Lords Sitting of 5 July 1961

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

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (EXMOUTH) BILL
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is merely a measure to bring up to date the relevant rules and conditions, be read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

TEESSIDE RAILLESS TRACTION BOARD (ADDITIONAL ROUTE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which relates only to a temporary diversion of route, be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not intend to oppose this Bill in any way, and my sole reason for rising to my feet to address your Lordships on this, what may seem to many, a small matter, is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give consideration to the point I am about, I hope, to make. I appreciate the fact, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when replying for Her Majesty's Government on July 21. 1958, that it is fitting that the approval of Parliament should continue to be required for new trolley-bus routes.
1360
No doubt in many cases—possibly the majority of cases—that is right, as the extension of such routes may affect the lives of ordinary citizens. Moreover, certain local authorities who operate trolley-buses no doubt appreciate the discretion which they have at the moment under local Acts and Orders, and may possibly view with alarm any curtailment of this discretion by the Traffic Commissioners.
But, my Lords, a Bill like this one does, in the main, go through Parliament "on the nod". In fact, this Bill went through another place—the Second Reading was on May 31 and the Third Reading on June 8—and no comments were made upon it whatsoever. I should therefore like to take this opportunity of asking Her Majesty's Government whether it would be possible to look into this whole question of the time that it takes for such a Bill to become an Act. In other words, could there not be a drastic reduction in the whole process of obtaining such a Provisional Order?
As my noble friend is surely aware, that process is set out in a very closely-typed form on four sheets of foolscap. I have it here, my Lords, and I can assure you that it is a very lengthy and detailed procedure which is involved—such things as a Special Resolution of the Council, Notices of Intention, and also the lengthy and expensive procedure of going through Parliament. There may possibly be grounds for objections with regard to new routes or the extension of existing routes, and I was wondering whether these objections could not be treated on the same basis as the extension of omnibus routes. I am referring purely to objections by other bodies who may be affected, for I appreciate that, purely from a technical point of view—that is, those questions involving engineering and route proposals, such as the electricity supply feeder installations, the overhead equipment and so forth—the matter should still remain within the purview of the Inspecting Engineer's Department of the Ministry of Transport.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to mention, not with regard to this Bill which is before your Lordships to-day but with regard to another Bill, that from the time that the transport manager's proposals were approved to the day a copy of the printed Act was received by

1361
the transport department from the town clerk's department, fourteen months had elapsed. I am just wondering whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to look at this whole question of the delay, and to see whether the time could not be cut down where local authorities wish to extend existing routes. I trust that I may be able to hear something on this matter from my noble friend.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the points that my noble friend has made, and he is quite right in referring to this matter which, to sum up what he said, I might call rather a rigmarole for doing a small and simple thing. The legislative position (if I may call it that) of trolley-buses is that of the successors to tramways, Which of course required special treatment by being in the nature of railways running on the road; and it is for this reason that the legislation is somewhat complicated. This method is the only one by which such minor matters can be dealt with because of the statutory position. This is the only way it can be done.
My noble friend made, I think, quite a convincing kind of case for something to be done to simplify the procedure, but, quite honestly, I do not think it is worth it. It would require legislation to change the procedure, and I do not think the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant the Parliamentary time and effort. Whether you approve or whether you do not, the flaw in my noble friend's argument is that, on the whole, trolley-bus routes are not likely to be extended; they are more likely to be curtailed because, generally speaking, trolley-buses are giving way to other forms of transport. I do not think that legislation to alter this procedure would be worth the powder and shot at the present time. This is the first Order of this kind which has appeared for something like five years, and normally where there are diversions of routes these are over other routes which are already authorised. I think it is taking rather a large hammer to crack a small nut to indulge in legislation to change the procedure at this stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

BRITISH TRANSPORTCOMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MONTROSE BURGH AND HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ARGYLL COUNTY COUNCIL (ARINAGOUR AND CRAIGNURE PIERS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CREDIT-SALE AGREEMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

THE NAVY ESTIMATES
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH rose to call attention to the Explanatory Statement on THE NAVY ESTIMATES, 1961–1962 (Cmnd. 1282); and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think perhaps those of you who will remember the debate last year on the Navy Estimates will recollect that I had something, which I thought at the time was fairly strong, to say about the role of the Navy; what were the real values of sea power, especially in relation to the changing circumstances in the world, and particularly the removal of many of the bases of the Services in many parts of the world; and what I considered to be the value of naval sea power in the future where you had to cover places that were formerly covered from nearby bases. Therefore, may say to the First Lord that I welcome the first page of the Explanatory Statement, entitled "Report on The Navy: The Value of Sea Power."
I am particularly pleased with the first paragraph, in which reference is made to the continually changing political and strategic situation in relation to sea power. I do not think that at any time in our history have greater problems been put to our Naval authorities in maintaining the position that is essential to us as a great maritime nation. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Shackleton has been absent from your Lordships' House for some weeks with illness. Perhaps he might not have agreed wholly with my unstinted compliment to the Admiralty on this page and might have given us his own views about the ambiguity that exists to-day with regard to the rôle of the Royal Navy. However, I think that this is a much better statement than we have had, and I should like to say to the First Lord that I welcome it very much.
But when we look at the mounting Naval budget and what we are getting out of it in the face of the general world situation, we see that there are faults. We shall be spending a long way over £400 million in 1961–62 and, while making all due allowances for the change in money values since before the
1364
war—a very big change, indeed—there is a great contrast between the number of ships of size and power and the number of personnel compared with the pre-war Navy. Therefore, we have to pay the greatest possible attention to modernising both the ships we have and those we are building, and also to the modernisation of thought in relation to the strategic problems which lie before us.
One thing is quite certain: the statement made in the first Lord's Report has been well justified by the recent occurrences in the Middle East. When we look at the manner in which the operation for the relief of Kuwait was carried out, at the request of the Ruler of Kuwait, the statement in the Report about the rapidity of action with which the Royal Navy can give assistance in such circumstances is absolutely justified. I hope that that may always be the case. On this, we must give praise to the Admiralty for originating the idea of converting aircraft carriers into modern commando ships, having space and facilities both for landing equipment and for the use of helicopters for reconnaissance and landing operations. I think that the Royal Navy is to be complimented on its share on the build-up of the relief forces brought to the assistance of Kuwait, and I should like to pay my tribute to those who have been engaged in it. And I hope that, in spite of the desert conditions in Kuwait, it will be possible to give them such stores and assistance as to make their stay not too uncomfortable, whether the time in which they are engaged there be short or long.
I want to ask the First Lord a question, about which I have been in correspondence with him—that is, whether or not the officers in the Royal Marine Commando have really been properly treated in regard to promotions? It is extraordinary how the work of the Royal Marine Commando has developed since the end of the war. The services which they have rendered can be clearly built up in one's mind. Not least among these services was that which they accomplished in Palestine in the difficult days soon after the Labour Government came in. I have strong recollections about that. Then there was the great contribution they made in changing the initial situation in Korea in 1950–51 and the

1365
part they had in support of what afterwards, I am glad to say, became the first Mixed Commonwealth Division we have ever had in the field.
We have had other examples since of the services they have rendered. Yet somehow there seems to be a feeling, which I have tried to convey by correspondence to the First Lord, among officers of the Commando that they are not getting their fair share of promotions in the Royal Marines. I hope that special attention may be given to that point. I have had two or three cases specially brought to my notice, and I think that there are others. I do not think it is a question of a single officer becoming disgruntled: it is the comparison between promotion in other sections of the Royal Marines and those actually in the Commando section. I hope that we can hear something more about that.
The state of the Fleet is set out on three pages of the Explanatory Statement—the strength on page 4; then the Fleet support and auxiliaries, and then the ships in reserve. I should like to say a word or two about these—first of all about the cruiser strength. Apparently at the moment the Royal Navy possesses altogether eight cruisers, five—"Belfast", "Bermuda", "Tiger", "Lion", and "Blake"—which are either in commission or preparing for service. Of course, the "Belfast" and the "Bermuda" are now quite old ships. The "Belfast" is certainly well pre-war, though I dare say she has had a good deal of refitting and modernisation. We are left with three modern-type cruisers. I think that that is rather a difficult position to have to face, and I do not get much encouragement in looking at the ships in reserve, "Sheffield", "Gambia" and "Mauritius", all of them now becoming aged—the "Sheffield" the oldest of them—and, I would gather, from their position in the Report, in process of either being scrapped or disposed of.
What is the target of the Admiralty with regard to cruiser programme? I think that we ought to know about that. I complained last year that since we no longer have the publication of Fleet strengths, we can hardly make an authoritative comparison. However, we have seen such statements as that made in the Evening News a couple of nights ago with
1366
regard to Russian cruiser strength and equipment. We all know something about them because we have seen, in the "Sverdlov", an example of a class of quite powerful ships. It is said that many of them are specially equipped with missile weapons. I do not suppose that we have a cruiser to-day carrying exactly that type of equipment. What is to be the comparative strength? I know it can be said that we are in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and that the question of the balancing of naval strengths for security would be taken under N.A.T.O. advice and a counting of ships guns and equipment, spread over the whole Alliance. But I am not too happy at the comparative strength of the Royal Navy in this class of ship.
I suppose it can be said that, whereas in the old days the cruiser was the best type of ship to send to a great many of our places of interest in I he world for showing the Flag, this can be done just as well nowadays by a destroyer, if available, or (what is perhaps the only one more frequently available now) by a frigate. It is good to show the Flag in this type of ship, but on some occasions I think we could make better use of the larger ship, if it was available. But, above all, we ought to be satisfied, as a member of N.A.T.O., that when we come to fulfil one of the objects of the policy in this Paper, namely, to make our proper contribution to the N.A.T.O. forces, we have a proper balance in the categories we possess from which we can make the contribution. Therefore I should like to have some more information from the First Lord of the Admiralty on that point.
Turning now to the submarine question, I am glad to see, when I look at the list of 30 submarines on the first page under "Strength of the Fleet", that apparently the Admiralty are going ahead with the construction of submarines; and that of the conventional type, after you have received the last "Porpoise", it is proposed to concentrate on the "Oberon" class. Are these just fundamentally remaining on the purely conventional lines on which that class of ship was originally laid down? What are the changes? Are there any differences in the rôle? Are they to be surface-gunned, as well as carrying other submarine weapons? I think we ought to have a little more

1367
information about this of an explanatory kind, if possible, although I daresay I might find some of it, if I had the time, in the detailed lists in the Navy Estimates. I should like to know at any rate something about the programme of submarines. It is a vastly improved and greatly increasing potential naval weapon of the future if it has the full modern equipment that is possible.
I should like now to come to the question of minesweepers. I see that there are 38 in commission, of which 26 are coastal and 12 inshore. I do not know whether the First Lord can tell us how many more there are in training, in addition to that, but it seems to me extraordinarily few for the carrying out of the kind of serious and widespread training we need, in view of any possible future threat from mines, perhaps of a quality that we have not met on previous occasions. Does the First Lord think that minesweepers of all classes have been built in sufficient numbers? Have we in the reserve class any that are to be scrapped? It looks very powerful if you look at page 6 and see that there are 22 ocean, 67 coastal and inshore minesweepers in reserve, but I should like to know their condition and just what use is likely to be made of them. I think this is a fundamental part of our programme.
Now I would say a word or two about the age of our depôt ships. I was hunting for, and eventually found, the name of one of the oldest ones, the "Woolwich". The "Maidstone" is being refitted. How many times has she been refitted; and how many more refits will she stand? The "Forth" is fairly old, as is the "Tyne" which I know extremely well. It is true that you can get a great deal of life out of this kind of class of ship compared to some of the more war-like ships; but I hope that we may get some information about these ships, including whether it is proposed to build any replacements. We are not very strong in coastal craft. I should like to know what the First Lord thinks about that.
I come to the operational and other activities. I have already referred to Kuwait. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are the usual annual story of the great assistance which the Royal Navy has been in very
1368
difficult, and sometimes less difficult, circumstances, and we express our appreciation of their work in that capacity.
I turn next to the Commonwealth Navies. The position of the Commonwealth Navies now is not nearly so well-known to me as I should like it to be. I do not know whether it is due to some remissness on my part, or to lack of study of information which may be available. I think it would be a good thing if at some time or other we could have a short White Paper showing the overall strength of each of the naval ship and similar contributions to our Commonwealth naval strength, and if we could be reminded from time to time how far we have come to any agreement with the new free Colonies who are now becoming independent within the Commonwealth about developing their help in our control of security at sea. I should like to have some information about that.
Then I want to ask a question about the guided-missile destroyers. We had a programme of four. I should think that in modern circumstances they are likely to be most important ships. They will be ships specially constructed to fire these missiles. They will be quite a size (much more like a medium weight cruiser of the old days—about 6,000 tons, I think) and we have four building.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): Six.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I gather that we have just ordered two.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Then I will put them in, although they are not in the Report, and I was sticking to the Report. I am glad to hear that we are going on with another two. But the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation gave authority to Germany to build eight, and it made me begin to wonder just what the German naval strength is going to be in comparison with our own if this is the kind of category development which is likely to take place within the sphere of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. You must forgive a little nostalgia in the First Lord who was in charge of a particular sort of function in his Department during

1369
the whole of the war. I should like to have a little information, if I may, upon what are the category strengths of Germany now and planned. It would be a very interesting comparison indeed.
May I say that I am greatly interested in paragraph 30. It is planned to build an assault ship to replace the amphibious warfare squadron. Is this a new type of ship which is to be experimental, or are you going to build a number of assault ships? I think of the number of L.C.T.'s we had to deal with, and I hope we shall never have occasion to use them in the same strength again, but, nevertheless, we ought to be ready for all reasonable contingencies, and I should like to know exactly what is behind the announcement of our likely development of this class of ship.
I gather from paragraph 32 that the Seaslug, has been pretty successful in its developments. I am interested, however, to see that, apparently as a result of these successes, you have discovered that it needs improvement, and that although it has not been in service for long you are proceeding to develop a Seaslug Mark II. I hope that does not mean that the Seaslug as at present is going out of use. Perhaps we could know how long it is going to remain in use, and how long it will be before the Mark II version appears. The suggestion in the paragraph is that it is likely to be fitted in the two guided-missile destroyers soon to be ordered. But you are just ordering those ships. You can reckon that the Mark II Seaslug will not be anything like operational for training or use for the next three and a half years, and that is quite a considerable time. I hope, in the circumstances, that the First Lord can say be is thoroughly satisfied with the position of the Seaslug for continuous use during that period.
I notice that the N.A.39, about which my noble friend Lord Shackleton had something to say last year, has been renamed, and is now to be called the Buccaneer. I should like to have some idea when this will be an effective part of the strike air system of the Navy, because although I read that it is hoped that an intensive flying trials unit will be formed before Midsummer, 1961, I remember that it is thirteen months ago that my noble friend Lord Shackleton was pointing out the delay in delivery
1370
of this aircraft. Even now they are not ready to join, apparently, and perhaps we could have more information about this 'plane, which seems to be so satisfactory and could add so much to the strike power of the Fleet Air Arm.
The next paragraph on the Wessex interests me very much, and I am sure it intrigues the First Lord, because I remember my noble friend Lord Shackleton last year saying, "You have not got an all-weather helicopter." I understand that the Wessex, which is going to be used as an anti-submarine weapon, is still undergoing trials and development, and it is an all-weather helicopter. If the noble Lord could tell us in the course of his answer what have been the developments to make this so, I am sure it would be good news to those of us who are interested in the Royal Navy to think that, not only is this an all-weather helicopter able to take off and land so much more easily, but that it is also able to continue operations with the new strike provisions that the helicopter is clearly going to be able to carry against submarines, according to this Report. I think it would he very interesting to hear about that from the noble Lord.
If I am taking too long, I hope the House will excuse me, because I am so interested in this subject and I should like to get all the information I possibly can. May I ask about nuclear submarines? When is the first nuclear submarine going to be in commission? I am not quite sure whether that information has already been given, but perhaps the noble Lord will tell us. Whilst they are not of the complete operational value of the nuclear submarines which are being built by the United States—they are going to be used in normal submarine hunt capacity—nevertheless they can be both silent and very dangerous to enemy submarines. I should like to know when the first will be in operation, and how many more are proposed. I am a little anxious about that, because I know they are very expensive.
Now just a word about research and development. Is the First Lord satisfied with the amount of money and personnel which is allocated to research and development required for the expansion of naval efficiency? We are not always

1371
sure you get your fair share, and perhaps the noble Lord would let us know about that.
Now Vote A strength. You have at present made provision in paragraph 52 for 100,000 during 1961–62. I seem to remember that that is more than you were planning for. Is that going to be about the general ceiling each year in succession, or are you going down to the figure, which some of us protested against, of 88,000 or 89,000? I should like to know, if possible. As regards recruiting, I should like to know whether you are continuing, as I hope you are, the recruiting of the voluntary, almost Territorial, Corps of the Royal Marines, equal to the Territorial reserve of the Royal Marines. I have an idea that, although they are a small force, last year the recruiting was better than any other voluntary unit in the country for which we were asking for recruits. I should like to have some information as to what is the position there.
Up to the moment, I have been speaking about what I find in the Statement of the First Lord to the House. I do not want to keep the House any longer, but I cannot sit down without referring to a matter of some difficulty for me. I think we have proved, since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, came to the House as a Minister, after being in Australia, that he has made a good Minister. He has spoken his mind in the House. We have had tough debates with him sometimes, but we do not object to a debate being tough, so long as it is clear in its objective and is not otherwise offensive. So we think that he has made a pretty good Minister.
But the whole country was very anxious and concerned about the Portland spy case—very anxious, very concerned. It threw a reflection on the Royal Navy and the Admiralty in regard to what has always been thought as a very highly efficient part of naval organisation; that is, its organisation of security. It is a difficult question to talk about and, in the circumstances, one which I certainly am not going to enlarge upon to-day. I am thinking, too, of the position arrived at in which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, offered the Prime Minister his resignation, which the Prime Minister did not accept.
1372
Now I believe that the First Lord presently occupying the office had not been back at the Admiralty very long before this matter arose, but I think it would help quite a lot if those who rather take the line that when difficulties arise in a Department over which a Minister reigns supreme and for which he is responsible if it goes wrong he must "carry the can", as it were—take the consequences—could be told something of the real position. The impression has been on the public mind from the Romer Committee Report that nothing was done in time, even in the last eighteen months, to tighten up the situation when it was felt that things were going wrong in the line of the Portland case. I should therefore be very glad if the First Lord could find it within himself to-day to report to the House, so far as he can, upon the security arrangements in the Admiralty. I should like to know whether, in fact, before the appointment of the Romer Committee there was, shall I say, anxiety in the Admiralty about what was happening; whether steps were then taken to tighten up security, and what is likely now to arise out of the consideration by the Admiralty and the Government of the Romer Committee's Report in regard to the provision of future security. My Lords, I apologise for having been rather long. I now beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like in the first place to congratulate the First Lord that he has again found it unnecessary to put forward a Supplementary Estimate this year. I suggest this indicates that the Board of Admiralty are in firm control in matters of Estimates and are keeping close watch on finance generally. It has been argued by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that although there is an increase in the Navy Estimates for this year amounting to £15½ million there are fewer ships afloat. This of course is unfortunately true, but I think I am right in saying that the increase in the Estimate is largely due to agreed wage and salary awards and also, of course, to price increases.
I should like to add my congratulations to Her Majesty's Navy on its efficient assistance in the build-nap of our

