Sitting of 5 March 1957

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

    National Gallery and Tate Gallery
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the views of the Trustees of the National Gallery that a realistic purchasing policy would require an annual grant of £80,000.; and whether such a sum will now be made available.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I recently met a deputation from the Trustees of the National and Tate Galleries who explained their views. I have a good deal of sympathy with them; but, in view of the general financial position, I have not felt able to increase purchase grants in the coming year. I have, however, assured the Trustees that it will be open to them to apply for special grants in 1957–58, as hitherto.
    Dr. Stross: Whilst thanking the Chancellor for that reply, as far as it goes, may I ask whether he does not agree that the present policy is wasting the taxpayers' money, and has he not received such representations? If so, would it not actually save money if the suggested policy were now implemented without waiting?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think there is a case for some increase in the funds for this very proper national cause. I did not feel able to make it this year in all the circumstances, but I will certainly bear it in mind sympathetically for the future.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is the Chancellor aware that every year the same statement is made—that there is something special that year which makes it impossible to provide money for this desirable purpose?
    154
    Would not the right hon. Gentleman like to celebrate his elevation by making an exception and telling us that something can be done?
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to protect all the paintings in the National Gallery by means of air-conditioned galleries and store rooms.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is hoped to start the physical work on the West Wing of the Gallery in the early months of 1958. The air conditioning of the other rooms must await the completion of the present scheme.
    Dr. Stross: Can the Chancellor then say whether we shall be able to house as many paintings in air-conditioned premises as we housed in the galleries themselves before the war?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There will certainly be a substantial increase in hanging space as a result of these operations.
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many acquisitions have been made by the National Gallery since 1939; of these, how many are on view to the public; and how many are in the reference section on the ground floor.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: One hundred and one; sixty-four, of which three are at Lancaster House; thirty-seven in the reference section.
    Dr. Stross: Has the Chancellor been made aware of the damage to many of these paintings and, in particular, panels, that takes place in adverse weather conditions, and is it not a policy of complete bankruptcy to have precious heirlooms, the nation's heritage, on the ground floor, where they are exposed to such varying conditions? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider a scheme by means of which all these works can be shown and properly protected?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is why I think we should start on the work that I was discussing in the previous Answer.

    Tax-free Dividends and Bonus Shares
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his forthcoming Budget, he will consider making it illegal

    155
    for companies to distribute tax-free dividends and share bonuses, and make all such distributions liable to a special tax in addition to the existing method of taxation, and thus assist in reducing the cost of living.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Lewis: Comment on that would be superfluous, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask whether the Chancellor has seen the case only last week of a well-known financier who has become a multimillionaire by take-over bids and paying himself an increase of from 40s. to 70s. per share, tax-free? Whilst not anticipating his Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the suggestion contained in the Question and take some action?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear all relevant considerations in mind.
    Mr. Wade: Will the Chancellor look into this matter from rather a different angle? Is he aware that when companies issue bonus shares to their employees, either free or at less than the full market value, the employees have to pay tax, and that that has the effect of discouraging the issuing of shares as opposed to cash bonuses and, indirectly, encourages spending as opposed to saving?

    Tobacco Duty
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, as a result of the increase of 3s. a lb. in the tobacco duty made in the 1956 Budget, one tobacco company made £2,250,000 extra profit overnight; and whether, in his forthcoming Budget, he will ensure that any proposed increase in tobacco duty is made applicable to all tobacco held in stock as on 1st April, 1957.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the fact that in accordance with the recommendations of the Hutton Committee on Tax-Paid Stocks the increase in the tobacco duty in the last Budget did not extend to stocks on which duty had already been paid. In regard to the second part of the Question I cannot speculate about possible future changes in taxation.
    Mr. Lewis: Whether it was a result of the Hutton Committee or any other committee, does the Chancellor think it is right that one company should make, as is the case, £2¼ million tax-free overnight, for no effort at all? Can he not take some action to prevent that in the future?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The committee looked into this, and, of course, it recognised that when the duty went up a profit was made, but equally when the duty went down a loss was sustained, and it came to the conclusion, which I think any of us might have come to, that it was better to take the plusses and the minuses together.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor say when the tobacco duty last went down?

    Premium Savings Bonds
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the three figures representing the maximum amounts that can be allotted for prizes from the Premium Savings Bonds prize fund for the months of June, July and August, 1957, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Nine hundred and seventy-two thousand pounds, £272,000 and £287,000. These are maximum estimates and are based on the assumption that all bonds bought during the first three months of the scheme are eligible for the draw under the terms of the prospectus and that no more of them are encashed.
    Mr. Cronin: In view of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, will he take steps to ensure that the advertisements headed,
    "Chance of a lifetime every month."
    which appeared in the national Press on 11th February, will be modified, if the advertisements are repeated? Does not that advertisement give the impression that 23,700 prizes will be distributed every month, which is quite impossible on the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted? Does it not also give the impression that £1 million worth of prizes will be distributed every month?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not know about "Chance of a lifetime". I do not want to overstate the case. The facts are that 237 prizes are allotted for very £10,000 of prize money.
    Mr. H. Wilson: is not my hon. Friend right? Is not the advertisement to which he referred misleading to the public, giving the impression that the prizes in subsequent months and the prizes based on investments now will be related to the boom prizes following the November investment?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it was always recognised that the first draw would have the largest prize fund, which was why so many people tried to make their purchases of Premium Bonds early.

    Halfpennies and Farthings
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish halfpennies.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish farthings.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Coins are minted in response to demand and I do not consider that there is any case for abolishing either halfpennies or farthings at present. For some months no farthings have been asked for and none have therefore been minted. Demand is, however, steady for halfpennies which are being minted at the rate of £12,500 per quarter.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend agree that today a halfpenny is worth less than a farthing used to be worth, primarily due to the effects of two wars and, to some extent, to the post-war mismanagement? Does he not think that it would immensely simplify accountancy and therefore contribute to the more efficient and streamlined economy which the Government are trying to get in this country, if my suggestion were adopted?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Coins are minted according to public demand and so long as there is public demand for halfpennies they will be minted.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Chancellor not aware that it costs a halfpenny to make each useless farthing, which is apparently no longer wanted anyhow? Why is he so determined to be devoid of pounds, shillings and sense?

    European Free Trade Area
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on negotiations for a European Free
    158
    Trade Area having regard to the recent decision by the powers preparing proposals for a European Common Market about the adherence thereto of colonial territories.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 26th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
    Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the change in connection with the French colonial territories makes a very significant change in the whole problem with which we are faced? Did not the Chancellor, when President of the Board of Trade, last October make a statement about this in response to a question, I think by a Press representative, which suggested that it would very much affect our view? In view of that, will not the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the Leader of the House the desire in all parts of the House to have an early debate, so that we may know to what we are becoming committed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The matter of debate can be discussed through the usual channels it is not a matter for me. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right so far as his question is concerned. A new range of additional and complex problems is raised, but I think that the right way to tackle the matter is, first, to have discussions in Europe to see precisely what is intended and then to follow that with discussions with the Colonies themselves.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance today that the British Government will not commit themselves to any arrangement which would lead to the manufactures of the European metropolitan territories concerned with the free market entering British Colonial Territories free from tariff or protective duty?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a rather different question, but I will give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I will consult the Colonies so that they themselves will have an opportunity of expressing what they think is in their own interests.
    Mr. Wilson: While we agree that there should be discussions about this matter in Europe, it is important that the House

    159
    should have an opportunity of discussing the matter further. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it would be quite intolerable for the colonies of Continental European Powers to be able to sell their goods in the Free Trade Area duty-free, when the Colonial Territories attached to the United Kingdom were not able to have the same advantage? It would be quite intolerable if they were prejudiced in that manner.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is why, of course, I think that these discussions are very necessary.
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government that agricultural products should be completely excluded from the negotiations for the setting up of a European Free Trade Area.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It remains our policy that agricultural products should be excluded from the Free Trade Area proposals.
    Mr. Jenkins: May we then be told what meaning is to be attached to the reference to agriculture in the statement issued at the end of the O.E.E.C. meeting over which the Chancellor presided and which was held in Paris, I believe two weeks ago?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The meaning that may be attached to it is that all the countries in Europe wish to discuss agriculture, and probably very few of them intend to go for free trade.

    Entertainments Duty
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the yield in the latest available year from Entertainments Duty on the living theatre and on sport, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In 1956, the approximate receipts of Entertainments Duty on admissions to theatres and music halls were £2,030,000 and to sport £3,420,000.
    Mr. Wilson: I should make it clear that this Question was put down before the events of last week. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that, following our very strong representations in debates on the Finance Bill last year
    160
    and indeed in previous years, we thought that we had from the then Chancellor a clear commitment that the tax on the living theatre would not have to be defended by a Chancellor at any time in future? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware, in view of the quite small figures, that the time has now come to get rid of the tax entirely, both on the living theatre and on sport?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman may ask the question, but I do not think that he will expect an answer to it.
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his proposals for a reduction of Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he proposes to reduce the entertainments tax in his next Budget.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now completed his review of the structure and incidence of entertainments tax and if he will make a statement on the outcome.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the uncertainty in the theatrical industry owing to the continual closing of theatres; and whether he will make a statement on the future of the Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now proposed to make a reduction in the Entertainments Duty on football matches.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am engaged on the review of this duty promised by my right hon. Friend last June, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will not be deterred by the indiscretion of the President of the Board of Trade from making the reduction that everybody is expecting?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to add to the Answer which I have just given.
    Mr. Jay: What prevents the Chancellor from anticipating his Budget statement?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: A certain natural discretion.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor put himself in touch with modern thought? Is he aware that the Prime Minister has laid down an important new ruling, that statements about future Budgets are perfectly proper, provided that they are made in this House?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Statements about future fiscal measures are occasionally made. Some were made by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). All I am saying is that I do not propose to anticipate my Budget statement now.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Chancellor answer the question which the Prime Minister failed to answer last night? Was any assurance or hint given, directly or indirectly, by any of Her Majesty's Ministers at the meeting of the Conservative Trade and Industry Committee and Films Committee on 19th February?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that we can reopen the debate which we had yesterday. All I can say is that I have not even made up my mind yet about what shall be done about Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. Rankin: If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet completed the review that was promised by his predecessor, how was he able to give such optimistic assurances to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the cinema tax?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I simply said that these matters would be taken into account.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Chancellor aware that the Committee stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill begins on Thursday, and that if he is not careful he will find his Budget statement anticipated when the President of the Board of Trade appears in that Committee?
    Mrs. Castle: When making up his mind, will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that three cinemas in my constituency have had to close in the last six months and six more will have to close unless there are substantial cuts in the tax? This is not a matter for humour, but one of great seriousness.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Mossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is his policy to encourage home ownership; and what steps he will take to that end.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I wish to encourage home ownership so far as I can do so within the bounds of present credit policy. The reduction in the Stamp Duty on house purchase which was announced in the last Budget is evidence of the Government's attitude in this matter.
    Mr. Moss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that building societies are now having to increase rates of interest upon existing mortgages to 6 per cent. and on new mortgages to 6½ per cent.? Is he further aware that in a case well known to me a loan negotiated in 1951 at 4½ per cent. now has to bear an increase of 15 per cent. in the monthly repayments, that in addition rates increased last year by 30 per cent. and will now increase further by 2s. 6d. in the £ of rateable value?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As I said, I quite recognise that the credit squeeze does have an effect upon house building.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend consider that he might have gained some inspiration in answering this Question from the implications in Question No. 21?

    Share Transactions (Stamp Duty)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the deterrent effect to small investors of the £2 per centum stamp duty on share transactions; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

    Local Authority Loans (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to help local authorities lower the cost of council house building so that they can deal with their long waiting lists, and in view of the recent reduction in the Bank Rate, if he will take steps to lower the rates of interest on loans for housing.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Interest rates for loans from the Public Works Loan Board do not depend upon Bank Rate, but are

    163
    fixed from time to time to correspond with the credit of local authorities of good standing in the market. It was on this basis that the rates were lowered on 15th February, as announced in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Mr. Rippon).
    Mr. Hunter: That was a very small reduction in interest rates. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the high interest rates over the past two years have added nearly 13s. a week to council rents? Will he bear those points in mind and consider lowering interest charges to help local authorities to deal with their long waiting lists and to help to lower the cost of living?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said.

    Rent Bill
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent lump sums paid by tenants to landlords as part of new tenancy agreements upon the decontrol of property by the Rent Bill will be subject to Income Tax; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that such sums are taxable in all cases.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Under my right hon. Friend's proposals for the amendment of the Rent Bill it will, for the period of three years from the coming into force of the Bill, be illegal to require the payment of any premium for the grant of a tenancy of premises freed from control by subsections (1) or (2) of Clause 9. The hon. Member's Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Dr. King: As, in spite of what the Chancellor and the Minister have said, there is still widespread fear that premiums may be charged, would not the Chancellor agree that as the premiums are merely rent collected in one year instead of being spread over a number of years, and as rent is subject to Income Tax, the premiums should also be subject to Income Tax?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises a somewhat wider question, as to whether premiums should be the subject of Income Tax in general, and that is a budgetary question.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new Clause dealing
    164
    with premiums is completely "phoney" and will not stop anybody charging premiums?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Happily, that is a question which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a capital gains tax to be levied on such properties as are increased in capital value by the Rent Bill.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be quite improper for the Chancellor to answer this Question? Were he to do so, he would probably be confronted with another Motion of censure on the ground that he had given away another Budget secret.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Dr. King: As the Government are, by Act of Parliament, deliberately adding millions of pounds to the value of property, will not the Chancellor at least have the decency in his forthcoming Budget to levy a tax on this unearned increment?

    Monetary Policy (Implementation)
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in accordance with his powers under Section 4 of the Bank of England Act, 1946, he will direct the Bank of England, after consultation with the Governor, to publish periodical bulletins to elucidate the technical measures it has taken, is taking, or is intending to take, to implement monetary policy.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the course suggested would be an appropriate method of achieving the hon. Member's objective.
    Mr. Cronin: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the machinations of the Bank of England were subject to the light of public criticism, many of the grave errors of the last two years would have been avoided, particularly the raising of short-term interest rates, which has caused so much havoc to our balance of payments?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I rather doubt that, but if the Bank were to state in advance

    165
    what its intentions were as to the use of these technical mechanisms, I think it would lead to a good deal of confusion in the market.

    Flags of Convenience (Revenue Losses)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of loss of revenue to the Exchequer arising from flags of convenience.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is a Treasury control under Section 468 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, on the transfer overseas of the business or any part of the business of a United Kingdom company and that this applies to shipping as to other businesses.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend have some regard to the tremendous increase in the use of flags of convenience by such countries as Costa Rica, Liberia, Panama and Honduras, representing millions of tons of new shipping construction? As this must affect the United Kingdom Exchequer, and is now being accentuated by British shipping companies transferring their offices of registration to the Bahamas, Bermuda, and so on, will my right hon. Friend review the whole situation and perhaps reduce the incidence of direct taxation on the shipping companies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My hon. Friend will not expect me to answer the last part of the question. I would merely say that I am very well aware of the problem. All I am saying in my Answer is that I cannot make an estimate of the loss of revenue.
    Mr. Awbery: Has not the time come for the problem to be tackled seriously? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the matter will be considered by his Department?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is under consideration.

    Oil Supplies (Dollar Expenditure)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in dollar expenditure for United States oil has taken place during three months ended 28th February, 1957, compared with the equivalent period a year earlier.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: About £30 million more was spent on oil in United States dollars in the three months up to 31st January, 1957. This is a gross figure and represents only one of the ways in which oil purchases affect the balance of payments. Figures for February and for United States oil purchases are not available.

    Income Tax and Profits Tax (Building Societies)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total amounts of Income Tax and Profits Tax, respectively, paid by building societies in the last tax year; and what percentage of total building society income is represented by each figure.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that I am unable to give separate figures of the tax paid by building societies.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is possible to look into the question, because if he could modify these taxes in some manner it would be the most effective immediate way to encourage home ownership?

    Bookmakers (Income Tax)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of officially licensed bookmakers in the United Kingdom, and the amount of Income Tax paid by them in the financial years 1954–55 and 1955–56, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no official licensing of bookmakers in the United Kingdom. Figures for the amount of Income Tax paid by bookmakers generally are not available.
    Mr. Johnson: Can the Chancellor confirm that, apart from official bookmakers, any individual can go to any horse racing or dog racing course with his satchel and set up an easel? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something about taxing the gains of such people, and incidentally protecting honest bookmakers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We are again getting on to rather dangerous ground.

    Purchase Tax
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total annual Exchequer revenue is

    167
    derived from the Purchase Tax on wool cloth.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: About 0·04 per cent.
    Dr. Broughton: Will not the Chancellor forgo this tiny amount of revenue in order to remove an indefensible discrimination against the wool textile industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think it is an indefensible discrimination. It is one of the lowest rates of Purchase Tax that there are, namely, 10 per cent. on wool cloth.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long he proposes to retain the Purchase Tax on wool cloth; and what conditions will be required to be satisfied before he removes it.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As has been explained to the hon. Member before, the problem of the small tailor makes it necessary to retain this tax as a counterpart to the tax on clothing.
    Dr. Broughton: Were not the few real and many imaginary administrative difficulties satisfactorily overcome in the case of non-wool textiles? What is the real reason why the Chancellor persists in this unjust discrimination against the wool textile industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the real reason is the very large number of people who make up wool cloth. If we had a 5 per cent. tax, we should catch only those who were registered, and that would mean that all the others would have a 5 per cent. advantage.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now remove the Purchase Tax on crash helmets.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will bear the hon. Member's representations in mind.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Chancellor aware that crash helmets save lives and that it is quite idiotic to tax them? Furthermore, in this instance would it not be quite safe, in the interest of public safety, for the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate his Budget statement?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the same argument can be used in respect of
    168
    a number of articles of protective clothing, but I will bear the hon. Member's representations in mind.

    Civil Service (Messengers' Pay Claim)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the letter requesting him to meet representatives of the Civil Service Union in connection with the messengers' pay claim.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir. I am still considering the union's request.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not the Chancellor think he is making a mockery of the negotiating machinery by waiting for seven months before referring the pay claim to an outside body? Will he not at any rate reconsider the matter and have the courtesy to reply to the request of the Civil Service Union?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I intend no discourtesy. I understand that the request has come in recently. I am agreeable that I or the Financial Secretary should meet these people.

    Monetary and Credit System
    Mr. Beswickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, bearing in mind the great value of the Report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry, and in view of the changes that have since taken place, he will consider recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission with similar terms of reference to inquire into the present working and efficiency of our financial system.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 12th February.
    Mr. Beswick: Cannot the Chancellor be a little more forthcoming? Does he not agree that, to say the least of it, it is illogical that we should have all these inquiries into manufacturing industry and all these efforts made to increase productivity, when whatever improvements are made can be more than offset by inefficiency or worse in the working of our financial system? In view of the opinions expressed by hon. Members of all parties, will he have another look at the matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind, but at the moment I have nothing to add to what was said in his last Budget statement by my right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the apparently warm-hearted references by the former Chancellor in his Budget statement, in one of the many now apparently meaningless sections of that Budget statement, are we to take it that nothing has been done after all these months since the present Prime Minister said he thought that it appeared to be a good idea? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the operations of monetary policy over the last two or three years have shown that many old-fashioned ideas and shibboleths no longer apply and that there really is a need for an up-to-date and impartial inquiry into the working of many aspects of the monetary system?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am merely saying that I have nothing to add at the moment to what has already been said on this subject. I will certainly bear in mind the points which have been raised.
    Mr. Grimond: When the Chancellor is thinking further about this matter, will he particularly bear in mind the quite changed situation of this country in regard to the rest of the world, for instance, by the formation of the sterling area, the need for capital formation in the Commonwealth, and the position of our reserves, as well as the vital need to have some instrument to take the place of the credit squeeze?

    Industrial Production
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to end the continuing stagnation of industrial production; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: On the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). On the second part of the Question—No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is not the Chancellor aware that figures published at the end of last week indicate that, in sharp contrast to the position in the United States,
    170
    Western Europe, and behind the Iron Curtain, this Government have produced complete stagnation of industrial production for two years in this country? Is he proposing to do anything about it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I recognise that that is something of an overstatement of one point of view which is held about this matter. I do not think that, by way of Question and Answer, one can open up the whole question of the degree to which production is being raised or otherwise.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we cannot double the standard of living in twenty-five years with stagnant production? In view of the country's uncertainty about whether the Government fear an increase in production because it might lead to an import boom, will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question which we have been putting to him and his predecessors for some time? Do the Government want to see an increase in production or do they want to see production continued at its present level?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Bath the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend recognise very well that we are approaching a time of year when a major debate will be held upon the whole of this question. It would be quite inappropriate for me to try to anticipate it.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had a major debate on this subject in the Budget debate last year, and that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was there——
    Mr. Nabarro: When was this?
    Mr. Wilson: In the Budget debate.
    Mr. Nabarro: Which one?
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had a Budget debate last year, and have had a number of economic debates since, when I put this question several times to his predecessor: does he want to see production increase or remain stagnant? We received no answer in those debates, and we must therefore press the matter at Question Time.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait for the next Budget debate.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can we be assured that stagnant production is at least a factor which the Chancellor will take into account in framing his Budget?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member knows that the level of production, the balance of payments, and many other factors are brought into consideration.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he proposes to increase the Income Tax.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I can make no comment upon tax matters.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is not the Chancellor aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, exactly three months yesterday, really began this fashion of giving us the Budget by instalments, by threatening an increase in Income Tax? He then said that the position would be more clear in three months' time. As three months have now passed—and bearing in mind the new rule about statements to this House not being Budget leaks—will not the Chancellor at least keep us in touch with the movement of his mind?
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be discouraged by this Question from investigating the possibilities of reducing Income Tax, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he was Chancellor?
    Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor further aware that the Cinematograph Films Bill provides for a penalty of three months' imprisonment for those making unauthorised disclosures of information?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Thames Flood Barrier (Report)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made by the two firms of consulting engineers appointed by him to prepare a joint report on the practicability, design and cost of constructing a movable flood barrier at a suitable point on the river as a means of preventing flooding in the Thames valley.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I understand that good progress has been made. A great deal of work is involved, but I hope that I may receive the report before the end of the year.
    Mr. Dodds: Bearing in mind the tragedy of a few years ago, may I ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that this matter is really being treated seriously, and that any report will not be pigeonholed but that, instead, an attempt will be made to avert any further tragedy?
    Mr. Brooke: I am certainly looking forward with great interest to seeing the contents of the report.

    Gas Liquor (Treatment)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what experiments have been made, and with what results, to break down the chemical compounds of gas liquor as a preliminary to its discharge into the River Trent, or to the absorption of gas liquor into the sewage plant for purification.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The West Midlands Gas Board, in collaboration with sewerage authorities in the area, is pursuing an extensive research programme, which covers the treatment of gas liquor both before and after discharge from the gasworks. The technical problems are complicated, and much work remains to be done; but as results are obtained they are being published to the technical and professional organisations concerned.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is becoming an increasing burden in Stoke-on-Trent because the Hanley sewage works is unable to take any more of the gas liquor from the West Midlands Board? Is he aware that that means that there is a grave danger that the River Trent may be polluted? Is he further aware that there is an added strain on the Hanley sewage works and is he also aware of the importance of the amount of effluent available for industrial purposes? Will the right hon. Gentleman use every endeavour to speed up research in this direction, as it is important to health?
    Mr. Brooke: The responsible authorities are tackling this job. I know that

    173
    the hon. Lady will appreciate that I have to be careful about what I say because in certain circumstances an appeal under the Statute may lie to me.
    Mr. Jennings: What progress has been made in the long-term policy for dealing with effluent from the Black Country which goes into the River Trent?
    Mr. Brooke: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question on that subject, I will give him a comprehensive answer.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Is the Minister aware that the amount of effluent in our rivers is having a serious effect on fish life? Is he aware that many workers who are fishing enthusiasts and upon whom the Government are calling for more production, go to their work on Monday mornings full of discontent because of the pollution of the rivers?
    Mr. Brooke: I am aware that the problem has been with us for a long time. In my previous Answer I described certain research going on at the moment.

  HOUSING

    Tees-side
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that shortage of housing is impeding the recruitment of urgently needed skilled labour for the industries of Tees-side; and whether he will grant subsidies to the local author-ties of the area, under the provisions of Section 3 (3, d) of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, in respect of houses built for key workers.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I know that more houses are required for incoming workers, but I do not think that special circumstances exist to warrant the payment of subsidy under Section 3 (3, d).
    Mr. Marquand: What special circumstances will have to exist before the right hon. Gentleman takes action? Does not he know that the local newspapers in that area are constantly full of advertisements for skilled labour, and that the Minister of Labour told me, speaking at the Dispatch Box recently, that there were many outstanding vacancies for skilled labour? Was not the Section put into the Act by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to meet exactly that type of
    174
    circumstance, where there are vacancies in one area and many redundancies in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Brooke: The special circumstances were described to the House by my predecessor on 31st January, 1956. I do not think that they apply in this case, but I am now considering an application from one urban district council for the discretionary subsidy under Section 5.
    Mr. Marquand: In considering it only for one area is not the Minister making the Act a dead letter. Will he look again at the problem on Tees-side?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not restricting in any way the number of houses which local authorities can build.
    Mr. D. Jones: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that local authorities on Tees-side are cutting down on their housing programmes because the financial burden is far too heavy for the local ratepayers to bear, and that in spite of the fact that industrial development on Tees-side is creating a large number of vacancies? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to wait until he finds that thousands of people on Tees-side have nowhere to live?
    Mr. Brooke: If I felt there was an unreasonable burden I would use my powers to relieve it. As I have already told the House, I am considering an application from one urban district council.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government which county boroughs in Lancashire have so far not used the powers given to them to make grants to persons for the improvement of housing accommodation.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Two out of seventeen —Burnley and Wigan.
    Mr. Holt: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency the local authority is running a very interesting exhibition called "New homes for old," which shows the great advantage to be obtained from these grants? Will he state what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to make use of such grants in cases where they are not made available?
    Mr. Brooke: I am glad to hear about the exhibition in Bolton. The power to make these grants is permissive. The value of making them has repeatedly been urged upon local authorities and my hope is that eventually I shall prevail on all authorities to co-operate in areas where there are houses fit for improvement or conversion.
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in the improvement of housing accommodation in the last year for which figures are available, by means of improvement grant facilities under Section 20 of the Housing Act, 1949, as amended by the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The number of dwellings approved for grant by local authorities in 1956 was 31,997.
    Mr. Holt: Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied with that, in view of the large number of houses of good, sound, basic construction which still have not baths or proper kitchen accommodation? Does not the Minister feel that some pressure or influence from his Department is required in the case of some laggard authorities?
    Mr. Brooke: I replied a few moments ago about local authorities. What is encouraging is that whereas in the first five years after the 1949 Act local authorities approved only 9,838 dwellings for grant, since the 1954 Act was passed no fewer than 73,881 dwellings have been approved for grant.

    Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what steps he will take by grant or otherwise to facilitate the construction of 6,000 houses which are urgently required in the City of Stoke-on-Trent;
    (2) what action he proposes to take by grant or otherwise to enable the City of Stoke-on-Trent to carry out its desire to clear the slums left in the city.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is for the City Council to decide what houses it needs to build. Subsidies for particular purposes, including slum clearance, are available and these, with its own resources, should
    176
    enable the council to continue building houses as necessary.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that this city, relatively speaking, had the best housing record in the country until the Government's new policy prevented the building of houses which are urgently required? Is he aware that a great deal of capital was invested in the locality to provide bricks, and that these are now piling up in thousands, and that hundreds of people are without employment? In view of the urgent need for housing, will the Minister reconsider his policy?
    Mr. Brooke: My information is that in Stoke there are more than 1,300 houses under construction; that further housing tenders have been approved but not started, and that tenders for nearly 200 houses were approved in January. That suggests that building is going on at a considerable rate.
    Mrs. Slater: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Stoke-on-Trent the problem is a large one, even though the figures which he has quoted are correct? The number of houses being built at present does not by any means solve the slum clearance problem, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is due entirely to the financial policy of the Government that this lag in building is taking place?
    Mr. Brooke: In all these matters relating to the finances of local authority housing one must look both at the Exchequer grants and at the rent policy pursued by the local authority.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of the high rate of interest and the removal of the housing subsidies is making it increasingly difficult for local councils to build the houses which are required? Will he reconsider Government policy on both these points?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that a considerable number of local authorities could improve the position of their housing revenue accounts were they to adopt, for instance, differential rent schemes.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that my hon. Friends and I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

  MEMBERS' SALARIES
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister what alternative proposals he has to make to deal with the problem of Members' salaries.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I take it that the hon. Gentleman means alternative to a Select Committee. I am not at the moment making proposals on this matter.
  Mr. Lewis: I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is not at the moment making a statement, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in 1953–54 a unanimous Report was presented to the Government, which accepted it, and it was also accepted by the House on a free vote; and that now we are confronted with the ludicrous position that Members who have no incomes have to stay to man Standing Committees, and put themselves to additional expense, in order to enable hon. Members who have incomes from outside to go out and earn that money? Is that fair or right?
  The Prime Minister: I am bearing in mind all the relevant matters.

  THE PRIME MINISTER (TALKS WITH PRESIDENT EISENHOWER)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister who are his advisers on economic and financial matters who are to accompany him to Bermuda.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on Tuesday last to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer).
  Mr. Hughes: In view of the importance of keeping the American Press well informed in advance about the policy of Her Majesty's Government, will the Prime Minister consider taking the President of the Board of Trade with him? In view of our financial obligations to America, will the Prime Minister also consider taking a veteran, experienced £20,000-a-year chairman of one of the big banks, like Lord Monckton, to advise him on finance?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is making so many suggestions
  178
  about the composition of the delegation that I am wondering whether he would like to go himself.

  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of newly-published evidence that the amount of strontium-90 and other radio-active particles released by hydrogen bomb explosions has already reached a potentially dangerous level, he will immediately invite President Eisenhower and Marshal Bulganin to discuss with him means of halting all further tests.
  Mr. Allaunasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the cumulative danger of nuclear explosions to this and future generations, he will consider postponing the hydrogen bomb explosion over Christmas Island for six months, during which period Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative in seeking international agreement to stop all future tests.
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the Medical Research Council have no evidence that the amount of strontium-90 and other radioactive particles released by hydrogen bomb explosions which may become sources of internal radiation has reached a potentially dangerous level. The present and foreseeable hazards, including genetic effects, from external radiation due to fall-out from the test explosions of nuclear weapons, fired at the present rate and in the present proportion of the different kinds, are considered to be negligible.
  Accordingly I am not prepared to postpone the forthcoming test in the Pacific. So far, however, as long-term policy is concerned, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been clearly defined on 22nd January. I would add that various proposals on nuclear and conventional disarmament will be considered when the Disarmament Sub-Committee, of which Her Majesty's Government is a member, meets on 18th March.
  Mr. Warbey: When did the Medical Research Council give the Prime Minister this information? Did the Council take into account the new evidence produced by Dr. Libby, the American Atomic Energy Commissioner, which,

  179
  according to a report in The Times, shows that the level of strontium-90 in the bones of Americans will reach, by 1970, a level which will already be as dangerous as that laid down in the standards of the Medical Research Council? In view of the great importance of this matter to human beings now living, including children, and to the future of the human race, will the Prime Minister look into this matter again?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Medical Research Council's Report was, of course, published last June, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows. The Council is in continuous touch with this matter. All I can say is that the information which I have given is that which is supplied to me. I would point out that the banning of tests is quite a different question from that of their possible limitation. All these matters Her Majesty's Government are always ready to consider. What I am not prepared to do is to postpone the tests which we are about to make and which put us as a nation in the position in which we have a right and a duty to be.
  Mr. Allaun: Since the new American evidence shows that we are in real danger of visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, not only to the third and fourth generations but far beyond that, will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the proposal of postponement?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, we keep all these matters under consideration, but when I am told that the dangers are negligible, as at present, it is not a reason why we, of all countries, should deprive ourselves of a weapon necessary for our safety.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister will recall that Sir Anthony Eden gave us an undertaking that the Government were prepared to try to bring about a separate agreement on H-bomb tests. May I ask the Prime Minister, therefore, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, when the Disarmament Sub-Committee meets on 18th March next, to put forward definite proposals for abolishing these tests, independently of any other disarmament agreement?
  The Prime Minister: That is a question we would certainly consider. The banning of the tests is one thing and their limita-
  180
  tion is another. What I am not prepared to do, and I do not think the country or the House would wish, is that we alone should deprive ourselves of the tests at this particular moment, thus leaving ourselves in a position of inferiority to others.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will Her Majesty's Government put forward separate proposals, at any rate for limiting, with a view to their eventual abolition, such tests, independently of any general disarmament agreement?
  The Prime Minister: The answer is this: we would rather have a comprehensive agreement dealing with the reduction of armaments both in the unconventional and the conventional fields. That is what we would like and what we have been working for. Short of that, if we cannot get that, we should be anxious to get any limitation-of-tests agreement.
  Mr. Fort: Is the Prime Minister aware that scientific evidence is extremely conflicting in this field? Will he, therefore, pursue a general disarmament policy rather than confine himself to something put forward by the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: That is what I was saying; we should like a broad disarmament agreement in the conventional as well as in the unconventional fields. My hon. Friend will realise the importance to us of keeping these two working parallel together. Failing that, we would certainly like an agreement for the limitation of tests, but I am not prepared to deprive ourselves of the work that we have done and of the position we ought to have.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the Prime Minister aware of any other country which is proposing to start upon nuclear tests? If the other countries take the same view as he is now taking about Britain, when are they likely to stop?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer to the statement I have made. I believe it commands general assent that we should go at first for a wide measure of disarmament both on the conventional and on the unconventional levels, and that we should, failing that, be willing to work for the limitation of these tests. That would be an advantage to us all. But I do not think we ought to put ourselves unilaterally in a weaker position than we are entitled to be.
  Mr. Bevan: Would the Prime Minister answer my first question? Is he aware of any other country which is now proposing to embark upon nuclear tests? If those other countries took the same view as the Prime Minister is now taking, when should we be likely to stop?
  The Prime Minister: I know of two countries but the answer, if the right hon. Gentleman means countries other than Russia and the United States, is "No, Sir."
  Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he has just made is considered out-of-date by authorities, and that it cannot be reconciled with the statement which was made within the precincts of this House last week by Professor Haddow, who is regarded as the greatest authority in this country on this subject?
  The Prime Minister: Governments can only rely upon the best authorities that they can find. The best authorities available to Her Majesty's Government are the authorities which we normally consult and whose opinion I have quoted. These are not individual experts here and there, but the Medical Research Council which, I think the right hon. Lady will admit, comprises the best organised and the most efficient research on this matter that can be found.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Prime Minister aware that, by a recent answer, he committed the Government to a proposal which is to be discussed on Monday week at Lancaster House for the total abolition of new production of all nuclear weapons? Since this is so, is it not simply common sense to suspend the test while these discussions go on?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I should have thought it was common sense to put ourselves in the position that we have been working for so long to attain, that we should not be in a weaker position that those other two great Powers.

  GHANA (MEMBERSHIP OF COMMONWEALTH)
  Mr. Callaghanasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the pleasure felt by the British people at the decision of the independent State of Ghana to
  182
  become a member of the Commonwealth; and what special celebrations are being arranged by Her Majesty's Government on 6th March to celebrate the occasion.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; and with your permission and with that of the House, I would like to take this opportunity of adding the good wishes of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the welcome that is being accorded all over the world to the State of Ghana on her attaining self-Government and entering upon membership of the Commonwealth.
  The main ceremonies are, as is right, taking place in Accra and Her Majesty has sent a message of good wishes to the Government and people of Ghana, which will be delivered by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent after the opening of Parliament in Accra. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal is delivering a message from me on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Prime Minister of Ghana. I will with permission circulate the text of this message in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, which seems to be the appropriate day, as it is the day of the ceremony.
  I gave the House some account on 21st February of the arrangements made by the Government. The flag of the new State of Ghana will be raised for the first time in London tomorrow and under arrangements made by the Gold Coast Commissioner there will be a Thanksgiving Service at St. Martin-in-the-Fields on 14th March. At this service Her Majesty will be represented by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester and Her Majesty's Government will also be represented.
  I might add that I have arranged to make a short broadcast tomorrow evening at 9.15.
  Mr. Callaghan: Whilst thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, I wonder if he would agree that the arrangements so far announced scarcely amount to rejoicings and celebrations—even a broadcast from him? May I ask him whether he could bring a little more colour into this matter? May I ask him to consider one or two suggestions? Could we not

  183
  fly public flags everywhere on Independence Day? Why not have a parade of the Services? Why not make arrangements for the Queen to meet the citizens of Ghana resident in this city? Above all, why not have a special celebration in the schools and give the children the rest of the day off as a holiday?
  The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, be willing to consider any proposals that the hon. Member suggests, but I think the arrangements made are dignified, proper and in accordance with precedent. This is not the first time that in the unfolding of British policy a State has reached a position of self-government within the Commonwealth, and there will be other occasions. I think that on the whole it is better to rest upon the broad precedents. I think that the rather remarkable character of the celebrations in Accra and the very high representation which Her Majesty has thought fit to make there of herself—all these together mark the occasion suitably. I do not think that anything very much more is required, although if we can think of anything else we shall be very happy to do it.
  Mr. Callaghan: I have put forward what I think are four good suggestions; may I ask whether the Prime Minister will seriously consider these matters, because in the new expanding Commonwealth in which we are living we must really take some part in the celebrations and rejoicings as well as allowing them to go on in Accra?
  The Prime Minister: I will consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member, but I do not think it very likely that I shall adopt them.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Although the Prime Minister has drawn attention to the fact that this is not the first Colony to emerge to independent status, does he not realise that there is a particular feature on this occasion, namely, that this is the first coloured Colony to emerge to Dominion status? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is not that an opportunity for giving a lead to other peoples in Africa? Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his reply with a view to making this a more spectacular occasion?
  The Prime Minister: Although I am sure that the intentions of the hon. and
  184
  learned Member were sincere, I do not think that they were very happily phrased, if I may say so. If there is something more that we can do we shall try to do it. I was glad to read in the newspapers that the hon. and learned Member has made a notable contribution.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In expressing the hope that the Prime Minister will consider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will bear in mind, in preparing his broadcast, that on this occasion he will be speaking not for the Government alone, but for the country as a whole?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I will take that suggestion in the very courteous, helpful, and friendly spirit in which I know it was intended.

NUCLEAR POWER (REVISED PROGRAMME)
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about nuclear power.
The Government, in conjunction with the English and Scottish Electricity Authorities and the Atomic Energy Authority, have now completed their reexamination of the nuclear power programme outlined in the White Paper of February, 1955, which set a target of about 1,500–2,000 MW of nuclear capacity in operation in the country by the end of 1965. Since we already spend about £250 million per annum on importing fuel, chiefly oil, and this burden on our balance of payments will continue to grow, the importance of our need to develop nuclear power as a source of energy cannot be in doubt. Our task has, therefore, been to consider the extent to which the 1955 programme can be accelerated in view of technical advances within the last two years.
It is the considered opinion of our expert advisers that in the light of present knowledge the English and Scottish Electricity Authorities can reasonably aim at having at least 5,000 MW of nuclear capacity in operation by the end of 1965, and that if technological development continues to be favourable and the necessary physical and financial

185
resources can be found, a figure of 6,000 MW could be achieved by that date.
The Government have accordingly decided, with the full agreement of the Electricity Authorities and the Atomic Energy Authority, to adopt as the basis for present planning a range of 5,0006,000 MW of nuclear capacity in operation by the end of 1965. This means that the supply of raw materials for nuclear generation, the acquisition of sites and the planning of the transmission network will be on a scale sufficient to bring 6,000 MW of nuclear capacity into operation by the end of 1965. The actual amount of nuclear capacity to be installed by that date will be subject to technical experience and development as planning progresses, including the trend of capital costs, and to the availability of physical and financial resources.
I am authorised to say that the Government of Northern Ireland are today announcing that the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland intend, at the instance of the Government, to bring into commission a 150 MW nuclear station in 1963 or 1964.
The execution of this nuclear programme would make a major contribution to our energy resources: a full year's operation of 6,000 MW generating capacity would save about 18 million tons of coal, or its equivalent. But it would also mean a large increase in the annual investment programme of the Electricity Authorities during the early 'sixties and this would represent a very heavy burden on the nation's capital resources during a period when those resources are likely, in any event, to be seriously strained.
The programme will, moreover, involve the erection of new power stations and of overhead transmission lines in parts of the country which have not hitherto felt the impact of the nation's requirements for electricity. This is, unfortunately, inevitable because nuclear stations raised special siting problems. Her Majesty's Government and the Electricity Authorities are determined to carry through the programme with the least possible interference with the amenities of our countryside or with the rights of individuals. But we believe that this can be done and, at the same time, some provision can be made for that acceleration of the present procedure which is essential if the programme is not to be seriously
186
delayed. I shall accordingly be tabling amendments to existing legislation for inclusion in the Electricity Bill which is at present being considered in Standing Committee.
I would only add that nothing said about the prospects of the nuclear power programme in any way affects the importance of the coal industry. However rapidly we develop nuclear energy, coal will remain the basis of our economy and the need to exploit to the full our national coal resources remains as urgent as ever.
Mr. Robens: I am sure that the House will join with me in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the nuclear power programme is to be extended to three times that which was forecast in February, 1955. We are glad that the Government have found it possible to rely less on outside fuels and more on indigenous fuels than was at first thought possible. Can the Minister tell us what are the financial implications of all this? Is it proposed to issue a White Paper, giving in much greater detail the particulars in relation to this programme? In view of the warning that this programme can be carried out only if we have the technical people, the experience and the capital necessary for the programme, can he say whether these are likely to be forthcoming?
In addition to saving the equivalent of 18 million tons of coal by this programme, do the Government intend to do something just as drastic as this, to prevent undue reliance upon the import of oil, in relation to the conservation of our present coal supplies? Could the right hon. Gentleman embody in such a White Paper as I have suggested a good many more details which, obviously, a statement such as he has made could not present to the House?
Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend does not intend to issue a White Paper at this stage, because the nuclear energy programme is a flexible programme and he does not think it appropriate to issue a White Paper every time there is a change. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will pay attention to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions about a White Paper on the broader fuel aspects.
I think that I can best explain the financial position in this way: the additional cost of having this nuclear programme compared with having a purely

187
conventional power station programme will have amounted to between £700 million and £800 million by 1965. We are satisfied, to the best of our ability, that the technical resources will be available to carry out this programme to the full.
The right hon. Gentleman's final point concerned other means of conserving our coal resources. I entirely agree with him about the very great importance and urgency of doing all we can in that direction.
Mr. Robens: May I press the right hon. Gentleman about the issue of a White Paper, so that he may press the point upon his noble Friend, whom we have not an opportunity of questioning in the House? While it is reasonable to expect that any nuclear programme must be flexible because of the advance in technical knowledge over the years, to increase it to three times the original programme is a new programme, not so much the flexibility of the old one. In my view a White Paper is extremely desirable.
Mr. Maudling: I will certainly convey that suggestion to my noble Friend.
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the great satisfaction with which the statement will be greeted in the country arises not only from the trebling of the programme? That is very important, but it also arises from the fact that it necessarily carries with it the expansion of certain key parts of our economy in relation to atomic power, such as the manufacture of nuclear graphite, the preparation of uranium and the fabrication of the special steels, which will make it possible to have a still further expansion of the programme much quicker than otherwise would have been possible.
Mr. Maudling: This programme is an essential part of the process of exploiting the very fine position in nuclear power which the country has achieved.
Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his noble Friend to consider the problem of the conservation of that power which might go to waste unless pump storage and conservation of electricity overnight is arranged? Will he advance research in connection with
188
the use of hydro-electric power for making use of the surplus atomic energy power which cannot be used through the night?
Mr. Maudling: The question of, pump storage in relation to the base-load problem is very much in our minds.
Mr. Gower: In view of my right hon. Friend's reference to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, may I ask him whether there have been any consultations with the Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether any of these developments will be in Wales in future and, if so, where and when?
Mr. Maudling: If a suitable site can be found, at least one of these stations will be in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carmarthen."] My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs is keeping a very close eye on this.
Mr. Warbey: Can the Minister say whether the expanded programme is based entirely on the Calder Hall type of reactor, or whether it envisages more advanced types? Can he also give an estimate of the unit cost of the output of electricity compared with that from conventional stations?
Mr. Maudling: As far as we can see, in the present state of knowledge, all the stations in this programme will be of the Calder Hall basic type, though with considerable improvements and modifications. On the question of cost, we have no reason to depart from the estimate which we gave in the White Paper in 1955.
Mr. D. Price: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that if we are to meet our 1965 expected demands for energy, in spite of this increased programme we shall still need to import double last year's oil imports?
Mr. Maudling: I should not like to give an exact figure, but it is certainly true that even with this programme and with an expanded production of coal, which we all hope to see, we shall also need to expand our imports of oil for several years to come.
Mr. Hobson: Can the Minister say whether, from these potential nuclear power stations, it is intended to feed into the standard high tension network or

189
whether it is proposed to set up their own network at a lower voltage for the purpose of rural electrification?
Mr. Maudling: The intention of the Central Electricity Authority would be to feed this power into the main network.
Mr. Nabarro: Could my right hon. Friend confirm two further points: first, that even the trebled atomic energy programme will yield in 1965 only 6 per cent. of the nation's total forecasted energy needs; and, secondly, that pari passu with this trebled programme, over the next eight years it will still be necessary for investment at the rate of approximately £200 million per annum to continue in the Central Electricity Authority for conventional power stations?
Mr. Maudling: As far as I know, my hon. Friend's statistics are about as accurate as his Latin pronunciation. [Laughter.]
Mr. Palmer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should allow the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) to ask his question.
Mr. Palmer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the success of this programme depends just as much on human as on material factors? What
190
special steps are the Government taking to ensure the supply of the necessary trained technologists and to see that they are paid properly?
Mr. Maudling: I think that the recruitment of people for this programme lies very much in the hands of the Central Electricity Authority and the Atomic Energy Authority, but the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for technical education generally are also very relevant.
Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of order. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and his deliberate affront to the people of Wales, I hope that I shall have time to express the indignation which we feel on this matter. I beg to give notice that I, and probably my colleagues from Wales, will raise this matter at the first opportunity in order to express our indignation.

