Commons Sitting of 11 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

    ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    Bills to be read a Second time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Pay and Allowances
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will compare the percentage of the defence budget devoted to pay and allowances in the financial years 1961–62 and 1966–67, with that percentage projected for 1971–72.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I assume that the Question refers to Regular Service personnel. On that basis, the required percentages are 22·0, 22·8 and 27·2.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my noble Friend agree that the increase for the last period bodes ill because if we are to maintain defence spending as a fixed target in the next four years, unless some drastic new policy to cut down manpower costs is initiated, equipment programmes or force levels could suffer?
    Lord Balniel: I take the point which my hon. Friend makes, but the introduction of the military salary concept in 1971–72 resulted in a relatively marked improvement in military pay, and that is the major reason.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the poor recruitment figures, does not my hon. Friend agree that it might be better to raise pay and allowances by 1 or 2 per cent.?
    Lord Balniel: We shall certainly continuously review the pay of the Forces, and if an improvement in pay is necessary, that is one of the matters we will bear in mind.

    Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will define the role and tasks, both in peace and in war, of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force alluded to in chapter III, paragraph 13, of the Statement on Defence Estimates, 1971.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Antony Lambton): The Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve includes a limited number of officers who in peace train for, and in war would carry out, certain specialist ground tasks in support of the Royal Air Force. The bulk of the Reserve consists of officers of the cadet forces, with no other role in peace or war. In addition, non-Regular members of the University Air Squadrons belong to the Reserve.
    The Royal Auxiliary Air Force comprises three maritime headquarters units which train in peace to reinforce the regular headquarters in war.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that for the first time this year the specific tasking was not spelt out in the statement on the Defence Estimates, because for the personnel involved in the R.A.F.V.R. and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force it is important that their rôle, which is a valuable one both in peace-time and in war-time, should be recognised?
    Mr. Lambton: Their rôle is too well known to need public reaffirmation.

    Seabed Treaty
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Minister of State for Defence, whether he is satisfied that the Royal Navy has the techniques and know-how to verify that foreign powers are adhering to the ban on the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction on the sea floor as laid down in the Seabed Treaty; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): I am satisfied that if it becomes necessary to check the possible existence of the kind of installations which are forbidden under the Treaty, the necessary techniques would be available and that the Royal Navy would be able, if called upon, to validate at the depths at which such installations might be found.
    Mr. Reed: My hon. Friend is aware that the Royal Navy has only one dry submersible at its disposal, and that is a a commercial one. Is it not time we developed more sophisticated underwater systems projects comparable to the Deep Sea Submergence Systems Project of the United States Navy?
    Mr. Kirk: We always try to keep up to date in these matters, but the specific matters to which my hon. Friend refers in his Question can be covered by the resources that we have available.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister make it clear that the Royal Naval Research Station at Alverstoke is one of the best of its kind in the world?
    Mr. Kirk: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    Portugal (Supply of Weapons)
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he has taken to respond to the call of the United Nations Decolonisation Committee in August last to desist from giving military assistance to portugal to prevent the sale or supply of weapons to Portugal, and to stop the sale or shipment to Portugal of materials for the manufacture of weapons.
    Lord Balniel: None, Sir. It has been the policy of successive Governments to
    558
    supply Portugal with military equipment in accordance with her reasonable N.A.T.O. requirements but not to approve applications for the sale of military equipment for use in her overseas territories.
    Mr. Booth: Does the Minister accept that, since Portugal is our ally in N.A.T.O., it is of the utmost importance for the Government to take every step to ensure that no aid goes from Britain to assist Portuguese military action against the people of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea?
    Lord Balniel: That is rather wide of the Question. To the best of my knowledge, no British military equipment sent to Portugal since our present policy was initiated in 1961 has been or is being used in her overseas territories.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the operations in the overseas territories to which the hon. Member referred operations against incursions from across the frontiers? Is not Portuguese Africa, including the Cape Verde Islands, essential to the security of Britain, Europe and the West?
    Lord Balniel: I take my hon. Friend's point, but our policy is clear, that the military equipment which is supplied to Portugal is to meet her N.A.T.O. commitments, and we do not supply equipment for use in her overseas territories.

    Ulster Defence Regiment
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of State for Defence what action he proposes to take to ameliorate hardship caused to members of the Ulster Defence Regiment by the actions of some of their civilian employers in withholding remuneration for days lost because of service to the Crown; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Every effort is made to avoid a clash between U.D.R. duties and a volunteer's civil employment. Where this is unavoidable many employers already either pay wages in full for any days lost or make up the difference between Army rates and civilian pay. The Ministry of Defence will continue to encourage other employers to adopt a similar sympathetic attitude.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: In the light not only of last night's utterly tragic occurrence but of the general seriousness of the situation, will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to publicise the desirability of some employers making a small sacrifice themselves to help those concerned to do their duty, and will he at the same time have a good look at the tax and general pay conditions of these men?
    Mr. Gilmour: I will do both. It is worth pointing out that the C.B.I. has made representations to employers in Ulster on this matter.

    Phantom Aircraft
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the replacement in due course of the Phantom aircraft of the Royal Air Force Strike Command.
    Mr. Lambton: The Phantom FG1 aircraft in Royal Air Force Strike Command operate in the air defence rôle. We plan to replace them in due course with the air defence version of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.
    Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the extensive commitments that the M.R.C. aircraft has, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it has an adequate range for the purpose? Can he also give the House some idea of the reason why the Germans have cancelled a very large proportion of their original requirement for this aircraft?
    Mr. Lambton: For the M.R.C.A.?
    Mr. Cronin: Yes.
    Mr. Lambton: I can only answer that the Germans have not cancelled the M.R.C.A. The range, of course, remains a problem.
    Mr. John Morris: When can we expect the next statement on progress on the M.R.C.A.? I think that the last one was in July. A number of Questions have been tabled since, but there has been no proper statement for some time.
    Mr. Lambton: I gather that there is to be another re-examination of the M.R.C.A. in July. But if the right hon. Gentleman would like a statement be-
    560
    fore then, I shall be only too pleased to see if that is possible.

    Indian Ocean (Soviet Naval Presence)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of State for Defence what information he has received as to the maximum total numbers and types of warships of the Soviet Navy which have been present in the Indian Ocean at any one time during the last six months.
    Mr. Kirk: Apart from a short period during January while the Soviet Navy relief squadron took over from ships returning home, the maximum Soviet Navy presence reported was six vessels —three surface warships, one attack submarine and two support ships.
    In addition to one merchant tanker supporting the naval ships, there were three hydrographic survey ships and six space-event support ships.
    Mr. Cronin: Having regard to the large number of warships of the United States and other N.A.T.O. countries which habitually cruise the oceans, is not the military threat posed by this very small number of ships derisory, and is not the Government's attempt to adopt an alarmist attitude equally derisory?
    Mr. Kirk: There is a clear potential threat, though it is rather more a political than a defence one. [Interruption.] That was precisely what I said in Singapore, and we have to provide for it.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is not there a surprisingly large Soviet fleet concentrated in the Black Sea which would be able easily to reach the Indian Ocean once the Suez Canal were opened?
    Mr. Kirk: That is true, but the Canal is closed at the moment.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: What consultations have Her Majesty's Government had with the United States Government on the so-called Soviet threat in the Indian Ocean, and what reply have they received?
    Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman will know that exchanges of that kind between Governments are confidential.
    Mr. Marten: Did not the Soviet threat in the Mediterranean start in the same

    561
    very small way as it now appears to be doing in the Indian Ocean?
    Mr. Kirk: Precisely. That is what I meant by a potential threat.

    Nuclear Weapon Development
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence on what basis the public interest is assessed in deciding whether or not information is released on nuclear weapon development.
    Lord Balniel: The criterion is whether or not release of such information would prejudice national security.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is not national security best served by maximising the deterrent effect of the nuclear weapon? If the full possibilities, capabilities and development of this weapon are not known, how can it effectively deter a potential aggressor?
    Lord Balniel: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The effect of a deterrent policy would be reduced substantially if the release of information to a potential aggressor enabled him to assess the risk and deploy counter-measures.
    Dr. David Owen: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in comparison with the Americans, the amount of information that this House is given on nuclear weapons is derisory? Is not it time that there was more open discussion, given the limitations of security which are obviously inherent in the situation?
    Lord Balniel: We will give the House what information we can. But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this affects the deterrent on which the peace of the world depends, and we shall certainly not disclose information which could be of assistance to potential aggressors. We will willingly give the House as much information as we can that we regard as being reasonably helpful.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence what further development of nuclear weapons and missiles he intends; and how much in total such development will cost in the next financial year.
    Lord Balniel: It is not the policy to divulge information of this nature. Her Majesty's Government will continue to
    562
    take any necessary measures to maintain the effectiveness of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Allaun: Why is it that, while other projects are listed in the Defence White Paper, these are not? If they are supposed to deter, why not tell the world how terrible they are?
    Lord Balniel: The whole world knows that Brtain, both under the present Government and under the previous Administration, has a nuclear deterrent which is completely credible to any potential aggressor.

    Far East (Training Exercises)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence whether combined training exercises will be held in the Far East in 1971.
    Lord Balniel: There will be combined Navy, Army and Air Force exercises, some of which will include participation by our Commonwealth partners. After 1971, it is expected that combined exercises under the new Five Power arrangements will take place from time to time.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, following last year's exercise, it is essential that troops should be acclimatised before taking part in such exercises and, therefore, that it would be much better to have the maximum number of troops as possible at any one time in the theatre? In view of that, the quicker the turnover and the more troops who can go there, the better.
    Lord Balniel: I agree that acclimatisation is very important. We shall ensure that as many exercises as possible are held; and they will involve jungle warfare training.
    Mr. Kaufman: Would not Chieftain tanks get all the desert training that they needed if the Government's silly ban on selling them to Israel were lifted?
    Lord Balniel: There is no intention to use Chieftain tanks in jungle warfare training.

    Chieftain Tanks
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence what was the average mileage covered in 1970 by

    563
    Chieftain tanks stationed in the British Army of the Rhine; and what training in desert conditions is being carried out by regiments armed with Chieftains.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: It is not in the public interest to state the precise mileage covered but a satisfactory level of training has been attained. No desert training is being carried out by regiments armed with Chieftains.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that a difficulty has arisen over the supply of spares and that out in B.A.O.R. the amount of time that these tanks are on the road is minimal because of that difficulty? In view of the fact that there is no desert training at the moment, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we have a reasonably good place in Sharjah where this kind of training could and should take place?
    Mr. Gilmour: Any shortage of mileage was not due to a lack of spares but because the autumn exercises were cancelled in B.A.O.R. due to the risk of excessive damage to the ground following heavy rain. Desert training in itself has no value. The main requirement for tank training is to carry out large-scale operational training without serious damage or risk to life.
    Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of my silly mistake, may I ask the Minister now to reply to my previous supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Gilmour: Since the Question relates to the British Army, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is any less silly this time.

    France (Nuclear Collaboration)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence what are the broad strategic objectives on which a better understanding must be reached between the British and French Governments before discussions on nuclear collaboration can be held.
    Lord Balniel: The agreed objectives of the Western Alliance.
    Mr. Allaun: But should not these objectives, which the Minister said last month were a pre-condition for this col-
    564
    laboration, be put before Parliament before they are discussed with the French Government?
    Lord Balniel: There are no discussions with the French Government on this subject.
    Mr. George Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of the attitude of the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, we warmly congratulate the Government on their conversion to the caution of their predecessors about this question of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation?
    Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Prime Minister's speech was made in 1965, when France was a member of N.A.T.O., and that it was developed later in the Godkin lectures. My right hon. Friend talked of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation as being a long-term possibility which might result in closer collaboration of European enterprise.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in the interests of non-proliferation, he will undertake that there will be no nuclear collaboration with the French except under the aegis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Lord Balniel: I agree that such collaboration would best be achieved within the framework of the Alliance, although we should not inhibit ourselves by refusing to discuss even the possibility of satisfactory arrangements being devised on some wider basis.
    Mr. Jenkins: That is a very unsatisfactory answer. We understood the Government to say that they were in future proposing to confine themselves, concerning nuclear weapons, within the orbit of N.A.T.O. Is it not the case that if the Government proceed with that policy outside N.A.T.O. they will encourage proliferation? Is this not a policy which hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to set their faces against?
    Lord Balniel: Yes. As I said, the views of the two Governments differ. Our nuclear forces are, in fact, assigned to N.A.T.O. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken that this question is affected by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty it is open for

    565
    Governments which have nuclear capabilities to discuss them amongst themselves.
    Mr. George Thomson: Apart from the Non-Proliferation Treaty aspects, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will tell the House unequivocally that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to engage in any nuclear co-operation with the French Government except within the framework of N.A.T.O.
    Lord Balniel: There are no discussions proceeding at the moment. It would be wrong to inhibit the future options which are open to us.

    Beira Patrol
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of maintaining the Beira patrol.
    Mr. Kirk: The total extra cost to date is just over £2 million.
    Mr. Farr: Does my hon. Friend agree that this vast sum of money would have been better spent on expanding British naval influence in other parts of the world, particularly in countering the Russian expansion in both Middle and Far Eastern waters?
    Mr. Kirk: It might have been better spent in several other ways, but we are under an obligation to the United Nations to spend it in this way.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the Minister tell me, as an innocent abroad, by how much we can expand the British Navy for the sum of £2 million?
    Mr. Kirk: Not without notice, no.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of State for Defence what are the latest results of the Beira Patrol; and which of Her Majesty's ships and aircraft are still retained in the Mozambique Channel and Malagasy.
    Mr. Kirk: The patrol is achieving its object in preventing the arrival at Beira of oil destined for Rhodesia. The ships and aircraft engaged on the patrol naturally change periodically. We do not detail their deployment.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not be right now to wind this nonsense up? Should not these frigates perhaps be
    566
    moved to the Gulf, where, in the opinion of many of us, a continuous British armed presence is essential?
    Mr. Kirk: Any questions on the general future of the patrol should really be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that many of us are astonished to find such new-found enthusiasm for disarmament on the other side of the House?
    Mr. Kirk: The hon. Member will be constantly astonished by lots of things.

    Naval Recruitment
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on naval recruitment.
    Mr. Kirk: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) on 11th February.—[Vol. 811, c. 762–3.]
    Mr. Farr: I have not got that answer before me.
    May I ask my hon. Friend whether he feels that there would be a real stimulus to naval recruitment if we had a more energetic naval shipbuilding programme and, in particular, if we made some commitment to building a fifth Polaris submarine?
    Mr. Kirk: Naval recruiting is up 23 per cent. this year over last year. We are just embarking on the largest naval shipbuilding programme for many decades, and the option to build a fifth Polaris submarine remains open.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The information which my hon. Friend has just given is welcome. But will he realise that there are also certain small pinpricks which exert a disproportionate effect on recruiting and Service conditions, one of which is leave warrants for men on weekend leave? Will my hon. Friend join his right hon. Friend in expediting action on this point?
    Mr. Kirk: I understand that my noble Friend will be writing to my hon. and gallant Friend about it.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman stop prevaricating on the Government's intention about a fifth Polaris submarine? Will the hon. Gentleman answer

    567
    one simple question: has any money been earmarked in the long-term costings of the Government for this submarine?
    Mr. Kirk: I never prevaricate. The long-term costings are confidential.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces in the Gulf.
    Lord Balniel: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 1st March.—[Vol. 812, c. 1227–32.]
    Mr. Martin: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that we have the forces available to remain in the Gulf until either the Union of Arab Emirates is formed or some alternative arrangement is made, perhaps with CENTO or something like that?
    Lord Balniel: We have the forces. My hon. Friend will know that the proposal is that the present land, sea and air forces stationed at Bahrein and Sharjah shall be withdrawn at the end of 1971. We are offering elements of forces to the Union on a continuing basis in a training and liaison rôle, and we are also offering to second British personnel to command the Trucial Oman Scouts, which we are offering to the Union.
    Mr. Conlan: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the recent mission carried out by Sir William Luce indicated that the States in the Gulf would prefer to make their own defence arrangements from the end of this year?
    Lord Balniel: No, I cannot confirm that. Representations made to the Government by officials are, of course, confidential. Policy decisions are taken by the Government.
    Mr. George Thomson: In the light of that very welcome and clear statement by the Minister of the terminal date for the withdrawal of operational troops from the Gulf, may I ask whether he will give the House some details of the timetable for the withdrawal of the forces? Will the Minister also tell the House what arrangements are being made for the disposal of the fixed assets in Sharjah and Bahrein?
    Lord Balniel: The timetable was announced by my right hon. Friend. The present land, sea and air forces are due to be withdrawn by the end of 1971.
    Concerning the assets in that area, their future use will depend on the take-up of our offer to send out training and liaison troops.

    Rolls-Royce Ltd.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to safeguard the continued supply of Rolls-Royce engines to all branches of Her Majesty's forces.
    Lord Balniel: Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to acquire such assets of Rolls-Royce as are necessary to ensure the continued supply of engines essential to Her Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman regard it as a dangerous thing if any of these Rolls-Royce facilities fell into foreign ownership? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have taken steps to prevent that happening?
    Lord Balniel: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should assume that continued private ownership, whether in British or foreign hands, necessarily means that we would lose the Rolls-Royce potential for production of Army equipment.
    Mr. George Thomson: Is the Minister aware that, quite apart from aero-engines, a large section of the British Army runs on Rolls-Royce engines of one kind or another? Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the Government view with equanimity the passing of the supply of these engines for the British Army into foreign hands? Is not that an attitude of astonishing complacency, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying?
    Lord Balniel: I am aware that much of the motor car industry in this country is owned by foreign companies.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Minister of State for Defence what has been the

    569
    average of expenditure by the Armed Forces in the last three years for the purchase of replacement parts for Rolls-Royce Limited engines.
    Lord Balniel: About £20 million.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does my noble Friend envisage that that level of expenditure is likely to continue in the next foreseeable years, as it were?
    Lord Balniel: I could not answer that without notice. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise that point in the debate later, when I will try to ensure that an answer is given.
    Mr. Barnett: In regard to the supply of Rolls-Royce engines, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify what he said earlier, when he seemed to imply that he would not mind if supplies came from foreign-owned companies?
    Lord Balniel: The Question relates to replacement parts for Rolls-Royce engines and not to the engines themselves. I said that I did not see why we should assume that continued private ownership in Britain, in either British or foreign hands, should necessarily mean that we would lose a Rolls-Royce potential for the production of Army equipment, and this is a statement of fact.

    Military Bands
    Miss Lestorasked the Minister of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining military bands in Regular Forces and the Territorial Army, respectively.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: About £7½ million and £85,000 a year, respectively.
    Miss Lestor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a great deal of money to spend on military bands? Is he further aware that it exceeds the amount being spent annually on the urban aid programme in deprived areas? Will he therefore look at this matter again with the aim of trying to cut down the amount spent by the Forces in order that they may blow their own trumpets?
    Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Lady's comparison is utterly irrelevant. The bands have a vital morale and recruiting rôle. About 80 per cent. of the sums allocated go to salaries. Army regimental bands-
    570
    men are also trained as medical assistants, Royal Marine bandsmen carry out local defence duties, and R.A.F. bandsmen are trained in both skills.
    Mr. Allason: In case my hon. Friend is tempted to reduce military bands, may I ask him to recall that they give enormous pleasure not only to the Forces but to the civilian population?
    Mr. Gilmour: That is undoubtedly true. However, two bands will disappear within the next year or so.
    Mr. Maclennan: Can the Minister say what contribution to the costs of these bands is made by people who hire their services?
    Mr. Gilmour: Not without notice, but certainly a good deal of money comes in this way.

    Defence Establishments (Civilian Employees)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of State for Defence what was the lowest weekly take-home pay paid to a civilian male employee in any defence establishment in England and Wales for a full week's work in January, 1971; and how many hours were worked.
    Mr. Lambton: The lowest rates of pay issued to civilian male adults were £11 1s. to labourers aged 18 for a 40-hour week exclusive of meal breaks and £9 3s. to Grade II duplicator operators aged 18 for a 42-hour week inclusive of meal breaks.
    Basic rates are, of course, negotiated at national level. Information about pay after additions and deductions is the private business of individuals concerned.
    Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful to the Minister for that scandalous reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many civilian employees at R.A.F. St. Mawgan in Cornwall are paid at rates which allow them a take-home pay below the poverty line level defined by the Supplementary Benefits Commission? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government are setting an adequate example to private employers in this matter of the low-paid? Do the Government intend to continue to maintain the establishment of defence stations by means of slave labour?
    Mr. Lambton: The rates are a matter for negotiation at national level with the trade unions concerned.
    Mr. Jopling: Would it not be true that many of these people will benefit from the proposed family income supplement?
    Mr. Lambton: Many of these people are 18, so the odds are that they will not benefit.
    Mr. Walden: Although no one wants to impose additional charges on our defence budget, is not the position revealed in this question truly disgraceful? Should there not be some negotiations by Ministers to try to do something directly about it?
    Mr. Lambton: I can only repeat that this matter is for negotiation at national level with the trade unions.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: is it not refreshing to see this new-found urge for greater defence expenditure expressed from the Liberal benches?

    Defence Lands (Survey)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of State for Defence when the current survey of defence lands is expected to be completed; and what is the earliest date by which the lands found to be surplus to requirements can be released.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: I cannot say when Lord Nugent's committee will complete its work, nor can I anticipate its findings. In the meantime we are continuing the normal disposal of land no longer needed for the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Hardy: Can we have greater urgency in this matter? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that achievement here would allow the redemption of at least one promise of the Prime Minister, and that that would be a rare phenomenon indeed?
    Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Member is totally mistaken. We have shown considerable urgency. We set up a committee immediately, whereas there was no indication that the previous Government intended to set one up for some years ahead.

    N.A.T.O. (West European Defence Grouping)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of State for Defence what further proposals he has for a specific West European defence grouping within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Lord Balniel: We shall continue, through the Euro Group, to foster European defence collaboration within N.A.T.O. so as to improve the military capability of the Alliance as a whole.
    Mr. Moyle: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he now agree that this process must not be taken so far as to undermine the unity of N.A.T.O., particularly when we should use the unity of N.A.T.O. to prepare a comprehensive and united approach to a European security conference?
    Lord Balniel: There is no question of this undermining the unity of N.A.T.O. It is welcomed on the other side of the Atlantic and among the European members of N.A.T.O.

    East Midlands Army District Headquarters
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of State for Defence what representations he has received on the decision to move the East Midlands Army district headquarters from Nottingham to Colchester; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Representations have been made about the effect of the future arrangements, particularly on TAVR interests. I have replied that the continued separate existence of East Midland District could not be justified but that the Brigadier Deputy Commander of the new Eastern District will be located in the Nottingham area for at least two years after the present East Midland and Eastern Districts amalgamate early in 1973.
    Mr. Fowler: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he recognise that there is concern about this move, particularly about the inaccessibility of Colchester to the East Midlands? I hope that he is satisfied that it will not have an adverse effect upon Army recruitment

    573
    in the East Midlands, which has always been particularly good.
    Mr. Gilmour: I agree that recruiting in that area has been very good, but there will, of course, be no change in Army careers offices in the Nottingham area, and I have no reason to think that recruiting will be adversely affected.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Minister of State for Defence what consultations he is engaged on, or proposes to undertake, concerning defence matters within the structure of the European Economic Community.
    Lord Balniel: Defence matters do not fall within the ambit of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Sillars: Would the Minister not agree that it is very important that the British people know what defence measures we might become involved in if we join the E.E.C.?
    Lord Balniel: I have just told the hon. Member that it does not fall within the ambit of the E.E.C. However, if the E.E.C. is enlarged, it is true that we will feel the need to develop new forms of working together in defence. It is surely a united view that we should develop European defence.

    H.M.S. "Revenge" (Polaris Missile Test Firing)
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will publish the costs of the test-firing of multiple warhead Polaris missiles from Her Majesty's Ship "Revenge" off Cape Kennedy last year; and whether he will make a statement.
    Lord Balniel: A demonstration and shakedown operation was carried out by H.M.S. "Revenge" off Cape Kennedy in June, 1970. Two Polaris A3 missiles were fired with complete success. The approximate cost of the "Revenge" firings was £1·5 million.
    Mr. Booth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, since he has been noticeably reluctant to give any figures previously on the cost of the testing and
    574
    development of nuclear weapons. Would he enlarge upon that answer at some time in our debates on the Defence Estimates, so that instead of his drawing this invidious distinction between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, whereby he omits totally from defence White Papers, as did the previous Government, any reference to research and development projects on nuclear weapons, the House will at least be given the cost of these developments after they have taken place?
    Lord Balniel: No, I will not divulge to the House information which I regard as dangerous to the security of the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that I gave an overall cost, and for security reasons I will not give a detailed breakdown of the cost of missiles or other aspects of a test firing.

    Northern Ireland (Defence Repair and Maintenance Establishments)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will take steps to maintain present employment levels in defence repair and maintenance establishments situated in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Balniel: There is unlikely to be any immediate significant change in employment levels in these establishments. However, as a result of the reduction of fixed wing flying in the Royal Navy the present task of the R.N.A.Y. Sydenham will start to run down about April, 1973. The possibility of a further task after that date is under consideration.
    Mr. McMaster: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the great concern, in view of the heavy unemployment in Northern Ireland, felt by the employees at the Royal Naval yard? Will he make every effort to find alternative work for this leading naval repair yard?
    Lord Balniel: I am aware of the heavy unemployment in the area, and this is one of the considerations which we will bear very carefully in mind. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy saw a deputation from the area only very recently.

    Northern Ireland (Attacks on Civilians)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of State for Defence what action soldiers on duty in Northern Ireland are instructed to take when they witness attacks by armed republican elements on civilians; and if these include returning fire where firearms are being used by such terrorists, or where explosives are thrown in public places.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour:Soldiers are instructed to take all possible steps to protect life and maintain law and order. They use only the minimum force to achieve their immediate objective, but firearms are used when necessary.
    Mr. McMaster:Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great shock and distress felt throughout Northern Ireland at the deaths of the three young soldiers last night while off duty? Will he now take all steps to ensure that all known members of the I.R.A. are taken into custody immediately, and that thorough searches for arms are carried out wherever arms are used, because of the very great concern felt by the public at the number of these terrorists who have got away and the number of bodies which have been removed in shooting incidents in recent days?
    Mr. Gilmour:Of course I am aware of the very great shock felt throughout Northern Ireland and this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement on this matter later today. The rest of the matters raised by my hon. Friend will no doubt be discussed in greater detail later during the debate.

    R.N. Dockyard, Portsmouth (Anti-Theft Devices)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the consultations he has held with trades union representatives on the new anti-theft devices to be introduced to Portsmouth Royal Naval Dockyard.
    Mr. Kirk: A committee has been set up at Portsmouth Dockyard to explore methods of reducing thefts, including the use of anti-theft devices. The staff associations and trade unions will be consulted before any proposals which stem from recommendations made by the committee are implemented.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply. Would he not agree that it was unfortunate that announcements about new anti-theft devices were made before full consultations had taken place, as this not unnaturally appeared to be a slur and an unfortunate reflection on the work force in the dockyard?
    Mr. Kirk: No one intended a slur on anyone. The staff and trade union sides were invited to see the closed circuit television anti-theft devices and refused to come.

    Shorncliffe (Land)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the release of surplus land at Shorncliffe for development purposes.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: It will be some time before the review by Lord Nugent's committee is completed. If in the meantime it becomes possible to release any small plots of land in the Shorncliffe area, this will be done.
    Mr. Costain: What steps can I take to further impress on my hon. Friend the urgency of reaching a decision in this matter? Is he aware that we cannot do anything about development because thousands of acres of land lie sterile awaiting a decision on the Channel Tunnel? Would he please help me to know how to make him realise that we shall not reduce the unemployment level in the area unless a decision on this matter is reached?
    Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend needs no advice from me because he has already impressed on me the urgency of this matter. If in the course of the review it becomes possible to offer for disposal any part of our holding, we will do so, but it must be appreciated that we must take into account our requirements not only in the Shorncliffe area but in the country as a whole.

    Tank Training Grounds, Bovington and Lulworth (South African Govern ment Representatives)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of State for Defence what facilities were given to representatives of the South African Government in September, 1970, and February, 1971, to visit the British

    577
    Army's tank training grounds at Bovington and Lulworth;and for what purpose these facilities were granted.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: No such facilities have been granted.

    Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
    Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmidasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will consider making a Ministerial broadcast on television about the newly-forming Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Ministers will certainly consider this if invited to do so by the television authorities. A more formal Ministerial broadcast would not be appropriate.
    Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he realise that a great many people are still not aware of the existence of the T.A.V.R. and that it would be a great help if such a broadcast were made?
    Mr. Gilmour: What my hon. and gallant Friend says is, of course, perfectly true, and I will readily bear in mind the possibility of a broadcast in considering further publicity for the expansion of the T.A.V.R., but this is not really a suitable subject for the formal type of Ministerial broadcast.

    Chief of the General Staff
    Mr. Brian Waldenasked the Minister of State for Defence on what date he expects to announce the appointment of a successor to the present Chief of the General Staff.
    Lord Balniel: The announcement was made on 30th April, 1970.
    Mr. Walden: I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates the difficulty of questioning him on this subject. As he has answered Questions in the past about the Chief of the General Staff, may I, through him, congratulate the present occupant of this office on his retirement and wish him a long and happy one? Could it be made quite clear to his successor that the duties of this office do not include the making of statements about a British presence in Vietnam?
    Lord Balniel: I, too, congratulate the present Chief of the General Staff on the
    578
    service that he had rendered to the country during his tenure of office, and send him good wishes on his retirement. It is a well-established principle that statements affecting policy are made by Her Majesty's Ministers, and the C.G.S 's statement did not in any way offend against this principle.

    Scottish Division (Recruitment)
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give the breakdown of recruiting figures for the Scottish Division since July, 1970;and if lie will make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Up to the end of February, 431 adults and young soldiers and 377 juniors were recruited. While these figures are encouraging, they only slightly outnumber at present the wastage from the Division. I will give the allocation to individual regiments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut-Colonel Mitchell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him what is the future of the company of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, which we understood from him would be expanded to battalion strength within 18 months?
    Mr. Gilmour: With respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, he is putting words into my mouth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have never given any such undertaking, though I naturally hope that if recruiting in the Scottish Division justifies it the Company of the Argylls will eventually be expanded into a battalion.
    Following is the information:

    Adults and Young Soldiers

    Juniors

    The Scottish Division

    The Royal Scots

    70

    54

    The Royal Highland Fusiliers

    71

    64

    The King's Own Scottish Borderers

    67

    50

    The Black Watch

    84

    77

    Queen's Own Highlanders

    57

    54

    The Gordon Highlanders

    46

    40

    The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

    36

    8

    431

    377

    Service Voters
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Minister of State for Defence what proportion of those serving in the Armed Forces is registered to vote in the new register of voters, which was compiled in October, 1970, and which is being published this year.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The figures are not yet available.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend agree that the figures for last year show that an unduly low percentage of Service men were registered? Will he therefore, before the register is made up in October of this year, review whether an improved arrangement can be made for registering Service men on the voters roll?
    Mr. Gilmour: I agree that the previous figures were disappointing. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of our intention that the Service voting arrangements should he considered by the Home Secretary's Electoral Advisory Conference.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (REPORTING BY MASS MEDIA)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, and the Law Officers, in the formulation of his Administration's policies with regard to the treatment of industrial disputes by the mass media.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for Employment, the Law Officers and representatives of the Press, radio and television concerning the reporting of industrial disputes by the mass media.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The Government are imposing no constraints on the reporting of industrial disputes by the mass media. No need for discussions therefore arises.
    Mr. Pardoe: With respect to the Prime Minister, is he not aware that the freedom of the Press and of other media is indeed gravely endangered by Clause 85 of the
    580
    Industrial Relations Bill? Does he not realise that the replies given on 16th February to Liberal and other Amendments during the Committee stage by the Solicitor-General did nothing to remove the fears of those who believe that the media are threatened? Will he urge his right hon. Friend either to amend or to withdraw Clause 85 on Report?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the debate which took place on Clause 85, and very careful consideration has been given to the arguments which were adduced during that debate. I am advised that if there is incitement to break a contract—if it can be proven to be incitement—by the use of one of the mass media in any field, then there is a responsibility on the individual or journal which does it and there should be no difference when there is incitement, if it can be proven, to break a contract in the industrial sphere.
    Mr. Gorst: Concerning Question No.2, would my right hon. Friend agree that the grossly irresponsible interviewing on B.B.C. television the other night, when anonymous I.R.A. gunmen were interviewed, would be a more appropriate subject for the Law Officers to be discussing with the B.B.C. with a view to the discontinuation of this practice, particularly at a time when one would have expected the B.B.C. to be turning Queen's Evidence?
    The Prime Minister: This is a Question concerned with industrial affairs. Although I did not see the telecast, I have heard much criticism of it. It is a matter which rests on the B.B.C., or, in the case of any independent programme company, on the I.T.A. They have boards of governors and advisory councils. In my view, the responsibility must rest there, and it is not a case in which the Government should intervene.
    Mr. John D. Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House could not possibly accept his interpretation of the situation? Is he aware, for example, that many of us feel that his reply suggests an arrogant disregard for the very grave disquiet which is felt by many working journalists in this sphere? Will he therefore reconsider his answer and consider

    581
    initiating the kind of talks that have been suggested?
    The Prime Minister: I have already told the House that careful consideration is being given to this matter by my right hon. Friends. I have gone into it myself thoroughly. The adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman are quite unjustified. This is a matter on which there could perhaps be two legal opinions; at any rate the Government have taken the best advice open to them.

    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING POLICY
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve co-ordination between the Departments of Trade and Industry, Environment and the Scottish Office concerning industrial development and housing policy.
    The Prime Minister: There is already very close co-ordination between all Departments concerned with these matters.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he and his party made a promise at the time of the General Election that they would spend considerably more on infrastructure as a major contribution to industrial development, particularly in the development areas? Is he aware that the current policies of the Government will result in a catastrophic fall in the house-building programme in Scotland, contrary to his election pledges?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both last October and last month, announced the special measures which are being taken in the development areas, with the creation of the special development area in West Central Scotland. He also made an announcement about additional funds which will be made available for infrastructure. Infrastructure, of course, includes other aspects of construction besides housing.
    Mr. Sillars: Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what his Ministers have been unable to tell us; namely, whether or not his housing measures will increase the number of houses built in
    582
    Scotland each year between now and 1975?
    The Prime Minister: That must obviously depend to a certain extent on the increase in private building, which is being encouraged, as is public building.

    FORMER CABINET MINISTERS (ACCESS TO CABINET PAPERS)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what special access to Cabinet papers is now given to former Cabinet Ministers; and what recent changes have been made in the arrangements for their custody.
    The Prime Minister: Former Ministers have always enjoyed access to the Cabinet papers which they saw when in office. No changes have been made in the arrangements for the custody of these papers.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What are the implications for Cabinet Government, not to mention the political memoirs industry, of the use by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) of the "search of Cabinet papers", which is his own phrase in the New Statesman, in order to disclose the views expressed in Cabinet by former colleagues on the subject of the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: The practice in the past has been quite clear: there was access for former Ministers to their own papers. I believe that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) had access to such papers, to which he was quite entitled. I understand also that the usual convention of submitting material intended for publication to the Secretary of the Cabinet was not in this case complied with. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h!"] But that is not a matter for me as Prime Minister: it is far more a matter for his own party leader, the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Would the Prime Minister be averse to the Speaker of the House writing his memoirs and being allowed access to the Cabinet papers of 1956?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that if Mr. Speaker wished to have access to his own Cabinet papers he would be

    583
    perfectly entitled to do so, and I have no doubt that he would comply with the normal convention of submitting material to the Secretary of the Cabinet.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that a book about the Suez operation did come to the Cabinet Office and was properly reported to me? The right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the Opposition, was informed of all the circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman has any complaint about my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), why did he not inform me that there had not been any reference to the Cabinet Office about what my right hon. Friend intended to publish? He will also be aware that every word that I intend to publish has gone to the Cabinet Office.
    The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of what the right hon. Gentleman says about his own material. As I say, it is not a matter for me as Prime Minister but a matter for the Secretary of the Cabinet to handle. I think that was a procedure which the right hon. Gentleman himself adopted. He is quite right in saying that when material is submitted it is natural to inform the leader of the party of the Member concerned. In this case, the material was not submitted to the Secretary of the Cabinet, so obviously I did not know about it until after publication.

