I am not a round-the-clock television viewer, I am a television enthusiast, a fan, with a taste ranging from Sir Kenneth Clark to Ken

1097
Dodd. Somewhere along the line between education and low-brow entertainment, surely, a niche can be found for the House of Lords. I do not even take the view, expressed by the Yorkshire Post after the experiment in this House, that continuous televising of this House would be embarrassing or would reduce Parliament to a laughing stock. Perhaps it would be a good thing for the general public to have a proper idea of just how boring, as well as how interesting, Parliament can be. People must learn not to be put off by the tediums of the Parliamentary democratic process. Dictatorships always look more efficient, and this makes them all the more dangerous.
My Lords, I was very glad to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I was particularly glad to hear what he had to say; and, with the greatest respect to him, I must say that I disagreed with practically every point he made. I could not have disagreed with him more. So I was particularly glad that he spoke before I did. Personally, I agree with what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, said in the Select Committee: that if we televised the proceedings of Parliament it might create more interest on both sides, in Parliament and out; and it would certainly help to animate those who took part.
Personally, I am all for keeping up the pressure for communication in the country and in the world, and to-day, television has the greatest part to play in this. Television is the miracle, long-distance educator of to-day. I hope that technological advance will make its reception possible in all the more remote and developing countries of the world. I think, really, that it should be installed automatically, as with plumbing. I hope that it will not be many years before, in these developing countries, there will be television built into the houses as freely as people in affluent countries enjoy it, so that the people can see the scientific wonders of this age even more when they do not know how they are brought about. The more instant and far-reaching the communication, the better chance we have to arrive at some kind of truth as to what goes on in the world.
In general, my Lords, the camera is to be trusted, even though occasionally it can distort a picture. More important
1098
the sound-track cannot lie. Whatever impression you make, you have only yourself to blame. In this, television has a distinct advantage over the Press, where a slant can always be introduced. I suppose that in the process of editing a particular television programme a slant can also make it less objective. Although, in general, I dislike any kind of censorship, I am a little bothered by the Select Committee's agreement that the House should hand over all editing rights to the television teams. I know that this is a very difficult problem, but I do not think it has as yet been solved by the B.B.C. or I.T.V.; and we have still some way to go to get fairer news presentation in the media of the Press and television.
To me, my Lords, this looks over-permissive, and I cannot square it with the sentence in paragraph 9 on page v of the Committee's Report, where it says:
"Nevertheless it is clearly necessary that the House should retain ultimate control ever the broadcasting of its proceedings".
Where do the powers of the Broadcasting Committee, which the Select Committee recommend should be set up, come in? I have not got this at all clearly. Nor can I see why the House should make any contribution to the cost of the installation of equipment. The witnesses called from the television companies gave very unconvincing answers to Lord Byers, who raised this matter in the Select Committee, when he queried the justification for this part cost. During a broadcasting session of the House the whole performance is there for them to relay. I know that there is still the arduous task of editing, but at least the news has not to be dug out; not have special envoys or actors to be paid.
In spite of my strong belief in the ultimate benefits of more and better television, after reading the Report of the Select Committee I would give television, at this time, a low priority. I am not clear whether there has been any firm suggestion for the time to be allocated to television or for the frequency of such broadcast sessions; the television companies appear to be very lukewarm. The primary object of broadcasting. Parliamentary proceedings should be educational, to strengthen democracy. If the programme is too short, it is inadequate and may be misleading. Adequate time and coverage is absolutely essential for

1099
an objective account of what goes on in Parliament. I think that it is too expensive to embark on this scheme at the present time, and therefore I would say that it is too soon to do it.
When it comes to sound broadcasting, however, that is another matter. I think that much could be achieved by recording debates in both Houses of Parliament. This is not nearly so costly, and there is everything to be said for going ahead with it. The television experiment in this Report was very worth while and will stand us in good stead in some years to come when we can afford to televise the proceedings of Parliament on a really proper basis.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I rise to intervene briefly in this debate as a member of the Select Committee. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has drawn attention to this Report which until this afternoon seemed to have fallen like the proverbial lead balloon. This question of televising the proceedings of the House seems to be rather an emotive one giving rise to strong feelings both for and against. I hope I am not betraying a confidence if I say that the Committee, which was appointed to consider only method, was frequently on the edge of debating merit even though the House had approved a policy in its vote on July 15, 1966. No doubt the House can reverse itself after the experiment and after studying the Committee Report. My purpose is to express the hope that it will not do so but will accept the very limited proposals of the Committee which were unanimously agreed and put them into practice without much further delay.
To take sound broadcasting first, the recommendation of the Committee in favour of an experimental period of public broadcasting is probably less controversial, as indeed emerged from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, than the proposal for television. But there is an objection which has been raised, and which was raised again this afternoon, to proceeding with either proposal at the present time. It is that the House of Lords should not act without the Commons. I should certainly agree with this view if it were suggested that the arangements for broadcasting should be on a permanent basis; but this is not the
1100
proposal. All that the Committee recommended was that there should be an experimental period in which the proceedings should be televised on infrequent occasions.
The situation might be different if there was a feeling among the broacasting authorities themselves that the experiment limited to the House of Lords would be unacceptable or without interest. But on the contrary they welcomed the prospect. Indeed the first Report of the Services Committee of another place on broadcasting its proceedings states categorically that the desirability of broadcasting the proceedings of this House is strongly urged by the B.B.C. Moreover, the broadcasting authorities were prepared to back their judgment with cash by paying seven-eighths of the cost in the case of television and three-quarters in the case of sound broadcasting, leaving only a small amount to be found by Parliament. There has been objection this evening to any payment on the part of Parliament. But this proposal relates to payment for the permanent installation; that is to say, the infrastructure, which would be a permanent part of the equipment in this House. It seems to me to be a quite reasonable proposal that Parliament should be asked to pay for that. The total cost, £3,000, is not a large sum even in these cost-sensitive days.
Apart from the broadcasting authorities, four leading journalists were consulted by the Committee, and though they were not fully agreed they were generally in favour on a variety of grounds of broadcasting. Indeed, the public reaction about the experiment in this House was generally, and perhaps unexpectedly, favourable. This is shown by the tenor of the Press comment which, although there were obviously dissenting opinions here and there, was on the whole very favourable. The situation might again be different if some forward moves were imminent in another place, but so far as I know the situation there is frozen probably for the rest of this Parliament.
Then there is the question of the convenience of this House. It is certainly a disappointment that the small cameras which can be operated by remote control and which require a level of light one-third lower than the existing cameras are not yet fully developed; and they would in any case be extremely expensive to install. The experiment would