NEW MEMBERS
Megan Arfon Lloyd George, commonly called Lady Megan Arfon Lloyd George, for Carmarthen, sworn.
John Thomson Stonehouse, esquire, for Wednesbury made the affirmation required by law.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  Navy Estimates, 1957–58; Navy Estimates, 1957–58, Vote on Account

    VOTE A. NUMBERS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That 121,500 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958.
    3.52 p.m.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): Though I feel somewhat diffident about this task as a new recruit myself to the Admiralty, I want to say how much we on this side of the Committee welcome the advent of the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), to his new "shadow" responsibilities, for we know that his purpose will be to use his political position to further the interests of the Royal Navy.
    During the recent defence debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence told the House that he was in process of working out, with Service Ministers and Chiefs of Staff, what should be the future size and shape of the three Services, tailored, as they must be, to fit both modern military concepts and the country's economic circumstances. My right hon. Friend hopes to present at the end of this month the White Paper on Defence, to be followed later by the issue by each Service Department of its detailed Estimates. In this debate on Vote A, the Committee will not, I know, expect me to anticipate what these Papers will contain.
    As I see it, the procedure we are adopting this year of having a discussion on a Vote on Account has one disadvantage and one considerable advantage over our usual procedure. The disadvantage is that hon. Members have not got before them the Estimates for the coming year, with
    192
    all the information and details which that Paper provides. Neither have they got the White Paper on Defence, which forms, so to speak, the backcloth against which the various Service Estimates must be judged. But the reverse of that coin is that normally the Committee does not have the chance of a full day's debate on each Service before the Estimates are finalised. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and my noble Friend will study this debate most keenly and welcome this opportunity of hearing the views of hon. Members before rather than after the Estimates are finalised.
    To turn to the Vote on Account, I should, first, like to go through it section by section, and to give a word or two of explanation to amplify the Explanatory Notes in page 3 of this Paper.
    First, the money Vote. The Committee will see that we are asking for £125 million on account. How do we arrive at this figure? We had to consider what would be enough to cover our expenditure up to that time in July or August, when the Royal Assent may be expected to the Appropriation Bill. We have drawn on the Department's experience in recent years of its expenditure during the first few months of the financial year, and, since we do not want to risk having to trouble Parliament unnecessarily before the Appropriation Bill is enacted, we have erred slightly on the high side.
    Then there is the provision for new works which follows Note 3, in page 3 of the Paper. For many years, it has been the recognised rule that normally no new works should be started unless they have had the prior approval of Parliament. For this reason, the provision for new works is always set out in broad categories in Navy Estimates, and Vote 10 is among the Votes which, under normal procedure, are taken before the end of the financial year. We are anxious to get approval to start certain new works, as it would obviously be unwise and uneconomical to allow the early part of the building season—the good months—to go by before the Appropriation Act is passed.
    What the Committee will be anxious to avoid is agreeing to any expenditure on this Vote on Account which might, when the final Estimates are decided upon, prove to have been unnecessary. This applies particularly to expenditure

    193
    on new works, and I can assure the Committee that we are only seeking approval for new works which would have to be started anyway, regardless of any economies we might have to make. In fact, a number of them represent work necessary for the concentration and amalgamation of certain establishments for reasons of economy, and for moving one establishment into another one, thus being able to close one down and avoid the overheads of two establishments.
    If hon. Members will turn to the top of page 2, they will see the Vote A of 121,500 all ranks. This figure is not, of course, a Vote on Account. It has for many years been the practice to take Vote A, representing the maximum number of officers, ratings and other ranks which may be borne at any time during the year, before the end of the financial year; and there is no need to alter that custom because we are having recourse this year to a Vote on Account. The figure is 6,500 below that of last year, and represents what the Navy's strength will be this April. It is not until the Estimates and the longer term defence review are finally settled that we will know what figure we are aiming at for next year.
    The level of recruiting and re-engagement will certainly feature prominently in our forthcoming debates on Defence and Service matters, particularly as this is so closely associated with the future of National Service. I am glad to tell the Committee that since the introduction of the new pay code the decline in Regular recruiting for the Navy, which has been a most disturbing feature of recent years, has been halted. In fact, this year there has been an 8 per cent. increase over the recruiting figure for the previous year.
    The picture is somewhat better than that, for recruiting standards had been lowered in the autumn of 1954, in an endeavour to bring in more recruits, but the old standards were restored when the new engagement structure was introduced a year ago, and we have been getting more recruits at the higher standard. Our chief worry today is in certain specialist branches, particularly artificer apprentices, signalmen and telegraphists, where we are still not getting sufficient recruits. This problem of the shortage of specialists is, of course, by no means limited to the
    194
    Navy or, indeed, to the Services as a whole.
    As the Committee knows, the new engagement structure for men replaced the Special Service 7-year engagement and Continuous Service 12-year engagement by a single initial engagement of nine years from entry. From the beginning of the financial year the new pay code was introduced which provided a better rate of pay for men who were committed to a 9-year engagement, and we expected that as a result more 7-year men would reengage. In 1955, 6 per cent. of these men were re-engaging. Since the new scheme started, 20 per cent. have already undertaken to complete nine years or more. Re-engagement for pension—that is, at present, by 12-year men signing on for a further ten—remains satisfactory at about 40 per cent.
    On the question of reserves, I want, in particular, to talk about the abolition of the R.N.V.R. Air Branch. We are very keenly aware of the great disappointment which this decision has caused. The Air Branch had been built up to become a valuable and competent part of our naval air power and it had the enthusiastic and unreserved support of all its officers and men. It could not be said that there was no longer any operational rôle for the Air Branch of the R.N.V.R. The decision to disband it was taken with the greatest reluctance, solely for financial and manpower reasons. It was a question of priorities, and faced with the ever more pressing need for economy it was inevitable that priority should be given to the Regular forces, which are so much more readily available in an emergency. We hope very much that a number of these officers and men will transfer to other sections of the R.N.V.R., but, whether they do so or not, we are deeply grateful to them for the service they have given.
    We have also had, with regret, to disband altogether the general service rating section—the Merchant Navy seamen—of the Royal Naval Reserve. Much as we dislike disbanding a body of volunteers who have shown such an excellent spirit, the hard fact is that most merchant seamen would not be available for the Navy on mobilisation, and they can best serve their country by remaining in their ships if war should come.
    Beyond this I have at present little to say about the Naval Reserves in general,

    195
    except to mention that we are forming a new section of the R.N.V.R. and W.R.N.V.R., known as List H, to provide a reserve of trained men and women living near to naval headquarters—we are starting with Plymouth and Northwood—to help in manning the headquarters in the event of war: and in peacetime they will be trained at the headquarters to which they would report in an emergency.
    Turning to officers, there are two questions I want to mention. The first concerns the composition of the Board of Admiralty itself. Hitherto, the responsibility for stating the requirements for aircraft has rested with the Fifth Sea Lord, and responsibility for stating the requirements for ships and weapons has rested with the Deputy Chief of Naval Staff. My noble Friend is concerned to ensure complete co-ordination in the development of all weapons, offensive and defensive, for the Fleet. For these reasons we intend that the two posts of the Fifth Sea Lord and Deputy Chief of Naval Staff should be amalgamated into one post.
    The first holder will be an aviation specialist, the present Fifth Sea Lord, and, in future, either the holder of that post, or his deputy, will be an aviator. He will continue to take an interest in the general problems of the Fleet Air Arm, and will be available for consultation by other members of the Board on matters affecting the Fleet Air Arm. It is the intention that in future at least one member of the Board should be an aviation specialist and, if possible, one other should have commanded a carrier or have served in the Home Air Command.
    The subject of senior naval officers leads me to my second point, which is somewhat more general. I have seen from the Order Paper that a number of hon. Members are anxious about the increase over the past ten years in the numbers of naval officers of the rank of captain and above, although the Vote A is much smaller now than it was ten years ago. I had wondered about that myself, and have done a bit of devilling.
    The increase in the number of captains and above between 1947 and today is 39. This is arrived at by various additions and subtractions but, as it happens, there has been an increase of exactly 39
    196
    officers of these high ranks in the engineering and electrical specialisations, owing, as the Committee will understand, to the growing complexity of machinery and equipment being developed and used. It may, however, well be argued that these increases in numbers among specialist officers should have been counterbalanced by decreases in the Executive and Supply Branches. Taking these two Branches together there has, in fact, been a small decrease over the past ten years—but not to this extent—but, in the meanwhile, we have had to fill no fewer than 20 N.A.T.O. posts for captains and above, which did not exist in 1947.
    I do assure the Committee, however, that we are greatly concerned about this inevitable tendency for officer numbers to increase with the growing complexity of equipments and of administration. We are determined that all these various trends to increased numbers, however justifiable they may be, have gone quite far enough. So we have made a rule that in future no new post will be created without an old one being done away with in compensation, and our main aim, indeed, will be to reverse the trend.
    Another point which I know is exercising hon. Members is the high proportion of the Navy's manpower ashore. I am sure that it has occurred to many hon. Members to compare this year's Vote A with that of twenty years ago, and to compare, also, the proportion of personnel employed ashore in the same years. In 1938, the Vote A was 119,000—not much different from what it is today—but we had then roughly 44,000 men ashore, whereas today we have 70,000. I would ask the Committee to bear with me for a little while, while I analyse these figures which, I think it will be agreed, are of the greatest importance.
    What does more than anything else to explain this difference is the fundamental change, during the period in question, in the Navy's capital ships. In 1938, the capital ship was the battleship. Today, it is the aircraft carrier. The carrier, by its very nature, requires a considerable backing of air stations and training and maintenance facilities ashore for its aircraft and aircrews. Of course, we had some carriers and some shore backing for them in 1938, but all that the Navy did was sail the ships. The rest was the responsibility of the R.A.F.

    197
    Whereas, in 1938, we had nearly 12,000 officers and men afloat in battleships, today we have none, but we have about 15,000 officers and men ashore backing up the Fleet Air Arm, which, before the war, was a rôle fulfilled by the R.A.F. and, therefore, not included in the Navy's Vote A. This represents the biggest and most significant factor in the increase in numbers ashore.
    The next factor is a change in the rôle of the Royal Marines, who, before the war, were carried in large numbers in battleships and cruisers. Today, we have no battleships and very few cruisers, so the Marines are concentrated more ashore, but this, at all events, has paid a good dividend in the creation of the Royal Marine Commandos, as fine a body of troops as will be found anywhere in the world.
    The third reason for the growth in the numbers of shore personnel is that the average length of service in the Regulars today is considerably less than it was in 1938. This, coupled with the fact that there are 10,000 National Service men on the Vote A today, means a much bigger training commitment than there was before the war.
    When all that is said, the last thing I wish to do is to give the impression that the Admiralty is complacent about the proportion of shore-going personnel. The Navy has had to take considerable reductions of manpower in the last few years and the signs are that we have not yet reached the end of that road. The smaller the Navy is the more it has to be versatile, flexible, able to go anywhere and do anything. Any establishment and, indeed, any post which does not contribute to those ends must have no place in the Navy's plans for the future. The Committee may be sure that the Board of Admiralty is more anxious than anyone that in the process of reduction the Navy's punch should not be weakened more than is absolutely unavoidable.
    This leads me to the Committee known as "The Way Ahead", which as hon. Members know, was set up about 18 months ago with the object of reducing and concentrating the shore support of the Navy, both naval and civilian, and also saving overheads on accommodation, works and building. Some constant review of this sort has clearly come to stay as a permanent feature of Admiralty
    198
    administration, certainly for as far ahead as we can see. Some of the results of the review were announced last August by the then First Lord in another place, but since then considerable progress has been made.
    We have closed down or are in the actual process of closing down three large establishments, 10 medium-sized ones and 23 small ones. We have approved for closing by 1960 a further six large, 20 medium and 38 small ones. These add up to a manpower saving of more than 5,000 officers and men and also a considerable saving in civilian staffs. There will, of course, also be a useful cash saving, on such overheads as rents and maintenance of buildings. I can assure the Committee that this is by no means the end of the story. Our search for economies ashore must be a constant and growing process to which my noble Friend attaches the highest importance.
    The Committee will wish to know how matters now stand in the subject of nuclear propulsion for ships. It was explained in last year's debate that nuclear propulsion is most immediately attractive for submarines because of the decisive operational advantages that it confers. It was, therefore, decided that the first step should be taken in that direction. An order has been placed with Vickers Armstrong (Shipbuilders) Limited for construction of the prototype nuclear propulsion submarine and design is well advanced for the construction by Vickers Armstrong (Engineers) Limited of a prototype reactor and machinery installation.
    Our intention is to have this fitted for test purposes into a portion of a submarine hull which we will make available ashore. The Atomic Energy Authority has undertaken to be responsible for the construction of the installation and for reactor safety. The engineering problems will be tackled by our team of contractors, including Rolls Royce and Foster-Wheelers as well as Vickers Armstrong, naval experts and Admiralty scientists. This team will be in the closest touch with the Atomic Energy Authority for advice on problems to do with the reactor, what one might call the "furnace" of nuclear submarines.
    The Committee may be interested to know that the name "Dreadnought" has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen

    199
    for the first British nuclear submarine. That is an old and honoured ship's name and will be the ninth to appear in the Navy List.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: What will it cost?
    Mr. Soames: It is impossible to foretell what the total cost will be. We are still in the experimental stages.
    The last "Dreadnought", of fifty years ago, marked a revolution in the design of warships and it is appropriate that the same name should be given to the first vessel that will usher in another great development. It may well be that in the distant future all major warships will be powered in this way and the whole tempo of naval operations may well alter. No one can predict when this will be, but it is doubtless as inevitable in the long term as was the transition from sail to steam and from coal to oil.
    Moreover, as the cost of nuclear fuel falls, it will become economically attractive for commercial vessels. This leads me to mention the important responsibility of my noble Friend not only to provide the Navy with the best means of propulsion for its ships, but also to watch over the general health of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries. My noble Friend is consulting with his Ministerial colleagues and with industry and a Committee is to be set up under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to bring together representatives of all the interests concerned to tackle this problem, that is the engineering industry, shipbuilders, shipowners and the Admiralty.
    Development of nuclear propulsion is bound to proceed apace and it is vital to the maintenance of our national position in marine engineering and ship construction and to the future of our Navy and Merchant Marine that we should press forward development in the United Kingdom effectively and with energy. The application of atomic propulsion to warships and commercial vessels is very largely an engineering problem that must be worked out by the engineering industry. It is the intention of the Admiralty and the Government to give all help and encouragement in this task, which is of the greatest importance to the country as a whole.
    200
    My noble Friend has very much in mind the continuing and, indeed, increasing importance of Commonwealth co operation in the naval sphere. He has agreed that the First Sea Lord should hold a Commonwealth Naval Conference at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, a matter which was mentioned in last year's debate. This conference will be held on 29th April to 2nd May, this year. The main purpose of the conference is to enable the Commonwealth navies and the Commonwealth Chiefs of Naval Staff to attend an exercise called "Fairlead," to study matters of common interest in naval strategy and tactics.
    The conference will examine the implications of cold, limited and global war on naval strategy and its central purpose will be to maintain the strong liaison between the Commonwealth navies, to which, I am sure, the Committee attaches the greatest importance. It is hoped that the Chiefs of Staff of all Commonwealth navies will be able to attend and a special synopsis will be held on 3rd May, to which a number of hon. Members and Members of another place will be invited.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not able today to face up to many of the big question marks which are so much in the minds of all those who ponder on the Navy's affairs. These are worrying times for those whose careers are in the Services. There has been so much talk about defence cuts during the past month that everyone is, naturally, anxious to hear the Government's longterm plan developed so that rumour can be deposed by fact. All I can say today is that the Government are well aware of these anxieties and the effect which they have upon morale and that they will reveal the picture as a whole and in perspective in the Defence White Paper, which will be published towards the end of the month.
    I do not think that informed and responsible opinion in this country has ever been in doubt about the essential importance of the Navy's rôle in defence. Indeed, in peace and limited war, for a nation with world-wide interests and a tightly-stretched economy a heavy responsibility rests upon the Navy. The more we cut down, for economic or political reasons, our land bases abroad, the more valuable become mobile, flexible bases, which can only be provided at sea.

    201
    Although I have to ask those whose interests are in the Navy and its future to be patient a little while yet, they can be sure that the Government realise full well the powerful contribution which the Navy can provide in modern times to the preservation and furtherance of our country's fortunes.
    4.23 p.m.
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his kind reference to myself. It is, of course, a privilege to speak from the Front Bench for the Admiralty, and I can say that the Parliamentary Secretary has acquitted himself extremely well. At the same time, the material that has been given to him is rather thin and we have not been given an effective explanation of why it is not possible to have the Estimates before us and why the White Paper has not been presented. That, however, is a matter which can be pursued on another occasion.
    I want this afternoon to join the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that in a Navy debate there should be the common aim to protect the lives and independence of our peoples. Overshadowing any debate on defence, however, must be the fear of the hydrogen bomb. We know that the Soviet Union and the United States had the hydrogen bomb before we did, and to that extent we might claim a clearer conscience; but we on this side have already proclaimed that we believe that the United Kingdom should propose the immediate cessation of H-bomb tests.
    Subject to that, we have to ask ourselves what part the Navy is to play, what it is to be called upon to do and what is its purpose. We all accept the Navy as part of the country's defences—we cannot separate the one from the other; and our defence policy must be based as a whole on a coherent foreign policy. Today, is not the time to examine the foreign policy, but the first query I have to put is whether the Navy forms an integrated part of a defence force.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said in the defence debate a year ago:
    "The Admiralty has a private strategy of of its own. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1293.]
    Certainly, that can be said about the admirals. We have to ask ourselves
    202
    whether we are planning to meet a global war. Some people think that we could be blotted out at home and could then carry on the war at sea. Others seem to think that we could be starved to death by submarine warfare and then devastated by the H-bomb.
    I quote the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, who, in a speech to the Navy League on 18th January, is reported as referring to the Navy's ability to fight on
    "however great the destruction of the homeland."
    Admiral Davis, Vice-Chief of the Naval Staff, speaking at Belfast a month later, is reported as saying that we must deal with 475 Russian submarines
    "or increase the possibility of global war."
    If the admirals are not quite clear as to the policy that must be followed, what about the rest of us?
    We do not have the prepared statement by the Minister of Defence before us and I cannot foresee what will be presented later, but I notice from last year's White Paper that there is no precision or definition of policy or the way in which policy is to be carried out. I should like to know from the Minister who replies to the debate how the Government define their defence policy. Is it based on deterring a possible aggressor? If so, what special part can the Royal Navy play other than its general contribution to the Armed Forces as a whole being a deterrent?
    Do we base our policy on a limited war? If so, the Royal Navy certainly has a very important rôle to play. It can provide a mobile striking force, it would be comparatively free and independent of bases and it could assist wherever it was needed. If called upon, it would be available to transport and land and give support for ground troops. Above all, it would continue to protect our trade routes.
    But if, as some may feel, there is to be a global war, how do we meet such a war? There are many who take the view that if we do have a global war it would be a short, sharp one, over in two or three days. Suppose, however, that the war was not over in two or three days. Could we, as a nation, contemplate being starved to death by submarine warfare? I hope that we shall hear sometime about our

    203
    new weapons for tackling submarine warfare. I have been told that there are new and scientific weapons which can give us adequate protection. There is the new depth charge "Limbo," which is supposed to be much more accurate and effective than anything used in the last war.
    Again, I imagine that our air service is much more effective than ever before. But we ought to know whether this is so and whether we can tackle submarine warfare effectively. If the Government cannot give us that assurance, what other means do they propose to defend the country? At some stage, we have to be told what is the alternative.
    I question at once, however, whether we are right in spending so much on anti-submarine and minesweeping craft. As far as I can see, we are spending a disproportionate amount of our naval expenditure on this kind of service. The Russians, if they are anything at all, are realists. They are aware that the submarines which they have could be just as effective against the United Kingdom as a nuclear attack upon this country. If that is so, are we sure that they have the submarines for an attack against us?
    I notice that Admiral Brown, of the United States Navy, has said that the Russian bomber is limited. Perhaps the submarine is a weapon from which guided missiles could be fired into the heart of America. Perhaps it is not for offensive action alone. Some experts take the view that every ship which is on the surface today is a sitting target. Perhaps the Russians believe this, too, and, for that reason, have created a vast underwater fleet for the purposes of communications and carrying essential supplies. I feel that the Government must face up to that. We cannot afford to prepare for every kind of offensive action, and we certainly cannot afford to fight the last war as well as prepare for a possible future conflict.
    Admiral Brown, who commands the Sixth American Fleet in the Mediterranean, seems to think that, with all our expenditure, all that the Royal Navy is fit for today is to look after communications. I think that our Royal Navy could be rated much higher than that. I should like to query—
    Mr. Soames: I believe that it was "lines of communications" and not "communications", which is a very different matter.
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman can put whatever interpretation upon it he likes. I would prefer not to say anything more.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh (Islington, North): Ask the hon. Gentleman what is the difference.
    Mr. Soames: Communications mean signals, and lines of communications mean sea ways.
    Mr. Bottomley: I was thinking much deeper than that, so I am very glad that I did not hazard my guess. I will leave it there. There is no difference at all between my original statement and what I am now about to say.
    I ask whether we are right to have cruisers. I agree that we have to have destroyers, frigates and escorts and I think that there may be some cases in which the cruiser is necessary, particularly if it has a guided missile to be directed at a potential enemy inland.
    I do not know about that, but the Parliamentary Secretary has asked for suggestions, so that when the programme is formulated these things can be considered. I am certainly of the opinion that destroyers and frigates are required for patrol duties in particular areas. They are the visible signs of power and influence. Are we having too many of these frigates? I am not sure. I think that 30 are to be built this year and that some will go straight into reserve. I think that we have to provide these craft, but only to the extent that they meet our real needs.
    If we are no longer able to say we rule the waves, we must clearly accept our share of responsibility with our Western allies and the Commonwealth in making sure that we have supremacy at sea. In the excellent booklet produced by the Admiralty, "In Which We Serve", I see that reference is made to the battle group. I have already queried the cruisers, but there are the aircraft carriers and the escorts and these, of course, are necessary. As to the aircraft carriers, I wonder whether we could be told something about the operation of the helicopters in the Suez fiasco. Helicopters were used, but I do not know with what advantage. Some

    205
    seem to think that this is a new form of service which can drop parachutists and render aid immediately and bring out the injured and wounded and others.
    I know that the Navy has always seemed to be in trouble with aircraft. We were told in 1955 that new aircraft would be coming, the D.H.110, the N.113 and a new strike aircraft to replace the unlamented Wyvern. The first two planes are already obsolete. Very optimistic figures have recently been given for the new Blackburn N.A.39 strike fighter. Very optimistic forecasts have been made before. In the Parliamentary Secretary's speech we had little information about the air arm at all. It is strange that we are not more ahead in providing effective aircraft for the Navy when we consider what we have been able to do so far as carrier development itself is concerned. The angled deck, the steam catapult and the mirror landing aid have made an important contribution to our own effective carrier forces and certainly to other countries, particularly the United States.
    I am told that now a further device is being developed. It is the blown flap, which is being tested on the supermarine N.113. This may enable aircraft of very high performance to land comfortably on an ordinary carrier. If that is so, let us go ahead. But shall we again find ourselves doing all this only to make it available for others to build up on our experience and become much more efficient than we are? We congratulate ourselves on doing all this, but we ought to complete it and make sure that we have the aircraft to match the carrier.
    I should like, if I may, to go on with the ships. I am in no doubt at all that we should scrap the warships. [HON. MEMBERS: "Battleships."] I think that warships is right. What I am getting at is the "King George V" class. That is a matter on which I stand to be corrected, but I was asked to put it in that way by a retired high-ranking officer, who must have misled me. If so, I will deal with him in due course.
    I will make it quite clear what I want to scrap, so that there will be no doubt at all. I would scrap the "King George V" class ship and the "Vanguard". I think that we are spending about £2,000 a day for these battleships, which belong to a bygone naval age. The "Vanguard" itself is costing us £700,000
    206
    a year. We cannot justify this. These ships should be scrapped. I was calculating that at £2,000 a day—I always think of my own constituency in these matters—the workers in the dockyards of Chatham would get £1 a week extra if only we could scrap these ships.
    All of our ships will be out of date unless we make greater strides in nuclear propulsion. It was a good thing today to hear the Paymaster-General make a statement about nuclear power stations, but we are a maritime Power and unless we go ahead with nuclear propulsion we shall be left behind. I know that Government policy—that of the last Government and the present Government—has been to provide atomic power stations, and Calder Hall was an excellent thing. There are some scientists who say that we ought to concentrate on that and gain experience before going ahead, but that is another matter.
    Unless the Admiralty considers particularly the need to go ahead with nuclear propelled ships we shall certainly be left behind. The United States have the "Nautilus" submarine, which has just returned from a tour of 60,000 miles, making 859 dives, and they have another. They are now making a merchant vessel which is to make an "Atoms for Peace" propaganda tour of the world within a relatively short time. We as a nation used to believe that trade follows the flag.
    It is not only the Americans but the Russians, too, who are making progress in nuclear propulsion. The Russians are building a cargo and passenger-carrying ice-breaker, which will have nuclear propulsion. They are also to have a whaling vessel built in 1959, and they are building at least three atom-powered submarines. Japan is to build two tankers and one submarine. It is well past the planning stage—well off the drawing board—and Norway, Sweden, Holland and France are all working on the design and construction of nuclear propelled tankers.
    We must go ahead it we are to hold our own in the world. I should be wrong if I did not pay tribute to the Atomic Energy Authority and the National Physical Laboratory for the work which they are doing. It is not that they are not doing the work. It is the Government who are not giving the degree of

    207
    priority necessary to make sure that we keep well in the lead with nuclear propelled ships. We are a great maritime Power. If we are to remain that way we must be well ahead in our ship construction and design and in the method of their propulsion.
    We must cut our defence Estimates and I believe that I have shown how it could be done. Nevertheless, the Navy must be made highly efficient to deal with a limited or cold war. If it came to a global war we should have to make do with our existing resources. It is inconceivable that the Navy could carry on a private war on its own if the United Kingdom were devastated. Would the naval staff migrate and be allowed to carry on an independent war free from the control of the home Government? I think not.
    But the ships that we require can best be built in our own dockyards. The production of ships in the Royal dockyards, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has shown, means cheaper and better ships than those built in private yards, and that in spite of the fact that the Royal dockyards are handicapped. In earlier debates I have stated that some Royal dockyards are using machinery which was five years old when Nelson won the Battle of Trafalgar. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), myself and others have been pressing for their modernisation and better equipment. The Admiralty has moved, but not entirely in the right direction.
    The Admiralty called a conference last October to examine the possibility of improving organisation and methods in these dockyards and to increase productivity. The Director of Dockyards, managers of departments, representatives of the Civil Engineer-in-Chief, the Director of Stores, and the Director of Expense Accounts and, last of all, at the end, the Admiralty Superintendents were called in. It was the view that a man who was appointed Admiralty Superintendent in the Royal dockyards service was an ornament, a man who is no longer competent to go to sea—and I am not, of course, referring to any present occupants of the post—but Admiralty Superintendents ought to be replaced by people who are competent and knowledgeable in industrial matters. Perhaps we shall be told what
    208
    is happening to the Deputy-Superintendent who was appointed with, I hope, a view to subsequently becoming the chief officer.
    Men from private industry were brought in to help, but it would have been better if they had been taken round the dockyards to see the working conditions. When one considers the new ships and the complicated machinery and equipment which are associated with the Fleet it is more than ever necessary that the dockyards should be brought up to date.
    Dockyards and bases are a necessity not only for refitting and building but to store fuel, ammunition, provisions and supplies and to provide facilities for resting and training crews after cruises. But some of the overseas yards are either being taken away from the Navy or are not as useful as they used to be. We tried the "Fleet train" during the last war and the Americans are still employing it successfully. We should make sure that it is possible to give attention to ships at sea in some such way.
    Admiralty policy should ensure that our ships and resources are adequate to support our allies in N.A.T.O. in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and to guarantee our ability to contribute to Commonwealth defence anywhere in the world. But there can be no ships without the men. The personnel of the Navy is of the greatest importance. There have been improvements since 1945 and I was interested to hear today that recruiting has been a little better this year. I think that the numbers of men choosing to serve their National Service in the Navy have decreased, which is rather surprising, but I was going to ask whether National Service ought not to be coming to an end in any case. Perhaps we shall have further information from the Minister of Defence about that in a White Paper.
    Last year, only 7,662 were recruited to the Royal Navy compared with 10,499 in 1951. I do not know the figures for this year. Are they above the 1956 figure? If there has been an increase, how far is it due to unemployment or to the threat of unemployment? Recruits to the Navy must be given better pay, comparable with that of industrial workers. There should certainly be better accommodation.
    I wonder whether housing conditions are not one of the reasons why recruits sometimes do not come into the Navy.

    209
    Stability is not ensured by providing a man and his family with a house and then moving them out of that house. Once a man is in the Navy, would it not be better to allow his family to settle in one of the quarters, wherever he may be doing his service, whether at home or at sea? We should also consult with the T.U.C. to ensure that the skill of Service men can be used after they leave the Navy for civil employment. Above all, there must be better human relationships between officers and men.
    It is only a hundred years since the House of Commons was debating the flogging of sailors, not whether it was right or wrong to flog them but the desirability of inflicting a punishment which would fit the crime. One of the reasons then given for the lack of recruits to the Navy was that no respectable man wished to join. I do not wish to imply that the situation today is such that respectable men would not wish to join, but there is room for improvements.
    There are causes of grievance. I should like to know how the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors is developing, particularly in relation to dockyard apprentices. Are there opportunities now for apprentices to enter in increasing numbers the Corps, which is responsible for design?
    Then there is the problem of ex-school teachers who, with a retiring age of 55 with the rank of lieutenant-commander, are at a disadvantage compared with other officers who can retire at 48 or, if they are executive officers, at 45. It is a little hard that these people should be penalised on retirement when it is remembered that they have been trained as teachers probably at great cost to themselves and their families. This is a matter which has been taken up by many hon. Members and I should like some comment upon it from the Admiralty spokesman.
    Whatever may be said about the lower deck personnel and others, admirals, captains and commanders seem to be flourishing. In 1945, there were 110 officers of flag rank. In 1951, there were 95 and today there are 96. I have excluded two who are on loan to Commonwealth navies and two who are due to retire. In 1945, there were 424 captains. In 1951, at the time of the Korean war, there were 464, but today there are 497. There were
    210
    1,129 commanders in 1945 and 1,312 in 1951. Today, there are 1507. How can we justify this tremendous increase.
    It has been said that we had many more commanders and captains during the war but records have not been kept. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that we had thousands and thousands of Service men. It would be interesting to have a comparison made between the numbers of captains, commanders and admirals and the numbers of Service men. The fact is that today we are carrying hundreds of captains and commanders above the 1945 figures, I do not think that that can be justified in any way. If economies are to be made, it is clear that they can be made in this direction.
    The remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the Royal Naval Volunteer Air Force are welcome. Is it at all wise to dispense with the antisubmarine squadrons? Their experience counts just as much as that of pilots of jet planes. Experience has shown that they have always been ready and efficient, and, bearing in mind that they can render this service, is it wise to disband them?
    To sum up, I would say that to the extent we are ill-prepared for defence, both in the Navy and other Services, the Government carry a heavy responsibility. There has been hardly any change in the main body of the personnel forming the Government. Millions and millions of pounds have been spent each year, with little to show for them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), speaking in defence debates, has shown this clearly, and here we are today discussing Vote A without the Estimates or the necessary details and without a White Paper.
    This illustrates further the muddle and the mess made by a Conservative Government. I do not want in any way to underrate the task confronting any Government. Since the end of the war, the United Kingdom has been faced with competition both in the military and economic sense. Yet, since 1951, the Government have failed to provide a policy either to balance both those requirements or to tackle them effectively. Do we know what the position is today? Is our greatest threat war or are we to be strangled by economic difficulties?

    211
    The Prime Minister's predecessor, Sir Anthony Eden, speaking at Norwich less than 12 months ago, said:
    "So far as I can judge the future the more immediate threat to our country's existence is competition in export markets rather than world war."
    Later, the Government seem to have led us into a war unprepared. The Government must make up their mind about what kind of a military challenge we are likely to meet, what forces are required and what armaments. We must never fail in our obligations to our allies, but we must recognise that we can only do this if we have the necessary economic ability.
    I hope that the Royal Navy will never find itself again in the position where it is possible for an American Commander-in-Chief to say:
    "I fought under the goddam British in the First World War, and if I can help it no ships of mine will fight under them again."
    The Royal Navy, and the personnel who served in the Suez fiasco, rendered magnificent service, carrying out their orders with great skill and efficiency. The Government were morally wrong to embark upon war, but they were equally gravely at fault in not giving effective aid and support to our Services.
    The administration and organisation were thoroughly bad. The call-up and mobilisation was exceedingly badly handled. Stores and equipment which ought to have been ready on mobilisation were not available. The loading of ships was appalling and, if we had met a more formidable enemy, the loss of life would have been very heavy indeed.
    There were difficulties about medical and similar services. Here, I am not sure that we ought not to be considering the amalgamation of all the medical services. I do not know why we want separate ones for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I should have thought this was an opportunity to bring them together in one efficient service.
    There were difficulties about landing craft. We were supposed to have had 39 in commission, but only two were ready, and the tanks were too big for them, so we had to borrow ships from civilian companies.
    The country really does not know all the problems that arose over Suez. If
    212
    it did, I am sure that the by-election results would be even more resounding than they have been. But, already, the public is becoming aware of the failure of the Government not only to tackle the economy of the country, but to provide for adequate defence.
    In conclusion, may I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we believe that it is possible to have a highly efficient and well organised Navy and, at the same time, to bring stability to the economy of cur country. Our sailors and craftsmen come from the same stock which made us the premier maritime Power of the world, that took us from sailing to steam ships, from wood to steel, and in this age of oxides, silicates, nitrates, atomic power and jet propulsion our Navy, and our people, with effective and proper leadership, can lead the world again.
    4.55 p.m.
    Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), in the course of which he posed a number of agreeable questions which are all difficult to answer. I must say frankly, however, that he posed them in such a way as to indicate that, if they had been answered in the way he wanted, the Navy Estimates would have been very much higher than they are. The right hon. Gentleman asked for many improvements, which we all want, but the great problem which we are all facing is the need to retrench in our Service expenditure.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary was naturally somewhat inhibited in what he could tell us in this difficult debate. I, as a back bencher, need not be so inhibited, and I have the advantage that, speaking on Vote A, I can discuss almost every subject. First, I want to mention one or two matters which should be considered under any circumstances, whatever the shape of things to come may be.
    I am worried about the dockyards. It is difficult for me to understand why, at a time when the Navy was never smaller, we should have four dockyards, all so full of naval work that they cannot take any commercial work. I am told that this is because some of the building and all the repairs are now being carried out by the dockyards, whereas that was not the

    213
    case before the war. Yet I cannot remember that before the war a great deal of repair work was carried out in private yards. I am also told that nowadays our ships are rather older and require more maintenance in dockyards. I am not prepared to take that for an answer before I have had it investigated a little more closely. It seems curious that with a small Navy there should be such vast numbers of non-sea-going civilians employed in our dockyards as there are at present.
    Now I want to ask the Civil Lord if, when he replies, he will talk about that aspect of the work of the Admiralty which is so important just now, namely, its relationship with the shipbuilding and shipping industries. The Royal Navy is a god-parent to both those industries, and is the sponsor of steel for the shipbuilding industry. There cannot be two activities more important to our economy than those, so it is important that we should make advances in our shipbuilding industry. Is the Admiralty satisfied that it has all the powers it wants? Here I put a very pointed question. Is it satisfied that it is the right Department to carry out this work? Those are important matters, and they must be decided whatever happens in the future and whatever may be the future rôle of the Navy.
    Now for a short time I shall try to think aloud about what kind of Navy we want to see emerge. Let us forget for a moment the over-riding pressure of finance and let us try to think of the kind of Navy we would like, and then let us try to fit that into the picture of what we can afford. First, of course, there is the nuclear deterrent rôle. I do not want to talk about that because, frankly, I do not know enough about it. It is interesting to indulge one's imagination, but that is all one can indulge in about what may or may not happen as regards the great problems of the new nuclear age. I know only two things to the good of the nuclear bomb. First, I believe that it has maintained the peace of the world during these very difficult years. Secondly, in preparing for a nuclear war nobody can suggest that one is preparing for the previous war, because in this case that is impossible.
    We ought not to be hypnotised by the fascination of the unknown and shut our eyes to the dangers which we do understand—dangers which are just as mortal.
    214
    It is really just as unpleasant to die of starvation as it is to have the privilege, if one might put it like that, of being the first hydrogen bomb victim; and starvation is a death which we have faced twice during the last forty years.
    This great menace of the submarine faces us still in our sea lanes. It is our own peculiar danger in this country. Since 1949, N.A.T.O. has taken on responsibility for keeping those sea lanes open. When I read in the Press of the conversations going on in N.A.T.O. in regard to the reduction of our commitments in Europe and our attempts to reduce the great expense which we have in keeping armies and air forces in Europe, and when I hear that there may well be agreement and understanding of our great financial needs, I do not at the same time believe that N.A.T.O. would be quite so complacent if we were to retract from that part of our responsibility in keeping clear the routes to this country which, as I have said, is our own particular and peculiar problem.
    Therefore, whatever else we may envisage for this Navy which I am trying to visualise, it will certainly be our duty to exploit to the full our great knowledge and "know-how"—I hate the word, but it explains what I mean—in being able to deal with the submarine. I believe that we are probably the first in the world today in our knowledge of the methods of dealing with that particular abomination. It would be quite fatal if we were to relax for a moment our efforts in research and development, trial and practice, in endeavouring to find a solution to this great problem. I believe that there will be a solution, if we try long enough. There is no weapon which cannot be defeated in time if we study and work hard enough. I believe that we should make that one of our great duties. We should become, as it were, that part of the Western world which concentrates upon knowledge of submarine warfare, and we should disseminate and share our knowledge with our Western friends who have undertaken to work so hard in our defence if war came. Although I would not say necessarily that this is the first rôle, I would certainly regard it as one of the essential rôles which this atomic age Navy cannot relax.
    Next, I would refer to the rôle of the Navy in the small limited war, its uses

    215
    as part of an international force, perhaps, under the United Nations. It seems to me that that is an absolutely vital duty for any great nation today, and the Navy, of course, is peculiarly suited to the task. I should like to see a special force created from all three Services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, working under one commander and kept at a high state of readiness. In my opinion, a force of this nature need not be large; it need not be equipped with expensive weapons. But there is one absolute essential; it must be ready and able to move quickly and decisively.
    I should like to see such a force used for experimental work in this matter of integration, about which so many hon. Members have spoken. I sometimes feel that we can try to go too fast with integration. I should have thought that if we were to form a quite small force of this sort we might be able to work out some of the problems of integration within that force. Why should members of it not have the same uniform? That may be just a psychological factor, but I believe that it would go a long way in helping us with integration. They should have the same base; perhaps we might find it possible to use one of our great naval dockyards as a base, so that the ships and all the various fighting weapons of such a force would be looked after in the same place. The basic training should be the same, and there should be as much interchange as possible, of both men and officers, in a force of that sort.
    I believe that we have already in this country the nucleus of such a force. We have the Royal Marines. I see an ex-Royal Marine, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, Haltem-price (Major Wall), sitting on my left, and I must ask him not to listen for a few moments because, as the Committee knows, it is traditional that no naval officer ever praises a Marine in his hearing. I should like to say—and I know that many others think the same—that there is no finer body of men in the Service of our Queen today than the Royal Marines. Surely, the Royal Marines are admirably suited to form the nucleus of such a force, together with, perhaps, the Paratroop Brigade, the Commandos, that part of the Navy which
    216
    looks after landing craft, and some of the aircraft carrier personnel, and so forth. I believe that we could, without very much difficulty or expense, create a force of that sort which would be immediately available and, by its availability, would solve a great many of our problems as regards bases and so on, because, of course, it would carry its airfields with it in the form of aircraft carriers. We could, in my view, make great economies in that way.
    In conclusion, I want to talk about what surely is the ultimate aim of all of us; and this is where I part company rather firmly. I think, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham. When a back bencher starts talking about world peace, people begin to go out, but just for a few moments I want to speak on those lines. We all hope that one day the idea of peace may be a practical proposition; it is not at the moment, but at least we have a right to hope that one day it will be. Many people, of whom I am one, believe that the way to peace must be through disarmament, but it must be controlled disarmament, since uncontrolled disarmament could be even more dangerous. What we are doing here, unpleasant as it may sound, is a form of unilateral disarmament. We have been forced into it. It is a very disquieting thought, and the situation carries great dangers with it. Let us face those dangers, but let us not forget that that is, in fact, what we are doing today.
    My final word about disarmament is this. I feel most strongly that if we are to get a practical measure of disarmament in the world, and if we are to carry the nations with us and test their sincerity as we go along, it is essential—I apologise for the clumsy way of putting it, but I can think of no better—that the process must be from the bottom up. It must begin with the conventional weapons first. In my opinion, it would be quite fatal to this country if we were to start, as the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham seemed to suggest, by abolishing the hydrogen weapon first of all. The hydrogen weapon is really the only shield under which one can disarm. If other countries which are menacing us really mean business, and if they are sincere, then, surely, it is by disarming in conventional weapons that we may lead

    217
    the way to what we all want, that is, to be able to disarm the nations of hydrogen weapons as well.
    5.10 p.m.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) has made a very gallant and determined effort to overcome some of the difficulties which we must all feel in the debate in trying to speak in any way intelligently about the future of the Navy.
    It is not only that this is a Vote on Account. We cannot tell whether the money we are proposing to spend in the next few months will be well spent until we know the total amount that is to be made available. We are really investing in the dark. In my childhood days I read about the South Sea Bubble. People were asked not only to invest in companies which would produce gold from seaweed but to invest in companies whose purposes would be divulged later, and the latter seems to be our position today.
    I hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary—he presented the Estimates in an absolutely admirable manner, but his remarks were a little thin in content—would give us a good deal of information without which we cannot make an intelligent estimate of what we are trying to do with the Navy.
    We do not know—indeed, I doubt whether the Government know—what sort of war we are trying to guard against, whether it be a hydrogen bomb war or a conventional war, or both. We do not know what kind of defence the Government are trying to build up against whatever war may be coming. We do not know whether the Government propose to continue with the conventional separate Services or whether we shall begin to adopt the idea just mooted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman of a more combined Service.
    My view over the broader issue is that we cannot continue with Services so completely separate as they are now, but I am a little doubtful of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion about making the Royal Marines the nucleus of the combined Service which he was foreshadowing. I shall probably get into serious trouble here. Although the Marines have throughout their history been admirable in the form of work that
    218
    they have had to do, which has been to go in first and come out last in the conventional attack, I am told that during the war when efforts were made to build them up as Commandos they were less good than people who were brought in from other Services. The Marines were less flexible in mind. [Interruption.]
    This is only what I am told; if it proves to be wrong, I will certainly withdraw it. There seems to be a reasonable basis for the argument that the Royal Marines are taught in traditional methods and—I hesitate to emphasise their prowess on the parade ground—that the kind of discipline which is taught them tends to make them wonderful at obeying orders but perhaps a little inflexible in improvising for the particularly dirty form of warfare which Commandos have to undertake. However, that seems to me to be only a possible point, and I will not press it too hard. I merely disagreed with the emphasis which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put upon the Marines as the nucleus for his combined force, with which idea I fully agree.
    I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman went far enough in considering the sort of Navy or combined force that we should require. It seems to me that, besides all the other doubts that we have in our minds, there should also be a doubt about whether the traditional function of the Navy still exists. The keeping open of the sea lanes, about which there was some confusion earlier, was always one of the Navy' traditional jobs for the purpose of bringing in food and supplies, but will that be the job in any future war?
    I very much doubt whether in a future war this country can hope to eat as well as it did during the two previous wars. It will not be a question of "eating as well"; it will be a question of just surviving, and in terms of food that means two things. Unfortunately, one's stomach must have bulk. There are various ways of getting bulk. However, besides bulk, one must have the other essentials, such as vitamins—I do not know the technicalities—which can be provided in concentrated form. These were to a certain extent provided in concentrated form during the last war, and no doubt that will be done to a greater extent in the next war. In other words, if the fighters are to have a push-button war, the

    219
    civilians will have a war of pills and potatoes.
    If that were to happen and if we got our food in concentrated form—I think it is likely; it is not an agreeable thought, but war is not agreeable—it will not be anything like so necessary to have convoys coming across the Atlantic bringing us supplies of the bulky foods on which we have existed in the past.
    Even supposing that that were not so, I do not understand why we must always assume that during actual warfare we must get our supplies by means of convoys. I know it would be an expensive business, but I have never been able to understand why, even in peacetime, we have not developed large granaries. In terms of the future, they would have to be underground and airtight. They would be very useful in peacetime, because agriculture tends to work in cycles, and we should have a chance, if such a scheme were adopted, of buying in the fat years and feeding from the granaries in the lean. I do not see why we should not do it. Joseph did it in Egypt many centuries ago. This would be a good thing in peacetime, but it will be essential in war in future. The same argument applies to oil supplies. Why should we not have huge underground tanks, so far below the surface that they would be protected from attack from hydrogen bombs?
    If we do things of that sort, one part of the Navy's big job, that of keeping open the sea lanes, will be greatly diminished. That would affect our thinking about the numbers of escort vessels and so on that we have to maintain.
    It is not only of such things as that that we should be thinking. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us a little about the atomic powering of ships. I understand that it is not only submarines which are being designed in that way. I should like confirmation of this, but I understand that we are not so hopelessly behind as some hon. Gentlemen seem to think in designing cargo vessels and tankers to be equipped with nuclear power. Indeed, I am told that we are at present designing a tanker which will be about the size of the "Queen Mary" and will be capable of doing about 30 knots. If we had tankers of that type, they would not travel in convoy; they
    220
    would go zig-zagging independently across the seas as the "Queen Mary" did during the last war. Our naval strategy would be considerably altered if we had a number of ships of that kind. These are things which are not very far in the future; as I understand it, they are almost ready for the drawing board.
    We can look a little further into the future. What are the prospects of building submarine cargo vessels? I cannot believe that in fifty years' time it will not be the general practice to have one's vessels travelling under water. That assumes that we do not follow the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and have some peace in the meantime. If in fifty years' time we are still thinking in terms of war, I believe that our merchant fleet will be submersible rather than one that travels on the surface.
    These are some of the doubts and imponderables which make an intelligent discussion of the affairs of the Navy somewhat difficult this afternoon. But whatever kind of war we are trying to guard against, and whatever kind of service we are trying to develop, there is at least one absolute certainty, namely, that it is completely and utterly useless to maintain the three large naval depots in Portsmouth, Chatham and Devonport.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Wipe them out and keep Rosyth.
    Mr. Mallalieu: They are all going to be wiped out, anyhow. Roysth, Portsmouth, Chatham and Devonport—all those solid concentrations of 20,000 men will be wiped out by a single bomb, and not a hydrogen bomb but an ordinary conventional bomb of the next war. I have been batting on about this matter for nearly eleven years and I am bored with it myself. I never get any change out of anybody. But surely it is incomprehensible that we should now be considering keeping these great amorphous masses, spread over a wide area in our dockyard towns and offering a sitting target, with about one-third of our manpower likely to be wiped out at a single go. If we must have these large depots—and I do not think that they are necessary; I believe that small depots would be far more efficient—let us have them in Australia, or Nova Scotia, where there might be some chance of their surviving for at least two weeks after the war had begun.

