Sitting of 26 February 1958

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

    Convention on Forced Labour
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour the provisions of the Convention on forced labour which were ratified on 1st January, 1958, by Her Majesty's Government.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The text of this convention was given in the White Paper, Command 313, which was published on 21st November last. Ratification covers all its provisions.
    Mr. Brockway: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance about ratification, and ask whether the Convention applies to British overseas territories and Colonial Territories like Kenya?
    Mr. Macleod: Our ratification covers Great Britain and Northern Ireland; but, as he made clear in December, following a ratification the Colonial Secretary writes to all overseas Governments on those matters, and that action has been initiated.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the month from December, 1957, until January, 1958, there was an increase of 60,000 unemployed bringing the total to 395,000 or 1·8 per cent. of the total of workers in Great Britain; and what action he proposes to take to prevent this number of unemployed being still further increased in the months ahead.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. Most of this increase was seasonal in character. As regard the second part of the Question
    346
    I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 19th February.
    Mr. Lewis: It may be seasonal, but is the Minister aware that people are becoming worried—including, apparently, the Minister of Works? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend has said that if this continues, the Government will have to consider reducing the Bank Rate. May I ask the Minister whether he would agree with that suggestion?
    Mr. Macleod: I have not seen that observation.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, of the increased number of unemployed which occurred from last December until January, 10,000 of the total of 60,000 were in Scotland; and what action he proposes to take to prevent Scotland becoming a depressed area.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The increase was mostly seasonal. I am in close consultation with my right hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State for Scotland about the employment needs of the country.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister tell us how long the season lasts? It would seem that this season has been lasting a long time and that it gradually came to a peak last January. May we be assured that the season will not last for the whole of the year?
    Mr. Macleod: From now onwards is the time when the figures of unemployed usually begin to drop. I warn the House—I think it fair to do so—that this year the trend may not be as pronounced as usual in many directions where one would expect to see an improvement.
    Mr. Lawson: Would not the Minister agree that Scotland is suffering from a disproportionately high percentage of this seasonal unemployment? With 10 per cent. of the country's insured workers, Scotland has more than 16 per cent. of the fresh unemployment. Is not that remarkable and a cause for great concern?
    Mr. Macleod: I think it true to say that, for reasons with which the hon. Member is familiar, Scotland is apt to suffer more seasonal unemployment than the rest of the country. There is a higher proportion of workers engaged in agriculture, fishing and building, the three industries most affected.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now reviewing the register of disabled persons; and how many disabled persons have been removed from the register during the past year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): No special steps are being taken, but there is a continuous process of review since everyone who applies for his registration to be renewed must show that he still satisfies the necessary conditions. During 1957 some 190,600 persons applied for registration or re-registration, and of these applications 9,300, including 5,900 renewal applications, were rejected after reference to the local disablement advisory committee. There are no figures relating to the number of persons removed from the register during the currency of their registration period, but such cases are relatively infrequent.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I have instances of disabled persons who have been on the list for four or five years, and that in one case a man who has already had four certificates as a disabled person on the register has been suddenly told this year that he is coming off, though his disablement still remains the same? If there is no special test being taken just now, will the Minister look into this case if I send him the details?
    Mr. Carr: Of course, I will look into the case if the hon. Member likes to send me particulars. I assure him that no removal from the register can take place without reference to the local disablement advisory committee.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour the number of registered disabled persons in Section (1) who are wholly unemployed and, of these, the number who have been unemployed for six months or more.
    Mr. Carr: In December, 1957, there were 43,731 wholly unemployed registered disabled persons classified as suitable for ordinary employment, of whom 16,702 had been unemployed for six months or more.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these very high figures are in marked contrast with the figure of 3,000, wholly unemployed Section (2) badly disabled people? Is he not of opinion that the medical classification should be reviewed, because it seems highly probable that of the 16,000 who have been unemployed for six months or more many should be under Section (2) and have the opportunity of getting sheltered employment, in which his Department has had very great success.
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly consider that suggestion. The hon. Member will know, with his great knowledge of these matters, that one of the problems is age. More than half of those who have been unemployed for six months or more are over 55 years of age. That factor adds very greatly to the problem.