1373
forces in Kuwait, and not least to H.M.S. "Bulwark". She is certainly justifying her designed rôle, and is proving invaluable in her present service. Apart from the "bush fire" of Kuwait, I should say that we are now faced with a revision in N.A.T.O. policy. N.A.T.O. is no longer thinking in terms of full nuclear retaliation to aggression on a large scale but rather to what one might call graded retaliation; and for this reason I feel that the Navy will become more important as time goes on. If this is true, it would also mean that defence would be based on retaliation of every kind of weapon as judged necessary for any particular situation, with more emphasis laid on conventional weapons. I fully support this realistic policy of graded retaliation: it would give time for wiser policies and counsels among the great Powers to prevail.
In sea warfare I have little doubt that nuclear weapons will be used in the limited tactical rôle where they are unlikely to do injury to civil populations, and I think that brings us to what one might call, and I think is called by many people, the ultimate weapon, the Polaris submarine. I would not go so far as one Member of another place, who is now one of Her Majesty's Ministers, who took the view that the aircraft carrier must give place to the missile submarine us the capital ship of the modern age. I rather think that aircraft carriers will be required for a number of years yet. On the other hand, it is vital that we have a Polaris plan.
I think it is true to say that at the present time the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government so far as our contribution to the Western deterrent is concerned will be the V-bomber force, at any rate during the 1960s. But what happens after that time? I should say that it is not by any means too soon to consider the next phase of Naval armament. In fact the First Lord has already publicly stated that very shortly the next generation of aircraft carriers would have to be considered, although I think it is true to say that none of our present carriers has less than ten years' life. I cannot help feeling that the next phase must be Polaris submarines; and we must prepare for that now.
1374
As many of your Lordships are aware, the Polaris submarine is not just a nuclear weapon; it is also fitted with conventional torpedo tubes. It should also be remembered that, in addition to firing a long-range nuclear missile of some 1,500 miles' range, it can also fire a very short-range missile of only a few miles' range which would mean absolute destruction to any surface craft in that area and to helicopters. I should say that it is absolutely vital that we have a Polaris plan for the future. Cannot we get an American one, say a few vessels on lease-lend? Or perhaps we could offer to man some vessels ourselves, with an American liaison officer, so that we could make a start with this new method of submarine warfare.
There is no doubt that with the Polaris submarine we can say goodbye to all rocket bases and nuclear bomber bases in this country, which I am sure would be welcomed by all of us. V-bomber forces, I should say, must be gradually run down and replaced by Polaris submarines. It is true, of course, that the Polaris submarines cost a great deal of money; but that is equally true of the V-bomber force and the ballistic land-based rockets. I understand also that in the near future, with the improvement of the atomic pile and fuel used, costs are likely to come down. If we have a Polaris plan in a few years' time we should have a number of very versatile vessels of war and a deterrent which is far less provocative than land-based nuclear weapons. We must face the fact that the Polaris submarine has now made it possible to combine the functions of the V-bomber and functional submarine, and should be able to protect our sea communications and at the same time provide a most powerful deterrent against total war.
I wonder if the First Lord could tell us something about the policy he has in mind about the carriers of the future. I know that it is early days, but does he envisage carriers of large dimensions of say 45,000 to 50,000 tons, or something of 23,000 tons like H.M.S. "Hermes"? I suggest that the light fleet carrier will be necessary for many years to come lot cold war purposes, but I should like to hear something more about the rôle of the large fleet carrier which costs a great deal of money. I am rather inclined to

1375
believe that it would be better to economise in the large carriers and to turn to Polaris submarines, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary.
I should like to devote a few minutes to our guided-missile destroyers which are now building. May I respectfully suggest to the First Lord that before any of them are commissioned they might be reclassified as cruisers? Perhaps that would help the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as regards the shortage of cruisers. That is in face what they are; they are cruisers. As your Lordships know, they are 5,000 to 6,000 tons, and I would say that the term "destroyer" is quite out of keeping with their size or rôle. It would also give a psychological fillip to the public. I suggest it would be interesting to know the apparent size of the Russian guided-missile ships which passed down the Channel recently and which were so well photographed by, I think the Daily Telegraph. It would appear to me they were vessels of only about 3,000 tons, and possibly converted destroyers. Perhaps the First Lord could say whether conversion of some of our older destroyers has even been considered.
The noble Viscount has mentioned the shortage of coastal forces vessels. I only hope a little money can be made available for this class of ship, which certainly provides first-class sea training for officers and men when they are of a young age, and they have of course considerable anti-submarine potential. I would also ask the First Lord whether he can say anything about the possible use of hovercraft for amphibious purposes. I understand a number of these craft are now being built on a commercial basis, and I suggest that they might prove useful not only for minesweeping but also for air/sea rescue work.
I should like to close by saying how much I appreciate the presentation of the Navy Estimates and the pictorial Explanatory Statement; if I may say so, that is very concise and clear, and each year it seems to get better and better. I would say there is no doubt that we have a very efficient Navy, although perhaps on the small side. It is in first-class training, but I would say it cannot yet become a great power for peace until we have the Polaris submarine, and I
1376
urge Her Majesty's Government to consider the Polaris plan I have proposed to-day.
3.35 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, in the debate on the Navy Estimates last year I remarked on the excellent lay-out and the useful content of the First Lord's Explanatory Statement. I think this year it is even better, and I must say I find the illustrations, the diagrams and the tables the greatest help in portraying the state of the Royal Navy. Turning first to page 17, I think it very satisfactory and not the least surprising to learn that centralised drafting has proved highly successful. It is far more logical than the old port division system, and, quite apart from any other advantages, it must be a tremendous boon to the rating to know that he can now state a preference as to where he will serve and, better still, to know that that preference is very likely to be met. This is bound to give him a feeling of security and contentment that could never have been attained previously. I sometimes wonder whether officers are treated with the same consideration; I very much hope they are.
Turning over the page now to the table on pages 18 and 19, we see briefly set out four typical careers in the Royal Navy, and I think that nobody, except possibly the sailor himself, would suggest that the pay and allowances are anything less than good. This, coupled with the career prospects, should be sufficient to attract the right sort of man to the Navy. There is just one point on which I would remark on this table. On the left-hand side of that page is "Petty Officer B": we see that at the age of 30 he is now available for drafting to a destroyer or frigate as coxswain, which is virtually the senior rating in the ship. There is nothing wrong with youth at the helm, and indeed it is one of the essential ingredients of the Royal Navy.
But looking across to the opposite page now at "Commander D" we see that at the age of 40 he is in command of a frigate. I realise, of course, that in this technical age there is a lot more for an officer to learn than there used to be, and it may be that as a result his climb up the promotion ladder is a little

1377
slower. Of course, for all I know "Commander D" may already have commanded a frigate previously. Nevertheless, it seems to me that by the time an officer has reached the age of 40 he should be commanding something rather larger than a frigate. Perhaps it is that there are so few ships larger than frigates now that the chances of his getting a larger command are remote indeed, and certainly a frigate at 40 is a great deal better than nothing. But perhaps the First Lord can say when he comes to wind up if indeed 40 is now a normal age for the captain of a frigate.
Turning now to page 21, we read about the greatly increased maintenance problems, particularly in destroyers and frigates, and of the measures being taken to deal with them, but neither on this page nor, indeed, anywhere else in the Explanatory Statement is there any appreciable information about the Royal Dockyards. I realise that the Fleet, its composition, its manning and its employment, is, as it were, the end product, and therefore it very naturally and very properly occupies the limelight. But the Fleet cannot operate without the dockyards, and the dockyards are therefore very important and, indeed, very expensive establishments.
A great deal has happened to our dockyards in the last few years, and, as your Lordships very well know, with the reduction in the strength of the Fleet there has been a drastic reduction in the number of Royal Dockyards available to it. Sheerness, Bermuda, Malta, Simonstown, Trincomalee and Hong Kong have all either closed down or have passed out of Admiralty control. Indeed, the only two Royal Dockyards that I can think of outside the United Kingdom left available to the Fleet are those at Gibraltar and Singapore. This is a sobering thought. I am not saying it is wrong; indeed it is entirely right, but it much underlines the importance of Fleet maintenance and afloat support. I am not drawing any other important conclusion from this, but I suggest that in future years the Explanatory Statement might include a paragraph or two on the Royal Dockyards, and might also mark the Royal Dockyards on the excellent map at the end.
1378
I turn back to page 6. Facing it there is a fine picture of three of our aircraft carriers exercising in the Mediterranean. The note underneath it reads:
"The reduction in the number of overseas bases has increased the strategic importance of these mobile airfields."
My Lords, indeed it has. Yet we find that, like last year, we have only four carriers in the operational fleet. Of those four, one, according to the Explanatory Statement, is refitting, leaving only throe immediately available for operations. Of those three, one is in the Far East and two are either at home or in the Mediterranean. For as long as that situation lasts this picture of those three aircraft carriers steaming in line ahead must remain as a picture and cannot be reproduced in real life.
In the debate on the Estimates last year I suggested that one aircraft carrier in the Far East was insufficient for an area of that magnitude and importance. Surely weight is given to this argument to-day. If Press reports are correct, "Victorious" left Hong Kong about a week ago, and if my estimation is anywhere near right she must now be in the Arabian Sea getting somewhere near the Persian Gulf. From Hong Kong to her destination—if indeed the Persian Gulf is her destination, and I cannot imagine it is anything else—she has to steam well over 5,000 miles and will take, I suppose, eight to nine days. She may have been given this time on this occasion, but perhaps it may not always be such an easy run. It is not only because of the size of the area that I say that we should have more than one carrier in the Far East, but because it is most unwise to have all one's eggs in one basket. In the last war we lost the "Hermes" off the coast of Ceylon very soon after hostilities commenced in Japan. In that case, serious though the loss was, it was cushioned by the fact that we had two large fleet carriers on the station at the same time.
If I remember aright, the First Lord suggested last year that it was important that noble Lords should be realistic when advocating a larger fleet. I took that to mean that there was no point in making suggestions that could not possibly be paid for. No one will quibble with that advice; but, in spite of that, I think I am being realistic when I say that one aircraft carrier East of

1379
Suez is insufficient. I do not know precisely what notices our carriers are at when they are in reserve or refitting. Paragraph 22 just says "short notice". But if I could be told that they were at very short notice, or if I could be given the precise time, I should be less anxious than I am now. In default of that, I can only repeat what I said last year: I believe that it is vital that we should have at least two carriers East of Suez. Of course, what I am really saying is that instead of four carriers in the operational fleet we should have five, so that with one away refitting (and, of course, the refit programme must go on) we should still be left with four effective carriers for immediate operations, which would allow for two for East of Suez.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—I apologise for interrupting the interesting speech he is making—what is the outlook he has in mind with the advice that we should have more carriers East of Suez?
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, last year I pointed out, and I think I said again to-day, that it is because of the size of the area. You cannot have a carrier to cover the whole of the enormous space of the Far Eastern station, which now really stretches from the Persian Gulf to the Philippines or further. There is also the point of having all one's eggs in one basket.
LORD CHATFIELD: Surely, you must also have an enemy in sight if possible before you can make your plans on those lines. I know that this is a difficult problem. I ask only out of my own interest.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I think the present situation does much to underline the reason for having a second carrier. The "Victorious", so far as we know, left Hong Kong a week ago, and if things had blown up rather more quickly than they had done, she might not have been in time. It looks now as if she may well be in time, but the circumstances might well have been otherwise.
Now a word about our anti-submarine forces. Once more, I do not believe that we and our N.A.T.O. allies have yet nearly sufficient large modern, high-speed frigates to deal with Russia's submarines.
1380
I am not going to dwell on this point to-day; but to me, this shortage will have disastrous consequences in the event of war. A large number of large, high-speed frigates is what we want—nothing less will do. There is no short cut; there is no easy way out. When I say "high-speed" I mean 30 knots or more. I understand that some of our modern frigates have a top speed of something under 30 knots. In my estimation, this at once enormously reduces their effectiveness, and will often render them impotent against the nuclear submarine. With the modern submarine, as soon as she has attacked or has been otherwise detected, all she has to do is is to turn upwind and go off submerged at her full speed of 25. 30 or 35 knots, whatever it may be; and there are few days in the year in the Atlantic, or for that matter in the Arctic or in the North Sea, when a small surface ship, heading into the sea, could for long keep up with her. Helicopters will help to solve this problem, but they want a fairly steady platform for landing on, and in my view nothing smaller than a large frigate will do for this. I had intended to refer briefly to hovercraft, but this the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has covered sufficiently, and broadly speaking, I agree with what he said.
Now one final word on the Portland spy case and the Romer Report. I have no personal interest in or connection with this affair apart from the fact that I have a son in the Royal Navy. I have no wish whatsoever to belittle the seriousness of the matter, but I am pleased beyond measure that the Prime Minister was not prepared to accept the First Lord's offer of resignation. I am sure that I am right there. I am equally sure that my feelings are shared by a large proportion of the officers and men of the Royal Navy; and when I say "a large proportion", I mean all those officers and men who have worked with the noble Lord and who have had personal contact with him.
3.47 p.m.
LORD CONGLETON: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships in that I have a long-standing engagement and have to leave before the end of this debate, and for this I claim your Lordships' indulgence. I should also

1381
like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who has kindly allowed me to speak before he speaks on this occasion. From that point of view, I will try to be as brief as possible, but where I repeat what has been said already it is merely to emphasise what has been said.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, commenced by referring to the Report and its heading "The Value of Sea Power". I cannot but agree with him that this is the finest opening to a Report that I personally have seen and read. I think, in particular, that the last three sentences of the first paragraph are most important, and of course they are high-lighted entirely by the troubles in Kuwait at this moment, where there have been sandstorms and difficulties of airspace. I do not think one need say more. Surely the whole problem that is posed by that question is one of mobility. The whole secret of the Royal Navy has always been mobility. It has always been, everywhere in the world, covering a particular part of the world. Up to a point, it is like a large fishing net; there have been small units dotted around covering that particular area while, in the wooden and particularly strong end of the net there has been a strong force. It used to be the Grand Fleet; it was the Home Fleet during the last war, and surely now it must become the Polaris submarines.
It was said, I believe, in the 1914–18 War that there was only one man who could lose the war in one day, and that was the noble Admiral who sat in Scapa Flow. It was, without doubt, the Home Fleet, which also remained in Scapa Flow, or thereabouts, during the last war, that controlled the surface vessels which were liable to come out and would have destroyed our convoys, in some ways far more satisfactorily, from the enemy point of view, than the submarines were ever able to do.
In addition to that, to-day, with changing conditions we require a "fire brigade" force. In fact, surely the Navy has always provided that "fire brigade" force. There were times, I think in the 'twenties and 'thirties when Royal Marine detachments in the West Indies were put on board cruisers, as they then were, to deal with rioting and troubles in the area and to assist anyone who required assistance. The natural follow-up of
1382
that, of course, is the Commando carrier that we have to-day. That, my Lords, is surely what the Navy is required to do. It must be the "fishing net" to cover the whole world if possible; and it must have a large force which is capable of dealing with the major threat if it should come. It also requires to have the additional forces of all arms combined with the other Services which can be used on minor occasions. It is beyond me, I am afraid, to work out the economics of this and I have no doubt I shall be told that what am proposing is entirely beyond our resources. But those are the three jobs which must be done.
Where at the moment are we falling down? I would suggest that a small vessel, if it has a greater endurance and a greater speed, can cover a larger area of water on this earth's surface. I suggest that a modern frigate of to-day, of the present size and with a nuclear propulsion unit, would be able to do that in much the same way as the old cruiser was able to do it. I would ask the First Lord what has happened to our nuclear-power projects for surface vessels. I understood from the Report we had last year that tenders for a merchant ship of 65,000 tons dead-weight were to be considered, and the result of the considerations was to be reported by October of last year. So far as I know, nothing has yet been said. I myself should feel much happier if one knew whether this project had been abandoned for some reason or whether it is to go forward.
That brings up another rather difficult point at the moment: the question of the new "Queen" which is to be built for the Cunard Steam-Ship Company. I feel that a great many people would be satisfied if they knew that this ship would be capable of adaption for a nuclear unit of some variety, because it would then be an immense fillip not only to the whole of the shipping industry but to the whole of the merchant fleet. One must not forget that it is the merchant seamen and the merchant fleet with whom the Royal Navy so often have to co-operate and work. It is very important that they should feel that they are being properly backed.
To follow that up, I was very interested to see that when it came to pursuing the dissident Portuguese liner the "Santa

1383
Maria", the only ship (or boat, one may like to call it) which was really able to "shadow" her efficiently was an American nuclear submarine. All the other surface vessels had to turn to harbour to refuel. I would suggest that if there had been one surface vessel with that same endurance power as the submarine had the situation would have been very different. I am thinking particularly with regard to general police work which navies have to do all over the world. There is the anti-piracy patrol and work of that sort, and that very often entails the boarding of ships. Trying to board a liner of the size of the "Santa Maria" from a submarine would, I think, be virtually impossible and certainly very difficult. If one had had a surface ship with that form of propulsion and that endurance one might have been able to get somewhere. However, I will not pursue that thought further for the moment.
May I turn now to the question of development and research in our Report? It is noticeable that all our active ships are becoming more and more modern; that the old ships are being scrapped and disposed of. The reserve gets smaller and smaller. I accept the principle that the Royal Navy must not become obsolete, and that there is no point in keeping obsolete ships and just leaving, them there in case they are required. But, my Lords, it is surely no good to run down the Navy to the extent where it is not able to carry out the jobs which are given to it. I recall what the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, said and has said quite often in your Lordships' House when referring to the size of the Army: "It is much better to have enough men and materials to do the job than to have too few and to overload them, because, while that may work for a short while, it will not work for ever, and then you are in real trouble." In fact, my Lords, I suggest that the Fleet is too small as it stands at the moment. I imagine that to correct that would require an expansion in manpower, which would cost money, and that I shall be told that it is not available.
However, on the development and research side I am sure that everybody will be glad to see that there is to be a
1384
new "Discoverer". The work done by the Oceanographic Department is, I think, very little known and could well be better publicised. I am very glad to see that they are to have a modern ship and will be able to continue with their work. And, in the same breath, I should like also to refer to the Hydrographic and Survey Department of the Admiralty. They tend rather to be forgotten, but they are always there and they are always providing charts for everybody in the world and covering the world. I think that we owe an immense debt to them for the fact that our charts are always up to date and that when we go round the world we can navigate in reasonable safety. Another particular department or class of people who seem to have been rather left out in connection with development is the Corps of Constructors. The Admiralty's Corps of Constructors consists of highly skilled men who are responsible in the main for producing our new vessels; thinking up the new designs and also repairing the existing ones. For a very long time they have been dealt with in a rather offhand manner, and I should like to ask the First Lord whether at the present moment those in the Corps of Constructors are, in his view, adequately paid and whether there are enough of the constructors to do the work they are required to do.
Also, on that point of research may I return to nuclear propulsion? I understand that the "Savannah", the ship which the United States have now built and installed for nuclear propulsion, has in it engines and boilers and subsidiary machinery which has been built and made and manufactured by a firm which originated from this country and is still associated, in a large measure, with the firm in this country. It would be interesting to know whether the "know-how" which that firm is gaining is being passed on to industry at this end. It may not be possible to answer that question to-day, but I am sure it would be very interesting to know the answer; because one would then feel happier that, even if we had not got a ship of this type at sea and doing trials of our own, we were at least gaining some of the knowledge which was essential for this project.