    221
    We must aim at having a small but highly trained Navy. It may be that some new menace will develop against which the Navy is the best weapon of defence. If we have a highly trained and small body of technicians it should be possible to expand the size of the Navy fairly easily. During the war a French admiral once said, "Tous les Anglais sort marins", or, "All Englishmen are sailors". That is not what my chief petty officer said to me when I first went aboard, but the Frenchman was more polite. In saying that, however, he was not only thinking of our fishing fleets and the fellows who go round in small boats; he was referring to the fact that even in the centre of our country we are, in a way, in touch with the sea. We can smell the salt air and can go to the sea whenever we want to, and we quickly become trained seamen. We take to the sea better than we take to the duties of a soldier and possibly even to those of an airman. I do not think that there would be any great difficulty in expanding our Navy should circumstances ever require it. In the meantime, we can come right down to a highly trained but small body of men who can themselves train the material which would readily be available for training at any time.
    I know that those of us who take part in these debates tend to have a vested interest in the Navy itself. Anybody who, like myself, has been in the Navy even only for a short time, comes out with a really great admiration and affection for it. We sometimes tend to look upon the Navy as an end in itself. It is not; it is only part of the means of defending this country, and I believe that it is an end which has to be whittled down fairly considerably. I cannot believe that even now we have come down to the small Navy which present-day conditions require.
    While I am half advocating this cut and, in a great deal of confusion and lack of knowledge, half feeling my way towards saying that we shall have to reduce our available forces a great deal more than is now being proposed, there is one thing about the Navy which I want to preserve at all costs, namely, the spirit which seems to run through it. I am now getting old, and it is twelve years since I came out of the Navy, but when I went in I was expecting to be treated
    222
    as I know some of my friends were treated in the Army and the Air Force. We have all heard the silly sort of stuff about the sergeant-major saying, "Does anybody here know anything about music?" and then, when a man has said that he does, saying, "All right, shift that piano." All sorts of silly gags are supposed to be used by sergeant-majors in training raw recruits. We expected to have them used against us, but were astonished to find that we were not treated as raw recruits or mere numbers, but as individuals, and we continued to be treated as individuals all the way through our service.
    It was a wonderful experience, and the effect of that experience upon the raw material was quite remarkable. I remember that the first thing that happened to us when we went into H.M.S. "Coiling-wood", the training depot outside Portsmouth, was that we were given a great deal of fresh air and exercise. We were chased around by chiefs and petty officers. As a result, we developed enormous appetites. Here the Admiralty made a serious mistake. Instead of giving us about five times as much to eat as an ordinary civilian it gave us only about four times as much. The result was that we were permanently hungry, and when dinner was piped the mess decks became a shambles. We went through the swing doors, grabbed a piece of meat here and some vegetables there, got into a corner and held it against all comers. We had been brought up in that way, in a competitive society where, if a man got more than his neighbour, we honoured him and sent him to the House of Lords. We soon found out that if a man got more than his messmates in the Navy he got no honours but a kick in the pants.
    When we finished training we went to sea and were cooped up in the mess deck of a destroyer on the run to Russia. After we had had three months' experience of dirt and extreme cold—and some danger—I can say without using any flannel at all that there was nothing that we would not have done one for another. We had ceased being a collection of competing individuals and had become what, in political terms, I suppose we would call a society, and in religious terms a fellowship. In the proud terms of the Royal Navy we had become a ship's company. That idea may exist in the other Services, but I did not find it to

    223
    the same extent. I know that it exists in the Navy and I want to preserve it at all costs.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) made an interesting speech and I entirely agree with many of the points he made. The hon. Gentleman said that one of the great difficulties facing the Government was that they did not know what kind of war we were trying to guard against. The task before the Government is particularly difficult in that regard, not only because of the great size of a possible enemy and his potential for striking in several different directions by several different means, but also because of the strictly limited budget imposed on the Admiralty. There is also a newer reason than the other two—the great developments in the production of weapons and in methods of propulsion. All these things together make it extremely difficult for the Government adequately to plan the shape of our Navy.
    I wish to make three suggestions about matters which the Government should keep in mind. The first is that traditionally the Navy keeps open our sea lanes and communications. That is a defensive rôle, but we must not forget the offensive, striking rôle which the Navy can play. As we know, there are several possible types of war. There is the dreadful possibility of a nuclear war. We are doing what we can to provide adequate and powerful deterrents, which we are known to have, and which may stop such a war from happening. But one big disadvantage for this country is that, while we may have deterrents, we must also provide places from which to launch them. This is a small island, and such sites might readily be located and charted. We might find them demolished by an enemy at the first onslaught, and then, at one stroke, we should be deprived of our power to retaliate.
    It seems to me that the Navy provides a possible solution to this problem. I do not say that it can be done immediately, but in the future the Navy could provide mobile platforms from which nuclear weapons of one sort or another could be launched. Such mobile platforms could
    224
    disappear from the ken of a potential enemy. They might be discovered eventually, but at least it would be possible to move them about, and that is something which could not be done with land sites. Whether such mobile platforms should take the form of an aircraft carrier, from which aircraft carrying powerful weapons could take off and return, or whether they should assume some other form from which ballistic weapons could be fired, I do not know, but I think that is a rôle which the Navy could perform and one which should not be overlooked.
    In conventional fighting, the value of the Navy is enormous, as was proved last autumn, and the great part played by the Navy in the Suez operation is well known. If there is to be conventional fighting, there is no doubt that the Navy can provide a useful and powerful striking force, mostly by means of aircraft flown from aircraft carriers and by its ability to move troops quickly. Both these rôles are of an offensive nature, and I hope that they will be borne in mind.
    The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the necessity of ensuring that we do not put all our eggs in one basket and the importance of retaining flexibility in the Navy. I agree that that is most important. If we are to have a small Service, we cannot afford to put our few eggs in one basket. If that force is not flexible the necessary alternative is a large Navy to gain the flexibility provided by numbers. It appears necessary that we should have a small Navy, and so we must ensure that what we have is flexible in operation.
    I do not know what type of ship could be used with the greatest degree of flexibility. An anti-submarine frigate could not be used with much flexibility. It is a small ship and not very fast. It might be useful to destroy submarines but not for anything else. We must concentrate on ensuring that what ships we have can be adapted for a multitude of purposes, and of all our ships I think that the aircraft carrier is the one which can be most easily used in this way.
    An aircraft carrier might be used for discharging nuclear weapons. It could be used in a conventional war and for anti-submarine purposes. It could carry either helicopters or the conventional types of aircraft. I hope that this need for flexibility will be kept in mind and,

    225
    what is more important, that the manpower in the Navy will be efficient in a number of ways. This point has been referred to by several hon. Members who spoke about the efficiency of the Navy and the need to retain that efficiency. There is no doubt that we must keep the officers and men that we have in the highest state of efficiency so that they may make the fullest use of the weapons we are able to provide for them.
    As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East said, we are a maritime nation and we must make certain that our Navy is the best, if not the largest, in the world. There is one way in which to keep our officers and men of the Royal Navy really efficient at their job, and that is to keep them at sea as much as possible. That is something I cannot too strongly impress on the Government. We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary about many of the difficulties in the way of keeping a high proportion of the Navy at sea, and I admit them. There is the increase in the Fleet Air Arm and the shorter period of service and so on.
    But I have no doubt that, if we are to keep our Navy efficient, we must ensure that the officers and men get to sea. It is no use expecting people, merely by giving them theoretical training ashore, to be able to carry out their duties efficiently as soon as they step aboard a ship. Operations can be carried out efficiently only by constant practice, whether it be driving a motor car, piloting a ship, firing a revolver on a firing range or operating ballistic weapons. If we are unable to improve on the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the percentage of officers and men who are at sea, the Navy will become less efficient, and that is something we cannot possibly allow to happen if we are to have a smaller Navy.
    I have not attempted to discuss all the considerations which the Government have to bear in mind in preparing their plans for the Navy, and, indeed, I am not competent to do so. But I suggest that the offensive rôle of the Navy, the need for flexibility and the necessity for ensuring that as great a proportion of men as possible are sent to sea are among the most important matters, and I urge the Government constantly to keep them in mind.
    5.39 p.m.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I do not wish to discuss the future size and structure of the Navy. That will be almost impossible until the Government have taken drastic policy decisions. I propose to speak about the men in the Navy and I start from a point made by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty last year when introducing the Navy Estimates.
    The hon. Gentleman said, as one of the arguments for the new pay code:
    "… the Navy, in common with the other two services, was failing to attract and retain enough officers and men of the right quality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2323.]
    The Minister said something similar to that this afternoon and added that this was particularly true of certain branches of the Navy.
    The Government have been stressing the necessity for skilled men. In the Statement on Defence last year we were told:
    "This concept of smaller and better equipped forces does, however, place a premium on the highly-skilled long-service regular."
    It went on to say:
    "The newer weapons will demand for their proper use increasingly high standards of training and maintenance."
    Let me admit at once that the Admiralty has shown initiative—not all that it might have shown, perhaps—in trying to adapt the Navy in recent years by putting into operation training schemes and an officer structure which was very necessary, and by abolishing all the executive branch mystique which had dominated the Navy for far too long. That is now going by the board. The technical branches are now becoming the important ones, as in every other aspect of our economic life.
    Nevertheless, we still have very serious recruiting figures. In opening the debate, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the very great fall suffered during past years in these figures had been stopped. That is quite right. The point about which we are really interested, however, and about which the Minister did not give us information, was whether maintaining existing recruiting figures with the rather smaller personnel meant that we still required National Service men. In other words, is the Navy recruiting sufficient

    227
    for its own needs? The hon. Gentleman did not tell us, but the answer is important.
    I cannot agree that the recruiting figures are satisfactory. Last year we introduced a new pay code which was universally welcomed, but was in some quarters exaggerated, as I said during last year's debate. The Press indulged in a campaign picturing the men in the Forces as living in the lap of luxury, and I questioned that at the time. My view would appear to have been correct, because we are not attracting more men into the Navy.
    The second serious thing is that we are not inducing men to stay in the Navy. Figures given by the Minister in reply to Questions by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) about the number of men re-engaging and signing on for pension are not satisfactory. I have the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave. An average of 40 per cent. re-engaging is not good enough. The significant fact is that in the branches about which he spoke, the highly technical and highly important branches, the figures are not very good. There is a slight improvement in the artificer branches but a very severe drop in the mechanical and artisan branches.
    In the electrical branches, 29 per cent. re-engaged for pension. The electrical branches are increasingly important, because the Service is increasingly dependent upon these men. A figure like 29 per cent. signing on for pension at the end of twelve years is very small. When we get to the chief petty-officer group, we learn that fewer re-engaged last year than in the previous year. That shows that the very great hopes held out of the results of the new pay code have not materialised as I suggested during the debate last year they might not.
    Why is that? The rates of pay seem large but we must take into consideration rates of pay obtaining outside the Service. We must remember that a man sacrifices his freedom for twelve years during which he can be called upon to work for twenty-four hours a day and to leave his wife and children for very long periods. When this is remembered it must be said that they are not so very good, especially when we recall that the whole of industry is
    228
    competing with the Services for the best types of young boy.
    Take pensions. As I pointed out last year, the pension is relatively much worse than it was thirty years ago. A chief artificer in the 1920's received a pension of 38s. 6d.; he now receives 63s. 6d. In terms of today's money he should receive about four guineas. Of course, there is the terminal grant. If the £1 difference were commuted, it would come to more than the terminal grant. In the matter of pension the Admiralty treats the men in a rather niggardly fashion.
    I know the Admiralty's defence: the Treasury is the real nigger in the wood-pile. The Treasury is penny-wise and pound-foolish in this matter, because it loses a man precisely when he becomes of use to the Service, at about 30 years of age when his training is complete and he has adapted himself to his working conditions. That position must be examined. If the Admiralty wishes to keep men, all questions of pay, discipline and accommodation must be considered.
    Before leaving this question, I would say a word about National Service. It does not affect the Navy as much as the other Forces. I think about 10,000 National Service men are in the Navy. Once National Service becomes selective, as it is becoming, there will no longer be a case for paying National Service men the ridiculously low pay they get at present. That would be justifiable only if every man had to perform National Service. Once we select boys and leave other boys to earn very big wages outside, there is no longer any justification for maintaining the present very poor rate of pay which the young National Service man gets.
    This goes for the Ministry of Defence rather than the Navy, but I say it now because the Navy has National Service men. In view of statements being made by the Minister of Labour and National Service week after week as to the extent to which National Service is becoming selective, the time has arrived for this matter to be considered. The rate of pay cannot be justified when once the system ceases to be universal.
    I wish to say a few words about the branches to which the Parliamentary Secretary drew particular attention, the

    229
    artificer branches. He spoke of the difficulties of recruiting men to those branches. There is no doubt that they are key branches in the Service and are becoming increasingly so. We have to remember that we are competing with industry outside in trying to attract the better class of boy. Obviously we have to be able to offer conditions and a career which in the eyes of the boy will appear rather better than those offered outside. It is much more difficult to do that today than it was twenty years ago, because conditions outside are so very different.
    I wish to congratulate the Admiralty on allowing the artificer branches once again to wear gilt buttons. That may seem a very small matter, but to the boys it is a very big one. One of the most stupid actions of the Admiralty was to stop that practice, because if there is one thing that a boy of 18 likes it is to appear before his family and his girl friend in a uniform with gilt buttons and with a nice badge on his hat. He prefers gilt buttons to black buttons.
    I should also like to congratulate the Navy on its endeavours to work out a suitable training scheme to meet modern requirements in the Navy, which are changing particularly in regard to atomic energy. I congratulate the Navy on the experiments being made for a better training scheme in the "Caledonia", but I cannot congratulate it on the accommodation in the "Caledonia." There are 800 or 900 boys there and the accommodation has been "temporary" ever since the "Caledonia" was burned ten years ago. When is the Admiralty to build proper accommodation for these boys? Something has been said in the debate about the necessity of maintaining the esprit de corps of the Navy. I am not certain that it is maintained as it ought to be as a result of the conditions under which boys are at present living in the "Caledonia." At present they are living in small groups in hutted accommodation which is completely out of date.
    Opportunities for promotion should be rather greater. I do not know what the figures are, but I understand that from the "Caledonia" last year there were only one or two boys who went through the Upper Yardman Scheme for promotion. That is a terribly small number. It may be that the quality is not
    230
    sufficiently high, but it seems to me that there ought to be better opportunities if we are to attract the right kind of boy. That is the kernel of the problem.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) gave some figures in last year's debate which I thought rather astounding. I have not been able to discover where he got those figures. He said that of three boys each aged 20, one a seaman, one an artificer and another a sub-lieutenant, five years later the seaman would be benefiting by £200 more, the artificer by £100 more and the officer by £500 more. Surely there is something wrong there. I do not know whether the figures were correct as I have not been able to check them, but I usually accept information given by the hon. and gallant Member because he is exceedingly well-informed on these matters. If the figures were correct, is not it wrong that the seaman should be twice as well off as the artificer and the officer should be five times as well off as the artificer after five years? Surely that is not the best way to recruit an efficient artificer branch or to attract the quality of boys which the hon. Gentleman said he wanted.
    I have heard complaints about the difference between the mechanician who, five years after completing his two years' training, gets the same pay as an artificer second class who has completed five years of training and has served for another seven years—twelve years as compared with the man who has served seven years. Last year I asked a Question about this and the Admiralty gave what I thought was a "smart Alec" sort of answer. It made no effort to appreciate the fact that this is unjust, and the accumulation of petty things which people do not like. The differential between the artificer first class and the chief artificer is 14s., 10s. 6d. of which is in respect of charge pay. The actual differential in the basic rate is 3s. 6d. When we discuss differentials at this level we talk in terms of shillings, but higher in the Service we talk in terms of £10 or £20 per week.
    I appreciate the difficulties about differentials, but it is time the Admiralty considered this differential. It is a cause of complaint among a number of chief artificers that their rate of pay is so little more than that of the artificer first class

    231
    and that the biggest element is due to charge pay. Without making any difference in the flat rate, the Admiralty might at least consider altering the charge pay of ls. 6d. a day. It has remained at ls. 6d. ever since I can remember and probably ever since anyone in this Committee can remember.
    I understand that on some ships when men are due to leave the Service they can easily get the certificates specifying qualifications which the Admiralty issues, but others cannot get them so easily. The Admiralty should make clear to officers commanding that certificates giving details of the men's ability ought to be made available to the men concerned three or four months before they reach the end of their service. On the problem of getting chief petty officers to remain in the Service, I suggested last year that the Navy should consider some other form of promotion after 30 years of age and that the chief petty officer should be able to go to some rank equivalent to that of warrant officer in the Army and so improve his pay slightly. I admit that there is not much difference there, but his marriage allowance, his pension and terminal grant would all be improved and his status would be affected very considerably.
    It seems to me that one of the weaknesses at present is that although a man in the artificer branches can become a chief artificer before he is 30 years old, after that he has no further promotion to look forward to on the lower deck. He is a chief petty officer, and what I am saying applies to all chief petty officers. These are the senior men on the lower deck and they ought to have equivalent pay, status and conditions to those of senior men in the lower branches of the other forces. We can call them what we like—warrant officers, for instance—but it seems to rue that the Admiralty must do something about their promotion prospects. I will not give figures about differences in rates of pay because they are not great, but there is a difference in marriage allowances, the terminal grant and the pensions all of which are important, and an improvement in them might induce men to remain in the Service.
    I understand that the Admiralty has sent out a memorandum on this matter to the naval ports replying to the argu-
    232
    ments, and I am bound to say that it is not receiving a very good reception from the men concerned. Most of them think that the Admiralty's arguments are wrong and are not based on the facts. Could we see a copy of this memorandum? I shall probably see one in due course, but I should like one now. It is no good the Admiralty digging in its heels and saying, "We shall not shift from this position", because it must take some action to keep these men in the Service.
    In my view it is one of the most serious manpower problems which faces the Service at present. My suggestion might not be the answer, but the Admiralty must find some answer, because the men are not staying in the Service after 30 years of age. We were told when the seven-year period was abandoned and the nine-year period introduced that it takes nine years to train a man. Surely, therefore, at the end of twelve years is precisely the time that we must seek to keep him in the Service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary will have to deal with this problem sooner or later because these men are the technicians and technologists of the Service. Without them it is no good. We cannot have a Navy or a modern Army without them. Our conceptions of what is required must change altogether. These men must be attracted to the Service against very powerful outside competition.
    I do not say that the answer can necessarily be found in taking some big step. In my view, it might well be found by tackling a number of small problems, by doing a number of small things to increase the status of these men and by remedying little defects and little things which irritate men in the Forces and make them say "I am clearing out". The Admiralty must tackle these problems with initiative and with vigour and in the spirit which I think it has been trying to use in the past few years—namely, a recognition of the change in the requirements of the future Navy.
    6.5 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: We all respect the great knowledge with which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) speaks on this subject and his loyalty to his old branch in the Service. He was good enough to quote some figures which I gave in the Navy Estimates debate last

    233
    year. I cannot recall them in my head but I hope I added them up correctly. They were obtained merely by looking up the new pay code and adding the various allowances which the officers or men concerned would get if they were serving ashore.
    When he said that the artificer benefited only half as much as a seaman, I am almost certain, without looking at the figures, that the explanation is merely that the artificers start their career at a relatively high level and, consequently, the others in the ordinary course of incremental pay tend to overtake them. I am glad to see that in the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East we have a supporter for the principle of differentials and incremental pay, because when I ventured to advocate the regular adoption of an incremental pay scheme in the debate on the Address I was quickly told that this was wholly contrary to trade union policy.
    I am inclined to question whether the hon. Member is right in being disturbed over the present recruiting position, because if great economies are introduced it may ultimately and paradoxically turn out to be rather fortunate that too many people have not signed on for long engagements in the last two or three years.
    Perhaps before I go any further I might join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on his first appearance at the Box to present these Estimates. I think all hon. Members present will agree that he presented them in a most instructive and persuasive manner. It was an exceedingly difficult task, as has been pointed out, in view of the fact that we are all awaiting the Government's decision about major defence policy.
    I also welcome the friendly and constructive manner in which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) replied—at any rate for most of his speech like the curate's egg, to my way of thinking it was not wholly good, but in the main I felt that we recognised it as a friendly and constructive contribution to our discussion. I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with him, for he is rather unlucky in appearing for the first time to speak on this subject for a party which is so much
    234
    committed to the principle of economy and cuts in defence expenditure when he himself represents a dockyard town. I fully sympathised with and understood those parts of his speech which were in fact a plea for Chatham Dockyard. Later I shall propose that the Committee consider either selling or leasing it.
    The reasons which have led the Government to ask for a Vote on account are well understood by the Committee, and in so far as they may prove to be the harbingers of great economies, we welcome them. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the officers and men serving in the Royal Navy, I cannot help thinking that our proceedings today must appear somewhat in the light of a motion for a stay of execution.
    There is no doubt that for some time past the Navy has been facing a growing challenge to its very existence. It may well be that we are now approaching the hour of decision. In that connection perhaps I might recall that two years ago I ventured to make a plea for the gradual integration of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I mention that now only to reaffirm my conviction that such a merger would be in the best long-term interests at any rate of the younger officers serving in both Forces.
    When we have discussed these matters a number of hon. Members have referred to the great traditions of the Navy and the importance of preserving them. I entirely agree, but may I remind the Committee that the supreme naval tradition is one of service. Naval officers are taught from their earliest beginnings to place their country before even their career, and they are also taught that their duty lies towards their ship before their family itself. It may well be that in the difficult days which the Navy is entering the path of duty for many of these officers will lie in retirement.
    That is a hard thing to say, but the public expects the very highest standards from the officers in the fighting Services, and I am convinced that in this matter the public will not be disappointed provided, if I may say so with great diffidence, Parliament sets the right tone in the defence debates in the coming weeks. I feel most strongly that we should be doing a great disservice to those who serve the three fighting Services if we allow ourselves to become engaged in anything

    235
    savouring of special pleading or the defence of some vested interest. Having said that, I hasten to urge the need for the early promulgation of the most generous terms for these officers or established civilians who may become redundant and have to retire. I should like to see terms that would astonish the individuals themselves by their generosity and horrify the Treasury.
    To turn now to wider issues, I think my hon. Friend was quite right to refer to the future of the Navy and its rôle. I support everything he said with regard to the functions of the Navy in time of peace and in the time of local or limited war. I believe that our existing operational Fleet is none too big for these duties alone, but, having said that, I am not at all convinced that the maintenance of the Fleet could be justified merely on those grounds. I have a feeling that it would be necessary to show either that there is now, or that in the foreseeable future there may be, a rôle for navies even in global warfare.
    I further believe that there is such a rôle. When we last debated defence, several hon. Members pointed to the terrible dilemma to which we have been brought—the dilemma or choice, as some of them put it, between surrender or suicide. I do not think that is entirely accurate. The dilemma is between surrender and a suicide pact, because, of course, people on the other side will no doubt suffer in the same way as we do ourselves. Nevertheless, so long as this remains the case, there can be no real security for the world, because peace cannot be preserved for ever simply by fear.
    In these circumstances, if we assume that this remains the choice for ever, I am afraid that the Navy is only one of a number of institutions the preservation of which would hardly be worth while. I therefore ask the question: why is it that we have come to assume, or that mankind as a whole has come to assume, that thermo-nuclear devastation is the inevitable consequence of another great war? There are, I believe, three main reasons, and I hope I may be forgiven if I go a little wide for a minute or two, because it is on the validity or otherwise of these reasons that the continued existence of the Navy depends.
    236
    I suggest that the first of these three reasons is the tacit acceptance of the idea that one only fights for unlimited war aims, and it is unlimited war aims that lead to the use of unlimited weapons. I think this is one of the lessons which both the democracies and other countries have to learn—that they must refrain from fighting for the destruction of the prospective enemy.
    The second reason, which, perhaps, is more immediate and important, is the almost unquestioned acceptance of strategic bombing as a legitimate and normal method of waging warfare. It is nothing of the kind. Strategic bombing is no more than a return to those barbaric methods of waging war by ravaging and cross-ravaging which was practised in the Dark Ages and in mediaeval times. Let us recognise it as such, and renounce its use. That is the second point I would make.
    The third point is the belief that has grown up since the war, and has apparently been accepted, that the Russian armies are invincible, and that only perhaps for the shortest time could the N.A.T.O. Forces hold them back in Europe, with the result that the only possible counter-measures that we could take would be by means of the so-called deterrent; in other words, as I prefer to put it, world-wide devastation.
    But a great change has taken place in the last three years. We have seen the increasing supply of what is called the tactical atomic weapon, and I believe it will not be long before General Norstad and his 30 divisions will be able to hold Western Europe against the power and might of the Russian armies with the same certainty and in the same awful deadlock as the armies were locked during the First World War. I say, therefore, that it lies within our power, by political and military thought, to escape from the dilemma and to lift some of the fears which beset people with regard to the future threat of thermo-nuclear methods.
    There is one further condition, which is peculiar to this country. We must retain our ability to keep open our sea communications. Once we abandon that conception, once we lose the "know how" of how it can be done, at the same time we shall have abandoned all hope of being able to defend ourselves, save

    237
    by a reversion to these awful methods of war. It may well be that that hope at present is a slender one, but surely it is worth paying some price to keep it alive? The question then arises what is the price. That is a matter which can only be assessed by the Government and their military advisers, but I myself would say as a guess that the price, as far as this country is concerned, is to maintain our operational Fleet—and I stress the word "operational"—at roughly its present size.
    After all, the whole of the Navy today comprises enough ships to make two composite squadrons, each having the nucleus of a couple of aircraft carriers, a few cruisers and a handful of destroyers and frigates—two rear-admirals' commands. If we put the two squadrons together, they would form one task group—not a task force—and would probably be a vice-admiral's command. That is all that our Navy is at the present time. If anyone doubts me, he has only to look at the Explanatory Statement issued by the Admiralty before last year's Estimates. I cannot believe that that is an excessive force in the light of the arguments which I have attempted to deploy.
    That does not mean that there is no room for economy. On the contrary—and I have said this before and I shall no doubt bore hon. Members by saying it again now—I am perfectly certain that we could maintain an operational Fleet of the present size on perhaps half of the present Navy Estimates, and I will make once again a few suggestions about the direction in which economies might be expected. I do not intend to develop those arguments, but merely to repeat those which have been put, not only by myself, but by other hon. Members who have spoken on this subject on several occasions before.
    First of all, we come to the question of the number of officers. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say with regard to it, but I must confess that my views were not modified. I said last year that I believed that we could operate our Fleet on probably half the present number of officers on the Navy List, and I repeat that today. I think that is so. I might remind the Committee that the operational Fleet as shown in the White Paper, as far as I can calculate, would take approximately 2,500 officers.
    238
    Surely, if we were to have a total of between 6,000 and 7,000 officers, that would provide an ample margin for any possible or reasonable scale of shore appointments, for sickness, drafting and so forth; and if we require 2,500 in the fighting fleet, surely it is sufficient to have between 6,000 and 7,000 altogether. In fact, Sir Gordon, Vote A provides for 13,640. I suggest that that figure could be halved.
    Secondly, and next in order of priority, I turn to the number of civilians—not merely civil servants but civilians of all grades—on the Admiralty payroll. I understand that the number—and this, of course, has to be covered by the Vote on account—is about 183,000. I submit that a fleet of the scale we now operate could be maintained by one-third of that number. And what a wonderful thing it would be if 120,000 men, many of them highly skilled, could be gradually and carefully released for productive work.
    If these two economies were made to begin with, the remainder that I am about to mention would, I think, follow automatically. My hon Friends, the Ministers at the Admiralty, could go for a holiday on the Riviera and, on coming back, would find that the economies had all come about. The other economies, again, have been put forward on many occasions, and the first concerns the naval shore establishments.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) in his dislike of depôts. Since the invention of the railway train, the telegraph system, and of universal education—so that the sailors can read the telegrams when they receive them—it is entirely unnecessary to coup them up in depôts. If not wanted for a job, they can be sent home and telegraphed for when required. What is needed—and this, I suggest, is the bare minimum—is one properly-equipped headquarters school for each of the principal specialisations and, in so far as depôts are necessary, those schools could act as the depôts.
    The same argument can be applied to Royal Naval air stations. In my judgment, it would be sufficient if we had one for ground training and one for the flying training, and in so far as it is necessary to find accommodation for Fleet

    239
    Air Arm squadrons when they disembark, surely they could go as lodgers to the Royal Air Force stations. I know that many of my old friends in the Fleet Air Arm would be furious at the suggestion, but today the overriding need is for economy, and I think that it should be accepted.
    I turn to a much bigger field, the great civil establishments and the dockyards. I would have thought that a fleet of the size we now have could be maintained, on the whole, by two big dockyards—Devonport and Portsmouth—and I suggest that the others, both at home and abroad, could with advantage be leased to reputable shipbuilding and repair firms. That would have the advantage of saving money and of helping the British shipbuilding and repair industry whilst, at the same time, maintaining the facilities available to the Royal Navy should they be needed. I cannot understand why that is not done.
    Finally, as I said last year and say again, a very careful review should be made of some of the research and development establishments. I have no doubt that the Committee will have read what the Estimate Committee has said on this subject. Not only is there still a substantial overlapping between some of the Admiralty establishments and those maintained by the Ministry of Supply, but, through what I think is an attempt to run too many establishments, I do not believe that the work is always of the high quality one would like. I think that I am right in saying that attention was drawn to this in the Report of the Estimates Committee. In certain important respects of ship construction it turned out that we were behind the Americans, which is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
    All these measures are, of course, of the most painful nature, but they would leave the sea-going, fighting strength of the Navy unchanged, and that, after all, is what really matters. Nevertheless, they will be bitterly opposed, as also will be measures of economy in the other two Services. That brings me to my closing point, which consists of putting a question, if I may, to the Opposition about its true attitude towards defence economies.
    The party opposite has accepted resolutions and so forth calling for consider-
    240
    able savings in defence. Yet, when one goes into the matter, almost all our defence expenditure, whether on the Navy or on the other Services, is reflected ultimately in someone's salary or wage packet Consequently, great savings are bound to involve the laying off of very large numbers of people indeed; not to be numbered by thousands or tens of thousands, but by hundreds of thousands.
    It is perfectly true that in the long run they will all be absorbed into productive industry, which is what makes this form of economy so attractive, but let no one imagine that the individuals concerned will enjoy the process. In many cases. they will go to jobs less congenial and lucrative, and they will not like it one little bit. No matter how carefully this may be planned, or how generously those concerned may be compensated, there is bound to be the strongest resistance, and considerable industrial upheaval.
    If the Government undertake measures on these lines, shall we have the support of the Opposition? Shall we have the loyal co-operation of the trade unions? Or shall we be told that the whole thing is simply a Tory plot to create unemployment?
    Mr. George Thomas: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting up skittles to knock them down.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I submit that those are perfectly fair questions and, in the absence of an unequivocal answer, I feel that this Committee and the electorate will do well to take the protestations of the Opposition in favour of defence economy with a very considerable grain of salt. Nevertheless, whatever the Opposition's attitude may prove to be, I beg the Government to go forward, actuated by one consideration and one only, namely, what is most advantageous and best' in the interests of the country as a whole.
    6.28 p.m.
    Mr. K. Zilliacus: I should first like to reply to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). I cannot speak for the Front Bench on this side of the Committee, but I would draw his attention to the fact that at its Blackpool conference the Labour Party committed itself

    241
    to the policy of substantial reductions in defence expenditure and manpower in order to cope with the economic situation. It also called for measures of economic planning to absorb the manpower which would otherwise become redundant. I believe that the hon. and gallant Member will find that that is very much the position adopted on defence questions by my right hon. Friends.
    I would go a little further and say, for my own part—and I think that a good many of my hon. Friends will agree with me here—that we should fix an economic ceiling related to our standard of living and capacity to pay our way in the world; because I believe that the main defence against Communism is in the social and economic, and not in the military, field, and that therefore our first line of defence is the standard of living, full employment, and our capacity to pay for our imports by our exports. That should be the governing factor in determining our defence expenditure.
    But I should like to raise an even more fundamental matter. So far, as I see it, this debate has proceeded, except for a few incidental and tangential references to the main issue, on the basis of that famous principle proclaimed by G. K. Chesterton, who said that many debates are conducted on the basis of one party saying, "Laying aside the question of whether it is right to vivisect the children of paupers, there will be general agreement that the job would be more competently performed by qualified surgeons than by amateurs."
    In the same way, we have discussed in great detail and with much learning, in a very interesting manner, a great deal of the technical and practical aspects of the Navy. But we have not faced squarely the problem of 'where the Navy fits in in the hydrogen bomb world, in the kind of war which the Government are anticipating and which, I must say, they are doing remarkably little to prevent by the only means which could be effective, namely, by political means, by a policy for making peace. In that, they are signally lacking.
    I will discuss the rôle of the Navy in terms of the Government's own assumptions, assumptions which I reject on moral, intellectual, political, military and economic grounds, but which I will use for the purpose of our present discussion.
    242
    These assumptions are set out in the White Paper, the Statement on Defence, 1956, which said:
    "The Forces required to support our present strategy have … four roles to fulfil".
    Those forces, of course, include the Navy, and I want to look at the four rôles to see where the Navy fits in.
    First, says the White Paper, our Forces
    "must make a contribution to the Allied deterrent commensurate with our standing as a world Power".
    The allied deterrent we have been told. again and again, consists essentially of nuclear weapons. Aircraft carriers, of course, can carry bombers with nuclear weapons, and perhaps eventually fire rockets also, though I do not know; but the rôle of the Navy is surely marginal and tangential in building up that kind of deterrent. As for our standing as a world Power—I hate to say it, but we must face the bitter realities—after Suez, it is perfectly clear we are not a world Power in military terms. We could be a world Power in political terms if we had a decent policy, but that is another subject.
    If the lesson needed rubbing in, we have merely to look at the recent declaration by the United States Admiral commanding the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, who said that the British Navy can act to keep his communications clear. The American Navy is six times the size of ours, and whether it be the Middle East or the Far East, our position as a world Power is going to be a very subordinate one; we shall be the jolly-boat to the American man-of-war. Let us face it. So far as
    "our contribution to the Allied deterrent commensurate with our standing as a world Power"
    is concerned, the part of the Navy is really a very small one in terms of contemporary reality.
    The second function assigned to our Forces, including the Navy, by the White Paper is:
    "They must play their part in the cold war"
    by dealing with
    "subversion whether openly Communist or masquerading as nationalism."
    The Minister of Defence, on 13th February, amplified that a little by referring to the Bagdad Pact and S.E.A.T.O. as integral parts of the defence system

    243
    and of our defence commitments. He further clarified the position in reply to a Question by me on 27th February, when he admitted that the Government considered themselves bound to use their Forces to put down popular risings in any Middle Eastern or Far Eastern country covered by the Bagdad Pact or S.E.A.T.O., whenever the rulers of those countries alleged that a popular rising was Communist subversion.
    The rulers of those countries are, almost without exception—indeed, I think without any exception—dictators, very reactionary, socially backward dictators, who regard any kind of popular unrest as Communism. One can readily see where that leads us. I leave aside my political, moral and intellectual reservations, except to say that I do not believe that any Government would be crazy enough to act on such obligations, if it came to the point, and if they did they would be quickly brought up short by organised labour.
    Again, what is the rôle of the Navy? What part has the Navy to play in this kind of situation? A good many of these territories are landlocked, and even where they are not, what would be done? Would we send in Marines, as the Americans used to do in the "banana Republics" of South America, to put down one Government and prop up another? This is surely a job for land forces, if it is a job to be done at all, which I venture to doubt and even deny.
    The third function given in the White Paper is this. Our Forces
    "must be capable of dealing with outbreaks of limited war should they occur".
    Of course, the method of handling the cold war already referred to is almost certain to provoke little wars or get us involved in them if they are started without our help. But again, what is the function of the Navy? Are we to "go it alone"? I should have thought that Suez would have cured us of that delusion. Are we to go in as jolly-boat to the American man-of-war, or are we to realise that the only way of dealing with a little war without its promptly swelling into a big war is to act through the United Nations, to deal with it cooperatively and not on a competitive basis?
    244
    I recall the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) on 13th February, to the effect that if one once starts a little war, the two sides will compete, each supporting its own clients in that little war so as not to lose it, and finally, step by step, we shall advance from a little war to a big one. That is why this whole conception seems to me so mistaken and disastrous. But once more, what part does the Navy play in that kind of function? It must be a very small and marginal part, as it seems to me.
    Finally, in the White Paper, the fourth function for our Forces is,
    "They must also be capable of playing their part effectively in global war should it break out"
    That brings us to the question, what kind of global war are we thinking of? On 13th February, the Minister of Defence referred to that point. He asked to what extent we should look to the Navy
    "to provide an element in the deterrent …"
    and he said it all depended upon what view we took of the course of a full-scale nuclear war.
    "How soon after the outbreak of such a war do we think we might expect that shipping across the Atlantic could be resumed? After the initial nuclear attack, would the harbours of Britain and Western Europe still be useable? Have we to assume that when the first all-out atomic phase was over, there would follow a second phase—sometimes described as broken-back war—in which operations at sea would play a prominent part."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th February. 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1317–8.]
    He developed the matter at some length.
    He put it in the form of a question, as to whether or not that would be the case in modern nuclear war. But the Parliamentary Secretary had no doubts at all; he assumed that the answer was in the affirmative. He talked about merchant seamen being best able to serve their country by remaining in their ships in case war should come, the assumption being that we were really preparing for the last war. As for the Defence Minister's reference to a "broken-back war", he was not merely preparing for the last war, but he was talking in terms of the last White Paper but two, because it was the last Defence White Paper but two—that in 1954—which referred to the "broken-back" war. That was in the

    245
    palmy days of the atomic bomb, before the hydrogen bomb came along and rather changed the picture.
    I should like to recall what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said about the change thus introduced into warfare, including, of course, the status and prospects of the Navy in a future war. This is what he said in the defence debate of 1st March, 1955:
    "There is an immense gulf between the atomic and the hydrogen bomb. The atomic bomb, with all its terrors, did not carry us outside the scope of human control or manageable events in thought or action, in peace or war. But ֵ"—
    with the—
    "hydrogen bomb, the entire foundation of human affairs was revolutionalised, and mankind placed in a situation both measureless and laden with doom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 1894–5.]
    For a time, this fact seemed to have penetrated the consciousness of the powers that be, for at the Geneva Conferences in July and October, 1955, it was clearly stated by the then Prime Minister and by the present Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, that another war would mean the annihilation of the human race.
    Our leading air experts at the time—I quoted all this in the defence debate a year ago, so I shall not do so again—Air Chief Marshal Sir Philip Joubert and others, N.A.T.O. officers, etc., reckoned that this country would last from thirty-six hours to three days in the case of a full-scale nuclear weapon attack by air. What has happened since then? Has the hydrogen bomb become less menacing? Have the means of delivering it deteriorated?
    On the contrary, the hydrogen bomb today is an even more terrible thing than it was three years ago. It can be manufactured much more quickly and much more cheaply, and much greater stocks of it exist. As for the means of delivering it, the Minister of Defence, on 13th February, dwelt on that in some detail. He pointed out that it was very difficult to stop aircraft flying at 50,000 ft. and at the speed of sound; and on top of that there are now in existence rockets carrying nuclear warheads that fly at 5,000 miles an hour and 100 miles high.
    The other day, I saw a newspaper report that our defence scientists had decided that this country was impossible
    246
    to defend—and the Minister of Defence said the same thing—that the offensive had this time completely overshadowed and outgrown the defensive. There is no defence against rockets; it does not exist and nobody knows what to do about it. Even in the last war, we managed to stop only one aircraft in ten. Four or five of the modern hydrogen bombs would make this country uninhabitable and would destroy it.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I regret to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope he will soon, as he promised, relate his argument to the Navy.
    Mr. Zilliacus: I was just coming to that, Sir Robert.
    The National Service White Paper indirectly referred to that by saying that it would be impossible in a future war to send National Service men abroad. The reason why it would be impossible is that our ports would be smashed up. If we could not get our men out, how could we get food supplies in, even if there were anybody left alive to eat them when they came? In other words, there is a profound contradiction between the conception of a war that would be over in two or three days because of hydrogen bombs and rockets, and the functions of the Navy in keeping open the seaways and bringing in food to an extinct population in a country which had been reduced to radioactive rubble heaps.
    We really must make up our minds which particular kind of war we envisage. It is no use having a kind of political schizophrenia and allowing the Admiralty to prepare for a conventional war while the Air Ministry prepares for a nuclear war and the Minister of Defence tries to combine them all and adds a few others, like cold wars, little wars, global wars and all the rest.
    The whole of the Government's defence policy, particularly their naval defence policy, seems to me to be not a policy, but a bad attack of what is known, I believe, as infantile regression. When an adult is unable to cope with the problems of the real world, he retires into the world of his childhood and starts playing soldiers or playing with other toys. We are now playing with the Navy in the same spirit, because we cannot face the horrible reality that man's destructive power has outrun his capacity to survive

    247
    and that we must either prevent war, which means that we organise peace, or, if a war breaks out, navies and all the rest will be smashed up and we shall all be dead in a few days.
    6.44 p.m.
    Miss Joan Vickers: I should like, first, to apologise for not having attended the whole of the debate. Unfortunately, it coincided with the meeting of another Committee of which I am a member and at which my attention was required.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) will not consider me impolite if I do not follow him into all the realms which he has just traversed. He probably has ideals which are not very practical in this present world.
    I have not had the same advantage as many other hon. Members of serving in the Navy and cannot speak with the same experience. I wish, therefore, to confine myself to domestic affairs and to deal with constituency points.
    In peace-time, there is always likely to be difficulty in recruiting. It is essential that the person who might like to join the Navy should be able to see what it offers him as a career. The father of a potential recruit has to be. convinced that the Navy offers his son a worth-while career. In the old days, especially in the West Country, people went into the Navy almost automatically—there was little other opportunity for them and education was not of the same high standard as it is now. If we are seeking to attract recruits, we must have a policy which shows clearly how progress can be made from the lower to the higher ranks. All that needs to be made far more clear than it is today.
    My second plea is for a better status for the woman who is married to a man serving in the Navy. Often when a man is married and settles down, he finds it difficult to combine the two aspects of his life. Unless it can be made really attractive to his wife, she will do all that she can to see that he does not complete his term of long service. Not only should a man's pay be adequate, but his wife should have a standard of life which is, if anything, a little better than if her husband were in industry. Men in the Services have to meet many other difficulties
    248
    and expenses which do not face men who can come home every day and partake in a normal home life.
    I know that the Admiralty is building a considerable number of houses for naval personnel, but I suggest that that question is being tackled in the wrong way. A great deal of the money which has been used by the Admiralty for housing could be much better employed by making a grant to local authorities for the purpose. A local authority has much more experience in housing and certainly can build houses more cheaply.
    It would be much fairer if housing were handled by the local authorities. A naval family, for example, might be living in a house—perhaps slightly better than one provided by the local authority—for which a rent of 17s. 6d. a week was being paid, whereas a neighbour working perhaps in the dockyard might, because of a differential rent scheme, be paying 25s. or 30s. a week for equivalent accommodation. The rent that naval families are paying contains a hidden subsidy and I suggest that it would be far better and more efficient if housing were dealt with by the local authority.
    There has been considerable discussion recently in the Press concerning the women's Services. There have been suggestions that they are extravagant and not worth keeping for the future. I wish to pay a tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the women's Services in the past and to suggest that there might be a way of economising and yet keeping these women, especially those in the W.R.N.S., who, I consider, are invaluable. Why should we not have immobile W.R.N.S., as we had before the war? They could live at home, travel to their offices and do their job equally well as at present, without any need for maintaining the existing large messes and establishments. In addition, there would in many places be a tremendous saving in transport. I suggest that the women's Services are well worth keeping but in a rather different form.
    We were delighted when, soon after his appointment, my noble Friend the First Lord came to the West Country, and we were delighted to hear that he regarded it as a good training centre. I realise, as has been suggested, that too much concentration can be dangerous, but both

