Lords Sitting of 22 April 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

AID TO SOUTH YEMEN
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether agreement has been reached with the Government of South Yemen regarding compensation and aid.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): No, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that our Government promised £60 million to the pre-independence Government and have contributed only £15 million, including the cost of technical aid, may I ask my noble friend whether it would not be reasonable, after the confusion in which we left Aden and the interior territories, to increase this amount?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords; I cannot accept the implications of all that my noble friend says. The original £60 million that we offered in the course of talks with the Federal Government was specifically subject to review if the political circumstances in the Yemen and South Yemen changed—and of course they did. Some of the offers were expressly related to the threat from the Yemen in 1967, and when the U.A.R. withdrew from the Yemen, and the N.L.F. came to power in South Yemen, this offer collapsed. The representatives of the National Liberation Front in Geneva were quite specifically told this, so the offer has lapsed. Since then we have made another offer to the South Yemenis. They rejected this offer and talks with them have now been broken
368
off. If any specific proposal were made to us, of course we would consider it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer, may I ask whether it is not the fact that South Yemen is now having difficulties with the Yemen Republic as well as with Saudi Arabia? And in view of the distress in Aden as a result of the closing of the Suez Canal and the withdrawal of the services for the British Forces, would it not be reasonable for our Government to agree to a continuation of negotiations on these matters?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, our offer to South Yemen was to make available to them the sum of £1,800,000 for a further 10 months. For a country of a population of just over 1 million I think this is an extremely reasonable offer. This was rejected, as I say, by the South Yemen Government, and so we are not contemplating at the moment any further aid to South Yemen. But I repeat that if they made a specific proposal to us—which they have not done—we would consider it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, within the context of the aid referred to in this Question, could the noble Lord tell us whether any arrangement has been made for the continuation of the anti-locust service which we always maintained in this area and which is so important to the whole of East Africa?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not that information by me at the moment, but I will get it and let the noble Lord have it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent economic conditions in Aden have been affected by the closure of the Suez Canal, and also whether consistently friendly relations have been maintained with the South Yemen Government since our withdrawal?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot say specifically what has been the effect on the economy of the area of the closure of the Suez Canal. I would expect that it has had some effect. So far as our relations with the South Yemen Government are concerned, we have had good and friendly relations with them, and I personally see no reason why differences

369
over aid should affect those diplomatic relations.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware there are many of us who do not understand why the British taxpayer should subsidise the South Yemen Government as a result of the closure of the Suez Canal?
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, would not the Minister further agree that any money which this Government lend is not in fact our money but money that has been borrowed from other people, and is not likely to be paid back? Would not the Minister agree that the Government are right to be circumspect about what they lend?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be quite wrong to draw any conclusions of a general kind about trade, aid and loans from the specific answers I have given to this very narrow Question.

BETTERMENT LEVY EXEMPTIONS
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why it has taken them more than two years to perceive the rightness of the view of this House, declared in a Division on the Land Commission Bill on December 5, 1966, that it would be wise to exempt small transactions from liability to betterment levy.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the modifications to the betterment levy contained in last week's White Paper are substantially different from the addition to Clause 27 which was moved in this House on December 5, 1966, and derive from consideration by Her Majesty's Government of two years' operation of the Land Commission Act.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering my Question, though I do not find his answer wholly convincing. Is
370
the noble Lord aware that on January 30, 1967, I said to him in debate:
"… the Land Commission will curse the day when it was not relieved by Statute of the necessity of dealing with hundreds of thousands of small transactions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/ 1/67, col. 791.]
The noble Lord replied:
"… it does not seem to us worth it."
And he added that it
"would not achieve any desirable social end for the small man which is not already achieved …" [col. 796]
in other ways.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, partly on his foresight and equally on his memory.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may we hope that the £1,500 exemption limit which is proposed will in fact be the first £1,500 of the value of any land, avoiding the situation that land worth £1,550 will be caught for the full 40 per cent. levy, whereas land worth £100 less will escape levy altogether?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that that question should await detailed consideration of the Finance Bill in another place.

STUDENTS' EDUCATION AND PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to alter the regulations governing the assessment of parental contributions in relation to first degree student and comparable awards having regard to the announced intention to disallow interest on bank overdrafts as a relief on income tax liability.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is unnecessary to alter the University and Other Awards Regulations. If interest payments are not allowed for tax purposes, they cannot, under the Awards Regulations, be deducted from gross income in assessing the parental contribu-
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that tion.

371
reply, may I ask whether in regard to first degree and similar awards some consideration can be given to using the money saved as a result of this change in income tax policy to give relief to parents who pay rent?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, at this moment no estimate has been made of the saving in education expenditure which this proposed measure will produce. I would remind the noble Lord that it would probably represent only a very small proportion of the increased public expenditure which would be involved if we made allowance for rents in the assessment of parental contributions.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the point may be borne in mind, and to see whether it is at all possible to do anything to provide relief along the lines I have suggested?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the evasion or mitigation of parents' contributions towards the cost of first degree courses has been condoned by allowing substantial sums of bank interest and mortgages to be deducted before assessing net income? Also, is my noble friend aware that parents receiving an income well above the national average can, by bank borrowing and mortgages and the use of covenants, reduce their income to a level where they are entitled to a full grant or a high proportion of the grant?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am sorry that he used the word "evasion". I do not think these parents actually evade.
LORD ARWYN: Perhaps I should have said "avoid".
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords. But as I explained earlier, this system is tied up very closely with the tax structure, and perhaps the comments which the noble Lord makes are more directly addressed to our system of tax allowances. This has simply been transferred, as it were, for use within the parental contribution framework. I am sure the noble
372
Lord will appreciate that the Government try to meet some of the points he makes in relation to covenants and so on.

IMMIGRANTS AND ILLEGAL ENTRY
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the report in The Times newspaper on April 2 that "the police are launching a large operation on the South coast against Anglo-French gangs who are believed to have smuggled hundreds into the country", whether they can clarify their statements made in reply to a Question in this House on March 25 that instances of clandestine immigration are rare.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, having studied the newspaper article in question, I see no reason to modify my earlier reply. To the best of our knowledge and belief, clandestine immigration is now rare; but the responsible services will continue to be on the alert. The article drew attention to some indications of their vigilance.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which obviously deserves study and leaves me at the moment with the impression that whereas the number of illegal—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): Question!
LORD ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that his Answer is apt to leave noble Lords with the impression that whereas the number of illegal immigrants actually detected is small, the number of those still undetected may be considerable? Is the noble Lord aware that over the last 12 months a number of articles have appeared in the Press, all seeming to suggest that the amount of undetected illegal immigration is considerable? Did the noble Lord's Department study the series of long articles, with a most detailed factual background, compiled by a team of investigators containing four

373
Englishmen, two Pakistanis and an Indian, which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph last May, and besides exposing—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD ELTON: I am asking whether a most important article has been studied by the noble Lord's Department. I should like to conclude if I may—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD ELTON: I should like to conclude by saying that the writer of the article—
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The House will take just so much and then no more.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord's Department has studied that article, which is more important than I have been able to reveal?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that not only my Department but I personally have studied all these articles, and I would advise him that The Times report to which his Question referred was pure speculation, derived from the fact that the police are continuing to do what they have been doing for a long time; that is, to be vigilant to prevent illegal immigration. They naturally continue their contacts with police forces on the Continent not only for this purpose, but in connection with a variety of cross-Channel criminal enterprises.
I must advise the noble Lord that I am astonished to read an article of this kind, but after all, the poor chap has to get his living. There are such phrases as, "Christchurch Harbour and Hayling Island are thought to be among the ports of entry. It is possible now to buy a boat for less than £6,000 capable of travelling between Cherbourg and the Hampshire coast". Of course we do not deny these things, but assumptions like that ought not to deceive anyone with any knowledge of the facts. We have never agreed that the scale of this kind of immigration was significantly large, and there is no evidence whatever that it now continues on any scale. We are
374
convinced that the new powers in the 1968 Act, which are quite severe, are sufficient to act as a deterrent, and they have proved their worth.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether Her Majesty's Government have the power to deport immigrants settled in this country who have been proved to have entered illegally? If they have power, how many have been so deported?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that question was asked as a supplementary by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, recently asked a similar Question in the absence, through unfortunate illness, of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I gave the answer then. The answer is that we have powers to deport and these people are deported when they are detected. There is no difficulty whatsoever there.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend of the second half of my question?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot answer on the numbers without notice, but I can give my noble friend details of the only three cases of which we know. The most recent case was at Poole on March 15, when some 19 people were concerned. That ease is sub judice and I therefore cannot comment on it. There was another on June 23, when 29 immigrants were apprehended and returned to India and Pakistan. The boatman was prosecuted and received a sentence of five years' imprisonment. On August 17, 1968, at Chichester, three immigrants were landed and escaped. They have not been returned to their native land. The boatman was given a suspended sentence of six months, fined £100 and ordered to enter into a recognisance of £500.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, at the time of seeking employment, there is any check on how an immigrant has arrived in this country?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, I cannot give details of that. So far as I am aware, there is no check of the kind to which the noble Lord refers.

THE CASE OF MR. GERALD BROOKE
2.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government if they have any information to give the House about Mr. Gerald Brooke."
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with leave of the House I will reply to this Question in a Statement which I shall make at a convenient moment after half past three.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is a consolidation of our Statute Law dealing with trustee savings banks as at present contained in the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954, the Trustee Savings Banks (Pensions) Act 1955, the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1958, the Trustee Investments Act 1961, the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1964, the Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act 1956, the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1968, the National Loans Act 1968 and the Trustee Savings Banks (Pensions) Order 1955.
I should add that this is what has come to be known as a "Shell-Fish" Bill. The House will remember that originally we had only what were called pure consolidations, which could effect no change of any kind in the law. It was then found that it was frequently difficult to make a satisfactory consolidation without some minor changes. For instance, practices which had existed at the date an old Act was passed might no longer exist now at all. Accordingly, in 1949 the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act was passed which enabled Acts to be consolidated with corrections and minor improvements. Such Bills went to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and in the interests of consolidation Par
376
liament agreed that it would accept whatever the Joint Committee recommended, denying itself the right to say that it thought a particular correction or improvement ought not to have been allowed.
As time passed, even this was found somewhat restrictive, in that there were cases in which, in order to make a satisfactory consolidation, it was necessary to amend the existing Statute Law in a sense rather wider than could be called a correction or minor improvement. Accordingly, two years ago your Lordships and the other place approved a third kind of Statute Law consolidation; that is to say, with amendments approved by one or both of the Law Commissions, but on terms that it would then be open to either House to differ from the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
My Lords, this Bill, the Trustee Savings Banks Bill, is a Bill like the first one which was introduced under this new head, which was to consolidate our Statute Law on the not very romantic subject of shell-fish. This is not a more romantic subject, but it is accompanied by a Report by both Law Commissions which has been published and which explains why, in order to make a satisfactory consolidation, they want to make 21 amendments. They say that 18 of these are no more than corrections or minor improvements, which could accordingly have been done under the 1949 Act; but three of them, they think, may go further. And the Report, of course, fully explains why in each case that particular amendment is necessary in order to effect a satisfactory consolidation. As with the Shell-Fish Bill, this consolidation will be on the terms that neither House will be bound to accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
I have no doubt that for anybody who has to be concerned with the law on trustee savings banks it will be a considerable convenience to have all their Statute Law in one place instead of, as it now is, all over the place. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