1385
Finally, my Lords, may I turn to the question of manpower? On the manpower side, the most encouraging thing that I have seen for a long time is the figure for re-engagements. I do not think one can stress too highly how important that is. It is quite impossible to train men if you have not the experienced people to train them; and one must congratulate the Admiralty on having arrived at the situation where they can retain their people in the Service. Having said that, I would always return to my old hobby-horse, which is to refer to the fact that two-thirds of our Naval personnel are still on shore. To me, my Lords, it always seems wrong that in a sea-going Service two-thirds of that Service should be on shore, not gaining essential experience of the different conditions of the life one lives at sea. Having said that, I would leave the point.
In addition, I should like to ask what is the position about wastage after training. There have always been excellent dockyard training schools, and the various training establishments for boys and juniors have always been good. Entirely from a Service point of view, one of the sad things, if you go to a lot of trouble to train up a young man to a skill, in the hope that he will carry on and produce a fine result in the Service, is to see him leaving after he has completed his training and going into industry. My Lords, I am told that industry likes this, and that, for them, it is an admirable means of getting highly-skilled men into industry. I am sure that for the country as a whole it is a good thing that that should continue to happen, but for those people who do the training it is possibly a little frustrating when they see, not always their best but some of the lads they have trained going elsewhere.
My Lords, I will finish by referring again, if I may, to the Portland secrets trial. The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said that everybody in the Service and attached to it was very glad that the Prime Minister felt he could not accept the First Lord's resignation. I can only echo those words, both from my own knowledge and from that of my friends, who have all said exactly the same thing to me. He is very highly thought of by them, and they would be very sorry to see him go.
4.5 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, with other noble Lords who have spoken I should like to congratulate the First Lord, his colleagues and the Admiralty staff on this production, the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, which we are considering to-day. I think it is excellently produced and very interesting, and is a very good document. I believe that this document shows that our naval thinking and planning is on the right lines. It also shows that we are still woefully weak in many respects, particularly that of numbers. The only other direct comment I want to make on the Explanatory Statement is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, I think it would be very interesting to your Lordships if next year, perhaps, we could have a paragraph on the surveying service. I had made a note to mention that before the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, mentioned it. I also strongly support all that he said about the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.
In these days it is the Minister of Defence, subject to the responsibility of the Cabinet and the Defence Committee, who has authority to decide:
"all major matters of defence policy affecting the size, shape, organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces, their weapons and warlike equipment and supply, including defence, research and development".
This is the constitutional position, though I do not think it is the reason why the First Lord, if I may be permitted to offer him my sympathy, is not allowed to occupy his own house. However, for these reasons I thought it might be useful to refresh my mind on the contents of the Report on Defence, 1961, the White Paper Cmnd. 1288, which we have already debated, just to see what references to naval matters were con-contained in that document. There are not many, though, happily, there is no repetition of the statement in an earlier White Paper that the role of the Navy was not clear, or words to that effect. The only direct references in Cmnd. 1288, other than finance and manpower, are two in number. Paragraph 14, under the heading "The Conventional Force", refers to "increased naval strength", while paragraph 3 has this to say:
"The Soviet fleet of submarines is of great size. Mr. Khrushchev has claimed the possession of nuclear submarines. We must expect

1387
the number of these to increase and that they will carry nuclear missiles".
My Lords, I am glad that the submarine forces of a potential enemy obviously occupy such a prominent place in the thinking of the Ministry of Defence, because in my view it is this force which presents the greatest menace to us and to our Allies—to us probably more than to our Allies. All in your Lordships' House will remember how near we came to disaster in both world wars, due to the depredations of the U-boats. To-day, as then, we require at least one million tons of supplies a week to keep this country going, and it is the fundamental duty of the Navy—and here I must add Coastal Command—to ensure the safe and timely arrival of the convoys.
The Explanatory Statement which we are debating to-day shows clearly how many (or perhaps one should say how few) vessels we have for this essential convoy work; but, of course, it does not show what contribution could be made by the Commonwealth and the Allied navies. For this reason, I do not intend to pursue the question of numbers in detail, though I am pretty sure that the combined naval forces available to the Alliance are inadequate in number. All that I feel I can usefully add to-day is to draw attention again to this all-important question of convoy protection and anti-submarine measures, and to make a few brief comments thereon.
First, we hear and read a lot about the versatility of our ships, and they certainly are most marvellously equipped with real compendiums of armaments, radar, and so forth. But I wonder, as I mentioned last year, whether we are going too far in this direction of cramming everything into a comparatively small number of ships. These ships cannot be everywhere at once. They cannot be available all the time. Refits and maintenance are necessary, while in war time we must expect action damage, or total loss. Furthermore, under active service conditions ships are driven very hard indeed in all sorts of weather, and it is not only the enemy which causes damage.
An American friend of mine, who served in the United States Navy throughout World War II, and is still engaged in some studies on their behalf,
1388
with whom I have discussed this important question of proper protection for the Allied sea communications, summarised it like this in a recent note to me:
"We"—
that is, those in the United States—
"are coming so regard it"—
that is, protection of our sea communications—
"as one of the matters where quality, as stressed by the scientists, technologists and even some strategists, in weapons and ship capabilities, simply has to be `traded off' in favour of quantity capabilities."
That is a slightly American expression, my Lords, but that is how he wrote it. I believe this to be an important point, and that we should develop without delay, if only in prototype, a simpler and less complex ship, a type of escort vessel which can be readily, and comparatively cheaply, produced in numbers. We have had to do this in both World Wars. In World War I we had the "Flower" class sloops—the so-called "herbaceous border"; in World War II we had the corvettes. I agree strongly with my noble friend, Lord Ashbourne, that both the "herbaceous border" of World War I and the corvettes of World War II are too slow. At this point, I again must mention Coastal Command, which has a vital part to play in the protection of our sea routes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord excuse my asking him a question? I am very interested in his argument. It is a very important thing to consider when you have to consider a naval programme. What would his view be about the personnel who would have to be provided for and safeguarded, with the changing methods of warfare? Should we be justified in multiplying the classes of our ships, and having perhaps half the personnel in simply-armed ships with practically no protection at all against the new weapons? That is a rather difficult thing for me to face up to in my mind as an ex-First Lord. How does he propose to deal with that?
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I think this is a highly technical matter which, at my stage of life, I do not feel really competent to discuss in detail. Ships are very expensive to-day. The equipment which goes into them is very expensive, and I think that our research and

1389
development, and those who have the "know-how", should be devoted, as my American friend said, to "trading off" some of the quality in favour of quantity. Of course, a ship with a less complex armament would have a smaller complement, and the said complement would not require quite such lengthy and technical training. It is a very difficult question, but we have too few ships in every class, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, showed, and we have certainly too few ships in the convoy protection business. I am just throwing out an idea—which may be nonsense—because I believe that in anti-submarine work quantity, subject to some minimum scale of armament, has an important part to play.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am very much obliged; but when we go back and recollect the awful revulsion of feeling when we had trawlers doing escort work on the East Coast, or even in the far Western Atlantic when the Americans were short at the opening of their phase in the war, with nothing but a Lewis gun on board, I think it is a shocking thing. We really have to try to find not only the right number, but the right power to give some reasonable protection to the men who form the crews.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I said in my remarks that I thought the "herbaceous border" class of World War I were too slow; that I thought the corvettes of World War II were also too slow; and I certainly agree with the noble Viscount that trawlers are too slow. I do not think the answer lies in calling upon trawlers for anti-submarine measures. They may have certain limited uses inshore, but I do not think we can use them for any serious anti-submarine escort work.
What I think is even as important as the ships—and maybe the answer lies in this—is, first of all, in building up these Wessex helicopters in their antisubmarine role, getting great numbers of them, or as many as we can afford; and secondly, in building up Coastal Command. I referred to this in the recent Air debate, and the only reason I mention it again to-day is that Coastal Command is intimately linked with the Navy in convoy protection and anti-
1390
submarine work. Since I spoke in the Air debate, I have received further information which rather confirms my suspicions that Coastal Command is not as strong as it should be. All I was going to do in this debate—which is, in any case, a naval debate—was to ask the First Lord whether he could add his weight to representations to the Minister of Defence to give a little higher priority to more equipment for Coastal Command.
From our defence against enemy submarines I should like to turn to our own submarines. The Memorandum shows that we have 30 conventional types in commission and 24 in reserve. Since our potential enemies do not possess a very great number of capital ships, except cruisers, perhaps, I presume the main function of our own submarines would be in the fields of patrol reconnaissance, anti-shipping, and many other subsidiary duties, such as landing commandos, agents, and so forth, all of which they did on many occasions in the last war. I do not know how many, if any, of our submarines are fitted for minelaying, but however that may he, it seems to me that our own conventional type submarines will, in the main, be required to operate in narrow, confined waters. Therefore I do not think we require conventional submarines any larger than those joining the fleet now.
Talking of large submarines, I think your Lordships may be amused to be reminded of the distinguished submarine officer in World War I who took one of the early "K" class submarines out for her initial diving trials. As soon as she had reached periscope depth on her first dive ever—which is quite an exciting moment—he went to the voicepipe and spoke to his first lieutenant, who was in the fore end by one of the torpedo tubes, to see if they leaked, I suppose, and said: "Number One, my end is diving; is yours?"
Large or small submarines have another function, and that is, of course, hunting and killing enemy submarines. It is not so easy, as the records of successful kills in both World Wars show clearly. High underwater speed is essential, and if this can be combined with high surface speed and long endurance, so much the better. The "R" class submarines of World War I were built specially for anti-U-boat work, with an

1391
underwater speed of fifteen or sixteen knots, but they only had eight knots on the surface. However, they had only one small diesel engine and it took literally hours to charge their batteries. I think that perhaps the noble Viscount who initiated this debate may remember this. These inherent disadvantages are probably the reason we did not develop any anti-submarine submarines in World War II. It seems to me that this is where the nuclear-powered submarine comes into its own, for anti-submarine work, particularly in the oceans. Their high underwater speed and ability to remain submerged more or less indefinitely should make them most formidable anti-submarine weapons. For this reason, I hope that the "Dreadnought" will be completed without further delay, in order that we may gain early experience of this type of ship in operation. It is very satisfactory to note from the Memorandum that a second submarine of this type is on order. I Saw from the papers the other day that material is well ahead for laying her down.
With our limited resources, I hold the view that it is right and proper for us to give priority to this class of nuclear-powered submarine rather than to vessels equipped with Polaris weapons or weapons of that type. I say this because I think that we, of all the Allies, must give priority to those ships and weapons directly applicable to the maritime strategy so essential to our development. From what one reads in the papers, the United States Navy has a very efficient production line for Polaris armed nuclear type submarines. In fact, I have seen it suggested that they are off the production line so quickly that the Americans are going to have difficulty in finding trained crews. I am not suggesting, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, did, that we should ask them to lease-lend them; but I would suggest that we should see if we cannot make a hire purchase deal with them, on the basis that we man four or five of these Polaris armed submarines. It seems to me that that would be a more sensible way of conserving not only our limited resources but also the Allied limited resources, instead of trying to set up a production line for Polaris armed submarines in this country.
1392
Personally, I do not know enough about these Polaris submarines (if I may abbreviate the name) and their capabilities to appreciate whether they should be regarded as a specialised weapon solely in aid of the deterrent, or whether they have wider potentialities. But, certainly I believe that the Polaris type submarine in the hands of an enemy could be a real menace to our convoys, or to any shipping for that matter. It might be that such a threat would cause us to sail our convoys very considerably dispersed, and this would mean a requirement for even larger numbers of escort ships, Coastal Command aircraft, and the rest of the anti-submarine team. This is another reason why I hope that in future years Coastal Command will receive particularly high priorities.
I should like briefly to refer to the guided-missile destroyers. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that "guided-missile destroyer" is really not a suitable name. Through the courtesy of the First Lord some of us were able to see a model of these beautiful ships, a photograph of which is reproduced in the Memorandum. I think that they are going to turn out magnificent ships. I question whether, with their 6,000 tons displacement, it is right to class them as destroyers. Some of your Lordships will remember, as I do, that "destroyer" is merely a contraction for torpedo boat destroyer—the T.B.D.'s of 1914. I really think that these beautiful (because they are beautiful) and useful ships, the "Devonshire" and her sisters, should be more properly classed as cruisers, or light cruisers. They look to me as if they should have good sea-keeping qualities, and if, as I hope, they also have good endurance, they will prove a most valuable addition to the Fleet.
From ships to men. Again thanks to the First Lord, some of us were able to see a film of apprentice training in the Royal Navy. I was very much impressed by this and full of admiration for what was being done and for the way it was being done. When I spoke in the Navy debate last year, I expressed some bewilderment as to the Admiralty policy for training officers. Towards the end of last year I found in your Lordships' Library, a publication called Officer, produced by the Ministry of Information for the Admiralty. I

1393
cannot speak too highly of this publication—I have a copy here if noble Lords are interested. Not only is it beautifully produced, but, more important, it gives the information and encouragement needed by any boy who contemplates joining the Navy, or by his parents. It supplements, more usefully for the layman, pages 18 and 19 of the Memorandum, which are also very useful.
On the subject of officers, I have only one question to ask the First Lord. It refers to retired officers. At the outset of the last war, we had no fewer than 8,000 retired officers available. They were called up for service, most of them before the Royal Proclamation. Today I suspect that there are about the same number, maybe even more, of whom I am one. Until a year or two ago, I used to receive a piece of paper annually from their Lordships in Queen Anne's Mansions, inquiring as to my state of health, my address, and whether I was prepared to serve anywhere. This has now ceased—I do not know why. Maybe it is because I am too old. But if that is so, my answer is that I am not so old as many who performed valuable service in the last year, including one distinguished officer who served with the Commandos and got a bar to his World War I D.S.O. I have a suspicion (I cannot be quite sure about this, but at any rate it is before the time of the present First Lord) that this annual roll call ceased at the same time as the then current White Paper on Defence stated that the Navy's role in any future war was not certain—or words to that effect.
Nobody can have a higher opinion of our reserves than I have. I served with many of the retired officers in both world wars. Nevertheless, Regular officers now retired, many of them still young—much younger than I am—will be required if another emergency arises. Lastly—and I have deliberately kept this to the last—I would remind your Lordships of the distinguished services in the last war of Sir Bertram Ramsay and Sir James Somerville, who were both on the Retired List at the beginning of the war and who, I am glad to say, were retired to the Active List and promoted to full Admiral before the end of the war—and jolly well they deserved it!
1394
The Memorandum sets out very clearly the available vessels for Fleet support, or The Fleet Train. The Fleet Tram becomes ever more important, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, has pointed out, as our bases overseas diminish. One sees every day, when one opens one's paper, that some nationalist leader threatens to kick us out of a base. I am wondering whether it would be wise to spend £3 million on a base in East Africa. Only the other day, I met somebody back from Ceylon, who had a connection with the Navy there, and he told me that it was run right down now and overgrown. Even if these independent countries said: "Yes, you can come in and use your base again", it would not be ready for us.
I would remind your Lordships that the Fleet Train does not only have to supply fuel oil; it has many other functions to perform. I have been reading the history of the United States naval operations in the Pacific during the recent war, and I found a record of the largest logistic operation ever performed on the high seas. In three days' refuelling and replenishment at sea at the end of July, 1945, the American fleet took aboard 6,369 tons of ammunition, 50,000 tons of fuel oil, 1,600-odd tons of provisions, 99 aircraft replacements and 412 officers and men replacements. Task Force 38, that well-known American force, was by any standard a very large fleet, and almost certainly larger than anything we are likely to see in the near future. Nevertheless, I think it worth while to bring these figures to your Lordships' notice to show the magnitude and scope of the job when we are divorced from our bases.
As regards our own provisions for a Fleet Train as disclosed in the Memorandum, I only want to say that I think we need at least one more fully equipped repair ship. I realise that in the event of an emergency many gaps in our Fleet Train can be plugged by taking out suitable merchant shipping—store ships and so forth; but repair ships are not easily and quickly come by, and they are invaluable in war time. Other units which should be thought about sooner, rather than later, are water-distilling ships and carriers, because the general shortage of water at Gibraltar, Algiers and other Mediterranean ports, as well as at Sierre Leone, to name only a few,

1395
caused great difficulties for Her Majesty's ships and transports alike during the last war. It also gave us a lot of trouble in the First World War, and we did not learn our lessons between the two wars. I believe that in 1945 one floating brewery (if not two) was supplied by the Admiralty to join the Fleet Train that had been created for our Pacific Fleet. I must reluctantly state that I think water carriers and distilling ships must take priority over floating breweries.
I am sure that we all welcomed the First Lord's statement the other day that another Royal Marine Commando is to be formed. Events of the past week show how right it was to get the Royal Marines afloat again, and there is no doubt that "Bulwark" has proved her value in the recent operations at Kuwait. Now that we have a Fleet, small in both numbers and size, it is no longer possible to land, as we did in days gone by, the seamen and marines of the Fleet to deal with what it is now fashionable to describe as a bush or brush fire (I never know which it is) or a fire brigade operation—although past performances of this nature are somewhat scornfully referred to as "gunboat diplomacy". However, the great thing is that we have the Marines afloat again in larger numbers and better equipped possibly than ever before; and, because they are trained together, better trained than ever before.
I imagine that the reason why "Bulwark" and "Albion" were selected as commando carriers was that their hulls and machinery were immediately available and that they still had some running life in them. I say this because I cannot regard them as being by any means ideal for the purpose. I believe that the United States Navy refer to this class of ship as "vertical envelopment ships", because I suppose their principal method of landing the Marines is by helicopter. They have only four landing craft. From accounts of the exercise "Pony Express" (I have not seen any details of the Kuwait landing, but I read about "Pony Express") it took over three hours to land 440 men with their equipment, although they had the advantage of an uninterrupted shuttle service of helicopters; and in this exercise in North Borneo there was no opposition. Fortunately for us there was no opposition at Kuwait,
1396
but if the Iraqi Migs had appeared on the scene there might not have been an uninterrupted shuttle service of helicopters.
I see from the photograph on page 6 of the Memorandum that "Bulwark" carries no fewer than 90 vehicles and guns on her flight deck. I do not know if these were landed in Borneo, but when watching "Panorama" the other night the announcer said that the background pictures were the Marines' vehicles being ferried ashore. I do not know how they got ashore, but perhaps it was in one of the ships of the amphibious squadron from Bahrein. The weight of vehicles on the flight deck must add considerably to the top weight, which is the bugbear of all naval constructors. Nevertheless with all these disadvantages, I think that, as an ad hoc measure, the use of "Bulwark" has certainly proved her value in a big way in Kuwait, and I should like to add my humble congratulations to those who were responsible for ensuring that she was in the right place at the right time. But I think eventually we must have something better than "Bulwark" and her sister ship "Albion" to carry Her Majesty's "jollies" about the oceans and land them wherever required. Landing by helicopter is an interesting new technique, but I think it has strictly limited application, even when helicopters are enlarged and improved.
The new assault ship, details of which appeared in the Press earlier in the year (mentioned in paragraph 30 of the Memorandum), may be the answer, but I am a little apprehensive about this ship, because again we seem to be trying to do too much in one ship. As I understand it, she is to be a multipurpose ship, carrying not only the assault troops, their equipment, stores and landing craft, but also the headquarters staff and combined staff. If that be true, she will make a really "juicy" target for an enterprising submarine commander or aviator, and the whole expedition can be "in the drink" very quickly.
Before I leave the sphere of combined operations, I should like to say how much I welcome the statement which I have seen somewhere (I think probably in the Press) that the Royal Artillery are to train with the Royal Marine