    249
    the naval barracks and the dockyards were able to carry on during the last war in the West Country, despite heavy enemy attack.
    I suggest that it might be better to concentrate certain types of training in certain areas. There are quite a number of inland training establishments. H.M.S. "Royal Arthur", at Corsham, is, I understand, a petty officers' leadership training centre. I consider that that training would be far better done in places like the Royal Naval Barracks at Devonport, whereas training centres like H.M.S. "Raleigh", at Torpoint, would be better kept as they are. Let us concentrate the training of the engineering and petty officers in the way that I have suggested. We already have a very large petty officers' block in that area.
    I should like 4o suggest that, not only in the West Country but in other areas, more consideration should be given to moving inshore establishments nearer the sea so that people can get both types of training without the tremendous amount of travelling that has to be done at the moment. I put in a special plea for the retention of the establishment of H.M.S. "Raleigh".
    I should also like to consider other domestic sides of the Service. I think that in regard to the chaplain service there is a great deal of overlapping. I suggest that there should be one chaplain-general for all three Services. There are three different ones now, and three different officers.
    I do not mean to be rude to the chaplain service in saying that I could think of a lot more small jobs that could be concentrated under one head. I understand that India has a major-general who deals with the work and organisation for all three services. I think that in this regard we could take an idea from what has been established in the new service in India, and see whether we could not introduce it into our own Services in this country.
    The same applies to medical stores. If one is going to have a blood transfusion, whether in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, one is certainly to have the same blood. Why have three sets of medical stores in order to produce the commodities needed?
    250
    In regard to transport, if only the R.A.F. transport service could be used more for the transporting of families, it would be a welcome facility, especially when they go overseas.
    I was very glad when an hon. Member opposite, who has now left the Chamber, made a remark about dockyards. Even though it was a rather derogatory one, it was better than the opening remarks of my hon. Friend who, I regret to say, did not refer to the dockyards at all. They are a very important part of the Navy. The Navy at the moment—I am saying only at the moment—could not go to sea unless we had the dockyards. I have quite an open mind about whether the present dockyards on their existing basis are being run in the most economical way.
    I feel that we must get a long-term policy in regard to the dockyards. I agree that it is impossible to retain all the yards. I think that it will be necessary, in the not-too-distant future, to turn parts of these yards over to private enterprise. What is so frustrating at the moment is that we get all this talk of full employment and of there being enough work in the dockyards for ten years or more, but we really do not know whether or not there is any policy in regard to these yards.
    I do not want to see these yards used as they were in previous times, for repair work. I think that is soul-destroying work. All the work done in the dockyards should be productive work. If we are not going to use them for repairing ships in the future, let us have a decision and let us get private enterprise, before it builds too many factories in other parts, to take over part of the dockyards so that it can get down to some practical work there.
    Not very long ago, tankers were very well and efficiently made at the Devonport Dockyard. We have the type of person who can do that work, and we could perfectly well turn part of the yard over to that work in the future. When I go round those yards, I am reminded of what used to be known in W.V.S. days as "Make do and mend". I have seen men spending endless hours on repairing parts of a ship which it would be far better to scrap and have replaced by new ones, because that would save time and

    251
    be much more efficient. I saw one piece of electrical apparatus and I was rather surprised at its rather dilapidated state. It was very much corroded and I asked about it. I was told that it had been in a certain ship for thirteen years, and was to be stripped down and rebuilt. I suggest that the time wasted on that sort of thing makes for complete inefficiency.
    All the dockyards are particularly lucky in the excellent Admiralty superintendents which they have. I should not like anything that I say now to be thought of as being in any way derogatory in regard to the excellent service which they give. But I do not think that it is very good for the business functions of the dockyards to have Admiralty superintendents who are appointed for probably only two or three years. With a concentration of between 15,000 and 20,000 people in these yards, the Admiralty superintendent has no time really to get around in the time allowed, and he cannot have that connection with his workpeople, which I think is very essential. Therefore, I would advocate that the superintendent should have under him some civilian who would have continuous service for at least five or ten years, so that there would be some continuity in the work. I think that lack of continuity is what makes for inefficiency and time wasting in a great many of these yards.
    I was told last year, when I raised this point in the debate, that new workshops were not appreciated by the workpeople. I made inquiries about that, and I should like to say definitely that I think that that was rather a misstatement. They do appreciate new workshops and I hope that any money that is to be spent—and I understand that quite a lot of money is to be spent—will be on new workshops and not in building what to my mind are useless things, such as enormous dock walls.
    One objection to these walls to which I particularly want to draw to the attention of the Civil Lord, who, I understand, is to reply to the debate, is that if they are built, especially around the new workshops, which are very often far dispersed from the existing ones, and the time comes for a change of policy and we do not need so much work to be done in the dockyards, we shall then be told that the workshops are inside the walls and there-
    252
    fore cannot be let out to private enterprise.
    I would make a very strong plea for a definite policy in the very near future about exactly how many of these yards are to be extended and which ones are to be kept. Just as uncertainty affects the morale of the Navy, it is very disturbing for the civilian workers in the yards not to know what their future is to be. I remember that when I worked in a factory some people did their work a little more slowly towards the end of the war. They thought that they were going to work themselves out of a job. There are towns in this country whose entire population depends on the local dockyard, and it is particularly frustrating if they do not know what the policy about the dockyard is. I should be very grateful if the Civil Lord would say that he is taking these particular towns into consideration.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers) has drawn our attention to matters of the first importance. I trust that she will forgive me if I do not pursue them, except for one of her observations. She said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) that he apparently held ideals which were not practical. There seems to be an idea that idealists are not practical people. I invite hon. Members to look at the place to which the realists have brought us because, in the words of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), we are at the very brim of hell. One would not believe that that consciousness had penetrated into lesser minds on the other side of the Committee, judging by the course which this debate has taken.
    The Minister of Defence, speaking in the House on 13th February, reminded us that our danger in a future war would come from inter-continental ballistic missiles. When I was in San Diego, where they make these rockets, a few months ago, I learned that ballistic missiles can now be sent three-quarters of the way round the world. It is safe for us to assume that Russia is as advanced as the United States in this respect. I would, therefore, draw particular attention to the words of the Minister of Defence, who has said:
    "When the Russians are in a position to bombard this country accurately and on a

    253
    massive scale with nuclear rockets, we shall have to consider whether it is worth while retaining fighter aircraft at all."
    Then he argued that our defence will lie in having the same weapons.
    I submit that the Minister of Defence has already given a lead to the Committee and to the Navy, which seems to get its money very easily. Navy Estimates go through with a few compliments from both sides of the Committee, but the Navy ought to be made to justify every item on which it wants to spend our money, in view of the words of the Minister of Defence. He has said,
    "We must, as far as possible, resist the temptation to dissipate our limited resources on forces which in themselves have no deterrent value; for to that extent we should be reducing the contribution we can make to the prevention of war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1335.]
    I submit that the deterrent value of the Royal Navy is one thing but that when war has broken out we shall be fooling ourselves if we pretend that there is any defence at all.
    I do not expect hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the Committee to accept the pacifist view, but I have the right to advance it. I am appalled at the easy manner in which we can talk about the rôle of the Navy in the next war. Why not be honest with the British people? We have already had to be honest with the Far East and declare a danger zone, not for weeks but for months, in an area of 7,000 square miles for the testing of one of these bombs. What nonsense this makes of talk about "Pompey," Devon-port or Chatham in the event of a hydrogen bomb war. There would be nothing left alive in these islands. We had better be honest with our people and say that our only hope lies in a deterrent, in avoiding the war, and that if it comes we cannot pretend that the Royal Navy with all its glorious past can protect the people of these islands.
    Commander R. Scott-Miller: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Royal Navy should be disbanded tomorrow morning?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member must wait a little. He has too great an idea of the competence of the Government if he thinks that they can do it in that way.
    254
    The San Francisco Chronicle reported last July the result of the testing of our nuclear weapons in Australia. This report did not reach the British Press. It indicated that a little mining township of Kudiralla, 1,800 miles from the scene of the test had a heavy fall of radio-active dust upon it. That is a lesson for those who are looking for a rôle for the Navy in the next war. The hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) is an ex-Navy type—and I do not say that in an unkindly way. The hon. and gallant Member, who seemed so impatient, appeared to feel that the Royal Navy has a special insurance against nuclear weapons and hydrogen bombs in the next war.
    Why are we so unwilling to face the reality that all our thinking about defence has to be changed? The idealist is the realist now. The only hope of survival for the British people is to have no war at all, for we are the only major Power in the world that can be put out completely with one of these weapons. Let one hydrogen bomb be dropped in the Midlands, and the people in the hon. Lady's beloved Devonport, and in "Pompey" and Chatham, if any were left at all, would be among ruins.
    I believe that we could give a lesson to the world in the course of discussing these Estimates. Little Britain has a mighty part to play in the world. She ought to give a lead on moral issues of this sort. We should realise that the maximum that we can do is to keep conventional weapons for those little wars of adventure which people apparently think can be indulged in with security. I submit to the Minister that, on whatever ground he seeks to justify the Estimates tonight, he should not pretend that the Royal Navy can defend us in the face of a hydrogen bomb war.
    I leave that subject, to consider the conditions of service in the Royal Navy, for I am second to none in my respect and regard for those who make it their profession to serve the nation in that way. It would not be my choice, but it is theirs. I believe that the Royal Navy finds itself in the unhappy position of making people serve in its ranks whether they want to do so or not, and with the absolute power of the State taking away the very liberty of the individual. It says to certain young people "You must wear

    255
    a uniform and go where the Navy wants you to go" I should have thought that that undermined the Navy and its traditions. I should have thought that conscription would be offensive to the Royal Navy and those who are responsible for it. Now, with the economies which I trust the Government are taking seriously, there is an opportunity to tell us that the Navy can lead in giving up even selective National Service.
    It is clear—the writing is on the wall—that National Service is on its way out. I am very happy at the thought that we have converted some of my hon. Friends as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has not been a mean achievement to convert them. Why does not the Civil Lord tonight give a lead as to when he expects selective National Service to come to an end in the reduced, streamlined Royal Navy which I believe he and his right hon. Friends anticipate?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised a most important point when he referred to those who are selected to do their National Service in the Royal Navy. Now that they are selected for their talents, ability and capacity, surely it is unjust that they should not be paid the same as others who are doing the same job in the Royal Navy. That is the very least that we can ask from the Government until conscription is brought to an end.
    While I realise that it is not an easy thing to be responsible for the defence of this country in a world changing as quickly as it is at present, I believe that the right outlook is the Christian one. I believe that the time has come when we can give a lead to the world on this question by realising that our best defence is not in the size of our Armed Forces but in our faith and the quality of our people. Such is my faith.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. John Baldock: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) put forward two points of view which I found impossible to reconcile. He began by saying that the only weapon which was of any use today was the deterrent and that we had better concentrate on the deterrent in order to avoid war. Later he said that the only thing we ought to do was to go in for conventional armaments. Either those points
    256
    were in conflict or the hon. Member is in agreement with us that we should have a bit of each.
    Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is doing me more than justice. He is giving me credit for things to which I am not entitled. I was reading the views of the Minister upon the deterrent, and I was arguing from that that if it were true, which I did not accept—perhaps I ought to have made it clearer than I did—that the Navy could be a deterrent, even then the Department ought to be made to justify every penny that it spends.
    Mr. Baldock: I thank the hon. Member for explaining more clearly what he meant. I am in agreement with him that the Department should justify every penny it spends. That applies to every Department. However, as I hope to show, I see greater opportunities for saving money in the Navy than in any other Department.
    I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West at least supporting the idea of having some conventional arms. If I correctly understood the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus)—I found it difficult to follow his philosophical. moral and dialectical arguments—he will go into the Lobby at the end of the debate and vote against any money being provided for the Navy. I shall be interested to know whether he will do that. The only conclusion that I could draw from his speech was that he did not want to spend any money at all on the Service.
    Mr. Zilliacus: What I was trying to make clear was that, whereas the Navy has certain very limited peace-time functions, such as coastguard duties, patrols, dealing with smugglers and pirates, and transport duties, anything above that must be justified in terms of the Government's own assumptions about the nature of nuclear war and the nature of the deterrent, and I believe the result would be very little, if any, addition to a purely peace-time force.
    Mr. Baldock: I feel that such picturesque functions as chasing smugglers and pirates would require very little expenditure at all. I still think that my first assumption, that the hon. Member would like to vote against the Navy Estimates, was the right one, but whether or not he will have the courage to do so will remain to be seen.

    257
    It seems a short time since the British public, which has certainly got used to assimilating some very unpalatable and bitter facts in the last decade or so, became perturbed at the realisation that the Royal Navy was neither the greatest nor even the second greatest navy in the world. The Royal Navy occupies a special place in the regard of this country. Not only has it protected us from invasion for centuries. It has allowed traders to move all over the world under its protection and to build up the sterling area, which is still the most important trading area in the world and possesses the currency most used for trading.
    The Royal Navy has for centuries been the outward and visible sign of the power of this country arid, for many years, of the Pax Britannica which we were able to bring to the world. It is not only for those reasons that it has been held in great esteem. It has also been a superbly efficient war machine. perhaps the most efficient that any country has ever been able to build.
    The idea that there might not be a rôle for this Service, which the country regards so highly, caused tremendous consternation. It tended to affect the morale of the Service and the recruiting for the Service. Last year's White Paper on Defence helped a great deal to demonstrate that the Royal Navy still has a rôle to play. I do not feel that there is any longer any doubt in the minds of the great majority of hon. Members or of the general public that the Navy has a rôle. That is most important.
    However, there may be different views about what its rôle is. Four have been mentioned. First, and possibly by far the most important, there is the offensive rôle of the Navy in nuclear war. That has perhaps not yet been developed to a very high stage, but the duty of being a carrier and a user of the deterrent for the prevention of another war must take first place among the duties of the Navy in the nuclear age. As a second rôle, there is that of taking part in operations in minor wars with our allies. There is also police action, perhaps being limited to a single ship—a cruiser—or a small squadron. Fourthly, there is participation in "broken-back" warfare, in the phase after an attack by conventional or nuclear weapons.
    258
    I believe that we should try to arrange that the Navy concentrates upon the first three of those rôles. I very much doubt whether, if we endeavoured to equip the Navy to take part in all four rôles, including "broken-back" warfare and the prolonged stage of a world war, we should be able to mass sufficient resources to carry out the first three functions effectively—that is to say, to have ships for minor wars, for police action, and to carry the deterrent. Those duties, plus the necessity to take part in a prolonged major war, are more than the Navy can be expected to carry out, given the resources which the country can now provide.
    I feel strongly that it is the fourth duty—that of taking part in a prolonged war—which we should abandon in order to provide more resources and money to carry out the first three functions with the utmost efficiency. I very much question whether it would be of any use having large quantities of ships in reserve, to bring out after attacks by atomic or nuclear weapons. What use would they be? How many people would be left? How many harbours could be used in those circumstances? I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) who said that it would probably be a better expenditure of money to store food against such a contingency, because I do not think that the position is quite as grave as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said.
    I believe that people would be left alive after such an attack and that provision should be made for the underground storage of preserved food, such as dehydrated vegetables and tinned food, which could be used in those circumstances. That would be a better way of spending money than to maintain these ships in reserve or to maintain large establishments and installations with a view to working up a large fleet to fight in a prolonged major war. I do not think we can seriously contemplate such action by the Navy.
    The Committee should endeavour to impress upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we must make every possible economy in order to provide an absolutely first-class fleet for carrying out the three functions or duties which it must prform. The economies which could be made in this direction, and which would do nothing to diminish

    259
    the value of the Navy as a deterrent in a nuclear war and as a force able to provide ships for minor wars and police actions, have been repeated often in these debates. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) put forward the arguments in a masterly way this afternoon. I do not want to delay the Committee by repeating those arguments, but I should like to summarise them.
    I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be in agreement with me upon my next suggestion, but I believe that the Navy should discard everything which cannot be mobilised in a matter of hours. A considerable number of Reserve Fleet ships should either be sold to our friends, allies and members of the Commonwealth or sold for scrap. We certainly need the scrap steel as well as any revenue which those ships might bring in as ships. There is also an excellent case for reducing the top-heavy hierarchy in the Department which, to a great degree, is still suited for the age of battle fleets. We shall never see fleets of any size again.
    It seems impossible to support any argument which can explain how these large numbers of senior executive officers can continue to be necessary in a fleet of the very small size which, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, is no more than one rear-admiral's command, even if all the ships put to sea together.
    I agree with what has been said by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), about the dockyards. There are many reasons why a policy for the dockyards should be devised and expressed as soon as possible. I cannot see how we can justify maintaining all these dockyards, not only here but abroad—in Gibraltar, Malta and Singapore—to service our very much reduced fleet. We understand that considerable further sums of money are to be spent upon the modernisation of these dockyards. No doubt they need modernising, but I would ask my hon. Friend whether the money could not be concentrated upon the modernisation of one dockyard—that which is likely to be the most efficient—so that it will be quite able to maintain the very much reduced Navy of the future and so that the others can be used for commercial purposes.
    260
    In present circumstances it is not fair to have a situation in which whole towns depend almost entirely upon a single employer or enterprise. If conditions change, or if policy is altered, the people of such a town will be thrown out of work. Let us start gradually turning these people over to other occupations and using their skills in ship-building and for the other requirements which we have as a great trading and exporting nation. Let us start the change-over quickly, so that nothing disastrous has to be done in future, as a result of which, perhaps, thousands of people may find themselves out of work. I agree with those who have suggested that we should also start integrating the Royal Navy with the Royal Air Force. Many economies could be made in that direction.
    If we are prepared to start taking these steps, we need not fear that anything will be done to impair the fighting resources of the Fleet; in fact, more money could be spent on producing a powerful, modern and fully equipped fleet, with ample opportunities for sea-time and with considerably reduced personnel. We would still be able to send a cruiser or a squadron to carry out a police action; we should be able to make our contribution in any small war in which we might have to engage together with our allies, and we should be working towards the use of the deterrent in the Royal Navy, which I believe will be its most important function in the future.
    Whether they are launched from aircraft carriers or fired as guided missiles from submarines they must add to the deterrent and may cause any aggressor against the West or against civilisation increasingly to pause. He will surely pause if he knows that even if he destroys this island, or all the aerodromes in Western Europe, there are still submarines and other vessels at sea which can deliver the deterrent back into his own country. If that will cause any potential aggressor to think twice about starting a war it must be the most important and valuable rôle that the Royal Navy can have ahead of it.
    We need not be too cast down because the Navy has been much reduced in size. It was not always superior in numbers to the enemies it defeated in the past. So long as the quality is not reduced, I believe

    261
    that it will continue to be one of the most important elements in our civilisation.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: The speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) outlined the whole tenor of this debate: the great uncertainty which prevails, both in this House and outside, regarding the rôle of the Royal Navy in the future, and, indeed, about the kind of warfare of the future. The hon. Gentleman is an expert; I think he is an ex-naval officer. I have had no connection with the Navy and must speak as a layman.
    In this House and in the country we must think very hard about the problems of defence, in particular about the Navy, because we have to take far-reaching decisions with comparatively little knowledge. Some of my hon. Friends have expounded the idea that future warfare will be so annihilating that we need not trouble to do anything. Others feel that we in this House have a responsibility to the nation for the defence of our country which must be discharged. We are now considering particularly the money to be provided for the Royal Navy in the coming financial year. We are the more mystified because this is merely a token Estimate and we do not know what the Government have in mind.
    I am one who feels that we must do something to prepare in the best way we can for the defence of our country. Mention has been made of our Royal Dockyards. The hon. Member seemed to be speaking with different voices. At one period in this debate he said that all the dockyard facilities should be concentrated at one dockyard. Later he seemed to suggest that to do so would be difficult, because that would offer one great target and, therefore, the facilities should be dispersed. I appreciate that one can argue both ways.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I said nothing about the tactics of dispersal.
    Mr. Hayman: I was referring to the hon. Member for Harborough.
    Mr. Baldock: I did not say anything about it either.
    Mr. Hayman: If he refers to his speech in HANSARD tomorrow, I think the hon. Member will find that he made both points.
    Be that as it may, people in the West Country will be disturbed about the tenor of some of the speeches in this debate, because the great naval dockyard at Plymouth is a vital concern to the West Country and to Plymouth in particular. I believe there are about 18,000 men employed in that dockyard. What is to be their future? Several hon. Members suggested that we should break away from the Royal Dockyards and that a lot of the work should be transferred to private yards. But it has been stated authoritatively that the cost of comparable work in private yards exceeds the cost of the work done in the naval dockyards.
    We also must consider the great naval airfields. Little has been said of their rôle in the scheme of defence, but many millions of pounds must have been spent in post-war years on the provision and development of naval airfields. As one who has had something to do with educational administration, I feel that one of the features which will have to be considered is technological development and training for all branches of the Service. There was some force in the remark of the Parliamentary Secretary that the present age of technological development might require the services of more officers and people of equivalent rank than ever before in the history of the Navy.
    Provision is made in the Estimates for married quarters. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is not present so that I might remind him that he and I had some discussion twelve months or so ago about a great expenditure proposed by the Royal Air Force for an aerodrome in Cornwall. That expenditure would have been about £500,000, and the Air Force authorities said that it was essential for the aerodrome to be in such-and-such a place, despite the protests of the planning authorities. A few months later the hon. Gentleman said that the Air Force authorities had been stricken by a fit of economy and the whole proposal was to be abandoned. We must get some solidity about the spending of our money. Every now and again the party opposite seems to be panic-stricken and indulges

    263
    in petty economies. In my view, true economy is the spending of money wisely, according to a plan and for a specific objective; not just jumping about making economies here and there at the dictates of certain newspapers.
    It has been brought to my notice that on some naval airfields, if not all of them, trained constables are being replaced by Service personnel. I am informed that this new régime will not prove as effective as the old one when there were people employed who were properly trained for the job. In recent years we have had many debates about security, and authority has been given to Ministers to override many of the fundamental liberties of our people. If it is necessary to protect these aerodromes, surely we are not proposing to boggle about the comparatively small sum of money necessary to provide such security? That such security is needed was evidenced last week when some undergraduates from Manchester were able to invade premises at Calder Hall and get away with it quite easily. It seems to me that where we have millions, possibly tens of millions, of pounds worth of property, some of it of a secret nature, the Government should not give way to a demand for petty economies of this kind, if the result is inefficient control.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Although there is a large naval air station in my constituency, I do not wish to discuss the question of airfields at the moment. I make no apology for what my hon. Friend might call special pleading. I do not purport to be one who can speak with authority on the various rôles of the Navy, but I think the fact that we have to make economies is evident. The main objective of this debate—perhaps that is why the same things have been said a good many times—must be to put the case of the Navy so that it can be considered by those who have to make decisions about the Armed Forces of the future.
    I disagree with those who say it is a pity that we have had a debate such as this without more evidence or fuller information. Let us go through the various phases about which we have spoken. There is the nuclear phase. The obvious
    264
    point here, and one which I feel must be stressed, is that the Navy is mobile; especially in view of the fact that modern aircraft of the R.A.F. necessitate larger and larger airfields and also more and more complicated control staffs. Is it a fact that the modern type of aircraft employed by the Royal Air Force has an operational height which cannot be less than 30,000 feet because of its aerodynamic qualities? I may be wrong, but if that is so, how can the R.A.F. expect to have the accurate bombing that is so important?
    I turn to the importance of our naval commitments to N.A.T.O. We would be quite incapable of bearing our share alone in the event of the ghastly nuclear attack occurring, and that is why it is important to fulfil our own commitments in N.A.T.O. How many heavy carriers at this moment can be operational? Is the figure one, or two? Is it—and I doubt this—three? How far in the N.A.T.O. set-up can we depend upon the general use of the American super-carrier? Are we satisfied that there are enough of these in the event of this terrible threat being realised?
    The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) in opening the debate for the Opposition, asked about the Blackburn N.A.39. We have heard encouraging things said about this aircraft. Can we be told more? Another point to be considered is the form which the A.S. protection of fleet groups, or battle forces—whatever we like to call them—will take in the future. I would like to know in view of the attacking distance of homing torpedoes, and the speed of the task force, will it rely on its own speed to get away? Will it rely upon escort vessels for the necessary protection or upon a largely increased use of aircraft for anti-submarine protection?
    Then about submarines. Is it true that a submarine has carried out experiments from 100 ft. below the surface of the water in launching a guided missile? If so one would like to know about it if possible. My last question is about the R.N.V.R. squadrons. Everybody will join in a tribute to these men for what they have done, but the Minister talked about the other rôles that they might be able to take on. Had he in mind anything that would keep their hand in flying so that if there was an emergency

    265
    and chaotic conditions they could be brought back into some sort of service? Perhaps that point might be considered.
    How can we possibly know what will happen if the next war breaks out. Before the last war there were diagrams of bombs falling on Trafalgar Square and of total devastation all round, for one mile, partial destruction for two miles and so on. It just did not happen. Whatever people may say about this ghastly threat—
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: It did happen, of course, in Japan.
    Mr. Howard: Maybe, but I am saying that, until we know, we cannot make an accurate forecast of what will happen, but we must make as accurate a forecast as we can on the basis that there will be people who will have to be fed if this ghastly thing happens. Many of the small harbours round the coast might become vital for this purpose overnight. One might have to supply people on the beaches from landing craft.
    This brings me to the point touched upon by the hon. Member who referred to speed of tankers. Those who spent much of the last war on convoy escort-duty in the Atlantic will know how this question of ship's speed has come in over and over again. Whether we employ a convoy system or something else, the one thing that must be apparent is that, as merchant ships will be vital to supplies, their turn-round must be as short as possible. That means that they must have the greatest possible speed.
    Why should the Russians have built a vast conventional fleet of submarines? How many are operational and how many depot ships have they so that their submarines can be kept very nearly indefinitely at their various operational stations? Am I right in thinking that the Russians could produce four times as many submarines that could be operational as the Germans had at the very height of the last war? If that is so, why are they there? That must give us furiously to think. We may build storage here for things like oil and grain but we must get our food from outside. How are we to cope with this position?
    Now we come to what is known in the service as "fire-brigade action." The necessity of mobility must be apparent to everybody, because with it we may stop the flames from spreading. Then there is
    266
    the height limitation of the R.A.F. Carrier-borne aircraft can work from much lower operational heights.
    The Minister, in his opening speech, made a very important point about the loss of our bases throughout the world, and, therefore, how much more important the carrier force must be. We must also remember the rôle of the Navy in showing the flag abroad. That is very good, but I hope that in all these matters Their Lordships will remember the vital importance of better accommodation in carriers. Anyone who has been in the Service knows that ships start off with a wonderful plan of where everything is to be put, but by the time everybody has had his turn the sailor finds himself right up in one corner and there is very little room left. I hope that this point is being borne in mind.
    The D.N.R.'s current recruiting slogan is "a ton of fuel expended is a recruit gained." If that ton of fuel can be used for taking the young recruit to different parts of the world, it will be well spent. It has always been said that the Navy is a jolly good ambassador for the country, and that there could not be a better way of living up to this than getting young sailors abroad.
    In this connection I welcome, as I am sure we all do, what has been said about a Commonwealth Naval Conference. That is one of the best ways in which our Commonwealth can get together. When the papers were telling us about Commonwealth discord over the Suez operation, I know that friends of mine in the Service who met their opposite numbers from Commonwealth navies over a glass of gin found the situation was very different. They were able to discuss the whole thing among themselves as Servicemen.
    It seems to me that the following points might emerge for serious consideration. In the first and ghastly phase of nuclear war we cannot do a great deal. Therefore, it is essential for us to keep in N.A.T.O. what is already there from a naval point of view because we must rely on others and, without doing our share, I do not see how we can possibly rely on them. It seems that the rôle of the Navy is ideally in the "fire brigade" sphere, but one thing is vital, and that is sea time, because however many gadgets there are in a ship, someone has to take her to sea

    267
    and bring her back again. That has to be done by seamen, whose work does not change very much. Rocks and tides and fogs are the same. There may be more crashes because everyone relies so much on radar. I know that with all these wonderful devices it is said that a man is locked up in a box surrounded by instruments which will produce the answers, but that does not replace essential training provided by going to sea.
    That is why I hope that when these cuts come, as come they obviously must in view of our limited finances, they may be made from the 183,000 civilians. The figures were given on 27th February of 46,000 officers and men in sea-going ships, 5,000 in the Reserve Fleet and 70,000 ashore, but we must remember that some are officers of N.A.T.O. To look after them or part of that Service there are 183,000 civilians. Are we really satisfied that there is no duplication of, say, some of the basic research in radar and some of the things which may be common to the other Services? Medical services have been mentioned, but, as we all do year after year, I wish to come back to one of my pet subjects.
    Accommodation for married men with families could be handled jointly by the Services. A naval rating, an airman, or a soldier with a wife has quarters which are very much the same whether he is at home or abroad. Why should there be three separate organisations to deal with them? Why not have one organisation and thereby cut down the three Services' staffs? We want to see that when cuts are proposed they are really made. Last year we were told that a certain establishment would be closed down, but those who live in that area know that the same establishment was opened up again with great pomp and ceremony four miles away.
    None of us knows what the future is to hold, but those of us who speak for the Navy can surely put this to the Minister of Defence. Whatever the rôle of the Navy may be, it is vital and, therefore, if there are to be cuts, please let those cuts be from somewhere ashore and not from the sea-going side of the Navy, which at the moment is just about at danger level.
    7.55 p.m.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: The most outstanding point of this debate to which I have had the fortune to listen has been the change in the approach which many hon. and gallant Members opposite have made to the problem of defence expenditure. Hitherto anyone who dared to mention in this Chamber that perhaps our military commitments were too heavy and were causing too big a strain on our economy always ran the danger of being accused of being a fellow traveller, a crypto-Communist, or having some such label attached to him. It appears now that some of the wisdom which some of us have been trying to disseminate in the last five years is beginning to sink in and that many other people are beginning to realise that we cannot have military security based on economic insolvency.
    For that reason I welcome the change of tone. I recognise, perhaps in a different way from most people, that the struggle for which we are preparing is unlikely to be a struggle which will be decided upon the battlefield, but which will be largely decided in the economic and social field because it will be a struggle, not for men's bodies, but for men's minds. We cannot win that struggle by pursuing the policy which has been pursued by the three Service Ministries over the last five or six years.
    I see the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary smiling, but perhaps he would listen to one of his distinguished friends. I am about to quote what was said by the then Foreign Secretary last May. There have been so many changes in this Government that I do not know who was Foreign Secretary last June. This is a quotation from the Manchester Guardian of 22nd May, 1956—it might be of the present Prime Minister or the present Foreign Secretary but, as I say, there have been so many changes and they have been so rapid that I hope I shall be excused as I cannot remember who at that particular time occupied the post of Foreign Secretary. The report stated:
    "The conflict was a political one between two different systems and the Russian steamroller today is not likely to be a military one '. It consisted of a great number of technicians, technologists, teachers and business and other experts all intending to export Communism at the same time as they exported their goods and services. That was a conflict infinitely to

    269
    be preferred to nuclear war although it was a conflict which might have dangerous consequences for the free countries of the world."
    I think there is far more common sense in that than in most of the speeches which I have heard from various Service Ministers.
    Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: Surely the hon. Member has left out a calculation which has taken place since that time, namely, the Russian intervention in Hungary? Surely that was a military operation which cannot be denied on either side of the Committee.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am not denying it but I do not believe it makes any difference, because just as the Russians, although they went into Hungary, realised that they dare not do to Hungary what they would have liked to do, so did the British Tory Government realise that they dare not do to Egypt what they would have liked to do. Russia had the power to obliterate Hungary but she did not do it and we had the power to obliterate Egypt but we did not do it. The reason was that both did not much wish their intervention to lead to a major conflict. I think, therefore, that the battle is more likely to be decided on the economic and social field than on the military field.
    I should like further information about nuclear war and "broken-back" warfare, of which we have been hearing so much in the last three or four speeches. We have heard of what the Navy is going to do after these islands have been almost obliterated. We are told that the Navy will sail forth and retaliate. How will our Navy be able to sail unaffected in the waters around this country when the Government say that after we have dropped an experimental bomb on Christmas Island about 7,000 square miles of sea will be dangerous for ships? Will not that be true of the Channel and the Irish Sea and the North Sea?
    If this island has been bombed by hydrogen bombs, will the seas surrounding us somehow be free from the radioactivity which will be a menace around Christmas Island? We tell shipping that for a matter of three months they will not be able to sail through those waters because they will be dangerous, yet everybody assumes that if these bombs were dropped on this island and almost all our people were obliterated, the British Navy
    270
    would, nevertheless, sail forth through these home waters, apparently unaffected, in order to retaliate.
    It is obvious that if that day ever comes our defence programme will have failed in its purpose, because the defence programme is a deterrent; it is a programme not to wage war but to prevent war. I know of no scientist, military expert, or Prime Minister who believes that, in the event of a hydrogen bomb war and of this island being part of the conflict, any life will survive on it. We have a right to assume that. Compare even the limited sum for which the Parliamentary Secretary is asking this afternoon with what we are spending on Civil Defence.
    I think it is reasonably obvious to almost all intelligent people that if that catastrophe should overtake this country and the world, the things about which we have been talking this afternoon will merely he memories to one or two stragglers who may hope to survive such a conflagration.
    And now I should like to deal with a point which I think is most important and which concerns many ordinary men and women. If the demands of the Services decrease, then in the shipyards and dockyards there is bound to be considerable apprehension amongst the workers who have hitherto been able to give their skill and ability to the Services. I should like to think that the Government will be as determined to plan for peace as they are to plan for war. I should like to think that the Government will give some thought to the future of the workers of Devonport, Gosport and all the other dockyards and shipyards—some thought about what will happen to them if expenditure on the Navy is considerably reduced and employment is thereby reduced.
    We ought not to wait until thousands of men are walking the streets seeking jobs which do not exist. We ought to begin now to plan alternative employment. That is one of the tasks to which the Admiralty, the Army and the Air Force should be giving very serious thought. If, out of the many changes which are bound to come in the very rapidly changing world circumstances, we are to see mass unemployment in this country, with tens of thousands of ordinary men and women denied the right to

    271
    work and to maintain themselves in decency, comfort and dignity, then the very Forces which we have created—our huge military machine—in order to keep at bay externally the forces of Communism will be useless; for nothing will give the forces of Communism greater encouragement in our own land than for men to pass through the same frustration, misery, and anxiety which they knew in the interwar years.
    I welcome this cut in the expenditure of the Navy and, for that matter, the cut in the total arms bill, but I hope that the full brunt will not be borne by the men in the dockyards and the shipyards or, if I may refer to them for a moment, the men in the Ordnance Factories. I hope that the Service Ministers, together with other responsible Ministers, will get together to see that these men who have given good service will be provided with alternative employment in which they can use their skill and ability.
    8.7 p.m.
    Commander R. Scott-Miller: I hope the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument. I know that he has the question of unemployment very much in mind in view of the record of his constituency in years gone by. None of us wants to see that situation again, and if I thought there were to be enormous cuts overnight which would create unemployment I should be the first to deplore them.
    Nevertheless, this question of economy cannot be disregarded. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently, we must play our part in defence and maintain our defence forces, but it must all be done within our resources. It is the small amount of resources which we have available which has caused the change in the usual arrangements for debating the Service Estimates, as a result of which we are debating them before we have seen the White Paper. To my mind, it might cause a certain amount of speculation which might well spread to the Forces themselves. It would be unfortunate if the Royal Navy were to start to lose confidence in itself for the future, because that loss could well spread amongst the personnel, with very bad effects.
    272
    I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that more recruits and men of a better standard were joining the Navy. That is very encouraging, and I hope it will continue. I am sure that we all want to see the National Service intake replaced by men who wish to make the Royal Navy their career.
    The disbandment of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Air Squadrons has been a great disappointment to me. I know that the decision has been taken and that nothing more can be done about it, but I know how disappointing it must have been to the young officers and men in the air branches. I remember that in the years before the war, when I was on the active list of the R.N.V.R., we had a similar period of cutting back our defence costs. It was a bitter blow when we were asked at that time to refrain from doing our annual sea training unless it was essential that it should be done, from our own personal point of view, One can imagine what it must be to these men who have given so much in time and service, and I feel that the least the Government can do in compensation for disbanding them is to see that all the available money that is left for running the Navy is devoted to the tasks of the Navy and the operational side of the Service.
    We have heard it said by one or two speakers this afternoon that we have about 183,000 civilians in Admiralty employment at home and overseas. When one compares that figure with the numbers of officers and men serving in the Navy, it certainly seems to strike me as being an extremely large tail, almost sufficiently large, in fact, to be wagging the dog rather than the dog wagging the tail.
    I see from the records that in 1928, when we had a Navy of similar size in terms of officers and men serving, we then had 3,569 Admiralty officials. I am not suggesting for a moment that these 183,000 civilians are all Admiralty officials. I imagine that they include dockyard workers, not only in this country but abroad as well, in Malta and other places. Nevertheless, I would very much like to know what is the figure of Admiralty officials today in order to compare it with the 3,569 Admiralty officials that we had for a Navy of comparable size in 1928.

    273
    One other point which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech was the fact that the merchant navy element of the R.N.R. —I may be wrong in what I am saying here, but this is what I took it to mean—were to be instructed to remain in their merchant ships in case of another war. I should not like to feel that these men are forced to stay in their merchant ships if they should wish to serve in warships. I think that many of them would feel that they would like the chance of joining a striking force of the Navy and doing something perhaps a bit more active than remaining in merchant ships. I do not mean that remaining in merchant ships today means that they would be particularly inactive; indeed, many of them, at any rate in the last war, formed the main target of the enemy attack. Nevertheless, I feel that they should be given the option to serve in warships, if they should wish to do so.
    May I now say a word about this question of nuclear power for marine propulsion? We have heard that this development is being pressed on, and we know that it is certainly being pressed on by other countries abroad, but I want to feel that the Admiralty have the opportunity to develop marine propulsion by nuclear power at as fast a speed as they themselves wish to set. I would not like to feel that there was a competition between the development of nuclear power for marine propulsion and its development for other purposes. I hope, therefore, that that development will proceed, because nothing could be more beneficial to this country than to equip, certainly our warships, but also our merchant ships, with nuclear propulsion as quickly as possible. Nothing would help us more quickly than that in relation to competition with foreign countries.
    Finally, may I say how much I welcome the reference to the Commonwealth Naval Conference? This reminds one that we are no longer looking at any of these naval problems from the point of view of a small island. We are part of the British Commonwealth, and when one hears these sad predictions about this country being annihilated by nuclear bombs, we must remember that we are part of the British Commonwealth straddling the entire world. I myself hope that other parts of the Commonwealth will be given naval assignments which are
    274
    at present undertaken by the Royal Navy, and that we shall spread our responsibilities so that each of the Commonwealth countries can play its part in maintaining the policing duties and the defence of the free world.
    Therefore, I have the greatest confidence in the future of the Service. It will be pruned down, I hope, and the unnecessary expenditure on non-operational parts of the Royal Navy and the Admiralty will be diminished, so that we shall be able still to maintain the best Service possible with the resources that we have at our disposal.
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. George Wigg: I found myself in complete agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) when he struck a cautionary note on the effect on those serving in the Armed Forces of wild talk about economy. Economy does not necessarily mean cutting down, but it has an effect from which in the past the Services have suffered a great deal, because those serving in them have had their careers cut short. At the present time, there must be a question mark in the minds of many about their own future, and it is for that reason that I hope that we are going to receive a full and informative White Paper.
    I regret very much, and I certainly do not give the Government a good mark for it, this prolonged period of uncertainty. It is, I think, a matter of censure that, after more than five years of Conservative Administrations, which have prided themselves on their capacity to tackle the problems of the Armed Forces, we have had to wait for a hurried change of Minister in order to find out, or get some idea of, the shape and size of the Forces.
    I am not one of those who regret that this debate has taken place, or that there are to be similar debates on the other Services; but I regret very much that the Government did not pay the Committee the courtesy of suspending the rule so that any hon. Member who wanted to speak would have been sure of being able to do so. Again, I think that it is a sign of the Government's uncertainty and lack of confidence in themselves that they impose a rule that consideration of Vote A shall end at ten o'clock, whether

    275
    or not there are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who may want to speak.
    I am not one of those who believe that the Minister of Defence will come down from the mountain with a doctrine which will answer all questions. I think we shall find that a very tiny mouse is produced after the mountain has laboured. I do not believe that the Minister of Defence at present has a clue; and if he has a clue, if he can undertake the skilled surgery which will be necessary if these prunings and changes are to take place so as to give greater efficiency at less cost, then what a condemnation it is of his predecessors during the past five years.
    Let us look at what the country has had from the Navy during the past year. First, however, I should say that the country has paid to the Navy £346 million—no small sum. Let me be generous and give the Service full marks for one thing. It has done one thing that neither of the other Services has done. It has realistically tackled the problem of recruiting a Regular force, and has nearly succeeded. It is within a few thousand of its target. In the Defence White Paper a year ago we were given an estimate of 9,000 Regular recruits during the present year, and hon. Members will find, from an Answer to a Question which I put a week ago yesterday, that the revised estimate for the year is 7,800. The Navy is 1,200 short of the estimate. It is true that the National Service intake, which was estimated at 4,000, is 6,200, but it is a pretty good effort.
    How has the Navy done it? I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty—and it is about the only thing he has to boast about—will boast of this in the Cabinet. It has done it by going in for long service. It has done exactly the opposite from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), and the previous Minister of Defence did to the Army. It did not introduce a 3-year engagement but had a 7-year one.
    Here I quote the very wise words used by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward), whom I congratulate on his promotion. A long time ago I said that he would make a very good Secretary of
    276
    State for War, and I can pay him no higher compliment than that. On 8th March, 1956, he said:
    "The 7-year engagement has for some time been spoiling the market for the 12-year one. We have chosen the 9-year initial period as the shortest that will suit the policy of a long-service Navy. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2324.]
    He had the guts and the wisdom to go for the 9-year period, and it has paid off. We are within sight of having a Regular Navy. In his present capacity as Secretary of State for Air, I beg him to talk to the Secretary of State for War. As I have said, the 9-year Navy engagement has paid off—for goodness' sake, let him use his influence to get rid of the 3-year engagement in the Army. I know that I must not pursue that topic too far or I shall be out of order, but I most sincerely want to congratulate the right hon. Member and the Navy both on their wisdom and on their courage.
    Let me turn now to some other things that happened during the year. We lost a very gallant officer—Commander Crabb—in circumstances which reflect very little credit upon the Navy. I understand the security curtain that has been brought down on this episode, but I have gone into it, and I think that I know a little of what happened. It reflects very little credit upon the First Sea Lord. If his control of the Navy is illustrated by what happened over this incident, the quicker he resigns from his post, the better. I know that he tells his friends that he was abroad at the time, but officers in positions of great authority cannot escape responsibility with that sort of alibi. If it is possible for an irresponsible action of that kind to happen—and it did—then the Service chief, the First Sea Lord, must accept responsibility for it.
    Let us turn to something else that happened during the last year. I remind the Committee of an expenditure of £346 million. On 1st August last, or thereabouts, the Government were faced with a crisis—and I am not here dealing with the moral aspect—which, in that Government's wisdom, demanded mobilisation and the immediate dispatch of British forces to the Eastern Mediterranean. What had the Navy to offer to enable that amphibious operation to take place? It had two tank landing ships. That is what the country got for its £346 million.