LATE NIGHT REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small Consolidation Bill under the 1949 Act, and it is accompanied by the usual Memorandum by me explaining why it is desirable to make five corrections or minor improvements within the terms of that Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, it may surprise some of your Lordships to find that I am interested in the subject of this Bill. I would hasten to point out that late night refreshment houses are by statutory definition nonalcoholic. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that there are at present three Refreshment Houses Acts on the Statute Book, and it so happens that, in different capacities, I was responsible for piloting two of them through Parliament. I therefore feel rather as though two of my children are about to be done away with by this new Consolidation Bill. Those three Acts were passed in the years 1860, 1964 and 1967, so I shall leave your Lordships to conjecture for which two of the three I was responsible.
I welcome the proposal that the law on this subject should be consolidated, and also that these places of refreshment should be given a more logical name. The only comment I wish to make at this stage is that I hope the Joint Select Committee, to which this Bill will presumably be referred, will consider whether Clause 4 of the Consolidation Bill would not be more meaningful if it were to follow Clause 5 rather than to precede it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that after what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said the Committee will pay special attention to the point which he has mentioned. It is of course one of the advantages of this procedure that anybody can read the Memorandum and make any representations he likes direct to the Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Noble Lords will have noticed that there is a misprint on the Order Paper, but I assure noble Lords that I do not, as a result, intend to make a Second Reading speech. But now that we have brought the Bill to this point I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and all other noble Lords who took part in the earlier stages of the Bill for the constructive attitude which they took on what I think will prove in due course to be a very useful piece of legislation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS BILL
3.0 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the problem with which this Bill and the associated Pastoral Measure of the Church Assembly have been framed to deal is the product of many complex social, religious and economic forces operating over a long period. Among them are the movement of population away from the country to the towns and from the centres of towns to the outskirts, the decline in churchgoing, the incidence of taxation upon those who in the past have contributed largely to the upkeep of out parish churches, and in recent years changes in the concept of what a church is intended to be and to do. In one sense no ancient or beautiful building consecrated to the service of God can ever be redundant, for it is a perpetual reminder in materialistic surroundings of spiritual values; but in another sense it is as certain as anything can be that hundreds of churches throughout the land will no longer be needed in the foreseeable future for the precise social purpose for which they were built.

379
No one likes to see the church where he has himself worshipped, and beside which his forefathers are buried, closed or demolished. Proposals for closure or demolition are almost always fiercely resisted by the parishioners concerned. The sharp controversy which we see at local level has been reflected at the national level, but there is now at length a real prospect that this problem can be taken out of the field of controversy. The Bill which I am now commending, and the Pastoral Measure from which it springs, are the result of more than ten years of discussion. The proposals for dealing with redundant churches have the agreement of all who have been most closely concerned with this problem, and if everything works out as intended, in future no church of architectural or historic interest should be lost even when it is no longer needed for worship.
I turn now to the Bill itself. It is a short Bill of only seven clauses and its purpose is to enable the State to join with the Church for the first time in a programme for the preservation of places of worship which are no longer needed for that. It enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government to assist in the preservation of places of worship belonging to the Church of England; it enables the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales to acquire redundant buildings belonging to other Christian denominations and to other faiths altogether—synagogues and mosques. The Bill was not amended during its passage through the House of Commons.
The Pastoral Measure of 1968 set up two bodies: the Redundant Churches Advisory Board and the Redundant Churches Fund. I will describe in a moment what these two bodies do. And the Bill now before the House enables the Government to pay £200,000 over five years to the Redundant Churches Fund which will actually own some redundant churches. The Church Commissioners will pay another £200,000 over the same period. Future periods and amounts are to be specified by order. As well as this £400,000, one-third of the net proceeds of the sale of redundant churches and their sites will be credited to the Fund up to a maximum of £100,000 in any five-year period.
Now, my Lords, I will describe what would happen to a redundant church
380
under the provisions of this Bill. It is extremely complicated, but it is what the church authorities themselves have hammered out under the Pastoral Measure, after many years of debate. The full procedure, summarised from the Pastoral Measure, 1968, is this. The pastoral committee of a diocese are under a duty to review arrangements for pastoral supervision. Before making recommendations to the Bishop for a pastoral scheme, they must ascertain the views of the interested parties, who will include the local planning authority. This is the first time that the State, in the shape of the local planning authority, comes into the picture.
If a declaration of redundancy is proposed in regard to any particular church as part of the Pastoral Measure, the Council for the Care of Churches must be consulted. The pastoral committee recommendations find their way to the Church Commissioners, who send copies to interested parties, including, once again, the local planning authority—this is the second time. The Church Commissioners consult the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches set up under the Pastoral Measure for any proposed declaration of redundancy which involves the demolition or alteration of a church. They then prepare a draft scheme which is served on interested parties including the local planning authority. This is the third bite of the cherry by the local planning authority. If it contains a declaration of redundancy, it is served also on the Redundant Churches Advisory Board, and public notices are given in local papers and on church doors. The matter is then at large for written representations.
If the Church Commissioners decide to make a pastoral scheme, they secure the consent of the Bishop and submit the scheme for confirmation by the Privy Council. They must give notice to all interested parties, including the local planning authority—this makes their fourth appearance—and to all who have made written representations, and publish a newspaper notice explaining the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Appeals to the Privy Council are heard by the Judicial Committee.
A pastoral scheme can provide directly for the demolition of a redundant church only where a new church is to be provided and if the Advisory Board certify

381
that the old church is of little value historically and architecturally. In all other cases the future of the church is decided under a redundancy scheme which can provide for appropriation of the church to other uses or for preservation by the Redundant Churches Fund, or, failing either, for demolition.
The procedure for a redundancy scheme—and I would remind your Lordships that this is the smaller matter which concerns one or two churches only and not the larger pastoral scheme—is this. When the declaration of redundancy takes effect, the building vests in the Diocesan Board of Finance and there is normally a waiting period of up to three years during which the Board look after the building and the Diocesan Redundant Churches Uses Committee try to find an alternative use. After the waiting period the Commissioners can prepare a redundancy scheme. First, they must consult the Bishop and, if demolition or preservation is proposed, the Redundant Churches Advisory Board also. A copy of the draft scheme is served on the Diocesan Board of Finance, the local planning authority, the Advisory Board and, where they are involved, the Redundant Churches Fund. There must also be a newspaper notice inviting written representations.
The Commissioners then consider; and if they decide to make the scheme they submit it for confirmation by the Privy Council. In cases of redundancy schemes, as opposed to pastoral schemes, there is no provision for appeal to the Privy Council. This is not simple; but equally it is not the kind of procedure which is going to ride roughshod over local feelings and over the best available architectural advice. Those are two sides of the same coin.
My Lords, I am now in a position to tell the House the membership of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and the chairmanship of the Redundant Churches Fund. The Advisory Board is appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, jointly, after consultation with the Prime Minister. The Chairman is to be Sir Eric Fletcher, who is well known to all in your Lordships' House not only as an ecclesiologist but also as a very eminent Parliamentarian in the
382
House of Commons. The members are the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, the architect and author of the recent report on York; Lady Radnor, who has had years of experience on the Historic Buildings Council; Sir Francis Hill, the historian of Lincoln and a man of wide experience of local government; the Reverend Basil Clark; the Reverend R. L. S. Milburn, the Dean of Worcester; Mr. J. Brandon-Jones, a member of the Historic Buildings Council and leading light of the Victorian Society; and Professor Nikolaus Pevsner, in a way the founder of large-scale architectural and historical studies in this country.
The Redundant Churches Fund, the body which is to own certain redundant churches, will consist of a Chairman and not less than four or more than six other members to be appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Archbishops submitted through the Prime Minister. So far, only the Chairman has been appointed. He is to be Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, whose work as the founder and President of the Friends of the Friendless Churches, is, I think, known and appreciated by all who care about these matters.
As noble Lords will have seen from what I have said, if there is a new full-time use to which a redundant church can be put, whether for worship by another denomination or as a museum or as part of a university—or even, as I have seen in the case of one church, as a theatre—the right time for this to be arranged is while the church is still in the hands of the diocesan authority. It is only when no proper full-time use can be found that the church can come into the hands of the Redundant Churches Fund. But that is not the end of the matter, so far as use is concerned, because the Fund is allowed not only to permit the use of the church for occasional acts of worship—so much is obvious—but also, under Section 45 of the Pastoral Measure, to permit its occasional use for any other purpose they consider suitable. I very much hope—and I believe that my hope will be shared by the Church authorities and the members of the Fund—that it will prove possible for these powers to be used ingeniously and energetically so that we do not have simply a series of beautiful shells which may be coldly inspected by tourists and scholars but, so far as is humanly possible,

383
a series of beautiful buildings in pleasing and decent, if intermittent use.
Just a word, my Lords, about the size of the problem. It is very hard to gauge this, but here are some facts which may assist one to a picture. There are 9,976 churches listed by my right honourable friend as buildings of architectural or historic interest. The Archbishop's Commission on redundant churches which reported some years ago estimated that nearly 800 churches would become redundant by about 1980 and that about 440 of these would be churches "with a high degree of special interest". The same Report estimated that the Redundant Churches Fund might be asked to accept responsibility for as many as 300 or 400 churches, and these, of course, by definition would be from among the 500 or so redundant churches of special interest. It may be that the figure of 300 or 400 will, or should, prove to be in the nature of a maximum.
It may be of interest for the House to be reminded of what is done abroad about this problem. In France, cathedrals belong to the State and parish churches to the local authorities, and that is that. In Bavaria, where most of the German architectural heritage is by way of churches, and in Spain, Italy, Denmark and other countries, monumental churches, by and large, belong to the State, and that is that. In Holland, on the other hand, churches still belong to the Church as they do in England.
At this stage, I shall not speculate on the place which may prove to be occupied by the present Bill in the developing saga of relations between Church and State in this country. This Bill is limited simply to the care of churches from which the worshipping population has moved away and which are therefore redundant. The question of any State responsibility for the great majority of churches which are still in use for worship, and likely to remain so, is one which, as I have told the House before, the Government are content to leave where it is; that is, with the arrangement of 1913 by which cathedrals and churches were exempted from State control of historic monuments and as a corollary received no State aid towards maintenance; unless indeed the Church itself were to wish it otherwise, in which case
384
the Government would study any formal proposal from the Church with an open mind. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the understanding and succinct way in which he introduced this Bill. As he said, it is in its full extent, when coupled with the Pastoral Measure, a very complex puzzle of proposals; though this particular Bill is merely the small last piece that completes the whole jig-saw. The House will also be specially grateful to the noble Lord for taking this opportunity to announce the names of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and the Chairman of the Redundant Churches Fund. I think that in the first case the names he has given us will fully meet the main requirement, which was that this Advisory Board should command the full confidence of all the many parties interested in this complex problem. So far as the Redundant Churches Fund is concerned, I am sure that this marks a very happy climax to the crusading work of Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas on behalf of friendless churches.
I think the noble Lord was wise to stop when he had dealt with the redundant churches and not to take us any further into the whole question of State aid for churches and cathedrals now in use. The comprehensive way in which he introduced the Bill has, at any rate for me, cleared up any doubts or questions that I might have had about it. The single point that I am left with—perhaps the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Lincoln, will deal with it—is whether I am right in assuming that a building which has been transferred under Clause 4 of the Bill to the Minister of Housing and Local Government can be restored as a place of public religious worship for use by members of any religious creed. That is my reading of the Bill and I should like to be assured on that point. Apart from that small detail, I should like to join the noble Lord in wishing the Bill a Second Reading.
3.17 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN:
My Lords, I should like to join in the