1397
Commandos. I imagine that this training has not yet started, because the Royal Artillery Parachute Regiment was flown straight from Aldershot to Kuwait last week-end, which I think was a very hard thing. But I am sure that it is a wise move to train the men of the Royal Artillery with the Royal Marines, seeing that we no longer have that fine body of men the Blue Marines—in other words, the Royal Marine Artillery.
That leads me to a question which I should like to ask, although it may not be possible for the First Lord to answer it to-day. I would ask whether the Royal Engineers are likewise going to embark for training with the Royal Marines; or is it the intention (and this is a course that I personally should prefer) to reconstitute the Royal Marine Engineers? The Royal Marine Engineers did fine work in the last war, and they could have done a lot more if the Admiralty had really understood their role more properly.
I have had some opportunity to study not only the work of the Royal Marine Engineers in the last War—their heavy battalions did a remarkably good job of clearing up Le Havre before the Americans had anybody available—,but also the work by the United States Navy Construction battalions, generally referred to as the "Sea Bees". It seems to me that, with this mobile conception, it is necessary to have with the Royal Marine Commandos or assault troops elements of engineers or sappers with equipment to clear a rear landing strip, or something Like that. I think that possibly the simplest way in which the Royal Marine Engineers could be reconstituted would be to form yet another wing of the Royal Marine Fleet Volunteer Reserve. This already has a commando wing, or ship wing, and it might have also an engineer wing.
Before I leave the Royal Marines, there is one other question I should like to ask. It is a minor one, and again I do not expect the First Lord will answer it today, but it is of no urgency. In 1943, when we landed in North Africa, we found ourselves in considerable administrative and disciplinary trouble, if I may put it that way, because some of our marines were embarked and some were not—I do not, of course, mean "embarked" in a ship: "embarked" is an Admiralty expression, meaning that the
1398
marine is under the Naval Discipline Act. If he is not embarked, he is under the Army Act. A marine who was not embarked and who misbehaved would be taken before an Army Officer and it would cause a lot of trouble. When I came home to rejoin Admiral Ramsay for the Normandy Operation, I reported these troubles to my Admiral. He promptly made a signal to the Admiralty, and we had all the marines embarked in the Royal Navy, which saved everybody a lot of trouble. Those are just some of the things which caused so much trouble.
My Lords, I fear that I have spoken too long, but before I sit down I must refer in a few sentences to the Admiralty. I did a two-year war-time stint at the Admiralty, and therefore I read with very great interest the Report on the Admiralty Headquarter Organisation by a Select Committee in another place. When I joined the Admiralty, the director of my department said to me: "This is a weird and wonderful place. If you take the trouble to find out how it works and which buttons to push, there is nothing you cannot get done, and get done jolly quickly". He was perfectly right. I, and those with whom I worked, found the right buttons, and did manage to get things done, just as he said. In fact, I even succeeded in getting a Board decision reversed by a little quiet button-pushing on a Sunday morning; but that is too long a story to tell here. The noble Viscount opposite was first Lord at the time, and I shall tell him the story outside the Chamber.
After reading the Select Committee's Report I could not support their recommendation that the whole Admiralty organisation should be concentrated in London. I admit that certain economies and other advantages might well arise from such a concentration, but I believe that these would be more than outweighed by the advantages of dispersal, certainly in war time, and also in peace. The war-time advantages are obvious, but even in peace time too great concentrations of staff are undesirable, for more than one reason. The main impression left on my mind by this Report: of the Select Committee is that the Naval Staff would benefit considerably by a certain amount of streamlining and tidying-up of its naval organisation. Although

1399
finance is not strictly a matter for this House, I think there is a need for some tidying-up or cleaning up of the estimating system, because there is more than a suggestion that sometimes the Board have been given estimates that have been wrong. They decide to go ahead, and the job eventually costs much more, whereas if the correct estimate had been presented at the time they might have decided to do the job another way. I know that that sort of thing often happens. It should not happen, but it does sometimes happen in business. Good estimating is most important from the point of view of the Board's deciding what is the best policy and how we are to get the best possible value for every pound we spend.
In conclusion, I am of opinion that we must, as matter of urgency, try to provide more ships and more aircraft for the protection of our sea communications. In this connection, we must try to strike the correct balance between quality and quantity realising, as we must, that our resources are limited.
4.46 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, I also have to apologise to the House for rising to speak when I was unable to be present earlier. Because of that, I missed the privilege of listening to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, and also to my noble friend Lord Teynham. I would therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence should I repeat what has already been said. I should like first of all to congratulate my noble friend the First Lord on the excellence of his printed Statement and of the photographs which are printed in it. Taken together, they present a vivid picture of the activities of the Fleet during the past year, of the worthwhile life which the Navy has to offer, and the wide range of interests which it is able to satisfy. Indeed, if I may say so, the Statement is a model of its kind, enlightening and full of interest.
The part of the Statement which interests me most, and which I believe is of far the greatest importance to this country, is that which appears on page 3, under the heading, "The Value of Sea Power". In paragraph 2 on that page we are given an admirable state-
1400
ment of the Navy's rôle in time of peace, and the influence which the Fleet can bring to bear in maintaining peace, to which I should like to add, with all due deference, when the balance between the different types of ship which compose the Fleet is suitable to the circumstances of the time and the strategic disposition of the Fleet is in accordance with the realities of the existing situation in the world.
In the third paragraph we are told of the Navy's rôle in limited wars and "bush fires", which I find to be altogether unexceptionable until I come to the last two lines of the paragraph. Here I hope that I am not being pedantic, but I doubt whether it is absolutely correct to say that the traditional rôle of the Navy is to seek out and destroy hostile warships. Might I suggest that it would perhaps be more correct, and certainly more in accordance with what I was taught, to say that the rôle of the Navy is to keep open the lines of communication across the sea, and that experience has proved that the best means of doing that is to seek out and destroy the enemy's ships of war. Be that as it may, I would not presume to lay down what should be the present composition of the Fleet, or what should be its strategic disposition. These are jobs which should be handled by the experts.
I am reminded in paragraph 4 of the First Lord's Statement that we must prepare not only for limited wars, but also for global war. In that connection, we are told that the Navy's rôle would be as an integral part of the combined naval forces of the West. But, I would ask, what is the rôle of the combined naval forces of the West? One can only presume that, in consultation with our Allies, that has been decided, but perhaps the First Lord might see fit to tell us whether that is so, and what the decision arrived at is. I, for myself, cannot think that it could be other than what I have understood the rôle of the Navy always to have been, and that is to keep open the lines of communication across the sea so that all may pass on the sea upon their lawful occasions. If that is not the rôle of the N.A.T.O. fleet then it can be of little or no interest or value to this country.
From the First Lord's Statement I take it he is reasonably satisfied that

1401
the Navy is adequately equipped to meet such situations as are likely to arise in limited wars. But I ask, is that enough? Although the outcome of a limited war might be unpalatable and unpleasant to us, it could not threaten our future as a free and independent people; but sever the lines of sea communication between this country and the outside world for even a few weeks and we should be forced to accept whatever terms our enemy saw fit to offer, no matter how severe these might be.
In two world wars, as has already been remarked, the submarine came very close to interrupting the lines of communication to such an extent as to face this country with the shadow of starvation. I wish, therefore, to develop a little more closely the question on which the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, touched lightly, and which was developed rather further by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who I understood to say considered it to be the most important of all the questions facing us at this time.
In 1939 the Germans had 116 submarines, not all of them ocean-going. To oppose them we had 202 destroyers and 58 escorts, a total of 260 ships capable of anti-submarine escort duty. To-day, according to the First Lord's Statement, we have 47 destroyers and 89 frigates, or 136 ships capable of escort duty. We know from bitter experience that the 260 ships of 1939 were far too small a force to deal adequately with the German submarines. How, then, can we expect the 136 ships we now have to protect our merchant shipping against attack by a submarine force some two or three times more numerous than that which the Germans had operating in the Atlantic during the last war? And that particularly when we consider the enormous development in submarine design in recent years which has made them much more difficult to locate and greatly increased their under-water speed, while they have also been provided with weapons of much greater precision and accuracy as to ensure a proportion of hits many times greater than was possible in 1945.
Of course, I realise that the methods of detection and the weapons of destruction carried by our anti-submarine forces on the sea and under the sea and in
1402
the air have also been greatly developed, but, even so, I should be most pleasantly surprised if the First Lord were able to claim that our present anti-submarine forces could compete with the attack which could be mounted by even 50 modern submarines, far less by possibly 200 or 250. Further, I think we have to remember that the modern submarine has great endurance and can operate in waters far distant from her home ports, indeed anywhere in the oceans of the world, so that it might well be that wherever our trade went it would have to sail in convoy. From all our past experience, then, it appears highly improbable that our existing anti-submarine forces could provide adequate protection to our shipping in the North Atlantic, far less in the waters of the Mediterranean, the South Atlantic, the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
What, then, is the answer? Perhaps the First Lord has already given it in paragraph 4 of his Statement, which I take to mean that this country can no longer rely on its own Fleet for the defence of this trade, but on the naval forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—at least, that is in so far as that part of the world is concerned which is covered by that Alliance. I do not for one moment doubt the good faith of our N.A.T.O. Allies, but I think it is always dangerous to rely on others to defend us, particularly when it is life itself that is at stake, and that is what is at stake here. Although I do not doubt the good faith of our Allies, war is apt to present us with unforeseen situations such as might preclude our Allies from making their full strength available for the protection of the trade routes. But even assuming that everything they have is devoted to that purpose—and at this moment I exclude from that the United States—it amounts to some 70 destroyers and 140 escorts. Adding these 210 vessels to our own provides the total anti-submarine force of 364 ships.
May I consider for one moment the situation of the United States of America? In a global war she might well have to fight on two fronts, in the Pacific and in the Atlantic. It might be that she would see a greater threat to her security from the Pacific than from the Atlantic. But, in any event, have we any knowledge, and is there any

1403
agreement, as to the proportion of our anti-submarine forces which she would be willing to devote to the protection of trade passing between British and European ports and those of North America, the Commonwealth and other friendly countries?
Assuming that she felt able to devote all her anti-submarine forces to that one purpose, the N.A.T.O. forces would be augmented by 375 destroyers and 340 escorts, so that the total force available would now become 1,061 ships, of which the United States would contribute 715, our European Allies 210, and Great Britain 136. That is not, I submit, a very satisfactory position for a country whose life depends more than any other on the maintenance of sea communications and which in 1944 contributed 500 to the 1,800 vessels then employed against enemy submarines. I repeat these figures: 1944, 500 out of 1,800; 1961, 136 out of 1,061.
It seems to me that certain unpalatable conclusions emerge from these figures and considerations. While the British Fleet can still play a valuable part in maintaining peace, while it is still capable of subduing "bush fires" and has possibly a vital rôle in a limited war, it is, by itself, incapable of performing its traditional function of keeping open trade routes so that our merchant shipping can pass to and from this country, bringing to it the food and raw materials essential to the nation's life, and taking from it to other countries finished goods necessary to pay for these essential imports. That appears to me to be the situation implicit in the First Lord's Statement, a situation the like of which has not faced this country for centuries. And there is reason, my Lords, to doubt whether the N.A.T.O. Fleet, even if fully committed, could adequately protect the trade routes. In that connection, I do not know whether we have any knowledge as to the extent to which our N.A.T.O. Allies have committed their forces to the defence of trade. But perhaps here again the First Lord might, be able to tell us whether they have entered into any specific commitments and, if so, what.
I do not believe that the British public in general has yet appreciated the very great change in our circumstances which has come about since the end of the war.
1404
The majority of people, so far as I can make out, still think of the Navy as our sure shield and as the first line of defence. Therefore, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether the time has not come when the people of this country should be told plainly and bluntly, without equivocation, that neither the British Fleet nor the naval forces of N.A.T.O. are capable of meeting and mastering an attack on the trade routes such as could be mounted by Russia to-day, and that, consequently, peace more than ever depends upon our possession of the bomb, on which also, if global war should come, our ultimate survival might well rest.
My plea, then, to the Government this afternoon is to let the people know the plain facts of the situation so that they may be under no delusion when they choose butter rather than security.
5.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, once again we are very grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for the opportunity he has given us of having our annual discussion on the Royal Navy. I do not think that the noble Viscount would take me to task if I suggested that he was not a very warm admirer of Her Majesty's Government or a very stout supporter of the Government's defence and naval policies. But he is a very stout supporter indeed of the Royal Navy, a fact which has come out very clearly in the speech he made this afternoon; and, if I may say so, very properly. Because Governments may come and go, but the Royal Navy continues; and within the limits of money and material and men which the Government of the day allots to it it is to-day as efficient and up to date as ever it has been. I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have spoken in this debate, too, for what you have said, and I will make it my business to study your speeches, which have been interesting and constructive.
My Lords, you will notice that in my Explanatory Memorandum I have laid emphasis on the continuing and indeed increasing importance of sea power, and I have tried to set out the steps which we take to fit the Navy to carry out its task in the most modern conditions. It is hardly necessary to remind you of the twin problem which faces the Government: the problem of steadily increasing

1405
complexity and the rising cost of modern weapons, and, at the same time, the need to achieve a proper balance in our Armed Forces within a Budget which leaves our economy capable of contributing effectively to the cold war and of meeting all the many other calls upon it. It is a familiar problem and I will say no more about it except to ask your Lordships to bear it in mind when you consider the problems of the Royal Navy, its size and its equipment.
For example, my noble friends Lord Ampthill, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Congleton and Lord Strathclyde have all expressed concern about the size of our escort and anti-submarine forces. I, too, should like to see these increased, but this can be only at the expense of some other section of the Navy and at the risk of unbalancing the Fleet. I do not think we can devote a substantially greater share of our national resources to defence, and so we have had to plan with the knowledge that our expenditure is limited.
Speaking generally, where we have had a choice between quantity and quality we have gone for quality. By equipping our forces with the most modern weapons at our disposal we think we shall get the best value for our money in terms of the best contribution we can make to the Western defence, as well as to the best protection of our own national interests. I should be reluctant to do as my noble friend, Lord Ampthill, suggested and have what one may call a "second eleven" Navy with not so good ships as we could have. Anyway that has been our policy, quality rather than quantity; and if it has meant relying on a smaller Fleet it has also meant a Fleet of more modern and powerful ships than ever before, which in any major conflict would be combined with those of our Western allies.
My noble friend behind me rather took me to task for paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Statement and suggested that we should be capable of meeting entirely on our own the sort of situation he had in mind. I should have thought that the figures he himself gave would have made him realise that economically this would be quite out of the question. If we ourselves were asked to build up an escort fleet of over 1,000 ships we should not have the remotest prospect of having any other sort of Navy and any other
1406
defence forces of any kind at all. I believe it much wiser to put our trust in a policy of interdependence and alliances with those who think as we do.
Whatever the changes that have taken place in the last twenty years, and despite the dominance of the two industrial and military giants, Russia and the United States, we are still a Power with worldwide responsibilities. We have our special interests in the Middle East and in the Far East. We have taken upon ourselves many new military obligations as a result of the emergence of the Commonwealth from Empire. But in that evolution the facilities we enjoy in the shape of bases for carrying out our obligations have grown fewer. The barriers to the free movement of troops have greatly multiplied. The one free highway which remains open to us is the sea. As long as our world-wide obligations continue we must ensure that the Royal Navy can make use of it. In short our strategy is tending gradually to become maritime.
I do not think I am being too fanciful when I say that the wheel is now beginning to turn full circle: that the Army's dependence on the Navy in the days when the Empire was first established is now returning in the very different circumstances of the twentieth century. To-day, of course, the Navy shares that role with the Royal Air Force. But the Navy's special contribution, an increasingly valuable one, is its ability to remain poised and ready near the scene of trouble and its capacity for rapid intervention in the early stages of any incident. This, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, is the real significance of the commando ships "Bulwark", very often in the news, and the "Albion", which will join the Active Fleet next year; of the Fifth Royal Marine Commando which we shall form this year; of the assault ship which is to replace the Amphibious Warfare Squadron, and of the Fleet Air Arm with its most modern aircraft the "Sea Vixen" and soon the new "Buccaneer".
My Lords, it is easy enough to use phrases of this kind to describe the rôle of the Navy, but so often in the past it has been difficult to clothe them with real meaning. To-day, however, we can point to an actual example of the value of sea power as it has been used to support the operations in Kuwait. The

1407
Navy's power of rapid intervention has been demonstrated in the most striking fashion in the last week, and the success of these operations has shown as nothing else could do that the Navy is ready and able at a moment's notice to vindicate the claims that have been made for it.
The first British troops to land were the men of No. 42 Royal Marine Commando, who were brought, with their vehicles and equipment, over 1,000 miles to Kuwait by H.M.S. "Bulwark" in under two days, and the presence of this ship alone did a great deal to restore confidence there. H.M.S. "Bulwark" was soon joined by a force of two frigates and five tank-landing vessels from Bahrein, and the whole force was made fully self-supporting by the redeployment of tankers and replenishment ships. Other naval forces are converging quickly on Kuwait from many parts of the world at short notice. This quick and decisive action undoubtedly helped to discourage and deter any move to overrun the sheikdom. Your Lordships could have no clearer demonstration than this of the mobility and effectiveness of the Royal Navy in amphibious operations, and if this afternoon I have particularly mentioned what the Royal Navy has done in this context, because this is a Naval debate, that, of course, does not in any way detract from the success the Army and R.A.F. have had also in the operation.
But the increasing emphasis which has been laid on the amphibious capability of the Navy has not detracted in any way from its other traditional tasks which remain as important as ever: the maintenance of law and order and of peace and stability in as many corners of the globe as possible; the protection of British shipping, both in peace and war, and keeping command of the sea; or, to be more precise, the ability to use the sea wherever we wish and whenever we wish for our own purposes while denying it to the enemy. This sounds a formidable range of tasks, but to a large extent they overlap. When you hear that 75 per cent. of the Fleet is earmarked to N.A.T.O., for example, you must not suppose that only 25 per cent. remains available for the non-N.A.T.O. task. There is nothing rigid about the deployment of the Fleet to-day. Thanks to
1408
their mobility—and, as I shall explain in a minute, to the combination of qualities which we are now building into them—our warships can be switched very quickly from one role to another.
As part of this new flexible pattern we have split our Fleet into two main divisions, one East of Suez, based on Singapore, the other West of Suez. Virtually all the ships on the Home and Mediterranean Stations are now interchangeable; and as Kuwait has shown, the Fleet East of Suez can be deployed rapidly over the whole area from the Persian Gulf to Hong Kong. The importance of the Navy's new "fire brigade" role is reflected in the build-up of our naval forces at Singapore, where we now have a numerically bigger Fleet than at any time since 1945.
My noble and gallant friend Lord Ashbourne mentioned the need for a second aircraft carrier East of Suez. He is, of course, making a case for increasing the size of the carrier fleet. This would be very welcome, but with our limited resources we must rely at present largely on rapid reinforcement from the area West of Suez. We are, however, looking to see whether we can improve carrier availability East of Suez with our present Fleet, and I hope this will be possible.
I had an opportunity about two months ago of seeing for myself how the Fleet was getting on in Singapore, and I was very greatly impressed with the spirit and morale of the officers and men I met, often in very hot, humid and trying conditions. I visited the "Bulwark" at that time and was given a very interesting, and I think satisfactory, account of her first commission. I also discussed with the Commander of the 3rd Royal Marine Commando Brigade the problems which he has to face in this part of the world. My noble friend, Lord Ampthill, raised the question of artillery and "Sapper" support for the Commandos. Any support of this kind is at present supplied by the Army, and we are exploring with the War Office the possibility of associating an Artillery Regiment more closely with the Commandos; and it is, of course, the normal practice for the Commandos, whenever they are ashore, to work very closely with administrative units of the Army in the area.