    277
    Of course, we do not know precisely how many we required. I do not know, but again, I rely upon the wisdom and the writings of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I referred to his history, "The Second World War", to see what he had to say, and I found that in a comparable operation, that at Anzio, we needed eighty-eight such ships. I should think that not a bad guess, but if hon. Members would like to suggest fifty I would not argue. We had, in fact, two. We had, of course, some in reserve—
    Major Patrick Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we used only two L.S.T.s during that operation? I am sure he will find that the number was very much greater than that.
    Mr. Wigg: Hon. Members should read last year's Memorandum, which gives the number of ships available. When the Suez episode cropped up I went to the Vote Office to refresh my. memory, as I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will after this debate, as to what we had. I am quite sure that the Egyptian Naval Attaché also had a look. The number was two.
    Major Wall: In commission.
    Mr. Wigg: In commission, yes, and twenty-eight in reserve—and of those twenty-eight in reserve, twenty-five were leaking. The Government had to commandeer vessels—from where? From the Larne Navigation Company. The run from Ireland to England was stopped. So was the run from Tilbury to Antwerp.
    It is not the first time in our history that it has happened. I investigated, and found a previous example from before the war of almost the same kind of thing. After the Agadir incident, the Liberal Government of that day were convinced that war would come, and they ordered a test mobilisation. They cancelled manoeuvres that year and said, "Let us have a test mobilisation." It is a matter of history that six divisions in this country were to be mobilised, and they were to be put across to France, on to the French left.
    When that mobilisation took place, it was found that the Board of Admiralty, not having a naval staff, had drawn up a
    278
    plan of its own and had decided that as each Army division was mobilised it was to be picked up, shipped, and dropped seriatim on the Baltic coast. The then Prime Minister, according to the writings of the times, was aghast at that; he called a meeting of the Defence Committee, and the C.I.G.S. tackled the First Sea Lord. He asked what it was all about, and pointed out that it did not matter where our divisions were put on the Baltic coast; the Germans had constructed their railways in such a way that in forty-eight hours forty German divisions could be mobilised against them. What was the reply of the First Sea Lord?—that it was not the business of the Admiralty to possess a strategic railway map of Germany.
    In other words, the Admiralty then, as today, remained a law unto itself. It took £346 million for the past year. It knew roughly the kind of things that it wanted. After a stubborn fight, it wanted some aircraft carriers; it wanted some cruisers; it wanted to show the flag. It did not want to change overmuch. As regards tank landing ships, they were not its business.
    The danger is this. In Suez last year, although the Army, as always, "took the can back," the major responsibility for what happened rests fairly and squarely on the Board of Admiralty. I will go further and say that that was not the last time that it will happen.
    This country has been living in a world of illusion for a very long time. We have an enormous defence bill, a fantastically large and crippling defence bill, which is almost breaking our back, and we measure the defence which we are getting not by what is produced but by what is spent. There is an exact parallel, with which I have wearied the House on previous occasions, namely, the French expenditure on the Maginot Line. That, too, was an illusion, and, as we all know, there came a day when, despite the speeches, a Panzer division arrived, and that was the end of the Maginot Line.
    As a result of the action in Suez, we were brought face to face with reality. That is what war does. War and the threat of war bring a nation away from looking at the television set, away from the "phoney" headlines of the newspapers,

    279
    face to face with realities. I have not the least doubt that when the former Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, took the step which he did on 1st August, that poor man really seriously thought that this country was capable of launching the operation. I did not believe it.
    I opposed the Suez operation on moral grounds but I opposed it also because I knew it ought not to have been started. If I am proud of any words of mine—and I have uttered a good many since I have been in the House of Commons—I am proud not of what I said on 5th December, nor today, but what I said on 31st July, that the cheers on either side of the House calling for strong action in Suez made me sick, because I knew that this country, despite this fantastically large expenditure, could not carry out that operation, because the Board of Admiralty had failed in its duty.
    I will be quite frank. I do not believe that the measure of reform which the Prime Minister, in all sincerity, and with great speed, has adumbrated for future control by the Minister of Defence over the Board of Admiralty is effective. Ministers of Defence may come and they may go, but the Admiralty is an empire of its own. It must be tackled. If it is not, this will not be the end; there will be other occasions of national humiliation, as I have said.
    Other hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up too much time, but there are one or two other points which I should mention. Whether or not we should have aircraft carriers is a matter, not for debate in this Chamber, but for technical appreciation; but what is absolutely certain is that if we are to have aircraft carriers then we ought to have the aircraft to put on them. I should have thought that that was an essentially reasonable proposition. The truth is that we have not the aircraft. I will willingly give way to the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I, somewhat belatedly, congratulate on his promotion, if he wishes to correct me.
    As I understand it, there is not one single swept-wing aircraft in use in the Navy today. There is old junk tied up with bits of string and plaster—completely out of date. I know there is something wonderful coming along, and I see the Secretary of State for Air is laughing.
    280
    Last year, we engaged in a controversy about the D.H.110 and the N.113, but what is the history? Does the Secretary of State say that the D.H.110 is a good aircraft? Why did the Air Ministry turn it down? The aircraft would never have been developed except that De Havilland would have "gone broke" after the Comet and had to develop something, and it developed this aircraft. What was the argument that we were given then? We were told, "Oh, we are to have the Javelin". The Air Ministry was to take the Javelin because it was better than the D.H.110. That is what we were told.
    Mr. Soames: I believe I remember the argument. If the hon. Member refers to HANSARD at the time of last year's debate, he will see that the reason the Royal Air Force went for the Javelin as opposed to the D.H.110 was not that in the minds of the Air Council there was all that much to choose between them, but that it was felt that there was considerably greater scope for development in the delta plan form than in the D.H.110.
    Mr. Wigg: I agree that that was the argument. The hon. Gentleman, however, is not as quick on the uptake as usual. Has he stopped to think where this leads him? If it was a near thing—of course, I accept the argument that there was only a short head, a term which the hon. Gentleman will understand, between the D.H.110 and the Javelin—what has happened to the Javelin? Would the Secretary of State for Air like to tell us or shall I tell him? There are 177 of them that the Americans were going to support under M.S.A., but they withdrew their support because the aircraft was no good. Everybody knows that it is beset with all sorts of difficulties. It is not an operational all-weather aircraft at all.
    If there was only a short head between the Javelin and the D.H.110 and the Javelin is a wash-out, what do the Government say about the D.H.110? In any case, how many have we got? For security reasons, the hon. Gentleman will not say, so I will tell him. We have got two. For security reasons he will not say how many we have of the N.113. We have got two. The total number of jet aircraft that the third biggest Power in the world has got for its Navy is four. On our aircraft carriers are aircraft which are hopelessly and fantastically out of

    281
    date, and nothing is coming along. If the Government are advancing an argument for the aircraft carrier, at least they ought to be giving thought to the aircraft to put on them. They have not done so.
    I want to turn to another aspect of the Navy's activities, on which I congratulate the Admiralty. I saw a rumour—I hope it was no more than rumour—that it was intended to abandon the Royal Marines. I thought it absolutely scandalous that such a thing should ever appear in print, for if there is one branch of Her Majesty's Forces which has served its country well during the last year, it is the Royal Marines.
    It seems to me that the Marine Commando as part of a task force, as part of a carrier force which has reasonable aircraft, is something like the shape of things to come. If the Secretary of State for War could take the Royal Air Force Regiment, get them to clear their buttons and their boots and get their hair cut, and turn them into something like airmen and send them to the Marines to train, the combination of the R.A.F. Regiment in the Air Force and the Marine Commando seems to me to give a picture of a balanced force.
    I hope, therefore, that when the Board of Admiralty is looking for something to dump overboard, it will start first on the D.H.110 and come to the Royal Marines last, and not the other way round. I can only say that that is amongst the rumours which have been spread as a result of the thinking of the Minister of Defence. I should like an assurance that there is not a word of truth in it, because that force has given admirable service, and I should like to think that not only is it to remain but that it is to be extended.
    I am always sorry to butt into a naval debate because I feel it is a naval occasion and those who belong to the other Services should keep out, but I do not think that the country has any reason to be very grateful for the record of the last year. If we use the word economy in its true sense and look at the size of the bill, measured against what we have got in return, I think that the Admiralty has a very great deal to answer for.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Like the hon Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I, too, normally speak in other Services debates; so this is an opposed landing that we are trying to make on naval territory. The hon. Member certainly produced a wealth of argument and detail, which I am sure my hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, will have no difficulty in controverting.
    I wish to turn to two rather different aspects which were mentioned in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech this afternoon. First, my hon. Friend made reference to a committee which is to be set up under the guidance of the Civil Lord to consider, with shipbuilding and other interests, the furthering of the health of the merchant marine as a general proposition, in so far as it is a proper pursuit for the Board of Admiralty. I believe that that committee will be of great interest to the House of Commons and of real importance.
    The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) made reference to the possibilities, owing to cuts in naval expenditure, of a reduction in the employment of naval dockyards. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have repeatedly suggested that there is a possibility throughout the world of reducing expenditure on naval dockyards by combining the functions of the naval dockyards with military and civil functions or hiring them out to other persons or companies in industry. I believe that there are far wider possibilities.
    I believe that a committee now, appointed perhaps initially by the Admiralty, but later on a far higher level, should consider the whole question of the shipbuilding programme in this country, because whatever the duty of the Royal Navy may be, the problem we are faced with now is the shortage of shipping to bring goods to these shores. I would merely refer to the question of petrol rationing and to the fact that we have no adequacy of tankers for this country, nor have we a sufficient building programme relative to the rest of the world. We have enormous problems for the survival of this country, whether in peace, in the cold war which we are experiencing after the so-called police action at Suez, or, of course, in a more violent form of hostilities. Therefore. I believe that the

    283
    question of the Admiralty setting up such a committee to consider shipping problems in general could be of great advantage to this country.
    My second point refers to the Commonwealth Naval Conference which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said would be called for April and May. I believe that that could be a real contribution to a solution of some of the problems which face us. One of my hon. and gallant Friends has suggested that it may be possible now for other Commonwealth countries to undertake certain naval commitments which hitherto we have had to undertake. I believe that in the S.E.A.T.O. and A.N.Z.U.S. areas there can be more co-operation between the component parts of the Commonwealth.
    I also believe that at this Commonwealth conference the question of our bases throughout the world must be raised. One of the most difficult problems that we have to face is the fact, already mentioned by several hon. Members, that there is a tendency for the naval bases which we have held to be inviolate to be no longer agreeable to the inhabitants of the countries in which they are located.
    Certain hon. Members have suggested that the American idea of a "Fleet train" might be considered, but there is an immediate and pressing problem. It is the question of a base which did exist for us in Ceylon, at Trincomalee, where there were two floating docks and considerable installations. It is perfectly clear that the Ceylon Government no longer regard that as a proper place for a naval base. At the same time, we are faced by new developments, of which we are all only too conscious now, in the growing importance of not only our own interests but of the interests of the world in the Middle East oilfields and the shipment of oil from those fields.
    All hon. Members are aware that only twelve or fifteen years ago the flow from these fields was a mere 16 million or 20 million tons. The flow now is about 180 million tons. Even if Western world demands over the next eighteen years are no greater than are now estimated, and even after all the statements made in the House and elsewhere about
    284
    the possibilities of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the projected flow will be nearly 600 million tons.
    It is quite clear that after the Suez adventure, and following the relations which have been built up between the Arab countries, the flow of oil through the Suez Canal or through the various pipelines would not be adequate even if it were doubled. This means that the great bulk of that oil would have to come through the Persian Gulf and into the Indian Ocean. It is equally clear that it is unlikely that the capacity of the Suez Canal will be doubled and that relations will improve.
    Against that background, the area in the Indian Ocean in which we have friends and in which we have to support the Baghdad Pact will be without a proper naval station. Hon. Members who are great experts on the facts and figures of naval requirements and potentialities have mentioned a comparatively small number of ships as necessary to make a striking force. Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that the day when a country can support its friends with brute force is over. I believe, however, that certain actions may still be necessary. I would recall that only recently the Buraimi dispute was successfully settled, I believe in the interests of justice, as a result of the support offered by our forces to the Sheik of Abu Dhubai and the Sultan of Oman.
    I believe that in this area we have a very great part to play, and that that part, and our support, should be based somewhere in the area. At this Commonwealth Conference in April or May these sort of questions should be raised. As one looks at that part of the Indian Ocean and at the staggering amount of wealth which must flow from the Persian Gulf—for the benefit not merely of this country or of the shareholders in the oil companies but for the benefit of the whole wide world, because on this increase in petroleum and oil consumption depends the advancing standards of the life of a great proportion of the people in the world—when one looks at these things one realises that we must do something in the area.
    I personally believe that we should consider our advanced stations at Bahrain, the small station we have at Sharja in

    285
    the State of Abu Dhubai and the various islands, such as Sokotra and the Kuria Muria Islands, which could be used as air bases in the Gulf of Aden, and Aden itself. We should consider also, as a background to these advanced posts, the fact that I am told that modern nuclear theory, for what it is worth—and I must say that it seems to change frequently in the debates of our military intelligentsia—is that we should have our bases a considerable distance back from the immediate point of local or tactical deployment.
    Therefore, it seems more and more that the Government should look seriously at the project put forward by Lord Montgomery, and the Labour Government, when they were last in office, of having some form of naval station on the African coast. There is an area which I believe is politically secure. I believe that the question of a base, however exiguous at Kilindini and Mombasa should be considered most seriously. The question of moving from Ceylon that equipment which is no longer viable and which is no longer well received by the inhabitants of that island to an area which for the foreseeable future is politically sound—there is a multi-racial government which is showing considerable success—should be considered. I know that in the past it has been said that to move a base immediately makes political trouble and that to move troops or supplies, or whatever it may be, is immediately made an objective for Communist and anti-democratic attack.
    I believe against that that it is equally true to say that at this stage, and up till now, the penetration or attempted peneration of Africa south of the Sahara by Communist organisations has hardly begun. This is the time to make sure that, through our intelligence services and the presence of British or Allied forces, and through our show of strength in an area where we are already secure, that penetration is resisted. Purely from the political point of view I believe that Mombasa and Kilindini should be considered.
    Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Gentleman is now defending a return to Mombasa and the Mackinnon Road, will he ask his hon. Friends to take back all they had to say about the groundnut scheme?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think that is relevant. I would merely say that the Mackinnon Road base was placed in a hopeless, useless, malarial spot and had to be abandoned rather like the groundnuts scheme. I would have put the installations located at Mackinnon Road base in a very different place.
    My main theme is that this area offers great opportunity. Kilindini is an ideal harbour, a very large one, with eight or ten deep water berths with heavy cranes. All it lacks from the point of view of naval support is a naval workshop.
    It is not inconceivable that over the next ten or fifteen years there will be built up a large movement of tankers up and down the cost of Africa. It will follow automatically that good harbour facilities at Mombasa would be of use to whatever naval ships were in that area and to tankers moving along the coast and needing repairs en route.
    I believe it to be an undoubted fact that, after what we have seen in Egypt, and after what I think will eventually be the terrible failure of the Egyptians and the revenge that will come to them, commerce will no longer be interested in the Suez Canal. The tendency which is already appearing will be extended. Even today throughout the world no fewer than 150 tankers of 45,000 tons and over are being built, and tankers of this kind cannot pass through the Canal. More and more we shall see a gigantic flow of oil carried by tankers round the Cape.
    The Commonwealth leaders should at their April Conference consider what this means generally. I believe it means that the importance of the Cape route is again becoming more and more obvious. Once more we have to consider in concert with our Allies and Commonwealth partnerships the extension, and protection, of the Cape route all the way round into the Northern Atlantic. I believe that what we have seen at Suez is actually a mere continuation of a process which began before the 1939 war when the military critics were saying that, from the point of view of a large war, the Canal was closed. What we now foresee is the blocking of the Canal on commercial grounds, merely because of the huge volume of oil which will be carried round the Cape as a result of uncertainty about the Canal.

    287
    What we see now is a continuation of the process which the action of Nasser in closing the Canal made certain. It made certain that this expanding world, ever demanding more and more oil for its motivation, will look to other means of obtaining it away from the action of a small dictator and the squabbling of small Middle Eastern Powers. In these circumstances, we have a great opportunity. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should most seriously examine what I have put forward.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Steele: The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) certainly brought a different voice into our deliberations. Every other speaker advocated economies; his was the one isolated voice asking for more expenditure and the building of more docks in other parts of the world.
    Mr. H. Fraser: I suggested only that what exists at Ceylon should be moved.
    Mr. Steele: I can begin by congratulating the hon. Member Who has become the Financial Secretary, and I can extend my congratulations to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty—and also to my right hon. Friend. In fact, we are all four new boys in this debate. I have had some experience in the Committee of Public Accounts of trying to get information from the Admiralty, and I can say that it is the most difficult Department from which to get information, Whether we shall be more successful today remains to be seen.
    It is true that this debate is taking place without the usual White Paper and Estimates. That is all the more reason why we might have had some more information from the Parliamentary Secretary. The one thing he did say was to announce the Commonwealth Conference, which will take place in April. We welcome that. In fact, it was a suggestion from this side of the Committee, and if the Financial Secretary continues his good work and adopts all our other suggestions we will extend our congratulations even further.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) attributed words to my right hon. Friend
    288
    which he actually did not use. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in effect, that my right hon. Friend was advocating the abolition of the hydrogen bomb. We may all want to see the abolition of that bomb, but my right hon. Friend did not say so this afternoon. He said that we should stop the tests which are going on at present. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also wondered whether we could have the kind of Navy we want. He was admirably answered by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), who indicated that we could maintain our present Navy at half the money for which the Government are asking.
    Commander Maitland: I do not think I could have said that we should spend more money on our Navy. I have never thought that. I never indicated that in my speech. I entirely agree with the retrenchments which are being made.
    Mr. Steele: Yes, but in the course of his speech he said that we all had some conception of the kind of Navy we wanted, but we then immediately came up against the question of cost. It was only in reference to that point that I was speaking—when the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to say that we could not get the kind of Navy we wanted because we could not afford it.
    Commander Maitland: The hon. Member has got it wrong. He can read what I said tomorrow.
    Mr. Steele: He was admirably answered by his hon. and gallant Friend, who said that we could have the kind of Navy we want for half the money for which the Government are asking.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East also made a very interesting and thoughtful speech, but if any speech was ever directed to causing despondency and concern in the ranks of the Services that speech was. He proposed that half the officers should go; that the 183,000 civilians should be reduced to one-third of that number; that naval shore establishments should be reduced, and that all the dockyards except Devonport and, I believe, Portsmouth, should go. It is understandable that speeches of that kind, coming from a responsible person such

    289
    as the hon. and gallant Member, need some reply.
    It is because of the rumours which such speeches must create that a Government White Paper on the subject should be issued. I agree that it is essential that such a White Paper should give full details, and should be issued as quickly as possible.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that proper compensation should be paid to the displaced officers. He used a phrase which I expect will make the Treasury wince. I hope that he was intending that compensation should be paid not only to those in the Services but to people in other departments and employment who would be affected. He challenged hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee to say what we would do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) made an effective reply. I think that I can go further.
    It is clear that hon. Members whose constituents may be affected are concerned about this. In Scotland we are concerned at what is happening at Dalmuir and in various other factories. We believe that these economies should take place, but I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, East would be the last person to make an attack or to carry out any operation without making a proper plan. We believe in a planned economy, and we should make certain that any economies in this respect would be according to plan and carried out in the proper way. When we had made up our minds, we should make certain that everyone knew about it in plenty of time.
    There have been two main themes in the debate. There was the question of the general rôle of the Navy and the part it should play in peace, in a limited war and in a global war. A number of my hon. Friends dealt with the conditions of service both afloat and ashore. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made a powerful speech about a subject with which he has dealt on many occasions. He always seems to produce some new grievance or some matter which he wishes rectified; and an examination of all the speeches he has made in various debates would reveal that many of the things he has advocated have been carried out. I hope. therefore,
    290
    that special attention has been paid to what he said today.
    My hon. Friend spoke about the men who, after twelve years' service, decide to leave the Navy. They are men who have been trained and become very useful. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be satisfied with the number of men who were retained, but I consider that something more should be done about this. At the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance an investigation was made into the reasons why men retire from employment at the age of 65, and, in my opinion, the Admiralty might usefully investigate the reasons why these men decide to leave the Navy after twelve years' service. We might get a lot of interesting information and learn a great deal from it. If the Admiralty can get more men who could really be useful to stay on, the problem of recruiting will disappear.
    I was interested in the proposals for economy made by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East, the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) and others. If we can achieve all those economies, as one who represents a Clydeside constituency I shall be happy to see some of the money employed usefully in the building of a graving dock on Clydeside. We shall return to that matter later. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who did not make a speech today, could have made a very good and powerful speech on that subject. While he represents the other side of the Clyde and we may have some local differences about what side of the Clyde the graving dock should be on, we are united in saying that there should be one and we look to the Admiralty for support.
    In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) called attention to the fall in the number of recruits. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the downward trend had been halted. I understand that we had 80 more recruits this year than we had last year. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of 6 per cent. At least there has been no falloff in the number of admirals in the Navy, and there has been a great deal of criticism about that.
    The Royal Navy's torpedo factories have been mentioned in the debate. When

    291
    integration of the Services is considered the Admiralty might usefully look at those factories, which could be used for manufacturing parts of guided missiles. There is a wide knowledge and experience of torpedoes and other ammunition at the factories, and there is no reason why the work should not be done there rather than in outside industry.
    On the question of accommodation, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, mentioned the H.M.S. "Caledonia" and said that this was only temporary.
    I have some knowledge of what "temporary" means in the Civil Service. It can mean a very long time. I can speak of another establishment, the H.M.S. "Jupiter" on the Gairloch. Men have to live on board this ship. I give the Admiralty credit for building houses, but the men have the disadvantage of living on board without the excitement of being at sea. Something could usefully be done about this.
    Let me turn to the other theme of the debate, the general rôle of the Navy. I have left this subject to the latter part of my speech because I assumed that the Minister of Defence would be here. I have read with great interest all the debates on the subject during the past five years. There has been doubt and confusion in the minds of hon. Members, as well as speculation and argument among prominent Service people outside, but there has never been any doubt in the mind of the Admiralty about the rôle of the Navy. The Admiralty always seemed to believe that it knew exactly what the rôle of the Navy should be.
    In March, 1953, when the then First Lord of the Admiralty presented the Navy Estimates, he said:
    "… the Navy's supreme task, if this disaster comes, will still be the same—to keep open our sea communications both during that first intensive phase of modern war and following it. If the Navy cannot succeed in this I warn the House that the most up-to-date Air Force and the best equipped Army will be of no avail. That is why we have concentrated our preparations on defeating the mine, the sub- marine and the threat from the air."— [OFFICAL REPORT, 16th March. 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1831.]
    During that speech, the First Lord gave to the House information about Russia's strength. He told us about the 20 powerful cruisers, 100 destroyers and more than 350 submarines A year passed and
    292
    the First Lord in March. 1954, felt it necessary to state the rôle of the Navy at great length in the debate then.
    Between March, 1954, and March, 1955, some further doubts had crept in. It is true that by that time we had the hydrogen bomb, and no doubt that had some significance. It had this significance, that the first Lord stated in March, 1955, that as a result the Government had examined afresh the whole concept of defence. The First Lord assured us that this was a thorough process and he set out in detail the rôle of the Navy in an explanatory White Paper because he thought it better to do that—it would save a lot of time—rather than to put it in his speech.
    In March, 1955, in the White Paper the Admiralty told us that the rôle of the Navy was

    "(a) To search out and destroy enemy ships wherever they are, and by all means within their power to prevent the enemy from using the seas for his own purposes.

    (b) To protect the communications necessary to support our warlike operations and to safeguard the supply lines of the Allied countries.

    (c) To provide direct air support for operations ashore and afloat in those areas where it cannot readily be given by shore-based aircraft."

    In paragraph 5 the White Paper said:
    "No one navy can undertake all these duties alone, but Great Britain as part of a closely knit naval alliance of Commonwealth and N.A.T.O. powers and together we can achieve these objectives."
    Yet it was only today that the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary made much play with the great announcement that we are to have a Commonwealth conference. The following year, in March, 1956, the then Parliamentary and Financial Secretary came forward and again there were creeping doubts as to what the rôle of the Navy should be. In his speech the hon. Gentleman said:
    "During the defence debates several hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke of the rôle of the Navy in peace, in limited wars, and in global war, but I got the feeling that they were not all very clear about it. Let me try very briefly to put the position as I see it."—[OEFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2317.]
    Once again he devoted a large part of his speech to telling us what the rôle of the Navy would be. Up to that point in March, 1956, at least, the Admiralty was conscious of the rôle of the Navy. Up to that point we had been told what

    293
    the threats would be. As far back as 1953 we were told of the strength of Russia.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: We were told that in 1951.
    Mr. Steele: I will accept that, but in 1953 the statement of the position is on record.
    Now, after all that and after all these years, the Minister of Defence is reported in c. 1317 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 13th February, 1957, as saying:
    "I turn now to the Navy. In considering how big a Navy we need and what should be its rôle, we have to ask ourselves a number of extremely difficult questions, to which I am not going to volunteer the answers today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1317.]
    That is after five years. Only at this stage is the complete reappraisal taking place.
    We have the right to ask what has been happening during all these years. Each year the First Lord has come forward with confidence and has given the impression that at least the Admiralty knew what they were doing and the objectives they had in mind. As far back as 1953 they had drawn attention to the Russian figures, and prior to the Estimates of March, 1955, we had an assurance that a complete reappraisal had taken place.
    What was the purpose of all these long, detailed explanations on the rôle of the Navy? Were they to convince the other Members of the Government about the importance of the Navy? Or were they to convince the members of the other Services? Or were they mainly to convince themselves? It seems to me that all this time, as the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East said last year, the Admiralty were carrying out a strategy all of their own.
    What is the position now? After all this money has been given to the Navy and after all these years, are we to be told that much of this expenditure in recent years has been quite unjustified and unnecessary? I think general agreement has been reached about the Vanguard. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has his own theories about that, but that is another story. One cannot help getting the impression that the Admiralty all the time have started on the basis that the Navy must be the most important Service and
    294
    have used every available argument to justify this view, while all the time it seems to me they have been whistling in the dark to keep up their spirits.
    It may be that there is another reason. It has not been mentioned in the debate but it seems to me appropriate to mention the constant changes which have been taking place at the Ministry of Defence. When I examine the whole series of Ministers who have held that job, I feel convinced that none of those men has had the necessary iron in his soul to ensure the co-ordination which was essential. Now a sudden change has taken place. We have a new Minister of Defence and a change in the Service Ministers. It is nothing new to have a new Minister of Defence, but on this occasion it seems that we have a new Minister of Defence with a purpose, and that is something new.
    I should be very interested to know what has been the directive from the Prime Minister to the new Minister of Defence on these matters. I wonder what is to be the concern of the new Minister of Defence—the defence of the country or the defence of the Surtax payer? I wonder whether the approach will be a level-headed reappraisal of the nation's essential requirements or a bullheaded—I almost said block-headed—demand directed by the Minister of Defence to cut down expenditure. If it is the first, we offer our full support; if it is the latter, we have grave misgivings about the consequences, because if, in view of all that has happened recently and the evidence that is now piling up, we come to the conclusion that this Government are not concerned with what they wreck, whether it be the social services, education, the health of the young or the welfare of the aged, how can we have any confidence in their ability to look after the nation's defences?
    May I ask the Government what they expect us to say about these matters? When we look at their record over the past few years, what do we find? They have said in their speeches that they have laid every stress on the necessity of ensuring that the active Fleet will contain the most modern ships. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East probed this matter of the delay and apparent unconcern of the Admiralty regarding the construction of new frigates and also the wasteful expenditure on the cruisers.

    295
    Let us look at this position. It was announced in 1951 that twenty-six new frigates would be laid down, and they were in fact laid down in the course of the next three years. We were informed in the explanatory White Paper published in February, 1955, that twelve of these ships had been launched and that fourteen were still on the slips. We were told by the First Lord that the first of these frigates joined the Fleet during 1955, but we were also told that eleven would be completed that year. We have no White Paper this year, but we would like to be brought up to date on this matter.
    I know of one yard where a frigate, laid down fully five years ago, has not been launched yet. If we bear in mind what the First Lord told the House on 3rd March, 1955, in these words:
    "As I have warned the House, the expression 'laying down a ship' is becoming something of an anachronism, because in these modern days the equipment requires a longer time than the hull."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 2253.]
    and if what the First Lord said is correct, I shudder to think what the state of this hull will be after it has been fitted out and is ready for trials. In any case, what is the programme now? Has the Admiralty given up the idea of using these ships for their original purpose? Are they, in fact, going to be out-of-date and obsolete before they have even been delivered?
    I should like to say something about the "Tiger" class cruisers, but time is really against me. I understand that endless conferences have been held about these cruisers, and that if one adds up the total expenditure associated with these conferences, it would come to a very large sum indeed. In fact, I put that point to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply. I am informed that what the Admiralty are trying to do is to put a quart into a pint pot, and everybody is finding it impossible.
    Mr. James Callaghan: They should have been scrapped.
    Mr. Steele: I agree with my hon. Friend that they should have been scrapped, and if they had been scrapped when scrap was commanding a very high figure the Admiralty might have been better off. I say now that we have been employing a large number of highly skilled people on an unnecessary task and
    296
    taking up three berths in our shipyards which could have been more usefully employed.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of having scrapped the Tiger class cruisers, would he say why the Labour Government decided to go on with them, because it was before they left office that the decision was made?
    Mr. Steele: I should like to say something about that, but time prevents me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We will have another opportunity. I would only say to the Committee that these three Tiger class cruisers are all on the Clyde. For some time they were in the Gareloch, part of the world I know a lot about.
    We must be assured that a complete reexamination of all the Services is taking place, and it will be interesting to see what success the Minister of Defence has with the Admiralty. I agree that he will not easily be put off, but the Admiralty is used to this battle and the great danger is that even he might be torpedoed. I had hoped to end my speech with a whole series of suggestions as to what might be done, but many of them have already been made, and the Ministers concerned with Admiralty affairs have only to read the speech made last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East to find many useful suggestions.
    It is clear from this debate that the rôle of the Navy is still uncertain. It seems to me, however, that that rôle cannot really be determined until the Government themselves are clear on what basis they intend to co-operate with N.A.T.O. with the United States and with the Commonwealth. These overriding decisions must be made before the Government can come to any conclusions whatsoever; and once they have made these decisions our contribution can be calculated and plans made accordingly.
    Until then, I think that all hon. Members will remain uneasy, because we cannot, with our limited resources, hope to match the U.S.A. and Russia. We cannot do everything but, in co-operation with others, we can play a most important part. In the meantime, we on this side are satisfied that we are not getting value for our money and, looking at the record

    297
    of this Government up to date, there is little reason to suppose that we ever will so long as they remain in charge.
    9.33 p.m.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): This has been an interesting debate, though it has been conducted in unusual circumstances. A wide range of subjects has been covered and many questions have been asked. I will do my best to answer as many of them as I can tonight, and those which I cannot deal with now I will answer, if the Committee will allow me, by letter.
    I am glad to be following the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). Not only is he a fellow Scot but his constituency, like mine, is situated on the banks of the Clyde which, as the Committee knows, is the greatest shipbuilding river in this country. It is appropriate that this debate should be wound up by two representatives from an area which has made such an important contribution to the ships of the Royal Navy.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about the possibility of making guided weapons in the torpedo factory situated in his constituency. I can well appreciate his interest in that matter, but I must tell him that, as far ahead as we can see, the torpedo will remain an important part of the armoury of certain classes of ship. It is the main armament of the submarine, and one of the most deadly weapons that can be used against the submarine itself. So long as the Russian submarine fleet remains at a size of 400 to 500 vessels there will be plenty of work for the torpedo factories.
    Hon. Members are sometimes inclined to think, and the public also is probably inclined to think, that because so much is heard about modern guided weapons, no improvements are taking place in the more conventional types of weapon. Torpedoes, gunnery and anti-submarine equipment have all been improved to a significant extent. I can assure the Committee that they are not being neglected, although they are, relatively speaking, weapons on the way out, and thus they do not receive the same sort of publicity as the newer forms of weapon.
    The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) asked some
    298
    questions about the possible amalgamation of the Royal Air Force and the Navy, with the Royal Air Force perhaps using naval carriers as moving airfields. That matter has been raised on many occasions, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not tonight go into any details.
    Mr. Callaghan: As always.
    Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am always saying that. In fact, it is the first time that I have ever said it.
    Mr. George Brown: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman's predecessors have always said it.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Fleet Air Arm is an integral part of the Navy. In recognition of this fact, as the Parliamentary Secretary told the Committee earlier today, the functions of the Deputy Chief of Naval Staff and the Fifth Sea Lord have been amalagamated. That will emphasise the fact that there is only one Navy. Some of its personnel serve in the air, some on the sea, some—too many, my hon. Friends behind me think—serve on the land, and some serve under the sea. But it is all one integrated Service.
    I should like to say a few words about naval aircraft, in response to questions put to me by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham. Last year, the Committee was told of plans of a new twin-engine day fighter, an all-weather fighter and a strike aircraft. The production programme is up to date, and this year the new day fighter, the N. 113, which is to be known as the Scimitar, will be delivered, and an intensive flying unit of this aircraft will be formed at the R.N.A.S., Ford. As regards the Scimitar and the Sea Vixen, the D.H. 110, the Navy has every confidence that these two types will give excellent service for years, and it is quite wrong to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that they are already obsolete.
    Mr. G. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of each will be in service, say, a year from now?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid I could not answer that question. What I said was that the Scimitar is being delivered

    299
    this year and an intensive flying unit will be formed at Ford. I am afraid that I can go no further than that.
    I spoke earlier about developments in anti-submarine technology, and here the helicopter has an important rôle to play, in spite of the doubts expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. This year Whirlwind anti-submarine helicopters from British production will be delivered to the Navy. We in the Admiralty regard the helicopter as an extremely versatile type of aircraft. Apart from its antisubmarine rôle, it has proved its worth in rôles as widely different as hydro-graphical surveying, ambulance work, and work in action against terrorists in Malaya.
    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked me some specific questions about frigates laid down, I think he said, in the 1951–52 programme. According to my information, 22 frigates were ordered then. The lapse of time between order and laying down, as the hon. Member, more than anybody else, will appreciate, depends upon the state of the order books of the companies which undertake to build the ships. The position at the moment with regard to these 22 frigates is that nine of them will have completed by the end of March, 11 will complete by the end of the year 1957–58, and two will complete by the end of 1958–59.
    Several hon. Members have referred to the reserve Fleet and the future of the King George V battleships. This is a problem, as indeed the future of the whole reserve Fleet is a problem, which Her Majesty's Government are considering at the moment in their current review of defence policy, and I am afraid that I cannot say anything about it. I assure the Committee, however, that the Admiralty's policy is not to hold on to anything that is unnecessary, but to keep ahead with what is new and to be in the van of development at all cost. If necessary, old ships in reserve will be allowed to get older still—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but it is very sensible policy.
    Mr. Brown: It is not a policy. They get older anyway.
    Mr. Galbraith: They do not get older if properly looked after. If a limited
    300
    amount of money is available it can be spent, as the right hon. Gentleman might be able to appreciate, either on keeping the whole of the reserve Fleet operational or in building new ships. The Admiralty policy is to see that our resources, such as they are and whatever they might be, shall be concentrated on keeping abreast of new development and ensuring that, whatever its size, in quality the Royal Navy will be second to none.
    The continued need to keep ships of the Fleet up to date makes the work of the Royal Dockyards more important than ever. An example of the complexity of the work that now has to be undertaken is to be seen in the fact that a frigate alone has 3,000 valves and 50 cathode-ray tubes. Thus repairs and modernisation are a much more formidable task than they used to be. I am very glad, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham referred to that matter in his speech. Last year, he initiated a debate on that subject, which, I confess to the right hon. Gentleman, was most helpful to me when I went to the Admiralty only a few weeks ago.
    The Committee will be aware that a dockyard modernisation programme was started in 1954. Already. £3¼ million out of a total of approximately £8 million has been spent on improvements. To those who work on the job all the time, the progress may seem slow, but when I visited Rosyth the other day and inspected the Royal Dockyard there, which I had not seen for more than 12 years, I was agreeably surprised by the number of new improvements which I saw, not only in the workshops but in the importance which was being attached to conditions of labour, as, for example, in the fine new hostel for apprentices which had recently been established.
    I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) that much thought has also been given to improvement in management, and various experiments in organisation have taken place and are still continuing. We have tried to learn both from industry and from the practices of the United States naval shipyards. Our inquiries are not yet complete, and Sir Barclay Nihili's Committee has still to make its conclusions known, but we hope that new techniques in

    301
    planning will not only improve the efficiency of the main production departments but will also provide a foundation for a more scientific formulation of incentive schemes.
    Hon. Members might be interested to know that trade unions are associated with these experiments. As an example of what may happen, a pilot planning team working of H.M.S. "Centaur" has resulted in better productivity, which has brought an average increase in earnings of about 10s. a week. I hope that there may be further reforms of that nature but at the moment it is not possible to forecast anything. Our inquiries are still continuing, and I assure hon. Members that when they are complete, the Admiralty will vigorously pursue whatever reforms are then shown to be necessary.
    So far this evening, I have been replying to questions on matériel, but however good the ships, the equipment or the repair facilities may be, it is the spirit of the men who man the fleet that really counts. As was to be expected, there has been a number of questions on different aspects concerning personnel. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had something to say about that in his opening remarks, and I intend to deal with only one or two points.
    In particular, I should like to deal with something that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had to say about the position of artificers. It has been suggested that after their training, many of those men leave the Service at the first opportunity and do not re-engage because the promotion prospects are not good. The problem of status, which the hon. Member suggested was part of the trouble, is constantly engaging Admiralty attention. At the moment, although we should like to see more re-engagements, the situation is not quite so bad as it was painted by the hon. Member. In fact, one in two re-engage.
    Mr. Willis: That is not in accordance with the figures for last year which the Admiralty gave me two weeks ago.
    Mr. Galbraith: Of course, much depends on what particular grade is chosen. As to the question of master rates, which the hon. Gentleman raised, I will see that he gets a copy of the letter, which has been issued to Commands, and
    302
    I shall be interested to have his comments on it.
    What is happening in the artificer branch should be seen in its proper perspective against a background of a general national shortage of technicians which affects almost every industry in the country. It is part of the technical revolution which we are all experiencing, and the Navy is by no manner of means the only organisation affected.
    I would now come to the question of civilians employed by the Admiralty. That has been raised by many hon. Members. The Admiralty employs civilians to a very great extent instead of Service personnel in the organisations for the repair of ships and equipment, and for the supply of stores, ammunition, food, and clothing to the seagoing ships in all parts of the world.
    The Royal Dockyards, apart from a few naval officers, are entirely civilian manned, as are also the naval store, armament supply and victualling depots. Those organisations thus provide many services which are performed by uniformed personnel in the Army and Royal Air Force. Nevertheless, I am sure that there is scope for many improvements in that respect, and reductions; and the work of the "Way Ahead" Committee, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred at length this afternoon, if it fulfils its present expectations, will reduce the size of the Admiralty civilian staff still further, as well as reducing the size of the Navy ashore. I can assure hon. Members that comments and suggestions on that subject will be most carefully studied by the Admiralty.
    I should like to make one point which was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). There is a demand that savings should be made by reorganisation, but whenever we try to close anything down we immediately come under brisk fire from local interests. We cannot, however, avoid some closures if we are to save money, but whenever that happens we are well aware of the local dislocation which it has caused, and we do everything we possibly can in consultation with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade to minimise it.
    So far the points that I have answered this evening, important though they are

    303
    in detail, have not perhaps the same fundamental importance as the questions regarding the rôle of the Navy, which were posed at the beginning of the debate by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham, and which have been echoed by almost every other speaker who has contributed to the debate. Yet this theme of the rôle of the Navy, as the Parliamentary Secretary has already stated, is precisely the question which we cannot answer. If we could answer it, we should not be asking for this Vote on Account tonight but should be following the normal procedure and presenting the whole Navy Estimates.
    Some apparently quite legitimate criticism was directed against us by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West on the grounds that after five years we still, so he thinks, do not know what kind of Navy is needed. I would remind him that we are not living in static or stable times, and it would be extremely shortsighted for me to try to answer that question. The whole conception of war is in the melting pot. Hon. Members opposite know that as well as I do. They have said it today, and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said it not a long time ago.
    New inventions, and the possibilities deriving from the use of the hydrogen bomb, make it difficult to know at what moment we should step from one form of warfare to another and when we should change from a conventional to a nuclear form of defence. We have to be careful, if we are to make that change, not to fall between two stools. In that situation, there is little that I can say tonight to satisfy the natural concern of the Committee whether or not the Navy should be regarded as part of the deterrent against nuclear war.
    Mr. Brown: We understand that the answer to that question specifically will be found in the White Paper which the Minister promises us for the 25th of this month, which is twenty days from now. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the whole conception of war will be out of the melting pot twenty days from now?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think that it would be unwise for me to anticipate what will be in my right hon. Friend's statement.
    304
    To those, however, who doubt whether the Navy has a rôle in peace, and who wonder whether it is really efficient or whether it is a luxury and a waste of money. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) gave the answer when he said, "Look at Suez." For whatever one's feelings may be about that operation politically, I think that the whole Committee will recognise that it was a major success for the Navy. It showed the Navy to be a flexible all-purpose weapon, ready to face any eventuality at short notice and able to deliver a devastating series of punches in a very short time. This capacity to deploy naval forces at speed should assure the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham, who asked whether the Navy was still able to fulfil its responsibilities to the Commonwealth and Empire. The answer is that it can.
    I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), who spoke when I was out of the Chamber, that as our hold on overseas bases becomes less certain that is a rôle which the Navy by its very nature is particularly suited to fill. It is for this reason that we have provided for a substantial afloat support force consisting of tankers, maintenance ships and floating docks. With that force, supply problems will be alleviated and the inherent strategic mobility of the Navy will be fully exploited.
    But in seeking to fulfil its responsibility to the Commonwealth, the Navy does not act alone, for relations between the Royal Navy and the Commonwealth navies are most cordial. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the Commonwealth exercise "Fairlead" is being held in London in the spring. Another exercise which takes place yearly is to be held at Trincomalee in September where, in addition to ships from Britain and Ceylon, ships of the Indian and Pakistan navies will also take part.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am delighted to hear about the Commonwealth conference, which was proposed from this side of the Committee last year. It is a good thing for the Government to take up, even a year late. When the exercise is held, will there be discussions between our naval authorities and Australia, New Zealand and Canada about the rôle and nature of

    305
    their fleets, so that there can be some co-ordinated Commonwealth course, or will they go on following their own courses?
    Mr. Galbraith: All those subjects will, of course, be considered.
    Mr. Callaghan: But will they be discussed?
    Mr. Galbraith: Of course they will be discussed. That is part of the purpose of the conference.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
    Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham asked me some very searching questions about the anti-submarine rôle of the Navy, in view of the enormous numbers of Russian submarines. He particularly wanted to know whether the use of submarines in the Atlantic to prevent supplies from reaching this country would spark off a nuclear war. I am afraid that that is a question which I cannot answer. It is one of the many imponderables with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is struggling just now.
    What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, who asked whether we could overcome a submarine menace, is that although that is a tremendous task, and frightening in its magnitude, we believe that we have as good a chance of surviving now as we had at the height of the last war against German submarines. Technically, we are keeping pace with submarine developments and, in addition, in any struggle in the Atlantic we should not be acting alone, but our Navy would form part of the forces of N.A.T.O.
    In that respect, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) made a very good point when he said that in any economies which might have to be made in the size of the Navy we must be most careful not to cause other N.A.T.O. Powers to reduce their N.A.T.O contribution. That is an aspect of the problem which the Government are considering in the
    assessment which they are making of the situation. As I have said, it is only because of our partnership in N.A.T.O. that we have any confidence at all in our ability to overcome the Russian submarine menace in the Atlantic.
    In conclusion, I must apologise to the Committee for being so indefinite on the major problem of the rôle of the Navy, which is obviously causing so many hon. Members so much concern. I know that this is an unsatisfactory way in which to end a debate. Nevertheless, I believe that in spite of that fact it has been a most valuable debate, because it has been held while discussions on the future composition of our defence forces are still in progress, and thus the Committee has a real opportunity, by what has been said tonight, to influence decisions which are still in the making.
    I think that the main emphasis in the debate tonight has been on the continuing need for a Navy, not only for Commonwealth purposes, or even as a possible spearhead of nuclear attack, but primarily as a force invested with the duty of keeping open the seas which stretch from the harbours of this island to the ends of the world. I assure the Committee that that view will be studied by the Government with the greatest attention. I know that my right hon. Friend the First Lord will also be most grateful for the many constructive suggestions made; and as for myself I should like to thank the Committee for the helpful manner in which the debate has been conducted. In the meantime, while the future composition of our defence forces is being decided, I would ask the Committee to grant this Vote tonight so that the work of keeping the Navy fighting fit may go forward with efficiency and despatch.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Heath)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 152, Noes 0.

    Division No. 76.]

    AYES

    [9.57 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Baldock, L-t.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Altken, W. T.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Barber, Anthony

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Barter, John

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Page, R. G.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hope, Lord John

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Biggs-Davidson, J. A.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Body, R. F.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bryan, P.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Redmayne, M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Russell, R. S.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Soames, Christopher

    Cunningham, Knox

    Leavey, J. A.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Speir, R. M.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Storey, S.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, McA.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Temple, John M.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Eden, J. B.

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Farey-Janes, F. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Fort, R.

    Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Freeth, Denzil

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.

    Maddan, Martin

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebne)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Gower, H. R.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Mathew, R.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Maude, Angus

    Waterhouse, Capt. R. Hon. C.

    Green, A.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Neave, Airey

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Mr. Oakshott and Mr. E. Wakefield.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

    NOES

    NIL

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Wigg and Mr. Emrys Hughes.