385
general welcome which this Bill received in another place and which I believe it will receive in your Lordships' House. Before speaking on some of the provisions of the Bill, or the reasons for it, I should like to pay tribute to the people of this country who have maintained the parish churches of this land. I think that but for the support which we have received, not simply from practising or regular members of the Church of England but from members of other Churches and from people of good will, it would not have been possible to maintain the parish churches in their present state of repair.
In the course of my speech, my Lords, I shall from time to time refer to my own diocese of Lincoln. I shall do that only because there are particular figures which I think could be equally applied to other dioceses. The diocese of Lincoln has over 700 parish churches. The greater number are mediæval; most of them are country churches. I estimate that since the ending of the war we have, in Lincolnshire, raised something like £1 million for the repair of parish churches, and in addition we have raised a quarter of a million for the repair of the Cathedral.
I think it also right to remind your Lordships that every parish church is now required to have a quinquennial survey of the fabric. The reason very often why we have been faced with staggering costs for church repairs is because for long periods there has been only very superficial work done on the fabric. The quinquennial survey ensures that a building is regularly surveyed by a qualified architect and that work is done which, had it been left, might have cost many thousands of pounds and which could not be remedied by the spending of a matter of £100 or £200. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that at the present time, generally speaking, the parish churches of this country are in as good a state of repair as at any time since the period of the great Victorian restoration of church buildings. Nevertheless, we cannot avoid the issue that some churches are clearly redundant. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave some reasons.
Of course, this is no new problem. Professor Beresford reckons that there are something like 100 villages in Lincolnshire which have disappeared. All
386
those villages had churches. Many of the churches have disappeared, too, but some are left, often standing out remote in the marshland or out in the wolds, with no population of any kind in their immediate vicinity. In rural dioceses such as Lincolnshire and, I would add, Norfolk and Suffolk, where the drifting of population from the country to the towns has been going on over the last 100 years, villages have deer-cased in population. There are villages in Lincolnshire which, even in the last quarter century, have lost half their populations and, as noble Lords are aware, as a result of modern agriculture, there is no longer the work for people in the country. In a county like Lincolnshire, remote from the industrial areas, if there is no local work then people move away. And we are not at the end of this process of depopulation.
Many of our small villages are populated mainly by old people. There are now villages with 12, 14 or 20 people, but these may often still have a large parish church. We have made a careful survey of the whole of Lincolnshire. This was done area by area by groups of local people. It was not something which had been imposed from the centre. Local commissions in every area were appointed to look at the pastoral needs of the Church and as a result they have made recommendations concerning redundant churches.
I give your Lordships these figures because I think they help to understand the size of the problem. In Lincolnshire alone there were 57 churches which are no longer used, or used only on very rare occasions. There were a further 42 churches which seemed likely to come into the same category in the fairly near future, and in addition there were 66 parishes which had a population of only 100 people. We can see that this means a very considerable problem, not simply of church buildings but of something which to my mind is infinitely more important, the whole question of neighbourhood and community in the country. I can think of a district in mid-Lincolnshire in which there are four mediæval churches, two of them of quite magnificent splendour, all roughly within a mile or a mile and a half of each other. The total population of the district is less than 400 people. Clearly, it is beyond the possibility of a local community to

387
raise sufficient money for the maintenance, let alone the restoration, of such splendid buildings.
There is a further point which I believe is of importance. I admire tremendously the efforts, the ingenuity and the persistence with which church people raise money for the support of their churches but there are times when I am bound to ask: is it right that all this money should go towards church buildings and perhaps not enough towards those great objects with which Christian compassion should really be concerned? I recognise that these buildings are part of our national heritage. They are monuments of our social as well as our religious history. They witness to the faith of past generations. But it can happen, I believe, that their continued maintenance as church buildings can be to the detriment of the present Christian community and its influence in the whole life of the neighbourhood. As I understand it, the point of a parish church traditionally has been that wherever people live and work, there should be a church, with its ministry, its pastoral care and its worship, in the midst, to give a depth and dimension to the life of the whole community. This, I believe, is a positive element in the building up of community.
At the present time in the countryside we are faced with a major social problem. It is the building up of a new community life. Country life is sound and prosperous, but unless men and women living in the country have a feeling of belonging to a neighbourhood they may get disheartened and drift to the towns. In some cases the old villages are no longer villages, but simply hamlets, and they have to be made part of a larger neighbourhood and community. And I believe that the Church must be in the forefront of this whole movement. Of course, it involves many other problems—education, social recreation and all the rest—but if we insist on trying to maintain every church as a centre of worship for the Christian community we may in fact be doing grave disservice to the nation. What we need to do is to build up Christian communities capable of influencing the neighbourhood and of helping to create standards of life. To do this it is essential that churches with five or six people meeting in them must be
388
closed. They might be used for occasional services but certainly not as regular places of public worship, and the churches as such cannot be expected to carry the cost of preserving those buildings which, rightly, should be preserved.
In the towns the principle is much the same. Perhaps I may illustrate it in this way. In the towns of Lincoln and Grimsby, the areas occupied by houses are just twice as large as they were before 1939, yet the population is just about the same: there has been very little increase. What has happened, of course, is that people have moved out from the bad crowded housing of 19th century industrialism into the well-planned suburbs of these towns. And the first duty of the Church is to provide churches there, where the people live; and to do that we must close some churches which are no longer required by the people who live in the town centres. The saddest thing of all, when we come to try to close one of these older churches is that the people who most bitterly oppose the closure are often not people who live in the parish but people who used to live there and who have moved out into new neighbourhoods. Instead of joining themselves with the new Christian communities, they cling on, in a nostalgic kind of way, to the churches of their upbringing, often of their early spiritual experiences. None the less, if we are to fulfil our duties in the new neighbourhoods, some of these churches in the town centres must be closed.
I believe that the provisions of this Bill are a reasonable compromise. I am rather frightened that perhaps in some ways the process may take too long; that buildings may fall into disrepair because nobody will be greatly concerned to see to their maintenance during the waiting period. I believe that the Bill provides a proper opportunity for all people, not just the Church but everyone who has an interest in our ancient heritage of parish churches, to make their protest and their opinions known. It provides an opportunity to find alternative uses for church buildings. I think that we have to be a little less rigid in our views about what is and what is not a proper use for a church building. But in the end, I believe that the measure will provide for some of those buildings to be retained and maintained by the Redundant Churches Fund.

389
I am afraid I do not know immediately the answer to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made, as to the bringing hack into use of such a church. I have always thought that, just as the Redundant Churches Fund could allow a building to be used on occasions for services of public worship, if there were an overwhelming demand for a church to be brought back into full use—for example, because of the building of some new town—this would be possible under this Bill.
3.31 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the lucid way in which he expounded this remarkably difficult exercise in bureaucracy—which is what it is—to deal with this particular problem. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate spoke about the diocese of Lincoln, because that is the rural diocese of this country that will present the great rural problem of depopulated villages and so on. I am deeply distrustful of any figures which anybody gives as to the number of redundant churches. It depends really upon where you draw the line, because with the ever-spreading motor car it is certainly possible to say that villagers ought to be prepared to motor a certain number of miles to their church. That in turn, of course, will immediately throw up an enormous quantity of redundant churches: and these are going to be the most difficult of all to deal with.
What is an historic church in a small hamlet to become? At the best it can become a sort of museum, where tourists occasionally stop and ask somebody for the key, perhaps paying 2s. 6d. for the privilege, and go in and look at and photograph the church and so on. Nobody is to know whether those tourists are there with good intentions or not. As one who is concerned with the insurance of churches, I can only say that there are more and more thefts of the contents of churches every day. I can quite see that these country churches, if they have to be kept (and they will have to be kept), will be an absolute magnet for all the lead thieves and thieves of ornaments. Are they to be kept as an absolute shell, or will there be some brass candlesticks, crosses and lamps in them? These, so far as I can see, will disappear very quickly in present circumstances. And
390
once the lead has gone off the roof it has to be replaced with something else at vast expense. That will be the headache of the Redundant Churches Commission. There is a much more reasonable chance of being able to find some alternative use for town churches. One has heard of their use as libraries, museums, boys' clubs and the like, though one or two churches I have seen did not seem to me to be useful for anything except a badminton club. But they are much easier to use.
However, owing to the tremendous opposition to declaring any church redundant that is always raised, we have this appallingly long bureaucratic process before we can do anything about it. During that time the responsibility for the church falls on to the diocese; and as chairman of the Diocese Board of Finance, I do not at all like the idea of having to finance, possibly for three years, some large church in an area frequented by hooligans, to try to preserve it from destruction while some very worthy body tries to find some use for it. There again, the question of theft arises. If you lock the church the thieves will get on to the roof; and if there is any lead there it will go. I am afraid, knowing the nature of the problem, that this appalling bureaucratic process is inevitable. One can only hope that as time goes on we shall surmount our difficulties; and, of course, the better we surmount them and the easier it becomes to find proper alternative uses for redundant churches, the more redundant churches will be thrown up.

THE CASE OF MR. GERALD BROOKE
3.35 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to answer the Question asked earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for allowing me to make the Statement before he speaks. I should like, with the leave of the House, to answer the Question by rep-eating the Answer being given by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a similar Question in another place. The Answer is as follows:

391
"In an article in Izvestiya on the 28th of December, 1967, it was hinted that fresh charges might be brought against Mr. Brooke. Since then we have frequently impressed upon the Soviet authorities the very serious consequences which any re-trial of Mr. Brooke would have for Anglo-Soviet relations. I myself last spoke to the Soviet Ambassador about this on the 1st of April.
"In yesterday's Evening News it was again suggested that fresh charges were to be brought against Mr. Brooke. We made immediate inquiries of the Soviet Embassy about this report, but without result. I also instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to pursue the matter with the Soviet Government. I await his report."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I [hank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. May I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will impress strongly on the Soviet Government, and on their diplomatic representatives here, that most people in the Free World are genuinely anxious to be friends with Russia, and that if the Russian authorities insist on behaving like uncivilised savages it can only do harm to their own interests and reputation? Will further representations be made as soon as the report from our Ambassador, which the noble Lord mentioned in his Answer, is received?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while welcoming what Her Majesty's Government say in the Statement, namely, that any retrial of Mr. Brooke would have the most serious consequences to Anglo-Soviet relations, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree that it would be quite intolerable to enter into any kind of bargain with the Soviet Government for the release of the Krogers—which I believe, is what they are after; in other words, to get an agreement that spies are always released in exchange for some other alleged spy. This is not a principle which we could possibly accept, and I trust therefore that the Krogers will in no circumstances be released for that reason.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the two noble Lords who have spoken. I am in
392
some difficulty here because, while I sympathise completely with the sense of outrage that was reflected in their comments, I am anxious to do nothing and to say nothing that might make the position of Mr. Brooke worse than it is now. We have made clear to the Soviet authorities and to their Embassy that Anglo-Soviet relations are bound to suffer very gravely if they take action of this kind. I do not think it would help in the present circumstances for me to specify the steps that we might be obliged to take, but certainly we shall continue to impress this upon the Soviet Union.
So far as what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the Krogers is concerned, we have repeatedly made it clear to the Soviet Union that these two cases are in no way comparable. The Krogers are spies, and they are not Soviet citizens: Mr. Brooke is not a spy, and he is a British subject.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, everybody will appreciate that Her Majesty's Government do not want to do or say anything that might have an adverse effect on the interests of Mr. Gerald Brooke himself. But do Her Majesty's Government agree that the Soviet Government always act in these matters entirely in accordance with what they conceive to be their own interests? They will not act for or against Mr. Brooke unless they think it is to their interests to do so. Will Her Majesty's Government seriously impress upon them that we do want better relations with them, and that it is against their own interests to behave in this way?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, yes; of course this is a point we shall continue to make to the Government of the Soviet Union. They know—and we have repeated it often—that one of the cardinal points of our foreign policy is to bring about a détente, an improvement in our relations with Eastern European countries, and especially with the Soviet Union. As I have made clear, we shall impress upon them the grave effects on this policy of any action of the kind that has been adumbrated in the Press.
Perhaps I might, with your Lordships' leave, take this opportunity to say that Mrs. Brooke, who seems to me to be behaving in an altogether admirable way over all this—she is someone for whom I personally have come to have the greatest

393
admiration over the past years—has said that she does not see what else can be done. In spite of the distress in which she obviously finds herself, she has indicated that she believes that Her Majesty's Government have done, and are doing, all that they can.