    PRIME MINISTER (DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will publish an account of all the offices, positions and other responsibilities he holds in his capacity as Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: The duties and responsibilities of the Prime Minister are described in a number of standard works of reference, including page 41 of "Britain 1971", an Official Handbook published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, obtainable through any bookseller at one pound and sixty-two and a half pence, and available for consultation in the Library of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Carter: Will the Prime Minister consider adding to the direct responsi-
    584
    bilities contained in those works responsibilities for great national issues such as the present tragic circumstances of Rolls-Royce? Should he not, therefore, stop hiding behind the skirts of a non-Cabinet Minister, come out into the open, take part in the debate today, and declare himself to be the architect of the mess which this Government have created?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions usually bear absolutely no relationship to the facts, and this one is no exception. Matters of national policy are matters for the Cabinet as a whole, and it is well know in all Administrations that when the departmental Minister responsible is not a member of the Cabinet he attends the Cabinet when matters affecting his responsibility are discussed. This has always been the case. I have complete confidence in the departmental Minister.
    Mr. Harold Wilson.: We on this side do not share that confidence, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not wish to speak in the debate today, or in any other debate, that must be a matter for him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will be speaking in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]
    But will the Prime Minister give further consideration to our proposal that a Select Committee should be appointed, after the negotiations are complete, so that all aspects of responsibility of Ministers in both successive Governments can be properly probed by the House? If the right hon. Gentleman will not do that, will he consider the suggestion that a committee of Privy Councillors be appointed, if secrecy is in question? He may recall that when he proposed that course to me on one occasion I agreed within minutes to what he had proposed.
    The Prime Minister: That is a typical example of instant response. It has already been announced that the Government will publish a White Paper, which can then be fully debated by the House if the House so chooses; and that there will be a recommendation to the shareholders of the old company that a full Department of Trade and Industry inquiry shall be held. That is the proper way to deal with the matter.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers who answer Questions on behalf of various Departments on matters relating to Great Britain's application to join the Common Market and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The very close co-ordination which exists between Ministers on all matters relating to the negotiations with the European Communities covers the preparation of answers to Questions.
    Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that if any terms are agreed with the Common Market this House of Commons will be given plenty of time to ask probing questions, that the country has plenty of time to debate the subject, and that we shall not be asked to vote until we have seen the whole agreement and not just heads of agreement?
    The Prime Minister: We shall endeavour to put all possible information before the House and give hon. and right hon. Members the opportunity of asking questions about it and of debating it. The amount of time to be allowed can be discussed through the usual channels, as well as with hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister give special attention to the social services? There is a paucity of information about the effect of going into the Common Market on the whole National Health Service, pharmacists, nurses, and so on. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore see that the Secretary of State for Social Services is brought more closely into these discussions?
    The Prime Minister: I am perfectly prepared to look into that matter. It will not be so much a question of reporting on the negotiations on the subject, because my experience has been that the amount of social services covered by Community regulations and obligations is very limited. However, if the hon. Gentleman requires information about social service arrangements for the countries of the Community I will gladly see what can be prepared.

    PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of every public speech he has made in which he has referred to the necessity for price restraint in the private sector.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar Question from the hon. Member on 9th February.—[Vol. 811, c. 137.]
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Prime Minister confirm the view, held by very many people, that we shall have to wait until two days before the next General Election before we get any appeal from him for price restraint in the private sector?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Members knows from previous answers, copies of my previous speeches are all available in the Library. I have always made absolutely clear my views about prices, and the need for competition to bring down prices—[Interruption.]—and, at the same time, to allow industry sufficient profitability from which to get its investment. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared for private industry to be profitable enough to get investment he cannot expect to see growth in the economy. I should have thought that most people working in British industry would prefer to work with a profitable firm—[Interruption.]—in which they could see an assured future rather than one whose profitability was removed by excessive wage demands, resulting in loss of jobs.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the Prime Minister tell us in which part of his long and considered statement on prices on 16th June he referred to the need for private industry to put up prices in order to improve profit margins?
    The Prime Minister: I have constantly made it plain that where industry is unable to generate sufficient profitability to maintain jobs or to finance investment it is entitled to try to secure such profitability through its prices.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us do not want any or all of the Prime Minister's speeches placed in the Library, the Library being sufficiently congested already?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman differs from many of his colleagues,

    587
    but if he wishes to remain unenlightened he will only have himself to blame.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Dissociating myself entirely from my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on this occasion and seeking enlightenment from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he will now do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has asked and put in the Library a copy of his considered statement of 16th June last and indicate, in any colour of ink that he considers appropriate, the particular passage in which he then said that it would be necessary for private enterprise to raise prices?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that that copy is there already, but I will certainly check to ensure that it is. I will also give the right hon. Gentleman, and put in the Library, copies of my speeches during the General Election campaign in which I pointed out that one of the consequences of five and a half years of Labour Administration was that so many of the great firms of this country saw their profitability so reduced that they had to go to Government organisations in an endeavour to get capital; but even I did not expect when we came to power to find the tragic condition which we did find in Rolls-Royce.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH MARCH, TUESDAY, 16TH MARCH and WEDNESDAY, 17TH MARCH—
Industrial Relations Bill: Report stage (1st, 2nd and 3rd Allotted Days).
THURSDAY, 18TH MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: The Chairman will immediately put the Question on all outstanding Votes.
There will be a debate on the steel industry: investment and redundancies, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
588
Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and on the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order.
At Seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
FRIDAY, 19TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 22ND MARCH—Industrial Relations Bill: Report stage (4th Allotted Day).
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 8th April until Monday, 19th April.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues the provision of a debate in Government time on the failure of the V. and G. Insurance Company Ltd. in order that the Secretary of State can indicate to the House in debate and under questioning how it was that, in spite of the Department having knowledge of the affairs of this company as long ago as July, a large number of constituents of hon. Members in all parts of the House were conned into paying premiums to this company which proved worthless?
Second, arising on the business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week and for Monday of the following week, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the flood of Government Amendments on the Notice Paper, including a large number of controversial Clauses embodying new principles, will make it totally impossible to debate more than a tenth of all the new Clauses and of those Clauses which the Committee of the whole House never had a chance to debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this situation again, because this is a Bill which, as we told him when he first imposed the guillotine, imports very great principles affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not wish to comment one way or the other on the points he put forward in making his request because that is not for me. I cannot promise time for a debate on this matter in the near future because of other Government business. It is a

589
matter which can easily be raised in other ways.
As for the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week and on Monday of the following week, I think the Leader of the Opposition will find that the number of Amendments and new Clauses is certainly not out of line with the number tabled by previous Governments.
Mr. Rose: Rubbish!
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, but before the hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish" perhaps he would look at the facts.
Mr. Rose: It is a scandal.
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I should make it perfectly clear that I believe there is adequate time, and it is the amount of time that the Opposition themselves asked for on Report, because I gave two extra days to debate the matters in hand.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us would like the V. and G. Insurance Company investigated with a view to its being ascertained why it took a Conservative Minister immediately after the election to get on to this when the previous Administration did nothing about it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly note what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the new Clauses which have been tabled for the Report stage of the Industrial Relations Bill are the Government's Amendments to their own Clauses which have not been debated. Surely, therefore, it is vital that they be properly debated, if only in fairness to the Government.
Second, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the exchanges which took place last Thursday when I asked him if Standing Committee B on the Immigration Bill would be sufficiently large to include all different views expressed in the House and when the right hon. Gentleman indicated that it would be a large Committee, as indeed it is? However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this Committee there is to date no Liberal representation? Whatever
590
view the right hon. Gentleman might take of the views which we hold, I think he will concede that at least we have expressed, and will continue to express, a distinctive view on this matter.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Whitelaw: I see no reason to suppose that the new Clauses which have been tabled for Report stage of the Industrial Relations Bill will not be debated.
The right hon. Gentleman has put the second point about the Immigration Bill very fairly and generously, because he has stated exactly what I said, which was that there would be a large Committee, and there is one. The matter of the representation on it is inevitably a matter for the Selection Committee, which operates within the Standing Orders of the House; and that is the position as regards the Liberal Party.
All I can say to those hon. Members opposite who cheered the prospect of Liberal representation, which certainly would like to see, is that it is perfectly open to the Opposition, as was constantly urged on me during the last six years, to provide one of their places for the Liberal Party.
Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the Government are doing on the Industrial Relations Bill is an absolute outrage? We spent 10 days discussing the Bill which they presented and it now appears that they have been writing another one. The number of new Clauses and Amendments which have been tabled by the Government will make it impossible for us to reach any of our Amendments in the five days allotted for Report stage, which is making a mockery of democracy.
Is the Leader of the House aware that people outside will realise that this most important Measure will not be debated to even half the extent to which it should be debated by the House of Commons?
Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which are much better debated next week. For my part, I have made it perfectly clear that I believe that there will be perfectly adequate time to debate the Government's new Clauses.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Absolute nonsense.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. I am entitled to mine. I think that is fair. I also point out that six days on Report stage is one of the longest Report stages in Parliament's history.
Dame Irene Ward: What is happening about the Shipbuilding Bill? If we are not to have it next week, can we be assured that we shall have it the week after next? This matter is causing a great deal of anxiety and we should like to do something for ship building and get outside the Industrial Relations Bill controversy.
Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note the importance of the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers. I cannot tell her exactly when it will be produced before the House, but soon.
Mr. Harold Walker: The Leader of the House says that there will be adequate time next week to debate the Government new Clauses. When will there be time on Report stage or on any other stage to debate the Opposition Amendments or Amendments emanating from any other quarter of the House? Is it not clear that there will not be adequate time to discuss either the new Clauses or the 97 Government Amendments, let alone the Opposition Amendments to Clauses which were never debated in Committee? Is not this a monstrous rape of parliamentary democracy?
Mr. Whitelaw: I was asked about the new Clauses and I replied about the new Clauses. I have said that I believe that there is time for these matters to be debated. How the House deploys the time given to it is for itself to decide.
Mrs. Castle: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Report stage procedure Government new Clauses have priority and that as there are 13 of them which have to be discussed in the context of a complex new Schedule, and as there are about 90 Government Amendments, this is, in fact, the introduction of a new Bill? It will be a Committee stage, and not a Report stage. At the end of the period which the right hon. Gentleman is allowing us, there will have been no discussion whatever in Committee or on Report on the 119 Clauses of the Bill which have not yet been debated at all. Does the Leader of the
592
House not think that that is making a mockery of Parliament?
Mr. Harold Walker: The Leader of the House should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Whitelaw: Exactly what is or is not debated on Report must depend on how long the House takes debating various matters.
Dame Joan Vickers: When arranging business for the future, will my right hon. Friend consider referring to the sporting calendar, as it appears to me that that might facilitate the passage of business in the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I regret to say that, as I am one of the few Members who take no interest in such matters. I had to be reminded of what my hon. Friend meant. But I note what she says.
Mr. Lawson: Now that Scottish Members are no longer busy with legislation upstairs, will the Leader of the House set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad to know that Scottish Members have, after a considerable time, managed to dispose of a comparatively short Bill. I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot yet say when the Committee will be set up.
Mr. O'Malley: Before the debate on the steel industry next week, will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so that on that day the Secretary of State may announce the reversal of the Government's policies which have caused the present crisis and redundancies in the steel industry?
Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally, I do not accept the premise which the hon. Gentleman puts his question, but I shall call my right hon. Friend's attention to what he has said. My right hon. Friend come well armed for the debate next Thursday.
Mr. Shore: Will the Leader of the House recognise the clear need for more informative, fuller and more frequent statements on the course of the Common Market negotiations? The habit has been established so far for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to report after his visits to Brussels, but the Leader of the House will know that some important

593
visitors have come to London and no statement has been made thereafter. Will he look into that?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have always promised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will keep the House fully informed on all his visits and make statements whenever he has anything to report to the House. This will continue. The problem with statements is that one always has to balance that with the needs of the House for time for its other business. That I seek to do. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will make statements as and when appropriate.
Mr. Onslow: When may we expect the publication and Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date at this moment.
Mr. Heffer: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his attitude on the Industrial Relations Bill? He really ought to reconsider it, since the Government new Clauses must be discussed first in any case, and there are 13 of them, plus one new Schedule. These new Clauses raise some of the most controversial issues and in many respects make the position much worse for the trade union movement than the Bill does at present. There must, therefore, be considerable scrutiny of those new Clauses, and we may never reach the end of them. Accordingly, the Government Amendments, apart from Opposition Amendments and the 110 Clauses of the Bill which were never discussed in the House, will never be reached. If the right hon. Gentleman believes in democracy, he must now agree that the Opposition have a fundamentally good case for the time to be extended.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I am right in saying that about two-thirds of the Government Amendments are directly linked to or consequential upon the new Clauses. That makes a difference, for these matters will, no doubt, arise in debate. That is an important feature. As for reconsidering the amount of time on Report, I must go on saying—[Interruption.] I recognise that we shall never agree about it, but I must point
594
out that this is one of the longest Report stages in the history of Parliament. That is a fact.
Mr. Tebbit: In order to expedite the business of the House, which we are all anxious to do, would my right hon. Friend consider an unorthodox proposal under which, in order to avoid time wasted on bogus, frivolous and stupid points of order—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Tebbit: —a Member might be required to put down a deposit of a "fiver" or so, which would be forfeit to the Members' Pension Fund if the point which he raised were adjudged bogus, as was the point raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), when he even misquoted me, as the OFFICIAL REPORT shows today?
Mr. Whitelaw: These interesting matters stray rather beyond my responsibilities.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House consider giving time for a debate on the collapse of the Vehicle and General Insurance Company, bearing in mind not only the thousands of people who lost comparatively small premiums in some cases, and large ones in others, but the thousands who have lost their jobs and also the many persons who have lost almost everything because they had claims pending under which the drivers were insured by this company but in respect of which they are not covered by the Motor Insurers Bureau?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman probably heard my earlier reply to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I recognise the importance of this matter, but I cannot promise Government time in the immediate future because of other business. There are various other ways in which the matter can properly be raised.
Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the Immigration Bill and the composition of Standing Committee B, I recognise that this is not the direct responsibility of the Leader of the House, but it is a matter for the House of Commons as a whole, and he is Leader of the House as a whole. It is an absolute scandal that

595
the Liberal Party should not be represented on this Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least have discussion about it and see whether the matter can be put right?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the difficulty in relation to numbers and representation in the House and the way our Standing Orders govern the selection of Members for Standing Committees. The problem is concerned with numbers. I shall certainly look into it.
Mr. Clinton Davis: In view of the hopelessly inadequate statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the Francis Committee Report, will the Leader of the House arrange for the House to be able to debate that report at an early date?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend made clear yesterday that some of the matters would involve legislation at some stage. I cannot say when there will be an opportunity to debate the report.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the Leader of the House said that the Report stage on the Industrial Relations Bill would be the longest that he had known. Is he aware that, as far as I can find out, there is no precedent for Government proposals on such an occasion which, among many other things, contain a Schedule divided into four parts, of inordinate length, and itself as long as many other Bills? This will have to follow all the 13 Government new Clauses and the Amendments as well. In the circumstances, which both sides of the House agree are special, would it not be a good idea for the Government seriously to consider that we should have another week on the Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I must restate what I said to make it clear. I said that this Report stage was one of the longest Report stages in the history of Parliament—not that I had known. I personally believe that it is a reasonable time, and I think that we should see how we get on.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his stubborn refusal to see fair play on the Industrial Relations Bill is encouraging the argu-
596
ment to take place on the streets rather than in this Chamber?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot accept the implications of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Ross: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that next Thursday he will proceed with two most important local government Orders, the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and the Rate Support Grant Order (Increase) (Scotland) Order after opposed Private Business? Does he propose to start this important Scottish business after Ten o'clock on a Thursday night?
Mr. Whitelaw: It will not necessarily be after Ten o'clock. It depends on how long the opposed Private Business takes, and it may not take that time. If it is after Ten o'clock, there are ample precedents for that course from the period of the previous Government, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote any one precedent in respect of the Rate Support Grant Orders? It has never been debated at that time of night. Will he give us a pledge that if the debate is late in starting he will withdraw the Orders and put them down another day?
Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to see how we get on, but I believe that there will be ample time to debate them on Thursday night.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. As the Leader of the House has given us an assurance that there will be enough time for the Opposition Amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill to be reached, is not it up to him to promise that if there is not enough time he will allow further days for debate?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with reference to your policy of calling some hon. Members during business question time and not others. Is it not a fact that this is the only opportunity to raise certain subjects that may have a particular bearing upon a Member's area, his constituency, or the

597
industry with which he is mainly concerned, and that in the past many of your predecessors have allowed one Member one business question, not knowing whether he might raise a question that has already been asked or one particularly affecting his area? If, to save time, you decide to cut out a number of hon. Members, there might be a repetition of some questions in the first part of the period of business questions, and other hon. Members who only very occasionally ask questions at this period and who have a vital area interest to raise will not be able to raise it. Could you reconsider your practice on those grounds?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very difficult matter. Rather differing views have been expressed to me privately, very many welcoming the curtailment of business questions. Business questions have now been going for about 20 minutes. It is a matter of judgment. I am certainly not trying to lay down any hard and fast rule. I am judging the matter Thursday by Thursday.

BRITISH SOLDIERS, NORTHERN IRELAND (MURDER)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
In Belfast last night three soldiers of the Royal Highland Fusiliers were murdered in cold blood. They were off duty, unarmed and in civilian clothes. The crime was clearly deliberate and premeditated.
I am sure the entire House will wish to register its condemnation of this appalling crime and our deep sympathy with the relatives of the men who died at the hands of these evil forces. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
As I informed the House on 15th February, the situation in Northern Ireland has recently changed to a more vicious form. The organised groups of armed terrorists have been stepping up their campaign of murder and violence. The security forces have been intensifying their campaign, not without success. I am sure the House would wish me to confirm once again that the Government will give all possible support to the
598
security forces in carrying out their dangerous and distasteful duties, and I am equally convinced that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, to whatever community they may belong, equally join in condemning these brutal acts and in wishing to see the criminals brought to justice. Every effort will be made to see this is done. In addition the G.O.C. is considering urgently whether any additional precautions are necessary in respect of movements of soldiers when off duty.
I think it is important at the same time to remember that the aim of the terrorists is to destroy peace and order throughout the province. To this end they are clearly trying to provoke the security forces into reprisals which would appear to be aimed not against the criminals but against large sections of the population. In this way they clearly would like to inflame relations between the Army and the public and to stoke up once again the sectarian violence on the streets which in recent months has shown hopeful signs of diminishing. The Government do not intend that they should succeed in this objective. The battle now joined against the terrorists will be fought with the utmost vigour and determination. It is a battle against a small minority of armed and ruthless men whose strength lies not so much in their numbers as in their wickedness.
Mr. Callaghan: The Home Secretary has spoken for the whole House in his expression of sympathy with the bereaved and his condemnation of these barbarous crimes, and especially his sympathy for the Scottish family that was struck twice.
I have only one question to ask, but may I be allowed just this observation: I wish that the unanimous feeling in the House might influence those who are concerned in these crimes, but I fear that it will not.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has said that the security forces will not be provoked into taking reprisals against whole sections of the population, because these were fractional crimes by fractional groups, and it is essential to secure the support of the population. In view of the changed circumstances since the troops first went in—and we discussed this in February—has the time arrived when the right hon. Gentleman might

599
undertake a large-scale review of the relations between police and Army to see whether there is any prospect of reviewing both the methods of protection and detection to try to overcome the wall of silence that exists, which in my view arises from a feeling of mistrust of the police in certain quarters combined with a misplaced loyalty and certainly a fear of the gunmen? Is not it a most difficult operation for the security forces to conduct? Has not the balance changed rather, and would not it be worth while reviewing the whole scale and system of our security effort in order that the small number concerned with these crimes, who are murderers with a political motive, should be arrested, charged and brought to justice?
Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for all that he has said. I am deeply grateful that there should be no division in the House on these matters. I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need further to strengthen the combined effort of the security forces in the hunt for and apprehension of the gunmen.
Sir F. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend convey my sympathy and that of other Ayrshire Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), to the bereaved families, and also express our admiration of the conduct of the Royal Highland Fusiliers in such particularly difficult circumstances? Will he ensure that effective steps are taken to safeguard troops off duty against this sort of attack? Will he also say how it was that a boy of 17 came to be employed under what amounted to active service conditions?
Mr. Maudling: The sympathy of the whole House extends particularly to the family who have been so gravely bereaved. I should like to state once again my admiration and that of everyone for the remarkable and unique bearing of our Army in the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I know of no armed force in the entire world that could measure up to what it is doing. I will make inquiries on my hon. Friend's third point.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Home Secretary aware that the whole House will be
600
appalled at these brutal and senseless murders and would wish to be associated with the sympathy which he expressed for the relatives of these three young men? Is he aware that, as the Army goes about its difficult task calmly and courageously, it will have the support of the whole House in seeking to maintain peace in Northern Ireland and to counter threats to that peace from whatever quarter they may emanate?
Mr. Maudling: Yes, I am grateful for the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
Captain Orr: I confirm my right hon. Friend's impression that the whole of Ulster deplores not only the crime, cold and inhuman as it was, but joins him in expressing sympathy to the Scottish families concerned. On the point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), may I say that, although we might possibly disagree on the reason, he has made a key point, that of intelligence. Bringing these people to justice, as everybody wishes to see them brought to justice, must be looked at as a matter of great urgency.
Will my right hon. Friend please convey to the Army the gratitude of the people of Ulster, and our determination to sustain the Army in the difficult and dangerous job it is doing?
Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. I confirm that the security authorities have been given by the Government all the authority and the resources for which they have asked to deal with this problem, and we shall continue to do this.
Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no possible defence for nor would anyone seek to justify any of the happenings that took place in Belfast yesterday? Is he also aware that to me this is a very sad occasion, because my own local regiment went into Derry when the troubles first started to separate the warring factions? Is he further aware that his statement about the security forces not being provoked and not allowing community hatreds to build up again is one of the most encouraging things to have come out of this afternoon's discussion?
Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member. It perhaps is unnecessary

601
to say that the Armed Forces will not be provoked, but, as it is clearly the motive of the terrorists to do this. I think I should do so.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While I am sure that the whole country is equally as horrified as the House by what has happened, will my right hon. Friend bear two things in mind? It appears highly probable that this awful crime has been perpetrated not by those who are indigenous to Ulster but by the I.R.A. which comes from the South—
Mr. Molloy: It could be anyone.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: It could be anyone, I quite agree, but there is strong suspicion against the I.R.A., and the I.R.A. comes from the South. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to bring home to the Southern Irish Government the importance of ensuring that where men are found guilty they are properly punished for crimes of this sort? Secondly, will he ensure that everything is done to enable the British Army in Ulster to have an adequate intelligence service?
Mr. Maudling: I certainly agree on the great importance of intelligence, and we are doing all we can to strengthen the intelligence available. I see from the tape that Mr. Lynch has utterly condemned these brutal murders. On my hon. and gallant Friend's first point, I did not point a finger at any particular organisation. There are, I am sorry to say, operating in Ireland a number of organisations of a terrorist character. It is the job of the police to fix the blame on the appropriate one, and I profoundly hope they succeed.
Mr. Rankin: I thoroughly and completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. Is he aware that Private D. McCaughey, who died in the circumstances described, was a constituent of mine in Govan, and, therefore, this affects me personally? When the moment comes, will he consider the future of the dependants of these soldiers and give special consideration to the circumstances in which their soldier sons and brothers died in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Maudling: Everyone is aware of the tragic circumstances of this family, and I have no doubt it comes home
602
deeply to the hon. Member, as it does to the right hon. Minister who is responsible for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that terrorism can only continue as long as those responsible believe that there is some prospect of their aims being achieved? What further measures do Her Majesty's Government intend to take to make it clear that there is no possibility of the attainment of those political aims?
Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I said something rather like this in the last debate. What on previous occasions has brought an end to these waves of violence has been the realisation that they cannot succeed. To make clear that they cannot succeed, we have made sure that such resources as are required by the security forces in their battle against the terrorists will be made available to them.
Mr. Ross: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that these young men came from one family in my home town and were members of the regiment in which I was proud to serve? All these cowardly killers have achieved has been a sense of anger and outrage in Scotland, and it is all the more important, therefore, that we should be calm and ensure that whatever action we take is effective in the long-term aim of pacification of this part of the country.
Mr. Maudling: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's personal connection, I am particularly grateful for what he has said.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to associate the people I represent with the expressions of sympathy that have been offered in the House today. I came from Northern Ireland this morning, and I know something about the feeling in the City of Belfast last night when this awful crime was revealed, this cold, callous, calculated nurder of three young men serving in Her Majesty's Forces. Will the Home Secretary take action to put pressure on the Government in Dublin to see that such murderers can no longer have sanctuary there? If these men escape over the border they have a sanctuary there, they cannot be extradited for political murder and face the charge which they should face in a court of law.
Mr. Maudling: As I have said, Mr. Lynch has forthrightly condemned these brutal murders, and the objective of pursuing these men, wherever they may he, and bringing them to justice is in the forefront of all our minds.
Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, nothwithstanding the minority problems in Northern Ireland, the fact that there has been some progress and that sincere people have attempted to resolve these difficulties is the cause of this foul and cowardly crime? The people who have committed this crime are on no one's side except the side of evil. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider calling together over the weekend members of all political factions and of the Churches, including the Primate of all Ireland, in the atmosphere which must exist now, to prevent any outburst by innocent people who feel aggrieved and to provide a united leadership not only to condemn this abominable crime but to get back on the road to sanity?
Mr. Maudling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation at the beginning of his remarks. On his second point, it is now quite clear that all leaders of communities in Northern Ireland have united in condemning this crime. The trouble is that the perpetrators of the crime listen to no one.
Mr. McMaster: I should like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy with the relatives of the men who have been killed. I speak on behalf of all my constituents of every class and creed, who are horrified at what has happened. Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the fact that there are areas in Belfast where the police cannot go and where the terrorists terrorise the people? Will he use his efforts to make sure that law and order are restored to every part of Northern Ireland so that the police can act freely in all parts?
Mr. Maudling: I see my hon. Friend's point, and I know how concerned he is on the basis of his personal experience and responsibility in these matters. One of the sad things about this latest tragedy is that it occurred in a part of Belfast which up to now had been regarded as peaceful.
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should receive urgent consideration, namely,
"the cold-blooded murder of three soldiers"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that the Army Estimates are to be debated later today?
Mr. Kilfedder: The reasons I wish to give, Mr. Speaker, refer to other matters than the security forces. Perhaps I may read on:
"the cold-blooded murder of three soldiers, which is the latest in a series of dastardly crimes committed in Ulster—arson, violence, explosions and the killing of civilians, police and soldiers; the need to review the whole security position in Northern Ireland to give maximum encouragement and hope to civilians and members of the security forces; and the equally urgent need to make the Eire Government take effective measures against the Republican gunmen who seek and receive sanctuary and assitance in the Irish Republic."
Obviously, the latter aspect cannot be debated on the Army Estimates, and this is the principal reason why I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House. In my submission, the specific nature is disclosed in the terms of the Motion, and I believe the fact that the situation demands urgent consideration is also apparent, because the cowardly murders have grave implications over the weekend for Northern Ireland. Hon. Members are right in saying that the great majority of the people of Ulster, irrespective of their political and religious beliefs, utterly condemn this outrage, which is the latest of a series of despicable acts of violence.
Unfortunately, the morale of the Ulster people has been shattered by the incidence of violence, and this latest act has no doubt brought that morale to a very low level. Unfortunately, the recent visit by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not allayed the fears which exist. The Army is taking every possible measure and we are proud of its activities. [Interruption.] In conclusion, if I may allay the anger of the House, finally the position is that no matter what measures are taken by the Army the terrorists who engage in these crimes can escape across the border and receive succour and held and medical aid in the Republic. I ask

605
leave to move the Adjournment because the Government should, I feel, immediately seek action by the Eire Government in stamping out the I.R.A. who are in the Republic, where they recruit and collect money.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not develop the argument he would use if he were granted leave to move the Adjournment of the House. Will he now bring his submission to the Chair?
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter which he thinks should receive urgent consideration, namely,
"the cold-blooded murder of three soldiers, which is the latest in a series of dastardly crimes committed in Ulster—arson, violence, explosions and the killing of civilians, police and soldiers; the need to review the whole security position in Northern Ireland to give maximum encouragement and hope to civilians and members of the security forces; and the equally urgent need to make the Eire Government take effective measures against Republican gunmen who seek and receive sanctuary and assistance in the Irish Republic."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for his decision. I have given careful consideration to the representation made by the hon. Member about this extremely serious matter, but I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [12TH ALLOTED DAY],—considered.
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

  ROLLS-ROYCE
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Rodgers: This is the fourth debate we have had on Rolls-Royce since the brutal, unnecessary and ill-considered statement of 4th February. We have had only one of those four debates in Government time. Over the last five weeks, Rolls-Royce has occupied the newspapers daily and has been a source of constant anxiety to tens of thousands of men and their families employed in the industry; many firms, many of them small, have been threatend with bankruptcy. At the same time, Britain's commercial reputation has been at stake.
  Yet during this whole period the Government have only once provided time for debate, and that was in order that we might facilitate the passage of the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act. On 8th February, the debate was on the initiative of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) under Standing Order No. 9; on 26th February, it was because of the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) to use Private Members' time. Today we are having a debate on Supply.
  For five weeks—I say this reluctantly—the Government have been running hard to escape cross-examination in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I make that perfectly plain at the beginning. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, this is a shameful story of evasion.
  Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear yesterday that the Opposition
  "… regard this occasion as purely a sounding debate to express those anxieties and … we do not intend to press the wider question". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 420.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point now. It does not sound anything like a point of order. It may be a good argument or a bad one, but it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Rodgers: No doubt hon. Members if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will have time to express their disagreement with what I say. I intend to make my own speech and to keep it as short as possible, since I know that hon. Members on both sides are concerned to ask questions of the Government to which they have a right to get replies.
  I remind the Government that on 26th February the Opposition deliberately chose to strike a note of moderation and reasonableness.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price): Oh.
  Mr. Rodgers: If the Parliamentary Secretary does not think that we did, why did he not say so at the time? In fact, the Minister was told before the debate that this was what we would do. The Minister himself paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and I said explicitly in the debate that we appreciated the heavy burdens which lay upon the Ministers and that in so far as they were concerned to salvage what could be salvaged they would have our support. I said that they would have our good will as long as they sought a constructive solution. Any fair-minded person listening to that debate would accept that we were virtually bipartisan on that occasion. But despite the tone of that debate, we have had the greatest difficulty in getting from the Government answers to the questions which we asked then and have asked on other occasions. It is not sufficient to say that the Government are involved in delicate negotiations: they are. We on this side will say nothing which could conceivably embarrass the Government in the negotiations. But it would be wrong and would make an institutional eunuch of this House if it were suggested that we should not debate and should not require answers about matters of great national concern.
  We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secre-
  608
  tary have had additional and heavy burdens to carry. We have paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done; we have recognised the difficulties he has faced; we have been patient when answers to our questions were delayed. But the great test of any Minister is not that he can perform in this House in normal and quiet conditions, but that when a crisis arises he is successful both in managing the demands of his Department and answering in the House for what he does.
  There are many people outside this House, not only those employed by Rolls-Royce, made redundant or living in fear of redundancy, but the sub-contractors too, who still believe that there should be answers to the questions and that these answers should be made public. In our debate on 26th February, I asked nine questions of the right hon. Gentleman. He replied to only a few of them at the end of the debate, but I made no complaint. He eventually replied to most of them in a letter dated 5th March. Yet when I made those answers public he complained to me that I ought not to have done so. This is a story of concealment, and I very much regret that it is necessary to say so in the House. Certainly those who have a regard for the functions of the House and for the need always to check the actions of the Executive, whatever Government is in power, have a right to say this now and to demand that we receive replies.
  The Leader of the House has chosen to reply today. We do not know precisely what he is here for, but we hope very much that when the time comes he will give answers to the questions which have been raised and will not hide behind his own special responsibilities as Leader. I will go further and say that I hope he is not here as a nanny to his colleagues. I hope that he is here in his proper rôle as guardian of the interests of this House and that we shall see him acting in that rôle this evening. We have a great deal of respect for him in that rôle and by and large, we have no complaint. I am glad that we have a Law Officer present and a Minister from the Treasury. We would have much preferred if either of them were answering us this evening, because there are questions which we would like to address to them as well as to the right hon.

  609
  Gentleman the Minister for Aviation Supply.
  A White Paper has been promised. When is it to be published? A week ago we were told it was coming and the Leader of the House said that of course it could not sterilise debate. It has not done so, but there will still be many matters after today which we will wish to see on record, so I hope that the White Paper will not be delayed for the whole of another week. We received a statement on Monday and were grateful for it. However, what we were told by the right hon. Gentleman then was only what we had already read in the newspapers or on the tape that day. This is not a satisfactory position, and I find myself bound to return to the charge of evasion.
  In the debate of 26th February, I raised first on a point of order and then in an exchange with the right hon. Gentleman the specific and narrow point concerning the understanding between the Government and Rolls-Royce and between Rolls-Royce and the accepting houses. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I went to considerable trouble, following the normal courtesies of the House to enable him to make a statement after Questions on the following Wednesday so that the record could be set straight, not only for us here but for those outside.
  Instead, as he will well remember, he failed to answer after Questions a Question which was originally addressed to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General but answered it with Question No. 1. In answering it, he still did not face the particular point about the heads of agreement. He said:
  "I do not believe that the condition was specifically referred to, but I think that it was clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 1681.]
  He has now had time to check. Was it or was it not referred to in the heads of agreement seen by his Department, and if it was not referred to in what way was it clear, to use his own word?
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say more about the question of redundancies. I am delighted to know that it seems to be of general concern on both sides of the House. Will he say firmly that no more redundancies are
  610
  contemplated if the RB211 contract is successfully renegotiated? Will he say what his estimate is, because there must be one, of the redundancies already taking place among the sub-contractors?
  Will he give an estimate—and he was unable to give it on Monday in reply to a question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—of how many redundancies would follow, not at Rolls-Royce, if the RB211 goes? Will he say categorically that there have been no discussions between Ministers and the Receiver that have led or will lead to redundancies? These are specific questions and there is adequate time in which to receive replies.
  I hope that he will say something more about the whole relationship between the Government and the Receiver and the Government and the board of Rolls-Royce (1971). Who is running whom? I understand that the receiver is required—there has been no question about this in the House, and if the Attorney-General wishes to correct me he is free to do so—to act for the debenture holders in getting the best price and to negotiate with Rolls-Royce (1971). If this is the case, where do the Government come in? Is there informal contact between the Government and Rolls-Royce (1971)? If so, the right hon. Gentleman will know that over a period of years this House has increasingly taken the views that relations between Governments, any Government, and nationalised industries should be explicit and clear and, if possible, should be published in some form in this House.
  It would be wholly undesirable if the right hon. Gentleman or his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence were having discussions with the Receiver or Rolls-Royce (1971) and giving instructions or expressing views which led them to take courses of action for which the right hon. Gentleman said he was not responsible in this House. What meetings have taken place and when? What correspondence has passed? The right hon. Gentleman can answer the first question and he can publish the correspondence when we receive the White Paper.
  Of course, we wish the negotiations with Lockheed well. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said on Monday in reply to his hon. Friend the Member

  611
  for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) that there would be flexibility. I very much hope that this means that the negotiations are continuing in good faith. We made it clear five weeks ago that we believed that a Select Committee of the House was the best way of enabling the House to judge what had gone on. That is still our view, but if the Government feel otherwise and are not prepared to concede that, surely if they have regard for Parliament they must give us more information than we have hitherto had, they must seek to answer questions today, and questions which they do not answer today they must answer in their own time next week.
  We on this side would be content, in so far as all questions are not answered, if the right hon. Gentleman in winding-up gave a firm undertaking that they would be answered, not in correspondence but in the form of a statement in the House next week. It is not much to ask. In the course of our debate so far we have at no time said that the aircraft industry, either Rolls-Royce or the airframe industry, should be in receipt of limitless funds. We did not say that the aircraft industry should necessarily be baled out of all the difficulties of its own making. We do not say and we have not said that the industry, or any part of it, must be maintained primarily to provide jobs in it, although that would be a reasonable point of view at a time of rising unemployment in the country as a whole. In the long run the industry must be judged by its ability to deliver the right goods, at the right price, in the right time. That is and remains our view.
  But we do not believe that the Government have handled the unhappy story of Rolls-Royce adequately. We hope that they will now face their responsibilities and end this period of depressing evasion and concealment.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) started his speech by charging me with concealment and with my complaint that he gave certain letters to the Press. Of course I have no objection to his giving my letters to the Press, but it is usual when one is about to publish
  612
  a letter from someone else at least to notify him, which the hon. Gentleman did not do.
  The background against which that was done was that the hon. Gentleman himself delivered a letter to my office on Sunday afternoon. It contained the allegation that the Government had made a condition of certain redundancies before we would take over the assets. That allegation was quite untrue and it was easily checkable, had the hon. Gentleman given time to receive a reply. That was the background and I ask the House to consider who was trying to mislead.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I should be content if the right hon. Gentleman chose to publish in the White Paper, or in some other way, all the correspondence which has passed between us. I should be content to allow my colleagues in the House to decide.
  Mr. Corfield: I am bound to say that I think all of it is excessively boring. However that may be, if there are any other bits which the hon. Gentleman would like published, I will certainly pass them to The Times, which seems only too anxious to publish anything,
  Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If the Minister does not give way the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers rose—
  Mr. Corfield: I will not give way.
  Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is an impossible situation.
  Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Corfield: I am very willing for the hon. Gentleman to publish the last letter if he wishes. It struck me as being remarkably boring, although I can understand the morbid interest of The Times in other people's bankruptcies.
  I was asked again about the situation with regard to the accepting houses. I said that the heads of agreement did not

  613
  specifically make the proposal that the Government should put forward £42 million subject to the accounting check, and that was right. Nevertheless, I said, "I think it is clear". I still think that it was clear, and I do so because I was of course referring not merely to what was in the document but to the whole circumstances in which these negotiations between Rolls-Royce and the accepting houses and such part as the Government played took place.
  What I can say at this stage is that I have put out inquiries to such organisations in the City which, reading between the lines in The Times, one imagines to be the sources of the complaints, to see what they are. I have not had a single intimation to me personally—and, as far as I know, this applies to my right hon. Friends—that anyone in fact felt himself to be misled. If anyone does, no doubt The Times will publish this invitation to him to come to tell me, but this is the truth of the matter, and it is high time that it was made clear.
  The hon. Gentleman then referred to the relationship between the Receiver, Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and the Government. It must be abundantly clear that Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, being a wholly-owned Government company, depends for its funds upon the Government. As far as I can see, it is absolutely inevitable that some of the negotiations about the assets and the determination of what assets are required should take place on a tripartite basis as well as a bipartite basis, and I do not believe that there is anything wrong with that in any way.
  Ultimately the property will be transferred to Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and the board will be responsible, but the money has to be found, as we all know, from the Exchequer and therefore it is right that the Government should have a say in these negotiations. There is no question of there being negotiations for which nobody is responsible. Such part of the negotiations for which the Government are properly responsible in due course can be made as public as similar negotiations with nationalised industries.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Surely the Receiver is in a tricky legal position in that he is negotiating to sell the assets to Rolls-Royce (1971)
  614
  Ltd., but is legally obliged to get the best possible price. It may well be that he might get a better price if he advertised these assets and auctioned them. How do the Government regard that?
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman is quite right and I have made it clear myself on a number of occasions, as the hon. Gentleman will accept, that the Receiver is obliged to get and is entitled to get the basis of valuation which gives him the best price—those are the words which I have used. If it so happened that any other organisation—and the hon. Gentleman will admit that it would have to be a fairly large organisation to buy assets of this sort—were in the market, no doubt it would first wish to have a careful study of the books, as a large part of the assets almost inevitably would get the best price, from the Receiver's point of view, as a going concern.
  All I can say is that, so far as I am aware, there is absolutely no sign of any such organisation coming into the market. I indicated in an earlier debate that if it should be necessary to prevent an automatic topping of an alternative bid, it might be necessary to come back for compulsory powers, in which case one would base the price on the ordinary rates of compensation, complicated as those are when applied to assets of this sort.
  This is a short debate and I hoped to deal with what I took to be its main purpose, namely, the redundancy problems, fairly quickly and without this rather long preliminary. I assure the House that in all the considerations which the Government have given to the Rolls-Royce problem and its aftermath we have been deeply concerned with the problems of redundancy and what is generally known as the social cost. These have been among the most important factors which have determined the Government's course on the RB211.
  As I told the House on Monday last, Rolls-Royce has estimated that if the RB211 does not go ahead, the redundancies may be between 12,000 and 18,000. I noted that in his party political broadcast the following evening, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said that if the RB211 did not proceed, another 18,000 workers would have their livelihoods affected.