    Question put accordingly and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That 121,500 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, he employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £125,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Navy Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958.—[Mr. Galbraith.]
    It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  COST EROSION
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Nicolson: The transition from the subject of the main debate to that of the Adjournment debate will not be as abrupt as usual, for I, too, am going to talk about the sea. I shall be talking about it, however, not as an ally but as a foe. I wish to call attention to the ceaseless attack of the sea on the outer rim of these islands, and to put forward the argument that the cost of erecting the necessary coastal defences to guard against the inroads of the sea is bearing with increasing and unfair hardship upon the coastal authorities whose main responsibility it is.
  Until quite a short time ago we took for granted the constant attrition of the land by the combined action of the tides, waves, surface water and the wind, but today we cannot spare the land. We need it for agriculture, and it carries upon its cliff tops valuable buildings which cannot be allowed to collapse into the sea. It is a national duty to guard the coastline against flooding out erosion.
  Too little is known of this subject. Even the greatest experts admit that our present knowledge of the causes and cure of coast erosion is in its infancy. I agree with the Report of the Waverley Committee that research into the problem should be pursued with greater vigour. I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he can tell us a little more than is publicly known about the activities of the Hydraulics Research Board of D.S.I.R. which, I gather, is the main body responsible for the task. Since the east coast flood disasters of January, 1953, has the Board increased the intensity of its research into this national problem? Does it give advice, even when it is not asked to do so, to the coast protection authority and river boards which contemplate erecting these extremely costly defence works? Because if there is no expert advice available, if it is left to the partly-amateur approximations of borough surveyors to erect the type of defence most suitable to that part of the coast, mistakes inevitably will be
  310
  made, and it will not be their fault because they have not had the training or the opportunity to make a special study of this very special subject.
  Are works schemes automatically referred to the Hydraulics Research Board before they are passed by the Ministry, and is a study made by the board of the effects of one scheme upon its neighbours? If one thing is known about coast protection works, it is that the erection of works in one area may set up much greater erosion in a neighbouring area; and whenever these problems are considered they should be considered as a unity affecting a whole stretch of coast. The decisions made should not be made in the light of local conditions alone.
  The main problem which I wish to raise is that of finance. I was disappointed and rather surprised that the Waverley Committee devoted so little attention to this subject. Perhaps it was because the Committee was set up immediately after the floods of January, 1953, when a 100 per cent. grant was made for the restoration of coast defences in the flooded areas. The Committee seem to have taken it for granted that the areas coming mainly under coast protection authorities were boroughs which were not in such desperate financial need as the river board areas to which large grants had been made in the past. But that is not so.
  Those who have taken an interest in this subject over the past few years cannot fail to have noticed that whenever there is a great disaster, such as the East Coast floods, such as the disaster at Lynmouth, the contribution by the Government and by the public is perhaps even excessive in its generosity. It has sometimes exceeded the 100 per cent. But when there is a less dramatic incident, like the slow but none-the-less constant erosion of a cliff line, the grant it attracts from the Government is in some cases infinitesimal. The Minister does not need to alter the 1949 Act in order to be more generous, because under Section 21 of that Act he has power to distribute the cost of these works exactly as he wishes between the four contributors which exist at present.
  Those four are: the owners of the land on the affected coastline; the local authority in whose area the land is situated; the county; and the Exchequer. My contention is that far too great a

  311
  share of the burden of these highly expensive works is falling upon the first two of these four. I wish to deal shortly with each of them in turn. First, the private owner.
  The Act says that the owner is obliged to contribute to the cost of defence works the amount of the difference between the value of his house before and after the works are carried out. Suppose a house is trembling on the verge of a cliff, and is therefore completely uninhabitable, and then it is protected by coast protection works. The owner is technically liable to contribute the whole cost of his house, the difference before and after the defence workers were erected. That imposes on the owner, who has perhaps invested his life savings in that property, a burden which he cannot possibly bear.
  Moreover the definition of "contributory land" under Section 7 of the Act is highly obscure. Could the Minister now define it more closely?
  Let me give an example to show the difficulty. Imagine a road running along the top of a cliff with houses on both sides. At the moment it is usual for the borough to declare that only the houses on the cliff side of the road shall be liable for contribution. The houses on the other side of the road make no contribution. That strikes the owners on the cliff side of the road as unfair. They know that if no coast protection work is carried out their houses will fall into the sea and that the other houses will then be in the front line, and that protection to the first line of houses is also protection to the second. That can be carried ad infinitum.
  It is a subject of constant complaint that, although boroughs are subjected to a form of means test by the Treasury, individuals are not, and that what individuals are asked to pay has virtually no relationship to their capacity to pay. Further, are the people who, before the Act of 1949, erected works to protect their property, liable to pay the whole cost of maintenance? If they are, it would be generally considered unfair.
  If the burden upon property-owners is great, the burden upon local authorities is much greater. Bournemouth has spent well over £1 million in erecting coastal defence works, not all since the war. Since the war, the amount spent has amounted to at least half that sum.
  312
  Christchurch has had to pay at least 86 per cent. of the cost of its coast-protection work, amounting to nearly £80,000, or the equivalent to a 4½d. rate. Bournemouth has received no Exchequer contribution whatever.
  Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): Is that for new work, maintenance work, or both?
  Mr. Nicolson: I shall come to the question of maintenance a little later. I was talking of new work. One of the grievances of many coast protection authorities is that they have no idea upon what basis the Minister calculates the grant which is to be given. It is apparently a close secret. The rumour is that the Minister does not pay anything to a local authority if the cost of works is less than the product of a 2d. rate. If that is right, the basis is an unfair one because rate poundage gives no indication of the rate burden. The real basis should be the rate burden per head of the population.
  Does the Minister take into account the period of time which has been allowed for the repayment of the capital sum? And are previous works undertaken by the same local authority taken into consideration when considering the size of the grant? We are told that in some cases they are taken into account, and we find that the Government's contribution increases as more work is undertaken. But during the whole time the total burden on the rates increases until it is well nigh intolerable.
  Will the Ministry now agree, as it is empowered to do by the 1949 Act, and as the Waverley Committee recommended, to make grants for the maintenance and repair and temporary first-aid to works of coastal defence? Let me take my own borough as an example. In my constituency at Christchurch, steel sheeting which was inserted more than 20 years ago has been worn to wafer thinness owing to the constant attrition of the shingle. Will its replacement qualify as new work? It is claimed that local authorities derive considerable amenity value from coast defences because they are an additional attraction to the town. The borough, if it is wise, will run a promenade along the top of the coast works for that reason; but beach defences are ugly in themselves,

  313
  and only when an additional amenity is incorporated, should the authority have to pay.
  The county contribution is entirely dependent upon the Exchequer contribution, which appears to be wholly at the Minister's discretion. Therefore, in the case of these expensive works, it is an element which is conjectural. Local authorities are unwilling to embark upon these enormously expensive schemes, sometimes running to a cost of £250,000 a mile, for fear that they will not obtain a reasonable grant from the Exchequer. So essential work is neglected or delayed. The Exchequer has paid just over 50 per cent. of the total cost of work since the war ended. I contend that it should pay up to about 80 per cent. I base that upon the policy of my party declared before 1950. I think that in the comparative privacy of an Adjournment debate it might be permissible to read this sentence from the Conservative Agricultural Charter, 1948:
  "We believe that sea-walls and sea-defences should be made a national charge."
  If I had time I would also read a sentence from a speech of the late Viscount Hudson when he was speaking on the Opposition Front Bench in 1949 and said that it
  "should be substantially a national charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2363.]
  I think it should be and I rather wonder what has caused the Government to change their mind on this subject. Too great a burden is being put on local rates. We are dealing with a national responsibility. In time of war we would not think of charging the local ratepayers for pill boxes, barbed wire and mines. Why should we charge them for the great cost of protecting the land from the attacks of the sea? The innermost part of a maritime county are perhaps 40 miles from salt water and nowhere in Great Britain can one get more than 70 miles from the sea. If the maritime counties can pay their share, why cannot the inland counties as well?
  I claim that it is time that the administrative policy was changed, that the distribution of these heavy costs was thought out once more, and the burden of protection works in the defence of our national land should be made mainly a national charge.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Gooch: am glad to have the opportunity of adding a word or two to what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) has said. The question of coast protection is always in my mind because of the very extensive coastline which bounds my constituency. I call to mind the terrific disaster which the north Norfolk coastline suffered four years ago.
  The main point which has been stressed and which I desire to stress is the financial aspect of the question. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the average contribution made is about 50 per cent. of the total cost of the works. I want to be fair and to say that under the Coast Protection Act in my constituency a grant has been made as high as 90 per cent. towards the cost of works undertaken. I imagine that the formula adopted by the Ministry in deciding the extent of the grant is one which the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to disclose to us. Where a district shows that it is so poor that it cannot afford to undertake the complete cost of the work, the Ministry has been very generous in coming forward with a substantial contribution towards the cost.
  I wish to join the hon. Member in saying that we have to think again upon whom the main burden of the cost of coast defence should rest, and to state the opinion in favour of the cost being a national charge. There is no doubt that many district councils have to initiate schemes but are so poor that when they have done so their rate-raising capacity is not sufficient to enable them to go to the Ministry and ask for a grant to enable the scheme to be put through.
  I know of a case in my constituency at a place called Ostend in North Norfolk where certain work has been done, but the work is inadequate. I imagine that the district council takes the view that it is inadequate because of the lack of financial resources of the local authority, and I hope that in his reply tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that in such cases, where the local authority's rate-raising capacity is so small as to deter it from putting forward schemes, the Ministry will come forward with a very attractive grant which will enable these substantial

  315
  schemes to be carried out. I also hope that the Government will be prepared to look at the possibility of the State making itself responsible for the total cost of sea defence.
  10.26 p.m.
  Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: I want very briefly to support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), the whole of which I adopt, in order to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary how exceedingly seriously we who represent coastal constituencies regard this matter.
  I do not propose to repeat the points to which my hon. Friend referred, but there are two administrative points on which the Parliamentary Secretary can help very considerably. They concern the waste of time and money which is caused to us in the coastal areas by the delays in his Department in approving schemes and in paying out the grants, bearing in mind that we have to pay interest on the moneys before we can obtain the grant in recompense for the payments which we have made. That adds considerably to the burden which we have to bear.
  The delays in approving schemes, resulting from the negotiations with my hon. Friend's Department, very often carry us through an additional winter, as a result of which considerable additional parts of England are lost to the sea, and the cost of the scheme as previously approved has to be reconsidered and substantially increased. It is a false economy on the part of his Department to try to niggle about these matters. If it would give greater attention to the reports which it receives from the people on the spot and deal with them more promptly, in the long run that would be an economy to the taxpayer.
  10.27 p.m.
  Captain Richard Pilkington: Before the Minister replies to what has already been said, I should like to tell him that Poole and its neighbour Bournemouth are completely united on this matter, as are all other coastal resorts. It seems that the whole House, so far as it is represented here tonight, is also
  316
  agreed. I ask the Government to look at this matter very carefully and to consider Bournemouth's request. I would particularly emphasise the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks); the longer this matter is left the more it will cost in the long run.
  10.28 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I saw the pictures in one of the newspapers a few days ago of the damage to the sea defences at Southbourne, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), and I am therefore not surprised that he has raised this question on the Adjournment. Indeed, I am grateful to him, to my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Sir L. JoynsonHicks) and Poole (Captain Pilkington), and to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), for having taken part in this short discussion. Obviously, I shall not have the opportunity of dealing with all the detailed questions which they have raised, but I assure the House that we shall study at the Ministry during the next few days those questions which I do not cover in the course of my very short reply, and we shall see what we can do.
  One point should be made at the start. The burden of what has been said is that there are many local authorities throughout the country, maritime local authorities, which have this large problem of the defence of their coastal areas from the ravages of the sea. That is perfectly true, and it is also perfectly true that it becomes a costly business for many local authorities. One must, however, keep this subject in reasonable perspective. After all, many local authorities throughout the country are faced with special problems, not always coastal problems but nevertheless special problems involving extraordinary expense, for instance on difficult sewerage schemes or in obtaining and providing water for their inhabitants. Therefore, I think that it would be a mistake to say at the start that there is any obligation on the central Government to provide 100 per cent. financial support for all of these schemes, whatever they may be.

  317
  Having said that, I want to add that the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend are confined in this matter to work which is carried out by local authorities under the Coast Protection Act, 1949. There are nearly 300 maritime authorities in England and Wales which possess powers under that Act. Since the war, they have, altogether, embarked upon capital works of sea defence estimated to cost about £10½ million. By far the greater part of that work has been made possible by the provisions of that Act, and Exchequer grants of almost £6 million have been promised to the various local authorities.
  That means, as my hon. Friend said, that rather more than half of the total cost is being reimbursed to them by the Treasury. To that we have to add the work which has also been undertaken by the drainage authorities. These authorities, of which the river boards are the most important, operate under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. During the last ten years their expenditure on sea defence works has been about £30 million.
  There has been reference to the possibility of unifying Ministerial responsibility in this matter. That question was considered by a Royal Commission as far back as 1906. It was looked at again when the Coast Protection Act was in contemplation. It was further reviewed by the Waverley Committee. In all cases the decision was against the idea that unified administration departmentally was feasible, although I agree that, on paper, it looks very attractive.
  On the question of Exchequer grants, it may be that, as my hon. Friend said, some political manifesto issued several years ago held out certain very rosy hopes. Political manifestos issued by all political parties do that from time to time, but circumstances change—and so do parties.
  I was rather surprised at my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government should find the full 100 per cent. towards the cost of these schemes. That, of course, would involve legislation, and, therefore, I do not think that it would be quite proper for me to discuss it tonight.
  Mr. N. Nicolson: I must correct that, if I may. I said 80 per cent.
  Mr. Bevins: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I thought he was asking that it should be made a completely national charge.
  I must say, and I say it with all the good will in the world to my hon. Friend, that I do not think that there is any doubt at all that, as coastal protection is essentially a local problem, at least some part of the cost ought to be borne by the local authorities of the areas where the problems arise. I have already said that the Treasury has been paying an average of more than half of the capital cost of all coast protection works carried out by local authorities since the end of the war. In some cases, the proportion has been as high as 85 per cent., but I agree that, at the other end of the scale, where the financial incidence on the rates has been very small, it has not been thought necessary to offer any grant.
  My information, which I believe to be correct, is that the effect of coastal protection on the Bournemouth rates works out at rather more than 1d. on the rate poundage year by year. In the case of Christchurch, in which I think my hon. Friend is interested, it conies to about 2¾d. on the rates. Whilst that may be difficult, in one sense, for the people of Christchurch and Bournemouth, I think that my hon. Friend's constituents have many compensations. The behaviour of the weather at Bournemouth is some compensation for the ravages of the sea.
  By and large, the fact of the matter is that grants go where, in our considered view, they are most needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch has said, it is true that there are no hard and fast rules about the calculation of these grants, but we do try to take into account all the factors which affect a local authority's ability to pay. For example, the Minister would certainly take into account the level of the rates in a particular locality and the amount by which they would be increased by the proposed works, together with, of course, the burden already being borne by the authority for past sea defence works.
  In the case of Bournemouth itself, as I think my hon. Friend will know, four schemes were carried out in the South-bourne area in about 1952, which cost about £270,000. The gross rate burden

  319
  was rather less than 2d., and in consequence of that no grant was given by the Treasury. More recently, a further scheme has been undertaken at a cost of about £87,000, but in that case the council has made no application for a grant at all, and I think that is probably because the effect on the rates would be between ½d. and ¾d.
  I should like to say a word on the question of research into coast protection problems. I assure the House that this is a matter which has exercised the minds, not only of the members of the Waverley Committee, but also of my right hon. Friend and his advisers. An Advisory Committee on Sea Defence Research was set up, as my hon. Friend probably
  320
  knows, about two years ago. That committee has issued two reports, one dealing mainly with embankments on estuaries and the other with the movement of beach materials. I shall be very happy to let my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, or any other hon. Member, have copies of these reports. At the present time, the Advisory Committee is considering the effect of vegetation——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  South West Africa Co. Ltd.
  South West Africa Co. Ltd.
  Rent Increases (Tax)
  Rent Increases (Tax)
  Television Money Prizes (Tax)
  Television Money Prizes (Tax)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Monthly Catalogue)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Monthly Catalogue)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Private Brewers' Licences
  Private Brewers' Licences
  Earned Income Allowance
  Earned Income Allowance
  Petrol (Tax)
  Petrol (Tax)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Supplies (Report)
  Water Supplies (Report)
  Gateshead Development Plan (Proposed Amendment)
  Gateshead Development Plan (Proposed Amendment)
  Sewage Disposal (Hampshire Coastal Waters)
  Sewage Disposal (Hampshire Coastal Waters)
  Libraries (Talking Books for the Blind)
  Libraries (Talking Books for the Blind)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Bevan's Works, Swanscombe (Electrostatic Precipitators)
  Bevan's Works, Swanscombe (Electrostatic Precipitators)
  Thames-side Cement Works (Precipitators)
  Thames-side Cement Works (Precipitators)
  Finance (Local Authority Associations' Representations)
  Finance (Local Authority Associations' Representations)
  Colliery Spoil Heaps
  Colliery Spoil Heaps
HOUSING
  Estates, Stoke-on-Trent, (Streets and Services)
  Estates, Stoke-on-Trent, (Streets and Services)
  Vacant Dwellings (Requisition Powers)
  Vacant Dwellings (Requisition Powers)
  Manchester (Overspill)
  Manchester (Overspill)
  Dwelling-Houses (Insulation)
  Dwelling-Houses (Insulation)
  Almshouses, Macclesfield
  Almshouses, Macclesfield
  Building Costs (London Area)
  Building Costs (London Area)
  New Towns (London and Middlesex Families)
  New Towns (London and Middlesex Families)
  DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION
  DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION
EMPLOYMENT
  Index of Wage Rates
  Index of Wage Rates
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Industrial Court and Industrial Disputes Tribunal
  Industrial Court and Industrial Disputes Tribunal
  Faversham, Sheerness and Sittingbourne
  Faversham, Sheerness and Sittingbourne
SCOTLAND
  New Towns (Rent Policies)
  New Towns (Rent Policies)
  Young Calves (Rail Transit)
  Young Calves (Rail Transit)
  New Pier, Portree
  New Pier, Portree
  Fishermen and Fish Workers (Skin Disease)
  Fishermen and Fish Workers (Skin Disease)
  Law Reform Committee (Reports)
  Law Reform Committee (Reports)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (Scaffolding)
  Palace of Westminster (Scaffolding)
  Chiswick House (Repairs)
  Chiswick House (Repairs)
BRITISH ARMY
  Senior Officers (Active List)
  Senior Officers (Active List)
  War Office (Staff)
  War Office (Staff)
  Discharge by Purchase
  Discharge by Purchase
  R.A.O.C. Troops (Personal Effects)
  R.A.O.C. Troops (Personal Effects)
  Proposed New Barracks, Cardross
  Proposed New Barracks, Cardross
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Bridgend Trading Estate
  Bridgend Trading Estate
  Gordon Hotels, Limited (Report)
  Gordon Hotels, Limited (Report)
  British Films (Dollar Earnings)
  British Films (Dollar Earnings)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hungarian Refugees (Temporary Employment)
  Hungarian Refugees (Temporary Employment)
ROYAL NAVY
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land Drainage (Heneage Report)
  Land Drainage (Heneage Report)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
CYPRUS
  Archbishop Makarios (Member's Letters)
  Archbishop Makarios (Member's Letters)
  Mr. Christoforou (Treatment)
  Mr. Christoforou (Treatment)
  Maria Lambrou (Treatment)
  Maria Lambrou (Treatment)
UGANDA
  Postal Service (Pay)
  Postal Service (Pay)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Basutoland (Elias Monare)
  Basutoland (Elias Monare)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service (Increased Contributions)
  National Health Service (Increased Contributions)
  Mid-Wales Spas (Report)
  Mid-Wales Spas (Report)
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  LONDON PRESS SERVICE
  LONDON PRESS SERVICE
TRANSPORT
  Capital Equipment Expenditure
  Capital Equipment Expenditure
  Road Junction, Sittingbourne
  Road Junction, Sittingbourne
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old-age Pensioners
  Old-age Pensioners
  Retirement Pensions (Value)
  Retirement Pensions (Value)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

REPLENISHMENT OF UNDERGROUND WATER
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will indicate what methods are being applied to recharge some underground sources of water supply, having regard to the depth to which the water tables have sunk owing to extractions (a) below Nottingham, and (b) below Grimsby—Scunthorpe and London Basin, and further, whether experience in these matters in U.S.A., Holland and Germany does not supply guidance.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, artificial replenishment of underground water is being successfully practised in the countries mentioned in the Question and elsewhere. The results are being studied here to see whether the methods used are applicable to geological conditions in this country. No large-scale recharge is at present being undertaken here, but information is being collected from certain small-scale operations in various parts of the country. Although the chalk is the formation which has suffered greatest over-development, the Bunter sandstone appears to be the most promising geological formation for recharge purposes. Following an engineering and geological survey, preliminary studies are being made of the practicability of recharge in the Nottingham area. The success of the operation is likely to depend largely on how far a suitable charging water can be obtained.
Quite apart from engineering problems, there are administrative, financial and legal difficulties which need careful examination before any large scheme
174
can be undertaken in this country. A sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee is at present inquiring into the growing demand for water and possible means of meeting the demand. Its findings will no doubt suggest how far it is necessary to pursue this and other special measures for maintaining the country's water stocks.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE:. May I thank the noble Earl for his Answer and for the trouble he has taken. Will he allow me to return to the charge at some future date?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Certainly.

NEW SEVERN BRIDGE
2.37 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the estimated cost of the Severn Bridge.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the estimated cost of the Severn Bridge, together with the immediate approach roads necessary to link it to the existing trunk road system at Almondsbury and Crick, on the Gloucester-Bristol and Gloucester-Newport roads respectively, is about £15½ million. This in itself would bring great traffic benefits, but to get full value from the bridge it would also be necessary to build additional new roads in the area.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, and I note the figure of £15½ million, with which I am largely in agreement. But may I ask him where the discrepancy occurs between the statement he has just made and the statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs in another place on February 11 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 564 (No. 49), col. 1036], when my right honourable friend said:
"The point about the Severn Bridge is that it is an extremely costly project. It will cost at least £30 million with all the works involved…"
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend was referring to a more complex system of roads than I was referring to in my reply. For instance, I have seen even the figure of £40 million mentioned, but this includes road improvements in South Wales which are either being done now or can be done in the future. The figure I gave to my noble friend Lord Derwent applies only to the bridge and the more or less immediate road system.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not clear about this figure of £30 million. May I ask my noble friend whether that figure includes the cost of the new trunk road to Birmingham and another one to London, or what does it include? It has never been made clear.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the figure of £30 million or £35 million to which the noble Lord refers does contain the cost of a new portion of the Birmingham-Bristol motorway and possibly a new road from Newport to Crick. But I will look into that figure and will let him know exactly what it contains. It certainly contains a great deal more than the figure I gave him.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, it would help if we could be told what is the actual estimated cost of the bridge. Then we shall know what is really intended by all those items for roads.
LORD MANCROFT: I can appreciate my noble friend's point. I think the actual cost of the Severn and the Wye Bridges is between £11 million and £12 million.
EARL HOWE: Could we be told about the Severn Bridge? That £12 million is for the Severn and the Wye Bridges. The Question deals with the estimated cost of the Severn Bridge. Can we be told what is the estimated cost of that bridge?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will certainly try to find out the actual figure for the noble Earl. But, as he will appreciate, to give the cost of the bridge without the cost of the work on the immediate road system is quite unrealistic.
EARL HOWE: Surely the Question is perfectly plain—namely, what is the
176
estimated cost of the Severn Bridge. We can find out the rest of the cost from various statements made by Ministers. But can we now be told the actual cost of the bridge?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, with a little notice I will try to give the noble Earl exactly the sort of Answer that he wants.

FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER, 1957
2.42 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that last October we debated an amendment to the current Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order when the authority of this House was sought to the making of supplementary payments to producers of fat cattle during the 1956–57 fatstock year. At that time I said we should be introducing a new system in the fatstock year beginning 25th March this year which would make supplementary payments unnecessary in future. The purpose of the Order which is now before the House is to give effect to these new arrangements. Like the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, which it replaces, it is entirely procedural. It covers fat sheep and fat pigs as well as fat cattle but it does not state the price guarantees or define the different classes of fatstock. These are matters which are determined following the Annual Review, and they will be announced separately in a White Paper which will be presented to the House when the Review has been concluded.
Before I set out the main details of the new proposals, I think it might be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships of the considerations which led up to this change of system. The present system of calculation, which is based on a 52-week rolling average, has been used since the decontrol of meat and livestock in July, 1954, and by and large it has worked reasonably well. Last year, however, the sharp and sustained decline in cattle prices showed up one of its main defects, namely, that the rates of guarantee did not reflect sufficiently quickly current changes in market prices. This had the result that many producers

177
in the early part of the year lost money, and the whole prosperity of this very important part of the farming industry was at stake. It was for that reason that supplementary payments were made to cattle producers last year, and in order to avoid similar difficulties in future I said that we should be introducing a new Scheme under which the rates of guarantee would respond much more quickly to fluctuations in market prices. Because of this greater responsiveness, the rate of guarantee under the new Scheme will fluctuate from week to week to a much greater extent than hitherto, but producers' returns over the year as a whole will approximate much more closely to the standard price.
The Order which is now before the House embodies the new arrangements which will come into effect on March 25. Briefly, the changes are as follows. The standard prices for cattle and sheep will vary seasonally, thus reflecting variations in costs and marketings. The standard price for pigs will not vary seasonally but will continue to be subject to adjustment for changes in feed costs, which account for over 75 per cent. of total pig production costs. Under the present system, the rate of guarantee is announced in advance for periods of four weeks. Under the new system it will be announced in advance, but as a weekly rate for each class of fatstock; and in order that the guarantee payment shall reflect as nearly as possible current marketing experience, it will be calculated each week by reference to forward market trends, as well as to recent market prices.
The calculation will be as follows: the guarantee will be related to an 8-week period, and the rate for any week will be the difference between, on the one hand, the average of four weeks actual plus four weeks estimated market prices, and, on the other, the standard prices averaged over this same 8-week period. The stabilising limits, which have proved their value in the present Scheme, will be retained in order to guard against sudden and unexpected short-term price movements. This will mean that the returns received by producers cannot fall below a prescribed limit from the weekly standard prices. The stabilising limits, which will be closer to the standard price than at present, will be determined after the Annual Review and will be announced
178
in the White Paper with the seasonal standard prices.
Last October I said that my right honourable friend and I had had very helpful and amicable discussions with the producers' representatives about possible new schemes. I am glad to say that the scheme which is to be introduced in a few weeks' time, and for which authority is sought in the Order now before the House, was the outcome of these very helpful discussions, and it has the fullest support of the National Farmers' Unions of the United Kingdom. I feel confident, therefore, that this new system will be as well received by the industry as a whole as it has by its leaders, and that it will provide a sound basis on which to build an expanding and prosperous livestock industry in this country. I beg to move
Moved, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, he approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are very glad to know that the Order has been produced and that the producers' associations which have been consulted are largely in agreement. The noble Earl, however, in his explanation, raised one or two points which make me wonder. I gather from him that there are to be wider fluctuations than would actually be the case at the present time but that the system would work under a formula. It seems to me, from the figures quoted, that the ordinary farmer will not understand the formula very clearly. Using that formula, with four weeks included in the consideration, the ultimate guaranteed price will be announced weekly—that is, in the week after the known average sales have come to hand. I suspect that that system will certainly be very much better than was: the case twenty-one months ago, a period which provided a shocking experience for farmers, who then lost, on their fatstock cattle, money which has never been recouped.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Oh, yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, not really—or perhaps I do not know the right fatstock farmers. But what strikes me—and it is a matter to which I hope the Minister will

179
still give consideration, to see what pressure can be brought to bear on the Treasury—is that it would be far better for the country, in the cost of guaranteed prices, and also in guaranteeing prices to all fatstock farmers, and not merely to the large producers, if there were a steady guarantee. The large fatstock producer who can send six large batches of cattle to market in the course of a year is easily able to adjust the low price with the high price, subject to guarantee; whereas the small man, sending in an odd animal at a time, is hit if he sends it in the wrong week. He is not going to be too well off, although he will certainly be better off than he was under the previous Scheme. A steady guarantee, which is what is really needed, would cost the Government less in subsidy, and would possibly lead to a lower average price to the producer; but it would be fair and known and would be a type of price at which a farmer could plan to produce. That is my only quarrel with the Scheme. I welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have been trying to repair the situation which arose before, but even now this Scheme does not satisfy my idea of what ought to be done.
2.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I add a few words to what my noble Leader has said in regard to this particular Order? I am afraid that I am quite unrepentant, as I was in October, on the question of marketing and the provisions of this particular Order. The Order is highly complicated, and I think it will be found difficult of understanding by the farmer or anyone else who reads it. But I must say that the arrangement now proposed seems to be better than the one we had last year. I hope that when the Review of prices comes out—as I expect it will do in a few weeks time—the standard prices and the prices which will be paid under this Order will be more satisfactory to the farmers.
The noble Earl said that this Scheme had the approval of the whole of the farming community. I am not quite sure that that is so. My noble Leader has referred to the ins and outs of the marketing system which undoubtedly hit the small farmer, particularly the man who cannot send cattle to market week by
180
week. I am certain that the farming community as a whole would prefer a fixed guaranteed price, on a live weight basis if necessary. The system of marketing, the system of disposing of cattle, as it affects people who are producers and others, is extremely difficult and uncertain at the present time. I hope that in my short lifetime I may be able to see a different system once again coming into the farming industry in regard to marketing. This one is far too uncertain. As my noble Leader has said, we producers are likely to lose money, even though we receive money from the deficiency payments and the stabilising payments and all the rest of it. What I want to see is certainty once again brought into the farming industry.
2.52 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken, and who, I think, have welcomed this Order, in spite of some mild criticism. I think perhaps it may be well if I explain in a little more detail how the calculation will work. It will operate like this. On the Wednesday of each week the rate of guarantee for the following week will be calculated and will be announced on that same day. In other words, every producer will know on the Wednesday before the week in which he is proposing to sell what the rate of guarantee will be—that is, subject to any alteration which may be necessary as the result of the average return to producers in the following week being above or below the margin we have set each side of the standard price. That limitation on each side we have found has been of great value up to now, and we shall, as I said, be reducing the margin quite considerably, so that the variation suffered by the average seller will be very much less than has been the case in the past. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will always stick to his desire for a flat guaranteed price, regardless of market requirements, consumer desires or anything else. I am afraid that we believe that the consumer should have a reasonable chance of expressing his desires to the farmer, and not just to the Government, so that the farmer will be encouraged to produce what is required by the consumer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE) BILL
2.55 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Noble Lords may well recall that my right honourable friend the former Minister of Housing and Local Government gage a pledge in December, 1954, that when the results of revaluation of all property could be fully measured he would consider whether any changes were necessary. The preliminary results of the revaluation were published last March, but even now the full picture is not really available. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend has sufficient information to show beyond any doubt whatever that the recent increases which have occurred in assessments have placed an unduly heavy burden upon the occupiers of shops and other commercial properties.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government feel that it would not be equitable to leave matters as they stand, and accordingly this Bill seeks to remedy the position. Under the Bill the rateable value of shops and other commercial properties will be reduced by one-fifth, or, where a part of the hereditament is used as a private dwelling, by one-seventh. The reduction will take place from April 1 this year, and will last for the period of the existing valuation lists. The Bill also deals with two other matters. First, the contributions which are paid by the State-owned public utilities are to be adjusted secondly, the method of calculating the Exchequer equalisation grant is to be amended to take account of rating relief to charities.
Noble Lords will remember that dwelling-houses are to-day assessed at 1939 values, whilst all other properties are assessed at current values. The average increase in the assessments of houses is about 40 per cent., but a very
182
much bigger increase has fallen on shops, offices, and other miscellaneous properties. Their average increase is about 125 per cent., so I think that it will be conceded on all sides of the House that this group of ratepayers has been, saddled with an excessive burden. The alterations contemplated by the Bill are of a temporary nature and will cease at the next revaluation in 1961 when, as the law stands at present, dwelling-houses are due to be assessed at current values.
Let me turn to the Bill. Clause 1 makes the alteration to winch I have referred, but it cannot be made retrospective and will, therefore, operate from April 1 this year. Clause 2 deals with payments in lieu of rates which are made by the British Transport Commission and the Central Electricity Authority. Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, took out of rating almost all the railway and canal properties which are owned by the British Transport Commission. The Act substituted a system of payments based on a standard amount. This standard amount was based upon the aggregate of rates which were paid by the railway companies in 1947–48, and, after certain adjustments, was fixed by the Act of 1948 at £1,810,000. The payment which is due in any one year is calculated by adjusting the standard amount by a very intricate and complicated formula, with which I need not weary the House, except to point out that the amount is proportionately related to the average rate poundage for the previous year.
As a result of the revaluation of all other properties, the average poundage for 1956–57 has shown an abnormal decrease, and in consequence the estimated payment by the British Transport Commission of about £2¼ million for 1956–57 would fall to £1½ million for 1957–58. Under this clause, the payment to be made by the British Transport Commission for next year will be almost the same as that for this year. This is achieved by an amendment of the standard amount in the 1948 Act.
The arrangements for payments in lieu of rates by the Central Electricity Authority, and the effect of revaluation on the amounts they should pay, are similar. In this case, the Authority will pay as much in 1957–58, subject to minor adjustments, as they would have done if there had been no revaluation. Their standard

183
amount will therefore be increased from £11¼ million under the 1948 Act, to £18,280,000. I do not think that the House would wish me to delve any deeper into this complicated scheme.
Clause 3 deals with the rating liability of Gas Boards. As your Lordships will be aware, the rateable values upon which Gas Boards are rated are calculated in accordance with a formula laid down in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1955. The Gas Boards differ from the other State-owned industries in that they pay their rates direct to the rating authority in the area where the Board manufactures or sells gas. I do not wish to weary the House with a large number of figures but to appreciate the purpose and intention of this clause, some figures are essential. Under the 1955 Act, the rates payable in 1955–56 by the Gas Boards were about £3½ million, but although in 1956–57 the rateable values of their properties increased slightly, the rates actually paid amounted to about £2½ million because of the abnormal fall in rate poundages to which I have already referred. This clause has the effect of increasing the Gas Boards' assessments by 70 per cent. from the year 1957 onwards. This increase is roughly equal to the average increase upon revaluation in the rateable values of properties assessed in the normal way. Here let me point out that the treatment accorded to the Gas Boards is equivalent to that accorded to the Central Electricity Authority.
I turn finally to Clause 4 of the Bill, which deals with the effect of the relief of charities on the Exchequer equalisation grant. The effect of Section 8 of the 1955 Act is that charitable bodies do not pay rates in full on the rateable value of their properties. Thus the local authority suffers a loss of rate income, although the rateable values in the valuation list are not reduced. Exchequer equalisation grants depend on the rateable value per head in such a way that the lower the rateable value per head the greater the grant which is received. Since the assessments on charitable bodies are not reduced under Section 8 of the 1955 Act, any local authority receiving an Exchequer equalisation grant gets no extra grant to compensate for the loss of rate income. This, I am advised, has had a serious effect in Cambridgeshire,
184
Cardiganshire and Caernarvonshire. Accordingly, Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the scaling down of rateable values, for the purpose of calculating the grants, in proportion to the reduction in the rates chargeable.
Those are all the points to which I think I need call the attention of your Lordships in this Bill. I have tried to deal with the more important clauses, and I commend the whole Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Monster.)

NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME
3.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient to your Lordships if, with the permission of the House, I make a statement about the nuclear power programme.
The Government, in conjunction with the English and Scottish Electricity Authorities and the Atomic Energy Authority, have now completed their re-examination of the nuclear power programme outlined in the White Paper of February, 1955, which set a target of some 1,500 to 2,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in operation in the country by the end of 1965. Since we already spend some £250 million per annum on importing fuel, chiefly oil, and this burden on our balance of payments will continue to grow, the importance of our need to develop nuclear power as a source of energy cannot be in doubt. Our task has therefore been to consider the extent to which the 1955 programme can be accelerated in view of technical advances within the last two years.
It is the considered opinion of our expert advisers that in the light of present knowledge the English and Scottish Electricity Authorities can reasonably aim at having at least 5,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in operation by the end of 1965, and that if technological development continues to be favourable and the necessary physical and financial resources can be found, a figure of 6,000 megawatts could be achieved by that date.

185
The Government have accordingly decided, with the full agreement of the Electricity Authorities and the Atomic Energy Authority, to adopt as the basis for present planning a range of 5,000 to 6,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in operation by the end of 1965. This means that the supply of raw materials for nuclear generation, the acquisition of sites and the planning of the transmission network will be on a scale sufficient to bring 6,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity into operation by the end of 1965. The actual amount of nuclear capacity to be installed by that date will be subject to technical experience and development as planning progresses, including the trend of capital costs, and to the availability of physical and financial resources. I am authorised to say that the Government of Northern Ireland are to-day announcing that the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland intend, at the instance of the Government, to bring into commission a 150 megawatts nuclear station in 1963 or 1964.
The execution of this nuclear programme would make a major contribution to our energy resources: a full year's operation of 6,000 megawatts generating capacity would save some 18 million tons of coal. But it would also mean a large increase in the annual investment programme of the Electricity Authorities during the early 'sixties and this would represent a very heavy burden on the nation's capital resources during a period when those resources are likely in any event to be seriously strained.
The programme will moreover involve the erection of new power stations and of overhead transmission lines in parts of the country which have not hitherto felt the impact of the nation's requirements for electricity. This is unfortunately inevitable because nuclear stations raise special siting problems. Her Majesty's Government and the Electricity Authorities are determined to carry through the programme with the least possible interference with the amenities of our countryside or with the rights of individuals. But we believe that this can be done and at the same time some provision be made for that acceleration of the present procedure which is essential if the programme is not to be seriously delayed. My right honourable friend the Paymaster General will accordingly be tabling amendments to existing legislation for inclusion in the Electricity Bill which
186
is at present being considered in another place.
I would only add that nothing said about the prospects of the nuclear power programme in any way affects the importance of the coal industry. However rapidly we develop nuclear energy, coal will remain the basis of our economy and the need to exploit to the full our national coal resources remains as urgent as ever.
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for making this statement. It contains a certain amount of information and it certainly paints a picture of a proposed vast expansion going up from the existing 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts to 6,000 megawatts. That is, indeed, a large programme. It is comforting to think that the noble Lord has warned the public in the statement about the heavy burdens upon the nation which may have to be met, both financial and physical. I am wondering whether his reference to "physical" is confined to interference with amenities, of whether he has in mind also that there may be some difficulty in getting the raw material for the actual development of the nuclear energy. The phrase is rather cryptic, and I should like to be clear about it.
The general picture that I have from the statement, a copy of which the noble Lord so courteously let me have to read before he made it, brings some doubts to my mind. The last paragraph, which says that there is not likely to be very much impairment of the prospects of the coal industry, is comforting. Apparently, according to the statement, the programme is to relieve the burden on the country from the heavy import of fuel oil, to some extent, and is going to save 18 million tons of coal. The prospect there, put together, is quite stupendous, when one comes to look at it. But it would be much more comforting if, against the actual cost saved in those two classes of importation, we could know something of the kind of financial burden that the noble Lord referred to in the statement.
As to procedure, I thought that, in general, with a project of this kind, so large, so important and with such impact on the national economy, it would be reasonable to ask for a White Paper. I

187
see from the statement that the Government propose to have Amendments inserted to the Electricity Bill which is now before the other place. I should have thought that this project being so vast, it would have been much more reasonable, before that is done, for the Government to submit a White Paper for debate in Parliament upon the financial and physical resources available to undertake this programme. Unless a Paper giving that detail can be prepared, I do not think Parliament is really in a position to meet, with proper debating thought, the kind of Amendment which it is proposed to put into a Bill already before the other place. I should be very much encouraged if the noble Lord, no doubt with the cooperation of the noble Marquess who leads the House and who knows so much about the nuclear side of this matter, could tell us that he will produce a White Paper giving something like the estimated cost, in stages, of the proposed programme and of any other interference likely to take place in the national economy. I hope he may be able to do that.
3.20 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount in expressing our thanks to the noble Lord the Minister of Power for his clear indication of the new, or rather the expanded, programme proposals of Her Majesty's Government in the field of nuclear power. I do not wish to anticipate the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who next week is to call attention to the matter of siting of atomic power stations, but I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that full attention is being given to the possibility, or perhaps even the likelihood, that, within about a generation or so, the production of nuclear power may be achieved within a small laboratory, or even within a small box no bigger than the Dispatch Box from which the noble Lord spoke a few moments ago. With this in mind, will Her Majesty's Government press on with all urgency the development of more modern and compact methods of power production, before the remaining amenities and beauties of our more remote and invaluable countryside become totally engulfed and for ever spoilt by vast and
188
rapidly obsolescent power stations? On asking a similar question on a previous occasion, I was rather curtly told that the steam engine became obsolescent as soon as Stephenson had invented it. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will perhaps be able to give me a rather more helpful reply.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us any round figure for this expenditure? We are told that it is very vast, but at the moment I do not know what is the Government's conception of "vast."
3.22 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I think it is a good thing that we have had a statement upon this matter in general, but I am wondering why at this particular moment your Lordships' House is being "jumped" with a statement of this kind, especially in view of the fact that there is down a Motion on this matter. This is no Party question; not a single glint of Party indications is involved. Yet certain clear questions are raised. In view of the obvious apprehension that we saw when Questions were put a week or two ago in your Lordships' House, I am wondering why this statement has been so hurriedly made to-day without having an opportunity of debating either a Motion from the Opposition or my own particular Motion.
It is said, of course, that these are simply nuclear stations for the supply of electricity. It is said that that does not imply anything more than electricity going into the Grid. That is a very childlike assumption, because, when the opportunity is given, I shall show that the nuclear stations may well precipitate industrial reorganisation by the very provisions industry will need to make. If that is so, then I say that, from the electricity point of view alone, the whole course of what will perhaps be a greater industrial revolution than we have had is being decided before Parliament has been consulted. I want also to make the point that members of this House must be aware of the great disturbance felt on grounds of amenity in reference to the siting of these stations. I can raise that matter, because I am not now on the National Parks Commission. I have known what has been going on and it is no good discussing—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not wish to intervene unduly early, but the practice of this House is that, after a statement, it is possible to make a brief comment, but not a speech. I think the noble Lord is really embarking upon a speech. I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Mills will agree when I say that the Government will be happy to have a debate, when we shall welcome any remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, may wish to make. But I hardly think that this is an appropriate occasion for such remarks, because it is not one upon which the Government can properly reply to the points he is making.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I did not wish to enter into a long speech. I was making what I thought were comments that were made necessary by the precipitation of this programme upon your Lordships' House. All I will say about the question of amenities is that it looks to me as though the National Parks Act is being torn up. We shall have some questions to ask upon that when the opportunity arises for debate.
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the last paragraph in the statement, in which he refers to the coal industry. All the talk we hear about the amount of coal which is to be saved by the application of nuclear power to electrical generation has led to a feeling that the coal industry is becoming decadent, so I am pleased that that paragraph was put in.
There are two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord, one of which has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Attlee. In the last two statements we have had upon the development of nuclear power for electricity, we were told the number of stations which the programme set out to build, and also the cost of the programme. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether we can have that information this afternoon, because the Government must have some knowledge as to what this programme is going to cost. In view of the fact that we have made more progress than any other country in the production of electricity through nuclear power, and as there is no doubt that there are many other nations in the world who would like to build nuclear
190
power stations, I should also like to ask whether, in the programme which the noble Lord has outlined, the Government have kept in mind the need for export trade. It seems to me that one of our exports ought to be nuclear power stations. I notice that America has already received orders for nuclear power stations from various countries of the world, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have that aspect in mind.
One other question which is important is the economic side. Can the noble Lord give some idea about the cost of generation of electricity under this new system, taking into consideration the capital cost of the programme, and also the fact that the raw material required, uranium, has to be imported into this country. That in itself is an expensive commodity, and I should like to ask whether the noble Lord can give us some idea as to the difference in the cost of generating a unit of electricity by nuclear power and by the modern conventional process?
3.29 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept from me that the brusque interrogation he has received from this side of the House is only a measure of our intense anxiety in the statement he has made? As my noble friend Lord Attleee has asked: what is the capital cost? May I suggest to the noble Lord that it will not be short of £1,000 million? Has the noble Lord, and have the Government, measured this against the other capital adventures upon which, as a nation, they think we should embark? The noble Lord will realise that we have only recently debated an expenditure of £1,200 million for the railways, £80 million of which is to build 24-ton steel wagons for transporting coal from pithead to power stations. Now we are going to have a 275-kilovolt grid system over the country, with power stations sited at pithead to save transporting coal by rail.
The noble Lord now comes to the House with a £1,000 million project for putting up 1,000-kilowatt power stations—on what grid? The most ominous part of his, statement, if I may read it to your Lordships, is this:
"The programme will moreover involve the erection of new power stations and of overhead transmission lines in parts of the country

191
which have not hitherto felt the impact of the nation's requirements for electricity."
May I ask the noble Lord—I am sure he is fully alive to this problem—whether he will see that some far better machinery is set up to listen to the legitimate complaints of the citizens of this country than is set up under his present powers for public inquiries, or, if I may say so, alleged public inquiries, into the destructive nature of the erection of a 275-kilovolt grid? If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, these inquiries are fast becoming public brawls and not public inquiries. I hope that in the outcry about the siting of some of these atomic stations the noble Lord will not be judge in his own case in the public inquiries that will be held.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would it not be more in accordance with our usual procedure if the Opposition were to put down a Motion and debate it, and let us get on with our Business this afternoon?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We expect an answer.
3.33 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I will try to deal as fully as I am capable with the various questions put to me by noble Lords. First of all, dealing with the questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I would say that by "material resources" I meant not only sites but steel and other materials, and perhaps above all the brains of the scientists and the engineers who will be engaged upon this work. I have reviewed that situation in order that I should not put before your Lordships a programme which seemed incapable of being carried out. I stressed the importance of coal because it is our fundamental wealth. Our energy requirements are growing so rapidly that we need more coal, more oil and nuclear energy. We have, I think, to bear in mind that world competition is growing and, if we are going to meet it, we have to press on with the mechanisation of our industries, which means more power. Coal, therefore, will remain the fundamental fuel upon which we shall rely for as far ahead as I care to look.
192
The noble Viscount asked whether it was our intention to issue a White Paper. That is not our present intention, and for this reason: the programme must remain a flexible one subject to periodical review, and I doubt whether it would be your Lordships' wish that there should be a White Paper every time we looked at this subject. In regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about whether we could not have a compact station which would not injure the countryside at all, I think that is asking me to look further ahead than I possibly can. All I can say is that the development of the atomic sciences is proceeding very fast, and nothing at all would surprise me.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the cost. I think I can give him some figures, if he will take them as estimated figures. They are the best estimate we can make in present circumstances. This programme of nuclear power is subject to alteration and improvement. Therefore we shall take every advantage of any improvements and discoveries, hoping and believing that, as we go along, the cost will drop. Conventional power stations to give this power would cost £810 million. The power stations to generate 6,000 megawatts of nuclear power will cost £1,460 million, but taking into account certain additional costs the difference amounts to £750 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, rather indicated that we had rushed this statement before this House. But surely the Press has for months been full of guesses as to what revised programme the Government were going to adopt. I am sure the public are waiting to be informed of the Government's intention. I have delayed putting forward this statement because I wished to satisfy myself that we had got a practical programme which we could follow, and that is why the statement has not been made in your Lordships' House before this date.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, asked about the number of stations. To carry out this programme, I do not think we shall find it necessary to construct more than another sixteen stations additional to the three for which orders have already been placed. The noble Viscount also asked about exports. It is hoped that, as a result of researches which have been