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS BILL
3.41 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the last thing I want to do is to take up the time of the House, but I should like to say one word, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, in favour of the Bill which the House is now discussing. In a world that is changing as rapidly as ours is to-day, some measure of this kind—I am quite certain everyone would agree with what the right reverend Prelate has said—is clearly desirable and even essential. There are inevitably churches which from the point of view of religious worship have become no longer needed. Populations, as he has said, have often moved, and there may be other reasons why buildings have become redundant. There is, I think, more than one example of two churches in a single churchyard—that is the type of case which has grown up over the centuries—and yet both those churches may be of architectural and historical interest.
It would, I feel, be a tragedy if buildings of that kind were allowed to fall into ruin—buildings which are symbolic of the whole Christian character of this country, and living examples of this throughout the length and breadth of the land. That is the position which the Royal Commission of which I have the honour to be Chairman only too often has brought to its notice. It is a very real danger, and a danger I think perhaps greater than some of us would know if it were not brought to our constant attention. As I understand it, this Bill is a real attempt—and I think the first real attempt—to deal with that difficult problem. I should like therefore, if I may, very briefly, from the point of view of the Royal Commission, to support this Bill most warmly.
3.43 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the whole House will be glad of the support given by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as Chairman of the Royal Commission, to the Bill, and will have listened with interest and learned from what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Lincoln, told us about the situation in his own diocese, which, as he said, is one of those most obviously at stake in the whole operation. I shall detain the House very little longer, simply to answer the questions about the passage of a redundant church back into a place of worship, whether with the original denomination or with another. Of course, at no stage is there any difficulty about a redundant church's resuming its function as a permanent place of worship with the original denomination to which it belonged. So much is clear.
On the question of the passage of a church from one denomination to another, I may say that a church which belongs to one denomination now may, under current law, be handed by it direct to another denomination. This has happened. The Church of England has done it several times, without the church's ever becoming redundant at all. It is simply handed from the Church of England to, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church or a Church of another denomination.
As to churches in the hands of the Diocesan Board of Finance during the waiting period, the same procedure would apply there as applies to churches in the hands of their normal trustees or owners. As to churches in the hands of the Redundant Churches Fund which have been declared redundant, there is of course no obstacle whatever to their being passed back to the Church of England. Indeed, it would be everybody's hope and purpose to get them into use again as regular places of Church of England worship. Assuming, for instance, that a new town were built around one of the deserted villages, that would be the obvious thing to happen. As to churches in the hands of the Redundant Churches Fund which might be passed to another denomination that wanted them for worship, this would be something for the Fund itself and the Church of England authorities who had passed the church to it to determine. I will not say more

395
about it than that I should foresee difficulties in the very unlikely circumstances that the Fund were to find it difficult to do this. I should foresee difficulties in the State's making available its contribution to the Fund if there were a religious body that wanted this building for worship and were denied it.
Lastly, there remain the churches, other than Church of England churches, which pass directly into the hands of the State; that is, into the hands of the Minister of Housing or the Secretary of State for Wales. It is specifically provided that he may return them for permanent worship to their original owners; and that, of course, would be his dearest wish. The question of passing them to another denomination will depend on the terms of the agreement under which he receives them from the original owners, but the Minister of Housing and the Secretary of State for Wales will not normally agree to receive churches into their possession under terms which would preclude their passing for permanent worship to another denomination if another denomination wanted them, and always assuming that the original denomination did not want them. I hope that that explanation answers the questions which have been raised on this point, and I end by commending this Bill once more to your Lordships for Second Reading.
3.47 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, might I pursue the question a little further before the noble Lord sits down? I congratulate him on his grasp of this problem. The point upon which I was asking for clarification was not any of the points he mentioned, but whether the Bill means exactly what he says—that in that last circumstance, where the Minister has vested in him a building that has been a place of religious worship but not a church, he can restore it to use as a place of public religious worship. In the Bill it is not specified that that should be public Christian religious worship. We have a number of religious communities in our country now which are not Christian and from whom there might be a demand for the use of some of these redundant churches. There does not seem to be anything in this Bill to preclude their use by Sikhs, Jews or any other
396
sect who might be able to use a redundant church for their purposes.
LORD KENNET: That is quite right, my Lords; there is nothing in the Bill to preclude that. I would remind the House that we are at the moment talking about Nonconformist and Roman Catholic churches and temples, synagogues and mosques. These are the buildings which the Minister will receive. If any sect or faith wishes to pass him a building on the condition that he will not give it to any other sect or faith, then that will of course affect his judgment about whether he ought to accept it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY TERMS OF SERVICE (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1969
3.49 p.m.
LORD WIGG LORD WIGG rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations 1969 [S.I. 1969 No. 245], laid before the House on March 5 last, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper. On March 5 Statutory Instrument No. 245 of 1969 was laid, amending the Army Terms of Service Regulations in such a fashion that if the Statutory Instrument be not annulled a new type of engagement of three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve will become available in all arms of the Service. The introduction of a regulation of this type is not new; indeed, it has a history. And from the point of view of practical results, the history is not very respectable.
I am not one of those who are wedded to romantic type historians who look at history backwards and then interpret the events of to-day and yesterday in terms of preconceived notions. I hold the view that the First Great War was won before a shot was fired, as a result of the reforms of the Regular Army. introduced first of all by Mr. Cardwell and then subsequently carried through by the greatest Secretary of State for War

397
this country has ever had, the late Lord Haldane. From Mons back to the Marne an action was fought, not by men who were the products of what are called the "upper strata" of our society, and although many from such strata were serving among the officers, there were not, I suspect, many Ph.D.s, M.A.s or B.A.s among them. For the most part the men were drawn from that section of the community from which I myself sprang, who joined the Regular Army because their forbears did, or because, in many cases, it was the only hope of escaping from a drab, dreary, and sometimes an unemployable existence.
The Regular terms of service imposed on the infantry for a period of 12 years, partly with the Colours and partly with the Reserve—for the most part a minimum of seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve—meant that the divisions which went to France in 1914 had in their ranks a very high proportion of men of the age of 26 and upwards whose service was basically long-term, who could march and shoot, and who had the physical capacity to out-march, out-shoot and out-point the German Army. So while, in the dash to the Marne, they could not win, the Germans could not win, either; and not having won in the opening phase they could not win the war at all. The same thing applied in the Franco-Prussian War. What I am arguing is that while, I agree, the plans of the General Staff are important, in the long-term the structure of the Regular Forces around which an Army is built is pre-eminently important, and these policies which are introduced require a long time to work through, certainly not less than 20 years.
On November 20, 1951 (and I will now make the point that I want to make against this background), shortly after the Conservative Government took office, a similar engagement to the one now enshrined by this Statutory Instrument was introduced, and during the years that followed was heralded in all quarters as a great success. In January, 1951—that is to say, ten months before the three-year engagement was introduced—the Army recruited 1,999 recruits; in January, 1952, two months after the new engagement was introduced, the enlistment rate shot up to 2,632; and in February, 1952, only three months after, the recruiting
398
figure had more than doubled—no fewer than 3,496 men were enlisted.
From the moment of the introduction of that short-service engagement in 1951 I opposed what was then done and I lost no opportunity, as the pages of Hansard of another place will show, of forecasting the dire consequences that I felt sure would follow. The reason for its introduction was to induce young National Service men, called up for two years, to undertake the three-year engagement, and its apparently successful introduction, as I asserted at the time, was due not to the attraction of the short-service engagement itself but to the simple fact that those men enlisting on the Regular short-service engagement drew a much higher rate of pay for their three years than they would have done had they drawn the pay of a National Service man serving for two years. In other words, it was the differential in the rates of pay and not the engagement that did the trick.
My Lords, I do not want to fight old battles over again this afternoon, but I would remind your Lordships pf one simple fact. It escaped notice in 1951 (and perhaps I might say that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear), but from 1951 to 1957, try as I would, I did not succeed even in the limited task of convincing the senior members of my own Party, let alone the Government, of this simple fact. If the number of men who are recruited annually is 100, and they join for three years, one would have an Army of 300, whereas if the period of engagement is seven years there will be an army of 700. Or, to put it another way, once you play around with the periods of the engagement you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel and the test ceases to be the number of men actually serving or enlisting; the test becomes the total number of man-years which your forces command.
I have said that I do not want to job backwards, and I certainly do not want to fight old battles over again. But by 1957 it became obvious even to the most purblind devotees of the military nostrums of the day that the three-year engagement was a failure, and on May 14, 1957. the then Secretary of State for War went down to the House of Commons and announced the end of the three-year en

399
gagement with the exception of certain special categories, these being the Brigade of Guards, who have always, since long before the war, retained the right to enlist men for three years with the Colours and nine years with the Reserve, and certain special categories, such as the Royal Military Police, the Postal Service of the Royal Engineers, the Intelligence Corps and the Army Catering Corps.
The reason which forced the action in 1957 was this. The announcement in the 1957 White Paper that compulsory military service was to be brought to an end faced the Government of the day with the plain truth that a voluntary Army must be a long-service Army. My views on the 1957 White Paper are well known, and although the Minister who I understand is to reply does not agree with me (for reasons which he explained to the House on December 12), I still hold the view that it was a disastrous document which has done more damage to the Regular Forces than any other similar policy in the history of the Armed Forces of this country. And the worst thing about it is that it was linked with nothing more solid than sheer political expediency. The thinking behind it was shallow; it was unrelated to military necessities: it was the handiwork of Mr. Duncan Sandys.
The Minister of State for Defence, when he announced to the House of Commons on March 5, 1969, that regulations would be laid providing for a three-year short-service engagement in the infantry, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps, was not describing accurately the scope of the Statutory Instrument which we are discussing today. The provisions of the Statutory Instrument make it possible to enlist men in any arm of the Service for a three-year engagement. The Minister's Statement to the House of Commons was brief and I regret that it aroused no particular interest—certainly none in political circles. But as I understand it, it is intended to introduce a ceiling for the Infantry, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps, and that this ceiling will be fairly low. I presume that the historic right to which I have already referred, that the Brigade of Guards may recruit for a three-year engagement, will continue, and I presume that the provision covering the
400
Royal Military Police, the Intelligence Corps and the Army Catering Corps will also continue. I hope that the Minister will tell your Lordships whether in all arms of the Service the engagement is to be three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve. The type of engagement, although it is short-service, departs from the other types of engagement which the Army offers. They are for 22 years, or for a minimum of 12 years, and this engagament which is now envisaged shortens both the Colour service and the Reserve service. On the new three-year engagement, as I understand it, it is to be standard practice to have this new short service of three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve, and I hope the Minister will be kind enough to confirm that fact.
One of the things that worries me more than enough is that when the Minister of State made his announcement in the House of Commons, he said of the new engagement—and I think I am almost quoting him—that it would give the opportunity for people who want to try it out for a shorter period to do so—the "it", of course, being the Army. I think that this is a very dangerous doctrine indeed. The short-service engagement in 1951 was a gambler's throw by men who did not fully appreciate the long-term consequences of what they were doing and, unfortunately, they were supported by senior members of the Labour Opposition. So that the consequences of the actions of 1951 were never faced fairly and squarely. That is the reason why I have put down this Prayer this afternoon. I opposed the three-year engagement in 1951. I have very grave doubts about its reintroduction now, and I warn the Minister of Defence that Gresham's Law applies not only to currencies but in other fields of human activity.
I have no doubt that in the short run the new three-year engagement will give the Minister of Defence what he is looking for: a short, sharp surge of men who, in the Minister of State's words, will want to try it out, but who in fact are taking the easy option. If you merely count heads, they will be very welcome, but they do not make for a stable manpower policy. I sympathise with the Minister's difficulties. Recruiting is falling off. He is discovering a truism that was obvious to those of us who concerned