1101
therefore have to continue with the physical presence of operators and cameras in the Chamber. Although the broadcasting authorities were able to hold out the prospect of some amelioration of the lighting, they admitted that this would be relatively slight. It did not seem to me, during the experiment, that the physical presence of cameras and operators affected the delivery or the quality of the speeches, but the light was certainly more trying. However, on the infrequent basis on which the experiment would proceed it seems to me that the inconvenience is tolerable and the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages of further experiment.
Then there is the question of privilege. A great deal has been made of the risk of being penalised for breach of privilege if an experiment were to be made without express protection. I think there has been no difficulty about the current forms of reporting proceedings of the House. While there are special features in respect of television, it appears that the risk that the authorities are likely to run is a very small one, as indeed emerged from the memorandum on the subject submitted to the Select Committee on Broadcasting in another place. It seems to me that the broadcasting authorities, if given the opportunity, could quite safely "have a go" before the Joint Committee on Privilege has reported and action is taken on the Report. which appears to be a rather lengthy perspective.
My Lords, I do not know where the further initiative lies in this matter. My conclusion is that if you are against the idea of televising the proceedings of the House it is easy enough to find practical objections against doing anything. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, produced a whole bagful of them. But if you are in favour, or even if you are neutral, those objections appear to me to be of a kind which could easily be overcome. Television may or may not be a dangerous thing, but it has come to stay and in my personal opinion the sooner this House begins to come to terms with it, the better.
7.10 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, so many points have already been made—and I do not believe in repetition—that I propose to stick to just
1102
three or four in support of the view that I had when we had our vote and I voted against television. I sat on the two Select Committees, and I have not yet been persuaded by what we heard then, interesting as it was, that this is the moment to televise the proceedings of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, very kindly quoted from the Report. I cannot think where she found the quotation: I think that it must have been taken out of context.
But, looking at the matter first from the permanent point of view, the whole of the estimates in the Reports about costs are based really on fiction. They are based on the possibility of having Plumbicon television apparatus which at the moment is non-existent and is still being developed. Whatever the costs were eighteen months ago, they are bound to be at least three times as much now. Therefore all the costs shown in this Report are now totally unreal from the point of view of a permanent setting.
Secondly, there is the advent of colour television. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that that would be a disadvantage here. I think that the beauty of this Chamber, and the Throne, with the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack, could counterbalance many of the defects of the Members elsewhere—
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Not the Chamber, my Lords; it will be the people in it.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am all for colour television if we are to have our proceedings televised at all; and it seems to me that it would be ridiculous to put in a very expensive black-and-white picture installation if it would have to be changed before very long to a colour one. I think that to spend a great deal of money on exhibiting ourselves would not at present be very welcome to the public at large. I do not think this is really the moment to go a "splash" in this way—though if the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, sands good, and he wishes to pay for the whole thing, one may reconsider the position.
The question of time was another point brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. How much time should we

1103
be allotted if we had a permanent arrangement? The time given would be ten minutes—two minutes of explanation and eight minutes of television, out of a quarter of an hour, of which the balance would go to another place. To spend on eight minutes of television the amount of money that we should have to spend seems to me to be at the moment quite out of proportion. Also, I feel that it would be invidious for us to go ahead with a permanent installation if the other place is not willing to come in with us. Having been there myself, I do not feel that television is suitable for the other place: indeed, it would be far less suitable for them than it would be even for us. I do not see any prospect of this going ahead, and I am very doubtful whether we should go forward alone.
My Lords, the great advantage of having a permanent installation is that people forget that it is there. When they do not realise that it is present, television does not change their manner of speaking or their approach to a subject. Any of us who have been delegates to the United Nations, where there is permanent television, will know how quickly people forget its presence. So there is that advantage about a permanent installation as against a "Drive-in" system. I do not like the idea of a "Drive-in". I think it would be extremely inconvenient for Members of your Lordships' House, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to choose the subject to be televised. If the broadcasting authorities are going to go for the three subjects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley—hanging, homosexuality and abortion—we shall get a very curious reputation in the world at large; and I am afraid that it is exactly that sort of subject that would be chosen.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness to ask her one question? I am very interested in what she was saying about the the United Nations. She said that there is continuous television. Are selections made, or is it a continuous transmission?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, selections are made, but television is there all the time, and unless you watch for the red light you are not conscious whether it is on or off.
1104
As I was saying, a "Drive-in" basis would be highly uncomfortable; the lighting and the heating in this Chamber would be very oppressive. And I think the choice of subject would be extremely difficult to make. We all know that sometimes we anticipate that a debate will be extraordinarily interesting. Such a debate might be chosen for televising, but might fall completely flat; whereas on another day, when the debate had not been chosen, there might be a most marvellous debate which would have made an excellent subject for broadcasting.
I should also feel very sorry for the usual channels, who would have to choose both the Members who were going to speak and the order in which they would speak. That would, I think, be an arduous responsibility and a difficult job.
I feel, therefore, that this is not the moment to go forward. We need to get the question of privilege worked out, and we have to wait to sec how technical developments come along, both in Plumbicon and in coloured television. And from the point of view of the general public, I do not think that spending a very large sum of money at the present moment would be popular.
7.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join most of your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising this subject, which I think certainly should have been raised, and for doing it with such immense clarity and liberality; and for his almost opening remarks that he felt that those who took part in the debate were entitled to speak on the general issue of the desirability of the thing rather than on the mechanics of it. The only things that I shall have to say, and I shall try to keep them short, are of a very general nature and deal with the whole question—which I think is going to be an increasingly important and interesting one—of what one could call "government by image." This House still being a part of the Parliamentary system may, I think, be included in "government". On the question of image, two views have been put tonight. They are age-old ones. One can be summed up in the words from the Book of Proverbs:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."

1105
I suppose, therefore, a democratic Government might go out. The other, earlier one is not as many people think:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image",
but, if you make it, you must not bow down to it or worship it. I think there is a real danger of worshipping images, whether television images or any image in the Press nowadays.
I do not believe that at the moment, whatever there may be at some future date, there is any great danger of the image of this House being worshipped in a way that a Divinity or even a "pop" star might be. In fact, many of your Lordships may think that the position is the reverse. It seems to me, however, that two questions are concerned here. The first is, how televising may affect the image which the public—not those who come to this House who have a different one, but those who stay away—would have of our proceedings here. And the second, and, to my mind the more important one, is how far the knowledge that one is speaking not only to your Lordships (who are unbelievably sympathetic, even to Back Bench Liberal Peers, if they do not speak too long) but to the general public would affect and alter the character of debates. I should like to say a few things about each of those.
I come to the first question, what effect I believe it would have on our image. The first point is, will television distort to any extent what goes on in this House? My Lords, of course it will, and any form of reporting does. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, made one remark in the Select Committee which I must say shocked me. It was a true remark, I am ready to believe. She said that she has almost never been reported in the newspapers; and that in itself, seems to be a distortion of our debates. I think that anybody who has made a speech and found that a sentence has been selected by the papers to represent that speech cannot help but feel that distortion does happen. I have been reported twice. On one of those occasions I ventured to differ from the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. He said that the object of this House was to fight the Devil and all his works. I said that while that might be the object of individual Members, if the House as a whole followed his advice,
1106
followed him into the Lobby and hit the Devil for six, six would not be enough, because there are Seven Deadly Sins, only one of which is covered, and I should be too busy. I was reported next day as saying that I entirely agreed that the object of this House was to fight the Devil and all his works. That seems to me to be an example of how, by selecting one sentence, quite a trivial one in this case, anything can be distorted.
On the question of how the image of your Lordships' House as it exists in the public mind at the moment might be distorted for the worse, I can only personally answer, like one of Mr. Wodehouse's characters who, when shown a picture of himself as a baby and asked if he was really as ugly as he looked, said with all honesty, "I don't see how I could have been." I say this, after visiting a play now current in the theatre where your Lordships' House is represented to the public in a way which one would not expect. One might say that any theatrical representation in which anyone can make a speech, has to wear a coronet and robes and speak from the middle of the House, would not be taken very seriously as a fair satire on your Lordships' House. It is taken seriously by critics and by the Sunday Times. I would recommend noble Lords to see the things they have said. It is taken as a devastating criticism of your Lordships' House. I feel that the most distorted television version of a real debate would strikingly correct that opinion.
More important is the question of how far noble Lords would alter the forms of their speeches if they knew that the debates were being televised. I was going to draw your Lordships' attention to the interesting argument in the Spectator, which my noble friend Lord Henley mentioned. It made clear that in events like student risings the people who come to the fore are not those selected by the students but people like Mr. Cohn-Bendit, who might have been chosen by the students but who at a certain stage are found to have television personalities. And there is a danger that Peers might be inclined to adapt their speeches to accord with that idea. How far that will apply to any House in future I do not know; but I do not think that your Lordships' House as at present constituted would be seriously worried by that. I believe that