  615
  There was no indication whatever that this was an estimate, let alone that it represented the top end of the bracket given to me by Rolls-Royce and reported by me to the House as such. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that it helps anyone to exaggerate in circumstances of this sort.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I fully take the point. When asked about the figures he gave—12,000 to 18,000— the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it did not include Redundancies among sub-contracting firms.
  Mr. Corfield: I am coming to that. When the matter was discussed in the House, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the "normal" five to one ratio. I have made considerable inquiries and can find no evidence of the use or existence of a normal ratio of five to one or any other ratio. Indeed, such information as I have been able to compile shows that a ratio of five to one would be far higher than anything which is likely to apply in this case. That again is an exaggeration which does no good—
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It might be of more help to the House if the Minister would give us his estimate of the figure.
  Mr. Corfield: My estimate of the figure would be rather less than one to one at present. What I am trying to impress upon the House is that there is no normal ratio. I shall be coming to that in a minute.
  Mr. Benn: The five to one ratio refers, of course, to the workers and their dependants. That is the multiplier—the wives and families of workers. It is that to which the normal ratio to which I referred applies.
  Mr. Corfield: I should have thought that that was on the high side, but if that is what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to, I agree that I was referring to a different multiplier—namely, a multiplier by which one could relate the direct to the indirect, which is more relevant at this moment. I am reluctant to be committed to a figure, for a perfectly straightforward reason. There are about 500 sub-contractors and suppliers
  616
  for the RB211. Each is a separate firm with its own problems and resources. Of course some will be hard-hit and perhaps even forced out of business, but others will carry on although some will no doubt have redundancies, some of them substantial.
  My latest information is that about 6,800 redundancies have so far been attributed, outside Rolls-Royce, to Rolls-Royce difficulties. But each firm can only make its own appraisal. It is impossible to formulate a standard formula or ratio. This is a complex task, and it is bound to take some time, particularly for the managements concerned.
  As I have said before, right from the start of this tragedy, my Department, in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, has done its best to keep a running assessment of what might be called the overall economic costs of the multiplier effect. The methods used no doubt are not wholly accurate or wholly satisfactory. All I can say is that they are the best which exist, and have been used by successive Governments for many years.
  Again, I do not propose to be tied down to any figures, but even taking the more pessimistic range of redundancies and unemployment, and the period before which unemployment will begin to be absorbed, the cost in these figures is significantly less than the cost of going on with the RB211 on the terms which we offered to Lockheed. Of course I appreciate that one cannot put a financial sum on the human hardships and that if one tried to do so it would be purely arbitrary, but even if one doubled these sums for economic cost so as to make allowance for that, there would still be a substantial margin above that before one got to the likely cost—
  Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order. With all due respect to the redundancies and the social cost, can we not hear from the Minister in this short debate what is being done?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member knows very well that that is not a point of order for me. I have every sympathy with him, but he cannot raise it like that.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I am grateful for your sympathy: I wish that the Minister would share it.
  Mr. Corfield: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you expressed that sympathy, because this is something which I have been pressed about on a number of occasions. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, accused me of failing to answer these questions, and I am now trying to do so.
  As for the 4,000 or so redundancies announced by the receiver on 8th February, which I announced in my statement to the House on that day, I want to make it clear again that the allegation which was made by the hon. Gentleman is quite untrue, and that the Government gave no instructions whatever to the receiver to carry out redundancies; nor, of course, did the Government make it a condition of any of our actions in that connection.
  Referring now to the relations between the unions and the receiver, I understand that the Receiver made himself available to the trade union representatives a week or two ago to answer questions which they might put to him, and, in response to questions, undertook to inform the unions as soon as possible of any prospective redundancies. I understand that he did that, that he communicated at national level with the union leaders and that he gave an opportunity for questions to be asked and considered.
  So it is fair to say that the receiver gave notice of his intentions and that he was prepared to hear from the union representatives such representations as they thought they should make. I understand that the situation at the moment—
  Mr. Walter Johnson: The Minister said the other day that there had been full consultation with the unions concerned, and on a point of order I said that there had been no consultations, that the unions had been drawn together and presented with a fait accompli. I have since had that confirmed by the unions in Derby—that all they have had presented are the actual figures of redundancies in the various parts of the factory, and that they have had to come to terms with those figures, without knowing just who would be made redundant. This has caused widespread despondency in the factory. There has been no consultation at all with the unions. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his interventions short when this is such a short debate, and so many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Corfield: It was precisely because I wanted to make clear what had happened between the Receiver and the unions, as I understood it, that I put this piece into my speech to make it clear, because I was aware since Monday of the complaints which the hon. Member had made. I therefore thought it right to tell the House, as I understand it, the procedure which was adopted by the receiver.
  Mr. Whitehead: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the difference between this and other consultations which the unions have had in the case of previous redundancies, notably in 1970, is that then there was discussion about the phasing of the scheme? This time, there was none.
  Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is inevitably a difference of procedure where a receiver is in office, who, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) just said, has a difficult dual duty in these matters. This inevitably makes it more difficult for him to have the sort of consultation which one would expect of an employer company which is a going concern and is rightly likely to continue to be so. This is absolutely inevitable and restricts the sort of consultations which are possible.
  I now turn to the sub-contractors. Of course, their fate, both financially and in terms of workers—
  Mr. Dan Jones: Will not the Minister say anything about the negotiations?
  Mr. Corfield: I thought that I had been assured by the Leader of the Opposition the subject of redundancy was the main purpose of the debate. But if the House wishes me to speak for another 20 minutes about the negotiations, I certainly will.
  With regard to the sub-contractors, as I said in the debate on 26th March, of course everybody is very conscious of their difficulties and anxieties, but the payment of debts owed by Rolls-Royce Limited before the appointment of a

  619
  Receiver is, and I am afraid must be, a matter for discussion with the Receiver.
  At the same time, the Government have taken certain measures which will be of substantial practical assistance to subcontractors, both directly and by restoring their confidence in their present and future activities. There was first our immediate decision to acquire the Rolls-Royce assets which I enumerated in my statement, broadly to continue the main part of the aero and marine engine operations. That holds out a reasonable expectation that the sub-contractors involved in them can continue trading with the new company. Secondly, we are indemnifying the receiver to permit the RB211 work to continue, pending negotiations on the possibility of a new contract. This indemnity has today been extended for a further fortnight. This obviously benefits sub-contractors who might otherwise have lost work from Rolls-Royce immediately.
  Perhaps I can satisfy the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) on the question of the negotiations without listing again the more detailed terms. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not heard from Mr. Haughton since I made my statement on Monday. I very much hope that we shall hear in the very near future an indication of whether he can accept our terms or whether he is prepared to come back with the counter-proposals which I made it clear that we would consider.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Without going into the difficulties and details of the negotiations, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that both our American competitors have working teams in California at the moment. Can he say whether we have a comparable team there?
  Mr. Corfield: I understand that a senior director of the new Rolls-Royce board either left last night or is leaving today. I have not had time to check that. There have been more junior members there. But the difficulty is that, in a sense, the Rolls-Royce (1971) board is not yet the employer officially of all the Rolls-Royce executives. So we thought it right to send a senior director of Rolls-Royce there.
  Mr. Dan Jones: There are responsible people who really feel that time is distinctly not on our side. For that reason, can the Minister be prevailed upon to send a high-powered team to Burbank with the least delay in order to facilitate these negotiations?
  Mr. Corfield: One of the directors of the new Rolls-Royce Board has in fact gone there.
  Mr. Thorpe: But the Americans have been there 10 days with high-powered teams. The right hon. Gentleman says that one man may have gone out last night or this morning, but he is not certain.
  Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman is being quite unfair. We had Mr. Haughton over here on two successive occasions for three days at a time, with a high-powered team of our own and one of his own. He was in this country with the ability, which he would not have had if we went there, of going round the Derby Works, seeing for himself, and studying books and technical facts as he wanted. That is the reason why we did not go there—[Interruption.] I must apologise to the House. I am told that the Rolls-Royce director has not yet left. It was my understanding that he had gone last night or this morning. It was arranged last night and, as far as I knew, he had gone. However, I said that I had not been able to check whether he had actually left.
  Mr. Barnett: One gathers that the right hon. Gentleman has asked Lockheeds to obtain, either from banks or from the U.S. Government, an open-ended commitment for some 20 years. In view of what has been said by Her Majesty's Government about not wishing to give open-ended commitments themselves, are we to take it that they are prepared to give an open-ended commitment to maintain supplies and services for 20 years?
  Mr. Corfield: It must be clear to anyone who is concerned with this industry that, if a company is to sell engines to an airline, there must be a reasonable guarantee that they will be serviced. In the normal course of events, the airlines accept the reputation and so on of a company. In the case of a new company, it is not unreasonable to ask that this sort of service will continue. However, it is

  621
  certainly not open-ended. We told Mr. Haughton firmly that, while we understood the necessity for it, if we gave it, as we were willing to do, he must look to his own banks or his own Administration for a cross-warranty to ensure that, if by chance the Lockheed 1011 programme was abandoned, there would be an underwriting of the new money put in by the British Government. That seems to be anything but open-ended and a reasonable quid pro quo. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
  As for the negotiations, I cannot add anything to what I said on Monday. We have not had a response but, of course, we are in close touch. The idea that we should all be queueing up with G.E. and Pratts when we were doing exactly the same thing a week ago seems to be a remarkably naive argument.
  Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose—
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is a short debate. Although I cannot possibly curtail the undoubted right of hon. Members to endeavour to interrupt the Minister if they wish, I beg them to restrain themselves as much as they can in order to allow the large number of hon. Members who are intimately concerned with this matter and who want to speak to do so.
  Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose—
  Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have expresed the view that a large number of hon. Members wish to make speeches. What my constituents want is as much information as possible from the Minister. I do not care if he goes on speaking for another hour. My constituents want to know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing about the situation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, the House must have its way. That is its right. But it is my duty also to protect the interests of those hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Onslow: Even if there were anything in the record of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches or that of the Leader of the Liberal Party to suggest that they could negotiate their way out of a rice pudding, there is nothing in the points that they are raising which is in any way likely to increase the prospect of success in the negotiations. Would not it be more in the interests of hon. Members on both sides and their constituents if we concentrated on the matters that this debate was originally supposed to be about, which is the effect of redundancies and the position of the sub-contractors, and left this unprofitable bickering about the negotiations?
  Mr. Corfield: It seems to be the wish of the House that this should be a prolonged question session—
  Mr. Dan Jones: Why not?
  Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I might be allowed to go through the formality of winding up my remarks and bringing the threads together, so far as that is now possible.
  On the subject of the redundancies that have occurred and have been notified, I must repeat that they are redundancies which were, so to speak, in the pipeline before the receivership. They are necessary, and I believe that they are thought to be necessary by Cooper Bros. and others, in order to cut the overheads and costs of Rolls-Royce which have been such a major factor in the problem facing us today. This is an operation which I believe was essential, and it would have taken place without the receivership. Although I believe that the main operation is already more or less complete, I cannot and will not give an absolute guarantee that there will be no more redundancies of this nature.
  As for the sub-contractors, I have tried to explain that the "ripple" effect is almost impossible to forecast in advance. All that I can say is that, of the approximately 1,000 firms which are creditors of Rolls-Royce, some 500 are specifically or mainly concerned with the R B211. Their debts amount to a relatively small proportion of the total of £50 million or so trade debts.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose—
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish the odd sentence now and again.
  As I said, their debts represent a relatively small proportion of the total. Nevertheless, if the RB211 does not go on, the necessity for amortising equipment which they may have introduced for this special contract is bound to add to their costs considerably more than their existing debts. I do not want to mislead anybody.
  For the future, the main problem must be whether we can successfully conclude a contract with Lockheed. This is something, as I am sure the House appreciates, which we cannot negotiate in public. But I have given the House—
  Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Corfield: I should like to finish the sentence. I have given the House as broad and detailed an indication as I can of the kind of terms which we have suggested to Mr. Haughton. I have indicated that we are prepared to meet the actual figure per engine negotiable and we are prepared to listen to counter-proposals whether within that broad scheme or within some other basis. I do not think that I can take that further today, or indeed until the negotiations are finally completed.
  I shall now give way to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but I intend to sit down afterwards.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman is very courteous. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a real worry among sub-contractors is that they do not know whether they should go on supplying, because if certain, what I can only call maverick firms, take advantage of United States law, the whole operation could be put in jeopardy? Could something be said in the winding-up speech about the study which the Government have made? For example, what would happen if one or two firms, disgruntled by their own situations, press against the interests of the many? This is a subject which perhaps the Minister might care to deal with now or leave to the wind-up.
  Mr. Corfield: My right hon. and learned Friend is here and perhaps he might intervene later to deal with that point.
  624
  The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of a passage which I should have put in—namely, to remind the House that Supplementary Estimates were laid today providing for, I think, £30 million to be spent on the purchase of Rolls-Royce assets in this financial year. I want to make it clear to the House that that £30 million is to provide for advances to Rolls-Royce and in no way prejudices the final valuation or the total sum. It is on account, in the national interest, to meet the purchase by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of the worldwide patents of Rolls-Royce Ltd., which we intend to license freely to Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., or, indeed, to any other purchasers of the assets where that may be appropriate.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: I should like to ask the Minister whether he will reassure me about the 4,000 workers in the small engine division at Leavesden in Watford. The Minister gave us some assurance and assuaged our fears a short time ago when I headed a deputation, but he did not give any definite commitment. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, through his right hon. Friend in the winding-up speech, to give an assurance that those jobs will continue and that there will be no redundancies? The small engine division deals with engines for helicopters. It is the only branch of the former company which was making a profit. Therefore, I should be grateful for that assurance.
  I want to give the Minister some information for his consideration. There has been a meeting recently, initiated by the Coventry group of stewards, which was attended by nearly all the Rolls-Royce groups. Derby was a notable exception. The object was to try to co-operate union-wise so as to force the receiver to co-operate with the unions regarding their fate. This body had no power to force any view on the unions. However, it recommended the representatives to report back to the members on all sites and, if possible, to get the unions to agree to a joint meeting of all the members of the unions on all the sites with a view to endorsing the recommendations of that representative committee.

  625
  The representative committee made certain recommendations and these were endorsed by the unions at Leavesden.
  The first was that there should be no worsening of working conditions. The second was that there should be no transference of work as a result of bankruptcy or the break-up of the company without prior consultation with the unions on it, and the delegates' conference in London was to set up a permanent working committee as the spokesman on behalf of them all.
  The third and most important recommendation of the representative committee was that there should be nationalisation of the whole of Rolls-Royce. I have stated before that in my view there should be no hiving-off of various parts of Rolls-Royce but that the whole thing should be taken over lock, stock and barrel.
  I should inform the Minister in this context that the diesel division had heard—whether correctly or incorrectly—that it was likely to be hived-off to a competitor with spare capacity. That would mean that these people would lose their jobs. The competitor with spare capacity would get the jobs and they would be given to other people. The workers in the diesel division were afraid that this would happen. Therefore, I warn the Minister against hiving-off and ask for an assurance that this kind of thing will not happen.
  The Minister has always eschewed the setting-up of a Select Committee in answer to Questions by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. What have the Government got against the setting-up of such a Select Committee? What do they fear? Surely they cannot fear that the findings of such a Select Committee will disclose something which is awkward to the Government. What is the Government's fear? What are they afraid of? I urge the Government to set up this Select Committee so that we can have full consideration and judgment on what has happened.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I said yesterday that I thought it was a mistake to have this debate this afternoon. What I have heard so far
  626
  from the hon. Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) and Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) has not changed my mind.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees in opening the debate was the biggest non-event which I have so far heard in this Parliament. It was merely a reiteration of charges which do not seem to have been substantiated. There was nothing concrete in it. I made two notes of the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I need not have made those. They were that there were redundancies and the need for flexibility of future negotiations. That was really all that the hon. Gentleman had to say.
  I am glad that we have not so far talked about the negotiations. I do not believe that this would do any good, because no decision has yet been reached on the RB211 contract, and my right hon. Friend urged us not to press him on that subject.
  I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend's reiteration of the Government's determination to see through any RB211 contract, should it be renegotiated, for the 20 years of its future life.
  I was also glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that a director of the new Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. is either en route or will be en route to the west coast of America today. This is essential for these negotiations to be pushed to a successful conclusion.
  Turning to redundancies, which, after all, seems to be the main point of the demand for the debate, two points arise. First, 4,000 redundancies have been announced in Derby. I understand that about 2,300 of these apply to Derby proper, and this represents a terribly heavy unemployment problem for this area. Indeed, the position is becoming crucial.
  My second point concerns the seven weeks' extra redundancy pay which the receiver has decided should be given to these 4,000 redundant workers. This decision has caused some apprehension among the unsecured creditors. They feel, and I appreciate their view, that this money could have gone into the general pool to be paid out at a later stage when the liquidator winds up the assets.
  On the other hand, one must accept that Rolls-Royce had an excellent labour

  627
  relations record. Indeed, good labour relations were pioneered in Derby, particularly bearing in mind such things as three-month contracts. I am sure that these extra redundancy payments—that is, payments in addition to the normal redundancy payments—should be made. I trust that my right hon. Friend will bear this anxiety in mind because some of the creditors, and especially the smaller ones, feel that the money should have gone into the general pool.
  I hope that the RB211 discussions will prove successful because if they are not my anxieties will have come to a head. Some of the best advice I have been given leads me to believe that the total works in Derby will not be able to survive as an economic and viable unit without the RB211 contract. In this context I am not talking about 4,000, 12,000 or even 18,000 redundancies. I have in mind the entire complex in Derby.
  Should this come about, would we find Rolls-Royce disappearing altogether from Derby? It would be a tragedy if this were to happen to what is the centre and heart, and what was the birthplace, of this great company. I am sure that neither the Government nor the new Rolls-Royce Board want this to happen.
  There appear to be only two solutions. Should the RB211 contract unhappily die, then one solution would be to switch some new engine work—perhaps work on the 119—from Bristol to Derby, where work on that project was originally initiated and designed. I appreciate that this would be expensive and would not necessarily be the right decision. However, something of the sort would have to be done if my first solution were adopted.
  A second possible solution would be to initiate new work on new types of engine, though I appreciate that many research and development troubles would be thrown up if that were done. Whatever happens, I appreciate that no decision can be made today, and that probably one cannot be made this week.
  Mr. Whitehead: Why not?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept that the new Rolls-Royce Board and the Government, because they are in partnership, must reach a decision on this issue. They must allay the fears that exist as quickly
  628
  as possible. I beg them not to cast Derby on the scraphead.
  Mr. Whitehead: Why cannot a decision be made now?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Because we have not reached the moment when a decision can be made.
  I hope that the new Rolls-Royce Board will not continue to hide its light under a bushel and be retiring. The sooner it meets the trade unions and suppliers the better. We had a fiasco yesterday—I will not go into the reasons why—when we tried to arrange a meeting among the three parties. Everybody interested must get together, and the sooner that happens the better because until it happens the present vacuum will remain. The trade union leaders are in a vacuum because they do not know with whom they will be negotiating in future. The suppliers are in a vacuum for obvious reasons.
  I am worried about what might happen to the patents applying to the RB211. I do not pretend to appreciate how our patent law, let alone American law, operates. I have been told, however, that these patents are in danger, and I appeal to the Attorney-General to assure us that there is no question of them being pirated under United States bankruptcy law. I gather that there is a danger of this happening. It would be a tragedy if in three or four years' time we found the RB211 or its counterpart being manufactured in the United States under American patents.
  Many difficulties lie ahead and anxiety surrounds this whole matter. People are worried. Though worried, too, I am content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. I can do no more. I am sure that they will do their best, not only for the R B211 but for the whole future of the new Rolls-Royce company.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I have given you an assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to speak for more than 10 minutes. In view of the evident desire of my hon. Friends to subject the Government to rather closer questioning, I am perfectly willing to give up the whole of my time and to make no speech at all if, by general agreement, that time will be added to the time which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General intends to take in dealing with this issue. I

  629
  pause to enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me whether or not he accepts my offer.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has made an extremely gracious offer which the Minister should grasp.
  Mr. Fletcher: Apparently my offer is not to be accepted. I will, therefore, make the speech that I had intended to make.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Was he making the offer directly to me?
  Mr. Fletcher: Yes.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I have obtained advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General regarding the question of patents, and I will be dealing with this subject in my speech at the end of the debate, when I hope to make the position abundantly clear. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Fletcher: It does, and in view of that assurance, I will now shut up.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: On behalf of the whole House, I thank the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher). In view of his attitude and his decision not to speak, I will call next to address the House an hon. Member from his side of the Chamber. Mr. Whitlock.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. William Whitlock: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend, though I regret that I cannot follow his example because the matters to which I wish to refer may not be known as fully as they should be to the Leader of the House.
  On Monday the Minister of Aviation Supply said that the whole of the announced redundancies were due to overstaffing and were not affected one way or another by the future of the RB211. On that very day, at Hucknall in my constituency, 260 redundancies were announced out of a total staff of 1,900. These are skilled engineers and technicians.
  630
  Another announcement was made on Tuesday. It was to the effect that the flight testing side of Hucknall's activities would be closed by the end of the month. That was a shattering blow to my area, though it was made clear that the redundancies made necessary by the closure of the flight testing facilities were included in the figure of 260 already announced.
  I suggest that, far from it having nothing whatever to do with the RB211, this proposed closure is the tip of the iceberg which will crush Hucknall, Derby and the RB211. The closure was decided upon without consultation with local management or staff at Hucknall. A Rolls-Royce spokesman said on Tuesday:
  "The economics of having only one flight testing establishment dictated that the choice had to be made between Filton and Hucknall, and Filton has been selected"
  I believe that economic considerations do not enter into this. The announcement has caused amazement and great bitterness in Hucknall, because the argument about the respective merits of the two flight establishment was decided long ago when it was agreed that, since both Hucknall and Filton are in close proximity to engine centres, they were both needed. Now that the choice has fallen on one of them I want to give the information which I have been able to obtain about the differences between Hucknall and Filton.
  Hucknall is carrying out tests on the Spey-engined Phantom, and it has for that purpose de-tuners, ground silencing equipment, which Filton does not have. Hucknall is geared to carry out tests on the Jaguar, in that it has a computer interfaced to read Jaguar-type data, and that facility is not available at Filton. The flying test bed for the RB211 is the VCIO which can be housed in hangars at Hucknall, but no hangar at Filton is big enough to take the VC10.
  The Filton airfield is owned by B.A.C. and may not readily be available to Rolls-Royce in all circumstances. The Hucknall airfield is owned by the Ministry. Filton is very vulnerable as a base for flight testing, because it is dangerously close to major air routes, and there can, therefore, be inconvenience, danger and difficulty in flight testing the Jaguar and the Spey-engined Phantom at Filton.

  631
  In spite of all these merits of Hucknall and drawbacks of Filton, the choice has fallen on Filton, and I want to ask the Minister why. Is it because Rolls-Royce (1971) is Bristol-orientated? The Derby Engine Division, which includes Hucknall, and which is so concerned with the RB211, does not have a representative on the Board at present. Is that the reason for the choice of Filton and the fact that the redundancies are all within the Derby Engine Division? Or is it because secretly the Government have decided that the RB211 must go and that therefore all the facilities that support the RB211, wherever they may be, shall be allowed to wither away?
  The closure of Hucknall for flight testing facilities affects the long-term ability of the Hucknall factory to make tests on the RB211 because the flight testing facility is central to Hucknall's activities. Its closure will make it difficult for the Hucknall factory to continue, and that in turn will create difficulty for Derby, for which it is an essential and conveniently nearby outpost. The closure of the Hucknall flight testing facilities is a hasty move which the Government will come to regret, assuming that they are genuinely interested in seeing that the RB211 goes ahead and in the success of the Spey-engined Phantom and the Jaguar. I beg the Minister of Aviation Supply to take a longer look at the decision on Hucknall, because a longer look will produce an entirely different answer.
  On 11th February I paid tribute to the splendid personnel at Hucknall and to the wonderful team spirit between management and men which exists there. It was at Hucknall that during the war Merlin engines were fitted to Mustangs in a way which won the admiration and praise of Winston Churchill in this House. The world's first jet engine flew at Hucknall, when Rolls-Royce took over the development of the Rover W2B gas turbine, which flew in a Wellington bomber in 1942. In 1954 a contraption known as the "flying bedstead" took off on a vertical flight which led to the development of the first vertical take-off plane in the world, the SC1 made by Short and Harlands, a plane which could have produced for Britain years of lead in the vertical take-off field.
  632
  The closure of the flying test facilities at this factory is a great tragedy which the Minister will come to regret. Before it is too late I beg him to look at this again. I hope it will be possible for him to reverse the decision and to keep Hucknall going in every one of its present activities.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I wish that this afternoon's debate could have brought some comfort to the 4,300 people who will be made redundant. I also wish that the 12,000 people who are now under threat of the axe could also know where they stand. But the one fact that we seem to wish to ignore is that we are dealing with the affairs of a bankrupt company being run by a Receiver. It is not being run by the Government. The Government do not own Rolls-Royce. They do not even know the price they are going to be asked to pay for the company. Until they do, and until they have paid it, the company is not run by the Government Therefore, however much we may dislike it, it is the Receiver to whom we should be directing our questions.
  If we sense, as I have sensed in some speeches this afternoon, a considerable implication of criticism of the receiver, we should remember what his job is. He has a most difficult and disagreeable task. He has the task, on the one hand, of trying to get the best deal for the debenture holders and, on the other, of trying to do it as humanely as possible. Therefore, it is not in this place that we can make the decisions or indeed answer the questions. It is the Receiver who has that task.
  We can be alarmist about the number of people who will be affected if the RB211 engine is cancelled. The Economist suggests the figure might be 20,000, which is a great deal lower than anything we have heard before. How much I hope the Economist is right—and fortunately it is a journal which is often right.
  What I want to ask this afternoon is, why this debate, when a White Paper is so soon to be presented to us? Last night I had the privilege, with some of my colleagues, of meeting shop stewards from Derby. We were enormously impressed by their fair-mindedness, by their

  633
  desire to see this thing as it is without any party prejudice, and by their anxiety to do the best for the people who look to them for help. I suspect that they came to us because they believed that this afternoon's debate might somehow change the course of events, and that one of my right hon. Friends, by saying something at the Dispatch Box, could give back to those men the jobs they will lose. If we are responsible for feeding them a will o' wisp of hope, we should be ashamed of ourselves, because we cannot do that. Those men will lose their jobs, and our pious speeches can make no difference—
  Mr. Dan Jones Mr. Dan Jones rose—
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I cannot give way, I have not enough time. We must hope that the deal presented by Her Majesty's Government to Lockheed to set up a joint company to develop the RB211 will be successful. I am sure we all wish that the Rolls-Royce director who is said to be on his way to Burbank will achieve the success which rightly belongs to him and to his great company. If he is not successful, we must still hope that this complicated technology which Rolls-Royce has pioneered will not be lost to this country, and that it will be available for the new engines to be built for short and vertical take-off aircraft.
  It is easy to turn Rolls-Royce problems, which are problems of bankruptcy, into a party political issue. That is why I and some of my hon. Friends felt obliged to put down an Early Day Motion deploring the Opposition's action in trying to make political capital out of this appalling industrial catastrophe—
  Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Gentleman really is misrepresenting things.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I say that with a great deal of feeling, because just as this debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has said, is a non-event, so the Opposition are fostering false hopes for political gain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish") Hon. Members opposite may not care to hear what I have to say, but I intend to say it just the same.
  This contract was negotiated between Lockheed and Rolls-Royce and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) also had a hand in
  634
  it. It was a great contract, but he is culpable in the sense, and his culpability must never be forgotten, that if his advisers did their job properly they must have told him that if the contract was unsuccessful it could bankrupt Rolls-Royce. In other words, it was the sort of contract that no company in its senses could possibly enter into. If, on the other hand, the words he used in November last are true, that he saw us and Lockheed and Rolls as partners in the same venture and that was also suggested to Lockheed, no wonder that Lockheed never queried whether the money might be forthcoming to keep the engine going.
  As far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman is the only person in the House who knows what the I.R,C. told Rolls-Royce about the company. He knew, and, he was pressed by hon. Members on this side when we were in Opposition about it, whether sufficient financial resources were available to complete the engine and for a more powerful version. So far as I can find out, he never said whether the company was in financial difficulties of any sort. Nor did he give a straight answer as to whether more money was going to be needed. For six months from the beginning of 1970 he did absolutely nothing, and then the General Election came, and we shall now never know what he had intended to do.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman must know that the I.R.C.'s report was not available to me though, of course, a summary of its recommendations was. He must also know, for I told the House, that at no time until, as far as I know, November of last year—or September-October—did Rolls-Royce seek further assistance for the RB211. Those two things have been said in the House, and thus the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument falls totally to the ground.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that intervention. Last night, one of the Rolls-Royce trade unionists said, and I shall not forget it, "Two years ago we knew that Rolls-Royce was in financial difficulties." If the men knew, the management knew, and if the management knew I cannot believe that the Government of the day did not know. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come forward with some financial assistance when things could have been altered? Why did he allow the situation to drift

  635
  Yet now he has the nerve to put his name to a Motion the effect of which is to criticise the Government which are doing their best for the company in these most unfortunate circumstances.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander Wilson: I should have preferred in making my brief speech to follow an hon. Member prepared at least to state a truthful premise. As it is, I must say that I can only agree with the hon. Member for Walthamsow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) in saying that, irrespective of the outcome of this debate, there will be redundancies. It is redundancies with which I am concerned. In just about one week some 360 highly skilled and highly trained men in my constituency will be thrown on the scrap-heap. We in Scotland have never been very fond of Conservatives, and I can certainly say that after this mishandling of the Rolls-Royce affair we will be even less fond of Tory Governments.
  My constituency will suffer the first total closure of a Rolls-Royce establishment—the research and development unit—and I want to put on record what that will mean to us in terms of unemployment. In addition, I have questions to put to the Ministers to which I should like categorical answers. Assuming that the redundancies cannot be avoided, what are the Government prepared to do? Are they prepared to take emergency measures to provide in this area and in other areas enough replacement job opportunities for the high skills available? I particularly ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland—who, unfortunately, does not see fit to take part in this debate, or is perhaps occupied elsewhere—what part they played in these decisions, and what they are doing now—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to point out that I am here now for the express purpose of hearing what is said in the debate. I am glad to be here, and I am listening with great interest to what he is saying.
  Mr. Wilson: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have no doubt that he is speaking sincerely, that he will
  636
  listen to the debate, and will carry back to the Scottish Office what I feel about these events in my constituency.
  What emergency measures are the Government thinking about if, indeed, they are thinking about them at all? Are there any plans at all for continuity of employment for these highly-skilled technicians? Will the progress we have been making in the central belt of Scotland continue as it has done over the last several years or will it just be a dead end? What provision is being made for alternative employment after 19th March, when these men lose their jobs? The Rolls-Royce establishment in Hamilton meant stability of employment, reasonably high wages and jobs in which the men could take a pride. Yet all those men will lose their jobs.
  The matter does not end in Hamilton. Men will lose their jobs in the production factory in Blantyre. Ministers may not care to comment on sub-contracting. When I and some of my colleagues met the Minister just the other week I put the point that the value of continuing the RB211 contract should be set against the social consequences of not continuing the contract. The Minister must consider the full social consequences to the families of those who are losing their jobs. Wives and families will suffer a reduction in their standard of living. Men who transfer to other establishments will also suffer a reduction in their standard of living because, among other things, of the increased costs of travelling. They are losing all round.
  I want the Government to make a true balance, if that is possible, of the cost of the Rolls-Royce collapse in relation to social consequences. They should put on the debit side the capital loss to local authorities in these areas, because for Hamilton this is akin to situations which I have faced many times in Scotland when collieries have been closed and dereliction has resulted in the district.
  This very serious situation should not be treated with levity. We in the Central Belt were congratulating ourselves on stability of employment and on the fact that new industries were coming in to replace the old. The new industries demanded high skills in management and on the production lines.
  Hamilton had the only research and development unit in Scotland. That unit

  637
  was devoted entirely to work on other than the RB211 contract. It was devoted to work on the Avon and Dart engines. There is no connection between the redundancies in Hamilton and elsewhere in Scotland and the RB211 contract. These jobs need not have been lost if the Government had decided to overturn their recently declared lame duck policy.
  This means that over 400 men in my area will be thrown out of work. This must be set against the background of escalating unemployment. Even before these redundancies, 10·9 per cent. of the male population, most of them highly skilled, are unemployed. What hope have most of the 10·9 per cent., much less those declared redundant next Friday, of securing a job commensurate with the skills they have gained over a lifetime?
  The loss of job opportunities in the area is such that the jobs will not be replaced unless emergency measures are taken. Ministers should frankly and seriously accept their responsibilities. I ask them not to hide behind the receiver in this tragedy but to come out into the open, forget their lame duck speeches, and save all these jobs. The Ministers have been granted by the House all the powers for which they asked. They appointed the new board. When they took those decisions did they have it in mind to sack so many men all over the country?
  Not many days ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I saw the Secretary of State for Scotland in another part of the building. The Secretary of State evinced interest in this problem and in the dangers which could arise in the near future and which have arisen only too soon. I only hope that the Secretary of State follows up that interest by taking direct action within the next day or two and tells us what emergency measures he is prepared to take and what arguments he is prepared to use with the Government to cease the hiving off of parts of Rolls-Royce and save the jobs and technical skills which Scotland so badly needs.
  However, what has happened in Scotland does not make us feel confident that those things will be done. Ministers promised protection and confidence for the future for the other employed in Rolls-Royce. Can the Ministers now tell
  638
  us what we can tell our constituents who are still employed in the mutilated remains of the Rolls-Royce company?
  Mr. G. B. Drayson: Not to go on strike on the 18th.
  Mr. Wilson: Can I tell those that I wait to meet at the weekend that the Government are prepared at least to provide stability and employment for the remaining workforce in Rolls-Royce?
  Mr. Drayson: Tell them not to go on strike on the 18th.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) has undertaken to make a very short speech. I should be glad if the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) would not intervene in that way.
  Mr. Wilson: I never answered for myself when I was a delegate or a shop steward. I always believed in the men making the decisions themselves.
  Mr. Drayson: They are not allowed to.
  Mr. Wilson: Are any steps being taken to provide adequate alternative employment in the Hamilton area, in the Hillington area, in the Blantyre area, and in the other Rolls-Royce establishments which are suffering? These men require jobs appropriate to their skills. The reputation of this Government has never been high in Scotland.
  Mr. Ray Carter: Nor in England.
  Mr. Wilson: I ask the Government for some assurance that they will provide some stability of employment for those still left in the Rolls-Royce establishments and that they are prepared to take emergency measures this week to find alternative employment for those being displaced in my constituency. The Government should treat this matter as an emergency and give us some cause for hope. They may not be able to make some or any political capital out of it in Scotland, but at least they would be saving these families some heartbreak over the next several months.
  Mr. Carter: On a point of order. Can we be told where the Leader of the House is? He is due to reply to the debate and should be here to listen to

  639
  every contribution if he is to make an adequate reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All of us are human.
  Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order. I apologise for my absence. I have been in urgent discussions to get some information which it is desirable that I should have in replying to the debate. That was my reason for being absent.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are twice as many Members present on the Government side as there are on the Opposition side, and it is the Opposition's debate, but there is still not a quorum.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and 40 Members being present—
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Many of those being made redundant live in South-East Derbyshire. All those in my constituency to whom I have spoken over the past few months, at all levels of Rolls-Royce, have admitted that redundancy was inevitable. It is now accepted that a certain amount of overmanning and overstaffing existed at all levels of the company. It is to the credit of the unions and their leaders that they have accepted this severe hardship without complaint—[HON. MEMBERS: "Without complaint?"]—without complaint, and they have adopted a realistic attitude towards the situation.
  All at Rolls-Royce realise that greater efficiency is urgently necessary if there is to be any prospect of the RB211 contract being successfully renegotiated. All at Rolls-Royce realise that any boost to morale which could come from streamlining at management level as well as at all other levels of staff can only be beneficial to the long-term prospects for our aviation industry.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the attitude of the shop stewards, and he has done so with grace. Will he tell the House what the shop stewards at Derby told his deputation yesterday, as they told our deputation,
  640
  about the need for a high-powered delegation to go from the Government to Burbank because time is not on our side?
  Mr. Rost: That really has no relevance to the point which I was making.
  Mr. Jones: It certainly has to the point of this debate.
  Mr. Rost: The many discussions which I have had, on a confidential, frank and open basis with many members of the unions—
  Mr. Jones: So have we.
  Mr. Rost: —have all been helpful and mutually respectful, and I have no reason whatever to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about any matter which was raised by any union deputation.
  I come now to one or two points regarding the redundancies which I wish to be considered. First, I question whether "Last in, first out" is the best method of arranging the redundancies. If we are pruning and creating greater efficiency, we ought to be removing dead wood rather than working on any other basis.
  Also, I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) in his suggestion that, perhaps, there is a Bristol bias rather than a "Preserve Derby" attitude. In particular, should we not consider spreading some of these redundancies into the Bristol area, particularly if there are to be more of them?
  Third, there is the danger of breaking up the team spirit and the technological brain power at Derby, which is the centre of the company's technological research.
  We all accept that there is bound to be some hardship, so I make a further plea—I have done it previously in the House—for the worker-shareholders who are now losing their jobs and their savings as well. We have had assurances from the Minister that this matter is being given consideration, but I should like to feel more confident about it.
  There will be hardship for those in my constituency who have to move to other parts of the country to seek fresh employment, and there will be some problems in arranging house sales. This will involve the banks in considering the provision of facilities so as to allow those sales to be made on a reasonable basis.