1409
Now, my Lords, what are we doing to equip the Royal Navy for all these tasks? We have been steadily replacing the large number of ageing and obsolete ships, which was the inevitable legacy of the last war, with efficient, modern units. From time to time noble Lords have criticised our scrapping policy, and have suggested that we ought to have kept more of these old ships. But I can assure your Lordships that we have only been practising good forestry; pruning, thinning and replanting. Old ships cost men and money to maintain, and we have had to husband our resources of both. As I said earlier on, we have chosen to concentrate on quality rather than quantity, and I am quite sure that this policy is right. At the same time, we have been careful not to cast away any ship which has a useful and worthwhile life ahead of it.
The centrepiece of my Explanatory Statement illustrates our performance in rebuilding the Navy during the past ten years. Our main effort, after the completion of the four aircraft carriers, which, with the rebuilt H.M.S. "Victorious", will carry the Fleet Air Arm through the next ten years, has been devoted to the frigate programme. The frigate is the modern Navy's "maid of all work" and we have built 32 of them since 1951, starting with the "Whitby" class of anti-submarine vessels and going on to the improved "Rothe-say" class. The sea-keeping quality of these ships is outstandingly good, as I found out for myself when I took passage in a Force 9 Gale across the Channel last February in H.M.S. "Rhyl".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I seem to recollect that some of the programme completed since 1951 was a continuation of the programme already in existence in 1950.
LORD CARRINGTON: That may very well have been. I am not in any way trying to take away from the noble Viscount the programme which was laid down when he was Minister of Defence. I am saying that in the ten years, taking ten years as a figure, the Navy completed 32 frigates.
The new general purpose "Tribals", of which the first H.M.S. "Ashanti", with her revolutionary gas turbine boost machinery, has just successfully com-
1410
pleted her trials, will shortly be in service. Work is progressing on our next generation of frigates, the "Leanders", which are a later development of the "Rothesay" class. Four of these ships are already under construction, and the first, H.M.S. "Leander", was launched a week ago to-day. The three next ships are to be named "Penelope","Dido" and "Ajax". Three more were ordered as a result of competitive tendering last December, while orders for a further three ships, one of which will be built in Devonport Dockyard, will shortly be placed. With these ships, and with the "Tribals", we have developed still further the concept of multi-purpose ships capable of fulfilling anywhere in the world the anti-submarine, as well as the anti-aircraft, air-direction and bombardment rôles. To anyone who knows the complicated equipment needed for any one of these rôles to-day the combination of all of it in one hull is a really remarkable feat of design. The "Tribals "and "Leanders" will also be the first frigates to carry an anti-submarine helicopter, which will extend the range of their weapons to match that of their modern detection apparatus.
The other great step forward which we are taking in the anti-submarine field is, of course, the construction of our first two nuclear "killer" submarines. Good as the newest conventional boats are (the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked me the difference between the new conventional boats and the old ones) they differ only in the sense that they are an improvement on the previous ones; and a considerable improvement in the qualities of speed and silence. But good as they are, the nuclears have great advantages of speed and underwater endurance.
As your Lordships know, our second nuclear submarine has already been ordered. We have decided to call her H.M.S. "Valiant" and she will give her name to the class of boats, whose machinery will be largely British, which we hope will follow her in due course. I think it was my noble friend Lord Ampthill, who asked me the question about H.M.S. "Dreadnought". She will be commissioned at the end of next year. Work on the guided missile destroyer programme is going well. Two of these ships, the "Devonshire" and

1411
the "Hampshire", have now been launched, and the "Kent" and the "London" will follow this year. The fifth and sixth ships of the class will shortly be ordered. These last two will have an improved version of the Seaslug weapon, with greater height, range and lethality, and this will in due course be fitted as a modification to the first four of this class. But I am quite satisfied that the Seaslug Mark I is a good weapon, and in any case Seaslug Mark II, would not be ready to put into the first four of these guided-missile destroyers.
I have been taken to task about this description of these ships. I hesitate now to get into an argument with two noble Lords who have spent a lifetime in the Royal Navy. I would only say that I think that the whole name, "guided-missile destroyer" is really nonsense, if one thinks of it. After all, the one thing they do not destroy is guided missiles. But I take them to task for speaking of cruisers, because in point of fact they are not cruisers. As I understand it, the definition of a cruiser is a ship which has a built-in maintenance capability, and these ships have been designed according to destroyer standards. Although the main task of these ships will be air defence, they will carry a helicopter and will be very effective against submarines.
Finally, a word about the new assault ship—only one at the moment. One thing at a time, I think. Operating on the principle of a floating dock, she will carry her landing craft internally and release them through the stern by flooding the after part of the ship. The ship will be able to carry 700 troops, together with their vehicles and heavy equipment, and she will be able to operate helicopters. The great advantage which she will have over the Amphibious Warfare Squadron will be her ability to remain at sea and keep up with the Commando carriers, which the Squadron cannot do at present. She will be ready by the time when the ships of the Amphibious Warfare Squadron reach the end of their useful lives. I can assure the noble Viscount opposite and my noble friend Lord Ampthill, that the need for modern, fast Fleet supply and replenishment, depôt and repair
1412
ships is being borne in mind. It is being taken account of in our new construction plans, and we have comprehensive plans both for modernisation and for building.
Before leaving future developments, I think I should say something about the next generation of aircraft carriers, because my noble friend Lord Teynham asked me about them, and I noted with interest what he said generally about aircraft carriers. As I said earlier, our present carriers, with the regular modernisation and re-equipment which we are giving them to enable them to operate the latest aircraft and weapons, will last until 1970 and beyond, and we will take the necessary decisions to replace them, if we do, in good time. But new carriers would cost a great deal, and any ship which we build now must last until the 1990's. We must be quite certain that we arrive at the right answer to this matter.
On the helicopter side the Fleet Air Arm is continuing to expand as plans are laid for the second commando ship in commission and for fitting greater numbers of our escorts with helicopters for anti-submarine work. The noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Teynham, both asked me about hovercraft. The Admiralty is co-ordinating Service interest in this machine, for which several potential Service uses have been seen. For instance, it may be valuable for anti-submarine warfare, amphibious warfare and ferrying duties, for coastal forces, logistic support for the Army, air-sea rescue and mine hunting.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, could I just revert to what the First Lord has been saying about aircraft carriers? Could not we be a little clearer as to whether costs and other difficulties do not rule out altogether the possibility of building aircraft carriers of up to 55,000 to 60,000 tons? If we could have some guidance along those lines it would be helpful. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, who put the question. We considered the matter away back in 1942 and 1943 and we were building a class of ship which was 20,000 to 25,000 tons but very fast. Some of them you have converted since. We ought not to be content, I think, in the long programme with having only, say,

1413
four in commission at a time; and you cannot hope to have much more if you are going to build big ones.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, nothing I said was intended to imply that any class of aircraft carrier was ruled out. All I meant was that these ships are going to be extremely expensive, as indeed are the aircraft to put in them; and before we decide what to build and when to build it we must be quite certain we have it right. That was all I was trying to say.
If I may return to the hovercraft, we are still building up information which will enable us to decide whether it has a Service future. But we are very much bearing in mind the potential of this new device.
I should like to turn now for a moment to the way in which we have been trimming the administrative backing of the Navy in the last ten years to match the new streamlined Fleet. There is hardly any part of it which we have not thoroughly examined during this period. As with the Fleet, we have been trying to cut out the dead wood; but in this part of the forest we have been trying not to encourage new growth. We have critically examined the task and organisations of nearly every one of the Fleet's supporting shore establishments, the dockyards, and aircraft repair yards, the naval air stations and training establishments and the stores, depôts of all kinds, both large and small, in this country and abroad.
This review has brought about such measures as the abolition of the Nore Command; the closure of Fleet establishments in the Chatham area; the closure of the dockyards at Sheerness, Portland and Hong Kong; and the transfer to commercial ownership of the Dock Yard at Malta; the concentration of the Home Air Command, as a result of which we have been able to dispose of no fewer than four operational air stations and the aircraft yard at Donibristle; the concentration of a number of research establishments, and the closure of over 50 stores and other depôts in different parts of the country.
The theme of this reorganisation has been to cut out all unnecessary tasks and to concentrate the remainer so as to increase efficiency and reduce the overhead costs. As a result of all these measures,
1414
we have saved some 40,000 civilians and about 7,000 uniformed posts ashore, and estimate that the support of the Fleet has decreased in cost as a result by £15 million annually. More recently we have turned our attention to the naval barracks. Now that our system of centralised drafting (I am glad my noble friend gave a pat on the back to it) has had time to settle down, and the run-down of Vote A is complete, many fewer ratings need to be accommodated in the barracks. We have just carried out a review of the administrative and training tasks at Devonport barracks and have found that, with the smaller naval population there, several of these can be eliminated or transferred elsewhere. We have also decided that some 140 jobs now done by sailors can be turned over to civilians. These changes will shortly be put into effect, freeing over 400 naval officers and ratings for other duties.
The task of H.M.S. "Drake" in future will be to serve as an accommodation centre for men in transit and for the crews of ships refitting in the dockyard, and to act as an accounting centre for ships and establishments of the Plymouth Command which do not carry their own accounts. That, of course, does not mean the end of the Royal Navy's historic association with Devonport, and the Navy will continue to play a prominent part in local activities, though on a somewhat reduced scale. We are now considering whether similar changes are possible at Portsmouth.
Against the background of these reviews of the Navy's shore support we have also examined very thoroughly and comprehensively the organisation of the Admiralty itself, and a number of far-reaching changes have been made with the object of improving the efficiency of naval administration. We are also overhauling the management structure of the Royal Dockyards and have introduced general managers at two of them, Chatham and Rosyth, and we will consider in due course when similar changes can be made at Devonport and Portsmouth. I have mentioned these measures because with a smaller Navy it is vitally important that we should not be administratively top-heavy and that the ratio of sea-goers to shore-based should be as high as possible. We have been vigorous and ruthless in streamlining the Navy ashore as well as afloat, and

1415
I can assure your Lordships that we shall not rest content until the tail and support of the Navy is as small as is consistent with proper backing and efficiency.
With regard to manpower, we do not see any great problem for the Navy on account of the end of National Service, because we have never had to rely very heavily upon it. It will, of course, throw up difficulties in certain categories, such as medical, dental and instructor officers, and the need for them will have to be met entirely by volunteers in future. I very much hope that there will be a good response to our efforts to recruit them.
Last autumn we introduced the Seaman Supplementary List, which I mentioned in my Explanatory Statement. The entry standards here are not quite so high as they have to be for the General List, but the prospects we offer are good and, apart from some of their training time, virtually all the officers' service will be sea time. Commissions are for ten years and officers have the option of leaving the Service after five years if they do not wish to be committed for too long. On the other hand, if they wish to stay for longer they have the chance of being considered for a permanent commission on the Supplementary List or for transfer to the General List. I very much hope that any boy who cannot quite attain the educational standards of the General List will apply for the Seaman Supplementary List, because, if accepted, he will also go to Dartmouth; he will undergo training which, for the first year, will be very similar to that of the General List cadet.
I should like to mention, too, the Fleet Air Arm. We depend on getting in a fair number of short-service or Supplementary List pilots and observers each year in order to supplement the General List. The entry standards for Supplementary List aircrew do not need to be as exacting as those for the General List, but our latest naval aircraft require a very high degree of skill and determination, and only young men of good calibre are likely to be successful. Our need for Supplementary List aircrew is increasing, chiefly because of the more extensive use of helicopters in the Fleet: and, in addition, we have been failing recently to get enough candidates of suffi-
1416
ciently good quality. We have therefore decided to introduce very shortly new and more attractive forms of Supplementary List aircrew commission. The principal change will be that officers who enter, or have entered, under the age of 22 will be able to serve until the age of 38 and then leave the Navy with a pension. If they prefer, they will still be able, like those who enter over the age of 22, to return to civilian life after a shorter period of service with the tax-free gratuities which we offer at present. A more flexible commission of this kind will also be available for helicopter pilots, who at the moment can enter only for a short commission of five years.
My Lords, recruitment of ratings has been quite brisk during the first six months of this year. The noble Viscount opposite asked what the total strength of the Navy was designed to be. It is now 100,000 and we are running it down to our figure of 98,000 by next year. The figure of 88,000, which he quoted, is only the figure of adult males born in the United Kingdom. The other 10,000 include W.R.N.S. and personnel locally entered abroad. The highlights of the past year have been the large number of applicants for the Navy and the flourishing re-engagement rate, which are both signs of the general popularity and health of the Royal Navy. I must say that, as I have been round the Fleet in the past twelve months, I have been very much aware of the fine spirit among our sailors, and this I found very heartening indeed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked me a number of questions, some of which I have answered, and I will now try to answer some of the others. He asked about the guided-missile ships for the German Navy. They have been authorised to build eight guided-missile ships, which are about the same size as the "Hampshire". The ships are needed so that Germany can play her full part in N.A.T.O., and the requirement has been approved by the Council of the Western European Union who, acting on the recommendation of SACEUR, lifted the restriction imposed on German building by the Brussels Treaty. My noble friend behind me asked about Polaris submarines. Of course, this is a matter of Government policy and not of

1417
Admiralty plans for the Navy; and, as your Lordships will know, the Government have decided that in the present decade V-bombers will carry the British nuclear deterrent. It is not yet necessary to decide on the vehicle that will eventually replace the V-bomber, but certainly, if the Navy is asked to take on the job, we shall be ready and willing, given the money, to do so.
My noble friend Lord Congleton asked me about a nuclear-powered surface warship. We are considering the problem of the nuclear-propelled surface warship, but I think my noble friend will understand that nuclear power is still very expensive, and it is by no means clear yet whether it has worthwhile advantage in a surface ship. Of course, nuclear power offers special advantage in submarines, and that is where our first effort is going to be applied. I would remind him that the responsibility for the building of merchant ships no longer rests with me, or with the Admiralty, but is with the Ministry of Transport, to whom I think he ought to address his other questions.
The noble Viscount opposite asked about promotion in the Royal Marines, suggesting, I think, that the commandos were treated differently in this respect from the rest of the corps. My Lords, that is not so: promotion is on a corps basis. Naturally, in the Royal Marines, where morale and efficiency are about as high as they could possibly be, competition for promotion is very keen, and a number of people are bound to be disappointed; but I can assure the noble Viscount that the opportunities for promotion and the percentages that get promoted in the Royal Marines are, if anything, rather more favourable than they are in the Royal Navy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: What I should like to try to satisfy the people who write to me about it is this: in the promotions in the Royal Marines from, say, Captain to Major, is there as good a percentage from the commando officers as there is from the rest. There seems to be a feeling that it is not so; that unless you are doing the more social and other matters which come within the duty of the Royal Marine officer you do not get quite the same consideration.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I really do not think that that is so. The commandos are almost the élite, I think, of the Forces to-day, and I assure the noble Viscount that there is no question that the Commando officers are getting their fair share of the promotions—which, as I say, are made on a corps basis.
My noble friend asked me about the ages at which officers command ships. I perhaps gave a rather unfortunate example in my Explanatory Statement, because the commander there was aged 40; but it was a particular example that I wanted to get over, because if my noble friend will look at the Statement he will see that the officer there was in point of fact an aviator, and I wanted to show that he could be an aviator and still command a frigate. But the average ages at which officers command ships are these. A small frigate would be commanded by a lieutenant-commander aged about 33, and in a large frigate or destroyer the commander would be aged between 37 and 38; so Commander D is just about finishing his command at this moment—and, of course, he is a real figure.
My noble friend Lord Ampthill asked me whether the Admiralty has stopped its annual muster of retired officers. The Admiralty has not ceased its annual muster of retired officers but, unfortunately, it has ceased to muster my noble friend, who has now gone over the age limit. However, if any emergency arises, I shall remember that he is very willing indeed to volunteer and do some more work. He also asked me about discipline in commando ships. The commandos, when embarked, are subject to naval discipline in order to preserve the responsibility of the captain for all the men who sail in the ship, but day-to-day discipline within the commandos is administered by the commanding officer of the unit, in accordance with the Army Act.
My Lords, before I close I want to say something about the Portland security case, and the steps which I have taken about Admiralty security since the arrest of Houghton and Miss Gee. Perhaps I may be allowed to say how very grateful I am to the noble Viscount opposite and to my noble friends Lord Ashbourne and Lord Congleton for what they said about me personally. Your

1419
Lordships will realise that it was impossible to take any overt action before the arrests were made, because it was important not to alert the spies. Indeed, it was only after the arrests were made that the extent of the weaknesses which have since been disclosed became apparent. As soon, therefore, as I was free to do so, I instructed all departments and establishments to review their security arrangements; and at the same time all senior officers were reminded of the special features of personnel security in the Report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors in 1956. I then set up an internal committee to review the organisation for security within the Admiralty, and at the same time ordered an examination of the working of the security system, both at headquarters and elsewhere.
All this was before the Romer Committee was appointed. The second examination is not yet complete: but, as a result of the internal Committee's report, I have now decided to set up a new Security Department within the Admiralty, in which all the threads of personnel and material security as they affect both the civilian establishment and the Fleet will be brought together. The detailed organisation and staffing of the new Department is now being worked out, and I intend to appoint a Director of Security as soon as possible. This step will remedy what I think was the most serious weakness criticised by the Romer Committee. As the new Department will deal with both naval and civilian security—which, of course, does not happen at the moment—it will have to be staffed by both Naval officers and civilians, since there are a number of differences in the conditions of service of uniformed and civilian personnel and the Head of the Department will be the best man I can find, whether he be a naval officer or a civilian. The new Department will be responsible for ensuring that the security arrangements at headquarters and Naval establishments are working properly, and for seeing that the regulations are fully understood and applied; and it will have the staff to enable it to test this by inspection in the field.
Another duty of the Director of Security will be to look into the whole question of the appointment, training,
1420
status and duties of security officers. There is, however, one thing I should like to make clear. If, on security grounds, it becomes necessary to take any disciplinary action or to make any decisions likely to affect the employment or career of any individual, then these decisions will be taken by the Board of Admiralty, as they always have been in the past, and not by the Director of Security. This new appointment should not be looked upon in any way as interfering with the accepted conditions of service of our naval and civilian staffs. Finally, my Lords, I am examining the Admiralty system of maintaining personal records, which was another weakness to which the Romer Committee drew attention, to see how it can be made more effective. I shall, of course, wait and see what other recommendations may emerge from the broader review which is now being carried out by the Radcliffe Committee.
My Lords, perhaps I might end by saying just one more word about the size and the shape of the Navy. From some of the things which are said to me by your Lordships, in the House and outside it, and also by people outside the House, there is a tendency, I think, to compare the size of the Navy to-day with that of the Fleet with which we finished the last war. This comparison is not valid, because the Navy which we are building to-day is a different kind of Navy, designed to fill a different role and to operate in different conditions. The old Navy, which has disappeared, was allowed to do so as a conscious act of policy designed to clear the way for the new modern, versatile Fleet, which we must have if we are going to play our proper part in the combined defence of the West, and if we are to protect our own national interests.
The running-down process is nearly complete, and the pattern of the new Navy has steadily been taking shape. Our object was not to reduce the power of the Navy, but, within the resources which we could allocate to defence, to produce a Fleet which, though not so large, would nevertheless be so powerful, up-to-date and flexible that it would be able to carry out the whole range of tasks which might be laid upon it. In coming to this decision, we had to take account not only of the increased efficiency of modern warships, but also of the Alliances of which this country