1107
most noble Lords would make the same kind of speech as they made before, if they were unconscious, or were not made conscious the whole time, that they were being televised.
It is here that I should have a great many more doubts as to the wisdom of this experiment. If we are to be submitted only on select occasions, on special gala days, to television cameras which it is almost impossible to forget, then it will not be a fair representation of your Lordships' ordinary debates. In spite of that, I still believe it might be worth having an experiment to see what happens. After a limited period we should be in a better position to make up our minds, but, on the whole, I am rather lukewarmly in favour of the general recommendations which the Committee have put so admirably.
7.27 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, my only excuse for intervening for a few moments in this interesting debate is that I have had a certain amount of personal experience of this particular medium. In fact, I venture to say that probably I have had a greater experience of it than any other Member of your Lordships' House. I should like to begin by saying how much I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Ferrier, said about the reporting in the Press of debates both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
On more than one occasion I regret that I have had to draw your Lordships' attention to the price of gold which, whatever views anybody may hold, is an important subject. All the speeches that I have made on this subject and all the questions that I have asked have been virtually ignored by the popular Press, and indeed by every part of the Press; but when I put down a Question about whether the gum on 5d. stamps was sticky enough it was headline news in every newspaper in the country. So far as the Press is concerned, gum beats gold—and I think that is all wrong. I think that we have cause for complaint about the reporting of important debates in both Houses of Parliament.
The enormous difficulty of this question of televising the proceedings of the House can be summed up in one sentence: Who is to choose who is to be
1108
televised, and why? I refer particularly to the character of debates in both Houses. Churchill once said to me, "First-class debate is animated argument." I think that he was quite right. And that is very difficult to reproduce on television. We do not know when the animated argument is going to arise. Often, there are set speeches, more frequent in this House than in another place, following one another, in which nobody attempts to answer anybody else. We cannot be sure when the animated argument will arise, and that would be the public interest in our proceedings.
There was an attempt made at animated argument on television, first on the B.B.C., and secondly on I.T.V. I was a participant, with Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. A.J.P. Taylor and the late Mr. W.J. Brown, in both these experiments. The first was called "In the News" and the second, "Free Speech". I know from the rating figures that both programmes were extremely popular. But they were smashed relentlessly and ruthlessly by the machine politicians of the day. The members of both the Party machines went first to the B.B.C., and then to the and said: "These chaps express only their own views. We are not getting a proper chance. They argue with each other, but express their own views, and we are not getting a chance to express the official Party point of view." The B.B.C. went so far as to say: "You can put two of your recalcitrants or"—if I may use the expression—"bloody-minded members on the team, but you must have an orthodox member of the Labour Party and an orthodox member of the Conservative Party expressing the orthodox Party view ". Within a month the programme was dead.
I would just say this. Animated disdiscussion has now dropped out from broadcasting to such an extent that it has been, for all practical purposes, replaced by "pop" singers and by most irritating interviews. I make an exception here. I am not referring to the interviews given by our present Ambassador in Washington, under the title of "Face to Face", which I think was probably the best programme ever produced on any television in the world: it was absolutely first-class. But these hurried interviews given by harried politicians who have just landed from heaven knows where in an aeroplane, and are

1109
only concerned to say nothing that can go wrong, are an irritant and so far as I can see do no good to anybody.
So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, I think he would be well advised to adopt the example of General de Gaulle; to appear alone on television not more than two or three times a year and tell us what he is trying to do, and how he proposes to do it. And I think the leaders of the Opposition should appear at least once a year for the same purpose, and with the same objective. In my view, these ridiculous Party broadcasts, which bore everybody to tears and are absolutely useless from a vote-catching point of view, should be abolished altogether.
Animated discussion, to which I have referred, occurs sporadically. You cannot foresee it; it is unexpected. The cameras cannot be prepared to catch it when it takes place unless they are there all the time. In the end, boredom prevails, as it must do if we are to do our duty in Parliament. On October 30 of this year I shall have sat in Parliament continuously for 45 years, and I can hardly describe the eons of boredom that I have had to sit through in both Houses. Yet, at the same time, I would not say that they were all unnecessary. I think they are necessary to conduct the public business of the country. But the television viewing audience should not have this inflicted on them. At least, the Members of another place are paid a substantial salary for doing it, and we are paid a pittance—and we should not be here if we were not content with that. But why the public should have these eons of boredom inflicted upon them is beyond me.
My Lords, I detect in your Lordships' House quite a number of gentlemen who resemble Soames Forsyte, but I venture to suggest that none of you could put over on the screen Soames Forsyte as well as Mr. Eric Porter, and I think you had better leave it to him to do so. The so-called interviews at Heathrow or elsewhere are absolutely useless from a public point of view. They would be far better put out officially by the Government Department concerned.
This television business is a technique which is unique, and it can only be acquired, as in every other game, by prac-
1110
tice and experience. You cannot learn a game overnight. It has nothing to do with speaking in Parliament or speaking on a platform. It is an art (if you like to call it that) by itself. When the lights go on, as under the proposal of tie noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, they will—even if they are subdued red lights—let me assure your Lordships that you will not be wholly unaware of the unseen eyes and the subconscious effect of then. You cannot be. You will stand up, suddenly you will see a red light in the corner, and you will make a quite different speech. A noble Lord spoke just now of the effect of sincerity. You can be sincere if you know that you are being televised and are talking straight into the camera. But when you are speaking in a Chamber like this, and you suddenly see a red light go on, believe me, my Lords, you change: you will not make the same kind of speech, and you will not make the sort of speech that is required in Parliament.
I should certainly have the opening of Parliament televised, especially now that colour is coming in. It is pure pageant, which the British people love and at which they excel. Otherwise, the only advantage that I can see in televising the proceedings of either House is a tremendous diminution in the sale of barbiturate sleeping tablets. If a guarantee could be obtained from the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. that the proceedings of Parliament would never be recorded until 11 p.m., it would at least leave Parliament unscathed, and at best put many people to sleep long before they would otherwise go to sleep without artificial aid.
7.43 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I must apologise profusely for not being present for the opening speeches, and particularly must I apologise to my noble friend Lord Ferrier who kindly gave me a précis of the points that he had made. I hope that I shall not repeat things that have been said, other than when I do so deliberately. For instance, I find myself wholly in accord with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has somewhat stolen try thunder in the main point that he made.
My working day consists, and must consist, largely of evaluating what is interesting, memorable or entertaining to the general public. I would not say that