401
ourselves with these matters years ago. It was obvious in 1951 and in 1957 to anyone who cared to look that we were going to run into a period of very low recruiting catchment in about the late 'sixties and early 'seventies. That, of course, is related to the birth rate eighteen years ago. This fact alone made the policies followed highly dangerous, but when coupled with them we have the adventurous policies of 1962, of lowering the standards of men recruited and lowering the age of entry to seventeen—there is obviously a limit to that unless you are going to go back to the cradle—then what happened in 1968 and what is happening in 1969, and what will inevitably happen in 1970, are a direct consequence of the 1957 White Paper.
In short, the nation is faced with a devastating choice. The fact must be faced that if the nation has turned its back, on the advice of its political leaders, on any form of compulsory military service, even of a mild dose of selective service, then if you want recruits you have to pay for them, and the truth is that the Service rates of pay have not kept pace with the increases of pay in civilian life. Between 1965 and 1968 the index of industrial earnings rose by about 16 per cent. By comparison, Servicemen's pay rose by only 7 per cent. and that as a result of an award by the Prices and Incomes Board effective on April 1, 1968. What is needed desperately is for the Prices and Incomes Board to help the Services by recommending a pay code which is competitive with industry and gives something to spare for the hardships and special conditions of Service life.
There is another point which to my mind is of tremendous importance. This, if I may use the technical term, is the committal element of the pay structure. This, of course, has a direct bearing on the three-year engagement. On present rates of pay (and I apologise for wearying your Lordships with figures) a non-tradesman private Grade IV serving for three years would secure a rise in pay from £6 11s. 3d. per week to £7 17s. 6d. a week for six years or to £9 17s. 9d. a week if he converted to nine years. The pay of a "B" tradesman private Class III would rise from £7 12s. 3d. per week on a three-year engagement to £8 18s. 6d. per week on a six-year engagement or to
402
£10 18s. 9d. on a nine-year engagement. This system provides an important inducement to prolong, and it is of course an extension of the principle of the differential which produced such dramatic results following the introduction of the three-year engagement for the Army in 1951.
I cannot emphasise too strongly to your Lordships that the three-year engagement in itself must lead inevitably to a substantial weakening of the manpower structure of the Army. Once again it is a gambler's throw. It may produce in the short term excellent results, but this will be misleading during the first three years. After three years, when those who have taken the bait reject the hook of prolongation, the situation will have become worse than it was before the three-year engagement was introduced. So that if the situation is as bad as it undoubtedly is now and the voluntary system is in danger of breaking down, then I for one will accept the three-year engagement, albeit with reluctance, but the differential in the form of a committal element in a sharply increased pay structure is of vital importance; and without the immediate pay increase the introduction of the three-year engagement at this stage is an act of madness.
I suppose that apart from pay the most important factor influencing recruiting is the conviction that the Army is a rational and worthwhile career. Despite excellent publicity, I am not convinced that this is getting across to the general public. The things which the British people must come to understand, if the voluntary principle is to be maintained, are, surely, that there is a real need for an Army to preserve our security; that the Army provides a satisfactory and enjoyable career; that the Army provides the sort of training which gives a man the best possible start in life; and, finally, that the Army plays a genuine part in serving the community in peace time by providing trained manpower capable of exercising responsibility.
As I understand it, last year the Army carried out 151 exercises in 27 different countries. This year, I understand it is to be 208 exercises in 30 countries. There has been a valuable element of community service in much of this training, since certain units have been able to combine training overseas with constructive work

403
such as road and airfield construction and well-boring.
Another most important factor which the community must be brought to realise is that many Service trades and qualifications are to-day recognised by academic and professional bodies, by craft and technical institutes and by trades unions. Emphasis is now being placed on giving men as many opportunities as possible to obtain these qualifications, which can be used both within the Service and to facilitate resettlement when soldiers return to civilian life. The needs of the Service must always come first, but the search for manpower inside a voluntary system is something which must be accepted, certainly, I should have thought, by every Member of both Houses of Parliament and, perhaps even more important, by the community as a whole.
My Lords, it is because I am convinced of these facts that I trouble you to-day. I am not going to press this Prayer to a Division, and I end on a personal note. It is something that I have said before and I mean every word of it. Just fifty years ago. having had some taste of the Army, I decided to enter into a Regular engagement. I owe the Army a debt I can never wholly repay. I am trying to repay some of that debt to-day. If I could put the clock back and start all over again I would go back those fifty years and enlist in the ranks of the Regular Army for the friendship that I so readily found and because I am grateful for the opportunities which the Army gave me in later life. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations 1969 [S.I. 1969 No. 245], laid before the House on March 5 last, be annulled.—(Lord Wigg.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, we on this side are very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has moved this Motion to-day. We are having a Defence debate next week, but this Order certainly merits a little debate on its own. We on this side certainly share the apprehension expressed by the noble Lord about the consequences of the Order. As he described, this scheme has been tried before and it
404
was abandoned. Presumably this Order has only one aim: to get more recruits; and in that connection it smacks rather of an act of desperation. I understand that it is aimed to apply only to a proportion of the corps and the regiments of the Army. If this is so, it leaves the authorities free to vary the application of the Order according to the results of the first period of experimentation, perhaps increasing or decreasing the proportion. However, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will note what Lord Wigg said about the short, sharp upsurge that can come about in recruiting because of such an Order as this, but that it may not be continued.
In certain arms and regiments the record of re-engagement is encouraging, and obviously we must hope that this will spread to those recruits who take advantage of this scheme. I have considerable experience of training infantry, both recruits arriving at the depot under my command just after the war and those on arrival in units in the late 'forties and early 'fifties. Training overheads are high. That is one reason why I am against the reintroduction in peace time of National Service. The shorter the engagement the higher the turnover and the bigger the training overheads, unless one gets a big proportion of re-engagement. Certainly we hope that this will be the result, as otherwise this scheme will make matters worse and the return of National Service in some form will be the consequence. There will be some men who will be prepared to take an engagement of three years with the Colours—I think "three years with the carburettor" would be a more suitable term to-day, in the highly mechanised forces that we are considering—and it remains to be seen whether the response will be worth while.
It is not an economical scheme unless a high proportion of re-engagement results. A soldier to-day is a most expensive person. He gives no value for money during his training, when he and his family have to be kept by the taxpayer, and paid, clothed and fed, and trained by other highly-paid soldiers. If he leaves after only a short period as a fully-trained man he is not worth the cost of his service, except so far as his use as a Reservist is concerned. In these

405
Regulations the reserve period is only four years—I think I am right in saying that. This I regret, because I should have liked to see a longer period on the Reserve. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite could tell us why the period is only four years, and what are the reasons against making it a longer period.
This scheme is a gamble. Its success depends on whether the financial inducements of a six-year Colour engagement are sufficiently enticing. If they are not, few men will join for six years if they need not commit themselves for more than three years. I should like to see this three-year scheme applied to single men only, so that marriage allowance and quarters and all the expense of the families are provided only for men who take on a longer engagement and really give worthwhile service.
But I do not believe that pay and allowances are necessarily the answer to the shortage of recruits. There is a lack of confidence in the future. The men in the Services see cuts, amalgamations and abandonments of old commitments, and the disappearance of popular overseas stations. This, I believe, is even more marked among the young civilians, the potential recruits, than in the Forces, where, I am glad to note, morale is high, as re-engagements show. I believe that what is needed is a clear call, not only by the Service Ministers in Parliament but by the leaders of the Government and in particular the Prime Minister, to show the public that the nation needs its Forces, with all the qualities that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, mentioned so well just now; that the nation is proud of its Forces, is grateful to them and can assure them that they are an essential part of national life and will be looked after accordingly.
I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is not carrying his Motion into the Lobbies, because I do not think I could advise my noble friends to support him, but I hope the Government will watch the results very carefully, as certainly we shall, and will not hesitate to repeal the Order if it does not have the desired effect in the long term. I, for one, certainly hope that it will have the result not only of bringing in many much needed recruits but that a large number of such recruits will re-engage. Therefore, though I am apprehensive, I wish
406
it success. If it does not produce long-service soldiers it will do a grew deal of harm and should be dropped.
4.22 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am in the invidious position of being what I might call a part-time Colonel between two Major-Generals. However, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in his Motion this afternoon, I should like to point out that ever since I left the university I have been one sort of a soldier or another, Regular, irregular (very at times), and part-time. I am the father and the father-in-law of young soldiers, officers, and I allow my property to be used by two training establishments, the Royal Marines and the local infantry. Therefore. I hope that I may claim to have some idea of the views of the younger people in the Services to-day. However, my views, of course, are entirely my own.
I look on this three-year term business as a gimmick: a gimmick that has been tried before by the Conservatives and found wanting. This is about recruiting to a minute, comparatively speaking, Regular Army, and to such a Regular Army a three-year short-term engagement for the Colours is, to my mind, in this day and age impracticable and is bound in the long run to be inefficient. To my mind there are two ways in which the Army of this country can be run. First, we can have a National Service Army. This would mean two years training, and the reserves so formed would enable the permanent units and the Territorial Army units to be ready for any emergency at any time.
To my way of thinking, the Conservatives to their everlasting shame, abolished National Service for, I think, vote-catching reasons. The result has been from the word "go", "Mods" and "Rockers" and their modern equivalents, and a whole lot of other signs of lack of national discipline. But worse still, I think, is the creation of two nations, the dividing line nowadays being that of the two "A" levels plus, just at the period when I think they should be together; and to my mind the intellectual snob is the worst of all snobs. Secondly, there is the all-Regular volunteer Army. I had 15 years as a Regular soldier and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that we did not like National Service. Why?