  641
  We should keep in mind, also, the older employees who are being made redundant, whose problems will be particularly severe because they will find it far more difficult to readjust to other forms of employment or to move to another area. We must ensure that their pension rights are fully protected.
  There is still a great deal of anxiety among the creditors and sub-contractors, because there is still a lack of consultation and no representation with the receiver. I am particularly concerned that the danger of a forced liquidation of the old Rolls-Royce company should be prevented. The creditors really have no other form of representation open to them at the moment, apart from the appointment of a liquidator.
  I have been pleased to hear in the debate today that the Government have taken urgent steps to protect the patent rights which are so essential for the continued prosperity of the company and its future in the aviation industry. The right measures have been taken there.
  Because of the pressure of time, I shall summarise the remainder of what I wanted to say. I have been most impressed by the evidence of co-operation among the unions at all levels.
  Mr. Jones: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Rost: I regard it as essential, therefore, that the board of the new company should take all necessary measures of consultation with the union representatives at an early stage so that we may rebuild or maintain the good will so essential for the company and its future.
  Next, we must consider not allowing the redundancy compensation to come from the creditors' account. This is one of the creditors' fears at the moment, that the receiver, in an obvious desire to provide generous compensation to those made redundant, is having to pay out funds which are partly on the creditors' account. Perhaps the Government will look at that again.
  We must all make sure that every action which is taken does not prejudice the future of the RB211 contract but helps towards a successful renegotiation. It should, nevertheless, still be the Govern-
  642
  ment's aim in this whole matter to try to achieve a reconstruction under private enterprise rather than a liquidation and nationalisation. I believe that our options are still open for this possibility to be carried into effect if the RB211 contract can be successfully renegotiated. That is the only acceptable solution to the dilemma that will repair the commercial reputation of the company and the country and ensure a prosperous future for Derby and Britain's civil aviation.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: In the few minutes at my disposal I would associate myself with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), certainly with what he said about the remarkable willingness of the trade unions to cooperate with an extremely painful and brutally short timetable imposed upon them, and with what he said about the position of the worker-shareholders, which is still anomalous and has still not been fully explained. Perhaps we may hear something about this from the Leader of the House, who is to reply to the debate.
  On patents, I would go rather further than the hon. Gentleman and some other hon. Members who have spoken. The problem is not merely to safeguard the RB211 patents. There is also the question of the position of the other patents of the old Rolls-Royce company under American law. I hope that we shall be told today what the position is, and whether these patents may be seized in the course of court actions under New York State law, for example, by U.S. creditors of the old Rolls-Royce company.
  There is also the question referred to in section 7 of the famous letter the Minister of Aviation Supply sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), which referred to the possible sequestration of imports into the United States from Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited by creditors of the old Rolls-Royce company. The right hon. Gentleman said that many complex questions were raised by this, but he did not answer them. I hope that we shall have some answers today.
  An Hon. Member: That does not help the negotiations, does it?
  Mr. Whitehead: Not a word has been said on either side of the House which has imperilled the negotiations.
  Reaffirmation of the importance of the RB211 contract to this country's aerospace industry is valuable now. It may be that this debate will save a vote of censure later, though, looking at the Government benches, I have some doubt about that. But I have a hope that mention of the RB211 contract in the debate will once again force the Government's attention with more urgency to the need for the renegotiations to be continuing and meaningful.
  We speak with some emotion in the debate, because the successive low-key approaches referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees have not been particularly fruitful. In the debate on 26th February, which I had the good fortune to initiate, hon. Members on both sides spoke with moderation and looked for constructive answers from the Government. Unfortunately, we have all too often since then received further obfuscation of what the Government's attitude and the attitude of Rolls-Royce (1971) may be.
  This is serious for all who are deeply concerned for the Derby Aero-Engine Division. A total of 4,300 men have just been declared redundant. Taken in conjunction with the redundancy scheme operated over a period of 12 months last year, that means that 10,000 men have now left the Derby Aero-Engine Division in 15 months. This is a seriously weakening blow to the future of design teams and the aerospace industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) and I understand that the Receiver's attitude is that those redundancies had to be declared now, with a short timetable, because it was essential that a slimming-down, which I think is the current euphemism, should be achieved before any bid from Rolls-Royce (1971) would be received. If that is so, the important question is not whether such statements were originally made by Lord Carrington or other Ministers to the receiver or his representatives, or whether such statements came from the board of Rolls-Royce (1971). The fact is that we do not yet know enough about the relations between this curious trinity, and where responsibility lies.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be discourteous to the House and the Minister. He will remember that what my right hon. Friend said was that there was no leaning on the Receiver, no instructions to him either from the Government or the new board, to do the slimming-down. It was arranged beforehand, and the Receiver has carried it on.
  Mr. Whitehead: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that that extends to all Ministers, and particularly Lord Carrington and the board of Rolls-Royce (1971). It seems that in the interim period, in which people have been thrown out of work and subcontractors are going bankrupt—which is a matter of fact and not speculation or hypothesis—Rolls-Royce (1971) and the Government and their spokesmen have to some extent hidden behind the skirts of the Receiver.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said earlier with his usual exquisite politeness that he did not wish to refer in any detail to what happened yesterday, when a delegation of Derby trade unionists, that same delegation that the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) referred to, came to the House. They came because they were part of a meeting called by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West and myself of sub-contractors, trade unionists, creditors, unsecured creditors and all other people affected by the fall-out of what is happening to Rolls-Royce, to meet representatives of the board of Rolls-Royce (1971). We were told at extraordinarily short notice, too late for me to tell the Derby trade unionists, that the meeting was off, that the board had decided yesterday morning that it could not meet those people because it was all a matter for the Receiver. That is precisely the kind of situation, clouding the issues, staying at one remove from the people vitally concerned, because of their assets, their jobs or the firms they control, that is making life impossibly difficult not merely for people in Derby but for people all over the country.
  It is said that the assets of Rolls-Royce may be rather more valuable to Rolls-Royce (1971) if the company is slimmed down. It is said that work on the RB211

  645
  may be more cost-effective if this is done. I seriously question whether the assets of Rolls-Royce will be more valuable when they are bought by Rolls-Royce (1971) if they are so slimmed down that many of the design teams and many of the projects upon which those teams are working have been broken up.
  I have seen the detailed list of redundancies in Derby. It is my information that many of the technicians, designers and draughtsmen who have been declared redundant, and who were told personally yesterday, were working upon those projects, and some of them on the R13211. Once again we have seen design teams decimated. The people concerned have been thrown out of work when the Government are still supposedly looking at the whole future of civil aviation and the British aerospace industry, and the rôle that Rolls-Royce (1971) will have in it. The breaking up of the teams seems premature and unnecessary. It is almost impossible that the Derby Aero-Engine Division will be able to recover from the blows now being inflicted upon it.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said that he hoped that work would be diverted to Derby and perhaps therefore away from Bristol. The reverse is happening. The consequence of things like the closure of the airfield at Hucknall cannot but lead us to imagine that the intention of the Government and the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) is that the effective work of the Division based at Derby, and also in Scotland and Sunderland, should be wound up. I hope that we may have an assurance about the continuation of work on future projects in Derby and district from the Leader of the House.
  In the short time left to me I should like to say a little about the future of the RB211 negotiations. We have been asked whether discussing them is of any value, whether we have any right to talk about them while they are in progress. The problem is that no hon. Member on this side has yet received any adequate assurance that the Government really know where the negotiations stand —whether they are waiting for Mr. Haughton to come back to them, whether they know which Rolls-Royce director is going to the United States, and whether he has left. We have not been told whether there has been a continuous reevaluation of the RB211 engine by a
  646
  joint Rolls-Royce (1971) Government team in Burbank, California, competing with the teams from General Electric and Pratt and Whitney which have been there throughout. This is the point we reiterate to the Minister.
  There are Rolls-Royce men in Derby raring to go. There are men with suitcases packed who would like to go on the next plane. There are men who are convinced that a fresh approach from the Government should be made even at this late stage. Hon. Members opposite who saw certainly the technicians amongst the delegation yesterday and the telexes which they brought—which I do not propose to rea—will know the note of strain and urgency in them about the timetable now for further meaningful negotiations. The irony of this is that the negotiations could meaningfully be taken a stage further at a point when not only are four main airline customers of Rolls-Royce still miraculously held in line by Lockheed but other airlines, particularly All-Nippon, are looking at the TriStar with a view to placing orders for it which would enable it to break into new markets.
  As I said on 26th February, we want to know whether the Government are negotiating meaningfully and are not negotiating simply in the sense of a poker player staying in the game but throwing away a card with each hand.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there have been replies to the delegation from the United States which indicate the extreme willingness of Rolls-Royce to go out there and negotiate. I hope that this will be followed up.
  Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when the Minister said that he was still waiting to hear from Mr. Haughton. Interventions from this side of the House then were to the point that they were waiting to hear from us. I hope that the Leader of the House will emphasise that the Government are willing to associate themselves with a fresh bid to Lockheed.
  We do not know precisely what aerospace rôle the Government envisage for Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. This, too, is left in serious doubt whilst all these

  647
  uncertainties remain. What rôle does Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited want in the aerospace industry in the future, and what rôle will the Government allow it to have? Is it true that negotiations have been going on with other American civil aviation companies and aero-engine companies—I shall not mention names—about the disposal of the civil aviation side of the old company? If it is true, it is a serious matter in terms of the continuation of at least the civil aviation side.
  I would like Rolls-Royce to go on. We come back to this matter time and again because we are not convinced that the Government want to see Rolls-Royce go on to the full extent and range of its development, sales and export potential. I hope that we shall get this assurance. I hope that we shall hear from the Government that they are not, in the words of the recent article in The Guardian, "practising the economics of the dust bowl." From the position of my constituents it looks, if the RB211 contract is not renegotiated and work brought back to Derby instead of being taken away from it, as if Derby at least will become a dust bowl.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I shall be very brief. No one in this House can have wanted the RB211 contract to have gone wrong. It is unfair and unhelpful of hon. Members opposite to suggest that anyone can seriously want Rolls-Royce not to continue as successfully as possible.
  I feel bound to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) about wanting to spread redundancies to Bristol. The RB211 was Derby's contract. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred to the "blows inflicted on Derby", but these wounds were self-inflicted. To try to unload the redundancies onto those who were not responsible for their creation is neither fair nor helpful.
  Rolls-Royce went into bankruptcy and the Government are trying to save the situation. When one has said that, one has stated the situation as it is. It has not given any of us on this side any pleasure to see the merciless harrying
  648
  which the Minister has had to face. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cut it out."] I will not. The harrying has been unhelpful and unfair. It is wrong to suggest that it is his fault or the present Government's fault.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has generously admitted that he had some part in all of this, and I do not think that it is helpful in any way to the future of either Rolls-Royce or the present negotiations to muckrake over the responsibility of this Government or the last Government for the contract. We are in the midst of having to learn a very uncomfortable lesson, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) has said. No one is enjoying the present experience. If there is anything that we can do, it is perhaps to learn from our mistakes and try to avoid them in future. We must, in the words of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), try to avoid "grey area contracts" in future. Without trying to be funny, I ask for fewer harriers in the House and a little more concord. I think we might get a lot further.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I say at the outset that during the whole of this most unfortunate business I have not sought to make a political point out of it; nor do I seek to do so now. I am concerned simply and solely with the continuation of the RB211 engine. I think that the Minister was dealing with the embroidery and not with the garment. I want to deal exclusively with that.
  Hon. Members referred to the delegation which came from Derby yesterday. It was accompanied by very knowledgeable executives. They were responsible people; they knew precisely what they were talking about. The negotiations have now reached a most delicate stage—indeed, a stage at which time is definitely not on our side. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether or not a high-powered member of the Government can go to Burbank to assist our people out there in the negotiations. I say that deliberately because knowledgeable people know that General Electric and Pratt and Whitney have at Burbank very high powered teams which would be delighted to

  649
  squeeze Rolls-Royce and the RB211 out of the picture. It must be remembered that they have financial autonomy which the Rolls-Royce people at Burbank do not possess. For that reason—and I do not mind if I am alone in expressing this—I believe that it is time that a high-powered Minister went there to assist the Rolls-Royce people with this project. I say openly that if such a Minister could go, I at any rate would give him my heartiest blessing on that very important voyage.
  While not wishing the Government to be involved in any open-ended financial agreement, I hope that they will immediately indicate that the first figure is a negotiable figure. Many responsible people feel that it was only part of what has been described as, and what I believe to be, an unfortunate poker tactic. I hope they will say that so that the maximum goodwill on the other side can be ensured.
  I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in saying that these negotiations are going forward at far too pedestrian a pace. We would like to see the kind of urgency which this matter deserves. In the telex message that we had the privilege of seeing, from Burbank, there were reports to say that the TriStar had completed her trials satisfactorily, so satisfactorily that Nippon, the Japanese airline, had taken an option on six planes. There surely cannot be a more able negotiator than the Japanese, and if they believe that the plane is satisfactory surely the British Government should be encouraged. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity and give to these negotiations the kind of urgency they demand.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I want to make three brief points. First I believe that the desire of hon. Members opposite, expressed first by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), for a Select Committee to inquire into the affairs of Rolls-Royce is absolutely and wholly wrong. What the House needs is the full White Paper, going back to the beginning of the affair in 1968. We are prepared to wait for the facts. They may take some time to prepare but we must have them in full. I must ask
  650
  hon. Members opposite, particularly the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to remember what happened when the P.A.C. held what was virtually a Select Committee inquiry into the Bristol Siddeley affair, when it was perfectly clear that there were grave party divisions within the Committee.
  Mr. Dalyell: No.
  Mr. Onslow: Yes there were, and anyone who has read the report can be in no doubt about it. What was much more reprehensible was that grave personal injustice was done to Sir Reginald VerdonSmith. The lesson of that should be remembered, and the House should refrain from putting itself into a situation where anything of that kind can recur.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Cover it all up.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member can be quite sure that I want nothing covered. I want it all out, every single piece of it. I want it out by judicial, impartial and exhaustive inquiry, not one in which party politics can have any place.
  Next, I would ask my right hon. Friend if he can say anything about the Government's view of the likely redundancies in the work forces of sub-contractors in the aero-engine industry. The bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce has had the effect of removing £50 million worth of resources from this industry which is one of national importance. The Government must come to terms with this in some way, and I hope that we can be given some indication of their thinking.
  My third point concerns the genuineness of today's debate. The Leader of the Opposition was at great pains yesterday to stress that this was only to enable us to express concern about redundancies. He said it twice; if he had said it three times we would have known that it must be true. What has happened subsequently, and the way in which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) opened the debate, suggests that the true concern of the Opposition Front Bench is to make party politics. It suggests that they are not really concerned that the negotiations should succeed; they are simply putting themselves into a position where they can claim political advantage when negotiations fail.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Who said they will fail?
  Mr. Onslow: I say that the behaviour of the Opposition lends itself only to this construction, that they believe the negotiations will fail and they want to be in an advantageous position when this happens. I say this particularly to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who recently visited New York in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley). In the Bristol Evening Post of 1st March he is clearly reported as having been personally responsible for bringing the RB211 affair and Concorde into the same court. This is a most unfortunate action for the right hon. Gentleman to have taken.
  The Opposition, who are in no way responsible for negotiations, are not only seeking to make the negotiating position of the Government more difficult: they are, in effect, standing behind the Government, trying to find out what cards they hold, calling out that these cards are not as strong as they should be and then going round to the other side of the table and trying to tuck aces up the sleeves of the other party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If the Opposition are so confident of their righteousness they would have done much better not to have had this debate, because nothing that comes out of it from the Opposition benches will do other than convince the parties with whom we are negotiating that there is a kind of death wish emanating from that side of the House and that all their other pretensions are bogus.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Carter: I have never heard so much cant, hypocrisy and humbug compressed into such a small amount of time in any debate that I have heard in this Chamber, as I have heard listening to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). One gets the impression that we on this side were responsible for the complete mess in which the Government find themselves.
  Mr. Onslow: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Carter: That is not so. As we have had so much from the other side about who is responsible—
  Mr. Onslow: You signed the contracts.
  Mr. Carter: —I would like to go back to the debate of 8th February.
  Mr. Onslow: Go back to 1968.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is much too much sedentary argument going on.
  Mr. Carter: Not too enlightened, either. If we go back to 8th February when this dreadful saga started and look at the way in which the Minister sent abroad his message about how confident he was of the future of the RB211 we can see that he said:
  "Even if one were rash enough to discount the financial cost of going on with this engine and developing a more advanced version, whether it be the—61 or the—50, we must ask ourselves what can now be the prospect of such an engine being available in time to compete with versions of the CF6 and JT9". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 99.]
  Clearly, this was not a statement by a Minister over-enthusiastic about the project which he now tells us he is trying to save.
  Mr. Corfield: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that if we are to consider putting in these enormous sums of money it is right to look at the possible market? One of the things which we discussed very much with Mr. Haughton was whether he saw this very large market which was mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He certainly gave no indication that there was such a very large market at the moment.
  Mr. Carter: That may have been the case but I would have thought that all of these matters would have been given very careful consideration—
  Mr. Corfield: They were.
  Mr. Carter: —before the announcement was made. Surely it is not good enough for the Government now to be saying "We wish to save the RB211" when they were so critical of its future prospects and even its technical capacity.
  As to the question of redundancy, with which we are supposedly exclusively dealing, I wish to speak solely for the employees of sub-contractors living and working in my constituency. The Government may be concerned. They are not responsible for the redundancies announced this week in the Rolls-Royce company, but they are responsible for every redundancy which has been declared by the sub-contractors over the

  653
  past few weeks. More than 7,000 people have been made redundant simply because the Government, and particularly the Minister, did not declare from the outset that they had the utmost faith in this project. It is clear that Lucas and the other manufacturers in Birmingham are laying off their people in the belief that the Government have taken a clear and calculated decision to scrap the RB211 project. I say that unequivocally, and I do not hide behind the evasive language of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson).
  I speak on behalf of thousands of people in Birmingham who depend for their livelihood on the future of the RB211 contract. Five people are scrambling for every vacancy now in Birmingham. In Birmingham, as in Derby and many other places, people want to hear that the Government believe in the RB211 firmly and completely and that they will try, try, and try again to renegotiate the contract. Unless we can get that unequivocal assurance from the Government this evening, work people in Birminham and Rolls-Royce workers elsewhere will have no faith in the efforts of the Government to secure their future.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: This has been an important debate which has given many hon. Members the opportunity briefly to express the anxiety of their constituents about the redundancies which have already occurred and, even more, the possible redundancies which may occur if anything goes wrong with the RB211 engine. Hon. Members on either side of the House have paid a very proper tribute to the way in which the shop stewards, many of whom I have met myself, of course, have been concerned particularly about the future of the company rather than with any political argument which may centre around the handling of this matter by the Government.
  Many questions remain to be answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) referred to some. I do not want to go over that ground again. I should like to say something about redundancies and move on to discuss the prospects of the RB211.
  654
  The receiver has duties placed on him by the law which must guide his actions, but it is not realistic to think of the value of Rolls-Royce solely in terms of its physical assets, for any company doing advanced work must derive a high proportion of its value from the skill of its workers, including managers, scientists, engineers, draughtsmen and technicians, working together in teams on design, development, production and marketing and after sales repair, servicing and maintenance. If those teams are destroyed by redundancies imposed to reduce costs in the short run, the value of the company may be sharply reduced and, with it, its capacity to earn the revenue necessary to pay the debenture holders and the creditors.
  I want to say that at the beginning of my speech, because it is important for the House to recognise that when we talk about the RB211, or any other advanced machine of that kind, we are talking about the accumulated skill of the people who built it. That is why we are concerned with the workers not only for humane reasons, which would be dominant in our minds, but, frankly, because, despite all that is said about technology, the only thing that is ever interesting about it is the quality of the people who make it and the people who are able to use it. I wanted to take the opportunity at the beginning of my speech to say that.
  Compared with the redundancies announced by the Minister on Monday, the problems which would arise if the RB211 negotiations were not successful would be much graver. I therefore want to turn to the linkage which my hon. Friends and I see between the RB211 and the whole future of the Rolls-Royce company.
  If I am responsible, as I am, for one major part of this story, it is for believing in 1968, as I believe even more firmly now, that without the RB211 engine in that family there is no effective future for Rolls-Royce in the aero-engine business. Therefore, in turning to the question which must necessarily be the central question, I take the opportunity to reiterate to the House the central importance of the RB211.
  The reasons for this are evident to anyone, even a layman, who looks at the future of the airline business. There is a rapidly rising volume of air traffic, and

  655
  congestion round the major airports alone would have led to the move to the bigger, wide-bodied aircraft requiring a larger engine.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins Mr. Scott-Hopkins rose—
  Mr. Benn: As I intend to be wholly non-controversial, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on and develop my argument as best I can.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on this very point. He is contravening what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, which was that the discussion today would not be about the future of the RB211. The right hon. Gentleman is now developing an argument which is out of keeping with the debate today so far.
  Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that nothing would be said to embarrass the Government in the negotiations. I am now arguing that the future of Rolls-Royce and the people who work in it depends on the successful conclusion of the RB211 negotiations, and I am putting forward my arguments in that way.
  I am glad that a Treasury Minister is here, because I want to say something about the Treasury's attitude. Certainly the future of the aircraft industry depends on being able to supply wide-bodied aircraft and the engines for them. Secondly—and no one should be in any doubt about this—noise as a factor in determining the acceptability of aircraft is a major consideration, not only in the United States but in this country, as we have seen from the problem of the third London airport. Noise is such a problem that it is now widely argued that unless existing aircraft can be re-engined with quieter engines, there is a possibility that restrictions will be put on them which would prevent them from entering the world's major airlines.
  Therefore, on the grounds of the need for both bigger aircraft and quieter aircraft, one can clearly see that without Rolls-Royce having an engine in this family to offer it would not be in the big aero-engine league. I believe this to be a view shared by everybody in Rolls-Royce, a company now without a voice because of its position in the interregnum between being a private company and a publicly-owned company.
  656
  I also want to say—and this bears on the attitude that the Treasury and other economists must adopt towards it—that the jump from existing jets to the RB211 size of thrust is a jump as big as from propellors to prop jets and from prop jets to jets. The profit that comes from this new family of aero-engines will come from other applications and from spares, and it must not necessarily be assumed to come from the very first aircraft to use this engine. Therefore, the time scale on the return on a Government investment in this engine is longer than might appear if one were thinking in terms only of the Lockheed 1011.
  With the RB211, Rolls-Royce has a foothold in the American market, and all the forecasts of the growth of airline traffic indicate that the major growth is inside the United States. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that I am right when I say that for the first time in the whole history of the aircraft industry there is an exclusive, original British engine launching a United States airliner. Anyone who has experience of selling British aero-engines or aircraft abroad will know what a fantastic achievement it was to get that engine into the 1011 in 1968.
  Mr. Onslow: Look at the price?
  Mr. Benn: It was not only the price; it was the quality of the engine. The hon. Member is being less than just to Rolls-Royce in what he says. I am anxious not to engage in an argument. I am making a constructive case, and saying that if these negotiations fail and the RB211 is withdrawn from the 1011 it will be desperately difficult to get back into the United States with another European engine. There is powerful competition from Pratt and Whitney and General Electric, as there was in 1968—then to see that Rolls did not acquire the contract and now to try to get Rolls-Royce out, if possible.
  We have one advantage—it may be only temporary—and that is that the American trade unions working in Lockheed's, where there is considerable redundancy as a result of the present difficulty, are now ready to support Rolls-Royce in providing the engines for the 1011, because it is their best prospect of being restored to work as soon as possible.

  657
  But there is a strong basic case for the RB211, and I thought it necessary to refer to it again. I come to the question of the attitude of the Government, and the problems of our relations with the European aero-engine industry, in the initial debate the Minister said that he could see some value in a European partnership in aero-engines, and with the approach to Europe and the whole industrial approach towards international linkages this seemed to be a valuable idea.
  But its value lies in the technical supremacy of Rolls-Royce, which is the only advanced manufacturer in the aero-engine business, and the only one, at the moment, with a foothold in the American market. If we throw this away Rolls loses its value to Europe, and to Britain in Europe. If we ask the Europeans about this we will find that they do not place too much value on the RB211. I believe that at the back of the thinking of the Government is the influence of French and German advice, in respect of which I feel quite sure that the dominant factor is simply that the A300B, for which they are prepared to pay an enormous premium, is challenged by the Lockheed 1011 with the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine in it.
  Our European colleagues have had two objectives. The first was to kill the BAC311, because it was a formidable competitior to the A300B. The Government decided that they could not proceed—one reason being the Rolls-Royce engine. The second target of our European colleagues is the 1011. They want to kill it because it is a competitor of the A300B. The reason why the Europeans do not mind if the RB211 goes—indeed, they would welcome it—is that they see it as a British subsidy, via Rolls, for Lockheed, and they find that very unattractive. They would like to see the 747 four-engined aircraft; the DC10 three-engined aircraft, and the A300B two-engined aircraft all equipped with American engines—because the A300B itself has an American engine. The Europeans are quite content to use their Government's money to subsidise the airframe to hang the American engine on, but they do not want us to put our money, through Rolls, into the Lockheed 1011.
  I am putting forward the argument that just thinking European in a vague
  658
  and woolly way at the moment is no case for being critical of the RB211. Some statement from Europe now about the desirability or possibility of supporting the Rolls-Royce engine in Lockheed's as part of a wider arrangement with Europe would be quite sensible, but please do not let the Minister tell the House that the Europeans do not care whether the RB211 goes or does not go; of course they do not care. It is a competitor to a project that they have put up.
  Mr. Stanley McMaster Mr. Stanley McMaster (Belfast, East): rose—
  Mr. Benn: I am coming to the question of the position of Short's. I know that that is what the hon. Member wants to speak about. First, I want to refer to some of the considerations that must affect the Treasury. It is inconceivable that in the negotiations now in progress the voice of the Treasury will not be dominant. Nobody is interested in an unprofitable investment. The argument against the old, traditional Treasury view is that it looks at the possibilities over too short a time scale. If we consider the question only in terms of the return on a single engine in a relatively short period we are taking a view that takes us out of advanced technology altogether.
  The cost of the Concorde has escalated by £95 million, in terms of its estimates, from October, 1969, to October, 1970, but there has been no hand-wringing, no bankruptcy and no collapse, because the Concorde is funded on a different basis. I am not arguing that the RB211 should be funded like the Concorde, and although the Concorde treaty was signed by the present Government in a previous manifestation I say that it is not selfevident—if we want to be in advanced technology—that we have to do it the RB211 way or that it is self-evident that we have to do it the Concorde way.
  We have basically to decide whether we feel that this is or is not central to the aero-engine business, where there is a market, and then we have to look at it from that point of view. I do not want to go over the argument that was put forward in the Guardian on Monday, and that has been referred to today, but in making calculations about whether or not to proceed with a project it is always necessary to look at the cost of not going

  659
  ahead—the cost of redundancies, the cost of losses in terms of redundancies in Rolls-Royce and the sub-contractors; the loss of tax revenue; the loss of the levy on the engines; the general effect on the economy of a downward spiral; and the impact of buying foreign aircraft for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. They are all quite proper calculations for the Treasury to make.
  What I want to be satisfied about—I am not asking for answers from the Leader of the House today—is that the Treasury is not just putting to the Minister the question of the cancellation charges and telling him, "You can play about with the cancellation charges, and that is all", because if that is so we should be leaving out of account the longer-term consequences if the RB211 engine does go forward.
  The House knows that the terms are negotiable, but I want to know whether they are negotiable as to the amount of money that the British Government are prepared to make available or simply in terms of the way in which the question is being negotiated within a certain sum of money.
  I am entitled to put upon the record the views of the Opposition on the central question in a way that is wholly without criticism of the Government. I am entitled to put our views upon the record because this is possibly the last chance that the House will have to debate the matter before the negotiations come to a conclusion.
  I want to ask the Leader of the House one or two other questions, one of which I raised on Monday, when the Minister made his statement. My question concerns the nature of the Government's offer. First, how is Lockheed to be asked to place its money at risk in a company that it does not control and in a technology that it does not understand? This is a question which has been put to me, and it is right that I should put it to the Minister.
  May I also ask the Leader of the House to say in winding up how the contract vis-a-vis Lockheed will differ from the contract which many hon. Members opposite criticised us for reaching with Rolls-Royce; namely, the placing
  660
  of a fixed sum with the ultimate and total responsibility being taken on the other side.
  There was an impressive speech made in an earlier debate on Rolls-Royce on the nature of the companies we are dealing with in these matters—hybrid corn-panics partly governmental and partly private. It is clear from the experience of Galaxy with Lockheed and RB211 with Rolls-Royce that it is not now possible to hinge a whole contract on staking out a sacrificial shareholder and saying "This is the basis of the deal" This is a Government-to-Government matter—certainly in regard to Britain because, if the negotiations succeed, we are offering a 20-year warranty on these engines. Similarly, if a cross-warranty is to be effective, it must involve and engage the United States Government in some service.
  The time for these negotiations is unquestionably very short, and this is why I sought the Standing Order No. 9 debate on Monday when the statement was made. The real people who dictate the timetable are the airlines themselves. If they are the customers they know that whether one goes in for another engine or another aircraft, the financial risk of delay suffered by the airlines determines a great deal of the timetable in negotiations.
  Lockheed, not unlike Rolls-Royce, faces real difficulty and also is under pressure, but the Government are unable to answer the difficult questions we have put about their relations with the receiver until they know the situation in regard to RB211. The 1971 Rolls-Royce company knows that it is buying Rolls-Royce either with the RB211 engine or without it, and it is a totally different sort of company in those two circumstances.
  I must reiterate what was said by my hon. Friend that it is hard to understand why there is no Minister now engaged in discussions in the United States with the American Government on the terms of the cross-warranty or, for that matter, no senior Government team in discussion with the airlines in Burbank at this moment. The negotiations are being conducted at a distance and to some extent in the open. It is not clear to me why General Electric and Pratt and Whitney

  661
  should be working away with the airlines in Burbank if we do not yet know whether a senior Rolls man has left to go to Burbank to present the Rolls case. I say this simply as an expression of view that there must be evidence that this matter is being taken seriously.
  In the end this company, as any other company, must have orders. One of the proposals which were made and considered was that B.E.A. should buy some 1011s to provide a long-term market for this aircraft. To the best of my knowledge, no firm influence or pressure has been brought to bear in that direction.
  These are questions I put to the Leader of the House, and they are questions which, as the negotiations proceed, are surely being asked in Whitehall. I am certain that the answers to these questions determine not only the survival of Rolls-Royce but the survival of the men who are working for the company and the future of the European aero-engine industry. They are questions which could determine within a day or a week, certainly within a week or two, the future of key sectors of British industry. I hope that in answering the debate tonight the Leader of the House will he able to give us some answers, since this will be the last opportunity on which we shall be able to give our views before the negotiations are concluded.
  6.55 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): In opening the debate the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), appearing to regard my presence with some distaste, asked me why I was here. I will tell the hon. Gentleman and the House why. I am here to answer the debate because I believe that it is my duty and responsibility to do so as a member of the Cabinet and as Leader of the House.
  This House is always rightly concerned when social and human problems arise. The commercial collapse of Rolls-Royce has produced such a situation. In this case, too, there is the added emotional feeling we all share that such a disaster should have overcome the company which almost seemed part of Britain.
  I hope that hon. Members opposite will not mind my saying that sometimes I slightly resent it when it is suggested
  662
  that there is a monopoly of care about this situation. Anyone who went through the experience just before the company collapsed and immediately after and had to call in the Receiver will have experienced, as I did, feelings of intense care and worry. Therefore, I am entitled to rebut some of the rather unfair accusations which have been made.
  The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees also accused the Government of evasion and concealment. I do not accept those charges. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) asked the Government to set up a Select Committee. Last week I promised a White Paper and said then, and must repeat today in answer to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, that the timing of this White Paper must depend on the course of the negotiations. As was announced at the time of the collapse, the old Rolls-Royce company has asked for a Board of Trade inquiry, and no doubt that will be granted. In a commercial collapse surely such an inquiry is preferable to a Select Committee of this House. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that a Board of Trade inquiry would be much fairer to people whose reputations may be at stake in regard to commercial considerations.
  I shall now try to answer some of the other points which have been made in the short debate, and in doing so I wish to reinforce what has already been said by my right lion. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply.
  The main purpose of the debate was made clear by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday; namely, to consider the redundancy situation caused by the commercial collapse of Rolls-Royce. Inevitably, this has led to the discussion of the future of the RB211 contract, on which, I agree with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), much employment depends. Naturally, the House will appreciate that it would not be helpful for me to comment in any detail on some of the suggestions which have been made while the negotiations are in progress.
  I believe that I can best help the House and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) by setting out once again the proposals put to Lockheed by Her Majesty's Government. In parentheses I wish to say

  663
  to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) that the Government certainly want to renegotiate the RB211 contract, if that can be successfully concluded. Of that there should be no doubt. I would also like to state categorically, in answer to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), as emphatically as I can that the proposals put forward by the Government are negotiable and that we are prepared to consider counter-proposals. Lockheed, of course, appreciates this, and knows that there has been no question of a last word or a "take it or leave it" attitude on the part of the Government. It is important to say that, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish me to go further than to make that point abundantly clear.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman go to the States?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that at this stage I want to go on to the proposals, but it would only be sensible for me to reply to the hon. Gentleman that in the conduct of the negotiations no initiative or move can ever be ruled out.
  These proposals were, first, that a joint company should be established in the United Kingdom by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and by Lockheed for the management of the RB211 project. The detailed execution of the programme would be sub-contracted to Rolls-Royce Limited. There were two main reasons for this proposal. The first was that it would offer Lockheed an opportunity to take a full part in the management of the project and to ensure that all possible economies were made in its execution. In answer to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, I do not think that some of the difficulties he foresaw from Lockheed's point of view are problems, given these proposals. The second reason is that, taken together with the rest of the proposals, Lockheed's risk under any new contract would be for the most part confined to those elements in the cost which Lockheed had disputed, the remainder of the cost being made up by the British Government.
  Secondly, on development costs, the British Government would contribute a further £60 million in addition to the
  664
  £100 million already spent. This £60 million was the figure to which, on the Lockheed view, the further development costs of about £120 million estimated by the Government should be reduced. Any additional cost of development to the present specification of the engine should therefore be borne by Lockheed, it being Lockheed's view that there need be no further cost above the £60 million.
  Thirdly, on production costs, a new contract would be negotiated with Lockheed for the purchase of the RB211 engines at a mean increase in price not exceeding £150,000 each. If the production cost of the engine exceeded this figure, the loss would be borne by the new joint company; that is to say, shared equally between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed. The reason for this proposal was that the Government's estimate of the production loss on these engines would be considerably higher—perhaps as much as £190,000. In view of Lockheed's opinion that the loss should be substantially less, perhaps as much as 40 per cent. less, and in view of the need to meet price competition on the engine, the Government made it absolutely clear to Lockheed that the amount of the increase was negotiable, and also provided that half of any loss incurred above this figure would be borne by the Rolls-Royce side of the new company.
  Fourthly, profits from the sale of spares for the engine as at present specified, and any costs and profits resulting from further development of the engine, would be for the account of the new joint company; that is to say, shared equally between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed.
  Under the former head, Lockheed estimated the profits, discounted to 1971, at £75 million. The Government estimated them at £50 million. The sharing proposal diminished this difficulty, and offered Lockheed a substantial offset against any risks it might be incurring under a new contract. Under the latter head—further development—the prospects were too speculative to require much discussion at this stage.
  Penalties for late delivery under the original contract with the old company would be formally waived by Lockheed and the airlines. New arrangements would be negotiated on the basis of no penalty for six months' delay and only light penalties for three months thereafter.