1421
forms a part. I think it would be true to say that in the middle of the 'fifties there was uncertainty, both in Parliament and in the country, and also in the Navy itself, about the Royal Navy's future in a nuclear age. As a result, there was a certain amount of malaise and lack of purpose in the Fleet. I believe that to-day this has entirely disappeared. The events of the last few days have proved most strikingly the need for the sort of Navy that we are building. The officers and men of the Royal Navy can see the new ships we are building and have, I believe, confidence in their equipment and in the importance of their task. Certainly anyone who has been lucky enough to visit them must come away with the assurance that their skill and their spirit is as high as ever it was.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, first of all, I must thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on the Royal Navy this afternoon. Unfortunately, two of my colleagues on this side who had intended speaking were both prevented by illness from being here. As regards the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I must say that I thought it was most interesting, and I shall study it with great care. I am guilty of the charge that I am not very favourable to his Government; but I am quite guilty also of the fact that I am devoted to the Royal Navy, and shall continue to be so, whatever else may be said.
The point I should especially like to add at the end is this. The statement that the First Lord has kindly made as to his intentions with regard to stepping up security arrangements in the Admiralty, I shall look at with great care. I am happy to think, from the opening of what he said in that part of his speech, that obviously he was taking steps to tighten up long before the Romer Committee was actually set up. A sort of impression had got abroad that he had not clone anything about it. Whether that was through the wording of the Romer Committee's Report, or the absence of anything like an adequate publication of the reasons for the Romer's Committee's findings, I do not know; but I am glad that he has made it clear this afternoon. If that is what happened, it is what I should have ex-
1422
pected of him. I am sure that he will continue his task until we have a complete renewal of the confidence we have always had in the tightness of the security of the Royal Navy. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HIGHWAYS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.44 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, this is a Bill which the County Councils' Association prepared in order to effect certain changes and improvements in the law relating to highways. It was skilfully piloted through the House of Commons by my honourable friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and while it was passing through the other place it had added to it what is in fact now much the most important of its provisions, Clause 1, which in a moment or two I will describe in full to your Lordships.
The law relating to highways was consolidated in the Highways Act of 1959, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to a distinguished legal adviser to the Ministry of Transport, the late Benjamin Honour, who, after he had retired from his official position as adviser, devoted five years, from 1953 to 1958, to the great, laborious and scholarly task of consolidating the whole law relating to highways, and also to bridges. The previous legislation dealing with the matter, the consolidating legislation, was passed in 1835, and in the course of the time that had passed Parliament had made immense changes in the law in an attempt to bring the highways into a condition suitable for the entirely changed circumstances of modern traffic. Of course, there had been again a very great many decisions of the courts, all of which had to be digested and incorporated in the Act of 1959. I am very glad to think that the late Benjamin Honour lived to see this remarkable work of consolidation on the Statute Book.
Now, as your Lordships are aware, one of the characteristics of consolidation is that it is impossible, while a branch of the law is being consolidated,

1423
to make any amendments. Therefore it is no reflection upon the Act of 1959, or upon its drafting, that it should now be necessary for a number of changes to be made, which is the purpose of this Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. What is perhaps unusual is that Clause 1, which is now much the most important part of the Bill, was not originally contained in the Bill when introduced.
My Lords, I never thought when, at Oxford many years ago, I first learned about the nonfeasance rule, that it would fall to my lot nearly a generation later to move a Bill which would have the effect of bringing to an end what I think has generally been regarded as an anomaly which has resulted in injustice to a great many people. The rule is this: that if a highway authority repairs a highway badly, they are responsible for misfeasance, and any loss or injury which results from this misfeasance on their part gives rise to an action for damages by the person who is injured. If, however, the highway authority neglects to do anything at all and allows the highway to fall into a dangerous state of repair, anyone who is injured by this nonfeasance on the part of the highway authority has no right of action and has no redress.
This doctrine was originally laid down in a decision of one of the courts in 1446. From that time onwards the courts have tried to narrow it in its application, but it has still continued to be the law. At the time when that decision was given, it was not wholly unreasonable. If the duty of maintaining a highway rested upon the inhabitants at large of a parish, if they neglected to do so they were liable to indictment in a criminal case. At that time there was no need for any civil action and as the inhabitants of the parish are not a body corporate, in point of fact it is impossible for them to be sued. The highway authorities are now standing in the shoes of the inhabitants at large who were free from that liability.
This doctrine has been criticised by many Judges. In 1894, it was severely criticised by Lord Lindley and in 1937 by Mr. Justice Rigby Swift, and recently the General Council of the Bar produced a memorandum upon the subject which called for an amendment of the law to bring to an end something
1424
which resulted in injustice to many people. A working party was then set up, which contained representatives of the Ministry of Transport and of the local highway authorities, and what is contained in this Bill is based upon the work that they have done. Shortly afterwards, a Bill was introduced by the honourable Member for Bristol, North West, in the House of Commons, but owing to the lack of Parliamentary time it made no progress.
When this Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, Mr. McLaren and others, with the support of the Minister of Transport, took advantage of the band wagon passing by to put in Clause 1, the effect of which would be to bring this anomaly to an end. I should like to pay tribute to the broadmindedness of the highway authorities and of the Minister of Transport, who recognise that this will have the effect of adding to their liabilities, but also recognise that it is fair, right and reasonable that this should be done. At the same time, they have asked that reasonable steps should be taken in the drafting of this clause to ensure that an excessively high standard of care should not be required of them.
A highway may be a carriageway, a bridle path or a footpath. It is obvious that the same degree of care in maintaining a footpath in some remote part of the country cannot be reasonably expected as in the case of a carriageway in a more frequented part of the world. Your Lordships will see that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of this clause provide that for the purposes of a defence the court shall have regard to the following matters, that is to say—

"(a) the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it;

(b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic;

(c) the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway;"

Finally, because this imposes considerable additional liabilities upon the highway authorities, it is provided that this shall not come into operation for three years, in order to enable the highway authorities to take the necessary steps. I hope that your Lordships will regard this as being a moderate and reasonably drafted

1425
clause, which brings to an end an anomaly but does not do so in a way which will impose excessive or unreasonable liabilities upon the highway authorities.
Clause 2 confers powers on the Minister of Transport to provide, as part of a trunk road, a separate carriageway to relieve the main carriageway. The purpose of a trunk road is to enable through traffic to travel fast and safely without let or hindrance. In many cases where there are houses or other buildings close to trunk roads, it is important that there should be what is generally called a service road, which can be used by vans and other vehicles going to these buildings, and so keep local traffic entirely separate from the trunk road. In the past, it has been doubtful whether the Minister of Transport was entitled to spend money upon the maintenance of a separate carriageway of this kind. In view of the fact that this is important in making the best use of trunk roads, this clause provides that the Minister shall have power to spend money in providing and in maintaining a separate carriageway.
Clause 3 empowers local highway authorities to make schemes for the construction of bridges and tunnels to carry highways over or under navigable waters, and authorises the Minister of Transport to confirm such schemes. These powers already exist in the case of trunk and special roads but not in the case of classified and unclassified roads, and it is to provide for this omission that this clause is contained in the Bill. Clause 4 enables highway authorities to contribute towards expenditure incurred by parish councils in maintaining paths or bridle ways. Obviously this is a desirable power but it does not exist at the present time, or, at any rate, it is doubtful whether it exists.
Clause 5 empowers highway authorities to maintain or protect trees, shrubs or grass verges in the highways which have been provided or planted by persons other than the highway authority itself. There already is power for the highway authorities to provide these but it is doubtful whether they have power to take over what has been done by a developer in the neighbourhood of a road. Clause 6 is an important provision to add to road safety. There are many
1426
cases where there are ditches close to roads but which, not being on the road or within the verge of the road, are the property of the riparian owner. A highway authority already has power to fill in roadside ditches of that kind for drainage purposes but not for reasons of road safety, and this clause makes good that omission.
Clause 7 makes it an offence for any person, without lawful authority, to paint or affix marks on the surface of a highway. They are unsightly and in certain circumstances can distract the attention of motorists and therefore be dangerous, and it is clearly wrong that persons should be allowed to do so. Clause 8 enables highway authorities to remove dangerous things from the highway immediately. Section 128 of the Highways Act, 1949, provides machinery by which this can be done, but it takes a considerable amount of time, and in the case where an obstruction is a danger to traffic, it is important that the highway authority should have power to act immediately. The clause gives that power.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, does that cover the great danger, especially if it has been raining, of wet leaves on the road, which should be swept up?
LORD MOLSON: I have no doubt that if the leaves are there in a sufficient quantity, and are wet in such a way as to constitute a danger by skidding and so on, they would be covered by this clause.
Clause 9 enables highway authorities to light and guard an obstruction in the road until they have time to remove it. Clause 10 deals with a case where there are trees close to a highway which, because they are dead, diseased, or insecurely rooted, are likely to constitute a danger. At present, a highway authority has not the right to deal with this danger before an accident has occurred. That ties up with Section 134 of the principal Act. Clause 11 deals with the question of where, owing to the topography of the land, it is necessary to make a drain some distance away from a highway in order to prevent the highway from being flooded. Under the principal Act it is provided that the highway authority shall have that power up to a distance of 220 yards away.. It has

1427
been found that 220 yards is not sufficient and, subject to the necessary safeguards, this clause extends the distance.
Clause 12 enables highway authorities who wish to straighten a road to exchange the land where the road now is for land which is required in order to carry out the work. This seems to be a perfectly simple, straightforward and commonsense measure to take. But under the law as it is at the present time there is the principle, "Once a highway always a highway", and, therefore, it has not been lawful for a highway authority when wishing to straighten a road to give to the adjoining owner the land for which that highway authority no longer has use and to obtain in return the land which it desires to have in order to straighten the road.
Finally, I may say that Clause 14 provides that this Bill shall be construed as one with the Highways Act, 1959; and Clause 15 provides that it shall not apply to Scotland, to Northern Ireland or to London. The reason for that is that the Act of 1959 does not apply to London. This is a modest measure. I do not think it will be found to be unduly controversial. It has been carefully examined in another place and has commended itself to them. I hope that it will commend itself also to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Molson.)
6.4 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I feel that it would be entirely right if I begin by expressing my extreme appreciation to my noble friend Lord Molson, not only for the admirable clarity with which he has introduced this useful if rather complex measure to your Lordships, but also by recognising the great pains he has obviously taken to become master of all the points connected with it. I do not think I should be detracting in any way from his efforts, or indeed from the most constructive efforts of the honourable gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who introduced the Bill in another place, or from the initiative of the County Councils Association, who largely inspired the Bill, if I say that I think perhaps none of them would claim that its provisions were dramatic
1428
or spectacular, although all of them are, in my opinion, certainly useful.
The Government fully approve and support the Bill. As my noble friend said, probably the most important measure is contained in Clause 1, where it is proposed to abolish the non-feasance rule. I think my noble friend Lord Molson will have clarified the provisions about this to the satisfaction of your Lordships, and it is unnecessary for me to add much to what he has said. It is, as he told your Lordships, well-known that this situation has been criticised for some time. My understanding is that the courts have long disliked it, and the legal profession as a whole consider it unjust. What has been said about it outside and in both Houses of Parliament, and not least by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in your Lordships' House, has made the Government conscious of the increasing weight of responsible opinion which considers the doctrine of non-feasance to be undesirable. Its abolition is a major change in our law as it applies to the highways. It makes a radical alteration in the position of highway authorities and the rights of the individual, and in three years' time they will enter a new era in their relations with each other.
As I have said, I have no desire to add to what my noble friend has told your Lordships, but in my turn I should not wish to miss this opportunity of paying my tribute to the responsible and statesmanlike attitude which has been adopted by all highway authority associations in making up their minds to accept the change. A great deal of careful thought and considerable discussion have, I understand, gone to the framing of the proposals in the Bill, and I think your Lordships would wish to know that a balance between the highway authorities, on the one side, and the highway users, on the other, has been achieved and agreed only after the most painstaking consideration and negotiation.
I feel that I should mention Clause 2 of the Bill, because it is the clause which is of benefit only to the Minister of Transport as the highway authority for trunk roads. The proposed power for him to provide service roads where appropriate alongside trunk roads is most welcome, and it will prove most

1429
valuable from the dual points of view of road safety and creating a smooth-flowing and efficient road system, two things that go hand in hand.
Most of the other provisions of the Bill will help highway authorities generally to deal more efficiently with the heavy responsibilities that they have, and they will be able to take or adopt more quickly measures that will be for the benefit or safety, or both, of all road users. Most of these other provisions are available both to the Minister and to other highway authorities as they apply both to trunk roads and all other roads alike.
As my noble friend recounted to your Lordships, highway law in this country goes back a long way. If one wants to research into it carefully one certainly has to begin by reading Magna Carta, but it has over the years proved to be adaptable. Responsibilities, as he said, have shifted from the lord of the manor and what were known as the inhabitants at large on to the justices of the peace, the turnpike trusts and from them to the local authorities and the Minister of Transport. Over the same period of years the character of the traffic has changed even more widely. We have recently spent a good deal of time in your Lordships' House on the question of road safety, which is equally an age-old problem. I do not know quite how far it goes back, but it at least goes back many years B.C., to the time when cur attention was first drawn to it by Jehu, who was a well-known furious driver. Other aspects of the highway law, possibly more routine or administrative but equally important, have also been with us for a long time. Highway law has been adapted as has proved needful from time to time. It has been adapted by a gradual process of development, sometimes by major acts of Government legislation, and sometimes by more modest but very valuable measures, such as this Bill which is before your Lordships. I hope very much that your Lordships will agree with me as to its merits, and that you will accordingly give it a Second Reading.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord
1430
Chesham, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Molson, not only on having had the opportunity of introducing this Bill but on the careful and lucid way in which he has done it. It is not given to everybody to have the chance of realising a dream which he had in his younger days, of introducing a measure in this House to put right that which he regarded as being wrong and unfair.
I myself have lived with this doctrine of non-feasance for nearly half a century. I have frequently had to tell clients who have been injured on the roads as a result of the failure of the local authority to carry out necessary repairs that they had no remedy in law, and that they would have to bear their sufferings as best they could. To me it is a dramatic change in the law that is now, I hope, about to take place in this Bill. Whatever other provisions there may be in the Bill, which the noble Lord described as modest and right, this, at any rate to me, is one of the most dramatic legal events that has taken place over what is now becoming for me a very long legal career. So I do not underestimate the importance of this Bill, which has been regarded in another place as almost entirely non-controversial, and certainly non-Party.
I, too, should like to congratulate local authorities on having had the good sense and the public spirit to accept what I think has become almost inevitable—that is, to accept liability and to end the doctrine of non-feasance. I appreciate why it has been so long in being accepted. Local authorities, naturally, have the fear that, once the defence of non-feasance was abandoned, they would lay themselves open to a large number of actions—and it would not surprise me if they did. There is still the danger that it will attract unscrupulous and impecunious persons to bring actions against local authorities in the hope that they will be induced to settle rather than fight expensive actions. Time will show whether that will in fact be the case, but I think the clause contains sufficient safeguards to local authorities to ensure that persons bringing unreasonable actions will not be successful, and in time they may be discouraged from commencing actions, realising that it is not going to be plain sailing for them.

1431
I believe that all the other clauses are perfectly reasonable and unobjectionable, but I should like to mention Clause 9, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Molson, if he will give consideration to the point that I want to make on it. It deals with the removal of an obstruction by the local authority, and it provides for the right of the local authority to recover the cost of removal of the obstruction from the person who is regarded as responsible for the obstruction.
LORD MOLSON: It is Clause 8.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, that is right. There are cases where the owner of the obstruction is in no sense responsible, morally or otherwise, for it. For instance, a gale blows down a tree on to a road, which happens fairly frequently. The local authority is not responsible. If the branches were liable to cause danger, then I think the local authority is protected under another clause. But in a case where nobody could have foreseen that the gale would force the tree, or part of it, on to the road, I wonder whether it is really quite fair that the owner of the tree should be held liable for what is really an act of God, and whether it is not a proper liability for the local authority and the public at large. I do not want to be dogmatic about it. One will have an opportunity of saying a word about it on Committee, but I thought I would mention it at this stage so that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, may have an opportunity of considering the point.
I think that is all I need say in comment on this Bill. It is a good Bill, and I hope that it will not fall by the wayside in the same way as the other Bill to which the noble Lord referred in his speech, the Road Traffic Bill. I hope that it will have the opportunity of going through and becoming law in this Session. Certainly it will be of considerable advantage in the interests of public safety if it does.
6.18 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Molson on the very lucid way in which he explained the doctrine which all lawyers have known for centuries, that a highway authority is not liable for mere non-feasance. It is a very primitive notion to distinguish
1432
between misfeasance, doing something wrong, and non-feasance, omitting to do what you ought to do. If you dig a hole in the road, that is misfeasance. If you fail to light it with a lamp, that is non-feasance. Any clever lawyer ought to be able to combine the two, and say, "You dug a hole in the road without lighting it". It is a completely unscientific distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance which goes back to very primitive days in the law, and the sooner it is abolished in a modern society the better.
But in truth it arose, and is now part of our law, because 500 years ago and less the people responsible for repair of a road were the inhabitants of a village, or of a bridge the men of the county, and you could not put your finger on any particular one of them to sue in a civil action. They were not liable. So when Mr. Russell sued the men of Devon in 1886—that is the leading case —Mr. Russell lost his action because the men of Devon were not a corporation. But last century we formed corporations to take over the highways.
With the local authorities, the surveyors of highways, tile urban district councils, the county councils, and so on, taking over highways, there was an opportunity for the courts to say, "These bodies are corporate bodies under a statutory duty to repair. Why should they not be liable when they do not repair when they ought?" Unfortunately, the courts did not take the opportunity; they stated that these new bodies were the successors to the men of Devon or the old inhabitants of the parish, and were not liable for nonfeasance. So for another 100 years we have suffered under the rule that a highway authority is not liable for nonfeasance. But what ridiculous cases we get!
I remember one a few years ago where a bicyclist was riding over a bridge in Somerset, up the approach road, down the other side, and he fell into a pothole—or his bicycle did—and suffered severe damage. The whole question was: was the road part of the highway or part of the railway bridge? Unfortunately I appeared for the railway company and we lost. The point is that should this part of the road belong to the railway company they would be liable for

1433
damages; but should it belong to the highway authority, they would not be. There are other cases, of forecourts maintained by a county council next to a highway. No one can tell the difference between the forecourt and the pavement, and the general question is: did the accident happen on the forecourt or the highway? It is a completely artificial line. The courts have done what they can.
Or again the case of a traffic stud in the highway; is it part of the highway or is it not? Courts as far as they can, by various devices, have tried to make a person responsible, but they have never succeeded in eliminating the difficulty because of this old rule. What a great thing it is that this change in the law should now be made, a dramatic change whereby the doctrine we have learned for years, that a highway authority is not liable in non-feasance, is about to be abolished!
I would make one suggestion, which perhaps I ought not to make because it is all agreed, but I wonder whether it is necessary to wait for three years before this new law comes into operation. After all, the duty to repair is there; it is under Statute. The only thing not law is that the person injured can recover damages. There is no difficulty in the extent of liability: it is just the same. So why wait? If anybody is injured within the next three years because the highway authority has not kept up its duty why should he not recover; why wait three years? That is my one point on the first clause.
As to the other point about leaves on the road, I cannot say for sure that it is covered. Clause 8 refers to things "unlawfully deposited" on the road and I am not sure that leaves when they fall down are "unlawfully deposited" by anybody. I may say it is a point of view in which I am interested. I am glad now that county councils or some other body are going to be responsible for footpaths. This Bill is wholly to be welcomed—a great change in the law, but a very welcome one.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to all your Lordships who have spoken and for the welcome reception that has been given to this Bill. Naturally I will look into
1434
the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and all my noble friends.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I cannot disguise from your Lordships that this is a very complicated and technical Bill. I therefore hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take a few minutes in explaining it to the House. The Law Reform Committee for Scotland were sometime since given remit to consider the law relating to the restrictions imposed on the constitution of security over moveable property—that is, what we know in England as chattels—and various individual points connected with this problem. They reported in May last year, and this Bill is really no more than a full implementation of the points which they recommended. However, the actual implementation of those recommendations, the putting of them into the form of a Statute, is no mean task, and I am sure that tribute should be paid to my noble friend, the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire, West, for the work that he has done in introducing this Bill into another place and following it through.
The difficulty that this Bill sets about to remedy is partly set out in the second paragraph of the Introduction to the Law Reform Committee's Report. They say:
"By the law of Scotland it is not possible for a debtor to create in favour of his creditor a real security of corporeal moveables belonging to the debtor, without delivery, or some equivalent delivery."
That means to say that if you want to raise money on security of moveable property you have to hand over possession of that property.
Much the same applies in the case of heritable or real property; if you want to raise money on the security of the property, as the law has stood heretofore, you can do it only by two means. If I go into Scottish legal phrase I do so