407
Because our best officers and our best N.C.Os. were taken away to train them. However, to my mind that is a purely parochial view.
The idea of an all-Regular volunteer Army, if it can be achieved, is fine; but the Governments—I put it in the plural—of this country have so knocked the stuffing out of the defence forces that they have made it impossible to appeal recruiting-wise to the borderline cases. All ex-soldiers will know how much morale building and espirit de corps depended on our being able to teach regimental history. To-day I do not envy the young regimental officer trying to put that across, what with amalgamations, re-amalgamations and yet further amalgamations, quite apart from abolition. One officer so concerned (this is apropos this new divisional set-up which has been arranged) plaintively said to me only last week, "How can we come to Chudleigh"—which is my local village—"and appeal for recruits to the Prince of Wales's Division which no one has ever heard of locally". It may be said that they will at some time. Meanwhile, what is happening? The Devon and Dorset Regiment will soon be going to Malta—which should be a great draw—but it will consist 25 per cent. or more of Welshmen. I quote that just as one example of what is happening.
To my view, it is the Governments who are responsible for knocking the glamour, and therefore the recruiting value, out of the defence services, and they are bringing in this three-year term purely as a stopgap. The Regular element in either a volunteer Army or a National Service Army must be on at least a five-year engagement, and preferably a seven-year engagement. In these days when our prospective enemy has more submarines than our total Navy, we cannot afford to have a half-trained Army. By abolishing Civil Defence the Government have removed the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. Again, we are forced back on what is left of our Army.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is to be congratulated on putting down this Prayer, if only to spell out the parlous state into which politicians, of both Parties, have got the Army and its Reserves to-day. I only wonder that some
408
thing like this was not done in another place; but there they have not the advantage of having the Cross-Benches.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for telling us what he has this afternoon. It was good to hear of his pride as a soldier, and I have the same feeling. It is clear that the measures we are considering are desperate measures for desperate reasons. But if they are for desperate reasons, then desperate measures may have to be taken, because it is true that there is a shortfall in the birth rate and, therefore, recruiting in the next few years will be more difficult. I think it would also be right to say that the Household Cavalry and Brigade of Guards are two of the most efficient bodies in the British Army. They exist well on this three-year engagement, and therefore that must be taken into consideration.
Another point is that when young men of to-day come into the Army they have often held six or seven jobs before they have decided to join. This three-year engagement will give them a chance—rather like the short-service officer engagement, which was extremely successful; the S.S.C. three-year engagement—to see whether they like the Army and it the Army likes them. If it suits, one hopes they will take on. Those are the advantages and they, I presume, are the reasons why the Government have introduced these schemes.
Some of the disadvantages have already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and there are others. How can you control the numbers who will opt for the three-year engagement? It would be disastrous if everybody went for the three-year engagement, but it would be difficult legally to stop them. If they went to the recruiting office and asked to sign on for three years, it would be difficult to say, "No, you must come in for six years or nine years. Otherwise we cannot take you." I can see a real problem there. But there is the compensating advantage that with a three-year engagement there will be more chaps going through the Army, and I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said, that when they have seen it they will like it.

409
Above all, I agree that it is the matter of confidence which is holding back recruiting at the moment. In fact, it is something more than that. There seems to be a lack of will, both in the Government and in the country. I suppose that one follows from the other. One has heard noble Lords this afternoon saying, "Of course there is a place for the Army, and we admire the Forces and what they do." But the Army and the other Forces are there to fight, and unless the people of this country realise that those Forces are basically there to fight, and realise that they may well prevent fighting because they are ready to fight, we shall never get recruits. The biggest recruiter is one man wounded in a regiment in Aden. More people will go to that regiment. If there is a really good beat-up somewhere else in another regiment, people will join that regiment.
They join partly for excitement, adventure, duty and service, and partly for pay, and I very much agree with the proposition that pay must be increased. I hope we are going to get a proper "whack" when the Prices and Incomes Board come up with their decision on Forces' pay. It is a very large factor, particularly when a young man has a good job—and most of those who want to join are unlike some of the others to-day—and he wants to have a look at whether it is going to be good for him financially. If two opportunities are equally good, he will take the one he really wants to go for, and I believe that very often it is the Forces. I imagine that next Tuesday in the Defence debate we shall hear about the difficulty on the Reserve side, because recruiting is equally difficult there. There are great areas of this country which never see a soldier, Territorial or Regular, in uniform and it is very difficult for them to realise that there is an Army to join. So there are points in favour of this engagement, but I believe the dangers are great, and the matter of confidence is even more important.
4.33 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, noble Lords have been in a reminiscent mood to-day. My noble friend Lord Wigg told us that it is 50 years since he joined the Army. I have just been reckoning up and I find that it is 55 years since I joined up in 1914. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, told us
410
of his family's connections with the Army; that he was a soldier, his s xi was a soldier and his son-in-law was a soldier. My father was a soldier who served for more than the three years mentioned in the Order before us, I was a soldier who served for more than three years, my son was a soldier who served for mole than three years, and my son-in-law came in a similar category. So I approach this question of the Army from a very sympathetic and friendly point of view.
I have made it clear to your Lordships on a number of occasions that I felt that the virtual abolition of the Territorial Army as we used to know it was a mistake. I still hold to that view. I think that a large force of well-trained men in this country would help to give a stable backbone in the event of any crisis that might arise. But I am afraid that I could not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, in suggesting that there are virtues in conscription. There are very few indeed. Men went into the Forces most unwillingly, determined to show that spirit of unwillingness throughout a great part of their Service. That did not apply to all of them; some of them were naturally born to that kind of service. But, on the whole, it was not a willing service that the conscripts gave. Secondly, it was a most expensive service. You gave a man two years' training and before he could begin 10 pay you any dividends he went back again into civilian life. I do not think it was good for morale, either of the people in the Service at the time or of those youngsters who knew that they would shortly have to go into the Service.
All this trouble that we are experiencing to-day about the lack of recruits for the Regular Services, particularly the Army—because the Navy and the Air Force are in slightly different categories—seems to me to date from the 1957 Defence White Paper of Duncan Sandys, when, without my going into meticulous detail, we gathered the impression that the defence of this country in future was to be based upon the atomic bomb and not upon the ordinary infantry soldier or upon a member of the other Armed Services. I think the Services became very unfashionable from that moment. There came a feeling in the minds of young people of, "Well, it is not going to be a permanency if I join the Forces. We are

411
going to rely upon the atom bomb. There will from time to time be reductions in the size of the Forces". Of course there have been reductions in the size of the Forces—not solely because of the atom bomb element of our defence—and it is a fact that young people to-day, hesitating before they enlist, ask themselves, "Will there be another wave of economy cuts in three or four years' time?". One cannot blame them for taking that view.
It is recognised that recruiting for the Army to-day is not good. It is not bad; it is not disgraceful. The numbers coming forward are fairly large, but they are not as large as we need. I think there are two or three reasons for this, apart from the question of morale and uncertainty. First of all, we are reaping the results of the low birth rate 20 years ago. I am afraid that I can make no contribution to the remedying of that this afternoon. Secondly, and equally important we are—I will not say suffering, but trying to recruit men for the Regular Services at a moment in history when there is no large-scale unemployment of young people. There may be some unemployment, but it is largely in the older age groups, and the day has gone when a recruiting sergeant could gather twenty street corner boys and put them into the local regiment.
We have to bear in mind that people will go into the Army now, not because they are driven into it by unemployment but only because, individually, they feel that they have a vocation there. Of course there is the further factor which we are seeing exemplified in all sections of young society, from young strikers in the factories to young university students, that they resent discipline. Throughout the younger generation to-day there is a general resentment against discipline imposed from above. I think I can understand it, but we have to face this fact and to recognise that young people do not want to sacrifice the liberty which they now get every evening, and find themselves forced to live in a barrack or convent community where they can go out only when somebody above them tells them that they can go out.
I have thought about this as well as I could, and I feel that this three-year service is likely to help recruiting. There
412
are many young men to-day who hesitate to join the Forces because they feel that they are committing themselves for a long period, probably until they are getting on for 30 years of age when it will be too late to pick up the threads of a civilian career. But if they feel after three years that they do not want to continue in the Forces, then they have an opportunity to come out at an age when they can enter with confidence into civilian employment, feeling that their full-time civilian career has not been interrupted or damaged.
I think the scheme will lead to many re-engagements. The Army is a nice life to-day, and this is proved by the large number of re-engagements that we are getting. I think those re-engagements will continue, probably at an increased level when, after three years, the young people have done the hard graft of their training and find that their military life is going to be easier in the future, probably with the prospects of promotion. I, feel that with the three-year engagement, the possibilities of promotion for bright young men are going to be much better than they are to-day, when the "old sweats" are hanging on and filling the ranks of sergeant, company quartermaster sergeant and company sergeant-major. And, of course, company sergeant-major is a very nice position in the British Army. It was one which I occupied for a few years, and I must say that I enjoyed it very much indeed.
My Lords, when a young man has to commit himself for a lengthy period he has to think, "What is going to happen if I start courting?"—and young men have a habit of doing that kind of thing. "What is going to be the prospect of my being able to marry if I am still in the Army and probably serving abroad for long periods?" He is also going to say, "Am I jettisoning at one stroke all hopes of a progressive civilian career, when I could be working in the day-time and studying at the local technical school or commercial college at night?".
One thing I like about the proposal in the Order is that it will provide us with an increased number of Reserves. One of the reasons why I did not like the abolition of the Territorial Army was that it was denuding us of some very valuable Reserves. This three-year service with the Colours, coupled with a period

413
in the Reserve—I should like to see it seven years rather than four, if it is to be four—will, I think, provide us with a body of manpower that will be very useful indeed. My noble friend Lord Wigg spoke of 1914. He spoke of the fine mettle of the Regular soldiers of that day. He did not seem to speak in quite such enthusiastic terms of the Regular Reservists who had been called up in 1914.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend forgive me for interrupting him? I am sorry, but he seems to have missed the whole point of the argument, and, if he will forgive my saying so, he is doing it consistently. The point about the Regular Army of 1914 is that it was composed of 60 per cent. Reservists. I talked about the Cardwell reforms and the part which was played by Lord Haldane. It was based upon an efficient call-up of Reservists. If my noble friend would be good enough to read, for example, the first volume of The Official history of the First World War, or the first few chapters of General Fuller's Diary of an Unconventional Soldier, he will see what it is all about.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as a progressive soldier I never believe in reading too much or paying too much attention to the generals of the last war or the last war but one; but the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and I are at one if he is saying that when he paid his tribute to the Regular soldiers of 1914 he was including those Regular Army Reservists who had been called up and fought in that war, because I was with quite a lot of them for a couple of years and they were very fine men indeed.
My Lords, I am very glad indeed that every noble Lord who has spoken has put his finger on the essence of the situation: that is, the pay in the Army. I would not draw too many conclusions from a comparison between the present rates of Army pay and the present rates of civilian pay. During the last two years there have been several civilian pay increases, but the Army's pay increase, if I understand it correctly, comes round only once in two years. We know that another consideration of Army pay is to be undertaken in the next few months. I sincerely hope that the authorities who undertake that investigation will do so
414
realistically, not in the spirit of saying. "Well, we shall have to give the soldiers a little bit more to keep them contented", but that they will say, "This is a very honourable and dignified profession, one which deserves to be remunerated and rewarded at least on the same level as the people who are doing skilled work in industry". Because, my Lords, the Army to-day is a very skilled occupation. And, lest anything which has been said here is likely to create the impression outside that there is a poor slate of morale in the Army, may I say that my extramural relationships with it today seem to indicate that there exists a very high tone of morale indeed.
4.45 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has placed before this House his Motion, which seeks to annul the Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations 1969. As the noble Lord has explained, these Regulations would allow a greater number of men that at present to join the Army for a period of three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve. The previous Regulations applied only to the Guards and a few specialist trades. The new Regulations seek to extend this opportunity to men who wish to join most Corps in the Army, though there are some limitations about which I shall have something to say later.
Before I launch into a discussion of the details of this subject I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on a most helpful and illuminating speech; and, if I may say so, my personal views are not as distant from his as might have seemed the case during our recent very brief discussion on the Army and Air Force Acts (Continuation) Orders. But the House will agree, I am sure, that very few people are better qualified than the noble Lord to speak about the Army generally and about Army recruiting in particular. Indeed, few can match the noble Lord's experience as a practical soldier and as a formidable commentator and critic of various Governments. Whenever the noble Lord raises problems about the Services, particularly the Army, he does so with a sincere wish to promote the Services' interests; and I think the closing words of his speech to-day gave a clear indication of his profound interest and