1111
nine-tenths of the proceedings in this illustrious Chamber are not entertaining, but that 99 per cent. of events here are stupefyingly boring in those terms. This is not a criticism, but an objective viewpoint, because it is a fundamental part of this House that because it is willing to undertake the detailed legislation of the day-to-day running of the nation it should be by definition non-entertainment. The time proposed, 11 o'clock at night, with which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, ended his speech, will, I suppose, ensure that only the most dedicated educationalists will watch such a programme, in the hope of finding something to tell the class next day. I cannot think of any other reason to listen to this programme on the radio or watch it on television, even on a "Drive-in" basis.
There is that very relevant quotation in the Report itself with which your Lordships will be familiar:
"It will not in the nature of the case be possible to make any accurate assessment of the extent of public demand until the public have actually had an opportunity of seeing them."
I want to lead from that into what I feel is the danger of starting an experiment that is an experiment and not the result of a decision made. I wonder what effect it will have on the morale of everybody here if it can be shown conclusively that the public appreciation of what we have to say is negligible—because, honestly, it is. I repeat, this is not criticism. The things that are said continually in this House are measured opinions of extremely wise men; but they are not interesting.
Another point that has been raised, I know, is that it is not a corollary of a debate's being newsworthy that it is important. This point is certainly covered in the Report. So, even on a "Drive-in" basis, the public get a (shall I say?) slanted view of the House proceedings. Say even three times a year (the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has certainly covered this point) it would be far more glamorous than it is in fact, when this House's strength is its application to detail. Finally, I should like to raise a speculative point—and I think that here I am on dangerous ground. I refer to the dilemma that the editor of such a programme would have when confronted with the speech of a non-voting Peer, if
1112
that should occur. For should such a Peer give a fluent, attractive and newsworthy speech, would the public be given due warning that the speaker had no realistic, meaningful function?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Why should he think that a non-voting Peer should have no useful function?
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I said "meaningful"; I do not think I used the word "useful".
I woud conclude by making a plea that all these dilemmas could be resolved if a really good documentary were made of the whole proceedings of Parliament. I am not sure whether this has ever been done. I mean a detailed, long affair, for showing both on television and in cinemas, and intelligently and creatively made. A documentary would have all the flavour of Parliament, the occasional drama, and all the cool logic to which this House can rise. It could be demonstrated. People would appreciate it, and I hope that by such a documentary the standing of this House, and of Parliament as a whole, would be raised.
7.43 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I had not intended to speak at this hour and I shall speak for only a few moments. I have been rather provoked to do so by the last two speeches—the last two very effective speeches, if I may say so: because I have a notion that some people may be attracted by them and that the matter may be determined by a criterion which, to my mind, is not the appropriate one. I think there is a very simple criterion in this matter; and that is whether or not our decision will advance the cause of Parliamentary democracy. That seems to me the only question that has to be answered. I do not believe the answer to that question is furnished in the least by deciding whether or not we shall provide a useful entertainment to the public. I am prepared to concede, since I sincerely believe it, that we shall provide very little in the way of competition for the scintillating performances of my noble friend Lord Boothby. I think that if there were two channels and he were alone on one of them and the whole of this House were

1113
on the other, the TAM rating of this House could not compete with his. I do not think that that is the criterion.
LORD BOOTHBY: Thank you very much.
LORD GOODMAN: I make that remark with absolute sincerity. I think the criterion at this moment is that, although Parliamentary democracy in this country is not in any way in danger, it is under challenge, and it will certainly not be advanced by a failure to disclose its true nature to the community at large. No good will come of not televising it. People will certainly not think the more of us for not knowing about us. We must accept the risk and grasp the nettle of making known to the community at large exactly what we are like. We must let them know whether we are dull or brilliant, scintillating or long-winded. We must take the risk of showing them Parliament at work. It may in the end be a dangerous risk to take. I think it is a very difficult problem, but, on margin, for that reason and that reason alone, I should be in favour of adopting this Report.
7.45 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have just had some of Lord Boothby's animated argument, but one of the points that has impressed me to a large extent about this debate is really the comparative lack of interest that the House of Lords collectively is showing in this subject. The answer of course has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We are not purely concerned with whether the House of Lords likes the idea of public broadcasting or is itself interested in it, but basically with whether it is for the good of Parliamentary democracy—not, of course, that in this matter the House of Lords' opinion is not going to be decisive. It is on that basic point that we have to come to a view. As I said at the beginning of this debate, if any member of the Government can have a moment when he is not speaking on behalf of the Government, this is it. Indeed, my interest originally probably is rather similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in that we were once both B.B.C. producers, and we start from that point of view—admittedly, in my case, in the days of "steam radio".
1114
A decision was taken by the House on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont. I am sorry to see that he is not here, since he started all this. I really think he ought to be here to follow it through. I did not hear him say that he was not going to be. However, a decision was taken in fairly general terms that the House
"would welcome the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period as additional means of demonstrating its usefulness in giving a lead to public opinion".
One could carry out a little examination of that particular sentence, but none the less we have before us a decision of the House. When the Select Committee came to consider the matter they proposed that there should be a closed circuit experiment. We are basically considering that experiment to-day. We are not compelled to take a decision one way or the other as to whether we wish to have a further experiment as at this moment. We are really saving what we think of the experiment we have had, and on the whole we are getting the feel of the House with regard to the next step.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he must have a rather suspicious mind. Nobody has stopped this question from coming up. I admit that I forgot all about it after about the autumn, but very properly the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has reminded us of it.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I was only suggesting that it was a kind of Freudian forgetfulness.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I always find the expression "Freudian" a useful diversion from any serious argument on the subject. Why did not the noble Lord, Lord Henley, bring A up himself? There was not a word from anyone. The House of Lords is not just run by the Government. Let me stress this. This question is for individual Members of the House of Lords, and we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having raised it.
I must admit that I am still rather in the state of mind of, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington. I should like to be convinced that broadcasting, and television in particular, is likely to play an important part so far as both the House of Lords and the House of Commons are concerned. And it is of course,