1435
at this point because it appears in the Bill, and it might be convenient to your Lordships to know what this ruling is at this stage. You can do it in the first place:
"…by way of an ex facie absolute disposition or assignation qualified by a back letter;"
Your Lordships will find this model phrase in Clause 8 (1) (c) of the Bill, and it means, in fact, that you sell it to the man from whom you should receive the money, but that all the time, round the backdoor, there is a letter which says he has had it only as security and that you can have it back when you have paid him his money back. Or, alternatively, you can do it by a method called a bond of disposition for security, which is very much the same thing, except that on the sale itself there appears on this document that the sale was for the purpose of security; and there is no need for any backdoor rule. Full details of this goes on a register which is kept in Edinburgh, which is the register of transfer of heritable property, where the details are put down and recorded for everyone to see.
In England, for some time, a company has been able to raise money by means of a device called a floating charge, and I do not think I can do better than read out what the Law Reform Committee define as a floating charge, in another Report. They defined it in these terms: that it was:
"security over the whole or a specific part of the company's undertaking and assets which shall not preclude the company from selling or otherwise dealing in such assets in the ordinary course of business until the company goes into liquidation when the charge shall crystallise and become fixed security over such of the company's assets as are subject to the charge."
Of course, the essence of this is there is no limitation on dealing with raw materials, the stock in trade and the finished products of the company, notwithstanding the fact that they are being used as security for a loan. Of course in Scotland that cannot be done, because if they are security for a loan the possession of them has to be gone into. Equally in the case of heritable or real property security can be raised only be one of these security dispositions, whereas under the English system a floating charge on real property can also be bought and sold without affecting the validity or the value
1436
of the floating charge created on it. So this freedom has not existed in Scotland before.
It is interesting, I think, to note from the Law Reform Committee's Report that it does not exist in America either. But it certainly does exist in England, and has done so for a long time; and it has worked extremely well. I am sure that, apart from anything else, that is a good reason why uniformity should be introduced between the two countries.
But quite apart from that, the lack of this facility in Scotland has had quite remarkable effects. For one thing it has prevented a company which has only a short lease from raising any loan at all, because it has nothing which it can give as security; it has no heritable property. It has also to some degree caused companies which have all their interests and business and land in Scotland to register in England so that they can have a floating charge, which is clearly nonsensical. It has discouraged foreign companies from setting up subsidiaries in Scotland because the lack of this facility has seemed a very grave disadvantage. And in general it has had the effect of hampering Scottish industry in raising the money they badly need for modernisation and progress and enlargement of their business.
With that background, I should like to try to show your Lordships how this Bill puts matters right. The first clause defines the sort of organisation which may raise a floating charge. In England it is only companies, and so it is to be in Scotland. But the meaning of the first subsection of the first clause is that it should not only be registered companies but also companies under charter or set up under a Private Act of Parliament. Then it goes on, in the eighth line on page 1, to explain that it is not only security for future loans that may be raised by means of floating charge but also security for money already owed by the company. Then subsection (2) of Clause 1 describes the floating nature of the charge. It sets out how it is only the property which forms part of the assets of the company at the time of its liquidation which is in any way fettered. Up to such time the property may come and go, may be bought and sold and dealt with in the ordinary course of business without any fetter or limitation whatsoever: it is only on liquidation that any

1437
question of attaching the property comes into prominence.
Then on page 2 that subsection goes on to set out the initial stages of the ranking, the order of precedence in which the floating charge will come if the company should have to go into liquidation. It sets out that someone who has executed diligence (that is, distrained on the property) should have precedence and that a fixed security should also have precedence, and so on. Then there is what seems at first sight to be a most obscure phrase, but the reason for it is this: that having dealt with the ranking of the debts of holders of the fixed securities there must then be some method by which the holder of the floating charge can realise his money. This particular part of subsection (2) has been put in in order to attract Section 61 of the Bankruptcies (Scotland) Act, 1913, as applied by Section 318 of the Companies Act, 1948; so that if it comes to a liquidation the floating charge will count, in the wording of the 1913 Act, as a security, and the holder of it can get his money back from the liquidator in a perfectly proper way. But that phrase does not mean that the floating charge can be considered to be a fixed security for any other purpose. An ordinary fixed security can be dealt with in the market, it can be sold and it can be subject to various other transactions. Not so the floating charge, which is only a fixed security for this one purpose of liquidation; it cannot be realised in any other way than on liquidation.
The proviso sets out the debts that must always be paid first in liquidation, such as taxes, local taxes and employees' wages. They, of course, will come before the debts due to the holder of the floating charge. Subsection (3) explains that it is possible for a company, when it grants a floating charge, to leave some of its property out, and if it does so that property is never subject to the floating charge. Clause 2 is really only an explanation of how it is done, and it refers to a typical example of the deed or the instrument which sets up the charge and which your Lordships will find in the First Schedule. But of course it need not necessarily be exactly in that form, provided that it is something like that.
1438
Clause 3 is there to avoid a certain doubt. As I have explained to your Lordships, a floating charge may be created among other things over heritable property which belongs to a company. If so, some people might say that it is not a valid charge if it is not registered as are all other charges on heritable properties in the Register of Sasines, but in order to make quite clear that it is a valid charge this clause has been put in to deal with that matter.
Clause 4 introduces what is the only controversial matter in this Bill. It inserts a new reason into the provision of the Companies Act which sets out the reasons upon which the court can order a winding up to take place. This reason inserted is that the holder of the floating charge considers his security is in jeopardy, and "jeopardy" is defined in the clause. This is done because in England the holder of a floating charge, if he thinks that the affairs of the company in which he is interested are becoming a bit shaky, or there is danger of his losing his money, can ask that a receiver be appointed. The receiver has, in practice, been a competent and businesslike man, and very often he has succeeded in rescuing the company from the fate which seems to be about to befall it and has put it back on the road to prosperity.
However, it has been found in the consideration of this matter by the Scottish Law Reform Committee that the appointment of the receiver in Scotland would not, at any rate at this stage, be a practical possibility. It is no doubt a pity that it should not be so, but the reason why it could not be done is because the powers and duties of a receiver in England are set out not in any Statute but in a mass of Case Law and judicial decision, very largely in the Chancery Division, and the job of trying to codify it and put it into a Statute would at this stage be quite out of proportion. It has been decided—and I may say it was so decided with the support of the Scottish chartered accountants, who were the only people who gave evidence on this—that the receiver (or, in Scotland, judicial factor) should not come into the picture at this stage. In order to give a safeguard to the holder of the floating charge, however, it was decided that if he thought

1439
his money was going to be in jeopardy he could have the effective ground over and above that which is available in England, of going to the court and asking for a winding up and a liquidation. This, it is considered, would give him satisfactory protection if he thinks his money is in danger.
Clause 5 deals with the details of the ranking of the floating charge in the case of liquidation, and the order in which the holder of it is paid. The first subsection provides that certain fixed securities arising by operation of law are safeguarded—they are such things as the security known as the landlord's hypothecs, which is his power and his security over some of the property of the premises, or a maritime hypothecs. Then next will come the fixed security itself, and various methods by which this is going to be achieved are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
I would at this point draw your Lordships' attention to the word "prohibited" in paragraph (c) of subsection (2). It has been suggested to me by one of your Lordships that the word "prohibited" should be in the present and not in the past tense. I think this is not so, because at the stage at which it will be considered the wording of the instrument which set up the floating charge would have been arranged some time before; so I think it is proper that it should be referred to, in this context, as something that is past and already settled. After the fixed securities come the floating charges themselves, if there are more than one of them, and the arrangements are there set out; and it is nice to see that, in subsection (4), thought has even been given to the possibility of the registration of two floating charges arriving by the same post and what is to be done in those circumstances.
Clause 6 is the introduction to the long provisions of the Second Schedule to this Bill. The Second Schedule is an addition which is being made to the Companies Act, 1948, which, as there were no floating charges in Scotland in 1948, did not deal with the matter at all. But this clause, with its Schedule, puts certain provisions into the Companies Act in order to put this right.
The rest of the Bill is either consequential or a matter of interpretation, and your Lordships will see that there
1440
is little more in the main body of the Bill which I need go into. But I would just explain to your Lordships the Second Schedule, which is really no more than a re-writing of Part III of the Companies Act, 1948, into Scottish language. It sets out the same provisions and the same powers and duties that are now in effect in England, and it says that they should apply to Scotland as well. I would add that it is not only floating charges which are being dealt with by this Schedule, but also other general charges as well, and they will all, for the protection of those who are involved, be registered in a new register in Edinburgh, where everyone who is thinking of lending money to a company will be able to see exactly what liabilities and securities have already been raised on the assets of that company.
The only thing that does not appear in Part III of the English Act is the new paragraph 106K on the last page of the Bill. This is put in in order to help the Scottish courts to recognise that there may be valid floating charges created in Scotland on property which exists in Scotland but which belongs to a company which is not registered in Scotland—to an English or foreign company. Heretofore, as there have been no floating charges in Scotland at all, the Scottish courts found it very difficult to recognise that such a thing could exist on any other property in Scotland belonging to a foreign company. This clause is put in to help clear that up, and also to provide that the charges on companies' property in Scotland should go into the register as well.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I hope that it puts right a defect which is obviously overdue for correction, but certainly it will be most welcome in Scotland and of great benefit. If there are matters in the Bill which I have not satisfactorily explained to your Lordships, I will try to do so; but subject to that, I ask that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
6.46 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I rise only for a moment or two, to say a word in connection with this Bill, because, after the clear, concise, able and

1441
indeed brilliant exposition of the content of the Bill which has been given by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I feel that your Lordships may be under the impression that here is a revolutionary change in the law of Scotland which hitherto has been long out of date. I should like to say in that connection, and particularly in view of my noble friend's closing remark that this Bill will be most welcome in Scotland, that I doubt it to a large extent. It may be welcome in certain quarters; it is certainly not welcome in others.
One of the things that I was told as a young accountant was that one of the great advantages of the law of Scotland over the law of England was that you could not have a floating charge, which we regarded, and which I still regard, as an unfair method of getting a preference in the case of liquidation. After all, my noble friend has said that you can secure a prior debt by this means. You may have two creditors, both of them supporting a debtor, one of them to a greater extent than the other. But the other man may discover that the debtor is weak, and may give him some small advance to secure a floating charge for the whole of his debt to the prejudice of the other creditors of the company.
I am not at all satisfied that this is a good move. It is a further sign of Scotland getting more and more akin to England—in many respects not a bad thing, but in some quite a bad thing. I think that this is one of the bad things. After all, the law of Scotland is the law of Scotland. It should remain the law of Scotland, and not be dragged into the law of England. That is my submission on this matter. Again I assure your Lordships that this Bill is not altogether welcome in Scotland. Indeed, the Scottish Chartered Accountants agreed to the Bill only after much heart-searching.
6.48 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I, too, listened with admiration to my noble friend expounding so lucidly this complicated Bill with its simple purpose. I congratulate my noble friend and the honourable Member for West Aberdeen in another place for having so quickly given effect to the Law Reform Committee for Scotland's recommendation:
1442
after all, the recommendation was made only a year ago, and here we have already a Bill under discussion. The Bill is welcomed by the Government. It has been welcomed by all political Parties and, according to my information, by all the learned and commercial interests in Scotland who will be concerned in its operation. I am sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Strathclyde denigrate the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that his is the first unwelcoming voice that I have heard in regard to the Bill.
At this time, when the Government are actively concerned with every facet of our economic expansion in Scotland, this Bill is, in our view, especially valuable. It removes, as my noble friend said, a legal obstacle which we believe has unfairly penalised Scottish industry, particularly the smaller firms on whom we rely so much. The sincerity of our welcome is underlined by the fact that my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate has readily given assistance in getting the measure through in its present form. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the noble Viscount and to your Lordships for the fact that my noble friends on this side of the House who are qualified to speak and to comment on this Bill are unavoidably absent. I have, however, been told by them—I say this without any intention of driving a wedge between different parts of Scotland—that there is nothing that we should wish to object to in this Bill. We regard it as an excellent Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, for two welcomes, at any rate, I am very grateful to your Lordships. It is good news to me to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that he and his colleagues on that side of the House welcome this Bill. Of course, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton for the support and help that he and the Government have given on this matter.
I would say only this to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde: that if I thought this Bill was going to prejudice someone who had lent money to the company by the later creation of a floating charge

1443
I also should be concerned that this should be put right. However, I do not altogether believe that this is so, because there is written into the provisions of this Bill one particular requirement: that if a floating charge is raised on the assets of a company twelve months or less from the date of its going into liquidation, that charge shall not be valid at all unless it can be shown that, after the date on which it was created, the company was still solvent. Therefore it seems to me that anybody who is lending money to a company after it declares it has become insolvent, and at a stage when the floating charge itself might become invalid, is perhaps not acting with the best business acumen. Therefore, I hope that the fears which my noble friend has propounded will not prove to be well founded at all. With that, I thank your Lordships for the welcome to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE FEDERATION BILL
6.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Chief inspectors etc. of metropolitan police to be members of Federation]:
LORD STONHAMhad given Notice of two Amendments, the first being, after "repealed, and" to insert: ",subject to the next following section,". The noble Lord said: I hope it will suit the convenience of the Committee if, in moving the first Amendment on the Paper, I deal also with the second Amendment, which is for a new clause, because the first is merely a paving Amendment for the main one. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I informed your Lordships that during the Committee stage I proposed to move a new clause and a Schedule to provide separate
1444
representation for policewomen on the Federation, and that is the effect of this new clause which I shall move. The Committee will be aware that the Police Federation was established by the Police Act, 1919
"for the purpose of enabling the members of the police forces of England and Wales to consider and bring to the notice of the police authorities and the Secretary of State all the matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. other than questions of discipline and promotion affecting individuals."
The constitution of the Police Federation is set out in the Schedule to the Act of 1919, which provided that the Federation was to consist of all members of police forces below the rank of superintendent. The Act and the Schedule refer to the "Police Federation of England and Wales", but Section 13 provides for their application to Scotland, and there is a separate Police Federation in Scotland with a constitution the same as that of the Federation in England and Wales. The Schedule to the Police Act, 1919, provides that members of every police force below the rank of superintendent shall form a branch of the Federation, and that in each force there shall be branch boards for the constables, sergeants and inspectors. The boards are elected by the members of the several ranks and they choose delegates to attend the central conference for the three ranks. The members of the central conference elect the three central committees, each consisting of six members respectively for the constables, sergeants and inspectors.
Policewomen, of course, have been full members of the Police Federation since it was established in 1919, but their numbers are comparatively small; only about 2,000 women police officers compared with more than 70,000 men. And, of course, few women are ever elected as members of the branch boards and only very rarely as delegates to the central conferences or as members of the central committees. Indeed, so far as my researches go, only one, the redoubtable Miss Hunt, was ever elected to a central committee. Thus, in a voting capacity policewomen are virtually unrepresented.
The Oaksey Committee recommended, in paragraph 360 of their Report, that exceptional measures were necessary if the special point of view of women

1445
police officers was to be put forward by women within the Federation—in other words, if policewomen were to get a vote. The Committee recommended, first, that the women officers of the several ranks in each force should elect one additional member to each of the branch boards, and that these additional members should be women; secondly, that women delegates should meet in eight districts into which the police forces of England and Wales, other than the Metropolitan Police, should be divided for the purposes of election of women delegates to the central conferences and that one woman constable, one woman sergeant and one woman inspector should be elected from each of the eight districts as delegates to the central conferences; thirdly, that the policewomen in the Metropolitan Police Force should be represented by delegates at the central conferences; finally, that the women delegates to the central conferences should elect one woman member to sit on one of the three central committees.
The recommendations of the Oaksey Committee were accepted by everyone concerned and they were introduced on a non-statutory basis in 1953. the women necessarily being non-voting advisers attached to the branch boards and central conferences and central committees; they were not members of them. Some small departures have been made from the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee which I outlined. The metropolitan delegates for the central conferences, for example, are chosen by a rather different method from that suggested by the Oaksey Committee and there are women advisers for each of the three central committees and not just one woman adviser for one of them. Metropolitan delegates for the central conferences are directly elected by the women police officers on the basis of one constable, one sergeant and one inspector for each of the four Districts in the Metropolitan Police Force.
The district elections for all the other forces in the country are attended by the women advisers to the branch boards, who are indeed the electors; and, again, from every District one constable, one sergeant and one inspector are chosen to attend the central conferences. There are, in all, twelve representatives for each of those three ranks chosen as delegates for the central con-
1446
ferences, but they have no voting rights at present. These arrangements for the special representation of policewomen have now been in existence for some eight years, and everyone was agreed that they should be put on a statutory basis as soon as possible and as soon as convenient.
This Amendment, and the Schedule which I shall later propose be added to the Bill, would give effect to the existing arrangements with only minor alterations. The new clause provides in the first sub-paragraph that:
"The branch boards, central conferences and central committees of the Federation shall include members representative of the interests of policewomen, who shall hold office in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Scheduleߪand the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919,"—
which sets out the constitution of the Police Federation—
"shall have effect subject to the provisions of Part II of the Schedule to this Act."
Subsection (2) of the new clause will enact that Section 13 of the Act of 1919, to which I have already referred and which provides for the modification of the Schedule to that Act in its application to Scotland, shall apply to the new Schedule also. In this matter, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said a moment ago, we are not altering the present position in Scotland, so that, at least in my view, Scotland, in this one detail, in fact lags behind England and Wales, because the Police Federation for Scotland desires no change in the existing arrangements for the representation of policewomen, which are at present similar to those which we have here. But if the Act were applied to Scotland by the appointment of a date of operation by the Secretary of State for Scotland, it would be possible to modify it in its application if that should prove desirable. I hope my explanation of this clause has been sufficient in length and sufficiently clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after second ("and") insert (",subject to the next following section,").—(Lord Stonham)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): I am most grateful to the noble Lord opposite for moving this

1447
Amendment, and I congratulate him on the clear and precise way in which he has done so. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships, and ask your Lordships to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Separate representation for policewomen on Boards, etc. of Federation.
(".—(1) The branch boards, central conferences and central committees of the Federation shall include members representative of the interests of policewomen, who shall hold office in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Schedule to this Act; and the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919, shall have effect subject to the provisions of Part II of the Schedule to this Act (which are consequential on the provisions of the said Part I).
(2) Section thirteen of the Police Act, 1919 (which provides for the modification of the Schedule to that Act in its application to Scotland) shall apply to the Schedule to this Act as it applies to the Schedule to that Act.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to Clause 2:
"(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument; and different days may be appointed for England and Scotland.
(3) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 on the Paper, and can explain it briefly in this way. On the assumption that the Bill receives the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to appoint a day in the autumn for the Act to come into operation. So far as the chief inspectors of the Metropolitan Police are concerned, your Lordships will see from Clause 1 of the Bill that the effect of bringing the Act into operation will be to make them members of the Police Federation—that is, just the metropolitan inspectors. They will then be able to exercise their rights to stand for election as members of the Metropolitan Inspectors' Branch Board, and to vote in the elections for that board at the next annual elections.
So far as the special representation of policewomen is concerned, the effect of bringing the Act into operation in the autumn will be that the new arrangements will have effect at the next annual elections of the branch boards. The date of these elections is fixed by the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919, as substituted by Section 1 of the Police Federation Act, 1959. I understand that the Secretary of State will probably fix December of this year for the election of the branch boards for the calendar year 1962—next year. Different days for the Act to come into operation may be appointed for England and Scotland, and your Lordships will appreciate that Clause 1 has no application to Scotland, being confined to the Metropolitan Police.
Now since the Police Federation for Scotland has no wish to alter the existing arrangements for the special representation of policewomen—that merely means votes for policewomen—it is not at present intended to appoint a date for bringing the Act into operation for Scotland: but it will be open to the Secretary of State for Scotland to do so if at any time this should appear to be desirable. Subsection (3) of the Amendment provides that the Act does not extend to Northern Ireland, and this is a provision which is parallel to subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Police Act, 1919. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15. at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL BATHURST: I commend this Amendment to your Lordships, and ask your Lordships to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM moved,LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new Schedule:

POLICE FEDERATION BILL

  REPRESENTATION OF POLICEWOMEN ON BRANCH BOARDS, ETC.
  Preliminary
  1.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—

  (a) any reference to a constable (except in paragraphs (b) and (c) below) is a reference to a policewoman of that rank;

  1449

  (b) any reference to the board is a reference to the constables' board established by the Police Act, 1919, for the branch in question of the Federation;

  (c) any reference to the conference or the committee is a reference to the central conference or the central committee established by that Act for constables;

  (d) any reference to a member of the board, conference or committee (except in paragraph 5 below) is a reference to a person holding office as such a member in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule;

  (e)"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations, and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the three central committees established by that Act sitting together as a joint committee.