193
made by the Atomic Energy Authority, the practical work which has been done on this problem and, I think I can claim, the lead which this country has established, we shall be able to achieve exports. Furthermore, this programme has been phased in such a way that at the time when we might expect exports to be growing we shall best be able to carry them. The noble Viscount, also on the economic side, asked about the cost of generation. The cost of generation at the three nuclear power stations which have been ordered is expected to be very slightly more than that at new conventional stations—that is, taking into account the capital cost as well as the operating cost. Capital costs are much higher, but the operating cost is much lower. It is, however, confidently expected that, while conventional stations will go on improving in efficiency, the efficiency of nuclear stations will improve much more rapidly, so that ultimately I think we can hope that the cost of generating electricity at nuclear stations compared with that at conventional stations will be less.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked, whether the Government had measured this enormous capital cost against other requirements. I should like to assure him that the capital needs of the nation are under constant examination by the Government, but I am obliged to the noble Lord for reminding us of the great importance of that fact. Finally, the noble Lord referred to the machinery for looking at complaints. As I said in my statement, the Government are deeply conscious of the need to look after amenities and to protect the rights of individuals. All the Government are seeking to do is to speed up the procedure, because in certain respects it takes too long. They are not intending to deny anyone the right of putting forward his side of the case. As the noble Lord suggests, I will certainly look fully into the machinery in order that, so far as may be possible, we can satisfy him that everything that can be done to protect our countryside and to protect the rights of individuals is being done. But I am sure he will also appreciate that we need this power, and that we cannot put power stations in the countryside in such a way that they and the transmission lines cannot be seen. If it is decided that we go forward with this programme, then I think
194
we shall have to put up with the fact that there are so many more power stations in the countryside and that we cannot have only blue skies with nothing beneath them.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say how indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for the full answers he has given to all the questions that have been put to him with a view to getting die best we can for the country. In fact, if his answers had been included in his original statement, we might have been robbed of many opportunities to question him. The only thing about which I am concerned now is whether, when we have read carefully through his statement, together with his full and, so far, satisfying replies to questions, we can then leave the matter and not put down a Motion. Alternatively, if we think that it is in the interests of the country that we should have a debate on this subject we shall, with the consent of the noble Leader of the House, adopt that course.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, of course we shall be most ready to have a debate if noble Lords opposite want one. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will let me know, when he has had time to consider the statement and the supplementary answers that have been given.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
3.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we now descend from the relatively rarefied atmosphere of nuclear energy to the relatively pedestrian problem of rating and valuation. I am sure that the House is greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for his clear and concise, if decidedly brief, explanation of this Bill. Apart from his recognised talents in exposition, the noble Earl to-day, in dealing with the question of valuation, can usefully draw upon his past experience as a member for six years of the London County Council, which is always, if I may say so, a liberal education in local government affairs. I recall with pleasure that we were members of the

195
L.C.C. together. To remove misunderstanding I should say at once that, as here in your Lordships' House, so in County Hall, we were on opposite sides. From a proper sense of balance it fell out that for his first three years I was in opposition, but for his second three years he was in opposition. Now, in your Lordships' House, he is of the Government and I am of the Opposition; but I am encouraged by the knowledge that there are gathering outward and visible signs that time and circumstance may before long lead to a change in the location of us both in this House. So be it; the people giveth, the people taketh away; blessed be the name of the people!
My Lords, this is a bad Bill. It is bad because of the proposal contained in Clause 1. It is noteworthy that the noble Earl made practically no pretence whatever to defend the proposal contained in Clause 1. He may have to admit, with his accustomed intellectual honesty, that in fact there is no defence that can be made in regard to this clause, which is both objectionable and indefensible. It proposes to create a new class of ratepayer entitled to pay on only 80 per cent. of the assessed value of his premises, and the loss occasioned thereby will fall principally on the householder ratepayer. Moreover, this proposal will seriously complicate the rating system, which is already sufficiently complicated in all conscience.
Further, it is a patchwork proposal. Leaving aside for the moment the grave demerits of the proposal, why do it now, in the midst of the long overdue comprehensive review of local government finance, which we are told is well under way? Surely, if the position of the business ratepayer calls for special consideration (which I do not for one moment admit) it should be dealt with as a part of this review, and not as an ad hoc matter in advance of it. Instead. Her Majesty's Government, apparently yielding to pressures, are proposing forthwith to extend de-rating to another class of ratepayer, without any semblance of the justification which was prayed in aid for the de-rating of industry in 1929, which de-rating, I would recall, many of us engaged in local government at that time very strenuously opposed.
196
To-day, commercial activity and the consumer trades generally are not depressed, as industry was in 1929. On the contrary, they are booming and expanding—so much so that it has been thought necessary to impose a monetary squeeze upon them to restrain and curtail them. There is therefore, in my submission, no case on the grounds of economic need for this rebate to the business ratepayer. And as I have said, Her Majesty's Government are doing this at a time when they propose to reduce the de-rating of industrial premises. Really, my Lords, this is topsy-turvydom. This proposal will further distort the rating system on the very eve, as one hopes, of its greater rationalisation. From statements made by Ministers in another place, it appears that the review will take place this year. I therefore submit that the position is likely to be that, whatever new scheme of local government finance emerges from this review, it will have to be revised in 1961, when, as we are told, it is intended to bring to an end the proposed de-rating of business premises. This really is a muddle, moving, I fear, into a jumble.
Now what is the case put forward by Her Majesty's Government in justification of this proposal? It is that the assessments on shops and business premises have, as the noble Earl has stated, gone up by 125 per cent. and domestic premises by only 40 per cent.; and that the share of the former in the total rateable value is now one-third higher than it was. From this Her Majesty's Government argue that it is an injustice calling for redress. But is it an injustice? Let me examine the facts of this increase. It is an increase on assessments which are twenty years old, and which go back as far as 1934—assessments which, but for the war, would have been adjusted, and undoubtedly increased, in 1940 and at each subsequent quinquennial valuation. These new assessments made, I would stress, by independent valuers for the first time, do no more than bring the assessments of business premises up to the level of their current values—namely, the rents which such premises can currently command. Is that an injustice? On the contrary, I submit that it is an act of justice to correct gross under-assessments which business ratepayers have enjoyed for over fifteen years—through no fault

197
of their own, I readily admit; but from the circumstances of the case.
Nor are these assessments limited to old pre-war properties, for if am informed that in many cases the basis of old assessments has been applied on the first valuation in the old list to new buildings, on the ground that, although they command increased rents, they must be, and have been, valued in many cases by reference to the rateable value of surrounding properties. That is to say, these costly buildings, fetching high post-war rents, have been paying up to March, 1956, on assessments related to 1934.
This is also one of the inequities which the new assessments have corrected. Now, Her Majesty's Government propose to restore the inequity and to nullify this correction to the extent of 20 per cent., not at the expense of the de-rated industrial ratepayer (except as to 25 per cent.) but mainly at the expense of the domestic ratepayer, by reducing the rateable value of business and commercial premises by about £44 million. Her Majesty's Government are proposing to remedy an illusory injustice by imposing a real one on the residential ratepayer.
Nor is that the limit of injustice, for it is made the greater by the fact that the business ratepayer will recover up to 50 per cent. of his increase in rates, and in many cases more, from the Exchequer (because rates are a deduction from profits assessable to income tax and, as regards companies, to profits tax also), whereas the unhappy householder must pay his rates out of taxed income without any tax relief whatsoever. This is a consideration always to be borne in mind, for it is very material. The householder will subsidise the rates of businesses and, at the same time, will subsidise the National Exchequer. On the basis of the new valuation lists he is already doing this to the tune of £66 million a year, divided more or less equally between industry and the Exchequer, as a result of de-rating of industrial property.
The relief to be given to shops and business premises in reduced rateable value is estimated at £44 million, but only three-eighths of that will go to the shopkeeper; five-eighths will go to the business ratepayer. I mention that because most of the arguments which have been prayed in aid of this proposal have been based upon the supposed burdens
198
imposed upon shopkeepers. The shopkeepers, however, will get only three-eighths. As to the shops, a very large proportion, if not the greater proportion, will go to the chain, multiple and departmental stores, which own an ever-increasing proportion of shops and retail businesses.
It is said in justification of this proposal that under the old lists shops and other business properties provided 33 per cent. and domestic properties 60 per cent. of the rateable value, and that if this Bill goes through the proportions will be 36 per cent. and 52 per cent respectively. But these two comparative proportions take no account of the taxation relief that businesses will get; and, in any case, the old lists were twenty years out of date and grossly understated the real values of business properties. It has also been objected—indeed the noble Earl made an oblique allusion to it—that domestic properties are under-assessed on 1939 values; but those values are the actual current values, because of rent control. This 1939 basis for domestic properties was prescribed by an Act of 1948 and was reaffirmed by an Act of 1953. Both Governments are, therefore, committed to this basis for domestic properties. The values of 1939 for dwellings remain current because, as I have said, of rent control.
But there is no such rent control covering commercial properties, and, as everyone knows, the rents of these have gone up, not by 125 per cent. but by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent.—in some cases even more. Many of us renting this kind of premises, know how great these increases of rent have been. When the 1939 basis was approved in 1948 and confirmed in 1953 there was no intention or mention of granting any relief to business properties, although it was manifest to anyone informed on this matter that a revaluation on up-to-date rental values would inevitably result in heavy increases. But it would, nevertheless, do no more than bring assessments up to the current value basis, and would merely correct the prevailing gross under-assessment and the partial, but nevertheless substantial, relief from rates which businesses had been enjoying since 1940—that is for over fifteen years. Under this Bill, they will continue to pay until 1961 at 20 per cent. less than they should properly be required to do. Really,

199
is not this proposal getting pretty close to sharp practice—sharp practice on the domestic ratepayer and sharp practice on the local authorities, expressed as an uncovenanted gift to business and a subsidy to the Exchequer? All local government associations have protested strongly against this mischievous and indefensible proposal.
Local authorities have had to increase their rate poundages in order to off-set the loss of rate income which will result. These increases have ranged from 9d. in the £ to 2s. 1½d. The London County Council increase due to this factor and this factor alone—is no less than a 1s. rate. Over the metropolitan boroughs of London it will (including precepts) range from 1s. 4½d. in Westminster to 2s. 0½d. in Bethnal Green. As is not unusual, the poorer the districts, the poorer the people, the more do they normally suffer. As the Cockney would sigh: "They always cop it". And these unnecessary, unexpected and unjustified additional rate burdens are cast upon the harassed householders at the very time when other heavy increases of rates have arisen from the higher cost of municipal services, especially education and housing—the latter arising particularly from the reduction of subsidies and the high rates of interest flowing from the Government's ill-conceived financial policy. As I have said, everyone knew perfectly well that assessments based on values of twenty years ago would go up sharply. No one contemplated that because of that steps would be taken to vitiate to the extent of 20 per cent. this fair and overdue adjustment of assessments.
Why have the Government promoted this Bill? Not, I submit, because of any real injustice to the business ratepayer; for it is no injustice that he should be required henceforth to pay his fair share of rates based on current values. It may well be that he got a shock when he received his new assessment. But the measure of his shock was really the measure of his former under-assessment, which he had, rather providentially, been enjoying for some fifteen years. What this Bill does is not to redress a wrong: what it does is to do a wrong to the domestic ratepayer—a grievous wrong which can find no justification, I submit, either in
200
fairmindedness or in equity. In addition, it distorts in one more particular the rating system of the country, which is already something of a jig-saw puzzle. If this Bill goes through, the rating system will have these Alice in Wonderland characteristics. Agricultural land and farm premises derated 100 per cent.; industrial premises derated 75 per cent. (soon to be reduced to 50 per cent.); shops and miscellaneous premises derated 20 per cent.; premises used for charitable, educational and similar purposes having sundry abatements (or in some cases complete exemption) of rateable value; three nationalised undertakings with special bases of assessment. And, so far as one can judge from sundry Ministerial announcements and from this legislation, however much local government finance may be recast, these discordant and distorting elements will continue to form part of the rating system—industrial derating as a continuing feature at 50 per cent. from some unprescribed future date: commercial derating as proposed by this Bill until 1961 and maybe after, and the other anomalous elements mentioned to an uncertain future. What an untidy state of affairs! It is more of a hotch-potch than a system.
But let me return to the proposal to derate forthwith by 20 per cent. business properties. Apart from being unjustified on merits, it is also precipitate for another reason. As the Government well know, there are, up and down the country, thousands of appeals against these new assessments, of which, I gather, the majority are still outstanding and will not be settled for many months—maybe not this year. This is causing financial difficulty and embarrassment to the local authorities by reason of the loss of income received by them. But who can say what the cumulative result of these appeals may be? It may well be that they will greatly reduce the total of business assessments, thereby altering, maybe very appreciably, the proportions of rateable values between the two classes of property—it may be against the householder and in favour of the business ratepayer. Yet, if this be so, the business ratepayer will still get his 20 per cent. relief—if this Bill becomes an Act—on the reduced assessment. This will mean that he will, in fact, be paying rates on an assessment adjudged to be fair and proper on appeal but,

201
nevertheless, arbitrarily reduced by 20 per cent.
Even if the Government felt that they could not wholly and ultimately withstand the pressure of their friends and supporters, why, in modest decency, did they not wait at least until the appeals were generally dealt with, the new valuation lists were more or less settled and the real position were known, before they proceeded, with unbecoming haste, to give this concession of 20 per cent., which, in the result, may prove excessive even on the Government's own line of reasoning? Why, I ask, this overweening solicitude for one class of ratepayer at the expense of another? The Government have shown no such anxious regard for tenants in the matter of housing rents, despite the almost universal protests, the indignant force and expression of which is manifest in recent by-election results, and which will in no less vigorous a measure show itself, I do not doubt, in the by-elections still to take place. The householder has also expressed his opposition to this proposal. He has done this directly through his local government associations, whose business it is to protect his interests. Their opposition is unanimous and energetic to Clause 1 of the Bill. This is the objectionable, unjust and, indeed, indefensible clause to which my noble friends on this side of the House cannot give assent.
About the other clauses, I have little to say. Clauses 2 and 3, dealing with the three nationalised industries, are relatively unobjectionable. They purport to make certain adjustments of liability which are comparatively of a minor order and upon which I do not wish to say anything, at this stage at all events. As to Clause 4, this has the purpose, as the noble Earl said, of remedying a hardship in the calculation of equalisation grants in respect of rateable relief given to charities under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. There can be no objection in principle, I think, to this.
Thus we are left with Clause 1. We on this side of your Lordships' House cannot concur in giving this Bill a Second Reading so long as this clause stands part. As I said at the outset, this Bill is a bad Bill. If passed, it will operate to do an injustice to the vast number of residential taxpayers. It is also precipitate. It
202
unnecessarily introduces another distorting element into the already distorted system of local rating. I feel bound to say, however, that it is all of a piece with the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which puts up the cost of living at a time when they hold out a desire to stabilise it on a so-called "plateau." If plateau there be, then it has all the characteristics, I submit, of a fast-moving lift with the changing attendants calling out, "Going up, going up?" With a determination which brooks no relent, they are busy in unison pushing the lift through the roof. I refrain from commenting on the fact that this seems to be one of the few fields where unity prevails among them; but we must draw the veil somewhere, even though it be only for pity's sake.
This Bill to increase the rate burden of the householder comes along with proposals to permit the increase of their rents by millions a year, to increase National Health Service contributions by something like £30 million a year, to increase the charge for school meals and to raise the cost of welfare milk by £14 million a year. A pretty piece of plateau stabilisation work, I must say! And, if you please, at the same time as this is being done, the public are being constantly deluged with ineffectual appeals to refrain from seeking wage and salary increases to meet these increasing expenses. Out of ingrained courtesy, I forbear from any reference to the Crazy Gang, but really, this is a crazy business, and the proposal in this Bill is not the least among its crazy elements. We on this side cannot assent to giving this Bill a Second Reading.
4.16 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in any L.C.C. reminiscences, as I was never a member of that body, but my father for years played a great part in local government in London and I can assure the noble Lord that for many years I heard of his activities. Therefore, I am not at all surprised to-day to listen to his slashing and, if I may say so, rather wandering attack on this Bill.
I should like to make a few remarks on one aspect of Clause 1. As the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has said, the object of Clause 1 is to reduce by one-fifth the rateable values of shops, offices and other commercial properties. There is one group

203
of commercial properties which, it appears to me, have been kept outside the scope of this clause—namely, advertising stations, where hoardings are erected for advertisements, and piers at the seaside. They are commercial properties just like shops. Why have these been excluded from the benefit of this 20 per cent. reduction? I am told that advertising stations have had their valuations increased by as much as 167 per cent., and the highest increase in the valuation of shops is 120 to 125 per cent. Yet these properties, which have had their assessments increased by 167 per cent., are not going to get the benefit of the 20 per cent. concession under this Bill. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the case of these types of property. I would go no further at this moment, as I have hopes that the noble Earl may consider this problem sympathetically; but, in case he does not, I feel that I should make it clear that I reserve the right to put down an Amendment on Committee stage if necessary.
4.19 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this is the latest of a long series of Bills amending the basis of the rating system, and it certainly will not be the last. As my noble friend Lord Latham has said, the rating system has become extremely erratic and arbitrary. Its original basis, whether just or unjust, was at any rate comparatively simple: it was, an assessment of the annual value of an immovable property, according to what it was deemed to be capable of being let for in its existing condition. Since 1896, however, when agricultural land was derated by 50 per cent., there have been a succession of alterations. In 1923, agricultural land was derated by 75 per cent.; then in 1929 industrial and freight transport hereditaments were derated by 75 per cent., and agricultural land completely. Now we have a basis of assessment in which some property is rated upon a pre-war value and some is rated upon a present-day value; and, in addition, shops and commercial properties are now to be rated upon 80 per cent. of their current value. There is no economic justification for all these various adjustments in the basis of local taxation. The Government, apparently, are going to deal presently with the derating of industrial properties, and are going to
204
diminish it. But it is all completely arbitrary; there is no economic basis underlying it of any pattern whatsoever.
It is true that the basis of local taxation is open to criticism, but the defects cannot be remedied by the kind of means which have been adopted in the past. The basis of criticism is of an entirely different nature. It is that an assessment of a movable property is an assessment of two totally different things: it is an assessment of the land, and also of the permanent improvements which are placed upon it. There is undoubtedly a long history, not only in this country but in many other countries of local taxes being based upon a valuation of immovable property. That basis certainly has the advantage of being related to something which is peculiar to the locality, and undoubtedly it is far more equitable than such devices as excise duties or other taxation upon commodities, or attempts to localise income tax or inheritance duties.
But it still remains the fact that the basis of local taxation, in not discriminating between the value of the site and that which is placed upon it, is inherently faulty. It has the effect, especially as it is operated in this country where the assessment is related to the existing use of property, entirely disregarding its potentialities for better use, of exempting the valuable property which is undeveloped; of giving, in effect, a partial exemption to old, obsolete properties, whether commercial or slums, or what they may be, and, conversely, of imposing a penalty of higher taxation upon the improvement and the redevelopment of land. That is entirely a mistake. It is, in effect, a tax imposed upon a commodity of universal consumption—dwellings in which people live; shops, offices, factories and other business premises in which they carry on their industries—which becomes, in effect, an increase in the one case, in the cost of living, and in the other an increase in the cost of production.
It is surely high time that, instead of bringing in periodically these entirely arbitrary adjustments of the rateable values of certain classes of property, the Government gave serious consideration to what, after all, has been done in many countries

205
already; that is to say, separating the value of the site from the value of the improvement; and imposing a uniform rate upon the value of the site and reducing the amount which falls upon the improvements. There is ample precedent and experience for such a course. It is done in most of the British Dominions; it is done in Denmark, in parts of the United States and in other countries. It is practicable and simple; it has given satisfaction where it has been adopted, and it is fortified by economic arguments of a simple and decisive character. In the study which is being given to local government financial reform, here is something of a constructive nature which ought to receive attention, so that we can put our system of local rating upon a coherent and scientific basis. For those reasons, as well as for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Latham, I too am entirely opposed to this Bill.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I have only a few words to say as the last speaker on this side of the House. I think your Lordships will agree, however much some noble Lords may have differed from the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Latham, that he made a quite exceptionally able speech—such a speech as one would expect from someone with an outstanding experience of local government finance. Indeed, he has left little for other speakers to add to the case he made. My only regret is that all the opponents of the Bill seem to have been kitting on this side of the House, because I am sure that the objections to this Bill, on grounds of local government finance and social justice, are even more important than the political objection to the policy of the Government which has been raised by the Opposition here this afternoon. I am sorry that sonic other noble Lords—and so many noble Lords are independent in these matters—did not criticise this Bill purely from the angles of local government finance and the desirability of having a just proportion of the burden of rating between different sections of the community.
I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Latham said about the effect of Clause 1 of this Bill on London. The essential unfairness of this clause is that the ordinary householder in London will
206
have to carry the rate burden carried until now by non-industrial buildings—or, to be quite accurate, the major part of the rate burden. This unfairness will be felt more acutely in London than in many other towns in other parts of the country, because so large a proportion of rateable property in London consists of shops, offices, public buildings, banks and so on, all of which will have their rateable value reduced by one-fifth. The effect of this Bill, as the Minister said in another place, will be to reduce the total rateable value of England and Wales by about 7 per cent.; but the reduction of what a 1d. rate will produce in the county of London will be about 12½ per cent.
To-day is Budget Day for the County of London. To-day we (I say "we," because I have the honour to be a member of the London County Council at the present time) are asking Londoners face the higher rate which we feel obliged to impose in order to meet our increased expenditure. The Council are being asked to increase the present rate to a figure for the coming year which will be higher by 2s. 4d. in the £. The ratepayer in London will therefore have to find a record figure of 9s. in the £ for the County rate. Of this extra 2s. 4d. on the present London rate, 1s. 4d. will be needed to cover the higher cost of running the Council's services, while 1s., as my noble friend Lord Latham mentioned, will be an increase due directly and entirely to the 20 per cent. reduction in the rating of shops and offices proposed in Clause 1 of this Bill.
It seems to me, as I am sure it must to any fair-minded person, grossly unjust that this tax burden should be shifted from the onus of commercial and office property to the London householder. It is unfair because it could easily have been avoided if the Government had waited until the increase of rateable value in industry had come into effect, or, better still, until there had been a general review of local government finance. The second objection is that this method of altering rateable value is contrary to a reasonable system of local government finance. Why are we getting these piecemeal alterations in rateable value? Industry is about to go up, and commercial premises are about to go down. Surely, it would have been far better to wait

207
until all classes of property were assessed according to their current value, and then rate relief could be given as desired in relation to real social need. I cannot help wishing that the Government had been willing to wait for a proper and considered review of local government finance, which would at last bring uniformity into our rating system. With those few words, I strongly support the case that has been made by noble Lords who sit on this side of the House.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise for only a very few moments to reply to this debate, and to try to answer some of the questions that have been addressed to me. The House will not be surprised when I say that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, expressed views with which I think the greater mass of the Members of this House would profoundly disagree. To say, as he did, that Her Majesty's Government are giving birth to a separate body of ratepayers has, in point of fact, no foundation in evidence at all. The noble Lord knows far better than I do that houses are already separately assessed on a completely different basis—namely, at their 1939 values. Industry is paying on current value, but at only 25 per cent. of its full rating and agriculture is not rated at all. The shops and offices had been singled out, as we see it, for specially severe treatment.
What in point of fact happened was this. The assessments on businesses, offices and shops were, as I have said, increased by an average of over 120 per cent., which will undoubtedly cause serious financial burdens and embarrassments to many of the smaller shops and businesses. Indeed, no other class of ratepayer—none which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, cited, and none which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, cited—has, in fact, been asked to pay on that basis. One of the complaints which was raised by all noble Lords who have spoken, except my noble friend Lord Jessel, was: Why should Her Majesty's Government give this relief by a small measure such as the one I have presented to-day? The answer, I think, is very simple, and one which I endeavoured to give in my observations when I moved the Second Reading. We were satisfied that the revaluation which took place transferred too
208
large a share of the rate burden on to shops and offices, and we considered that it should not be allowed to continue for a further year—indeed, it might have continued until the next quinquennial, which would take place in 1961.
The noble Lord also pointed out that the increases in assessments are the first which have occurred for, I think he said, a period of twenty years, and that that merely brings the assessments up to current levels—in other words, we are correcting an under-assessment. That is perfectly true. I would not quarrel with the noble Lord at all, but the injustice here arises because houses which were also greatly under-assessed have not been brought up to their current levels. When they are brought up to their current levels, the need for this temporary relief will disappear. That is why it is only temporary, and that is why it expires altogether, if I may use that expression, in 1961.
Another remark which we have heard to-day is that Clause 1 of this Bill is grossly unfair to householders. I wonder if it is? Householders will still be bearing a share of the burden which is 13 per cent. smaller in this coming year, 1957–58, than it was before the revaluation which took place in 1955–56. Those shops and other premises which we are relieving by this Bill will still be bearing a share 13 per cent. larger than it was before revaluation occurred. It seems to me that it is only right that, in these circumstances, the Government should endeavour to remedy an obvious injustice by doing justice to that particular class of occupier.
LORD LATHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Is not a large proportion of that 13 per cent. due to the expansion of commerce, and not necessarily due to higher assessments of individual property?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I could not break down the figure of 13 per cent. any further. There is always a difficulty when one gets into these percentages. The ones I quoted must be percentages over the country as a whole. It may well be that part of it is due to larger business premises, or an increase in business premises, and the other part to the erection of a large number of houses since the assessment was made twenty years

209
ago. But I could not at the moment break down those figures any further.
It was also suggested that there may be a large number of appeals. We were asked: why not wait and see what the appeals decisions are like, and how many have been received? By the end of December, so I am informed, nearly 350,000 proposals to reduce assessments had been settled, and scrutiny of the results achieved indicates clearly that the broad distribution of the rate burden indicated in the White Paper published a short time ago is not likely to be materially disturbed. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, raised the subject of rating of site values. He will, I hope, forgive me if I do not go into that matter on this occasion, because it has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. But on any other occasion I should be quite prepared to argue with the noble Lord in this House whether or not the rating of site values would be a useful addition to the rating system.
I could not help thinking, having known the noble Lord, Lord Latham, so long, that, with his eye on the local elections which are so near, the noble Lord and his colleague in front of him perhaps felt it politically expedient at this moment to impress upon the electors as best they could that almost the whole of the increase in the rate poundage in local authority areas can be traced entirely to Clause 1 of this measure.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure the noble Earl did not wish to misrepresent me. I was not thinking of local elections. Indeed, I dealt with London; and in London, as the noble Earl is aware, there will be no elections for another year.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I am talking about the other elections which are due to take place in this country from April onwards. As I say, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Latham, so well and knowing his art of conducting politics even better, I am quite certain that he hoped to be able to impress upon the electors that the whole of this increase in the rate poundage can be traced to this measure.
LORD LATHAM: I never said that.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I did not say that the noble Lord did say that.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Earl got as near to saying it as is possible.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I said I could not help thinking, knowing the noble Lord so well, that that was possibly at the back of his mind.
LORD LATHAM: I am comforted by the noble Earl's compliments.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps what he really required to do was to cover up the maladministration of so many Socialist-controlled councils. What he was seeking to achieve I am not clear. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, asked me whether piers and hoardings come under Clause 1 of the Bill. The answer is that they do not. My right honourable friend would not be prepared at the moment to extend that clause to cover this particular point. I hope I have answered some of the more important questions addressed to me, and trust that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the first Amendment to the Patents Bill which was made in another place and to which your Lordships' agreement is now sought is very similar to one which was moved in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. It is some time since your Lordships considered the Patents Bill and some of the more technical provisions may not, therefore, be completely fresh in your Lordships' minds. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House why the

211
Government found themselves unable at that time to accept the Amendment to which the House is now asked to agree.
First, I thought that it was unlikely in practice to achieve the early publication of Ian invention, since it seemed to me that an applicant could ensure postponement by neglecting to put his application in order. Secondly, an applicant has, since 1939, been allowed to make a request to postpone acceptance, and hence publication of his patent specification, until the end of the statutory maximum period. I suggested then to your Lordships that Parliament ought not to make what would amount to a change in the law on this second point without an inquiry amongst the interested parties.
I still feel that my first argument was a valid one. Bearing in mind, however, the views expressed in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of this Bill, Her Majesty's Government took an early opportunity to consult the various bodies interested in this matter—the F.B.I., the Chartered Institute, and so on. This, then, is what happened. It turned cut that their opinions, the opinions of the experts concerned, strongly favoured the making of the Amendment. This Amendment was further pressed by both sides during the Committee stage in another place, and the Government accordingly thought it their duty to put down this Amendment at the Report stage of the Bill. I offer this explanation because I particularly do not want the House to think that our acceptance now of an Amendment which was originally unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government is in any way intended as a discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, or, indeed, to the House. I think your Lordships will now appreciate exactly what happened. Accordingly, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
4.46 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, is going to say, if anything, and I do not know whether to take at its face value what the noble
212
Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said—that he has now offered your Lordships an explanation. I lam not sure whether he has not offered your Lordships an apology. His words were that an Amendment was put down in your Lordships' House very similar to that which now appears upon the Order Paper and which was accepted by the Government in another place after the Government turned it down in your Lordships' House. "Very similar" really should read "precisely the same". The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, put down an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1. That is precisely the Amendment, now made in another place, to which your Lordships are now asked to agree.
I remember that the noble Lord said at the time that he was surprised that I did not put down the Amendment. I explained to him then why I did not put it down, and I was only too happy to support my noble friend, Lord Cawley. I thought the argument that the noble Lord advanced to your Lordships, and—if I may be so immodest as to say so—the argument that I advanced, was unanswerable. I had not heard any better argument advanced anywhere. But now we appear to have the Amendment upon the Order Paper. One of the reasons the noble Lord advanced for rejecting, on behalf of the Government, this same Amendment was—and I quote from Column 737 of Vol. 200 (No. 13), of the OFFICIAL REPORT for December 4, 1956:
"We considered this matter carefully at the time. We discussed it with patent agents. We consulted the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, The Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and The Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation. We came to the conclusion that the effect would not achieve what the noble Lord has in mind",
intimating that the decision of the Government was influenced by the opinion of those bodies. I think I understood the noble Lord aright: that the self-same bodies were consulted before the Amendment was accepted in another place and it was upon their recommendation that the Government agreed to it. It appears to me to be somewhat mysterious.
However, I am going to suggest to the noble Lord that the reason why the Government accepted this Amendment was because they were so impressed with the arguments that were advanced in your

213
Lordships' House—and I will give a great deal of credit to the noble Lord that the Government did accept the Amendment, because, if he will recall his last words, they were that he would consider very carefully what had been said, he would discuss it with the President of the Board of Trade and, if they came to the conclusion that the fears that we advanced were substantial, then something would have to be done. Well, something has been done and we are grateful for it.
There is one thing I would point out to the House—that is, that at the time when this Bill was going through your Lordships' House the procedure was most handicapping. If your Lordships will remember, we in this House could not have a Report stage unless on the Committee stage there was an Amendment to report. The procedure has now been altered, in my view with great advantage to the House. Immediately after the Committee stage of this Bill I had a letter from an eminent member of the Patent Bar, who pointed out how right we were in the fears we had expressed and how wrong the Government were in not accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. I replied to this eminent Queen's Counsel saying, "I am sorry that we cannot do anything about it now in this House. You will have to prosecute the matter in another place." I have shrewd suspicions that that was the reason why another eminent Queen's Counsel in another place put down the noble Lord's Amendment and got it carried. I personally thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this Amendment and I am grateful to the Government for having accepted it. I do not think that my modest word of protest is uncalled for, because the Government might have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble if they had elected to accept the wisdom of this House, which, in many cases, is far superior to the guidance that they get from anywhere else.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything on this matter, out I feel I must say a word of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that this Amendment has now been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has been so assiduous in assisting me in getting it passed. In conclusion,
214
I must say that I am sorry that the Government did not accept my first Amendment too.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) Subsection (3) of section twelve of the Patents Act, 1949 (which provides for an extension of time where an appeal is pending or the time for appealing has not expired), shall apply in relation to the revised period as extended by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section as it applies in relation to the period referred to in that subsection.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is of rather minor importance. It is nothing more than a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to improve the provisions of Clause 2. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clause 51:
Appointment of inspectors
51.—(1) A local authority may, for the purpose of carrying out their duty under the last foregoing section, appoint such inspectors as they think fit, and may pay to inspectors appointed by them under this section such reasonable remuneration as the authority may determine.
(2) Provision may be made by regulations with respect to—

(a) the qualifications to be held by inspectors;

(b) the mode of appointment and terms of tenure of office of inspectors;

and compliance with regulations having effect by virtue of this subsection shall be obligatory on a local authority by whom an inspector is appointed.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "shall" for "may" where that word first occurs. The noble Lord said: I think the intention of this Amendment and the next, which go together, will be clear to the Committee. My contention is that if there is to be inspection carried out by the local authority in matters of this kind they ought to appoint inspectors; it should not be left as a matter of option for them to do so. My next Amendment is merely complementary to the first. I ask that, if there is to be uniformity and a proper standard of what is expected of the inspection, there should be some responsibility placed upon someone apart from the local authority, to see that a proper standard is set. The words that I suggest in Amendment No. 87 are designed to carry out that intention. They place the local authorities under an obligation to see that the conditions of service and remuneration are such as can be approved by the Secretary of State. It will be remembered that these two Amendments were put down when I still had the hope that Scotland might be included in the Bill.
If the words do not quite bear the proper application of what is intended, I hope that, if the intention is accepted, the Government may take the responsibility of putting correct words into the clause later on. What I have in mind is that if it is left to the local authority to appoint anyone as an inspector they may use that opportunity for pensioning off some servant whom they wanted to let down quietly at the end of his service, without much regard to his ability or to his qualifications for carrying out the duties that would be required of him if proper attention were to be given to this matter of inspection. I have thought it wise to bring these considerations to play upon this particular clause. I cannot give chapter and verse for it at the moment, but I believe that conditions like these are included in the Food and Drugs Act. If I am correct in that—I have been assured that I am—it seems to me that that is a sound argument for bringing the same considerations to bear in connection with this clause and with this important Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Mathers.)
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Although I am resisting these two Amendments, I do not think there is really anything between the noble Lord and the Government on either of them and, like the noble Lord, I propose to deal with both of them together, if he and the Committee will permit that course to be taken. As regards the second of his Amendments, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has not fully appreciated the effect of Clause 51 (2), which gives my right honourable friend power to make regulations with regard to the qualifications, the mode of appointment and terms of tenure of office of the inspectors. It seems to me that that covers all the points which he desires to achieve by the present Amendments, and in a more appropriate way. The extent of remuneration, I am advised, is not a matter for the central Government but one for the local authority. Under the existing law my right honourable friend does not have, nor does he desire to possess, any power of deciding the remuneration of these local government officials. As regards conditions of service and qualifications, I believe that those matters are adequately dealt with under Clause 51 (2) by the power to make regulations.
The other question is one on which I have heard argument in another place literally for hours, but I believe that in fact the Amendment makes no effectual difference. Although on paper it would appear that by substituting the word "may" for "shall" we are taking away a duty and providing an option, in the specific language of Statutes in relation to local government service that is not so. It is, of course, the desire that every local authority charged with enforcement should appoint an inspector. The phraseology employed in the Bill, as distinct from that under existing law which employs the word "shall", takes cognisance of the fact that there is no effective method of enforcement supposing the local authority do not appoint an inspector; for they could appoint an inspector who did nothing, and this change of phraseology would give no effective means, of enforcement.
In point of fact, the ordinary custom of many of these Statutes which impose duties on local authorities, like the phraseology of many Statutes which

217
impose duties on a Minister, is to give power to do a thing and to expect them to do it, leaving it to the control of Parliament and the local authority to carry out their duties. As regards the actual phraseology of the first Amendment, there is nothing in it, although I am advised that that employed by the draftsman is slightly more appropriate. As regards the second of the two Amendments, we already have, under Clause 51 (2), the powers we want to achieve the noble Lord's purpose, and as these Amendments are intended to be complementary I hope that, in the light of the explanation which I have given, and which I hope will not have impressed the noble Lord as unduly obscurantist, he will see fit to withdraw the first Amendment and net to move the second.
LORD MATHERS: I seem to have a fairly good excuse, if not reason, in the actual wording of the Bill. I shall rest my faith on what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and will withdraw my first Amendment; and I will not move my second Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is, I am afraid, the precise reverse of that which actuated the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, in his Amendment. As the noble and learned Viscount has just pointed out, the power in subsection (2) enables the Minister to prescribe by regulation the qualifications to be held by shop inspectors and their mode of appointment and terms of office. It seems to me to be clearly implied from that that the Secretary of State does not consider that local authorities are able, unassisted, to choose the staff required to perform their statutory functions, or that they can be relied upon to lay down appropriate conditions of service. I regard that as a regrettable lack of trust in local authorities.
At the present time, a small minority of the officers appointed by local authorities are subject to Government supervision in this way, but I suggest that there is no real case for an extension of that list. Indeed, the main objective of the Local Government Manpower Committee, which was set up in 1949 and
218
was composed of representatives of Government Departments and local authority associations, was, as stated:
"To simplify the methods of departmental supervision of local government activities, to reduce the need for and the extent of such supervision and to ensure wherever possible that a greater measure of responsibility rested on local authorities."
No Government has disowned these objectives, and many of the recommendations of that Committee have been put into effect. The effect of laying down qualifications in regulations might be to prevent authorities from enforcing the provisions of shops legislation through officers who, though not formally qualified, are perfectly capable of efficiently carrying out these duties. There are obviously cases, particularly with small local authorities, where, for example, the public health inspector could perfectly well perform the functions under the Shops Act in combination with his other duties.
As regards the mode of appointment and terms of tenure of office, the growth of Whitleyism in local government makes it quite unnecessary for the Government to enter this field. The shop inspectors have their representatives on a National Joint Council, on which both employers and employees are represented, and this body is fully competent to deal with questions relating to conditions of service. Incidentally, it is very difficult to conceive what should be the qualifications to be held by Shops Act inspectors. Presumably the only kind of examination which could be imposed would be on the provisions contained in shops legislation, and I should have thought that in many cases a local authority would be able to find someone to carry out what is, after all, a very practical job, even though he could not commit to memory the provisions of the Shops Act. I am thinking, for example, of small authorities who might wish to employ a part-time inspector. A retired policeman might be very suitable for the purpose, and it would be unreasonable surely to ask him to sit for art examination in shops law.
In addition to all these details, however, I suggest that there is an important principle at stake. Unfortunately, we live in a society which is being enervated by extreme centralisation, in pursuit of which we are teaching this nation to bend more and more to the dictates of any Whitehall clerk. I cannot believe that the

219
noble and learned Viscount in charge of this Bill would ever favour slavish subservience to centralisation, or would wish to sap a sense of responsibility, even in local authorities. We have taught the world the way to win freedom, and it seems that by a great deal of our modern legislation we are now teaching it the way to lose it. We are supporting all self-government—there is a notable instance coming tomorrow—and we say that the only way to learn to carry responsibility is to be given the right to exercise it. Yet here at home our legislation shows an increasing reluctance to trust our own people. We say abroad that it is essential to effective democracy to have a local government possessing sufficient authority to manage its own affairs and to provide a sound foundation for a good central Government. I see no reason why we should not practise at home what we preach abroad. Above us all there still looms the immense tutelary powers of the State, and I suggest that it would be undesirable to add to them. That is the basis of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 15, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Milverton.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, would have just ground for complaint if I did not resist this Amendment. If I do so, it is not because I see either in the Amendment or in the Bill as drafted the deep philosophical implications which my noble friend has sought to read into them. The Bill is both more innocent than he appears to imagine and less closely connected with the affairs of Ghana. The fact is that the Government have full confidence in local authorities in the ordinary way. If it will be some consolation to my noble friend, I can tell him that both as regards conditions of tenure and as regards qualifications, it is the Government's intention to consult local authorities. In that way, I hope, it will be made apparent that we have confidence in the local authorities. I dare say that the local authorities will be glad to have some degree of uniformity in consultation in the matter. And I do not think that they would, on reflection, resent it as a criticism, explicit or implied, of their ability to decide their own affairs, if they do this in much the same way as one another.
220
This is very often achieved by a regulating power. Nor do I think that they would feel that this was a case of a clerk in Whitehall imposing his baneful will upon them.
Without derogation from the general statement which I have just made, I think it is right to say that the Gowers Committee expressed great concern at evidence which showed that one or two local authorities had appointed as shops inspectors persons who, clearly, were not fit to do the job properly. I should have been disposed to agree with my noble friend, subject to the wiser opinion of my right honourable friend, that a retired policeman would appear to be a suitable incumbent of this office; but I hardly think that the same can be said of a car park attendant. Yet, a car park attendant was one of the persons who, the Gowers Committee found, had actually been appointed to this duty in one case. On another occasion the choice fell on the Mayor's mace-bearer. I should have thought it would be felt desirable by neighbouring local authorities not to permit occasional lapses of this kind, provided that the power of regulation is carried out after due consultation with the local authorities. I feel that this is not a gross abuse of power such as my noble friend seemed to think.
As regards tenure, I think that my noble friend has probably overlooked the wishes of the inspectors themselves. Inspectors are particularly vulnerable to victimisation. This particular power in Clause 51 (2) of the Bill was put in at their request, in order to protect them from local victimisation as a result of their activities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Victimisation by whom?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Victimisation by people whom they have inspected. Such people may have certain powers. They may be able to lobby local interests against the person who has inspected them. Public health inspectors are rather analogous officials, and they have been protected in an analogous way. It is, therefore, at the request of inspectors, or potential inspectors, that this clause was inserted. It was not designed for the purpose of limiting freedom of local authorities, but for protecting the integrity and freedom of the inspectors. I hope

221
that, with that explanation, my noble friend will accept what the Government have done as the best solution.
LORD MILVERTON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his full and complete reassurance on this subject, though it leaves me personally quite unsatisfied. The reasons which he gave, to my mind, are minor reasons compared with the principle which he so airily over-rode—that is, that excessive centralisation is ultimately a very bad thing for the local authorities if we want them to be efficient. In the circumstances, having expressed my protest, I have no alternative but to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 57:
Annual reports
57. Every local authority shall make to the Secretary of State an annual report of their proceedings under this Act containing such particulars as he may direct, and the Secretary of State shall make to Parliament an annual report giving an account of his proceedings under this Act and of the proceedings thereunder of local authorities.
5.16 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved to leave out Clause 57. The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is instigated by a clause which, to my mind, is another instance of top-heavy paternalism. I submit that, it is open to the same objection as Clause 51. I do not wish to repeat all the reasons which I gave when speaking on that clause, but to my mind it clearly indicates lack of confidence on the part of the Secretary of State in the ability of local authorities, and an inability to trust them to enforce the law. After all, the production of annual reports—and no one should know it better than I do—is unproductive labour and in my opinion the time and money spent on this work could be better spent in enforcing the law which is their subject matter. In any event, it seems to me unlikely that the reports will ever be seriously read by anyone, or examined critically, even if it should be thought that action might follow.
If enforcement of the Shops Act were grant-aided, there would be an excellent reason, or excuse, for the Secretary of
222
State to require an account of expenditure on matters on which Exchequer monies were being spent. But in fact local authorities do not receive any contribution from central funds. I understand that Section 128 (3) of the Factories Act, 1937, has been quoted as a precedent for the submission of an annual report to a Minister. This section, however, merely requires that local authorities shall pass on to the Department a copy of the annual report of their medical officer of health, which is prepared for the information of the local authority in any event, and which covers a much wider field than local authorities' responsibilities under factories legislation. So, once more, I think it is right to protest against this unnecessary supervision or interference by the central authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 57.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD DERWENT: I did not think that on this Bill I should ever disagree with my noble friend Lord Milverton, but I do so now. I should like to say just one word about this Amendment. I think it is essential that Her Majesty's Government should be in a position to know whether a local authority is functioning under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, or whether it is not functioning. In my own part of the world, within a very short space of coastline, there are some five or six holiday resorts and areas covered by other local authorities as well. At this moment, I know well that there is one local authority which takes its duties seriously. There is another local authority which makes some effort, but the remaining local authorities make no effort whatsoever, with the result that shops are open at all sorts of extraordinary hours when they are not supposed to be open, to the great detriment of those local authorities who try to carry out their duties, In this case, I must say that I cannot agree with my noble friend.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As between my two noble friends, I have no hesitation in preferring the opinion of my noble friend Lord Derwent to that of my noble friend Lord Milverton, who, I must say, is in a terribly gloomy mood this afternoon. These baleful prophecies of the disaster which would occur as the result of a proposal that local authorities should submit annual reports to the