  665
  The six-month delay referred to is, of course, that which has arisen in Rolls-Royce's operation under the old contract, and thus a fact of life which has to be faced in making a new contract.
  Arrangements would have to be made with the United States bankers to assist with the cash flow problem in the early years, for example, by means of appropriate progress payments. The cash flow problem is clearly related to the estimates of losses and profits, and the proposal was that the financing burden should be appropriately shared by the usual means.
  The British Government—and here I accept what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said—through Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, would provide a warranty for servicing and spares support during the life of the engine. The United States Government, or banks, would provide a warranty to recompense the British Government for the money they had invested from the date of the new agreement if the TriStar programme should subsequently be abandoned.
  This condition is essential against the contingency, which cannot be ruled out, that if the TriStar project had for any reason to be discontinued, the British Government would be faced at that time with a position in which it had invested a further very large sum in the development and production of the engine, and this would be entirely lost. In addition, the risks of unemployment would be as great as or greater than they would be if the project had to be discontinued right away. Some insurance against this contingency, as a counterpart to the British Government assurance to continue support for the project, is surely a reasonable and equitable requirement.
  Under the arangement announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply on 11th February, the Government are continuing to indemnify the receiver against the expense of carrying on the RB211 work while negotiations with Lockheed proceed. Already more than £5 million has been paid to the receiver. This is substantial evidence of the Government's sincere wish to negotiate a satisfactory basis for the continuance of the project.
  The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorne), the hon. Member for Burnley and others have raised the question of a high-powered dele-
  666
  gation in America. I was criticised at one moment for having left the House. I did so to get the absolutely clear position on what is happening at the present time, the most up-to-date one I could, because I thought this would be helpful to the House. Lord Cole was in touch with Mr. Haughton last night and discussed the possibility of a director of Rolls-Royce going out to Burbank. As a result of that conversation, the Rolls-Royce senior representative in the United States is coming back this weekend for consultation. In the light of the discussions it will be decided whether or not to send out a Rolls-Royce director.
  One of the Rolls-Royce directors is already in the United States and will be seeing our Embassy in Washington. Although I think most hon. Members appreciate this, there has been some misconception. There is already a Rolls-Royce team of top experts in Burbank. Therefore, the suggestion that G.E.C. and Pratt and Whitney are operating on their own and Rolls-Royce is not represented is not true, and I do not think the House would wish to give that impression.
  I said in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley that the Government will not rule out any helpful initiative at any time, but it must be remembered that we have put forward our proposals to Mr. Haughton who has undertaken to consider them and, through Lord Cole, we have been in contact with him since then.
  I now turn to the important point raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), and the hon. Members for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), in his classic speech, which I hope will frequently be repeated in this House, and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), about patents.
  The Government have paid to the receiver the sum of £20 million to meet the acquisition by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as a necessary act of official policy of all the patents previously held by Rolls-Royce Limited and its subsidiaries. They have done that in order that the use of the patents should be secured against any interference which might prejudice the development and production of aircraft and other engines

  667
  for use for military and civil purposes in Britain and throughout the world. Some engines are being developed in collaboration with foreign Governments. Any impediment to the use of the patents would be gravely damaging to British defence interests and foreign policies. That is why, in the national interest, Her Majesty's Government have so acted. It is our intention to license the use of the patents to the new company and, where appropriate, the purchasers of other assets.
  Mr. Dalyell: Let us give credit where credit is due. For my part, I must congratulate the Government on this aspect of their policy. But may we be assured, perhaps by the Attorney-General, that no hardware or software can be sequestered by American firms once it is in the United States? This is a matter of very complex American law, but it is very important to the sub-contractors, who see it as one of the matters about which they have to be assured before they decide to continue supplying.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have been most careful, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, to explain the position to the House in specific words. Though I am no expert in these matters, I believe that my words are important, and I must stick to them. The hon. Gentleman has raised a different matter. Perhaps I might ask my right hon. and learned Friend to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.
  I now turn to some other aspects of the problem. As my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) and Bristol, North East Mr. Adley) pointed out. Rolls-Royce having applied for a Receiver, the Government made statutory arrangements to put themselves into a position to take over those assets of Rolls-Royce which are essential to the national interest, to set up a new company with a very strong board to take over those assets, to negotiate, in consultation with the new company, with the received for the purchase of those assets and, meantime, to reimburse the Receiver for additional expenses incurred in maintaining essential work on the RB211 project, pending the outcome of the negotiations.
  There can be no question that these are the steps which are necessary, if not
  668
  essential, if the national interest in the many defence and civil activities of Rolls-Royce is to be preserved and properly managed. What is important is that the Government, in consultation with the new company, are making arrangements designed to put the nationally essentially parts of the Rolls-Royce enterprises on a sound footing for the future.
  I turn now to the redundancies which have rightly concerned many hon. Members. On the latest estimates which we have of the scale of redundancies, some 4,300 Rolls workers are likely to be dismissed between now and 26th March. In the main, these are engaged on work other than the RB211. The main areas affected are Derby 2,000, Glasgow 1,700, Barnoldswick 240, and various Midlands plants 400. What I think is necessary to emphasise is that these redundancies are directed at eliminating overstaffing and are an essential part of the reconstruction of the company on a sounder footing. The figure of 4,300 was announced by the Receiver on 8th March, and these decisions are for him in consultation with Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.
  I ought perhaps to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) about Hucknall. I have been seeking to investigate the position. I have not been able to ascertain the full answer, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply will write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the full position. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of any bias in favour of Bristol and against Derby. That certainly will not be a factor in any of the decisions which are taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West put forward some helpful and important points about redundancy and the action which might be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions, and I will see that they are passed on to my right hon. Friend. I should make it clear that my right hon. Friend will ensure that all the services of his Department are made available on the spot so as to deal with redundancies as they arise. It is fair to say that the majority of those likely to be made redundant will be

  669
  highly qualified or skilled. Inevitably, employment prospects are always better for such workers, and there is unlikely in their case to be an extensive requirement for retraining. However, there may be scope for refresher or similar training. The Department will be ready to arrange this where practicable in Government training centres or, alternatively, on employers' premises or in technical colleges. I know that a number of hon. Members have been greatly concerned about the position of apprentices. The Department has been in touch with the Engineering Industry Training Board about making provision for redundant apprentices.
  Mr. McMaster: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am anxious about the position at Short Brothers and Harland. Can he, possibly through my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply, give an assurance that, if the worst comes to the worst, the Government will consider ways of finding alternative employment for the 2,000 men working there on the pods of this engine, in view of the crisis situation in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate the problem which my hon. Friend raises, if I may say so, very fairly. The position in Northern Ireland is extremely difficult. However, I prefer to deal with the point by suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply should speak to my hon. Friend about it.
  I want now, in conclusion, to summarise the Government's position. Under the terms of the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act, the negotiations are continuing with the Receiver for the acquisition by the Government of the necessary assets of the aero-engine and marine and industrial gas turbine divisions of the old Rolls-Royce. The new board has been appointed, and it will be its purpose to run this part of the enterprise on a successful and expanding basis so that substantial employment will continue to be provided both by Rolls-Royce and by sub-contractors in this vitally important area of the old Rolls-Royce company's
  670
  operations. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West and others who have raised the question about contracts and discussions with the trade unions that once the new board is in position it will, I know, carry out such discussions in the same careful manner that will have been adopted by the old Rolls-Royce company.
  Secondly, the Government have made it clear that we should like to negotiate a new, workable and economically sound contract with Lockheed on the RB211 engine. We have stressed repeatedly that the figures which we put forward are not our last word but are negotiable, We shall also be ready to receive any counterproposals. But we shall not sign an economically unsound contract which, while it might buy off trouble in the short term, would only arouse false hopes and end in another disaster in the long run. As the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East knows, such a course can land a company and the whole nation in grave difficulty and distress.
  Thirdly, the Receiver is seeking to find a purchaser for the remaining divisions of the old Rolls-Royce, such as the car division. There is every reason to suppose that these divisions will prosper under new ownership and so continue to provide substantial employment.
  Fourthly, where there have to be redundancies my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is making all the services of his Department available for help in finding alternative employment.
  Finally, I wish to assure the House and all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that the Government recognise fully the important points which they have put forward on behalf of their constituents and, where they have the power, will seek to take action as appropriate.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn

DEFENCE ESTIMATE. 1971–72 (ARMY), VOTE A
7.20 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 195.500, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, and that a number not exceeding 60,000 be maintained in the Regular Reserve, that a number not exceeding 90,500 be maintained in the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, and that a number not exceeding 6,000 be maintained in the Ulster Defence Regiment, during the year ending on 31st March, 1972.
In view of the tragic events of last night, I hope that the House will think it appropriate that I should begin by talking about the Army in Northern Ireland and postpone until later a brief review of the Army's activities throughout the world.
My right hon. Friend and the whole House have already expressed their abhorrence at the cowardly assassinations which took place last night and have expressed their sympathy with the relations of the murdered soldiers. So I will pass on to a more general survey of Army's rôle in Ulster. But just how arduous and thankless that rôle is has been underlined by the appalling events of last night.
Since August, 1969, although units of all three Services have been employed on peace-keeping duties in the Province, the load has, of course, fallen heaviest on the Army.
We now have 10 major units in the infantry rôle there, together with supporting units. The tenth unit went there earlier this week. Three of these units are in accomodation which enables them to serve on two year tours accompanied by their families—an increase of one unit in this category since the present emergency began—and a fourth unit is to be so accomodated during this year. The remaining units are on special short tours of about four months.
The system of special short tours requires the frequent replacement of units, and units of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal Marines and R.A.F. Regiment have all been called upon. We have also had to redeploy temporarily
672
and on a limited scale units from B.A.O.R. But these are still available for their N.A.T.O. rôles, and they can be returned rapidly by air to Germany should the need arise.
The rôle of the Army and the security forces in Northern Ireland is, in conjunction with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to promote the maintenance of peace and order, to enforce the law firmly and impartially, and to combat subversion. These objectives are all being vigorously undertaken—with a complete absence of sectarian bias—and solely in order to achieve the ending of violence in the Province and to bring about a more peaceful climate in which the social reform programme can proceed without hindrance.
Like every other hon. Gentleman in the House, I should like to give proper recognition and quite unstinted praise to the way all those who have served and are serving in Northern Ireland have performed their duties. They have maintained the highest professional standards in the face of intense hostility on the part of some—I hope an isolated and diminishing few—and shown a remarkable degree of fortitude, tolerance and good humour. Often under severe provocation, they have not reacted indiscriminately or ill-advisedly in the face of vicious and murderous assaults upon them. Instead, they have stuck consistently to the principle of minimum force under which they operate. I am sure that there is no other army in the world which would have performed anything like so well as our soldiers have done in Northern Ireland. Their restraint is all the more notable when one recalls that since August, 1969, over 600 Servicemen have been injured and, tragically, six soldiers have died.
The entire House is united in its distress at these casualty figures and in its condemnation of the extremists who are responsible for them.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Republicans.
Mr. Gilmour: How lucky we are that the qualities of the British soldier are such that he is ready to accept the risks, the difficulties and discomfort, and the separation from his family, and yet carry out his duties with restraint and undiminished cheerfulness and good will.
Mr. McMaster: Is there any doubt whether these extremists are or are not Republicans? As I believe them to be Republicans, will my hon. Friend call them Republican extremists?
Mr. Gilmour: We are against extremists of all kinds. The appalling horrors of last night are being investigated by the appropriate authority. I do not think that it would be right for me to point the finger at any particular organisation, although all hon. Members will have their own views as to who the most likely culprits are.
The House will be aware that the task facing the Army has changed in character during the last few months. Originally that task was to keep the peace between the communities. But now inter-communal rioting has noticeably diminished, and when there are disturbances, the number of people on the street is much smaller than in the past. These in themselves are encouraging factors.
The Army is now faced with organised terrorism by a small minority of extremists whose latest enormity took place last night. In dealing with this situation, as in dealing with the previous one, the Army has been criticised from two conflicting points of view: on the one hand, for being too tough in certain respects and with certain parts of the community, and, on the other, for not being tough enough in their counter-measures. I do not accept either of these criticisms. I welcome the opportunity of this debate to repudiate them, and to reiterate what the Army's policy is. It is to continue to operate, as it has hitherto, within the principle of minimum force. But within this principle—which is part of the law of the land—to be as tough as necessary with the trouble makers, whilst so far as possible protecting the innocent.
The gunmen's only conceivable hope of success is to gain the support of the majority of peaceable and law-abiding people in the community. That means that any indiscriminate retaliation by the security forces would be self-defeating as well as wrong. You do not vindicate the law by breaking it yourself; nor do you gain support for your cause from those—and they represent the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—who deplore the methods of terrorism and murder.
674
Just how low the terrorists are ready to sink we saw last night. But these treacherous murders are designed to provoke us. And if our enemies want us to do something, a safe rule to follow is that we should not do it. We are not going to be provoked into enabling the gunmen to gain the sympathy of the law-abiding: we are going to see that they remain isolated from the community. The gunmen must remain in their ghetto cut off from the approval of all decent human being. We are not going to be provoked into over-reacting, but we shall continue to react and to act with the utmost strength against the terrorists themselves.
Unfortunately, it is a regrettable but unavoidable fact that in a situation like the present some innocent people will suffer. That sometimes happens when the houses of innocent people are searched. But, plainly, when the Army receive apparently reliable information that arms are hidden in houses—in whatever section of the community—it would be negligent to disregard it. We are anxious to do all that we can to keep the inconvenience or the damage suffered by innocent people to the barest minimum. But, at the same time, we shall be relentless in our actions against gunmen and we will be as tough with them as we have to be in order to stamp out terrorism. The Army will not hesitate to open fire when they or others are shot at by gunmen or attacked by petrol bombers. But they will not be indiscriminate in their fire—nor would anyone in the House want them to be.
The full restoration of peace and order is unlikely to be achieved quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, said recently in another place, there may be a long hard slog in front of us. None the less, nobody should have any doubt about the determination and the ability of the Army to deal with the trouble-makers. The Army will remain there in whatever force is needed, and will be reinforced as the situation demands. As I have said, another battalion has been sent over this week.
I turn now to the Ulster Defence Regiment. It has been operational for 11 months and is now a firmly-established part of the security forces in Northern Ireland. Its strength is over 4,000 and applications continue to be received. We are now aiming to recruit the full figure

675
of 6,000 mentioned in the White Paper published in November, 1969. Naturally, I cannot forecast when we shall reach that figure, but the regiment is an undoubted success and will welcome further recruits. I can announce that it has been decided to establish three additional companies in April, 1971, which is the first anniversary of the U.D.R. vesting day. These companies will be located at Newtownabbey, Saintfield-Ballynahinch and Coleraine.
Roman Catholic members of the community have demonstrated in the most convincing manner that this is a regiment in which they can participate and contribute to the maintenance of security in Northern Ireland. At present, about 15 per cent. of the U.D.R. consists of Roman Catholics and there is room for many more. I hope very much that they will continue to apply.
So much for Northern Ireland. I turn now to the subject of recruiting and manning. Services manpower generally was discussed during the course of last week's debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1971, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House by tilling the same ground again. My aim will be to highlight the main features of the Army's manpower picture and to give the House some indication of the general lines on which we are hoping to solve the manpower problems that we have inherited.
To deal first with officers, although in overall terms the deficiency is fairly marginal, this conceals serious shortages and imbalances between arms and corps. For one thing, we need a lot more doctors. But, numerically at any rate, perhaps the most serious shortages are in the teeth arms. We look primarily to Sandhurst to meet our career officer needs, but the number of suitable young men coming forward for regular commissions at Sandhurst has recently fallen far short of the Army's needs and, unfortunately, we can see no immediate improvement which is likely. By contrast, however, we are more than meeting our requirements for short-service commissions from Mons O.C.S. We hope, therefore, that some of these young men will take advantage of the opportunity that is now open to them to convert to
676
regular commissions and so help to ease our officer manpower problems.
We are naturally doing all we can to improve our officer recruiting. In particular, we are seeking to follow up the success of the short-service commissions which I have just mentioned. We are intensifying our efforts to bring to the attention of young men the worth of the Army as a career—by means of schoolboy visits to units; increasing contacts with headmasters, careers masters, youth employment officers; and so on. We also hope that the payment on 1st April next to single men of the second stage of the military salary, a welcome innovation, will provide an added stimulus to our officer recruiting.
Turning to the recruitment position of soldiers: as the House knows, our problem in this area is a cumulative one in which we have to try to make good the shortfalls of previous years. In 1968–69 the shortfall of adult recruits was nearly 50 per cent. The situation improved in 1969–70 and, although the final position at the end of the current year cannot yet be given, an improvement in the actual recruiting performance of some 15 per cent. or better over 1969–70 is forecast. That is most encouraging, but it is still, unfortunately, a long way short of our requirements.
I am pleased to say that junior recruiting has shown a steady improvement for several years now. Here again, the final figures for this year cannot yet be given, but it looks as if the total intake will be about 7,300. This is about a 10 per cent. improvement over the previous year and the best junior recruiting performance ever. This increase is most encouraging because junior soldiers make a most valuable contribution to the Army's manpower. Indeed they account for about 25 per cent. of the Army's annual intake of adult recruits.
While we tend to concentrate, naturally, on recruiting, this is only one part of the problem. It is not enough to increase the intake: we must at the same time try to staunch the outflow: to persuade more men to prolong their engagements. This is what we are anxious to do at present, particularly among the soldiers who enlisted on the three-year engagement that was introduced in 1969. We shall not know, of course, until much

677
later next year, how many of the first of these soldiers will prolong their service. A good number have already done so and we hope that many more will prolong, because the shorter the time a soldier serves, the greater is the turnover and the more expensive in money and manpower the initial training becomes.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On the subject of recruiting, would my hon. Friend consider a scheme by which, when the school leaving age is raised to 16, boys who wish to do so will be allowed to leave school early, say at 15, and join the Forces, so that they can swell the ranks of junior entries and continue their education within the Forces?
Mr. Gilmour: We are considering this, but my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it contains a certain number of problems which would have to be ironed out with the Department of Education and Science, and that these may prove intractable. But it is an attractive proposition, and we are considering it.
We are also looking carefully, in our efforts to staunch this outflow, at all those aspects of Army life—length of tour, turbulence, family separation and so on—which tend to increase wastage and influence soldiers and their wives against staying on. Mention is often made of the difficulties of young Service wives and their families, and we are mindful of this important aspect of Army life. For example, to supplement the normal very thorough unit arrangements for looking after soldiers' wives and families, we have established the Housing Commandant Scheme, which is mentioned in the Defence Estimates and to which my noble Friend drew attention last week.
We are also looking at conditions of service generally to see what improvements, financial or otherwise, are practicable and desirable to attract new recruits and also to encourage as many serving soldiers as possible to remain in the Army as long as possible. Some of these improvements will take time to implement and have effect, because there are many competing claims on the funds available. But we shall do as much as we can as and when we can.
Mr. John Morris: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question I asked during the defence debate;
678
namely, what effect has service in Northern Ireland had on re-engagement?
Mr. Gilmour: The first tour in Northern Ireland seems, if anything, to have had a rather favourable effect on re-engagement. This seems to be less true on following engagements, but I should not like to make a definite statement on this yet because, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we have not had a great deal of experience of a large number of units coming back. There is some evidence for thinking, however, that the effect of the second and third tours may be different from that of the first tour.
As foreshadowed in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy last October, we are proceeding with the expansion of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. We are increasing its size by establishing a second Armoured Car Regiment, which will be available to N.A.T.O., and by establishing 20 unit headquarters and 77 sub-units in the infantry rôle, totalling some 10,000 men.
The new units will begin to form on 1st April, and we expect that all of them will have begun to recruit by the end of June. These additional infantry units will increase our reserve of men trained in military skills and will give an opportunity to many people throughout the country who are anxious to undertake this valuable form of public service.
Although formal recruiting has not yet started, there are encouraging signs that many young men are keen to participate. I have heard it said that some men are unofficially already substantially recruited.
During the year the Army has been engaged throughout the world in many diverse activities. The major units of 6 Armoured Brigade, which was redeployed to the United Kingdom early in 1968, have now completed their return to Germany; 36 Heavy Air Defence Regiment will return by the summer. In the Far East, the redeployment of Army units to Hong Kong and Western Europe has continued.
The headquarters of the Brigade of Gurkhas has now moved from Malaysia to Hong Kong, where most of the Brigade will be stationed in future. One Gurkha battalion will be stationed in

679
the United Kingdom on an 18-month unaccompanied tour, and the first unit to be posted here will be 7 Gurkha Rifles, who will be deployed from Hong Kong to Crookham in late September.
The first British major unit to be stationed in the Far East under the Government's new five-Power arrangements for the area will be the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers, who will move to Singapore in September. At about the same time, the 1st Light Battery Royal Artillery, which is being retained as part of the Government's decisions on Phase 2 of the Army rundown, will be deployed to the Far East as part of our military land presence there.
I come to a change which we have decided to make in the plans of the previous Administration to withdraw the last battalion from Malta without replacement units this year. I know that hon. Members have been worried about security in the Mediterranean. In reviewing our defence dispositions, the Government have concluded that, in the face of the growing Soviet presence in the Mediterranean, it would be inappropriate, both politically and militarily, to proceed with rundown plans and withdraw the battalion.
Therefore, after consultation with the Malta Government, we propose that when the time comes to withdraw the present battalion, it will be replaced by an equivalent unit. The changeover will not, in any case, occur before the second half of this year.
We hope and believe that this decision will be generally welcome in Malta on both defence and economic grounds. At the request of the Malta Government we propose immediately to defer discharges of Maltese civilian personnel, which would have been due later this month. There will be further consultation with the Malta Government on these and other details.
I close as I began, with Northern Ireland. The whole House admires the way in which the Services are discharging their highly disagreeable duties there. We are not going to be deflected from our purposes by criminal outrages, however cowardly and vicious. The terrorists are not only behaving in a demented and wholly subhuman manner. They have no
680
hope whatever of achieving their objective. The Army will stay in Northern Ireland in whatever strength is necessary to see that peace is restored and order and stability maintained. The crimes of the terrorists will be in vain.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Brian Walden: We are discussing the Army Estimates in the aftermath of yesterday's tragedy in Ulster. That three young soldiers should have lost their lives would, in any circumstances, have been a matter for deep regret, but the peculiarly horrifying nature of this murder will provoke a deep sense of outrage in the British people. I suspect that not only today but on subsequent days this House will have to address itself to that sense of outrage.
I wish to say nothing that will weaken the sense of solidarity which I think exists in all parts of the House on this issue. I therefore start—this is a debate on the Army Estimates and not on Ulster; I will not, therefore, go wide of the subject—by reaffirming the belief of the Opposition in the decision which took the British Army to Ulster.
It was the view of the Labour Government that the Army had to undertake a peace-keeping rôle in Northern Ireland, and the present Conservative Government hold an identical opinion. The Under-Secretary pointed out that that rôle had in some senses changed—that the Army was rather less concerned now to prevent communal violence than to suppress a particularly iniquitous kind of terrorism. I accept that.
The Opposition wholly join with the Government in supporting that objective. I say that while acknowledging, as I know the Government acknowledge, that the Army cannot play the rôle of the police. Nevertheless, the Army is discharging an absolutely vital function in Ulster which cannot adequately be discharged by any other agency.
I join with the Minister in stressing the great difficulties of our troops in carrying out their rôle. We are a democracy, and we live under the rule of law. Methods which I think would be unhesitatingly used by dictatorships cannot be used by us. We cannot order the Army to take steps which would violate those very standards which it is in Ulster to

681
preserve. That inevitably means that we are asking a very great deal of our men. The whole House has been unsparing, and I know will be unsparing, in its praise of the restraint and the excellent morale of the Army in these most trying circumstances.
There could be no clearer indication of the calibre of the British Army, its officers and men, than the way in which they have carried out their unpleasant duties in their own country—because it is their own country: the British Army is not only an English, a Scottish and a Welsh Army but a Northern Ireland Army as well, and those three Scottish soldiers, to whose families and comrades we extend our profound sympathy and sense of loss—lost their lives in their own land—an almost unparalleled circumstance. The only analogy I can think of is Ireland in the early 'twenties or the Easter Rebellion of 1916 in Dublin—and even that is not nearly comparable. This is why I say that the British people will have a peculiar sense of outrage at what has occurred.
Inevitably there will he calls for strong measures to be taken, not only against the perpetrators of the crime but against any who gave them aid or comfort. I think that the whole House will certainly agree. We are all at one in wishing to see that done, in wishing to see our Intelligence Branch strengthened or any other steps taken which will bring these elements to book.
Equally, however, I hope that the wise words used by the Home Secretary this afternoon, which have been echoed by the Under-Secretary, will command universal support; that it will be realised that the aims of the murderers are to provoke retaliation and thus destroy the middle ground so that the irreconcilable extremes can he left to reduce Ulster to a pitiable condition of chaos.
As the Home Secretary rightly said, it is not necessary to tell the British Army not to be provoked, but it is right that the Government should make clear that they know the aims of the extremists, and thus remove from them any hopes that this unbridled savagery will serve any political purpose whatsoever, and that the Opposition unreservedly associate themselves with the remarks of the Home Secretary and of the Under-Secretary in that respect.
682
The last word I want to say on Ulster is to put on record that the Opposition do not have any easy panaceas or miraculous solutions to proffer to the Government. Later in the debate we will make certain suggestions, but they are suggestions, not imperatives. We sympathise with the Government. We know their difficulties, we know their problems, and we join with them in support of the rô British Army.
I turn from that grave matter, which is nevertheless not an issue between the parties here, to other matters on the Estimates which give rise to some controversy. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's speech was singularly uncontroversial, and so far as I am capable of it I shall try to maintain that uncontroversial note. There are, however, necessarily certain things about which the Opposition wish to know more or on which they may wish to make certain suggestions, some of which we hope will be found by the whole House to be constructive.
Let us, first, consider the issue of recruitment. I agree with the Minister that in the defence debate a good deal was said about manpower, and I do not intend to go over that ground again any more than he did. It is always easy to find arguments either to justify or assail the record of any Government in regard to recruitment. Perhaps it is wiser simply to consider the facts of the present situation.
I noticed in the Defence debate an excellent speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell), with a good deal of which I agree. I hope, however, that he will not take it amiss if I say that I thought that his suggestions on conscription in relation to manpower would in practice be either objectionable to the Government or would prove to be politically impossible. I do not see any hope of improving Army recruitment on the basis of either universal or selective military service. Here I must say how much I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) who thought that selective service was repugnant because of the obvious injustice it involved.

683
I therefore take it that we can rule out that option, however unfortunate it may be in terms of Service manpower. I just do not believe that either major party here—certainly not mine—believes in constription as a method of producing the men we need. There are obvious disadvantages in putting Regulars alongside National Service men, many of whom, although they have done excellent service in the past—I was a National Service man myself though I do not claim to have done excellent service—obviously wish to get back to civilian life and do not have the same feeling towards the Forces as do Regulars. That, in itself, presents problems.
What are we left with? The last Government substantially improved the pay of the Army and that had obviously beneficial effects but, necessarily, recruitment is affected by other things than pay. We ought to acknowledge, and I think we do, that there are inevitable demographic trends which will reduce the number of people available for recruitment. That in itself is an important factor.
Moreover, the Army is not comparable with any civil occupation. In paragraph 46 of the Third Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes there is a discussion of the so-called "X factor". Admittedly, the Board was trying to assess the financial value of the factor, but I must say that it succeeded only in convincing me—and I speak here purely personally—that that was an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Nevertheless, I want to quote the paragraph, because I think that it sums up very well what it is that makes life in the Army so different from life in "civvy street". It reads:
"The Service man is faced with the following combination of factors: He may be exposed to danger in the course of military operations; is subject to military discipline which involves restrictions on personal liberty not normally endured in civil life; and is bound to a period of service which he cannot terminate at will. Any one of these features may possible be found in civilian life, but not the combination … In short, therefore, we regard the X factor as comprising a combination of exposure to danger, discipline, total commitment to the Service and the frequent uprooting that is inseparable from Service life."
It is only fair that I should say that not only did I not write those wise words but I am not even the first person to quote them here, because the hon. Mem-
684
ber for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) did just that last year, although, of course, in a slightly different context. Nevertheless, I think that that puts the matter very well and makes it apparent that the issue of recruitment is complex. It is not really suitable for party debate, not that my saying that will stop it from being a subject for party debate. However, that is my view.
I want to make a suggestion on behalf of the Opposition. In Session 1969–70 Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee conducted an investigation into recruitment which was called "Recruitment for the Armed Services" and it published a Report which I have studied. In fact, I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) served on that Sub-Committee. The Report is a valuable document, but, by the very nature of the Select Committee involved, it could not go into the matter in all its aspects. This would necessarily be so and I take it that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester would gladly concede that.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles indicated assent.
Mr. Walden: I am glad to have the hon. and gallant Gentleman's agreement on that point.
Therefore, the Opposition wonder whether the Government would consider the establishment of a Select Committee on recruitment. We believe that such a Select Committee would have great value. It would, first, bring legislative wisdom to bear on a problem that taxes the Executive. It might remove, though I do not want to be sanguine about this, some of the partisan elements from the discussion of the issue. Most important of all, I believe that it would give the subject the status and priority that it deserves.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why is the hon. Gentleman so keen to limit the terms of reference of such a Select Committee merely to recruiting instead of having a properly constituted Select Committee on defence fully empowered to study the broad spectrum of the subject?
Mr. Walden: I must not go too wide of the Army Estimates, otherwise you will rebuke me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I will try to answer that question, which I regard as a very fair one. I do

685
not believe that a Select Committee on Recruitment would give rise to problems of security and to the problems that necessarily exist between civil servants and their Ministers which would arise if those civil servants had to testify before a Select Committee examining the whole range of defence matters. A Select Committee on Defence would raise very serious matters which I do not think would be raised by a Select Committee on recruitment. It is our opinion that a Select Committee on recruitment would not give rise to anything like the same level of difficulty and problems. I will not enumerate the problems. The hon. Gentleman will readily understand the sorts of matters on which a Select Committee on defence would wish to question civil servants. That would take the issue very wide indeed. I do not believe that a Select Committee on recruitment would be open to such an objection.
I do not expect that the Minister can give me an answer to this point tonight, but we ask him to give the matter some consideration to see whether he can reach a decision favourable to the setting up of such a Select Committee.
In view of the attenuated nature of the debate I will be as brief as possible, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides wish to speak. Therefore, I am very much condensing the remarks that I had intended to make.
We were grateful for the information the Minister gave about the deployments and redeployments of our Forces east of Suez. The Minister will not mind my introducing a slightly controversial note—it is my bounden and plain duty to do so—by saying that the Opposition have very considerable reservations about whether single battalions in given areas in fact perform any effective deterrent whatever. However, that is a well known view of ours and I will not pursue it now.
However, I want to take up with the Minister two points in regard to the Army and our Far Eastern commitments. First, there is a reference to the British Jungle Warfare School in Johore on page 5, paragraph 19, of Cmnd. 4592. I will not read the reference, unless there is any dispute about my interpretation of it. The substance of the reference is that the British military authorities will continue to operate the school until the end of this year and it will then be transferred
686
to the Malaysian authorities and discussions will take place about the school then with the Malaysian authorities.
The Opposition would very much like to stress, not only that we feel that the facilities in the school should be available to the British Army—it is unlikely that they would not be, but it is not clear that they would be—but also that it is very important that they should not be denied to Singapore. That admittedly is a much more touchy issue, but we think that it is an important one, particularly important for co-operation within that area itself, especially if we are, against the wishes of the Opposition, to maintain a physical presence there. Therefore, we would like some assurance that, if they have not already concluded the negotiations on this point, the Government will earnestly pursue the issue of access to the school once it passes under Malaysian authority.
Second, I want to raise the issue of our Army personnel in Singapore. There is strong local feeling in Singapore that it would he of great value if all military personnel in Singapore were more fully integrated into the life of the local community and if, for instance, in terms of schooling and in terms of many other things which I will not now detail, there was no segregation between our military personnel and the local community.
We have considered this matter, which is to some extent controversial, at some length. The Opposition would like to urge upon the Government that that be done. If we are to keep a presence there, we think that there is a very good case for seeing that it is not a presence which is artificially restricted from sharing in full community life. We would like some assurances from the Government on this matter, too.
The last specific subject that I want to deal with relates to equipment. I am bound to say, even in this very noncontroversial speech, that I noticed the absence of any reference to either equipment or to the costs involved in the Minister's speech. No doubt that was because of the shortage of time. There is much missing from my speech as well.
We want to know more about this issue. In particular, the Opposition are becoming very alarmed by the kind of statement that we are getting from the Government Front Bench in regard to the

687
vehicular transport of the British Army. We have asked: is the situation such that the Government can guarantee that within the foreseeable future the British Army will have its engines and its vehicles supplied by British firms supplying British engines? It is a very clear question. Due to inadvertence or possibly even inattention on our part, we are not wholly sure about the answer that we have received.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the prospect of the British Army using Vauxhall or Ford engines?
Mr. Walden: No. That is not the point involved. The point involved is that, as the Minister of State knows, Rolls-Royce—I shall not go back on that debate—supplies a considerable number of engines to the Army. We are not at all sure what the Minister means—indeed, we are not at all sure what the Secretary of State for Defence means—by saying, as they do—admittedly, I am interpreting them, but I am sure that the Minister of State will correct me if I interpret them wrongly—that they do not see any issue involved in this. We do.
In our view, there must be a statement from one of the Defence Ministers making clear that we shall not allow the provision of this kind of engine to pass out of British hands, not only for the jobs involved but for other reasons which are best not expanded upon but which we regard as important. We do not wish to see a shift from a situation in which Rolls-Royce in Britain is supplying certain equipment to the British Army to one in which the orders are placed elsewhere. We should like more information and a guarantee that they will not be placed elsewhere.
Before I conclude, I must take up one point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester, whom I shall now unkindly repay for having agreed with me a few minutes ago by saying that I very much disagree with him about recruitment to the Army of schoolboy soldiers at the age of 15.
The Opposition would not regard that as a good idea. Boys should have a full schooling up to the age of 16, and then be available for military service if they
688
wish to join after that. I make that point because I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say, though he admitted the difficulties and was very fair about it, that the idea nevertheless had some attractions. I hope that on further study he will find that it has very few attractions, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will help to convince him of that.
I join the Minister, above all in the tragic circumstances of today, in paying tribute to the diverse functions of the Army throughout the world. He talked about the security efforts of the Army, about its operations, and about its rôle in Ulster. He could have talked about its rôle in N.A.T.O. He could have mentioned all the thousand-and-one other things which British troops throughout the world do which reflect credit upon them and upon this country. He said himself that he could think of no finer Army, or no other Army which would behave as well as ours. That is one issue on which the Opposition have no quarrel whatever with the Government.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I join with the Under-Secretary of State and with the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) in expressing our horror at the events last night in Northern Ireland. In this House, we are always grieved when our soldiers are shot down on duty, but when they are murdered when off duty and in civilian clothes there is a particular revulsion against that sort of crime.
I have seen something of our forces in Ulster during the past year and, indeed, before that, but before turning to the Ulster scene I wish to pay tribute to the rôle of the British Army during the past 25 years in another part of the world, in the Persian Gulf.
The hon. Member for All Saints, in his admirable speech, said that his party and he himself had considerable doubts about the deterrent value of single battalions in faraway places. If one looks at the history of the Persian Gulf over the past 25 years, one may be somewhat reassured about the deterrent value of comparatively small numbers of troops. Despite the fact that one has the explosive combination of Arabs, large quantities of oil and large quantities of money, there

689
has been less bloodshed there than in any other part of the Arab world, and a considerable part of the credit for that state of affairs belongs to the presence of the British Army.
Because British soldiers have been present on the ground, the local Rulers have had good reason for not pressing their own internal disputes to the point of bloodshed—and we all know that there are plenty of internal disputes in that part of the world. At the same time, because of the presence of British troops, the local Rulers have not had to build up their own defence forces. We know from events in Aden and in Libya that it is the security forces in that part of the world which are themselves only too often a source of insecurity in that they trigger off revolution in their own country.
I am not wholly happy about the proposal that the Trucial Oman Scouts should be handed over to the control of the Federation, if the Federation in the Gulf comes about.
The third major service which British soldiers in the Gulf have performed in the last 25 years has been to keep the forces of other countries out of that area. I fear—one has only to look at Egypt and see the vast number of Soviet troops who have entered that country in recent years—that the withdrawal of British soldiers and the creation of a military vacuum in that part of the world may lead to an incursion by the forces of other less friendly—indeed, wholly hostile—countries. I do not look forward with pleasure to the possibility that Soviet forces will follow British forces into the Gulf and that two-thirds of N.A.T.O.'s oil supplies will come under the grip of the Soviet Union.
I realise that my hon. Friend and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Defence are not enthusiastic about the withdrawal of British troops from that area. It was the difficulty of reaching agreement, particularly the Persian Government, which led us to say that the treaties will be terminated at the end of 1971 and that the British garrison will be withdrawn. I attach no blame to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the fact that we have not been able to persuade the Persians that it is in their interest as well as ours that our soldiers should remain there. But we have, alas,
690
seen a notable diplomatic defeat for this country.
I turn now to the area which has, naturally, occupied a major part of our attention during the debate so far. It is easy to express sympathy with our troops and admiration of their conduct. I agree with my hon. Friend that British troops have reacted with a restraint that would not have been equalled by the soldiers of any other country. But I hope that he is also right when he says that the savage murders last night have been greeted with revulsion even by the extremists in Northern Ireland. We should soon know whether that is true, because it would seem from the nature of the crime that many people must have a great deal of information. If that information is made available, as it should be, we should see a reaction and action taken to bring the murderers to justice very quickly. But if it is not forthcoming it will be difficult to maintain that all sections in Northern Ireland are revolted, as I hope they are, by the murders.
But it is not up to us to tell my hon. Friend or the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland how to play this hand tactically. It is up to us to concern ourselves with the strategic implications for the Army as a whole of the Northern Irish problem. Sooner or later we shall have the problem of how to get ourselves out of the situation.
In 1969 we tried to turn the Royal Ulster Constabulary into another British police force by taking away its arms and disbanding the B Specials. In return we gave it the British Army to do the dirty work and the Ulster Defence Regiment to guard certain vulnerable points. But as months have gone by and casualty has followed casualty—we were reminded this evening that 600 British soldiers have been injured since 1969—any gleam of optimism has left our minds. It is becoming all too apparent that the security situation in Belfast and Londonderry, and indeed throughout Northern Ireland, will not be like the security situation in Hampshire, Kent or Surrey, and that we shall be faced with the threat and the actuality of violence for many months. It may be years before we can look forward to the day when an unarmed Royal Ulster Constabulary can go about its duties in the same way as the Metropolitan Police can today.