    Building and Contracting
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of skilled and unskilled building trade workers registered as unemployed in January, 1956, January, 1957, and January, 1958.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 13th January, 1958, there were 58,400 unemployed people whose last employment was in the building and contracting industries compared with 52,800 in January, 1957, and 35,400 in January, 1956. The numbers of wholly unemployed men in the main building crafts included in these totals were 15,400, 14,000 and 8,200 respectively.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that, although in some ways this is the seasonal period in the year for unemployment in the building industry, these figures are alarming, particularly as they show a steady increase of unemployment each January? Is he not rather perturbed about it? If this trend continues, will not it inevitably lead not only to a large increase in the number of unemployed in the building industry—on which subject I know the trade unions are very worried

    349
    —but to a large increase in unemployment in all other industries which feed the building industry and are to some extent dependent upon it? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Macleod: Of all the nation-wide industries, the building and contracting industry does give concern at the present time. As the seasonal trend improves, it is likely that craftsmen will be the first to benefit from it. One would also think that when the time comes, as I made clear in my speech on Monday—I do not think the time has come yet for relaxation—it is likely that the building industry will be the first to benefit.
    Mr. Robens: While I agree that there is this seasonal position in the building trade, may I ask whether the Minister appreciates that there is very great apprehension about the position? Has the right hon. Gentleman made any rough estimate of what the position is likely to be in the spring and summer? Recent decisions taken by the Government must have affected the building industry.
    Mr. Macleod: This trade is so important that I would like to make a special calculation on the subject. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman, or perhaps he will put a Question down.
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the information?
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many building workers are registered as unemployed in the London region; and the figure last year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 13th January, 1958, 10,552 people whose last employment was in the building and contracting industry were registered as wholly unemployed at employment exchanges in the London and south-eastern region compared with 11,020 in January, 1957.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not the height of lunacy that the number of unemployed building workers should be increasing while many tenants are threatened with eviction and there is nowhere else for them to live?
    Mr. Macleod: Probably the hon. Gentleman did not hear my Answer, which was that the figure has gone down.

    Brixton
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed are registered at the Brixton Employment Exchange; and what was the figure last year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The figure was 2,482 at 13th January, 1958, compared with 2,090 at 14th January, 1957.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not this one of the largest pockets of unemployment in the London area? What special measures is the Minister taking to deal with this unfortunate state of affairs?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I can promise special measures for this area. It is true that the position in London is rather uneven, but London is doing a great deal better than most of the areas concerned in the country.
    Mr. Lipton: What about Brixton?

    Stornoway
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour the latest total figure and percentage of unemployment in the Stornoway area; the chief causes of this unemployment; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to deal with it as a matter of increasing urgency.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 13th January, 1958, 1,549 people were unemployed, and the percentage rate was 30·5. There are few industries providing employment all the year round, and the situation has been aggravated in recent months by bad weather and other seasonal factors. I would be glad to discuss the fostering of local activities with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. MacMillan: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer to discuss these local matters with the Secretary of State for Scotland. May I draw his attention particularly to the facts that this employment exchange covers only part of the Outer Hebrides, that most of the unemployed are men and that unemployment is becoming serious in the one manufacturing industry in the area, that of Harris tweed? Is he aware that the weavers, not being Class I insured persons, do not appear on

    351
    the register at all and therefore unemployment may be much worse in this area than is reflected by the register? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider it a matter or urgency to apply in the short-term what he would do nationally in an unemployment situation like this, that is to say, introduce public work schemes and things of that kind?
    Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no area in the whole country that I would rather help than Stornoway. It has a higher unemployed register than any area of comparable population in Great Britain. Though these figures sound, and are indeed, alarming they are not much higher than for many years past. What the hon. Gentleman says about Harris tweed is true. The decline is largely due to a falling-off of orders from the United States of America. I will look at what he has said in the rest of his supplementary question and see whether I can help.