415
concern. It is therefore a welcome pleasure to debate this subject with him, and I hope that when the debate is over he will agree that the interests of the Services as a whole are being served by the present Government.
As I said earlier, the noble Lord and I agree on many points, but we differ on one fundamental which lies behind his Motion before the House to-day. In 1957 the Conservative Government announced that National Service would come to an end, and that from 1962 we should have an all-Regular Army; and noble Lords—not only the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—have commented extensively and adversely on this decision. It is no part of my purpose to discuss the rights and wrongs of the issues which were debated before the present Government took office, but this Government have never veered from their purpose to maintain an entirely Regular and professional Army, and to that extent they have endorsed the decision that was made in 1957. Unlike the noble Lord, I do not believe that this purpose is an illusion. First of all, may I say something about recruitment? Between 1964 and 1967 we succeeded in maintaining an Army of over 170,000. In fact, by March, 1967—and that is not a long time ago—we were only 65 men short of the previous Government's target of 180,000 men. In the financial years from 1963–64 to 1966–67 we were obtaining an annual average of about 20,000 adult male recruits. But, as noble Lords know, and have said, unfortunately during the last two years we have suffered a severe setback, and last year recruited only 11,500 adult male recruits.
What are the reasons for this setback? Personally, I can think of two—and these views have also been expressed by other noble Lords in to-day's debate. The first—and we must face this—is the quite natural reactions to the Government's radical reshaping of the Defence policy, and the cuts which this policy instituted. All noble Lords who have spoken to-day have pointed to the uncertainty that this reshaping of the Defence forces has brought about in the public mind. I have every hope, however, that with a Defence policy which matches our resources to our needs, we shall be able to give the Forces the stability which they need. The con
416
fidence which this will generate should counteract the doubts which many have had about the Army as a career.
The second reason for the recruiting decline—and it is one on which many noble Lords commented—may largely be attributable to demographic factors. By 1974, the number of fit young men in the recruiting ages will have decreased by one-third from the number available in 1965. Fortunately, thereafter the demographic tendency improves. Against this, we must remember that our requirements for recruits will also fall. Nevertheless, it is clear that our efforts to get recruits must be as great as they have been in the past, if not greater, particularly when one takes into account the claims of higher education and the greater opportunities available in civilian life. All noble Lords except my noble friend Lord Leatherland have used strong words about the present situation. There have been phrases like, "A gambler's throw", "Dispiriting", and so on. But I believe that there are grounds for optimism, and not foolish optimism.
I have already mentioned the confidence which we hope will be engendered by a rational defence policy and, most important of all, as all noble Lords have pointed out, the Prices and Incomes Board are at this moment carrying out a very full examination of the pay structure of the Services. I am indebted to the remarks made by all noble Lords on the importance of pay in maintaining a volunteer Army and one of the reasons why I particularly welcome to-day's debate is that I am certain that the message given to-day by your Lordships will be noted by the Prices and Incomes Board. I know that they are not studying the case put to them by the three Services without the benefit of extremely competent professional advice. We cannot dictate to the Board, but I think we can await their decision with some confidence. However, I should like to endorse strongly what noble Lords have said on the subject of committal pay and the importance of getting now an actual substantial increase. There is, as noble Lords will know, a somewhat cynical attitude. I have heard it said jokingly, "I don't think I can afford another pay increase." But let us hope that the nay increase that the Prices and Incomes Board give the Forces will be actual and substantial.

417
I hope that one most important result of the Report will be that for the first time we shall have a pay structure which can be compared with the rates of pay in industry so that any recruit can see at a glance what is being offered. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made the important point that while the cost of living and prices have increased by (I think he said) 16 per cent., wages within the Armed Forces have risen only 7 per cent. Clearly, young men who are considering what to do with their lives are naturally going to wish to compare, in material terms, what a military career will give them compared with a civilian career. In addition to recognising the need for a good pay structure, we are trying to use our human resources more intelligently. We are breaking new ground in the selection of recruits and in the matching of men to jobs. As the White Paper states, schemes for centralised selection should go a long way to cut down wastage both of recruits and of trained men. Wastage has always been a problem. By these means we can reduce it to a minimum by ensuring that job satisfaction is achieved early in a man's career.
Finally, as part of this operation we have introduced these regulations which the noble Lord has caused us to debate. I am glad that he is not going to ask us to annul them. The discussion itself has been most useful. It must be realised that the three-year engagement is designed to attract the recruit who is now deterred from joining. Many young men are not prepared to commit themselves to long contracts of employment and I believe that we shall find with this engagement a category of recruits who would not have considered joining the Services before, however attractive the life itself appeared. There is a tendency, I think, among young men to-day, perhaps because of the greater security of our environment, to take their time in choosing the career in which they will pass most of their lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Monckton, pointed out, many young men come to the Army after trying six or seven jobs in civilian life. This is true also of the R.A.F.
Having got these three-year men, we all hope that we will encourage them to sign on for longer periods; and I think we shall be successful in doing that. Recruiting last year was unsatisfactory, but
418
prolongation remained remarkably good. For the six-year men, prolongation rates have risen from 36 per cent. in 1964 to a steady 50 per cent. in the last two years. These figures show that those who are now serving enjoy the life, find it worth while and wish to continue. I think we have good reason to feel confident that a significant number of those on the three-year engagement will also prolong their service.
But there are dangers, and noble Lords have pointed them out. The Government are fully aware that there is the danger that men who might otherwise have joined for longer periods may be attracted to the shorter option. That is an obvious danger. But we are trying to attract a new class of recruit and not to draw off men who would otherwise have joined on a longer engagement. The Government are also aware of the danger that the structure of the Army may suffer by reducing the number of long-serving soldiers and creating a greater degree of turbulence. To guard against these dangers a very careful watch will be kept on the trends of recruiting into the new engagement. If too many men seem to be joining on the shorter engagement at the expense of the longer engagement, manning controls will be imposed.
I hope that this is some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who put this point to me. This will be done by imposing limits on the number of trained men allowed to serve at any one time in each corps and trade on the three-year engagement. If the limit is reached, recruiting of three-year men for particular corps or trades will be stopped. I must say that I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Monckton, in thinking that recruiting officers may turn away young men because of this situation. I hope that they will not have to face this problem but that if they do their tact and persuasive powers will get these young men to serve for longer. We have also restricted recruiting by administrative means to men enlisting in the lower grade trades and to non-tradesmen. It is obvious that we could not open this engagement to those who wish to enter trades which have a long and expensive training. While I am at this point, I might mention that the recruitment of Army juniors, on whom we rely for the skilled tradesmen and the senior N.C.O.s

419
of the future, has remained reasonably satisfactory in comparison with adult recruiting rates.
My Lords, I have mentioned the dangers of the new engagement, as have noble Lords in the debate. To sum up, I should like to mention the advantages which we believe will be derived from it. First, a new source of recruits will be tapped; second, more men will be introduced into Army life who, we hope, will stay on to join the men on the longer engagements; third, the under-manning in the short term caused by the recent shortfall in recruiting will be checked; and fourth, there will be a valuable short-term increase in the number of men available for Reserve service.
In the course of the discussion the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, asked me why the three years with the Colours were followed by only four years in the Reserve. In fact, after these four years in the Reserve, the men will fall into the Long Term Reserve until they are aged 45. The difference is that in the first part of their Reserve service they are liable to be called out whenever war-like operations are in preparation or in progress, for instance, in the case of limited war. On the long-Term Reserve they are liable to be called out in imminent national danger or great emergency; that is, for general war. This is a matter of judgment, but it was felt that a short period of service with the Colours, followed by a slightly longer period on the most active branch of the Reserve would be the sort of package which would attract the young men whom we are trying to get.
My Lords, may I thank the House for the sympathetic way in which it has considered the problems facing the Army today. May I thank noble Lords for what I am certain will be a most valuable message to be sent to the Prices and Incomes Board, and may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for initiating the debate and for being so co-operative about withdrawing the Motion.
5.1 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before I ask leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name, may I make just one or two comments? The first thing is the discovery of this new world, if I can get it right—
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: "Demographic".
LORD WIGG: Yes, my Lords—the "demographic factor". I never became quite so intellectual as to contemplate the use of such a term. Twenty years ago, when I thought about this problem, there were too few fish in the pool. But this factor was of course perfectly obvious in 1957 and in 1962. What I note as significant is that the factor is discovered only now, when it is convenient to discover it. That is the first point I would make.
The second point is that when the noble Lord, anxious to explain the recruiting figures, mentions how near he got to the targets claimed under the previous Administrations, he must also, in all fairness, explain to the House just how far off those targets were from reality. I do not charge the noble Lord with being disingenuous, but he informed your Lordships that the present Administration had got within a short head (if I may use a term that is familiar to me) of the previous Administration, so it must also be pointed out that the previous Administration were well down the course. They had started off with a quite dishonest figure of 375,000, which they did not break down. That was in 1957. In 1958, when they did break down the figures—165,000 to the Army; 135,000 to the Air Force and 88,000 to the Navy—they added up to 388,000. But a year later, when there was some elbow room, the then Secretary of State for War said that the Army figure was not 165,000 at all, it was 180,000. We had 15,000 added to it which made the total figure 403,000. They never got within a thousand miles of it. So I would warn the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to be a bit careful about where he takes his justification from. It would be better for him to invent his own rather than to borrow one from the other side of the House.
My Lords, I will not pursue this matter now—perhaps next week there will be an opportunity to make a comment or two—but I will make one further point. All the things which the noble Lord said this afternoon were based on his optimism. I prefer to be numeral, as a result of my training as a lance-corporal, rather than to be literate, which, I understand, is the product of the classic school. I should

421
be much obliged if next week—I do not ask for an answer to-day—the noble Lord, having consulted his Department, would tell the House in figures what rate of prolongation he expects to get (a) to make up for what he is going to lose as a result of this engagement, and (b) to satisfy him and in order to meet this target. If I may draw again on my other experience, I will lay him ten to one in any sum he cares to mention that the Ministry of Defence will not get their target of 150,000. On the present recruiting figure the number will be nearer 130,000, and I am taking a very large measure of protection. This nation must face the fact that if the present recruiting trend is continued we shall have an Army of fewer than 130,000, and I am on offer as betting the noble Lord ten to one that I am right and he is wrong. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY RESERVE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