691
What will happen? Will there be a perpetual drain on the rather slender resources of the British Army? I think that we are faced with three choices. We can keep the Army there as it is now for years to come. There will be substantial recruiting problems if we do that. We could rearm the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but I do not think that that is a very happy solution either, and I do not think that the Royal Ulster Constabulary itself wishes to be rearmed. But there may well be a case, which could be studied with care in the months to come, for creating within the R.U.C. special riot squads equipped with special weapons for dealing with the particular problems of violence in Northern Ierland, a sort of para-military force. Unless we turn our minds to the creation of a new sort of body it seems to me that the Army will be stuck in Northern Ireland in its present disagreeable rôle for many months.
I wonder whether our equipment for dealing with the riot situation and internal security problems in Northern Ireland is adequate. I have seen the Army carrying out its duties in the streets of Belfast and Londonderry. The tactics and weapons did not seem to have changed very much since the days of the Roman legions. A British Army platoon preparing to go out into the streets has its shields, helmets and pick helves. Its members are strangely reminiscent of the Roman legionaries who 2,000 years ago no doubt tramped through the streets of Londinium. I do not think that they ever got as far as Belfast. The tactics also seem to be virtually the same as those used by the Roman legionaires to put down rebellious ancient Britons.
Cannot modern science do rather better in developing non-lethal weapons? We are spending a great deal of money on sophisticated equipment that will be very useful in very sophisticated and very large wars. But the problems we are likely to face and are facing now are primarily internal security problems. If a little of the millions of pounds spent on the immensely destructive weapons with which a large part of our Armed Forces are equipped could be channelled into the development of rather more powerful and potent non-lethal weapons, the return in terms of cost-effectiveness might be rather better.
Mr. McMaster: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. The nature of the problem in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, has changed a great deal since Christmas. The problem of crowd control and of dealing with nonlethal weapons is not so apparent now. We are getting the use of nail bombs, gelignite and even firearms—as we have seen in the last 24 hours. That is the problem now, and it is much more serious.
Mr. Goodhart: I agree that that is the problem of the moment, but when dealing with guns the Army has the weapons that it needs. Although the problem of non-lethal weapons may have receded for the moment from the front pages and from our television screens, we know all too well from the history of Northern Ireland that that does not mean to say that it will not return. We have seen during the last few weeks many small but dangerous riots, with young people throwing petrol and nail bombs at British troops, causing casualties, and at the moment we seem to have, sadly, little answer except to throw CS gas and to make swift darts in an attempt to catch the offenders. I think that our equipment can be improved.
The sad fact is that our soldiers are faced with the prospect of carrying out internal security operations in Northern Ireland for years to come. The one redeeming feature is that they seem to do it better than the forces of any other country in the world.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Brynmor John: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in what he said tonight; instead I want to quote what he said in our debate last year. He then made a point which I would like to take up again tonight. He was referring to the number of doctors in the Army and the calamitous fall in the number of medical cadets entering the Service on graduating from medical school. He said:
"We are particularly vulnerable in the medical sphere, and that vulnerability is growing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March 1970; Vol. 797, c. 1603.]
There is some more encouraging news about the Royal Air Force in the Defence

693
Estimates, but, unfortunately, we read on page 35 that the recruitment of medical officers to the Army is not encouraging. On page 33 we note that another problem is that of imbalance—the proportion of older and long-serving medical officers being likely to continue to rise as against the proportion of the newly-recruited and others coming along. We thus face a situation in which the Army medical services are likely to be a combination of weakness of manpower and an imbalance of age structure in favour of the older, long-serving officers. I think that all hon. Members will agree with that analysis. I want to ask the Government a number of questions arising out of it.
First, to what proportion has the shortage grown? Has it got to the stage, for example, of embarrassing the efficiency of the services operated? Is it, perhaps, even leading to a curtailment of those services? If that is so, is the situation likely to get worse in future? Or do the Government' foresee that it may get worse? In such circumstances, have the Government any plan for providing medical services for Army personnel? Do the Government bear in mind—I am sure they do—that one of the most hopeful and prestigious operations of the Army in recent years has been the flying of medical officers to areas stricken by disaster? That service has been a great advertisement for the Army.
My second point concerns the housing commandant organisation. This is a worthwhile idea, but any idea is only as strong as its practical implementation. How many officers have been recruited for the organisation, and what training will they be given? As will be appreciated, numbers of themselves are not the important factor.
What is important is the keenness of the officers concerned that their job should be worth while and that the training they are given to be able to help families and young wives in emergencies and with the problems which can occur is thorough. I hope that the Government will not only regard this as something to be used in an emergency, because this is what the paragraph in the Defence Estimates seems to foreshadow, but instead regard it as a welfare facility in the interests of the well-being of the Forces and, therefore, in
694
turn a spur to recruitment and reinlistment
I hope that the Government will also consider operating these housing commandant organisations overseas as well as in this country. In Western Germany, for example, there is certainly evidence that Army married quarters are a considerable distance from the camps, so that the husband is often away from the wife for many hours, from early in the morning until late at night. Often these are young married couples, and this might be their first trip outside Britain. The wives are stuck in a foreign country without help in case of difficulties. Use of the commandant organisations could play an important part in such stations. All hon. Members know that the attitude of Servicemen's families is crucial when we come to talk about possible re-enlistment. This is one way of keeping our Forces strong.
My next point arises out of a case which I took up with the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to refer to it specifically but it does illustrate a general proposition. I make a plea for the retention in the Armed Forces only of those who are genuinely happy and contented with Service life. We are living in the wake of the Donaldson Report which highlighted the fact that there might be young people who at the age of 15 had committed themselves to a long period of service without fully understanding the nature of the contract and who might be regretting this and be thoroughly miserable and discontented with their life in the Army. If this is so, there must be a number of pre-Donaldson recruits still in the Army, doomed to remain there because they cannot avail themselves of the provisions of Donaldson and opt at the age of 18. These people may be leading very unhappy lives and can be of no use to themselves or to the highly technical and professional Army which we are seeking to create, one with a proper professional pride in its achievements.
There are obviously people who want to slough off their bargains lightly, and I believe that they can be detected. For some, however, their boyhood bargains are not even tolerable, and in some cases they may act in ways in which they would not normally act, driven through a combination of desperation and a feeling of being dropped. I know that this does

695
not excuse their behaviour, but I ask the Minister and those responsible for the administration of the Services to exercise mercy and understanding.
My major reason for doing this is that many of these people are retained because they were too old to avail themselves of the provisions of the Donaldson Report. Secondly it cannot be in the interests of the Army to retain these people because their indifference is infectious and their apathy damaging.
Thirdly, it does the Army no good if it hangs on to people to whom Service life is totally repugnant. That is rather like the Victorian husband who clung on to a marriage when to his wife he was totally repugnant. I ask that the Minister deals with this matter, because in this respect mercy may bring its own reward.
I am somewhat concerned about courts martial. I know that they administer justice impartially and well, but they are empowered to mete out sentences which not only in their severity but in their frequency are much greater than those which a civilian court—a magistrates' court, for example—would normally be able to impose.
Nevertheless, a man facing a court-martial charge is often defended by someone who is not legally qualified. He is defended by an officer who is presumed to know Army law because of having read the manual, and no doubt defended to the best of that officer's ability. I plead with the Minister to ensure that when men are faced with charges involving considerable loss of liberty, they are allowed legal representation if they wish.
I associate myself with the plea for a Select Committee on recruiting. It has been said that although pay is a substantial factor, it is not the sole reason why people join the Forces. We are left with a series of nebulous factors. It is said that unemployment is not an important factor in the level of recruitment. I have heard it suggested that there are emotive reasons unconnected with material considerations—a sense of duty, a sense of patriotism and so on.
But we do not know for sure, and the strength of our Armed Forces depends upon the accuracy with which we can identify the factors which lead to people
696
joining the Forces. A Select Committee on recruitment would be useful and would follow up the valuable work already done by the Estimates Committee. We hear much today of the deterioration of the welfare services, but in their broadest sense they have much to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but it is almost impossible to listen to the speeches which we have heard this evening and not feel, coming from where I come from, that one must say something about the tragedy which occurred last night. I share the feeling of horror, dismay and disgust at what happened. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden), whom I am glad to see at the Opposition Dispatch Box from time to time, when he said that the Army was not just the Army of England, Scotland, or Wales, but the Army of Northern Ireland, too. This is something which is sometimes forgotten, even in the House.
I was reminded of it very strongly last night. My telephone rang at four o'clock this morning, and again at seven, but until four it rang almost without ceasing. The Press was looking not so much for me as for a more eminent relation who was thought to be staying with me overnight, although in that the Press was wrong. I was constantly asked whether I would make a statement of some kind, and I made comments of the kind which we have all made in the House today.
For one journalist this was simply not enough. He said, "How can you refuse to go further, and to say no more?" He said, in effect, "Our troops are being killed and murdered in your country." For the first time I lost my temper, and I used words that I certainly should not use in front of a collar such as is worn by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
In recent weeks the most moving thing that I have seen depicted on the television screens was an elderly lady in Londonderry who had succoured a member of the British Forces who subsequently died. She said how much she would have liked to see him live and be able to return to his mother. She used

697
most poignant language when she said, "For God's sake, tell the people of England that we are not all savages in Londonderry" I hope that it is not necessary to remind even the troops who are there tonight of the fact that the vast majority of the people in all communities in Northern Ireland are decent, gentle and kindly people. I was going to try to see that old lady this weekend, but I was advised that it would be much better if I did not, because in all probability she was already in enough difficulty from the threats of some of the mad lunatics in the community.
This is not the moment to make criticisms about the tactics used in the Northern Ireland situation, but perhaps I may refer to the long-term strategy which I believe to be necessary—and that brings in the question of the use of the Ulster Defence Regiment. In February my noble Friend the Minister of Defence, speaking in another place, pointed out that the deployment of troops in Northern Ireland today imposed the gravest strain on the Army's manpower and made it difficult for us to discharge our N.A.T.O. obligations. He went on to say that the troops in Northern Ireland would be maintained only at a level which the security situation demanded at any time. He said that he was also seeking to encourage the civil arm of the security forces.
All of us, including hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, share the concern that has been expressed about the strain that the deployment of troops in Northern Ireland imposes upon our ability to keep our commitments elsewhere in the world. I hope that I am not misquoting the hon. Member for All Saints, but I believe that he said that the Army cannot play the role of the police. That is true, and it is something to which we ought to give serious consideration. We have had many assurances that the Army will remain there as long as is necessary, and we accept those assurances, but we should long ago have started thinking what is to happen in the long term. We know that even after the present emergency has died away there is the possibility, alas, of instant insurrection, even if it lasts for only a short time. The possibility is always there.
Although he did not say so, the hon. Member probably intended to go on to
698
point out that the Army is not trained to deal with the sort of situation that exists in Northern Ireland. We now have a civilianised police force, although it is not yet large enough. But between the Armed Forces and the police force there is a vacuum. I should like to know who is to deal with the question of riot control. It is not for an armchair strategist like myself to say what the solution should be and whether such a force should come from the Army or from the police. Nor is it for me to say under whose control it should be. These matters must be worked out now.
The Ulster Defence Regiment is not the body that ought to be used for the purpose of which I am speaking, though I hope that it will make great progress since it is giving great service to the community. The difficulty with that body is that its personnel are part-timers. Therefore, they are not able to be called out with the kind of despatch needed to deal with the sort of situation that those of us from Northern Ireland know only too well can arise very quickly. That is the great long-term problem, and I hope that we are proceeding to solve it.
Perhaps I may mention the question of the lengths of tours of duty by units in Northern Ireland. In the normal way the period is four months. In that time it is not easy to get to know some of the areas in which the troops find themselves. By the time the troops have learned to know an area, they are whisked away somewhere else and a new batch come in. When those new men come in, almost inevitably the people in the area who wish to make trouble tend to "try their wings" against that unit to see how they get on. This is something which we should try to avoid. It may be that we shall have to phase out the departure of one unit against the coming in of the next unit.
If I may give one example which I would not regard as a good situation—I may be open to contradiction on this matter and, if so, I would withdraw—the Green Howards were in Minden on 2nd July, and because of the exigencies of the situation in Northern Ireland they found themselves involved in the search of the Falls Road on 4th July. That was only two days after having left Minden and would seem to be plunging those men in at the deep end. Of course, I quite

699
understand that in that case it was no doubt an inevitable move following particular events, but this is something I feel we ought to try to avoid in the future. One answer may well be to increase the size of the usual permanent garrison in Northern Ireland.
In regard to the Ulster Defence Regiment, I know that my hon. Friend is aware that in some cases employers are withholding remuneration for days lost because of service to the Crown. This is an appalling situation at this moment, and I hope that the opportunity will be taken to publicise the fact that employers might be called upon to make some sort of sacrifice in the present situation since they could give assistance in the matter of remuneration where at present they are failing to do so. There are other difficulties for men serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment in regard to tax problems and remuneration throughout their period of service. However, these are matters of detail which I have put to my hon. Friend on other occasions and I will not go into them now.
I conclude by reiterating my admiration for the courage and bearing of the troops and by wishing them well in the task of seeking out those who have perpetrated this monstrous crime and bringing them to justice. During the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill a short time ago on the subject of Northern Ireland my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain On), in speaking of the death of Gunner Curtis, said that the widow should be told that that gunner did not die in vain. My hon. Friend was right to say that that soldier died in maintaining the authority of democracy in a British city. I can only hope and pray with other hon. Members of this House that not many more men will have to die in that same cause.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Any politician who thinks that he has the wisdom to contribute to debates in this House on a whole range of subjects is either deceiving himself or sadly mistaken. I am conscious that I have said little or nothing of Northern Ireland and indeed have little or nothing to contribute other than second-hand opinions. One
700
of my second-hand opinions will be, perhaps, what the hon. Member said regarding the length of service and the tour of duty. I am aware of this. I echo what the Minister rather movingly said about keeping the dastardly element in their ghetto and not over-reacting and creating sympathy for them.
I pass to another second-hand opinion which is held by a number of people in Scotland—I do no pretend a great number—and I pass it on sotto voce and as gently as I can. I do not repeat it loudly. A number of my constituents ask themselves in all seriousness just how wise it is to send Scottish regiments to Northern Ireland. There is a feeling that to a certain extent they are provocative. I admit straight away that I can understand the Army's point of view that there might be considerable reaction in the Army if it were said that a certain unit of the British Army could not go to a certain place. I understand that, and I simply pass on the second-hand opinion that there is a feeling in Eastern Scotland that we may not be the best people to be posted to this place at this time.
I go back to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and what he said about recruiting and the importance of staunching the flow of people who leave the Services. There is no point in increasing recruiting if we lose as many people at the other end, and the Minister made this point himself. The problem is obvious enough; the issue is what can be done about it. It comes back to the question of legitimate career expectations, and what we do to preserve the legitimate career expectations of people in the Forces.
I ask the Minister whether it is true that a number of people leave the Services earlier than they might do because they want to go "while the galloping is good", and while they have the opportunity of another job before they are many years older. A guarantee might be meaningless, but if we could give a greater assurance that people leaving the Forces at 35 to 40 would be in just as strong a position to get a job in civvy street as those who leave between 25 and 35, the flow out of the Forces prematurely might be staunched. Therefore, I think that connections with industry are extremely important. I know that the Department

701
has received a good deal of private and public advice on this subject, and I should like to know what the Government are doing to ensure that those who take the risk of staying on in the Forces for a reasonable time make a smooth transition to civilian life.
On officer recruiting, the Minister talked about the difficulties of numbers at Sandhurst. I last went on an M.P.'s visit to Sandhurst four or five years ago, and one's experience can easily be dated. There are not only Sandhurst and Mons but also the considerable facilities at Shrivenham. Those whose interests have brought them into contact recently with Europeans cannot fail to be impressed by the quality of the people who have come out of the Ecole Polytechnique. I am not suggesting that Shrivenham should be modelled on exactly the same lines, but it could be expanded and the concept of civilian Shrivenham scholars accepted. There are considerable facilities there, and costs should not be too great. When I went there the staff was of seemingly good quality, and the Forces as a whole could have made a good deal more use of Shrivenham as a basic facility.
I understand from personal contacts that the scheme whereby potential university students have gone to Mons for a month, or five or six weeks between leaving school and going to a university has been a success. Again, I hope that we shall hear a comment by the Minister on this, together with a value judgment about whether a young man of considerable ability spending only five or six weeks at Mons really is sufficiently experienced to be of use in commissioned service. I do not know, but it will be interesting for the House to have some kind of Ministerial comment on the matter.
I now change the subject, since I wish to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) about the motor industry and equipment and its relationship with the Service Departments. I am not urging any case for the British Leyland factory at Bathgate, which makes trucks and tractors, but hon. Members who represent constituencies concerned with the motor industry know that there is a certain amount of discontent at the nature of bulk buying by the British Services. I understand that discussions are going on at present between the motor
702
industry and the Services. Perhaps out of those discussions there will come a more rational process of bulk ordering. The Minister may not wish to comment on that tonight, but I should like to be written to on that issue at the hon. Gentleman's convenience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was so right in saving that this problem of recruitment and getting men to stay in the Forces is bound up with social conditions. I gave notice to the Department that I wished to raise the issue of housing. Certainly it is my impression that a great number of local authorities up and down the country, though not all, just do not behave very fairly towards ex-Servicemen. They are being unnecessarily difficult and less than charitable and, though there are many defence matters about which I do not agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, I stand second to none in believing that the British Serviceman who has served his country should get a fair deal when he decides to leave the Forces. This should be made clear to local authorities.
Having stated the problem, one realises the difficulty of a councillor who has a longish housing list and is expected to put someone coming out of the Forces above people who have been on the list for some time. However, there are a number of areas where houses have been greatly over-built. In my own constituency, there are over 300 empty houses in Livingston New Town, and some 230 empty houses in the very small town of Blackburn-by-Bathgate. I can quite see that that news may astonish my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), with his problems, but the fact is that there are massive numbers of perfectly decent houses, and the Defence Department should make contact with those local authorities and new towns that have available houses. I suggest that, as a corollary, some special effort should be made to create jobs where the houses are available. If we had had this debate six months ago, I should have left it by saying, "Come to Livingston New Town because there are jobs for ex-Servicemen". The situation is not quite so easy now. As it happens, there are great difficulties following the Rolls-Royce catastrophe. Up and down the country, there are those authorities which have overbuilt. The Defence Department should

703
contact them and see what can be worked out, because this is a real problem.
I come to another equally pressing problem which I have raised with the Department and which is the subject of a Ten-Minute Bill on alimony or, as we call it in Scotland, aliment.
The experience of many hon. Members is that when a marriage breaks down the man often leaves his district and takes refuge in the Forces. I am not passing moral judgment here. However, I think that the Services have a moral obligation to any wife and children who are left in respect of whom a court order has been made. As we know more and more, and as the Prime Minister admitted at Question Time, with the increase in separations and divorces this has become a national problem. As I say, the man often takes refuge in the Forces, and they are sometimes uncharacteristically less than co-operative in making the individual face his responsibilities. It is difficult for an employer, be it the Services, a private employer or a public corporation, to meddle in a man's Private affairs. But in cases where decisions have been reached by the courts, those decisions ought to be honoured. I should be interested to hear any comment from the Defence Department on how it can help in this direction.
Another problem about which I have asked Questions concerns drugs. I make it quite clear that I have absolutely no evidence of drug taking in our Forces. However, the Americans tell us that 75 to 80 per cent. of troops in the American Army in Vietnam take drugs. Having just returned from an Anglo-American conference in Germany and spoken to some of the American military, there is no doubt that this is a major problem with American forces in Germany. I am not suggesting that it is a problem in the British Forces, because I have no evidence; but it strikes me, with what is going on round the world, that the Services have a special responsibility, especially to those under 18. The Minister talked about the success of junior recruiting. I hope that some kind of pastoral vigilance will be exercised in catching any nascent drug problem in the bud before it develops. I have men-
704
tioned American experience. I hope that it will not be our experience.
The next issue to which I want to refer is O.P.M.A.C.C.—Operation Military Aid to the Civil Community. It is within the recollection of the Department that a number of hon. Members took a deep interest in this project in the days when General Sir Derek Lang was Commander-in-Chief in Scotland. General Sir Derek Lang took us on a series of visits by helicopter round the Islands to see what was being done at Breich, Colonsay, and elswhere. I have the impression—indeed, it is not only my impression; it is shared by people in a better position to know than I am—that somehow the steam has
gone out of the O.P.M.A.C.C. crusade. Somehow the Services seem less enthusiastic than they were about Operation Military Aid to the Civil Community, so I should like to ask one or two questions about it.
Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) raised the issue of what the Services were doing in Tunisia near Gafsa mending the pipeline and carrying out pumping operations. How is that going? Has the work been completed? What are the engineers abroad doing? This was working up to a useful scale. I have always been conscious, when discussing O.P.M.A.C.C., that there must be a training content. It is no good saying that the Forces can do this job, that job, or any job which comes along which might be of use to developing countries. I recognise that there must be a training content to it. Am I wrong in thinking that enthusiasm has waned for this particularly useful project?
The next issue concerns Service land. At Question Time today there were Answers on Lord Nugent's Committee. Am I being unfair to suppose that this Committee is taking rather a long time about its job? If I am not, some progress report should be given, because there is still a vast acreage within the control of the Department.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Committee has about 500,000 acres to consider over the entire country, and it has only just started. The hon. Gentleman is being a little impatient.
Mr. Dalyell: What is the time scale? When will it report?
Mr. Ian Gilmour: We do not know, but it will certainly take some time: this is an enormous undertaking.
Mr. Dalyell: I will let that subject be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said most of what I would have liked to say about doctors, and said it very well, but there is an important issue here of comparative pay, and one which certainly worried the last Secretary of State for Social Services. To attract Service doctors at all, may it not be necessary substantially to put them in a special category and increase their pay to make it match something like what they would get in civilian life? I can understand that this raises awkward problems with equivalent ranks in the Forces.
In all my reservations about policy, I was very glad when the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), created the military salary. Without question, and in any company, those who serve in the Forces should be properly treated and properly paid. Therefore, to continue and perhaps to improve this policy certainly has the support of those of us who may have reservations about some of the larger issues.
I should like to pass on something that I heard at the Salzburg Seminar in American Studies where I was a visiting lecturer, along with Emilio Daddario and several other Americans. Some of the students, who were German and were of a critical turn of mind and in a position to know, commented very favourably on the behaviour and general decorum of the Rhine Army. Certainly this should be said by those of us who have recent information on this subject.
It might be proper to ask the Minister to pass on to those responsible for the general set-up in the Rhine Army this feeling among potentially rather critical young Germans that, given that we are an army and that an army anywhere may not by definition be universally popular, the British Army of the Rhine has behaved very well over the past few years.
9.13 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: When almost exactly a year ago we debated the Army Estimates, the debate was wound up for the then Opposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr.
706
Younger). It is, of course, only the fact that he now has other responsibilities in the Scottish Office that precludes him from taking part in either the questioning today of the Home Secretary or this debate in view of the fact that two of the soldiers who were murdered yesterday lived in his constituency.
I very much echo what every hon. Member has said so far about what should be our reactions to what has happened. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that he wondered whether Scotsmen were in some way aggressive or called forth retaliation. Having served in a Scottish regiment in the North of Ireland for a year during the last war, and having received untold kindnesses from the people of Northern Ireland, I cannot believe that the spirit of the country is basically changed. What we are dealing with, I believe, is an isolated part of the community. In the community as a whole, we Scotsmen can play a full and active part.
Since our two-day debate the other day, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) said, we have had the report of the Estimates Sub-Committee C on the recruitment for the Armed Services. Although, as it only came out this week and it is a fairly thick volume, I have not had time to go through it all, I found something rather worrying in regard to the situation in Northern Ireland and the difficulties of recruitment to the Armed Forces. Paragraph 15 on page 209 says:
"Rather more than 80 per cent. of male other ranks recruits to the three Services combined join at ages between 15 and 19 at their last birthday."
Later it goes on to show how 80 per cent. of the target of recruiting comes into this 15–19 age group. This means that if we have a target for the Army of 28,000, about 22,000 aged between 15 and 19 come into the Army each year.
I had the good fortune last year to be a member of an all-party delegation which went round the British Army of the Rhine. We visited many regiments in Germany, and the extreme youth of the men serving there was evident. There is nothing wrong with this, but it brings home to one the need to appreciate the different situation which arises when one is sending men in to what has been described in the House, when referring to

707
Northern Ireland, as active service conditions. In other words, are we really happy that such a high proportion of very young men should be serving in these difficult conditions?
During that visit I paid to B.A.O.R. last year—and I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the efficiency and high standard of the training as well as the high morale of the troops we saw—two points were stressed. First, when giving us a briefing about the activities of his regiment, one commanding officer, telling us of what went on and describing the conditions in which his men lived, projected on to a screen from an illustrated paper that had been published earlier that week the new accommodation that was being provided for prisoners in one of Her Majesty's prisons. He then asked us to compare the barrack room accommodation which was being provided for Her Majesty's Armed Forces with the accommodation that was being provided for those who were serving Her Majesty's pleasure in prison. It was noticeable that in that case, the people in prison were getting a good deal better accommodation than were the soldiers serving overseas.
I reiterate that it was referring to barrack and not to married quarter accommodation, which, in that station, was remarkably good. This is something which the Army authorities must, in view of the continuing difficulties which we shall face in sending Forces to Northern Ireland, take very much into account.
As I understand it, the amount of really good accommodation available in Northern Ireland is small, that about six out of 10 "rotating" units are living in not very good accommodation and that, basically, they are travelling to and from Germany. If they are to have bad accommodation during the four months that they are in Northern Ireland—simply because better accommodation is not provided—something must be done to ensure that the accommodation they get when they arrive back in Germany is first-class.
We owe this to our troops. They put up with hardships and deprivations. They face a considerable challenge in Northern Ireland and they want to rise to that, meet it and conquer it. When they return to Germany they should be given much
708
better accommodation than they are getting in Northern Ireland. The continued presence of British troops in Northern Ireland underlines the necessity for this.
Another factor on recruiting which was stressed to us in B.A.O.R. was the fact that, owing to changed circumstances in the world, there is a lack of adequate training areas for troops to use when firing live ammunition. These areas are necessary if they are properly to assimilate battle conditions.
This, too, is vital for moral because a unit needs to know that part of its cycle of training involves being able to go to a training ground where it can be equipped properly to carry out its rôle. A great disservice is done to the morale of any regiment, and, therefore, to recruiting if these facilities are not made available.
More of our Forces might be sent to Canada for training. The cost of transporting units there would be very much less than it would be to send them to Australia or New Zealand—although in terms of fighting in Arctic conditions the mountains and glaciers of New Zealand might prove a useful training ground. Nevertheless, the transportation of units to Canada would be more practical on grounds of cheapness and ease.
In dealing with the Northern Ireland situation, would it not be possible to station at least one extra regiment in South-West Scotland or in Wales, where, in either case, only a short sea journey would be involved? We do not necessarily need to have people living in the atmosphere of tension that there must at times be in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that wives and families would be happier if troops were to be deployed from, say, Stranraer to Larne, which is a short and quick voyage.
I must declare an interest when I speak of the Scottish yeomanry regiments. I served in one of them and one of my sons is now serving in it, and it might be said that I am prejudiced. We have in Scotland three yeomanry regiments. One of them, the Ayrshire Yeomanry, has been allotted a squadron in the new Armoured Car Regiment and I make no complaint about its good fortune in that respect. But in the Reserve Forces there are two Territorial armoured car regiments, one in England and the other three-quarters in England and one quarter in Scotland.

709
The Lowland Yeomanry comprises the Lothian and Border Horse, the Lanarkshire Yeomanry and the Glasgow Yeomanry, and the Highland Yeomanry comprises the Scottish Horse and the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry. These two yeomanry regiments, built out of five, still carry on with a small cadre waiting to be called on to do something, and I only say that one can ask people to wait too long. The Scottish yeomanry regiments had an unsurpassed record in speed of recruitment in 1939, and I do not believe that they are getting a fair crack of the whip at present in allocation to armoured car regiments in the Territorial Army.
If my hon. Friend were to agree it would be fairly easy, at a comparatively small expense, to put matters right by having four fighting squadrons instead of three in the new Armoured Car Regiment. This would allow the extra squadron to he recruited betwen the Lowland Yeomanry and the Highland Yeomanry, and give the cadres the opportunity they so urgently seek to play their part in the enlarged Reserve Forces. The tensions and difficulties which will continue for some time in Northern Ireland and the "stretch" they involve mean that the forces could only be built up in an emergency in Europe by bringing in the Reserve Forces. This would justify doing as I suggest. The time to raise the extra squadron would be when, if not before, the original regiment, which is to start recruiting on 1st April, reached its level.
A two-day defence debate and then three evenings devoted to the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates does not give sufficient prominence to the Armed Forces. I understand the difficulties which might arise over certain aspects of confidentiality arising from evidence before a Select Committee, but if hon. Members cannot be trusted to assimilate and keep confidential a certain amount of information relating to defence it says little for the House. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that there is a need for a Select Committee on defence.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the extreme youth of our Forces in Germany. It is like the comment that our policemen are get-
710
ting younger every day. The fact is that it is rather unfortunate that we are growing older quicker than we like.
This year the debate on Army Vote A takes place under the shadow of the tragic murder of the three British soldiers in Northern Ireland yesterday. I join in the expressions of sympathy with the relatives, and echo the sense of outrage at this brutal and callous murder of three British soldiers who were off duty.
I know from my experience that ever since the end of the war, and even before the war, British troops have had to endure this kind of thing in stations in all parts of the world. Such outrages have happened in such places as Palestine, Egypt, Malaysia, Cyprus and more recently Aden, but they were taken more as part of the job. These murders took place in a city nearer at home—in fact, literally at home—and the sense of outrage of the British people has not yet been felt. We shall feel it more when we return to our constituencies at the weekend and try to explain to our constituents what our Forces are doing in Northern Ireland. Every weekend people ask me why our Forces are out there, and I do my best to explain why. Hon. Members must still explain that British Forces will have to stay in Northern Ireland to keep the peace there.
In every society groups of people can be found who are willing and able to perpetrate such acts of terrorism and brutal murder for purely political ends. I appeal to the British troops in Northern Ireland not to retaliate. They are the finest troops in the world, but as I have been in similar positions I know that restraint is not all that easy at the flash point. However, time is a great healer and the discipline of the ordinary British soldier is in itself a great deterrent. We should not take it too much for granted, however, but should praise the British soldier for what he is doing in Northern Ireland. He is performing one of the most disagreeable duties that the British soldier has been called upon to perform for a number of years.
I stress that acts such as these are not perpetrated by the Irish people, at any rate not by the Irish people that I know. It is just an element, the sort of element, as I say, which one may find in pretty well any society in the world. Coming

711
from Irish stock myself, with an Irish name, I should not like it to be thought that this was the work of ordinary Irish people. In fact, I know that it is not the work of ordinary Irish people.
I have said enough about the problems in Northern Ireland and I leave them there, save for a comment—I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) will agree here—about the need to speed up our work on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, because I feel that we could save some of the more unpleasant consequences of having 17year-old Servicemen in Northern Ireland. I well understand how it has happened, due to the wording of the active service clause in the Army's disciplinary code, but what it comes to is that there can be de facto active service in the United Kingdom, and we cannot declare a whole area in the United Kingdom as an active service area.
We have had serious discussions on this point in the Select Committee, and I am sure I am right in saying that an Amendment may well come out which will delete the two words "United Kingdom" and probably save such a situation in the United Kingdom, with soldiers serving in Northern Ireland at the age of 17.
I say that having myself had experience of serving overseas on an active service station well before I was 18 years old. But that is neither here nor there now, and I should like to see a change made to save that possibility in Northern Ireland.
We are not discussing tonight the normal Army Vote A, and I do not wish to cover ground which has already been discussed, especially as so many hon. Members still wish to speak. Quite a few of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) are, I think, to be dealt with by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. Incidentally, perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend, who was considerably worried about payments under court orders, that we are looking at another practice which is known to go on, that is, of Servicemen joining the Army in order to dodge their hire-purchase debts.
Now, a few words about the redundancy scheme. I went on a private visit
712
to Berlin recently and was very pleased to stay with a warrant officer there and be greatly entertained in the sergeants' and warrant officers' mess over Christmas. I was a little perturbed, however, about the talk going on among some of the sergeants and warrant officers—only relatively few of them—about the Army redundancy scheme.
These men, who are, in the main, so to speak, blocked by educational qualifications or by age from further promotion, see themselves really at a standstill. With 16, 17 or 18 years' service in the Army, they see themselves at a particular level and unable to go further, yet they will have to stay on for another four or five years and find it all the more difficult to secure civilian jobs when they come out.
There is a corresponding problem in the sense of filling the promotion ladder within the regiments concerned. We could possibly lose recruitment here of good young material, young men who would come along and yet stay at the corporal level because all the other ranks were filled above them. This is another reason for some concern about the redundancy scheme and the promotion ladder being stopped at a certain point for certain men.
I was a little worried at the number of people applying for redundancy out of the Army who told me that the redundancy scheme for them had virtually ceased. If the Minister could say a few words about the scheme tonight, it would be of assistance to these men to know that it was still open. They have, after all, served for 17 or 18 years, they have to hang on, literally, for their pension at 22 years, but they are blocked from the advance which they could otherwise have because of the age and education standards now required.
I should like to raise another matter that might sound trivial, but two of my constituents saw me about it, and it received quite a bit of publicity, as a result of which I had letters from all over the country. It concerns the holders of the Meritorious Service Medal. One of my constituents showed me the medal and said that a £10 annuity went with it, but he was not getting it. I promised to look into the matter and found to my surprise that the medal does carry such an annuity

713
but that only 750 holders could receive it. After some toing and froing between the Defence Department and myself, I realised that the 750 holders receiving the annuity must be a hundred years old. Among the letters I had from holders of the medal was one from a man who said that he received it for actions whilst he was a boy on active service. He served in both world wars, so he must be well over 70 at least, and he still is not receiving the annuity.
I understand that there are only 4,500 holders of the medal. If it is worth a £10 annuity to 750 holders, surely it is worth it to all the 4,500, instead of the majority having to wait for someone to die and then going up the ladder. The Defence Department should consider extending the annuity to all the holders. The total extra cost, plus increases on the premiums in the pension warrants, would amount to only £100,000 a year. Paying the annuity to all would prevent ex-Servicemen complaining after 30 years' service that they are not receiving the annuity. These are public relations matters. The man who complained to me could, in his bitterness, talk potential recruits out of entering the Army. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter with a little sympathy. An extension would not cost too much. We could help to clear up this anomaly.
The British soldier is the finest in the world, for whatever job we care to give him. Judging by some of the things we see on television these days, I must say that if unfortunately I found myself on the other side of the picket line the fellow I should like to see lined up in front of me, for fair play and fair treatment, would be the British soldier. Certainly it would not be a Japanese policeman, in view of what I have just seen on television, or anyone else in the world. The British soldier has had a lot of practice at that sort of thing, unfortunately, and he is very good at it. I will not let anyone decry the British Army or the British soldier, because to me the British soldier is the finest in the world.
9.38 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I was not going to take part in this debate, but as many of the speakers have dealt with matters relevant to Northern Ireland I thought that I should say a word about
714
them as I represent a constituency in the North.
As I have already said, after the Home Secretary's statement, we in Ulster are under the shadow of a great tragedy. Sometimes it is only a tragedy like that, with all its fearful and frightening implications, that brings home to us the real, hard facts of the situation in Northern Ireland.
I should like first to pay tribute to the work done by our Army, and to make it clear that the people of Northern Ireland look upon the British Army as their Army.
The British soldiers have had a very difficult job to do, for many reasons. First, they were not trained to do police work. I do not think any army is trained to do police work. Yet, many of the soldiers in Northern Ireland have found that to be their rôle and task at present. It is entirely unfair in the long term to expect the soldiers to do this work. With all the good will in the world, they were not trained for the task and they cannot be expected to accomplish it.
Secondly, they have a difficult job to do because of the circumstances in which they are forced to do it. Irish politics has been the graveyard of politicians and we cannot expect young Army men to solve what the politicians have failed to solve. It cannot be expected of the Army that it can solve the problem.
I support the view expressed in the debate that the Army in Northern Ireland has not the best of accommodation. The soldiers work in difficult circumstances; in riot situations they have to put in long hours. Yet their accommodation is not of the best. This is bound to tell upon the morale of the soldiers.
Thirdly, in some areas they have the task of co-operating with the police where the police are able to take part in the security operations, but in other areas of Belfast the police are not able to take part in normal police duties. So the Army is in the situation where in some areas it is working with the police and in others it is not able to work with them. This makes the job even more difficult.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that perhaps there was prejudice among some people in Northern

715
Ireland against some regiments of the British Army. That is perfectly true, because some sections of the community dislike the Scottish regiments, for they seem to think that all Scottish soldiers are Ranger supporters. One might smile at that, but it is a fact of life that we all have to face when dealing with the realities of the Northern Ireland situation.
Fourthly, the Army has a difficult task because of the types of attack to which it is subjected. The battle front is the small street. The attacks often take place in the streets where the soldiers during the day time are accepted—where, indeed, they receive cups of tea. But at night the very same streets can be turned into a battle front against the troops. They are subjected to nail bomb attacks, to gelignite bomb attacks, to ambush, to the sniper, to the booby trap and, as we have seen, to murder when they are not even on duty.
The British Army has a very difficult rôle to fulfil in the present situation, and the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland appreciate the role that it is playing and will continue to play. I do not think that there is any fear of any reaction from the Army to this latest tragedy. I believe that the troops are well disciplined and that they will show their courage and morale at this time by not taking any retaliatory action against those who they might think were responsible for the murders. I do not think that the Northern Ireland people are afraid of the British Army retaliating in any way.
When the Ulster Defence Regiment came into being, we were informed that it would be used to protect vital installations and to do patrol duties in the border areas. Today in Northern Ireland attacks are taking place against vital installations, some of which have been destroyed. Whether this is because the Ulster Defence Regiment is not at full strength I do not know. The other evening I travelled from my constituency to the centre of Belfast, and parts of the city were in riot. There were other incidents throughout the country. Yet, never once was there a road block throughout the whole of that long journey of 70 miles. Many people feel that the security
716
position with regard to vital installations such as transformers needs to be tightened up.
I have drawn the attention of the Minister to the fact that members of the Defence Regiment have gone on duty without arms. In Newcastle, where there was a bomb outrage, U.D.R. members have on many occasions been on duty without proper equipment. How can they resist terrorists when they are not properly armed?
There is another vital matter, affecting the police in Northern Ireland. The police force has been civilianised according to the standards of the Hunt Report. That report makes it clear that there can be no arms in a police station except for revolvers and a rifle. Police stations have been under attack from machine guns, bombs and other weapons. It seems that no police station can be safeguarded unless it has the proper firepower to resist a would-be aggressor. Is it not possible for the police to be given these weapons? If not, can they not have Army protection, particularly at certain police stations which have already been attacked?
The people of Northern Ireland lie awake at night listening for explosions. Then the telephone calls go through to the police and the Press. The whole of the city awaits the morning to hear what further tragedies have been committed. This type of situation cannot continue without a breaking point. The strongest possible measures must be taken against the terrorist organisations. For too long have they bombed and murdered and got away with it. The time has come to find those responsible and bring them to the courts to be tried.
The tragedy is that if these men escape across the border they have a sanctuary and there is no extradition treaty. We have heard sympathy expressed many times from Dublin, but it is not sympathy that Northern Ireland wants from Dublin, it is action. We would like to see the Dublin Government saying that they will have an extradition treaty with Northern Ireland and ensure that these people are returned if they flee across the border. This is important, because if soldiers are to be murdered by those who have a sanctuary 40 or 50 miles away, how can this terrorism be put down?