  (2) This Pant of this Schedule shall apply to sergeants and inspectors respectively as if for any reference to a constable there were substituted a reference to a sergeant or, as the case may be, an inspector.
  Additional members of Branch Boards, Central Conferences and Central Committees
  2. If the number of constables in a branch of the Federation is one or two, the one or as the case may be the senior of the two shall be a member of the board; and if the number of constables in the branch is three or more, they shall elect one of their number to be a member of the board.
  3.—(1) The constables of the metropolitan police force shall elect from among their number four persons, or such greater number of persons as may be prescribed, to be members of the conference.
  (2) The members of the boards for other forces shall, for the purpose of electing members of the conference, be grouped together in the prescribed manner, and the members of each group shall elect from among their number the prescribed number of persons to be members of the conference.
  4. The members of the conference shall elect one of their number to be a member of the committee.
  5. The members of the board, conference or committee holding office in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule shall be additional to the number of members of that body holding office in pursuance of the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919.
  Elections
  6.—(1) Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919, and, subject to the following sub-paragraph, pargaraph 17 of that Schedule (which regulate elections under that Schedule and provide for the filling of casual vacancies) shall apply for the purposes of this Schedule as they apply for the purposes of that Schedule.
  (2) Provision may be made by regulations as to the holding of elections in pursuance of paragraph 3 above and the filling of casual vacancies occurring among persons elected at those elections; and nothing in the said paragraph 17 shall apply to those matters.
  (3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that, except as provided in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) above, an election of members of a body in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule is to take place on the same occasion as the corresponding election held in pursuance of the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919.

  CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF SCHEDULE TO THE POLICE ACT, 1919, ETC.
  7.—(1) Policewomen shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 10 and 12 of the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919, so however that a policewoman who is qualified, otherwise than by virtue of Part I of this Schedule, to be elected as a member of a board, conference or committee or to be a member of a conference or an elector of a member of a conference or committee shall not be disqualified therefor by this sub-paragraph.
  (2) A policewoman who, apart from this sub-paragraph, would by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Schedule or of the foregoing sub-paragraph take or vacate office as a member of a board on the date of the coming into force of those provisions, shall not do so by virtue only of those provisions until immediately before the first meeting of that board which is held after the first election taking place after that date for membership of any board of the branch in question of the Federation.
  8. Paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919 (which requires that persons who represent a force as members of a conference shall be members of that force) shall not apply to policewomen elected in pursuance of subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule; and paragraph 23 of that Schedule (which provides for leave and expenses in respect of attendance at meetings of boards and other bodies) shall apply to meetings of electors in pursuance of that sub-paragraph as it applies to meetings of a board.
  9. The provisos to paragraphs 17 and 21 to the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919 (which contain spent transitional provisions relating to elections and meetings) are hereby repealed."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, to insert the new Schedule. I must apologise both for the length of this new Schedule and for its detail, but it is all completely necessary. I must apologise also for the need to deal briefly—I hope very briefly—with each of the paragraphs. It is not, of course, so much for your Lordships' benefit, but some of the paragraphs may, I hope, be a little clearer to laymen after my explanations than they were before; and these explanations may have to be read by police officers, who will wish to understand them quite readily.
  The Schedule is an additional consequence of the acceptance of the new clause. The first paragraph is concerned

  1451
  with the interpretation of the first part of the Schedule. In certain parts of the Schedule—for example, paragraph 3 and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6—there is a reference to matters being prescribed or to a power to make regulations. Subparagraph 1 (e) is to the effect that
  "'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations, and 'regulations' means regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the three central committees"—
  of the Police Federation—
  "…sitting together at a joint committee."
  The regulations are not required to be made by statutory instrument, and they will not be laid before Parliament. Part I of the Schedule is drafted in terms of policewomen of the rank of constable, but sub-paragraph 1 (2) provides that Part I should also be applicable to women of the rank of sergeant and inspector.
  Paragraph 2 provides for the election of additional women members of the branch boards. It is to the effect that if, in the force in question, there are one or two women constables, sergeants or inspectors, the one, or, as the case may be, the senior of the two shall be a member of the constables', sergeants' or inspectors' branch board; and that if the number of women constables, sergeants or inspectors is three or more, they shall elect one of their number to be a member of the relevant board. It is unlikely that any police force will ever have only one or two women constables, but there are a number who have only one or two women sergeants or inspectors. Seniority depends on the length of service in the relevant rank. The provision about the number of police officers who are to be elected to the branch boards by the male members of the force is contained in paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Act of 1919.
  Paragraph 3 (1) of the new Schedule is to the effect that in the Metropolitan Police Force the women constables, sergeants and inspectors shall each elect four of their number, or such greater number as may be prescribed, to be members of the central conferences. This is in accordance with existing arrangements, under which the members of the force, in their four districts, elect four women constables, sergeants and inspectors to be delegates to the central con-
  1452
  ferences. In future, they will be full voting delegates, but otherwise the present position will be unchanged. The provision that greater numbers of women delegates may be prescribed has been inserted in the Bill in case there is a change in the proportion of women officers to men officers, and it will then justify an increase at a later time. No increase, of course, can be made except after consultation with the Joint Central Council of the Police Federation.
  Paragraph 3 (2) provides that the women members of the branch boards from the other forces shall, for the purpose of electing members of the central conferences, be grouped together in the prescribed manner, and that the members of each group shall elect from among their number the prescribed number of persons to be members of the central conferences. It is intended to prescribe arrangements similar to those which are already in existence, but in future the additional women members of the branch boards will meet in the eight districts and each district will elect one constable, one sergeant and one inspector to be delegates to their respective central conferences. When combined with the Metropolitan delegates, there will be, as at present, a total of twelve of each as delegates. Here also there will be power to prescribe, after consultation with the Joint Central Committee, an increasing number of women delegates if that should be found to be justified.
  Paragraph 4 provides that the policewomen delegates to each of the three central conferences shall elect one of their number to be a member of the central committee for that rank. Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Police Act of 1919 provides that there shall be central committees of six of each rank. The effect of this provision, therefore, is that there will in future be, in addition, one of each rank on the central committees elected by the women delegates.
  Paragraph 5 provides that the women members of the branch boards, conferences and committees, shall be additional to the members holding office under the Schedule to the Police Act, 1919. Paragraph 6 (1) provides that the provisions of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Schedule to the 1919 Act, which ensure that elections shall be by secret ballot and that each elector may give

  1453
  one vote and no more for each candidate, will apply to the elections of policewomen members. Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the 1919 Act, which is applied by paragraph 6 (1) of this Amendment, provides that branch boards may make regulations about the mode of election of members of the board and of the delegates to the central conference returned by the board, and as to the filling of casual vacancies. It further provides that the central committees may make regulations as to the mode of election of their members by the central conferences.
  Paragraph 6 (2) indicates that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the holding of elections for the selection of women delegates to the central conferences. This provision is necessary because there is no other body that can appropriately determine these matters, the delegates not being chosen by a particular branch board or to represent a particular force. Sub-paragraph (3) contains the provision that, except in so far as the Secretary of State may by regulations applicable to the election of women delegates to the central conferences prescribe otherwise, the election of the women members of branch boards, central, conferences and committees are to take place on the same occasion as the corresponding elections held under the Schedule to the 1919 Act.
  The second Part of the Schedule contains these provisions. While Clause 2 of this Bill provides for the election of additional women members of the branch hoards, conferences and committees, there is no bar to a woman being chosen as a member by the male electors. This is made quite clear by paragraph 7, which provides that a policewoman who is qualified, other than by virtue of the provisions 'I have already described, to he elected as a member of the board, shall not be disqualified by this subparagraph. The sub-paragraph also provides that policewomen shall be disregarded for the purpose of certain paragraphs of the Schedule to the 1919 Act.
  These paragraphs and their effect is as follows. The first is that, in paragraph 3, policewomen are not in future to be taken into account in determining the numbers of representatives of the branch boards to be elected by the men. So in some cases there will now be a
  1454
  change in those numbers. Secondly, paragraph 4. Policewomen will not have the right to vote with men at elections for the branch boards. They will elect their own additional women members. Thirdly, paragraph 6. The women members of the branch boards will not have the right to vote in the election of delegates to the central conference. They will elect their own representatives at the district elections.
  Under paragraph 10, policewomen are not to be taken into account in reckoning the authorised strength of the Force—the strength which is relevant in determining the number of delegates to the central conferences. The effect of this will be a small reduction in the number of delegates to the central conferences elected by policemen, but the delegates that the women will in future send there will have voting rights. The final paragraph, paragraph 12, provides that policewomen delegates at the central conferences will not have a right to take part in the elections of members of the central committees under the Act of 1919. This is because they will, under this Bill, elect their own member for each of the three central committees.
  The second section of paragraph 7 provides that a policewoman who would otherwise take or vacate office as a member of a branch board when the Act comes into force shall not do so by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 2 or of paragraph 7 of the Schedule until immediately before the first meeting of the board which is held subsequent to the first election to the Board which takes place after the operation of this Act. The effect of this provision is that the new arrangements for policewomen will come into effect with the next annual elections, and not before. This will prevent any disruption of the membership of the branch boards before the annual election.
  Paragraph 8 provides that paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the Police. Act of 1919, which lays down that a delegate to a central conference must he a member of the police force which he represents, shall not apply to the policewomen delegates to the central conferences elected in the several districts. This is because these delegates will not represent individual forces as such, but will represent districts. It also provides that

  1455
  paragraph 23 of the Schedule to the 1919 Act, which provides for leave and expenses in respect of attendance at meetings of branch boards and other bodies, shall apply to meetings of the policewomen electors of the delegates of the central conferences. The last paragraph in the Schedule provides that the provisos to paragraphs 17 and 21 of the Schedule to the 1919 Act, which are spent, shall be repealed. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 2, insert the said Schedule.—(Lord Stonham.)
  7.19 p.m.
  EARL BATHURST: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the Schedule which he is asking your Lordships to accept. That explanation was necessary because of the complicated legal language that the amendments to the Schedule need. I am sure that all members of the police forces will be grateful for this explanation that the noble Lord has given. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships, and ask for your Lordships' support.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STONHAM: This Amendment in the Title is consequential, of course, on the addition of the new clause about the special representation of policewomen. With the acceptance of the new clause providing for these arrangements, naturally the Title of the Bill had to be widened in order that it should become an Act to amend the law relating to the Police Federation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  In the Title, line 1, leave out "membership of".—(Lord Stonham.)
  EARL BATHURST: I commend the Amendment to your Lordships and ask for your Lordships' support.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES) BILL
  7.21 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, unless any of your Lordships so desires, I do not propose to go into a lengthy description of the various clauses of this Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Islington, North. The Bill is approved by the Government, together with its Money Resolution, and has the support of the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, I am certain that it will also commend itself to your Lordships.
  The Bill amends the Local Government Act, 1948, to enable certain fares and expenses to be paid to members of local authorities who up to now have not been able to draw these expenses. It abolishes the three-mile limit for justices of the peace and members of hospital boards, hospital management committees and health executive committees. I ought to say that it meets 75 per cent. of what the local authority associations have been asking for for some considerable time. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will not only have an unopposed Second Reading but will also go through its remaining stages unaltered. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Lindgren.)
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has briefly but clearly explained the subject matter of the Bill. I do not think that I need add to what he has said, except to congratulate him on his sponsorship of the Bill and on the clear way in which he has explained it, but I feel that I should make the Government's attitude towards the Bill quite clear. I think that it can be stated simply. The Government think that this is a good Bill, a useful Bill, and one which your Lordships can safely approve.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MOCK AUCTIONS BILL
  7.24 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will think it a misfortune that it should be I who am moving the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House to-night because your Lordships are assuredly deprived of another of those remarkable speeches which my noble friend. Lord Denham made when he introduced a similar Bill in your Lordships' House in the spring of 1959. However, my noble friend has descended two steps below me, and I have no doubt he has had to reorientate his ideas on this Bill very considerably in the last week. Therefore, it is for me to explain the Bill to your Lordships, although I do not feel that much explana1ion is necessary.
  Your Lordships will recall that this is a Bill for dealing with that pernicious practice, which has been so widespread in parts of London, and at many seaside resorts and fairgrounds, called the mock auction. The really pernicious and deplorable thing about these mock auctions has been that they are not auctions at all. They are highly organised, complicated and efficient confidence tricks on members of the public, and the victims have been the very last people your Lordships would like to see swindled in this way. None the less, it has been going on. Your Lordships will also recall that the essence of the mock auction is not that it tries to induce the members of the public to buy a shoddy article at far above its proper price, but that, by extremely clever manipulation of a crowd of would-be victims, the mock auctioneer succeeds in persuading them that, bid they never so high for these shoddy articles, they will not be required to pay the price they had said that they honestly would pay, but rather that there would be returned to them the whole or a very large part of their money; and although in the earlier stages this may be so, it is not then the public that benefit, and at later stages, when it is the public who think that they are benefiting, the money is not returned.
  I do not think that I could let this occasion go by without repeating to your
  1458
  Lordships the memorable and everlasting description of mock auctions that my noble friend Lord Denham gave to the House in 1959. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 214, col. 1122]:
  "'The pitch-getter gets the pitch, and then hands over to the top man, who first nails the mugs, then runs out the Hinton lots and finally gazoomphs the sarkers.'"
  That is the attitude, "gazoomphing the sarkers", that mock auctioneers have taken towards the public. And this Bill attempts to set it right.
  The Bill is almost exactly the same as the 1959 Bill. It is a closely meshed measure, which will enable the law to prosecute the mock auctioneers. The difficulty has hitherto been that unless there was a conspiracy, or a Private Act of Parliament which dealt with the evil, it was almost impossible to bring these men to justice, because either the law was not sure enough or else the evidence of people who had been beguiled and misled had not been forthcoming. Now the essence of the mock auction is set out in the Bill and it has made it possible for the evidence to be brought before the courts, so that these men may be stopped from their nefarious practices. The only addition that has been made to the Bill since your Lordships last saw it is the swingeing penalties which have been very rightly inserted. These will be found in subsection (2) of the first clause of the Bill.
  I am sure that your Lordships will join in congratulating my honourable friend the Member for Lewes, whose efforts and whose patience have piloted this Bill through another place; but of course he is not alone. In another place my honourable friend the Member for Stechford tried his best, and throughout the Bill has been supported by the honourable Member for Erith and Cray ford. I should not like your Lordships to think that this Bill has simply been devised by either House of Parliament without the consent, support and help of all the people who are going to be affected, who, of course, are primarily the proper and genuine auctioneers. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that it is largely as a result of their help and support that this Bill has been formulated.
  The Incorporated Society of Auctioneers have been very helpful and so have the Royal Institute of Chartered

  1459
  Surveyors' and the Chartered Surveyors' and Estate Agents' Institute. Support has also been forthcoming from the National Chamber of Trade and the Association of Municipal Corporations, the latter being the people in whose areas the mock auctioneers operate. Your Lordships will also be glad to hear that the Stepney Street Traders' Association, which has long been campaigning for just such a measure as this, in order to wipe out from Petticoat Lane the pernicious practices of mock auctions which have so long gone on there, with enormous profit to mock auctioneers, likewise welcome it. Therefore I commend this Bill to your Lordships. It was received with acclamation on the last occasion, and I cannot think that anything else will occur this time. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crook, who had hoped to be here to welcome this Bill, has unfortunately had to leave on another engagement, and it falls to me again to congratulate the noble Viscount opposite on his exposition of this Bill. All of us will be glad to see this little friend that we thought we had lost for ever two years ago turn up again, and I think we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on the rebirth of this little child of his. We commiserate with the noble Lord at not having the opportunity of introducing the Bill again as ably as he did before, but we also have to congratulate him on his elevation to the Lower Bench.
  7.32 p.m.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should first like to say a personal word of thanks to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for taking on this Bill at short notice and for the clear and masterly way in which he has performed the task; for making the acknowledgments that I should have wished to make to all those who have helped in the preparation and presentation of the Bill, and for his generous remarks about myself. May I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, for his very kind speech? When I introduced the previous Bill on this subject into your Lordships' House in 1959 my noble friend who then spoke for the Government was able to express on their
  1460
  behalf at best only a benevolent neutrality. I am spared some embarrassment over this, as their attitude has now taken on a more decisive form, and I can tell your Lordships, on behalf of the Government, that they fully support the Bill and recommend it for your Lordships' support.
  As my noble friend has explained, this Bill is virtually the same as the one which left your Lordships' House in 1959. It has been strengthened in another place in order to make it possible to impose heavier penalties to deter those whose unscrupulous methods have brought in large profits. The need for this strengthening was demonstrated by recent prosecutions of mock auctioneers under the general law which showed that considerable profits could be made, and in those cases the courts imposed heavy fines. Accordingly, a provision has been added to Clause 1 (2) to make the offence punishable on indictment by a fine not exceeding £1,000 or two years imprisonment, or both.
  This Bill is fairly complicated, but it should make the task of dealing with mock auctioneers easier than under the existing law. But I feel that I should repeat the warning given by my right honourable friend in another place. Although it is to be hoped that this particular method of fleecing the public by misleading them not only as to the quality of the goods, but also as to the price they are paying, will now be closed to its practitioners, these gentlemen, and others like them, will no doubt find other methods of earning their livelihood, and the general public should therefore be on their guard particularly at holiday resorts. The Government commend this Bill to your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, again I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, for the welcome he has given to the Bill from that side of the House. It would not be right if I failed on this occasion to congratulate my noble friend Lord Denham on his first speech from the Despatch Box. There cannot have been a subject upon which he would rather make that speech and if anyone is to be congratulated on the whole thing, I am sure it is he. None the less, as I am now in charge of this Bill, I must thank the Government

  1461
  for all their help and guidance. It is a small matter at the very end that I now mention. It is not often that I as a Scotsman have anything to commend to your Lordships in the legislation of Northern Ireland. But your Lordships will see at the end of this Bill the words:
  "The Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
  1462
  That is because Northern Ireland have beaten this country to it and already have their own Act in this matter.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.