1115
difficult to form an opinion simply on the basis of the one experiment that we have had. I think it may be difficult to form a definite opinion even if we have a live public experiment, because that experiment will of course have a certain news value in itself: it would be the first time Parliament had been broadcast, and it is not until Parliamentary broadcasting and/or television gets on to a permanent basis that it will be possible to assess its contribution, either to the presentation of this House and the improvement of its reputation, or indeed its contribution to Parliamentary democracy. In considering this I feel that we cannot, as the noble Lord. Lord Sherfield, suggested in a powerful speech, throw away some of the objections which have been made.
There are some real objections, and I should like to state some of the anxieties that I have. In stating these, however, I am not necessarily saying that we should not go on with this experiment. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, drew attention to something which does not come out quite as explicitly in the Report as I should like; namely, the very limited amount of television or, for that matter, sound broadcasting that there would be. This raises really severe problems. We have had arguments as to whether we should leave it to the broadcasting authorities or whether we should ourselves seek to control the programmes. My personal view is that I am with the Committee in believing that one would have to leave it to the broadcasting authorities. But I am not sure that when the time came we would in fact be content to leave it to the broadcasting authorities; I believe that there would be a great deal of anxiety and in the end we would have the sort of experience to which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, referred. There is a real dilemma here, and I see no solution to the problem of achieving a balance between the wishes of the House and of the broadcasting authorities.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment, I would simply say that it would not only be anxiety: it would be absolute fury and intense jealousy that would be aroused on all sides of the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there may be some in this House who are without jealousy, but none the less the House might feel, and not only in personal terms, that injustices were done. Indeed, I felt this on occasion when I listened to or watched some of the programmes in the experiment. How is one to achieve a balance in relation to a particular debate? There was a debate during the experiment in which my noble friend Lady Phillips was speaking for the Government and a number of noble Lords criticised the Government's policy in regard to sport. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, took part in that debate. On the whole, most of the speeches were critical.
Does one achieve a balance by giving equal presentation to the Government point of view and then to the rest? Or if one gives a true reflection of the nature of the debate is that in fact achieving a balance of argument? This is a really serious dilemma; this is the problem that confronts the editors of the programme "To-day in Parliament" when they are not quoting the actual words of the speaker or reproducing it, and the voice of the reporter is to that extent less forceful when selecting and summarising an actual passage, and it can even be misleading. Frankly, I do not see any obvious solution to this problem, but this is not to say that we may not have to live with it.
If I may make one other comment on my own observations of the experiment, I will then say what I think the answer in the long run will have to be. The other impression I got from the experiment was how extraordinarily slow the proceedings were in your Lordships' House. Everyone seemed to rise in a tired way—well, perhaps not everyone—and somebody asked a question and a Minister thought for a moment and then replied. It would not have seemed slow in the House but there was not the impression that all speakers had a great deal of vitality. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, probably speaks at 220 words a minute, and certainly I should think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, speaks at 250 words a minute. I suspect that I speak at only about 130 words a minute. I am advised that the average speed of a professional B.B.C. commentator—someone who is giving a report—is probably

1117
around 180 words a minute, and if we speak rather more slowly then rather less content will be broadcast. So in fact it is arguable that certainly on sound radio we might get less material put across.
We are then confronted with the question of what sort of programme on television might be broadcast. I think the general opinion has been that the longer experimental programmes that the B.B.C. and I.T.V. put out at the end of the day were really too long and were not very interesting; and I rather gather that the broadcasting authorities themselves prefer the shorter programmes, and would even like excerpts. The part that was interesting to me—and this is a personal opinion—was the actual continuous live reproduction. It was much more interesting to me to be able to go in and see somebody actually talking in this House, and I suspect—and this may be a heretical view and people may say that it would be a terrible thing—that ideally if wavelengths were available and cash was no object one ought to have continuous sound and television broadcasts going on for both Houses of Parliament. It would have been interesting if the public could have seen some of the recent proceedings (I will not say in which House) and the sort of progress that was being made.
As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, and others would agree, once television is going along as a regular thing people are likely to become accustomed to it and they will not then pay much attention to the cameras. So my long-term view is that we shall never get it quite satisfactory until such time as somebody has invented cheaper forms of communication, perhaps based on developments of lasers, and so on, by the means of which we can have extra wavelengths.
We are considering to-night a particular set of proposals and certain action has already been taken by the Committee. In fact, we have set up a Joint Select Committee to deal with questions of privilege and defamation. That Committee is now at work and I do not think that one can just brush it aside. In my view, that work must be completed. But the part of the proposals which have been put forward by the Committee with which I am really in disagreement is that it shall be open to the broadcasting authorities to come into your Lordships' House at
1118
their own choice on a "drive-in" basis. The particular occasions when they carried out their experiment were on days when the House was engaged in not particularly vital activity. It was rather a sporting week, I remember. We had a debate on sport; then I dealt with a Question on skiing in the Cairngorms, and then we dealt with street offences, which is good characteristic stuff for your Lordships' House. But what in fact would the broadcasting authorities choose? One day when they would have chosen to come in would quite certainly have been the debate in your Lordships' House on Rhodesia, and it would have been quite intolerable at a moment of most critical importance, when the actual vote was also of very great importance, if, in an overcrowded House, we had had these cameras and these tremendous lights. My own view is that it would not be possible to accept that the broadcasting authorities should have the right to choose when they would come into your Lordships' House.
I am expressing a personal opinion on this subject, as are others of your Lordships, all, I hope, contributing to one another's knowledge. It is a great pity that we cannot have, except at quite an excessive cost, these new. remotely-controlled plumbicon cameras, but I fully accept that that is "not on". My own feeling is that just because there are difficulties and arguments against, arguments that I find rather powerful, we ought not necessarily to abandon the idea of going on with either sound broadcasting or television. But my personal preference at this stage would be to carry out some live experiments in sound before we went on to television.
There has been some discussion as to whether we ought to keep in line with the House of Commons in this matter. I do not think this is a subject of desperate importance. The House of Commons provided us with the money for our previous experiment. But I think it could be rather embarrassing if either House were to be televised or broadcast without the other. Therefore my feeling is that, on balance, we should keen in line with the House of Commons.
There is one other point where I disagree with the Committee. Although I again see the arguments, which are rather similar, I am not sure whether