223
central Government seem to me to be out of all kind of proportion. As my noble friend Lord Derwent said, we want to know how this Bill is working. We do not want the inspectors' reports to be wasted on the desert air. Where there is inspection, there is information; and information is largely wasted if it is not correlated and centralised. There is no undue paternalism in wanting to know the facts. There would be paternalism in interference but, after all, Parliament is giving my right honourable friend a responsibility for conditions in shops and he is entitled to have information upon which he can exercise that responsibility.
My information is that local authorities normally require inspectors to supply them with annual reports, and all that would be required under the Bill is for the local authorities to forward the reports they already have to my right honourable friend, so that he also may enjoy them. I am happy to give an assurance similar to that which I gave on the last Amendment: that it is our intention to consult the local authorities about the particulars which will be adequate for the report. The local authorities, I fancy, will find their neighbours' reports extremely interesting. Moreover, the additional information which will be available will be of value to Parliament. The Gowers Committee attached a good deal of importance to this proposal. I am told that the absence of the information which would have been contained in these reports has occasioned great difficulty to the draftsmen in drafting the present Bill. I should have thought that my noble friend who proposed this Amendment, with whose principle I so much sympathise, would, on the whole, feel able to console himself with the fact that these prophecies of gloom are perhaps a little overstated in this instance, sad as the present situation undoubtedly is.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the answer he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I am sorry to be on a different platform in this matter, but I want to ask whether the noble Viscount could make representations to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to see whether there could be some regular publication, not of
224
all the inspectors' reports, submitted from hundreds of local authorities, but of some kind of summary that would give all those organisations interested in the progress of this matter the facts which would enable them to get at the root of what has occurred over a period, either annual or triennial. Such a summary would be of great use to the trade unions, welfare societies and the like.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I may be wrong in this matter, and I know that my right honourable friend will listen respectfully to the words which have come from the noble Viscount, but if he would read the second part of this clause, which provides that the Secretary of State shall make to Parliament an annual report giving an account of his proceedings under the Act, and of the proceedings thereunder of local authorities, he will see that the provision is designed to meet the need which the noble Viscount has in mind. I am sure that my right honourable friend will consider it in the light of what he has said.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation of the reasons why this clause ought to remain in the Bill. I have still the same lurking dissatisfaction with this creeping paralysis of centralisation, but, in view of what he said. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Punishment of offences
60.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved in subsection (1), to substitute "fifty" for "twenty" [pounds]. The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I hope that I can appeal to the noble Viscount's sympathy if I recall to his mind an episode which occurred in your Lordships' House two or three years ago during the Committee stage of the Television Bill. If the noble Viscount will cast his mind back, I think he will remember that he proposed an Amendment to alter the maximum penalty

225
which the Government had suggested in the Television Bill. If I remember rightly, he was successful and the Government went some way to meet his proposal. I am proposing an alteration in the maximum penalty in this clause for offences committed against the provisions of the Bill, for the same reason as the noble Viscount wanted the maximum penalty altered in the Television Bill.
It is simply this: that the maximum penalty of £20 proposed in Clause 60 is the same in amount as that already laid down in the pre-war Acts of Parliament relating to shops. It was laid down in the 1936 Shops Act and that maximum was borrowed from the 1928 Shops Act; so that, in fact, the maximum of £20 goes hack for nearly thirty years and has taken no account at all of the change that has occurred in the value of money during that period of time, I think your Lordships would agree that although £20 may still be not unfitting as a maximum penalty for a first offender, a subsequent offender should be liable to a heavier fine, and that magistrates should have the option of imposing a heavier fine if they think a heavier line is suitable in the circumstances. I am not wedded to the wording of this Amendment. I think that there are two ways of doing this: either by having a maximum of £50 for any offence under the Bill, which is what I am suggesting, or one maximum for the first offence and another maximum for subsequent offences. That seems to be the way it was done in the earlier Acts. I do not pretend to know which is the better course, but I suggest that the noble Viscount may well agree in principle that the maximum of £20 is too low and that some Amendment is required in order to enable magistrates to impose a heavier line for persistent offenders, if they think fit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 36, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("fifty").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl has made two persuasive points, one of which is to recall out of my murky past an incident which I am bound to say had slipped from my memory but which I will accept from him. The second is that fines must go up as the value of money goes down. I would agree in
226
general that there is a good deal to be said for this suggestion, but it is even more important to keep the maxima in line with the fines for similar offences. Under the Factories Acts, which are analogous to this, arid, indeed, of which I should be inclined to say that persistent breach was worse, the maximum penalty is £20; that is to say, the maximum penalty for offences relating to the hours of employment of women and young persons is £20, which is the same as is proposed here. It would, at first sight, be an anomaly to put £50 into the Shops Act when £20 remained in the Factories Acts. Similarly, under the Licensing Act, 1953, which is a relatively recent piece of legislation, the maximum penalty for selling intoxicating liquor outside hours is £30. Again, I should have thought that it was slightly absurd to make the penalty under this Bill much higher.
Under the Shops Act, 1950, which has the merit from the point of view of the noble Earl of being a piece of Socialist legislation and not too ancient, for a first offence it is £10 and for a second offence it is £20. So we are actually increasing here the maximum for first offences, but following the recent practice of leaving the actual amount of penalty to the court, and trusting the court (and in this I hope I shall have the approval of my noble friend behind me) to be able to distinguish between first and subsequent offences.
If I may speak rather outside the brief, I would point out to the noble Earl, from a considerable experience of police courts, that if you find persistent disregard of an Act of this kind the inspectors tend to bring a number of summonses, sometimes amounting to twenty in all; and if the inspectors follow this simple device, by a process of arithmetic the noble Earl will see that the amount the persistent offender will have to pay even on one occasion may be some hundreds of pounds. If, for instance, he failed to give a large number of shop assistants the half holiday, the fine might run into thousands of pounds in the case of a big shop. My inclination is to think that these summary offences are probably adequately penalised as they are. In my experience, magistrates, on the whole, seldom impose maxima. The type of offence which is

227
dealt with in these Acts is best dealt with by inspection and prosecution, and unless one were going to impose sentences which I think no one would think appropriate for offences of this class—that is to say, sentences of imprisonment—I do not believe that as between the £20 and £30 there is very much difference. My right honourable friend, who has considered the noble Earl's proposal, would prefer to leave the fine the same as in the Factories Acts, and for that reason I resist the Amendment, although I am bound to admit that the noble Earl has got a plausible case which he has put extremely well.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his reply, but I must say that I am not altogether happy about it. It seems that he is in rather a fix, if I may put it in that way. I can sympathise with his desire to be consistent by bringing the penalty for offences under this Bill into line with the penalty for similar offences under existing Acts, such as the Factories Acts. On the other hand, he also wants to be consistent about carrying out as many as possible of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee Report; indeed, he invoked the Report of the Gowers Committee when we were dealing with the last Amendment. I should like to read paragraph 125 of the Gowers Committee Report, which says:
"We heard some complaints that these figures"—
that is referring to the maxima in the earlier Acts—
"were not high enough, and more, that the fines actually imposed were inadequate. We think that the maximum penalties for second and subsequent offences might well be increased."
There it is. The noble Viscount is in some difficulty, but I am sorry he does not feel that the importance of being consistent in the matter of the Gowers Committee Report is not greater than that of being consistent in relation to the other Acts. However, if I cannot persuade him, I do not press the point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Defence available to persons charged with certain offences]:
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out Clause 62 and to insert the following new clause:
Defence available to persons charged with certain offences
"62. Where the occupier of a shop is charged with an offence consisting in a contravention of a provision of Part I, II, III, IV or V of this Act he shall be entitled upon information duly laid by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the court at the time appointed for hearing the charge and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act and that the said other person has committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent or connivance the said other person shall be summarily convicted of such offence, and the occupier shall be exempt from any fine."
The noble Earl said: This appears an elaborate Amendment, but it is designed to meet a quite simple point. The purpose is to enable magistrates to convict a shop assistant of an offence when the shopkeeper has proved to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was committed without his knowledge or authority. To take a simple example, suppose a shopkeeper says to his assistant that he must not sell a certain article during the time the shop is closed on the early day in the week, but the shop assistant sells that article, then, clearly, the shopkeeper will be justified in arguing in his defence that this was done without his authority or consent. I should have thought that, equally clearly, the shop assistant was guilty of an offence under the provisions of the Bill and should be liable to conviction by the court. If this Amendment were adopted, it would simply be restoring the provisions of the 1950 Shops Act which cover this particular point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 62 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD DERWENT: When my noble friend replies, would he be so good as to deal with the one point that occurs to me: whether, in fact, this Amendment might not lead to awkward situations where the owner of the shop has given no instructions and is prosecuted. He then says that he has given those instructions and some nervous employee, not

229
wanting to lose his job, may be hesitant about saying anything. The shop assistant will be fined when, in fact, it is really the fault of the occupier. And it may then happen that the occupier or owner of the shop, not wishing to get himself into trouble, will pay the fine. This Amendment seems to me to be likely to lead to the possibility of all sorts of awkward situations arising.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is as well to see exactly what is in issue here. Clause 62 of the Bill, as drafted, makes it a defence if a person charged with an offence consisting in a contravention of the provisions of the first five Parts of the Act proves that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with the law. That is in line with quite a number of Statutes and regulations. I cannot remember them all, but there are quite a number under the Food and Drugs legislation, and quite a number under the Public Health legislation; and I am also told that there is another under the Agriculture (Safety Health and Welfare) Provisions Act, 1956. At all events, noble Lords can take it as certain that there are a number of cases where regulations, if broken, can lead to the prosecution of an employer; and the employer, as the person legally responsible, has to exonerate himself by proving that he is innocent of any fault and has used due diligence. Some employers find that onerous, particularly a conscientious man who feels the stigma of a prosecution for this type of offence rather more hardly. He may value his reputation as a good employer, as a purveyor of clean milk and so on. He finds, to his distress, that the regulations have been broken, and he is prosecuted, and he has to prove that he is innocent, contrary to the general rule of English law.
There are two patterns: the Bill follows one pattern and the noble Earl suggests the other; and both have precedents in this legislation. The question is which the Committee prefer. The first pattern is our Clause 62: that if the owner proves he is innocent, he is to get off. The other pattern says that he can invoke that defence only if he prosecutes somebody else, normally his employee, but sometimes an independent contractor. The advantage
230
of that, from the point of view of enforcement, is that he has another person before the court whose views can be heard, so that the judicial authority before whom the prosecution is brought has the opportunity of probing the matter further, of seeing perhaps that it is not a put-up defence and so on.
On the other hand, we feel that the model we have chosen, which follows the model of the 1956 Act, is the more humane and the better of the two. It is extremely invidious for an employer to prosecute his employee, and I do not think a good employer will often do so. At any rate, it would be extremely unjust to put the employer in the position of having to prosecute his employee or else debar himself from asserting his innocence. I say that with a certain amount of feeling, because it once happened to me. Fortunately, I was able to persuade the local authority that I was so certain to get off on the statutory defence that they would not prosecute me at all. But if they had, I had instructed my solicitor not to accuse my employee, who was manifestly guilty, rather than incur the odium of so doing. I should have been in the position of being convicted of a criminal offence and of being debarred from asserting my own innocence, simply because I preferred not to prosecute my employee. So in this instance I endorse the advice I have received from the Home Office with more than the usual sense of conviction. I hope I have spoken with a sense of conviction of which I have the courage, because in the other case that did not fall to my lot. I hope that, in speaking with some feeling on the matter, the noble Earl will agree with me and will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much moved by the force of the noble Viscount's argument. I did not realise the difficult position in which an employer would be placed. I think he will agree that my Amendment has some force, but I see the other side of the case, and I must admit that the noble Viscount is probably right. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [General Interpretation Provisions]:
5.42 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in the definition of "closed", to leave out "the serving of customers" and insert "retail trade or business". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 92 to 96 inclusive, are all trying to deal with the same problem—that is, the definition of the word "closed", which, under present legislation, and in this Bill, is taken to mean, "closed for the serving of customers". It has been, up to now, almost impossible to know what the words, "closed for the serving of customers" means. The courts have found extreme difficulty in interpreting them. It may be that my noble friend, with his great legal knowledge, when he comes to reply will be able to satisfy me that they do in fact mean what they appear to mean.
The two types of business which are particularly affected by this definition are car selling businesses and those selling televisions, though, of course, the selling of cookers and everything else is also affected. There have been two cases in the courts from which everybody hoped, after they were over, that everyone would know what the words meant. But they merely made the situation rather foggier. The first case was Waterman v. Wallasey Corporation, and the decision in that case was that it was no offence to show a person over a car and to discuss its price and merits—no sale, of course, having taken place; though how they know that, it is difficult to tell—whilst in the other case of Hesketh v. Wallasey Corporation it was established that if a prospective customer was taken out for a trial spin in a car, this did constitute being open for the serving of customers. So we get what, in fact, may be two sales—one takes place indoors and is supposed to be just seeing the car, and the other out-of-doors, which is supposed to be selling the car. In either case the car may be sold, or it may not. So the result of these two cases did not help much.
What is even more uncertain is the effect these two judgments have on other businesses—for example, the demonstration of television after the shop is supposed to be shut. Is that serving customers, or is it not? In the early days of television—and the sale of television sets provides one of the more difficult
232
questions—there was little viewing time and it was not always possible to demonstrate a television during the hours a shop was supposed to be open. But those days are past. There is now plenty of time, and I do not see nowadays that there is any difference between showing a television, a car, a piano, a cooker, or anything of that kind. I am not in the least interested myself whether televisions or cars should be demonstrated before closing hours or after; I do not care at all. But, surely, this is new legislation, and the intention of the Act ought to be made abundantly clear in the Act itself. If the Government want television or cars to be shown after closing hours, then put it in the Bill. But as, apparently, that is not their intention, then I suggest that the words of my first Amendment will cover the situation and will make it quite clear. Instead of using the words, "'closed' means closed for the serving of customers", the words would read "'closed' means closed for retail trade or business." I am advised that that will be well understood in the courts and will, in fact, cover exactly what it says—that you must not carry on any retail trade or business. I believe the courts understand that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In my view, the noble Lord is raising an intensely interesting point. Might I put this question to him? Whilst, by accepting his Amendment, you might close a television shop for retail business, suppose that before the hour of closing the assistant takes the television set out of the shop, puts it in a motor car and drives it to the house of the prospective purchaser and demonstrates it on the purchaser's own premises. What happens then? As the Bill is now drafted, my interpretation is that if he does that upon an afternoon when the shop should be closed under the early closing provisions, he is breaking the law. But how are you going to enforce it?
LORD DERWENT: I hesitate to embark on this legal argument with my noble friend sitting on the Bench in front of me, but I rather think that the case the noble Lord mentioned might well be covered by the decision in Waterman v. Wallasey Corporation. But I do not know. I am hoping to hear from my

233
noble friend when he replies. If he does not like the wording, "retail trade or business", I would ask him what wording he does like, for there is no doubt whatever—because the courts have found themselves in difficulty—that the wording, "for the serving of customers" is not satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 6, leave out ("the serving of customers;") and insert ("retail trade or business;").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD MILVERTON: I should like to say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, as some of these linked Amendments are in my name as well. I do not wish to repeat the noble Lord's argument. The aim of the Amendments, as he has said, is to endeavour to remove what we regard as the ambiguity in the definition of "closed". Perhaps I might add to what he said by referring to the fact that one Amendment, No. 95, makes explicit mention of the taking of orders. I understand that it is argued, no doubt based on Case Law, too, that the taking of orders is implicit in the meaning of "retail trade". If that is so, I suggest that in this new legislation it would be desirable to make it quite plain to those who are affected by this legislation and explicitly state it in the Bill. I beg to support the Amendment.
5.51 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Viscount this question? Would he, at the same time as he is answering the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, deal with this point that I have raised? Is it covered by his undertaking? I raised this point, the noble Viscount will remember, on one of the first Amendments—I think it was to Clause 10. That was one of my reasons for asking him to consider it, and he very kindly undertook to do so. If you take goods from the place of sale, which is closed for the purpose of serving customers, to another place, is that illegal? I interpret it to be so, under the Bill as it is drawn, if it is done upon an early closing day or at any time—perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me this—outside the hours when that particular establishment is permitted to be open. So no wireless or television salesman can sell a wireless set or a television set after
234
seven o'clock on any weekday, unless it is a late closing day, even if it is away from the place that is supposed to be closed for the purpose of business. He cannot do it on the afternoon of the early closing day. The same obtains with motor cars, commercial vehicles, caravans or anything like that. Does this not involve the original Amendment that put down, which the noble Viscount said he would be kind enough to look into, with a view perhaps to meeting the case?
LORD DERWENT: Before the noble Viscount replies, may I make a correction? When answering the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I cited the wrong case. I think the case that made it illegal was Hesketh v. Wallasey.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have been asked a number of questions, and I am afraid that I am going to give a most unsatisfactory reply. A Minister who attempts to be a British law-ascertaining tribunal is inviting disaster. I have heard many a Minister try, in both Houses of Parliament, especially if he has legal training, but invariably, if he tries to do so, he fails to carry the conviction of the Committee which he is addressing. It has always seemed to me that the basic reason why many Ministers—in fact, all Ministers including myself on the present occasion—fail to do so is that when they are asked a number of questions of this kind, they are being asked what we should describe, in legal language, as questions of fact and not questions of law. All these questions are questions of degree for the tribunal of fact, be it magistrate or jury, to pronounce upon within the ambit of the Act; and, if you try in advance to give a hard answer on a suppositious case about a question of fact, the chances are that the next week a case will come up in the courts, apparently indistinguishable, and the opposite conclusion will be arrived at.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I phrase the question I put in a different way?—I am now addressing the Minister responsible for the Bill. Is it the intention of the Government in this Bill to enact legislation which will debar the things that I have said? Surely the House is entitled to know that. If the House cannot be told that, how can the House act as a Legislative Chamber?

235
What are the Government's intentions in this Bill, and are those intentions as I have outlined them?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. I think this is exactly the kind of trap into which I have seen Ministers fall before. The Government intend, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, to limit the hours during which shops are open for the serving of customers. They intend to leave to the courts, who are the persons entrusted with that kind of business, the question of what, on a given state of facts, consists in being closed, and what, on a given state of facts, consists in serving customers. There is almost every kind of combination and permutation which an ingenious mind can find in advance, and the only sensible answer that a lawyer ought to give is that we entrust the decision of cases on fairly clear words to a body of responsible men of the world, acting impartially, who, when the concrete circumstances of a given case are stated to them, do not find it impossible to decide, for instance, whether a shop is closed for the serving of customers.
Of course, one would like to have a more precise definition, my noble friend Lord Derwent would like to have a more precise definition, and it would certainly be my desire to have a more precise definition of what constitutes being closed—that is to say, closed for the serving of customers or closed by any other rubric. All the ingenuity of "all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men"—and they are very much more ingenious than I am—has failed to find a definition which does not involve some issue of fact which would be at least as obscure as the form of words which is now chosen—" closed for the serving of customers ". The form of words which is now chosen, "closed for the serving of customers", has to some extent been elucidated in the courts. It has been elucidated in the courts in the two cases of Hesketh and Waterman, to which my noble friend referred. The advice I have is that they afford admirable guidance as to what the law is in the matter. That means that the particular form of words which has been chosen has been the subject of judicial scrutiny and judicial explanation, which makes them rather plainer than most other forms of words.
236
My noble friend Lord Derwent prefers the form of words which he has put forward. I will gladly consider with him or, preferably, will arrange that he or any other noble Lord interested in the subject should consider with the draftsman responsible for this Bill, whether any form of words is better than "closed for the serving of customers". Those advising me, and I myself, are persuaded that the formula which the noble Lord himself has devised is actually more obscure and more full of questions of fact which cannot be elucidated in advance than the formula which the Government have chosen. My noble friend would insert "retail trade or business". What is "closed for retail trade or business"?
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. Although we have not yet come to it, I believe he has looked at Amendment No. 96.
VISCONT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord is being a little previous. I was taking things stage by stage. First of all, I am dealing with the formula stage by stage. The noble Lord has chosen the formula "closed for retail trade or business". What is "retail trade or business" and what is "closed"? That raises an exactly comparable level of problems, rather similar, though not identical, to those which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me in relation to "closed for the serving of customers". What is "closed", and what is "serving of customers" in relation to the kind of circumstance which he has in mind? What is "closed" and what is "retail trade or business" in relation to the formula my noble friend prefers? So far as I know, there is in fact no answer to that question.
It is quite true, as my noble friend suggested, that both the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, apparently realised that the formula they have proposed was at least as vague as that which the Government proposed, because each in his turn has inserted a further definition in the subsequent definition of "retail trade" to cover this point. Unfortunately, they have not covered it, because the formula in the second definition phrase "retail trade" starts with the word "includes". "Includes" tells you a number of things which are meant, but does not purport to tell you the extent to which the phrase

237
will ultimately go. Therefore, it precisely does not answer a range of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, posed me.
The wording favoured by my noble friend Lord Milverton is
"the demonstration of goods and any personal service facilitating their inspection, the taking of orders."
The formula preferred by my noble friend Lord Derwent includes inserting after "auction", in the same phrase, the words,
"and the personal attendance by the occupier of the shop upon any person so as to permit the demonstration or inspection of any goods offered or exposed for sale at the shop."
In relation to either of those formulæ I cannot make up my mind what the situation would be—it certainly would not be the same in the two cases—in relation to the demonstration of the various articles which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth had in mind at places other than the shop by persons in the employment of the owner of the shop other than the occupier of the shop himself. To my mind, this only illustrates that it is very easy to say that a formula devised by a Bill is not precise. I should be the first to admit that "closed for the serving of customers" is not particularly precise; but it is quite wrong to substitute another formula which, at first sight, in one's own eyes is much mare precise but, upon closer investigation, is seen to raise a totally different and far more complex series of problems. We want to stop creating more doubt and difficulty than would be removed by the substitution of a new formula. We want to avoid prohibiting harmless activities, including, possibly, even window displays. Is a window display a demonstration? I suppose on the dictionary meaning it probably is.
Broadly speaking, therefore, the view to which we have come and to which we adhere at this stage—although the last thing I want to do is to be dogmatic or to suggest that the last word has been spoken, or that even some further formula might not be found to elucidate the matter more plainly—is that, ultimately, what constitutes a shop being open or not is what the lawyers call a question of fact, not of law. Parliament should lay down to the magistrates (who are, if I may say so in the presence of the learned Lord Chairman, normally fairly intelligent people), as it does with juries in parallel
238
circumstances: "If a shop is open for the service of customers outside certain hours an offence has been committed, but if it is closed for the service of customers an offence has not been committed. What exactly constitutes being open or closed for the service of customers is for you, as men of the world, to say, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case."
The best guidance that we can give to the Committee is that that is a proper solution. It is also in line with the general doctrines of English law and practice to trust the magistrates upon a fairly clear statement of the law, to apply that law to the state of affairs which an extremely complex situation may reveal. That is the best we can do. I want to make it quite plain, both to the noble Lord opposite and to my noble friends, that if, for any reason, they think they have a more precise formula, and would like either to press the one which they have put down or some other form of their own devising which they may think is plainer than that of those responsible for the drafting of the bill, the disposition of those responsible for that draftsmanship would be to accept it if they felt that a greater degree of light would be shed upon the subject. At the present time, the disposition of those responsible for the draftsmanship—and, I may add, my own also—is to lay down the general guidance that this is one of those questions which should be left to a competent lay tribunal as a question of fact, once one accepts the view that the ordinary man is quite clear when a shop is open for the serving of customers as he is quite clear when he sees an elephant.
LORD DERWENT: I find this entirely unsatisfactory. I see the difficulties; but one of our principal difficulties; is that we do not know what the Government want to do. We do not know if, when a shop is closed, in the sense that the building is closed, they want to allow people to look at a car or at a television set after the shutters are down. We do not know if they want to allow people to take a car or a television set or a cooker to somebody's house to demonstrate it after the shop is closed. We have no idea of their intentions. The noble Viscount has said that we are leaving this matter vague. Of course we are leaving it vague, because we do not know what is wanted: In my

239
submission, we are not leaving it as vague as the words that are at present in the Bill. Obviously, we cannot press this matter now, and we will reconsider what the noble Viscount has said. It will not help us much, because we do not know what it is desired to do. Before I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment perhaps the noble Viscount will say what he wishes to take place; then we should be delighted to try to draft something. Until then I do not see what we can do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. If the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, it is not fair for him to come here and ride off the Amendment by a clear and clever exposition of the legal processes. After all, Parliament is composed of ordinary intelligent individuals, not lawyers. The lawmaking is put upon them. I am certain that all noble Lords wish to discharge their duties and functions to the best of their ability, and to make the law as clear as it is possible for them to do, so that the ordinary man in the street can understand it. What an impossible position legislators are put in when we do not know, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent has so clearly said, what are the Government's intentions! Do the Government desire to make it illegal for goods to be taken out of a retail shop and to be sold outside that shop, in the case of motor cars or television sets, pianos and other transportable goods, after the hours which this Bill sets out as being the limit within which retail trade can be carried on in that shop or upon those premises? If the Government will tell us their intentions, then we will do our best, with our average intelligence, to help draft the law so as to give effect to those intentions.
The noble and learned Viscount is really only telling us that we do not know what Her Majesty's Government want, and neither do they. This is one of the most awkward questions which makes much of this Bill a farce, but the noble and learned Viscount says in an airy fairy fashion—I hope I am not saying this offensively—"Ah! But it is not our duty to interpret the law; that is for my learned friends." It is our duty to make the law and to make it as clear as we can. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has made
240
a brave attempt. I cannot help him very much, although I desire to do so, until I know, as he desires to know, what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have heard these debates, on exactly these lines, fifteen or twenty times, over the last twelve years, with both Parties in power, and I have noticed that what the Minister has said has had the same effect, at any rate on the lay members of the Committee to whom he has been speaking; and each time I have realised that the misunderstanding was inevitable and almost absolute. So far from pretending or believing that it is not the duty of Parliament to make legislation clear, I myself assert it, and I am a defender of that principle against my noble friends and the noble Lord opposite. It is easy to say that what the Government mean is intelligible to an ordinary man when the Government say they want a shop closed within certain hours; but making something clear is not the same as making it either elaborate or precise.
On other occasions in this Bill we have seen the dangers and difficulties which occur when one has to undertake to make the law elaborate or precise. The effect is to encourage evasion. If Her Majesty's Government say their intention is that shops should be closed for the serving of customers, that seems to me to be something which an ordinary man can understand, something he is much more likely to understand than the formula devised as to one part by the united wisdom and as to the other part by the divided wisdom of my three noble friends who have put down this particular Amendment. I believe that the ordinary man and the honest shopkeeper will know in general what is meant when it is said that a shop shall be closed for the serving of customers.
On a much earlier Amendment I told the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we would consider the motor car trade separately. I agreed that perhaps theirs is a special problem and that some degree of exemption may be the way out. It is even conceivable that the radio trade may present a similar problem. These are matters which can be discussed now or at later stages of the Bill. But I am quite sure that Parliament nearly always makes a mistake if it disregards the

241
advice of the draftsman and, so far as I am concerned, the rather modestly trained lawyer, not to be too precise for the sake of avoiding evasion, but to leave it to a tribunal of fact, composed of honest and reasonably-minded men, to apply the intentions of Parliament, plainly stated, to any given set of circumstances which Parliament can only dimly foresee in detail and would be unwise to pronounce upon in detail in advance. It is also part of the policy of the wise draftsman to use, in legislation, words which an honest shopkeeper, or whatever class of man he is seeking to legislate for, will understand in the ordinary sense. It is only the one who wants to evade the law who will be in difficulties.
I stated, I hope with commendable frankness, that if a more precise formula can be found which exactly defines what is meant by opening and closing a shop and does so in such a way that it cannot be evaded or misunderstood, I shall be the first to welcome it. All I am saying at this stage of the Bill is that the special problem of the motor and the radio trades may have to be dealt with by way of exemptions, and that particular problems of definition have to be solved by the Parliamentary draftsman or by myself. We believe that the formula which my noble friends have devised is at least as obscure as that which we have devised.
LORD DERWENT: I will read what my noble and learned friend has said with great care, but I hope that if demonstrations are to take place away from the shop they will be legal, and that that will go into the Bill. That will make it abundantly clear that the article is not something which is being sold from the shop. If those are the intentions of my noble and learned friend, perhaps we may return to the point later. I now beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in the paragraph defining "shop assistant," after the words "work about the business of a shop" to insert "for more than twenty-five hours in any week". The noble Lord said: We have partly debated this matter before. I suggest to your Lordships that it is a question we ought to decide to-night and not leave to a future occasion. It was debated when I had a
242
consequential Amendment to this on Clause 38. This is an Amendment which deals with part-time workers. My definition of part-time workers in this Amendment is those who work for twenty-five hours a week or less; and the Amendment seeks to take those part-timers out of the control of this Bill. The reason I have chosen a total of twenty-five hours a week or less is that as long ago as 1934, in the Shops Act, that was considered as defining a part-time worker for young persons, and they were taken out of the orbit of that Act.
Now unless there is something of this kind in the Bill we shall make complete nonsense of some of the administration. Clause 38 (2) lays down that where working hours of a shop assistant include the hours from half-past-eleven in the morning to half-past-two in the afternoon, that worker shall be allowed between those hours an interval for dinner of at least three-quarters of an hour if feeding on the premises or at least one hour if feeding outside the premises. Every day, for five days a week, many hundreds of true part-time workers (I have taken this as an example but it appears all over the country) go into the City of London at about eleven or half-past-eleven and leave again at three o'clock; so that their daily work, for five days a week, is four or three-and-a-half hours. They go there solely to serve luncheons to City workers. They do nothing else in the City.
If this Amendment of mine, on Clause 64 is not put into the Bill, all those people who are going into the City at 11.30 a.m. are then to have three-quarters of an hour off for lunch, just when people are coming in to get their lunch; then they will go away at three o'clock. That makes absolute nonsense. When the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter on Clause 38, he seemed not to mind the idea behind my Amendment, but he put out a word of grave warning as to what might happen if too many hours were worked in a day by this particular category of part-time workers—those working twenty-five hours a week or less—and thought they might work three days a week for twelve hours a day. It is for that reason that I think this Amendment should be passed to-day—so that all your Lordships will have time to see that these people are properly looked after. I think that the noble

243
Viscount will find that the only Amendment he will want to put in will be the Amendment which I had down last time for Clause 38 (1), because in that subsection it is laid down that a shop assistant:
"shall not be employed to work continuously about the business of a shop for a spell of more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal or rest:".
The noble Viscount will remember that when I was talking about Clause 38 (1), I explained that I wanted to put these people back into the Bill, and the effect of my Amendment was that they could get protection. Apart from that, I suggest that one must have something in the nature of my Amendment which deals with part-time workers, because either people in cities will not get their lunches or they will have to have them at very queer times—the workers may have to get their lunches by 9 a.m. It does not make sense. The principle has been agreed in previous Acts of Parliament. It started as long ago as the Shops Act, 1934. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 6, after ("shop") insert the said words.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD JESSEL: I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on the second day of the debate, replying to Lord Derwent's Amendment, put it very well, I think, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 34). col. 980.]:
"it also takes away the meal interval provision in Clause 32 (2) as well, leaving the meal interval provision in Clause 38 (1)."
That is exactly what Lord Derwent wants to put back. He wants to give these part-time workers the meal interval provision in Clause 38 (1). Also, the noble Viscount was right in what he said about taking away the half-holiday. Again I quote:
"I cannot myself see why the Sunday provisions do not work well enough in their place. If an assistant is employed on a Sunday but not on every weekday the requirements of Clause 39, about time off in lieu of Sunday employment, have been complied with; so I do not see that any hardship is involved in regard to the employer."
The Sunday provisions of Clause 39 are not all right if the person works more than four hours on Sunday only because, as I read it, he is not allowed to work
244
more than three Sundays in the quarter. In the season, in seaside places, very often people are required just for Sunday work, so, if the provisions of Clause 39 are complied with, they will not be able to work every Sunday; they must have one Sunday off in the quarter—by the "quarter" I mean a period of four Sundays. I think that is the right interpretation. I should like to hear the noble Viscount's remarks on that when he comes to reply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am to some extent taken aback by this Amendment. I thought we had agreed to discuss this matter on the Amendment to Clause 38. My understanding was that I had answered, and that my noble friend had accepted what I said at the earlier stage of the Bill. It is, therefore, to some extent, impromptu that I now rise to deal with a matter which had to some extent passed from my mind. The effect of the two Amendments taken together—the one which was withdrawn (and I thought withdrawn with the consent of the Committee) and this one which is before us now—is to exclude from the employment provisions of the Bill all shop assistants who work twenty-five hours a week or less. With the exception of the provisions relating to Clause 38 (1), the present Amendment—that is to say, the one we are now discussing to Clause 64, page 48, line 6—has, I think, by itself, the effect of excluding part-timers altogether from the Bill: that is to say, that even the provisions in Clause 38 (1) would cease to affect the part-timer if the present Amendment were passed.
I cannot at the moment, therefore, see what the purpose is of moving this Amendment, unless it is to go even further than the Amendment which was (in my judgment, at any rate) rightly withdrawn at the earlier stage of the Bill. I cannot see why any of the provisions should not, as they are drafted, apply to part-time workers. The relevant provisions are half-holiday provisions in Clauses 37 and 43 and the meal interval provisions in Clause 38 (2). Even if I do not take a legitimate or, as my noble friend might complain, a rather debating advantage of him in referring to the provisions of Clause 38 (1), which are clearly designed to apply to part-timers but which this Amendment would exclude from part-timers, I would point out that the Bill

245
has been carefully drafted to make reasonable and flexible provision for part-time workers. For instance, the provisions of Clause 43 (1) (a) are expressly designed to meet the needs of part-time workers and, I think, primarily designed to meet the needs of part-time workers and no one else. It is that amongst other provisions—
LORD JESSEL: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Viscount, but I do not quite follow. Is that not just a new alternative definition of half-holiday?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think not, with respect to my noble friend. The purpose is to apply half-holiday provisions to part-time workers. That is why a new definition is inserted. That is the intention of the Bill. The second part of the definition in Clause 43 (1) (a) is devised for the precise purpose of making the provisions of Clause 37, which relate to a half-holiday, applicable to part-time workers; and it is this provision, among others, which would be excluded from application to part-time workers if this Amendment were carried. I cannot go the whole way with my noble friend on Sunday work. I have not got up the case afresh, but I do not understand why, if a person is employed for Sundays only, he is not given for purposes of Clause 39 a whole holiday for the rest of the week. It may be the effect of Clause 39 on the part-time worker is as mentioned by Lord Jessel. Without notice, I should not like to dogmatise whether it is or not. The effect of Clause 39 on particular types of part-time workers may be to restrict the number of Sundays on which they may be employed. I should not like, offhand, to exclude the possibility of making a concession on that point—but not by this avenue, not by excluding part-time workers as a whole from the Bill. I am most anxious that the Bill should not include an anomaly in this respect.
I should like to consider the point further, in the light of any advice I might receive from my right honourable friend, but in my own mind I am clear that in general it would not be fair to exclude part-time workers as such from the provisions on Sunday working. It may be that it would be proper to make a concession for particular types of part-time workers on some part of the operation of the Sunday work provisions, but that is a detailed question which I think could be
246
dealt with on Clause 39, either in the course of Report stage of in another place. I do not think that the right way of approaching the subject is to exclude from the operation of the Bill the Sunday and half-holiday provisions in relation to part-time workers as a class. As I think I said on the previous occasion—and I should like to repeat it—those advising me would find the definition of "part-time worker" by the rather crude dividing line of twenty-five hours a week unacceptable in itself.
LORD DERWENT: Why unacceptable?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Because it leads to so much controversy about what a part-timer really is. Twenty-five hours seems to be a purely arbitrary line of demarcation, which has not been justified by any argument before your Lordships. Clearly a 25-hour-a-week man would be a part-timer but it is not clear whether a 26-hour-a-week man would be anything more. That would have to be gone into.
I apologise to the Committee if my remarks have been related to some extent to the arguments as we have heard them. I thought that the subject was closed by the withdrawal of the earlier Amendment. I admit that it is entirely my own fault if I was under that misapprehension, but I should not like your Lordships to think that I was guilty of any want of courtesy in not dealing with it in more detail. However, I think I have said enough to indicate that, at any Tate in the view of the Government, there is no reason at all, with the qualification I have given, why Clauses 37 and 40 should not apply to the part-timer as such, and why Clause 38 (2), to which my noble friend referred, should not exactly meet the circumstances which my noble friend had in mind. Clause 38 (2) provides that
"Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing subsection, but subject as aforesaid,—

(a) where the working hours of a shop assistant include the hours from half-past eleven o'clock in the morning to half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, he shall be allowed between those hours an interval for dinner of—".

Then it gives the alternatives:—
"at least three-quarters of an hour, if that meal is taken in the shop…"
or
"at least one hour in any other case;".

247
I should have thought that that was applicable to the cases which the noble Lord has in mind and would be met, if an employee was employed during the lunch hour and nothing else, by his not being employed after the lunch hour. I should have thought that that was the answer to that point. It is the intention of the Government to apply the provisions of the Bill to part-timers, and it is also the intention not to create any anomaly which would impose upon the employer of a part-timer an onerous and unnecessary restriction. Should my noble friend have any particular instances in mind with which we could deal by way of amendment to Clauses 37 to 40 inclusive, I know that my right honourable friend will be glad to consider them and so, indeed, should I.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before the noble Lord speaks, may I say that I have looked into this matter a little since the previous discussion, and the trade union attitude is clear to me. They are a little anxious. They are afraid, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said, that if we carry the original Amendment to Clause 38 and do not make some amendment to Clause 39, there will be some dubiety about the situation with regard to part-time assistants employed on Sundays as well as on other days. If the noble Viscount, with his noble friend Lord Derwent, would look into this matter a little further before Report stage, perhaps we could have a talk about it. I should like to leave it at that now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I shall be only too glad to do so. What I had contemplated on the Clause 38 Amendment was that the various undertakings which I had given during the Committee stage should be carefully considered by those advising my right honourable friend, and any which required further discussion could be considered between noble Lords and myself, or between noble Lords and my right honourable friend, before Report stage. I was hoping that that suggestion would cover the situation.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Viscount went rather quickly and I am not quite sure what he said; but I will read it. I do not think he met my point. I may be entirely wrong about this question,
248
particularly about mid-day workers who are serving luncheon's to other people. I think we can put Amendments down for the Third Reading, because if there are Amendments on Report stage, there may be consequential Amendments to put forward at the following stage. I am not very happy about this question at the moment, but I may be happier when I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to insert the following definition:
"'Souvenir' means any article designed primarily for ornament and any article which by reason of its materials or its manufacture or of any design or representation incorporated in it has particular associations with the locality in which it is sold;"
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to try to attach a precise meaning to the word "souvenir". We must do this in order to distinguish between genuine souvenirs and articles which cannot, by the widest stretch of imagination, be regarded as souvenirs but which, nevertheless, are sold as such by tradesmen outside normal hours. Perhaps I may be allowed to draw attention to what the Gowers Committee said on this point, because I know that the noble Viscount opposite attaches as much importance as we do to the views of the Gowers Committee. I would direct the attention to the noble Viscount to paragraph 106 of the Report. I will read only the last sentence.
"We were told by a Shops Acts inspector at a holiday resort that he felt that he had no choice but to regard all Sunday sales as legal, because he saw no likelihood of prosecutions being successful. 'Visitors,' he said, 'now take home as presents and souvenirs a more useful type of article, e.g. wearing apparel, shoes, slippers, and even small articles of hardware and household utensils.'"
That is what has been happening at holiday resorts on Sundays, and that is what will continue to happen under the Third Schedule of the Bill as it stands, because there we find souvenirs and fancy goods classed as things that can be sold on Sunday. We have found a similar difficulty in London in regard to the Festival Pleasure Gardens at Battersea, which, under the Second Schedule, are exempted for the sale of souvenirs. We found there that tradesmen sell pretty well anything on Sunday, telling their customers that the articles can be called "souvenirs". I

249
think that here is a gap which ought to be closed.
I admit that a great difficulty arises at this point, which I leave to the fertile imagination of the noble Viscount and the very able draftsmen he has at his disposal. It is extremely difficult to find a definition of "souvenir," and I have merely had a shot at it in my Amendment. I do not pretend that it is a good definition. It seems to me that there are two things which most people would regard as being appropriate to a souvenir. One is that it should be intended as an ornament, and the other is that it should have some indication of its local origin and connection, such as, for example, the Coat of Arms of a London Borough or the Coat of Arms of Blackpool, Brighton, or wherever the object is bought. I suggest that those two characteristics might be regarded as being essential to a souvenir. I admit that I am only drawing a bow at venture, and I am certain that the noble Viscount will be more successful than I have been in my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 9, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl: indeed, he should spare my blushes by not referring to my fertility of imagination or device; and I know that those who are responsible for the drafting of this Bill will appreciate the implied compliment to themselves. However, they have so far failed to find a Satisfactory definition of "souvenir" and, with respect, they are not impressed with the gallant attempt of the noble Earl. They feel—and I am bound to agree with them—that an ordinary garden spade with the words on it "A present from Brighton", or the crest of Brighton, would be a souvenir within his definition. Therefore, I think the noble Earl's definition would be worse than none.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It has to be designed "for ornament", too.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, with respect, not on this definition, because the Amendment says:
"'Souvenir' means any article designed primarily for ornament"—
that is one part of it—
"and any article which by reason of its materials or its manufacture or of any design
250
or representation incorporated in it has particular associations with the locality in which it is sold."
According to this definition, the souvenir does not have to fulfil both the conditions, in which case it would be too narrow, but has to fulfil either, in which case the definition is manifestly too wide. As I say, those advising me are not impressed. They are open to suggestion, but they have lost all confidence in that fertility of ingenuity and device with which the noble Earl has credited them, and I certainly never had any confidence in my own.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: As I said, I have not great confidence in my own fertility of inventing a definition for this word, or even in the ability of my advisers to do so. However, I hope that, as the noble Viscount has admitted that a definition should, if possible, be found, he will have another look at the matter between now and the Report stage, and that if, after further consultation with his advisers, a formula is found, he will be good enough to suggest something when we reach the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to leave out subsection (2), and insert—
"(2) If either throughout the area of a local authority in England or Wales, or in some part thereof, it is customary—

(a) for there to be no general abstention from the carrying on of retail trade or business upon a bank holiday, but

(b) for there to be, instead, such a general abstention upon another day,

they may by order direct that, for the purposes of the application of this Act to their area, or to that part thereof, as the case may be, the bank holiday shall be treated as a business day and not as a non-business day and the other day shall be treated as a non-business day and not as a business day."
The noble Lord said: Clause 64 (2) is not easy to interpret, but I imagine that it was included in the Bill to make it possible to continue the custom which exists in certain districts, and particularly seaside resorts, of which your Lordships will know there are some outstanding ones in Yorkshire, such as Scarborough and others, where retail trade may continue on a Bank Holiday falling within the season, but in exchange shops are permitted to close on some off-season

251
weekday. If Clause 64 (2) as now drafted is allowed to remain in the Bill, then the position would go far beyond the question of an exchange such as I have indicated.
In certain towns, such as Leeds and Bradford, it has become the custom to open on the half-holiday on which customarily the shops would close. In the case of Leeds and Bradford, it is the Wednesday afternoon prior to a Bank Holiday and the Wednesday afternoon following a Bank Holiday. It has been customary for the shops to open on those days, but in exchange to close on the Tuesday following the Monday Bank Holiday; and that happens at Easter, Whitsuntide and August. Your Lordships will appreciate that, whatever the reason for that (and I think the reason was that it was not considered fair to shop assistants in those towns to take away the customary half-holiday and not to give something in exchange, and therefore it was agreed that the shops should close on the Bank Holiday Tuesday) it is obviously desirable. It enables shopkeepers, shop assistants and others to have a fairly long week-end from the Saturday to the Wednesday morning, and it would seem eminently desirable to facilitate that being done.
Further, many northern towns, as your Lordships are aware, have a Wakes Week in the summer when businesses usually lose down for a whole week, running, for example, from the Friday of one week to perhaps the Thursday of the following week inclusive. In the succeeding week the whole holiday overlaps the normal local early closing day. If Clause 64 (2) remains in its present form, every weekday in the Wakes Week would become a non-business day, and shops would be obliged to close, in addition, on some afternoon, possibly the Friday or Saturday, in the second week. Obviously, again, that is not intended or desirable.
I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unduly, but there is also the question of a possible five-day week, some discussion on which has taken place in the retail trade. One method whereby that could be effected would be to close all day on the normal early closing day, instead of only on the afternoon of that day. But again, if Clause 64 (2) remains in the Bill, as drafted, that day will be treated as a non-business day and shops
252
will be required to close in the afternoon of some other weekday as well. In that way the intention to convert the half-day closing day into a whole day closing would be thwarted. There are other customs and practices of that kind which would be affected if this subsection were allowed to remain in the Bill in its present form.
The problem, therefore, is to devise a form of words which would allow shops in seaside resorts, for example, to open on the Bank Holiday Monday and to close for a full day on some other day, and, at the same time, to permit the carrying on of such customs as are carried out in Leeds, Bradford and elsewhere, and for the shopkeepers and shop assistants not to be penalised. The new subsection which I propose will have the effect of enabling that to be done. It would enable local authorities—and it will be a matter for the local authority in each case—to make an order under the Bill whereby the shops could close on the Bank Holiday Tuesday and open on the customary half-holiday in the week preceding and the week following the Bank Holiday, and permitting seaside resorts to carry out the exchange which is proposed. The matter is a little complicated, but I think the noble Viscount is seized of the position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 32, leave out subsection ("2") and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am happy to say that the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment. It has been already fully explained by the noble Lord opposite, and I do not think I can add anything to his explanation. It permits a perfectly desirable local practice in various parts of the country to continue, and it is our desire that it should continue.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount. I hope that it is a practice which will extend from the civilised and considerate North to the hitherto uncivilised and inconsiderate South.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
House resumed.

  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HENEAGE REPORT
  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HENEAGE REPORT