717
I support what was said by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). I do not often agree with him—or with his brother—but I agreed with him this evening when he said that in the long term there will of necessity have to come into existence a third force. I trust that the Government will give careful consideration to this suggestion.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Richard: Overshadowing the normal debate on the Army Estimates is the whole problem of Northern Ireland. I had a number of Army questions that I wished to ask the Minister and perhaps it might be convenient if I merely ask them. I have no doubt that at some stage the experts in the Army Department will provide the answers. Then I should like to follow the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and say one or two words about the situation in Ulster and how it strikes some of us on this side of the House.
First, the questions. I understand that the Minister said something about Malta. Has the position of the Royal Malta Artillery been changed by the decision which he announced today? What is happening about the serious difficulties with quarters in Gibraltar and B.A.O.R.? The hon. Gentleman will know that it was even proposed at one stage to bring some kind of mobile accommodation to Gibraltar if the withdrawal of Spanish labour continued.
Can he give the present manning strength of B.A.O.R., some figures to show the existing levels there? He will know that in this debate last year his party made some play with what it considered to be the low manning levels and the strengths in B.A.O.R. It would be a somewhat illuminating comparison if we could be told what the present strengths were.
In this debate last year we announced the withdrawal of one battalion from B.A.O.R. to go to Ulster. How many battalions are now in Northern Ireland which would normally be in B.A.O.R. and how many battalions are the Government thinking of withdrawing?
The Minister will know that one of the things which the late Government were anxious to achieve was a concentration of the arms of the R.U.C. and ex-B Specials in properly constituted
718
armouries. Naturally, for security and other reasons, I do not ask the details, but I should be interested to know how that policy is being pursued and when it is likely to come to fruition.
I turn now to the general situation in Northern Ireland and especially to the speeches this evening by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North. Nobody in the House can have heard the views from Northern Ireland this morning with anything other than shock and horror. It is dreadful that British soldiers, unarmed and off duty, should be murdered in a part of the United Kingdom.
Having said that, it is important to try to analyse the situation to see whether the policy is right and, if it is not, how it needs to be changed. The hon. Member for Antrim, North believes the policy being pursued by the present Government, as by the last, to be misguided and wrong. I do not believe it to be misguided. The present Government are pursuing broadly the right policy in Northern Ireland, and the previous Administration laid the foundations for that policy.
But it is important to recognise that the nature of the problem is changing. We seem to have overcome the problem with which the Army was faced when it first went to Northern Ireland, namely, mobs coming on the streets and rioting against the civil authority. I do not say that we have solved it, but the problem on the streets seems slightly better now than it looked as though it would be this time last year. In Northern Ireland we have so far managed to avoid what would be the greatest difficulty of all, namely, the Catholic and Protestant mobs on the streets starting to fight one another. That has not happened so far and that is a considerable plus.
On the other hand, within the last two or three months it has become clear that the nature of the threat with which the Army is faced is different. It is different for Ulster. It is not different from the sort of threat which the British Army has had to face in other parts of the world over the last decade or so. Extremist terrorism is now apparently being pursued in Northern Ireland for political purposes. I do not believe that these extremists have popular support in

719
Northern Ireland. I see no evidence of it. I should have thought that from their point of view, if the object of the exercise is to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to come round to their own brand of politics, the policies that they are at present pursuing are bound to be self-defeating.
Faced with this situation, only three things need be said. First, it needs to be reiterated by the Government that the Army will remain in Northern Ireland until the problem is solved. That is very easy to say, but it may mean a determination to keep troops there in difficult situations—perhaps in exposed situations, and situations in which, regrettably, soldiers may continue to be killed. But unless the Government say it—and unless we all mean it when we say it—there will be no solution to the problem of Northern Ireland.
In saying that the Army will remain until the problem is solved and that we are determined to try to solve it, it would be wrong if, at the same time, we ruled out further methods of internal security to back the Army up—whether in terms of weapons, or scientific developments of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Beckenham, or in terms of legal powers. I would not rule out the extension of some of the legal powers now possessed by the Northern Ireland Government.
It is a question of balance—a very difficult and delicate question of balance—to decide whether or not a situation has arisen in which the disadvantages of accepting, perhaps, imprisonment or detention without trial outweigh the difficulties of continuing without those powers, even if they are only held in reserve. I could understand it if the feeling existed in the Royal Highland Fusiliers that the legal powers under which the Government operated in Northern Ireland were insufficient.
Secondly, the Government must make it clear that if the Army is to stay in Northern Ireland it will be retained at force levels which are high enough to do the job. That is very easy to say, but it may be difficult and painful to achieve in practice, because it involves three things. First, there is the question of numbers—making sure that there are sufficient soldiers in Northern Ireland to
720
carry out a job that is terribly wasteful of manpower on the ground. Doing an internal security job requires a lot of soldiers, and if we say that we will retain the Army at a force level sufficient to do the job it may mean hard decisions having to be taken as to the part of the world from which troops will be withdrawn to go to Ulster.
If we found that battalions were being retained in Malta or in the Far East, or in other parts of the world, as a result of which the overstretch in Northern Ireland became more intensified than it now is, my hon. Friends and I would be extremely angry.
Secondly, a commitment to retain forces at sufficient levels to do the job implies not only numbers but the length of time that units will stay in Northern Ireland. I am aware of the arugments in favour of retaining the period of four months. The Minister will appreciate that they are not arguments that have cropped up solely since 18th June last year; they were put forward before. But I have never found those arguments wholly convincing.
Granted that it is a difficult job in Northern Ireland, that unaccompanied service is something that the Army rightly dislikes, and also that to do this type of internal security job in the United Kingdom is always more distasteful than doing it in other parts of the world, we must remember that Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom and that unaccompanied service, even in Belfast, might be more pleasant for a soldier than unaccompanied service in, say, Sharjah, where soldiers now have to serve a nine months' unaccompanied tour. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the problem of the length of tour in Northern Ireland. Although I understand the views expressed by the generals on this point, I am not wholly convinced by them.
The third matter in regard to a commitment to retain force levels in Northern Ireland is that troops who go to that country may have received different and more expensive training for the job they are to do. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that it could not be expected that the British soldier could understand the intricacies of Irish politics.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the Motion relating to Defence Estimate, 1971–72 (Army), Vote A may be proceded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Speed.]
Question again proposed.
Mr. Richard: I agree with the hon. Member, but it is nevertheless important that we should realise that for a soldier to do this sort of job in Ulster at this moment of time requires a degree of political flexibility and delicacy, and unless he is trained for the job he may find it difficult to produce these qualities at short notice. Therefore, I hope that some thought will be given to this aspect when soldiers are sent to Northern Ireland.
I would utterly reject any suggestion that we should not send a Scottish regiment for service in Northern Ireland. If we ever get to the stage of saying that any part of the British Army cannot serve anywhere in the United Kingdom we shall be in a very sorry state, and I would make my protest against fragmentation of the Army.
Finally, may I say that we should re-emphasise our political commitment in Northern Ireland. If we are to give the Army this distasteful and unpleasant job it is crucial that the Army should realise—and we should make clear to the Army—that it has the full political backing of the Government and of the House of Commons. The House of Commons and the country are committed to the proposition that Ulster is part of the United Kingdom. What we are faced with in Northern Ireland is terrorism inside our own country. That is the problem that must be dealt with, and as a matter of political commitment it needs to be reiterated.
10.3 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I hope that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) will forgive me if I do not take up his points on Northern Ireland. Though I do not intend to speak on the situation in Northern Ireland, I should at least like to say how pleased I was to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) give unqualified support for the work of our troops in Northern Ireland and to hear unqualified condemnation of those who were responsible for the atrocities.
722
I agree with the hon. Member for Barons Court that the four-month tour of duty will have to be reconsidered. All of us with any experience in these matters will know that it takes a considerable time for an ordinary soldier to learn to lower gear in time of civil strife. If we look at the matter in the longer term, we must realise that it takes a man a good six weeks or so before he becomes attuned to the form of exercise being undertaken by the Army in Northern Ireland. We ought seriously to consider this matter.
I should now like to turn from Northern Ireland to some rather different points. My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty of recruiting officers into the Services. In this day and age there is a clamour by men to go to university, and as a result university places are difficult to obtain. At the same time it is extremely difficult to fill places in Sandhurst, although nobody would deny that Sandhurst provides one of the best educations in the world. We must look at the situation in the light of how education qualifies a man for future life. I have always thought that we should broaden the scope of education at Sandhurst so that when a man leaves lie can take with him the equivalent of a university degree. He would then be able to go to an employer and say, "I have a very good qualification", and he would then be able to seek and secure a better type of employment. This would add to the attraction of Sandhurst.
We all appreciate that there is a shortage of men in the Army. There is always a limited number of people who wish to pursue the call to arms, and the point is, therefore, to make the terms of service more attractive so as to recruit the extra people we need. Although pay is important, many other factors are more important. The National Board for Prices and Incomes brought out many points. There is, first, the question of married accommodation. Men want decent accommodation for themselves and for their families, and with men marrying at a younger age more married accommodation is needed.
Resettlement is also important. Men leave the Forces at an early age, and employers must be made to realise that the time which a man has spent in the

723
Services and the training he has received are of value. Men retiring from the Forces at an early age are worried that industry is not geared to offer opportunities to them. We should make clear in our recruiting drive that at the end of, say, 20 years' service the Army will do its best to make sure that a man is placed in civilian employment. A large number of people are worried about this.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about housing. A man who spends his entire life in married quarters in various parts of the world needs somewhere to live when he comes out of the Army. This is also important to recruiting. It is difficult to put pressure on local authorities, and there are all sorts of difficulties in jumping the local authority housing queue. I believe that there is a scheme of special mortgages for men leaving the Forces, and this should be plugged in our recruitment drive. The men should be told not only what they will be doing in the Services but what their future will be when they leave. I hope my hon. Friend will say something about that.
The shortage of doctors in the Services may be related to the general shortage of doctors throughout the country. It has been suggested that this situation could be improved by raising the scale of pay, but it is difficult to make special arrangements for the pay of one arm of the Services. I know my hon. Friend is thinking about this.
Although this is a Supply Day when we are considering the numbers and pay of the Forces, it is appropriate for me to say that the deployment of the Services overseas is in just about the right proportion. The bulk of our Forces are in B.A.O.R., and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) made some good points on this. I am a little uneasy at steering so close to the wind, but I entirely agree with his thesis. It is essential that troops east of Suez in the Persian Gulf should be seen to be actually on the ground. I am not concerned very much about what they are doing there. I am concerned that they should be present there the whole time. They are a positive deterrent. If our Forces are stationed permanently in an area, anyone else attempting to go in is
724
at once an aggressor. It is no good saying that that is an old-fashioned theory; it may be, but it is a very practical one. I hope, incidentally, that we shall use the jungle warfare training facilities that we have in Malaysia. I would like to see our Territorial forces being trained in those areas. It would be a great stimulus to recruiting.
To emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, we pay a very small premium in manpower for securing our position in the Middle East and Far East. Once again I emphasise that there can be no possible substitute for troops on the ground in those areas. My hon. Friend referred to the Trucial Scouts and other units. They are officered by British officers, but they are not the same as a force which is entirely British. Indeed, I go even further and say that one British battalion is better than a large force of local levies. There is a great deal of difference between British units and units which are merely officered by British officers. I do not mean by that that the Scouts do not do a good job. They are a very important part of our defence arrangements. But I feel that it is much better that the forces are British and there permanently.
I want also to say a few words about the Territorial Army. I am convinced that if we are to have a good Territorial force which is capable of backing up our Regular Army, we must make the terms attractive. A man joins the Territorials for comradeship and to serve his country. He also wants an opportunity to see other parts of the world. It is important for any Territorial unit to be given the option of service abroad. It should not be forgotten that the average man does not want to go out alone; he wants to go with his friends. However, it is even more important to give him the opportunity to serve with a unit abroad. It is expensive to take troops abroad, of course, but it is worth it.
It is no use giving the Territorial Army out-of-date material. It needs good equipment. There is the possibility of Territorials using the equipment of Regular units, but the practice can give rise to trouble. Very often when a Territorial unit has gone, vehicles are unserviceable. If we are to have a Territorial Army at all, it is important that its equipment should match that of the Regular Forces.

725
We tend always with our voluntary Services to put a limit on the time in a year that a man can spend with his unit. Before the war the Supplementary Reserve and the other Regular Reserves were able to spend up to six months a year with their units. It would be helpful if there were more flexibility. For example, it might be better for a man to do one month's overseas service every two years rather than have to stick to his 15 days in one year. I know that the difficulties of paying for this must be considered, but I hope that when my hon. Friend looks at the Territorial forces he will give serious consideration to this point. He may be up against employers, of course. It is a difficult problem, and always has been. But I feel that it would be better to give the Territorial Army more flexibility, allowing men to stay for a month every two years so giving them a good chance to see what the Regular Army is like. We might also consider giving Territorials special facilities to enter the Regular Army. This might be an important attraction to new recruits.
The Government are doing all that can humanly be done to redress the balance and to make sure that we have not only an efficient Regular Army but, to back it up, a first-class Territorial force.
10.15 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I should like to begin by re-echoing much of what has been said on Northern Ireland. Hon. Members who were in the House this afternoon will remember that I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a question about Northern Ireland. I should like to elaborate why I asked that question. I particularly asked my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the need for the Army in Northern Ireland to have its own intelligence service. I say this with some recollection of what I was told happened in Southern Ireland at the end of the First World War. My experience of Ireland is in the south rather than in the north. For 25 years I had a farm there.
One thing which I certainly learned from those who had considerable involvement in dealing with the troubles when the Black and Tans were in Ireland was that the Black and Tans would never have been able to do what they claim to have done had it not been for the
726
fact that in the background the whole time there was a fully organised military intelligence service. I recognise that when the troubles broke out in Northern Ireland recently this service did not exist in the sense that it was built up during the time of the troubles at the end of the First World War in the south. It takes time to create the necessary intelligence service. But surely our experience is that whenever soldiers have to carry out the appallingly difficult job which our Forces are having to carry out in Northern Ireland and have to work in close co-operation with the police, there comes a time, all too often, when what the police can provide is not what is necessary for the military to have, however closely they may try to work together.
I suggest that perhaps my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Department in which he is a junior Minister never fully comprehend the importance of getting this right. I have had an opportunity of talking to those who have served in Northern Ireland and have come back. Soldiers say what they always say—and with some justification—that if, right at the beginning, they had been given a full head to do what they thought was militarily sensible, we might not be having the trouble we are having today. Always when the soldiery are called in, they are first asked to go easy and not be too vigorous. Always, when that happens, the opposition builds up and eventually the action which has to be taken becomes more intense and sometimes violent.
It is the old story. We never seem to learn by mistakes which we have made in the past. It is always assumed that the politicians know best, but they rarely ever do in these circumstances.
I strongly agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I think that the best summing up of the Irishman's approach to politics which I ever heard was the Irishman who said, "The cursed English. I always said that, if they ever left, this country would go to rack and ruin. Now the divils have left us on our own on purpose to bring down the country." That is and always has been the attitude of the Southern Irish towards the English.
We are dealing with killers. The I.R.A. are killers by instinct. We should

727
treat them in the way that, in agriculture, one treats a Jersey bull: always likely to kill if given the opportunity.
Last night's ghastly tragedy, which has shocked the whole country and many other countries as well, is, I believe, due to a failure to recognise what we are up against. It was for those reasons that I
728
asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the question which I did this afternoon. I cannot emphasise too strongly to my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate that unless the soldiers in Northern Ireland are given a properly and fully equipped military intelligence service we shall never get this matter right.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Roland Moyle: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) need not have apologised for seeking to intervene in this debate, since his contribution was very much on one of the main themes which have informed the debate. In contradiction to debates on defence and Army Estimates in previous years, this debate has been notable for its tones of muted party controversy. It has been a reflective and almost ruminative debate, and none the worse for that, because the Army Estimates debate has always been an occasion when the cognoscenti make their contribution, and all the speeches tonight have been very well-informed and knowledgeable. It has been a very good debate.
The reason for the absence of controversy is easy to ascertain. For some years, every time that we have discussed these Estimates, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have attacked my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which they were administering the Forces. If they were in a kind mood, they said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and his colleagues were possibly lacking in energy or competence, but if they were unkind, they were not above casting aspersions on their patriotism.
Since last March, when we had a similar debate, we have had a General Election, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken over responsibility for the country's defences, and along with it they have taken over our policies. There may be the odd coruscation here and there, perhaps a battalion sailing around east of Suez or an armoured car in the Territorial Army or something of that sort. We do not begrudge them these fruits of victory, although we are sometimes interested to see that these coruscations are there and that at the same time the promise is made of further cuts in defence expenditure. There may well be: we shall just wait and see how it works out.
We have even got to the point at which hon. Members on this side have had to endure little lecturettes on the subject of the demographic and sociological difficulties in recruiting. I thought that some of my hon. Friends bore these
730
little lecturettes with cheerfulness and some fortitude. But it allows me to get on to my first subject, recruitment.
I do not propose to discuss the entire subject tonight. It has been mentioned frequently in these debates, but the whole subject is vitally important. If it is the duty of an Opposition to probe and question and keep the Government on their toes, it is fair comment that, on recruitment, the Government are not at the moment convincing. There is no evidence of a fresh and imaginative approach to this problem or of any new thought.
There is, in fact, almost a tendency to say that, because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are now in power, the recruitment problem will be solved. In paragraph 27 of Chapter 1, the White Paper said:
"The Government firmly believes that its intention to restore the Armed Forces to their original place in the life of the nation and to keep defence in the front rank of its priorities will in itself provide a direct encouragement to recruitment."
This is almost like saying that, just because the Minister of State happens to speak from the Front Bench, the recruiting problems will be solved. I cannot help feeling that that argument will prove a broken reed as the months and years go by.
I suppose that there is a tendency for the Government to rely on the continuing success of the three-year engagement the second bite of the military salary reinforcing the success of the first bite. We on this side would not take that point of view. Even if these new ideas are successful, what we have to bear in mind is that, so long as we are to have voluntary Regular Forces the battle for recruitment will be a continuing one and the little lecturettes which we have been reading on the subject of the demographic and sociological obstacles to easy recruitment in the years ahead are very serious ones, which we will have to consider with great seriousness.
It is interesting to note that the limited short-service commission idea which was put during the term of the Labour Government has been applied by this Administration. This is a scheme under which schoolboys with some months to spare between going to school and going

731
on to university or some other form of employment enter the Forces for three weeks training and do the remainder of their short stay, of about four months, as commissioned officers with a unit.
I understand that the first such course has recently finished and that it was a tremendous success. We must remember, of course, that the boys concerned represented first-class material, dripping with A-levels and apparently able to pick up their training very quickly. I gather that of the 25 boys involved in that course, six have already indicated that they will make the Army their career.
Whatever the future of this limited short-service commission idea, it should not be judged only on the basis of the effect it has on recruitment. I say that because one of the dangers of an all-Regular Army is that it could become substantially cut off from the life of the civilian community and the nation as a whole, and special steps must be taken to see that this does not happen.
One way to bridge this gap between civilian and Army life is this type of limited short-service commission course, because after spending their four months in the Army, these boys go on to their various professsions and occupations, but for the rest of their lives have an idea of what Service life is like. This scheme could do a lot to fill the gap that came with the ending of national service and I hope that the Service authorities will look at it from that point of view.
Generally speaking, the constructive thought in this debate has, with the exception of the comments of the hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn), come from my hon. Friends, particularly on the subject of recruiting. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-cannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) have been among those who have contributed a number of ideas. We hope that in his reply, the Minister will give evidence that the Government have also been taking a fresh look at the recruiting problem.
A major subject to be raised has inevitably been that of Northern Ireland, and it would be impossible for the
732
Opposition winding-up speech not to consider this matter. The speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) provides a perfect hook on which to hang my remarks, because I agree almost 100 per cent. with what he said.
It also allows me to repair an ommission of some months standing in that when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made his maiden speech, I had the task of speaking next and therefore of complimenting him. He made that speech from the very seat that he is occupying tonight. Unfortunately, on that occasion he had no sooner made it than he left the Chamber at high speed, with the result that I was unable to perform the task of complimenting him.
I therefore take this opportunity to tell him that he is rapidly becoming an accomplished House of Commons figure. His contributions have become more balanced and he is being listened to more carefully. I hope that that does not sound patronising. It is intended as a compliment.
On the subject of Northern Ireland, the White Paper says in paragraph 30 on page 19:
"The most important operational rôle of the Armed Forces during the last twelve months has been in Northern Ireland."
I do not wish to labour the horror which we all feel at the murder last night of three young British soldiers. Many hon. Members have spoken about this and I naturally associate myself with their remarks. They have also spoken of the admiration we feel for the way in which our troops are conducting themselves in Northern Ireland, and I associate myself with those feelings, too. I do not wish to dwell on this subject, because time is limited and I wish to deal with a number of other issues.
I join in the appeal that has been made to the British troops in Northern Ireland to restrain themselves. It is obviously intended by this action that they should be provoked. I was in a battalion on civil duties when one of our number was savagely attacked by a group of the civilian population. Fortunately, death did not result from that attack. As a result of that experience I know the feelings that must be running through

733
the Highland Fusiliers at this moment. Understanding those feelings, I still join those hon. Members on both sides who have urged the greatest possible restraint by our troops, because if they cut loose they will only make the situation much worse. I therefore ask them to restrain themselves.
I want to deal with two problems affecting Northern Ireland which were raised by the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and for Londonderry. The first concerns the rôle of the troops as regards the policing problem out there. We must understand that our troops are not policemen. The Armed Forces in the United Kingdom are called out by the Home Secretary. He has called them out in Northern Ireland in aid of the civil community. That is why they are there and that is why the Home Secretary would be the ultimate authority on security in Northern Ireland and why the military would be the ultimate executants of that security in Northern Ireland, although the Ministry of Defence provides the troops, equips them, organises them and supports them.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that the rôle of the troops is to cordon off and damp down conflict. One of the great achievements of the British troops has been the absence of mob violence between various sections of the community there. Our troops can take credit for that. It would be entirely wrong to go beyond that and criticise our troops for not introducing law and order into certain sections of the community there. It is not their job to do that. If they were to do that, I believe that they would have to have a far finer tuning in methods of civil control than they have. Our troops are not trained as policemen. It is not intended that they should be policemen.
The solution of the problem which I have in mind is one which must reside with the Royal Ulster Police Authority and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. How they do it is a matter which it would be totally inappropriate to discuss in this debate. The line between what the policemen has to do and what the soldier has to do should be clearly drawn in the first place so that attention can be directed to the right quarter.
734
The hon. Members for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and for Londonerry raised the question of intelligence. The problem, which is serious is that, because the Army has poor accommodation in Northern Ireland and because the tours are unaccompanied, the tours have been short. The average length of tour for a major unit on internal security duty in Northern Ireland is about four months. This leads to the problem that, no sooner has a unit got to grips with the problem which is facing it than it is pulled out.
A solution to this problem is needed. It can be solved to some extent by increasing the number of major units which can be accommodated on accompanied tours. This may not be the entire answer, because there is always the possibility that families would be subjected to pressure if the unruly and terrorist elements could not get at the troops, and this danger must be faced. Nevertheless, this would be a contribution.
The hon. Member for Londonderry mentioned the possibility of staggering the relief of units. This might be helpful. One of the ideas that has occurred to the Opposition is that it might be possible to provide an intelligence officer's cadre for each unit which is stationed in Northern Ireland for a long period. The major units should be fed in under such an intelligence officer and his section. This system might be extended to cover the C.O. and his section.
It is quite easy to throw such ideas across the Floor of the House in a debate like this. There might well be severe practical objections to the idea if it were implemented. However, if an intelligence officer and his section could be passed on from unit to unit this might solve one the problems facing the troops in Northern Ireland. We should like to hear what the Minister thinks of this idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian raised the question of the rôle of the Scottish regiments. Are we as a country to continue sending Scottish regiments to Northern Ireland, in view of some of the unfortunate incidents which have occurred between Scottish soldiery and certain sections of the population? On our side of the House, we unreservedly say that the Scottish regiments should continue to go to Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for

735
Londonderry said, the British Army is the Army not just of Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland; it is the Army of the United Kingdom, and should serve wherever it is necessary for it to go.
If we, perhaps, restrained ourselves from sending Scottish regiments to Northern Ireland, somebody might next point out that the King's Division is to some extent recruited in Liverpool, and we should soon be in a most complicated situation, wondering which regiment or battalion should be posted where.
There is really no need for that sort of caution. In the deployment of troops, a certain discretion can always be exercised, I suppose, but it is totally unnecessary to have a policy of deliberately refraining from posting certain regiments to certain places. Wherever the British Armed Forces are, they will behave with total impartiality. We are all completely confident of that.
Next, are we continuing to get value for money? Under the last Administration the Army took over responsibility for all motor transport for all the three Services right up, as it were, to unit level, and that has led to considerable savings, notably in the Army, where 25 types of fork-lift trucks have been whittled down to eight, but we notice in Chapter V. paragraph 33, of the current White Paper that the Blowpipe surface-to-air missile and the Larkspur and Clansman ground radio systems are being taken over by the Army for all the Services. This is another step in the right direction, but what worries us is that there is no indication in the White Paper that this sort of helpful saving in rationalisation of the logistic support for our forces is being carried on, and we should like to know that the new Ministers are turning their minds to that.
The Larkspur and Clansman radio systems are ground radio systems, and it is difficult to see who would manage them if the Army did not. One wonders, therefore, whether this is really a contribution to that new development or whether that item has been put in under the heading "Rationalisation" merely as an afterthought.
The hon. Member for Windsor raised the subject of the Reserves and T.A. service abroad. Briefly, under
736
our conception of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve we had the idea of a slimmed-down Territorial Army equipped as the Regular Army, with a function to perform alongside the Regular Army, and that this would allow for purposive training. But now what we have is the extra 10,000 reserves predicated. Apparently, recruiting is to start on 1st April, but they will be lightly equipped, and nobody is quite sure what role they are to perform and, therefore, for what role they should be trained. We fear that some of the new sense of purpose which we felt was being instilled in the new Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve will be dissipated, and we should like to know what the Government's firm plans are.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian spoke about OpM.A.C.C. and addressed some pertinent questions to the Minister. I have taken an interest in this subject myself and should like to see it followed up.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) raised the question of larger training grounds. I wholeheartedly agree. This, also, is a subject which I have pressed in debate on the Army Estimates on previous occasions. It may be some encouragement to the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that, when I was in Canada in the autumn, near Sasketoon I drove past a vast empty military camp which could not have been many miles from some huge empty spaces ideal for training large formations of troops. So I shall be very interested also in the Minister's reply to the hon. Gentleman.
We on this side feel that we handed over to the Government a Regular Army which, although it may be a little short in numbers, is second to none in the world in quality, equipment and moral. What it can do has been demonstrated in practice in Northern Ireland. We regard ourselves as having handed the Army over in trust to the Government to keep in the condition in which we left it with them, in the hope that when we resume the reins of office in the not-too-distant future we shall find it in the excellent condition in which we handed it over.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Many points have been raised in this somewhat short debate.

737
I shall answer as many as I can, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not succeed in answering them all, and if those that I do answer are answered rather briefly and skimpily.
I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) said about the Jungle Warfare Training School. It was agreed between officials in Singapore last January that there should be bilateral discussions between Malaysia and the other four Commonwealth countries involved about meeting the respective needs of the various countries for the use of the school's facilities. The discussions are now in progress, and I cannot say much more about them now.
I also have a great deal of agreement with the hon. Gentleman's other point about Singapore. We do not want more conspicuous facilities than we need. We shall try to fit in with the community as much as possible, but we must have adequate support facilities. The one example the hon. Gentleman mentioned, education, is not very suitable for integration, because of obvious language difficulties. But in general there is no great difference between us.
The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) raised the question of the shortage of doctors. This is a very serious subject, and we are closely concerned with it. My noble Friend the Minister of State is considering an investigation into the medical services which may be carried out by an independent committee, and would consider all the questions the hon. Members have raised.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd also asked how many housing commandants there are. They are established in all garrisons in the United Kingdom where the concentration of families justifies it, and serve more than 40,000 families in married quarters and official hirings. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this service should be extended abroad, but not quite the same problems arise abroad, because there are other arrangements. There are more full-time welfare officers and officers of S.S.A.F.A. and so on. Therefore, while we would not necessarily rule out such a development the hon. Gentleman will agree that
738
it is not as urgent a problem as it is in this country.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked whether the steam had gone out of operation MACC. The answer is "No". Perhaps I should have mentioned it in opening, but because the debate was much shorter than it was to have been I left out many things that I would otherwise have included in my opening speech. The tasks undertaken under the scheme during the past year have included the building of temporary piers under the Britannia Bridge in the Menai Straits after it was seriously damaged by fire; drilling wells in Thailand; and the supervision of building airfields and other works in the Solomon Islands and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
The House will know that the Army, along with the Royal Navy and the R.A.F., assisted in the major flood operations in West Malaysia. Also in East Pakistan, the Royal Engineers, assisted by the Royal Marines, repaired bridges, buildings and water pumps and helped restore other essential services. A glance at the Statement of the Defence Estimates for 1971 will show that I have mentioned only a few of the Army's activities over the last year. In fact, in the United Kingdom we carried out over 100 M.A.C.C. projects, which is a creditable number. But the primary task of the Armed Forces is to train for its operational rôle. Tasks for the civil community have to be secondary, but we carry them out when we can.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked about the strength of B.A.O.R. At 31st December, 1970, it was 53,354 men. He also asked how many units there were from B.A.O.R. in Northern Ireland compared with some other date which I forget. The answer is the same: it is one unit. Finally, he asked about the Royal Malta Artillery. No change is envisaged in that.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked about drug abuse and pointed out that there is a real problem in the American Army. Obviously we do not want to be complacent about it, but at present there is no evidence that drug abuse is a serious problem in our Army at the moment. Commanding officers and unit medical officers have been given

739
guidance on how they should instruct soldiers to alert them to the dangers. Equally, we are careful not to stimulate any morbid interest in the subject.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of housing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. While I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, he knows that the Services have no control over local authorities and that what we can do is limited. We know that there are some local authorities which are unhelpful in this matter. Anything that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can do to alter the situation will be welcomed. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in their last year of service, Servicemen can obtain loans for house purchases against their terminal grants or redundancy compensation. This is an important feature. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should try to see that this facility is more widely known than it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Sir J. Gilmour) spoke about the T. & A.V.R. expansion. Of course, some disappointment in the allocation of units is inevitable, and naturally I appreciate his feelings on the matter. But we managed to expand about five-sixths of the existing 90 cadres, which is pretty good going, and the locations of these cadres and expanded units were decided upon after very close consultation with the T. & A.V.R. Council and the Associations themselves. We tried to distribute them as equitably as possible.
I come now to a point which was raised earlier today with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It was referred to again in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon): the fact that one of the young soldiers so tragically killed in Northern Ireland yesterday was only 17. He was in fact 17 years and 5 months. Under existing rules it was in order for Fusilier McCaig to have served in Northern Ireland but I can tell the House that we have been considering whether a change in these rules should be made in view of the recently changed circumstances there.
The hon. Member for West Lothian also—sotto voce—raised the question of whether Scottish units should be employed in Northern Ireland. For the reasons given by his hon. Friend the
740
Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and the hon. Member for Barons Court, I think it is entirely right for those units to be employed in Northern Ireland. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr.ChichesterClark), Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and this is not just an English or Scottish Army but also a Northern Ireland Army. This point must a fortiori apply to the Scottish element in the Army too. There would be the problem, as has been said, of the King's Regiment.
In an interesting speech the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he had been on a long journey without coming across road blocks. I should be grateful to him if later, he would give me particulars of that journey, because I do not think that this is right. It should not be so. He also raised the question of extradition, which is not a matter for me but for the Home Secretary. The question of extradition from Eire to the United Kingdom is a matter for the Irish courts. Their Extradition Act, 1965, provides for extradition to the United Kingdom for indictable offences although extradition could be refused if the offences are held to be political or connected with a political offence. It is not for me to comment on any particular case but the hon. Gentleman will remember that only the other week an alleged member of some organisation was extradited from here to Eire and it seems that on the whole the situation could apply in reverse. I speak with a good deal of diffidence but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unduly depressed in his assessment of this situation.
Many hon. Members have raised the question of the four-month tour. It was originally raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and today by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. The four-month tour means that we are faced with additional turbulence, and obviously units have less time to become familiar with local conditions. Unlike my predecessor, the hon. Member for Barons Court, I share the general view of the Department that four months is enough. I do not necessarily believe that the hon. Gentleman's comparison with Sharjah is apt, because the people

741
who are on these tours in Northern Ireland are under operational conditions for a long time.
Mr. Richard: Originally the figure of four months was fixed at a time when troops were going into Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency, when base accommodation was extremely limited and, if I remember rightly, when forward accommodation was extremely sparse. A lot has been done since the hon. Gentleman came into office, and before, so that the situation is somewhat improved.
Mr. Gilmour: I agree that accommodation conditions have improved a bit, but for the four-month tours they still leave much to be desired in many places. There have been improvements for the accompanied tours, but most of the accommodation for the four-month tours is still temporary. I am inclined to think that anything longer than four months would be too long, but I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion about intelligence officers and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry and the hon. Member for Lewisham, North said that the Army had not been trained to be police and that, of course, is perfectly true. No one in the Army would have chosen the job which soldiers now find themselves doing in Northern Ireland. Equally, no one else can do it, and to prevent civil war in a part of the country is an extraordinarily important task and, however distasteful it may be, the Army manfully shoulders it. The Army's duty to support the civil power left it no choice, and we are in the thoroughly disagreeable situation that, at present at any rate, there is no alternative to the Army's performing that rôle, and we can only be surprised that it has performed it as well as it has.
With his historical knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) drew a rather alarming picture of the equipment we now have in Northern Ireland. He said that it had not advanced since the days of the Roman legions. I see what he means about its looks, but it is not otherwise altogether fair to say that. Over the last 12 months, the Army has been equipped with modern water cannon, the rubber baton round, which has proved effective, mobile barriers, protective clothing and devices which have enabled troops to
742
avoid casualties and more successfully to engage rioters, things like fragmentation jackets, shields and visors, abdominal protectors and leg guards, and in the pipeline there are other weapons which will be used in time. But that is not the most immediate need, because at the moment soldiers are being faced not so much with stones, as with bullets, and slightly different considerations apply.
The Army has been given a thoroughly clean bill of health by all hon. Members tonight. There has been scarcely any criticism of the way in which the Army has conducted itself, although the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, in a regrettably partisan fashion, ventured to criticise one or two of our dispositions and our policy decisions. I am sure that he will regret introducing such a disagreeable note into the debate! The Army has been widely praised and the whole House is deeply proud of the Army and grateful to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 195,500, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, and that a number not exceeding 60,000 be maintained in the Regular Reserve, that a number not exceeding 90,500 be maintained in the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, and that a number not exceeding 6,000 be maintained in the Ulster Defence Regiment, during the year ending on 31st March 1972.

APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
11.0 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
This amending Order is presented for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, under which the principal Order was made in December, 1966. I am pleased to put forward this amendment because, while it represents a very limited extension of powers, it is a change which will give further backing to an organisation doing, and recognised as doing, good and useful work for this industry.

743
The amendment has a simple purpose. At present growers in business in the industry with five or more acres of apples and pears must register with the Apple and Pear Development Council, but only then do they become liable to its annual charge made on an acreage basis. The amendment before the House will place the liability to the annual charge on a grower, as defined, whether or not he has completed registration with the council, and the council will not have to lose money to which it is entitled if someone delays his registration. When I say "a grower as defined", hon. Gentlemen will notice that the definition of a grower is changed slightly by the amending Order.
The House will wish to know how the industry regards the amendment. The Act of 1947 requires of me, before I amend a Development Council Order, to consult the council and those organisations which I consider to be representative of substantial numbers of persons engaged in the industry. I am able to report that the various bodies—the council itself, the National Farmers Union, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union—all support the change. In doing so they will have had in mind, as will the House, the work of the council and the way it has been carrying it out.
Its main task is to promote the sale of home-grown apples and pears, but it also carries out research and other subsidiary tasks useful to the organisation and development of an effective industry. Many factors determine what returns growers earn, and there is no simple yardstick by which one can say that such and such an improvement is due to the council, but I believe there are few in the industry who grudge it recognition. Where market research has tested the results of the council's special sales weeks which it has had, and special demonstrations, very striking increases in sales have been measured. The council's entry into television publicity in the north has been similarly encouraging.
The council keeps its administrative costs well down, without any loss of quality, and provides all the publicity for the industry's products that it can within what is still a very modest budget. Once the annual charge has been settled in any
744
one year within the statutory limit, and with my approval, it is only right that the council should be enabled to gather in all the money to which it is entitled, and without having to spend heavily to do so.
The great majority of growers readily fulfil their obligation under the principal Order to register and pay the annual charge. On the experience of four years since the council's establishment, however, there are a few growers who evade or delay registration, thereby evading or delaying payment of the annual charge, and it is unacceptable that a selfish few should be able to avoid liability for their own contribution.
The amendment will make precisely the same growers liable for the annual charge as, of course, are liable under the principal Order provided they carry out their obligations to register. In this respect the draft Order makes no change. Nor would it have any retrospective effect on those growers who are still not on the register for one reason or another. However, if they fail to register after the date the amending Order comes into operation they will be liable to the annual charge as from that date. The grower who enters the industry on a date after the Order comes into operation will be liable to pay the annual charge as from that date, whatever may be the date on which he becomes registered.
This measure will assist the council and is fair to those, the great majority of commercial growers, who already support the council. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the council further success. I am extremely grateful —and I think all those who know anything about the apple and pear industry are extremely grateful, too—for the unstinted work of the chairman, Sir Richard Boughey, and the other members of the council, and of its staff, who do an extremely good job.
The draft Order has the support of the council and representative organisations in the industry, and I am glad to commend it to the House.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Michael Barnes: The purpose of the amendment Order, as the Minister has pointed out, is to place the liability for paying the annual charges on the growers who

745
come within the qualification, whether or not they are registered. That is a very sensible amendment, to ensure that the council gets all the funds to which it is entitled.
I take this opportunity to compliment the Apple and Pear Development Council on the job that it is doing, but I wish that it were possible for the council to operate on a bigger budget than at the moment. Although the council can charge up to £3 per acre to growers, at the moment it is charging only £2·25, which on about 70,000 acres produces about £150,000. Since the council aims most of its publicity activity at the consumer, one cannot help feeling that a budget of that order is not enough to make much impression on consumers, bearing in mind the sort of publicity budgets that food manufacturers generally have at their disposal.
There can be no doubt of the need for greater publicity for apples and pears grown in this country, and for more support for the industry. I cannot help feeling that many housewives are sometimes not aware when English apples start to come on the market, in September and October. This is a great pity, because the quality of these English apples is much superior to many imported apples, for which housewives have to pay considerably more in the summer—in July and August—until English apples come on the market in quantity in September and October.
The council also directs much of its work at growers. I am sure that the need is to encourage growers to concentrate on producing a limited number of varieties, because there are so many varieties of English apple grown in this country—some of which are no longer a very good commercial proposition. But there is a need, therefore, for some good coloured varieties that will keep well and can be sold alongside Cox's, right through the period when English apples are available in the shops, until April.
The ability of our own industry to offer this kind of continuity, and to offer the consumer a choice of home-grown apples right through to April, will be especially important if we obtain entry into the European Economic Community and have to face even stiffer competition than at present from Continental apples, such as French Golden
746
Delicious. The council is obviously well aware of these problems, and has carried out a number of surveys into refrigeration capacity, the future production of apples, sales patterns and price levels if we enter the European Economic Community.
The only other aspect of the council's work to which I want to refer is its contribution to dental health. It contributes, through the Fruit Producers' Council, to the work and the publicity that that body does, and the council has its own apples-for-schools schemes. I am not sure what the division of responsibility is between the Apple and Pear Development Council and the work that it may do in connection with promoting dental health from apple eating, as opposed to the work for dental health that the Health Education Council may do. The promotion of apple eating among children is a means of improving dental health and bringing the sales of homegrown apples to a higher level.
We welcome the Order, which is a very sensible one because it will enable the council to get in all the money to which it is entitled. We compliment the council on the work it is doing, but we should like to see it operating on a larger budget, particularly in view of the problems which the industry will face if we go into the European Economic Community. Will the Minister say what prospect there is of the council being able to operate on a considerably larger budget in the foreseeable future?
11.10 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I, too, would like to congratulate the council on the extremely good work it has done. I am delighted that the Minister has seen fit to come along at this late hour rather than send the Parliamentary Secretary. It shows the importance which he attaches to this matter. I am delighted that the Worshipful Company of Fruiterers, of which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) have the honour to be members, recently gave the Apple and Pear Development Council a little token of our appreciation of what it has done, and that the Minister was present at that ceremony.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) made one fundamental mistake in his interesting speech

747
in suggesting that there should be coloured varieties to market alongside Cox's. What is needed above all else is fewer varieties. The one exception to the generality is the technical need for adequate pollinators for Cox's. The hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree when he screams for new varieties. Fewer varieties would enable the council to market much more efficiently.
As the hon. Gentleman said in his main remarks, the council is operating on a shoe-string. Sir Richard, his vice-chairman and all his officials deserve to be congratulated—
Mr. Barnes: I was not intending to, and I do not think I did, advocate that there should be more varieties. I was trying to make the point that there were too many varieties, some of them no longer a commercial proposition. What is needed—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree—is continuity of supply in the shops through as long a period as possible. Supermarkets and multiples, which are expanding fast, want to offer the consumer a choice, so it is necessary to concentrate on a few coloured varieties, but there needs to be more concentration on them so that there is choice for the consumer.
Mr. Wells: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for choice for the consumer. What is needed is a single homogeneous product that can be easily advertised. Let us go for the single product. A person selling "Daz" wants to sell "Daz" and does not want to sell "Floggit" as well. I know the hon. Member is a soap vendor, and I do not want to get out of order.
Let us get back to the Order. I want to propound one fundamental new thought to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to stress the need to bring the selfish few into line, but the item in the Order about which I have a small doubt is the definition, which remains at five acres. The definition of a grower under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme, is a man who has four acres, or four adjusted acres making allowance for glass and other structures.
I believe that there would be a good argument for the Order defining an apple grower as a man with four acres. This would immediately bring a great many
748
more rather incompetent growers within the orbit of the scheme. They would then have to pay the levy; they would cut up, and because they cut up they would be prosecuted and chivvied and, in due course, they would grub out their apples. It is in this sector that we get the old, run-down vicarage orchard, for example. I was a proprietor in that sector myself at one time, and I am delighted to say that I grubbed out mine many years ago. It is the people with this kind of orchard who put up a bumper crop in the sort of season we have just had and who should be put out of business. If the Order were fixed at four acres, they would have this disciplinary action. This may be rather an unpopular line to take, but it is truthful. They are the producers of very indifferent fruit, and they are doing irreparable harm to the industry. If the acreage were dropped to four, we would have a single homogeneous definition of a grower, both for the Horticultural Improvement Scheme and for this levy.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman both laid stress on the necessary disciplinary nature of the Order. We are not forcing discipline upon unwilling victims; we are assisting an extremely willing trade to help itself. I believe that if the further discipline I have suggested could have been carried out, my right hon. Friend's present difficulties about announcing an adequate grubbing out grant to reduce the existing quantity of indifferent apples that come forward in September and October would have been obviated, because the people who are producing these apples that we do not want on the market would have been put out of business quite voluntarily if they had been faced with paying a levy.
When we have another Order in future, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider what I have said. It is too late to ask him to amend the Order, I do not think that it could be done anyway. But if we could have a single definition it would strengthen the entire horticultural position. It seems that we have an opportunity to discuss this subject only every three or four years, or even longer. I hope that this time we shall have an opportunity rather sooner than that. Perhaps when my right hon. Friend comes to announce his grubbing out grant, he

749
might think of altering the definition at that stage.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Eric Deakins: I, too, support the Order, not only for what it contains but for the opportunity it provides to discuss for a few minutes, even at this late hour, the problems, present and future, of the apple and pear growers, which, in themselves, are part of the general problem of horticulture and, indeed, of agricultural marketing.
Since this may be the only debate we shall have, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) said, for several years, we should pay some attention to the latest report of the Apple and Pear Development Council, the third annual report. There appear to be two problems involved. The first, as outlined by the Order, is that of getting more registered growers who have not bothered to pay, and others who have not bothered to register, to pay the annual levy.
According to the report, up to 31st March, 1970, about 161 out of 1,800 growers had not paid the necessary levy. That is about 9 per cent., which is a significant minority and suggests that all is not well. Anything the Order can do to alleviate and improve the position will be welcomed by both sides of the House. That, however, was only one of the problems to be faced by the Apple and Pear Development Council. The other problem was that of its income. During the year 1969–70, its income was much less. It overspent by something like £25,000, because the—
Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member is slightly mistaken in saying that the council overspent. By its extremely careful administration in early years, the council had been able to build up a reserve and to carry money forward. This was an important feature of its good administration in its first years.
Mr. Deakins: I certainly would not want to give a false impression. What the hon. Member says is correct, but the council dug into reserves and it overspent on current income. Since its reserves had been run down for the past few years, understandably and wisely, it now has to seek ways of building them up.
750
Last year there was another amending Order to the 1966 Scheme allowing the council to double the acreage levy to 60s. Even if it takes full advantage of that, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said, it has not yet done, it is likely that in the coming year it will be called upon to spend as much of its income, if not more, and it will be faced with serious problems.
I want to draw attention to the way in which the major part of the council's income in the year 1969–70 was spent. It was spent almost entirely on publicity for home-grown fruit to get rid of seasonal surpluses. That is a worthy aim, but if the vast majority of the council's expenditure is on that one item, it is a very short-term policy. Nothing is being put by for the future, either in building up a reserve or in terms of undertaking into research into different varieties, different methods of marketing, further standardisation, quality standards or other matters. Those are the kind of problems which face all sections of agriculture, and not merely horticulture.
When my hon. Friend speaks of £120,000 as being not a large sum, I agree with him in the context of food manufacture generally; it is not very much for a year's advertising. I remind the House, however, that a much larger industry—the bacon industry—is spending only about £100,000 during the current year on advertising British bacon, for which there is a much bigger sale in cash terms. It is a much bigger part of agricultural sales. If, therefore, £120,000 is the current level of expenditure on advertising and is wisely spent, it can go a long way.
Where I would query the spending of this money is on the fact that it is such short-term expenditure. Once one season's surplus has been disposed of, there is no money left and the levy income must be built up again to deal with the next season's surplus. Nothing is left to deal with the longer-term problem, which the council also mentions in its report, of entry into the European Economic Community. If I may be permitted to read a few extracts from the council's most recent report on this subject—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon.

751
Member will not stray too far into matters concerning the possibility of joining the European Economic Community.
Mr. Deakins: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely taking up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick. I had thought that since he had alluded to this, I would be in order in at least mentioning that the council—I will not bother to quote; hon. Members can read the report for themselves—is extremely worried about the prospect of entry into the Common Market, not only in the short term in the sense that large surpluses from the Community will be dumped on our market, with no means of protection once the transitional arrangements are out of the way, but also concerning the longer-term marketing of agricultural produce, particularly apples and pears, in this country.
The council suggests that there should be a form of central organisation, perhaps sponsored, even paid for, by the Government, which could look into the marketing of home-produced food. I know that we have a British Farm Produce Council, but it has limited funds at its disposal. What the Apple and Pear Development Council suggests in its most recent annual report is that with the Common Market in view, if and when we go in, there should be a central Government body, including, perhaps, producer representation, designed specifically to advance the interests of home-grown fruit against the huge surpluses that we are likely to have.
If, however, I may give a personal opinion, no matter how much money is spent, if and when we go into the Corn-men Market I fear that, with the best will in the world, the Apple and Pear Development Council will not be able to safeguard the future of home-grown fruit growers, for a variety of reasons, which I certainly do not want to go into now. The council in its most recent report is extremely pessimistic. I refer to paragraphs 7 and 10 and say no more about it.
Have the Government any longer-term plan for both the Apple and Pear Development Council and the horticulture industry generally after the transition period for the Common Market is finished? What are the Government pro-
752
posing to do? Are we to end the Apple and Pear Development Council?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the limitation of the Order. I hope that he will stick to the terms of the Order.
Mr. Deakins: Yes. I take it that I am in order in referring to the report. I want to stress that the report is extremely pessimistic about future prospects of the apple and pear industry should we enter the E.E.C. Since this is the only opportunity which we shall have of mentioning this subject in the House before we go in, if we go in, because we shall be in the transition period in 1973—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to take cognisance of what the Chair has said. I hope he will not continue along this line again.
Mr. Deakins: I apologise. It is a pity, because I cannot now refer to what the Apple and Pear Development Council has said. However, I shall come back to the Order.
The Order deals only with one aspect of the problems facing the industry. It is important, and at the same time, for the short term, even if we go into the Common Market, it will be of great assistance to the apple and pear industry. I hope that it will be an example of the Government's attitude to marketing generally. I hope that they will allow producer sponsoring bodies where there are not any now and bring forward Orders like this to make levies to promote sales of all home-grown produce, not just apples and pears. This is one way in which the Government could help the horticulture industry, which will need help in the next few years. I endorse everything which my hon. Friend has said in support of the Order.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Prior: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
I should like to thank hon. Members for staying on at this late hour to take part in this short debate. I thank not only those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, but right hon. the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), my hon. Friends the Members for

753
Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), and the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who have stayed on to listen to the debate.
I take, first, the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) about cash and the requirements of the council. The levy at its present level of £2·25 will raise about £160,000 a year, which is quite an increase on what it has levied in past years. The council has been spending not quite up to that amount in the last couple of years, although it has not had a levy of more than £1·5. The reason was that it had a reserve, which it has pretty well used up now. In the last annual accounts there was about £18,000 left on accumulated fund.
The council has power to go up to a levy of £3, if required, and I have no doubt that it would do so. As with all these concerns, it is important that the council should carry the industry with it in any steps which it takes. Too often in the past we have seen very ambitious commissions and councils of different kinds taking it into their heads to raise a tremendous amount of money before having any idea how properly to spend it.
Great credit is due to the chairman and officers of the council. They have gone about this business in an extraordinarily capable manner. They have built up the reputation of the council and kept its expenses down. I am certain that when the council asks the industry for an additional levy, if it does, it will have a good case to put forward and the industry will respond accordingly. I am happy to leave any decision about future cash requirements in the hands of the Council. It has another £0·75 to go up before it needs to come back to Parliament for more money.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the need for good keeping coloured varieties and was at odds with my hon. Friend on that score. The difficulty is that we market such a large proportion of our apples for such a short period. This year, for example, the total crop of dessert apples is estimated at about 300,000 tons. With the exception of about 52,000 tons, all are marketed in the last week or so of August and in the period up to Christmas. It is in that period that a large quantity of very poor apples are marketed. This is the great problem that the council
754
has found in trying to push sales of British apples.
The council is about to publish what I consider to be excellent work on the future size and shape of the apple industry, and what it would anticipate if we went into the Common Market. This will come out towards the end of next month, I think. It will be very valuable and will meet some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The council is not operating on a large budget, and, therefore, its work is limited. But I am most impressed with its coming report, as I think hon. Gentlemen will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) asked whether we should not have reduced the acreage from five to four. He wanted to get out of production those orchards under five acres, which he thought were not properly kept and produced low quality apples. But this proposal would only affect orchards of between four and five acres. Although I am prepared to consider it, the extra trouble to which we should have had to go on this occasion would not have been worth while. By far the best answer will be an expanded and more generous grubbing-up grant. I am sorry I cannot announce that now, but I am hoping to do so before long.
I am delighted that hon. Members have paid tribute to the council's work. I have come under severe attack on occasion from some apple growers for telling them what they consider unpleasant news, but the industry can have a successful future. This year, since Christmas, Cox's apples are making more money than last year. When Golden Delicious are allowed to come into this country in some numbers as in the post-Christmas period, their scarcity value in the pre-Christmas period is not carried forward, and they make less money than Cox's. We can take some comfort from that fact.
I believe that there are many good growers of British apples who have little or nothing to fear whether Britain is in or out of the Common Market, and for those growers who are prepared to run their businesses properly and who will give the council their full support, as I know they do, the future is reasonably assured. It is on that rather more optimistic note that I am sometimes able

755
to strike about the apple and pear industry that I commend the Order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

NEW DISTRICT HOSPITAL, TAUNTON
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this. House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
11.36 p.m.
Mr. Edward du Cann: I am grateful for this chance to state the need for a new district hospital at Taunton, a subject about which I feel keenly. I am equally grateful to the Minister for being here to hear and answer the debate. I am also pleased to make common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), who I know hopes to speak later.
We speak not only for our constituents but for the whole of West Somerset. Indeed, we speak for a wider area, with a total population of perhaps a quarter of a million, and all of them would like the facilities of a new district hospital. We speak also, in the name of common sense, for the medical staff, nurses, local managements and local authorities in these areas.
I wish, at the outset, to make two important points. First, the present hospital facilities are inadequate—indeed, are sadly and dreadfully inadequate. Secondly, it is essential that the proposed new district hospital, which is supposed to be built at Lyngford, should be begun in 1975, as currently planned. There should be no further delay or postponement. Indeed, it is highly desirable that the starting date should, if possible, be brought forward.
The present hospital buildings are old and inadequate, and I will give two principal examples. The first is East Reach, Taunton, which was built in 1809. Its basement is not infrequently flooded. Being near the A38, it is subject to traffic difficulties which hon. Members will readily imagine. No development is
756
possible on this limited site unless the whole place is pulled down.
The second example is Musgrove Park, also in Taunton. It is a more modern building, having been built during the second war, though as a temporary structure. The work that is done in this hospital, as in East Reach, is magnificent, but the physical arrangements are deplorable. Great distances must be travelled between key areas of the hospital, there are special maintenance problems, about £95,000 must now be spent on the roofs, and, again, there is no room for expansion or improvement.
More telling than any words of mine to describe the physical inadequacies of the buildings and equipment is the catalogue of work which the regional hospital board requires as essential, even though a new hospital is planned.
There is programmed to start in 197172 at Musgrove work on a new theatre, work to refurbish the old theatres and the provision of a sterile supply unit, these three items being planned to cost just over £175,000. One must add to that the cost of a new X-ray room, at £74,600, meaning that in 1971–72 we shall be spending in Musgrove about £250,000.
At East Reach the modernisation of the ophthalmic and orthopaedic theatres are planned to cost about £80,000, and, with the renewal of the engineering services, the bill at this hospital will be nearly £250,000 as well. It will be seen, therefore, that the total expenditure in 1971–72 on essential facilitiesx2014;not on frills or furbelowsx2014;will be approaching £500,000. There is additional projected expenditure not so far programmed for a paediatric unit, mortuary, additional E.N.T. beds and radio-isotope investigation service, and these will cost about £85,000.
There is a whole list of other desirable items of modernisation or improvement in addition to those I have outlined. In other words, a vast sum is required to maintain even the present facilities at as nearly as possible an acceptable level, though a level below what it could and should be.
What will the expenditure be by the time the new hospital is ready in, say, 1978 or 1979? Will it be £1 million, £1½ million, or what? No one can say. If that money is not spent, the people of

757
West Somerset will continue to suffer second-grade facilities until such time as the new hospital is built.
Compare those sums, though, with the cost of the new hospital. A figure of £5 million has been presupposed. The situation is a commentary on the way in which delay in the provision of new hospitals has resulted in increased expenditure and, I believe, an unnecessary expenditure of public money on a large scale.
Nor do I understand why it will take so long to provide this new hospital. I speak as chairman of a property company responsible for development on a very large scale in the United States, in Australia, and in the United Kingdom. I truly believe that, particularly with the standardisation for which my hon. Friend the Minister is correctly responsible, matters could be accomplished much more quickly if a greater sense of urgency were shown by those responsible.
Meantime the position continues to deteriorate. The demand for facilities in local hospitals continues to increase. Again, the best illustration is examples. In the decade 1960–70 discharges and deaths rose from just under 9,000 in 1960 to over 13,000 in 1970; accidents and emergencies dealt with were up by 60 per cent.; pathology requests were up by nearly 150 per cent.; X-rays were up from 39,000 to 88,000: the waiting list rose from 1,260 to 2,950.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater knows, Bridgwater and Taunton groups are now amalgamated and all acute important work takes place in Taunton, but all available ward accommodation has been taken up at Musgrove and there is no room for expansion at East Reach. Hence, if in our area a person requires an operation which is non-emergency in character and he cannot afford to pay for it himself or he is not insured under some scheme like B.U.P.A. he may wait any period between six weeks and six years to get it. I am told that there are examples longer than six years.
We have certain special needs. More beds to deal with geriatric cases are urgently required. Yet the regional hospital board has postponed the construction of 75 additional beds at Trinity Hospital pending the transfer to Musgrove when Lyngford begins—another example,
758
perhaps, of the need for this new hospital to be begun. There are long waiting lists in orthopaedics.
Then there are the problems that arise from the division of acute services between Musgrove Park and East Reach. It means in effect that facilities which exist at one may be denied to patients at another. I do not speak lightly. I speak of what I know, because both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater have homes in our constituencies. These difficulties apply especially to the accident department, the intensive therapy unit, and the children's unit.
Hearing this catalogue, do you not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are right to press for the new district hospital to he provided without delay? It is astonishing that the leagues of friends of our hospitals are now providing not merely amenities but necessities and, indeed, are shouldering voluntarily a part of the responsibility that should be the taxpayers' as a whole.
Another reason, and perhaps the most significant, for continuing the campaign, with which I have been associated since I became a Member of the House 15 years ago, is this. I will recite a little of the history. In 1962 the case was first pressed with the planning authority. No definite answer was obtained or seemed to be obtainable. In 1966, accordingly, I found myself leading a deputation to the then Ministry of Health; and that deputation included representatives of the local authorities, which have always taken a great interest in the matter. We expected—indeed, we had every reason to believe—that the planning of a new hospital would begin in 1968.When that did not materialise there was, naturally, acute disappointment. Naturally, too, further strong representations were made by us all.
As a result, perhaps, on 23rd October last year it was announced by the regional hospital board that the construction of the new hospital would start in 1975–76.
Reluctantly, perhaps, but quite certainly, I find myself wondering: should we have had that undertaking if we had not pressed, and pressed hard, our deserving case? Cynicism is not really in my nature, but I reflect also on what happened about the provision of a new

759
accident centre at East Reach a year or two back. Again, had I not agitated for that, I wonder whether we should have had it today.
I have been concerned with this matter now for well over 10 years. On present plans, it will be 20 years from start to finish of the campaign. Because the need is great, because all of us locally are deeply concerned to see that the starting date is adhered to, if not, as I suggested, brought forward, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and I asked the Under-Secretary of State if he would be good enough to meet us. He received us with his usual courtesy, and we were most grateful for that and for the interest he showed in the points which we made. Tonight, we make them more publicly. We ask him for his endorsement and his support, and we ask in the confidence that we shall have an affirmative answer.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. Tom King: I greatly appreciate the opportunity to take part in this short debate and to support the most effective and eloquent plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). This is a matter of great concern not just to those living in Taunton and the immediate surroundings but to a very much wider area, including the great majority of my constituents.
While we are extremely critical of the inadequate and obsolete facilities which exist, I wish to make clear at the outset—I know that my right hon. Friend will support me in this—that this in no sense reflects on the enthusiasm, energy and conscientiousness of the staff concerned at these hospitals, whose tremendous efforts in the face of extreme difficulties are recognised and greatly appreciated.
But, while they are striving as they are at present, there must be a limit, and one can only view the future with great concern. The Minister will recognise that the present prospect is of virtually no real improvement in this decade. In the coming years we face real anxiety about the staffing problem in the hospitals, and concern about the ability of the hospitals to attract the calibre of staff that the area deserves. A choice between mid-Georgian and World War 2 temporary,
760
which is all we have to offer, is hardly an appealing prospect for the medical profession in the 1970s.
I pay tribute also—my right hon. Friend referred to this too—to the voluntary bodies which support the hospitals in this area. I make no apology for referring to the Friends of Bridgwater Hospital as to the one I know best. I know that there is a similar most energetic body in Taunton, and I am pleased to say that one is shortly to start for Minehead Hospital as well. The activities of these bodies, which were originally conceived to provide extra amenity and comfort for patients and staff, have now been directed towards essential provision. In Bridgwater now, the Friends of Bridgwater Hospital are supplying funds to provide a bathroom and lavatory for the men's ward. We have reached a pretty pass when a lavatory has become an optional amenity to be provided out of voluntary sources.
It is against that background that the problem we are raising tonight must be considered. I have three main points to add to the very full case presented by my right hon. Friend. The first concerns the background to the policy which has been implemented of centralising the main hospital facilities on Taunton. This has been recognised over recent years to have been at the expense of the facilities available at the two hospitals in my constituency, at Bridgwater and Minehead. This policy has presented very real problems to my constituents in both areas. In many parts of West Somerset where urgent attention is needed an ambulance journey of over one hour may be involved, and in holiday traffic considerably more. It obviously also presents problems for relatives and friends wishing to visit patients in hospital when long journeys are involved.
This might not be so bad if there were something they could look forward to at the end of the journey. The implicit promise which I am sure was understood by my constituents when the policy was introduced was that they could expect better facilities at Taunton as a result. On present evidence, this implicit promise has not been honoured to date.
My two further points concern factors that could be overlooked in assessing the hospital needs of the area in relation to the numbers involved. First, in the

761
western part of my constituency in particular there is a surprisingly high proportion of retired people. It is a most popular retirement area. Minehead has, I think, the distinction, which it shares with Worthing, of having the highest percentage of people over retirement age in the country. This age group represents a high demand on hospital facilities.
Second, besides being a holiday area in which a considerable number of people spend their holidays it is the route to the most popular holiday area in the country. This has the result of giving it an enormously inflated population for almost half the year with the extended holiday season. Apart from the normal visitors who come to stay in Minehead, which has a population of 7,000, the Butlins camp alone has a weekly intake of up to 14,000. This puts a tremendous load on the hospital facilities.
A brief study of the accident record of the A38 also shows the considerable extra load on the hospitals.
It is for these reasons, and those advanced by my right hon. Friend that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the special urgency of the matter and give us some real encouragement tonight.
11.53 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Michael Alison): I should like at the outset to say that I do not think that there is any dispute between my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) and my Department on the main point, which both have so eloquently made. We all agree that there is a need for a new hospital to serve the Taunton area.
In saying this, however, I do not wish to suggest in any way that this debate is not valuable. On the contrary, I am sure that it is. I welcome it, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for initiating it and to my hon. Friend for supporting it. My right hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to emphasise that I recognise the need for a new hospital and its importance for the health and well-being of the people of the area. He has also given me the chance to explain something of the problem of meeting the need and how the problem
762
is being tackled. In doing so he has helped us considerably by clearly referring to the local feeling on the issue which he and my hon. Friend obviously both know intimately from their local connections, and has made a number of important points that must be taken into account in planning the development of the local hospital services. I reassure my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend that I shall see that a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate is brought to the notice of the chairman of the regional hospital board.
Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend will understand that the problem at Taunton, as in so many other spheres of administration, is to determine the priority to be given to a desirable project which is one among many. This can be done only against the background of the wider area in which the problem is set.
Taunton lies in the South-Western Hospital Region, and the regional hospital board is responsible for planning its hospital services. The region extends from North Gloucestershire right down to South-West Cornwall over a distance of some 220 miles and has a population of over 3 million which rises sharply and considerably during the summer months. It has been well served over the years by a large number of small and medium sized hospitals. But, as elsewhere, many of the hospitals are out of date. I concede the point which my hon. Friends have made.
The Hospital Plan published in 1962 and its revision published in 1966 envisaged that the future service would be based on district general hospitals in the principal towns, supported where necessary by smaller hospitals. The implementation of these proposals is no simple task. It calls for considerable resources. Doctors, nurses, architects, engineers and others expert in hospital planning are needed. A substantial part of the capacity of the local building industry must be applied.
Clearly, the proposals can be carried out only over a period of years, and the board must assess and compare the needs of different parts of the region in order to determine how and in what order they should be met. This process of assessment and comparison is a continuing task,

763
and it is complicated by the factor of changing circumstances; for example, developments in patterns of medical care and, obviously, in population trends. The process of fitting building schemes into a coherent capital programme matching the resources likely to become available is also a task at once continuous yet unpredictable, alas. The programme must be adaptable to accommodate variations in the cost and timing of current schemes and other factors.
It is perhaps impracticable to measure the real progress so far made by the regional hospital board in the South-West. Hospitals are for people, and their contribution to the quality of life can scarcely be measured in £ s. d. But there is no doubt that progress has been made and that it is real. Over the years 1962–63 to 1969–70, the capital expenditure of the regional board has amounted to nearly £32 million, or some £4 million a year. During this time, a large number of building schemes have been completed, and, in particular, district general hospitals in new or substantially redeveloped buildings have been or are being built at Exeter, Gloucester, Torbay, Truro and Yeovil.
The planning of further substantial development is well in hand, and the new hospital for the Taunton area will be fitted into this future programme, which includes the provision of district general hospitals at Barnstaple, Plymouth and Weston-super-Mare and the redevelopment of existing district general hospitals at Bath and Bristol. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in the House last November, the additional funds being provided for the National Health Service over the next four years will enable not only the normal development of the service, including hospital building, to continue, but also progress to be speeded up in vulnerable sectors such as the care of the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and the elderly.
The area which looks to Taunton—and to its neighbour Bridgwater—for major hospital services extends roughly from Minehead in the north-west to Chard in the south of Somerset, and it is estimated that by 1981 it will have a population approaching 250,000. The main hospital is the Taunton and Somerset Hospi-
764
tal, which has two branches—East Reach and Musgrove Park—but there are a number of other hospitals in the smaller centres of population.
While I recognise the need for a new hospital for the area, I should not like it to be thought that this reflects in any way on the devoted service being given by the staff of the existing hospitals. The doctors, nurses and other staff have difficulties to contend with at present but I doubt whether any patient of theirs would wish on that account to criticise the treatment he receives. Perhaps I could express my appreciation to my hon. and right hon. Friends for the tributes which they have paid to the staff in these hospitals.
This is not by any means the first time that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has presented a case for the early provision of a new hospital for the area. He has been active in the matter for a great many years, and, as he knows, the broad plan is to establish a district general hospital as soon as practicable on a site which is already available at Lyngford, Taunton. The regional board intends to redevelop the hospital services of the area in a way which will integrate them more closely with the other parts of the National Health Service, and it is important to note that it does not propose that hospital services should be concentrated entirely at Lyngford. The intention is that supporting hospitals will be available to serve a number of places in the area, including Bridgwater, Chard, Mine-head and Williton. The board's detailed proposals have not yet been put to my Department, but I know that already the board has held preliminary consultations with the local authorities and has set up a project team, including a representative of the county medical officer of health and a local general practitioner, which is charged with the task of preparing the initial plans for the new hospital.
In these circumstances my hon. and right hon. Friends may ask why I cannot announce the date when building of the new hospital will start, and I should like briefly to try to answer this question. The essence of the answer is that a hospital takes several years to plan and several further years to build, and it is impracticable at an early stage to fix an early starting date. Of course the regional board must plan on certain assumptions,

765
and, as my right hon. Friend knows, at different times in the past different dates have been provisionally adopted for planning purposes, but these dates have had to be reviewed and revised as circumstances have changed. As I said earlier, hospital building programmes have to be adaptable. Priorities, national and local, can change. The capital available is dependent on the view taken of the proportion of the available resources which can be devoted to the health services and to hospital building in particular. For various reasons, projects which have already started may progress more quickly or more slowly than forecast or may cost more or less. These are among the unpredictable forward planning factors which make it unrealistic to announce the starting date of a major hospital building project several years in advance.
Nevertheless the project team which has been set up by the regional board is urgently working out plans for the new hospital, and I hope that this news will give welcome assurance to the people in the area which the new hospital will serve including voluntary helpers. I am obliged to my hon. and right hon. Friends for touching on the vital contributions that voluntary bodies can make. I can also assure my hon. and right hon. Friends that the regional board is maintaining existing services and providing certain improvements, for example to the operating theatre facilities, which are necessary until the new hospital can be
766
completed. My hon. and right hon. Friends will be glad to know that in providing improvements the board is conscious of the need not to prejudice the provision of the new hospital by over-investment of capital in advance. The measures are therefore, individually, comparatively minor in cost, but their completion significantly improves the conditions under which the staff have been working and the service the staff is able to give to its patients.
In particular the improvements to the operating theatre facilities which are planned for this year should materially contribute to the solution of the grave problem of waiting lists to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
Finally, I would like to assure my hon. and right hon. Friend that I have listened with the greatest interest to all the points they have made, which have powerfully reinforced the case they recently put to me privately. The planning of the new hospital is at a formative stage and it is most timely and helpful to have their comments now. These will, I am sure, be carefully noted by the regional hospital board and will encourage all those planning the new hospital to continue their important task for the benefit of the local community with their present sense of urgency.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve o'clock.