1119
it is practical to ban still photography if you are going to allow continuous photography in television I think we have to be extremely careful, if we agree to go into this. We have to accept a lot of consequences, and it seems to me that if we have people taking moving pictures in or reproducing them from the House, it would become too ridiculously illiberal to say that you cannot put a still photograph in a newspaper, however undesirable noble Lords may think that is. This may, of course, be an argument against television. But I do not think it would be possible to prevent still photography unless we introduced some new and elaborate form of House of Lords privilege to do so.
I said at the beginning that I was speaking personally, and all I have done is to give my personal impressions related to the experiment. I think we shall now have to consider where we proceed on this matter. My personal view is that we ought to press on, certainly with sound broadcasting. In my opinion, before we went into a live television broadcast it would be necessary to test the opinion of your Lordships' House properly, by means of a vote. The House is somewhat divided on it at the moment; it has not had an opportunity to express a further view since noble Lords had the opportunity to see the previous closed circuit experiment. But I do think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, can feel that his debate has served the purpose he wanted. It has put the matter back in front of us. I think it behoves the House, not just the Government, to see that it does not get overlooked. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there was no Freudian or other reason why it did not come up earlier. Noble Lords are sometimes busy and sometimes have other interests. It will be necessary for noble Lords, if they want to see this experiment going on, to stimulate the interest of other noble Lords. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, as it is to the Committee; and with that rather ambiguous and indecisive view I will close.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord does close, I hope he will forgive me for intervening, and I beg his pardon. He has not answered one absolutely crucial question. He said that
1120
the debate on Rhodesia, which was crucial in this House, should not have been televised, and I am in complete agreement with him. But who is to decide that question of what debates should or should not be televised?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that is one of the fundamental dilemmas. The reason why I said it should not be televised was because of the nature of the obstruction and interference of the cameras and lights. Quite honestly, I do not know the answer. It would probably have to be managed in the way in which we manage everything in this uniquely anarchic society of ours—through the usual channels, the feeling of the House, the selection of suitable days and all that, to be considered perhaps by a Committee presided over by the Lord Chairman of Committees. I am sure we should not allow it out of our hands.
8.7 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have the fullest sympathy for noble Lords who are waiting for the next business, and I will be as brief as I can. But they will forgive me, I trust, if I pick up a few threads, particularly after hearing the interesting speech from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I regret that we started this debate so late—perhaps if we had not done so there would have been a fuller attendance, and there would have been a greater appearance of interest. As it was, a number of noble Lords came to me before we began and said "I am very sorry; but I must go". I think the attendance in the House at this hour is not fully indicative of the interest that has been taken in this matter.
The question of brevity may have rendered me ungracious in not referring to the facilities which the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and the usual channels, placed at my disposal for this debate—and, indeed, to the encouragement that I received from them. And, not least, the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in our debate, is greatly valued. Also, I failed in my speech to express thanks, on behalf of the Committee, to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, who presided over our deliberations for so long and with such patience. I would also thank all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. I am sorry

1121
that I had to miss the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, and the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, but I heard all the rest; and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that I think we have had an animated discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said that the newsworthiness and importance of a debate were not necessarily the same thing. This is one of the points that I wished to make in my speech. This is one of the troubles about the Press as a medium for conveying to the people the problems which are so important to our democracy. It is a pity. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the real solution is that there should be continuous broadcasts from both Houses. One noble Lord, who regretted that he could not be present to-day, but who is very knowledgeable in this matter, asked me the other day whether I realised that it is within the bounds of possibility, in terms of experience today, that there will be so many channels available, that every station in the British Isles may be capable of receiving a continuous broadcast live from the Commons and the Lords, at discretion, without interfering with other programmes. And that may be the answer—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Of course there is a new horror if there is a continuous broadcasting. People have been concerned about inconvenience, but if there were continuous broadcasting noble Lords would then, if they were so minded, seek to speak at peak viewing times. This might be an advantage in regard lo ensuring a better attendance in the House later in the evening.
LORD FERRIER: Yes: if we confuse, which I have always tried not to do, the difference between the entertainment and the educational value, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, made such a strong point. I am glad to draw attention to that, because one of the factors which arise from this Report is that the shorter the edited edition the higher percentage there is of compère. In a 5-minute edition there are four minutes of compère; in a 30-minute edition there are something like 5 to 10 minutes of compère. This is a most inter-
1122
esting problem in regard to the dissemination of proceedings.
As for the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, to the red light, of course, he is interested in the subject and knows more about this business than I do. But I think I am right in saying that in this Chamber the instruments did not have the "glow-worm", and one could not tell which camera was operating at any given moment.
A NOBLE LORD: That is so.
LORD FERRIER: I can speak from experience of another assembly at which I have spoken before the television cameras. Perhaps it is because I am not so practised as the noble Lord, but I am far more interested in addressing the audience in front of me than to worry about a red light going on in a camera, which I believe is the case in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, surely that would make it much worse, because everybody might then think that the lights were on all the time; so nobody would speak naturally.
LORD FERRIER: But that was the case in the experiment here: there were no lights and, for all we knew, all the cameras were on all the time. I do not believe that the point in regard to knowledge that the cameras are on is altogether valid. Of course, the televising of the Opening of Parliament ceremony is a quite different matter.
There is only one other point that I have it in mind to make. I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that in "Yesterday in Parliament" the B.B.C. do a good job; and the programme is balanced as between the two Houses in a reasonable way. One of the complaints that I have made in the past, though it has now largely been met, is that when Parliament sits and if there is nothing interesting to go into "Today in Parliament" they say "The House of Lords also sat", and that is all that people want to know. The question of Party political broadcasts is quite a different matter, and I agree with other speakers that they might be abandoned.
My Lords, it only remains for me again to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, to agree with the

1123
noble Lord the Leader of the House that this debate has been worth while, to apologise to those who are waiting for the next business for having taken so long, and to request of your Lordships that my Motion may be withdrawn.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
8.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Determination of annual scheme for bookmakers' levy]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("by the 1st November preceding") and insert ("six months before")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with this Amendment I should like to discuss No. 3. These two Amendments, which go together, have two effects. The effect of the first Amendment is to require that if agreement cannot be reached about a scheme for a levy period a report of the circumstances must be made to the Home Secretary by the 1st October preceding the beginning of the period in question—not the 1st November, as at present provided in the Bill. The second Amendment gives the Home Secretary power to vary the date by statutory instrument.
The levy payable for a levy period depends on betting transactions in the previous financial year. Whatever method is adopted for calculating a levy, it will be useful for bookmakers—indeed, useful for everybody—to be able to estimate well in advance what their future levy commitments will be, so that if they wish the bookmakers can regulate their business accordingly. It follows from
1124
this that it is in the bookmakers' interests that a disputed scheme should be reported to the Home Secretary as early in the year preceding the levy period as possible, so that he can determine the scheme soon enough to give the bookmakers adequate notice of the amount of the levy. Ideally, a full year's notice ought to be given. Clearly, that is not going to be possible, either for the current year or for the ninth levy period, beginning on April 1, 1970. It has, however, been represented to the Government (and we accept this) that November 1, which is provided for by the Bill is later than necessary even in relation to the ninth levy scheme.
In these circumstances, the first Amendment, in effect, substitutes October 1 for November 1. That is the best we can do at the moment, although it is not much. The second Amendment gives the Secretary of State power to amend that date by statutory instrument. The proviso contained in the second Amendment ensures that the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board have as a minimum at least three months' notice of any change so as to give time for their consultations. The date cannot be amended so as to make it arrive before the 1st January in the calendar year preceding the commencement of a levy period, since practical convenience can hardly require the Secretary of State to commence his task earlier than that. I hope your Lordships will agree that these Amendments are sensible and in the interests of all concerned. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State when in accordance with this section he is determining a new scheme or directing that the current scheme shall continue shall consider—

(a) the extent of the need for the time being for contributions for such purposes as are specified in section 24, subsection (1), of the Act of 1963;

(b) the capacity for the time being of bookmakers to make contributions for such purposes; and

(c) the capacity for the time being of the Totalisator Board to make such contributions.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, standing in my name