EXCISE DUTY REFUNDS TO BUS OPERATORS
5.5 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will further extend the refunding of Excise duty on bus fuel for certain express services, school bus and works contracts. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I should like first to express my thanks to the noble Lords who have been kind enough to remain in the Chamber to listen to this debate, and particularly to the noble Lord who is to reply.
As your Lordships will recall from the discussions last year on Clause 33 of the Transport Bill, a proportion of the Excise duty paid by bus operators on all fuel is in due course refunded to them. This delay amounts to another enforced loan to the Exchequer like that of the selective employment tax. But this refund is not so generous as it might appear, because it is limited solely to the
422
operation of stage carriages; and it is worth stating here that stage carriages are still as defined in the 1930 Road Traffic Act—namely, passenger vehicles on which there is a minimum fare of under 1s. With the steep increase in price levels that has occurred since that time the limit of 1s. is out of date. The fuel tax has risen in the same period from a mere 4d. to no less than 54d.
I should like to break down this figure still further. In the thirteen years of the previous Government the tax increased by 1s. 3d. but in the last four years it has been Is. 9d. Thus the bus industry has had to survive three increases in the last 13 months. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to observe these facts and try to explain why this has happened.
What I have said so far is not my only concern. I wish now to refer to assurances given by the Government (luring their tenure of office. One cannot emphasise too strongly that during the period from 1964 the fuel tax has increased from 2s. 9d. a gallon to the present 4s. 6d., and the net figure refunded on stage services has been a mere 2s. The significant point is that while the present policy—which appears to be, "tax the motorist off the road"—is being pursued, the passenger road transport industry, which has been seeking relief for other public service vehicles performing duties of obvious benefit to the community (about which I shall go into greater detail later), has, been handicapped by these swingeing increases in the tax on essential fuel.
In February, 1965, the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Tom Fraser, actually told representatives of the industry that he was certainly most willing to consider what they had said "about these small concessions". The concessions were asked for in respect of essential express services, works contract services and school services. They would not be quite so small to-clay because of the further 1s. 3d. added to the tax for the past two and a bit years, and they would cost the Exchequer the relatively modest sum of £1¼ million. In terms of national finance this is nothing, but it would have a significant value for the industry, and especially the small operators, who in respect of their essentially necessary services have to pay £1 million out of that £1¼ million.
Let me now tell your Lordships something about the services involved. Apparently some of your Lordships are not quite sure of the difference between express services and stage carriages. One might think that a stage carriage is rather like the old-fashioned mail coach, but that is not so. A stage carriage is a bus which stops at successive stops, an express carriage is one that goes greater distances—for example, from London to Scotland. To give the correct definition, essential express services are services which in the opinion of the traffic commissioners are carrying passengers solely on essential journeys, and they are in all respects, except the minimum fare, analogous to stage carriage services. Works contract services are defined as services provided under a contract for the hire of a public service vehicle to an employer of labour for the purpose of carrying persons employed by such employer to and from premises where they are employed or between part of such premises and another. This definition is intended to include hospital services. School services are services provided under contract for the hire of a public service vehicle to an education authority, or services provided by an education authority for the purpose of carrying school children and staff to and from school. Especially in the last case, it seems absurd that these authorities should have to pay 4s. 6d. a gallon, compared to 2s. per gallon paid by stage services. I hope the noble Lord will tell us about this.
Since February, 1965, the industry has repeatedly made representations to both the Ministers and officers of the Treasury and to the Minister of Transport. It is true to say that sympathetic noises have been made from time to time; but deeds are stronger than words. In this period great encouragement was given when, following the Second Reading of the Bus Fuel Grants Bill in another place, the Money Resolution was being debated. After many Members had pleaded the needs of the essential services provided by the bus and coach industry, the late Mr. Stephen Swingler, then Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport—and here I should like to pay tribute to the work done by Mr. Swingler during nearly five years at that Ministry—said:
424
"We are very interested in this pressure from the Opposition for additional rebates. I undertake seriously to consider, with my right honourable friend, whether the system should be further amended in that way. But let us at least take this first step, not provided for by any previous Government"—
here I should like to interpose the suggestion that no previous Government have so grievously afflicted the transport industry; and I know about certain other small benefits for stage carriages—
"of discriminating in favour of public transport, by rebating increases in tax. We can consider later possible extensions to other kinds of services such as have been suggested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 1/12/1966; col. 794.]
It is because of the present economic crisis that I limit my question to those services I have just mentioned, which in the function which they perform are clearly equivalent to our stage bus services. In order to make my question and submissions complete I must put them in the setting of the true needs of the bus and coach industry. We all know that one of the hidden economic costs of this generation is delay caused by congested roads—which means congestion caused by private cars. I am, of course, a motorist myself and I know that the car is here to stay; it is a reality we must live with. Despite this, we must recognise that there are many times when cars would not be used if cheap and reliable buses and coaches were available. Here we have a vicious circle of cars slowing down the public service vehicles and aggravating for others the problem which the car driver seeks to solve for himself.
Whatever way we look at it, there is no denying that our public service vehicles make the most efficient use of the roads and should be encouraged in every way we can. America has found the shortsightedness of allowing the car to swamp the bus. We must reverse the trend before we have to redeem our public transport at a cost even greater than excusing it a few taxes, which are, for example, less than half the cost of one Polaris submarine. Other countries have realised this, so let us do so before it is too late.
To sum up, I urge on the Government the benefit to the community of freeing buses altogether from the fuel tax burden, even from that part which they claim represents the value to the operators of the roads they run over—though let me

425
say that even the way in which the Government have calculated this value is strongly challenged by the industry. I am using the word "buses" in its widest sense, to cover not only the stage buses and special services I have referred to but also all other road passenger transport operations. A coach-load of theatregoers is a saving of up to 20 cars, which might be used by the same party. When alcohol is to be consumed, many wise people now make up a coach party—and how much better for road safety! Our coaching industry is a mainstay of tourism in Britain, and, as my noble friend Lord Geddes often affirms in your Lordships' House, tourism is a vital industry, earning us more dollars than even cars or whisky.
I could go on multiplying examples ad infinitum, but I believe that I have said enough to demonstrate quite clearly the importance to the country of its passenger road transport industry. Yet I accept that within this industry there are degrees of priority, and at this time I ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in keeping the promises made and repeated during the past four years. I say again that I ask for action, not mere empty words.
5.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for his sincere tribute, which I think will he generally accepted as well merited, to my late right honourable friend Stephen Swingler, who died so tragically some weeks ago.
Before I comment on the particular points which the noble Lord has made, it may help the House if I set out the basis on which the bus fuel grants scheme operates. When an additional duty of 6d. per gallon was imposed on motor fuel by the Autumn Budget of 1964, the Government decided that this additional duty should be refunded to bus operators by way of grants made by the Minister of Transport. The Government felt that there was a particularly serious problem facing the operators of the regular short-distance bus services in town and country which had to operate as essential services regardless of whether there was traffic offering or not. This is an important
426
point to be remembered. These operators were, and still are, facing difficulties in maintaining efficient services in the face of rising costs and falling traffic. On many of these services the fares were already a heavy cost to the travelling public. Some measure of relief was thus necessary to keep these services going and to save the public from an additional fares burden on their day to day journeys.
When the necessary statutory authority to implement the bus fuel grants scheme was provided in the Finance Act 1965 it was limited to stage services. These are public bus services, running according to timetables and licensed by the traffic commissioners, on which there is a minimum fare of less than one shilling. They account for nearly 80 per cent. of total bus mileage each year. Broadly, they are the types of service which the Government were and still are, most anxious to help. It was decided not to extend the relief wider than this, since the other kinds of bus and coach service are, not, as a general rule, in the same serious difficulties. There is much less evidence to suggest that fuel duty creates serious difficulties for operators of the longer-distance coach or makes the fares on these services unduly high. Many of these services are excursions and tours which operate only when and where there is traffic offering.
LORD TEVIOT: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am ref erring to the central express services, not to the tourist day tours, excursions, and the like.
LORD SHEPHERD: I appreciate that, and I will come on to the express services. What I was seeking to do, in view of the noble Lord's speech, was to state the conditions and understandings under which the Government make these grants, and the reasons why they have left out from the grants certain of the services. The point I was seeking to make was that in the group left out were operations undertaken when there were passengers available, and the operators were not required by the regulations to provide services whether there were passengers or not. It is also true that where the service is operated under contract—that is to say, where the operator hires his bus as a whole—he gets a guaranteed return at a negotiated price. In other

427
words, he negotiates a price with the education authority or with the employer who is using the bus to bring in his workers.
The Government have continued to recognise the need to assist stage bus services in the public interest. Stage services have been protected from all increases in fuel tax since November, 1964, right up to and including last week's Budget. In addition, further relief was given, amounting to 9d. per gallon, under Section 33 of the Transport Act 1968. This was in pursuance of the policy set out in the White Paper, Public Transport and Traffic, which recognised the need to ensure that stage bus services paid no more in tax than was properly attributable to the costs of the roads provided for their use, as well as the factor that technical improvements in bus constructions—which are very desirable to improve their performance in present traffic conditions—tend to increase fuel consumption. The relief now given to stage services, as the noble Lord has said, is 2s. 6d. per gallon, and will amount to about £21 million a year. This is a very considerable measure of assistance to the bus industry as a whole, and together with the other forms of assistance afforded to the industry it shows the Government's recognition of the essential part which the bus industry plays in the provision of national transport facilities.
This, then, my Lords, is the background to the Government's policy, and it is necessary to consider how the special claims made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, fit into the picture. We must also bear in mind the prevailing economic circumstances as a whole and the many conflicting claims which are made for assistance from public funds. The noble Lord mentioned that the present relief excluded many services, particularly in the field of those licensed as express, which were as deserving of relief as stage services. It is true that there may be some services which are fairly closely akin to stage services, except that for one reason or another there is no fare of less than 1s. on them. I know that the Minister of Transport is giving careful consideration to the points that the representative associations have made. This is not, however, simply a matter of the change in the value of money since the
428
1s. limit was fixed in the 1930s. Although, of course, fares have increased since then, the kind of regular short-distance service that is deserving of fuel duty relief still in most cases—there may be exceptions—has a minimum fare of less than is. The Minister has power under the Road Traffic Act 1960 and the Transport Act 1968 to make regulations to vary the 1s. dividing line between stage and express services and to vary the definition according to different circumstances. I know that he has taken careful note of the points which have been made to him—for example, as regards the urban limited stop services which are now being introduced in some cities—and is ready to consider any more comprehensive information which the industry may wish to give him.
The noble Lord also referred to the special position of services provided for schoolchildren or for workers by contract arrangements between operators and local education authorities or employers. The Government, of course, entirely recognise that these are regular short-distance services and that they perform an essential function. My right honourable friend will bear in mind the representations made to him about them. But they arc not altogether analogous to the services which the fuel grant scheme is primarily designed to help. As I mentioned earlier, the operator's remuneration is freely negotiated between him and the authority or employer concerned. The operator himself gets a guaranteed return from the authority or employer to whom he hires his bus, not dependent upon the amount of traffic carried. The passengers are usually being carried free or at reduced fares. We have no present evidence that any increase in the contract costs which may be occasioned by the fuel duty represents a serious burden to the authorities or employers concerned.
It will be appreciated that the basic legislation conferring the fuel grant powers would not enable extension of the scheme to purely contract services on which no fares are paid, or to an education authority's own vehicles. Any revision of existing contracts, because of changes in costs during the currency of the contract (which may, of course, arise from other circumstances as well as taxation) must be a matter for settlement between the parties concerned. I understand

429
that, so far as school contract services are concerned, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has no power to issue instructions to local education authorities in this respect.
The operators' associations have estimated that to give concessions on the lines sought would involve about £1½million a year, which they claimed (as I think the noble Lord also claimed) was a comparatively modest sum of money. Nevertheless, such a sum would be a substantial additional commitment, and the Government must look at all such claims in the light of the financial position of the nation as a whole. The bus industry (I am sure the noble Lord will accept this) is in fact receiving assistance on a generous scale. In addition to the £21 million a year it will receive by way of fuel grants, there are now the new schemes for 25 per cent. grants towards the cost of approved types of new buses, 25 per cent. grants towards the cost of capital expenditure on new bus stations, and grants (shared between local authorities and the Government) towards the cost of nonpaying rural services. Also, there is full refund of selective employment tax; the industry is spared purchase tax on its vehicles, and it has been protected for many years from any increase in vehicle Excise duty.
These three measures of assistance, my Lords, benefit the whole of the industry, not merely that of the stage bus opera
430
tors. In these circumstances I do not think it can be argued that the Government do not appreciate the needs of the bus industry as a whole, or the vital role that it plays. However, I recognise that strong feelings are still held by those operators who are not included in the present stage bus operations. They have made representations, through officials, to my right honourable friend; and these, I know, are being most carefully examined. There is no decision as yet, but I know that my right honourable friend is giving this matter most urgent attention.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
YORK CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.