1125
and that of my noble friend Lord Derwent. We feel that this Amendment gives effect to what the Government of the day in 1961 had in their original Act in relation to the bookmakers. I am not going into this Amendment in great detail, because it has been debated heavily in another place, and we have gone over the points on our Second Reading. Basically, it puts back into this Bill what was contained in Part I of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, in Clause 27(5)(a), (b) and (c)—and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are exactly what I have put down in this Amendment. So when in another place the Minister concerned informed my right honourable friend Sir David Renton that he considered the drafting was bad, my right honourable friend, to my mind fairly truthfully, said that he thought this was something of a slur on the Parliamentary draftsman, not to mention the two Houses of Parliament of that time. So what is before your Lordships here is nothing new; it is something which was in the earlier Act.
The point has been argued that this reference to "capacity to pay," which is really the crux of the matter, is unnecessary. The Home Secretary has taken on himself in this Bill various extra tasks in place of what have been loosely called the "Three Wise Men". We do not understand why he should not be able to have these three paragraphs in as a guideline. As I see it, it does not hurt him, it does not hinder him, it does not obstruct him in any way to have them in. If I thought they did anything to hinder him, I would be the first to agree that they were perhaps unnecessary. But they do not do anything; they will merely give comfort to the bookmakers that the Home Secretary will have to consider these things.
You will notice that we have omitted from the wording of the 1963 Act the two words which also prefaced paragraphs (a) to (c): "and compare". We felt that a duty to compare would lead to certain anomalies which were possibly not easily understood; because what was he to compare with what? He was not told that. So far as contributions are concerned—referred to in paragraph (a)—the Secretary of State, advised by his advisers, will easily be able to find plenty
1126
of fruitful suggestions as to where the money should be spent. But I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask that when considering how the money shall be spent—and heaven knows! there are always so many things where money can be spent wisely in this matter of encouraging the horseracing industry—he should be required to consider the capacity of the people who will pay.
These smaller bookmakers are unhappy about these words being taken out. They have been in the Act, and have never caused any trouble. I know we are told that this is not necessarily a matter of payment out of profits; that it is the intention of the Government and the Levy Board that this should be a levy which will be passed on to the—I hesitate to use the word—consumer, to the punter. In fact, it will be an extra levy of 10s. in every £100. I do not think that whether it is taken out of profits or turnover really matters: the Home Secretary is still able to consider the bookmakers capacity to pay.
I am a very ignorant person in these fine matters of keeping books; I have never been able to beat the bookmakers in my life, and I do not suppose I ever shall. But I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is extremely expert in these matters. He is frequently quoted in another place as being expert in these matters—though I believe that he himself pointed out that a £100 bet is probably immediately laid off to the extent of £80, so that £100 turnover is promptly a £180 turnover, and so it goes on. I can see the permutations to which this can lead. If this were all, I cannot see that the Secretary of State is being asked to do too much in having to consider the bookmakers' capacity to pay. These words have been in before; they have been debated before; the Bookmakers' Association want them. I do not understand why they cannot be in now, because if they were in at least it does not bind the Secretary of State: they merely ask him to consider. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept these very simple suggestions. I beg to move.
8.25 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I want to intervene for a very brief moment to say that, despite the immensely persuasive way in

1127
which this Amendment has been presented, I hope for a number of reasons that the Government will not accede to it. First, it is by no means the case that this Amendment has caused no trouble. Anyone acquainted with recent events is well aware that it has caused an enormous amount of trouble. Secondly, the fact that similar words have been in the previous Act, and that it may be wounding to Parliamentary draftsmen and to both Houses of Parliament to suggest that they ought not to have been there, does not in my view alter the completely incontrovertible fact that the words are open to endless difficulties of interpretation. One has only to look at them:
"… the capacity for the time being of bookmakers to make contributions for such purposes".
Which bookmakers? Rich bookmakers or poor bookmakers? Efficient bookmakers or inefficient bookmakers? Provident bookmakers or improvident bookmakers? Bookmakers who gamble themselves or bookmakers who eschew gambling? The words are totally incapable of being construed.
Anyone who addressed his mind to what capacity of what bookmaker he had to take into account in relation to these words would be totally defeated and would retire to a desert island. I think the words are incapable of meaning. There are obviously attractions about the idea of introducing into any fiscal Statute or provision a consideration of whether a man is capable of paving the tax. Unfortunately, however attractive the idea may be, it seems to me an impossibility to introduce such a consideration, for it would mean that all taxing legislation would come to a rapid end. For these reasons, it would be quite impossible and completely useless to introduce these considerations. I say that without any at all to the bookmakers, a most worthy section of the community but certainly not deserving of the very special consideration that would be introduced by preserving these words.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for moving this Amendment, for three reasons. The first is that it enabled him to describe me as an expert in beating the bookmakers. I do not
1128
know why I have earned that title. I can only think it is because I never try to beat them; I do not bet. That is the only way I know of beating the bookmakers. The second reason is that it brought forth from him a marvellous phrase, the phrase being "what has been loosely called 'the Three Wise Men'". I have been conjuring my imagination to understand how you can call three wise men "loose". The third reason was that it has brought forth a two minute tour-de-force from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which has left me with virtually nothing to say. Such being the way of Ministers, that will not stop me from speaking for seven or eight minutes, although I know my noble friend, Lord Bowles, feels unhappy about it. I am thinking, however, about the bookmakers, and I consider they are entitled to an account of the Government's views on this particular subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, what is before us is not new; it has been before us before—indeed, I could add "several times", because a similar Amendment was before the Committee in another place, was inserted into the Bill and was taken out again by the Government at the Report stage.
Clause 1 of the Bill transfers the responsibility for determining the scheme to have effect for raising the levy, when there is a dispute between the bookmakers and the Levy Board, from the independent members of the Board to the Home Secretary. Under the Act, when the independent members of the Board make this determination they are required to "consider and compare" all three of the factors set out in the Amendment, namely, the needs of racing, the capacity of bookmakers to pay and the capacity of the tote to pay, and I quote, "in the light of that consideration and comparison", to make their determination. Under the present Bill no similar obligation is imposed on the Secretary of State to consider these factors. The effect of the Amendment would be to impose such an obligation on him. It is not appropriate to retain this requirement in transferring the responsibility for determination to the Secretary of State. As guidance to persons exercising an independent function who were not answerable to Parliament or to any Minister, the requirement has a certain utility; in particular it served in existing legislation

1129
to draw attention to the need to compare the resources of the bookmakers on the one hand with those of the Totalisator on the other—one is only about 5 per cent. of the other. But this guidance is unnecessary when the function is transferred to a Minister, particularly since the very nature of the determination requires him to take account of these considerations. I emphasise this point to the noble Lord.
The fact that the guidance was unnecessary would not of itself make it essential to oppose this Amendment, although it is always a good principle to avoid burdening the Statute Book with unnecessary verbiage. But the objections to this Amendment are stronger than that. The Bookmakers' Committee have made great play of the "capacity to pay" provision in their dispute with the Levy Board, claiming—although they have not put their claim to the test in the courts—that a levy based on turnover rather than profit cannot take account of "capacity to pay" and is, therefore, illegal. Of the two possible bases of calculation profits allow considerable latitude of interpretation whereas turnover allows none.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, stated almost every variation except one. He did not mention the crooked bookmaker and the straight bookmaker, but, apart from that, he demonstrated how utterly impossible it is to follow "capacity to pay" as an objective guide to the amount that the bookmakers should pay, whereas turnover is an objective guide. Although it is possible that laying off, and that kind of thing, may operate, with the original £1 stake circulating, the vast total turnover which we are considering, something of the order of £800 million a year, gives room for that kind of circulation. There is no evidence that the calculation of the levy by reference to turnover has failed to take account of capacity to pay. But during the past year the bookmakers have relied heavily on this argument, and large numbers of bookmakers—I think stupidly—have withheld their declarations so that contributions are seriously in arrears. In practice, therefore, what is claimed to be a safeguard has been used as an obstructive device.
The one way that the noble Lord can help to destroy—I am sure that this is
1130
not his hope—what we in this house all have at heart to assist the sport of racing is to support the bookmakers in this particular matter. There is no need for me to pursue it. We have been entirely fair in this matter, and if there should be a dispute the Home Secretary will take an objective view. He will take into consideration all the factors which ought properly to be considered. We ought not to encumber him with the kind of fetters which this Amendment would impose.
I should like to leave this last thought with the premier Baron of all England. It is that over the years the Tote have contributed rather more than 30 per cent. of the levy, although their share of the betting turnover is less than 5 per cent. We are not asking bookmakers now, nor are we likely to ask them in the future, to make a contribution which they cannot afford, but we are asking for a contribution which they can afford to pay for the benefit of racing as a whole, from which they, more than anyone, most certainly must benefit. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his lucid explanation as to why he feels unable to accept the Amendment. Before withdrawing the Amendment, I would draw attention to one or two points. The first is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that I are well aware of the trouble which this Amendment has caused. If I have not been aware before of the strength of the Jockey Club lobby, I am now well aware of it. The whole point of my Amendment has been answered in basic terms by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in a reasonable and satisfactory fashion. I still feel it to be upsetting that neither House of Parliament has been able to think of some way of satisfying the Association of Bookmakers. I accept that the present Secretary of State, and Ministers such as the noble Lord, have every intention of being fair, and there is no conceivable Secretary of State in the offing on either side who would not be fair. Nevertheless, the Bookmakers' Association and book-makers in general are far-sighted people, and they know that although this generation of politicians is reasonable and decent, they do not necessarily know what

1131
will be the position in 25 years' time when their sons may be running their bookmaking businesses. We wanted to put in these words in order to give some guidance to a future Home Secretary who might not be as well-disposed as is the present Secretary of State.
I accept that there have been occasions when the words "capacity to pay" have been used for disruptive actions. I also accept that one or two of the bookmakers who have not paid are using the phrase "capacity to pay" as a delaying tactic for not paying. But it is a pity that we have not been able to think of something to cover this matter. I end by adopting what was said by my honourable and learned friend, Sir David Renton, in another place, that the powers to raise levy should be described in such a way that justice not only is done, but is seen to be done by those who pay. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("(7) The period of months specified in subsection (2) of this section may be varied by order of the Secretary of State substituting, in relation to any levy period beginning after the date on which the order comes into force, a different period, whether longer or shorter, but not longer than fifteen months:
Provided that where the effect of an order is to increase the said period of months, the order shall not be made so as to come into force later than three months before the beginning of the increased period.
(8) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (7) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and include power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
Levy Board's costs on appeal by bookmaker against assessment to levy
".—(1) The following subsection shall have effect where, under section 28 of the Act of 1963 (assessment of individual bookmakers to
1132
levy), a bookmaker appeals in respect of an assessment notice issued by the Levy Board in his case, and the appeal, having been referred to a tribunal established under section 29 of that Act, is either dismissed by the tribunal or abandoned by the bookmaker.
(2) If the tribunal thinks it just that the bookmaker should make a payment towards expenses appearing to it to have been reasonably incurred by the Levy Board in connection with the appeal, the tribunal may certify accordingly and the Board shall he entitled to recover from the bookmaker as a debt due to them the amount specified in the certificate."
The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) of Section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 enables the appeal tribunal to award a bookmaker his costs against the Levy Board where his appeal against his assessment is successful. The section includes no comparable provision enabling the Levy Board to receive their costs from the bookmaker when he abandons or loses his appeal. I am sure that that omission must be offensive to the sense of justice of all Members of the Committee, and the purpose of this Amendment is to put the Levy Board on the same footing as the appellant. It provides that where a bookmaker appeals to the tribunal and then either abandons or loses his appeal, the tribunal may fix a figure representing the reasonable costs of the Levy Board incurred in connection with the appeal, so as to enable the Board to recover that sum from the unsuccessful appellant. I am quite sure that this is a necessary Amendment which accords with our sense of justice. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 24 of Act of 1963 as to appointment of members of Levy Board
".—(1) In consequence of the amalgamation of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, section 24 of the Act of 1963 (constitution and membership of Levy Board) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 24(2), for paragraphs (b) and (c) (which provide for two members of the Board to be appointed by the Jockey Club and one by the National Hunt Committee) there shall be substituted the following:—
'(b) three members shall be appointed by the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee)'.
(3) In section 24(3) (duration and terms of membership and removal of members) for the words 'subsection (2)(b) or (c)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2)(b)'.
(4) In section 24(4) (temporary substitute members)—

(a) for the words 'the National Hunt Committee' there shall be substituted the words'(incorporating the National Hunt Committee)'; and

(b) for the words 'subsection (2)(b), (c), (d) or (e)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2)(b), (d) or (e)'.

(5) Any person who at the passing of this Act is, or acts as, a member of the Levy Board by virtue of appointment under section 24(2) or (4) of the Act of 1963 by the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee shall be deemed to have been appointed by the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee).".
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord consider discussing Amendment No. 6 together with Amendment No. 5?
LORD GOODMAN: Yes, I think that will be convenient, as Amendment No. 6 is entirely consequential on No. 5. Amendment No. 5 is, I imagine, one of the least controversial Amendments ever to be introduced into either House of Parliament. It is entirely clear from the text what it is designed to do. Very briefly, before the amalgamation of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, the Jockey Club had two members on the Levy Board and the National Hunt Committee had one. As they have now amalgamated it is desired that the amalgamated body should have three members. That seems to me incontrovertible in logic and in arithmetic, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD KILMANY: I rise only for a moment to support the Amendment. Perhaps I should declare an interest, though not a financial one, because I am one of the members of the Levy Board. I was
1134
appointed as a representative of the National Hunt Committee and I am really speaking against my own interest in supporting the Amendment, because as things stand I believe I could continue indefinitely as the member of the Levy Board appointed by the National Hunt Committee, because there is no National Hunt Committee to appoint anybody else to take my place. That would obviously be unsound, so I cordially support the Amendment which leaves the position exactly as it was in the original Act. For all material purposes, there will be three representatives of the racing authority and in practice two of the three will concentrate principally on Jockey Club affairs, while the other one of the three will concentrate on National Hunt affairs.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
The Title:
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Line 5, at end insert ("and to amend section 24 of the said Act of 1963 with respect to the appointment and removal of members of the last mentioned Board.").—(Lord Goodman.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before nine o'clock.