    Orchestras (Foreign-born Conductors)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Labour how many orchestral conductor posts in this country are held by foreign-born musicians.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The only information available is in regard to foreigners for whom permits have been issued under the Aliens Order. Two conductor posts are at present occupied by holders of such permits.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern at the continued employment of foreign conductors in the very few official posts in this country? There are, for example, Kubelik at Covent Garden, Schwarz at the B.B.C. Symphony Orchestra and Tausky in charge of the B.B.C. Concert Orchestra. Will he bear in mind that the vast majority of music students in this country are trained at the public expense and therefore are profoundly disappointed if they are denied the few official posts that are available?
    Mr. Macleod: There are, as the hon. Member indicated, a number of others of foreign origin who may be naturalised and who are not covered by the figure I gave. Yes, I am aware of the concern. When we are asked for a permit and consider whether we should
    352
    issue it or not, we take those considerations into account.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is necessary to cut right across nationality to get the best musicians?
    Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will not discourage performances of foreign-born composers like Beethoven and Mozart?
    Mr. Macleod: It is a difficult balance to keep. It is one of the things that have descended upon my Ministry. We are trying to balance the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) with the one in the Question.

    Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Labour the latest percentage of unemployment in the Burgh of Greenock; and what steps he intends to take to remedy the situation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The figure was 7·7 per cent. on 13th January.
    Greenock is one of the areas which we regard as having the highest priority in our efforts to secure additional industry.
    Dr. Mabon: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that there is a possibility of further unemployment with the discharge of sugar in its new form, and that 100 dockers may be unemployed within the coming month? May I ask him if, initially, he could intercede with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to secure a favourable decision in regard to the shipment of cement to Greenock for the construction of the atomic power station at Hunterston, Ayrshire, in the near future?
    Mr. Macleod: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I would point out that the engagement of labour is a matter for industrial negotiations in the docks. I will discuss the second point with my right hon. Friend.

    Mobile Employment Exchange (Experiment)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Labour how many new mobile employment exchanges he is proposing to set up to replace permanent exchanges; what

    353
    will be the saving in cost; and whether he is satisfied that the work carried out by them will not suffer.
    Mr. Carr: One mobile employment exchange will be put into service in April, 1958, on an experimental basis. It will operate in ten small towns and villages around Fakenham (Norfolk), seven of which have not previously had local facilities. Three full-time offices in the area will be closed during the experimental period of one year. The cost is not expected to exceed that of the present services, and may prove less. It is my hope that the experiment will provide this area successfully with a better service than at present.
    Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will at a later stage give a report to the House on the result of the experiment, so that the matter may be properly investigated before we go any further?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly; I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is our purpose in making the experiment. We can only find out by trying whether a better service can be given.

    Defence Work (Displaced Labour)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour what plan the Government have for the absorption of displaced labour arising from cuts in defence expenditure; and whether, failing the provision of new employment, he will devise a scheme of compensation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 30th January, 1958.
    As I stated in the House on 24th February, the majority of the workers so far discharged as a result of changes in defence policy have succeeded in obtaining other employment, and I have no reason to suppose that this process of re-absorption will not continue.
    Mr. Shinwell: Regarding the last part of my Question, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the creation of a national supplementary unemployment fund, to which contributions may be made by industry on a fairly wide scale,
    354
    thus increasing the unemployment allowances, which, in turn, may prove a deterrent against further unemployment?
    Mr. Macleod: That is an interesting suggestion, which, of course, goes very wide of the Question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me. In general, compensation is a matter for employers, and it seems to me difficult to regulate it in the way which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I should have thought that it ought to be left to individual negotiations between federations of employers and the appropriate trade unions.
    Mr. Shinwell: If we are to be confronted by unemployment, not necessarily on a large and widespread scale, but with pockets of serious unemployment, would it not be desirable in some way to supplement the existing unemployment allowances?
    Mr. Macleod: In so far as that relates to compensation for loss of employment, the Government play their part in acting as what I would call a good employer. For example, the announcement that I made in relation to the Admiralty dismissals, which, by the way, was not new, although some people seemed to assume that it was, was the application of the existing practice. We do try to carry out a good employer policy, but there are a number of other factors. I am not myself convinced that it would be desirable to have national arrangements as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Has the Minister's attention been called to the recent Cohen Report, which suggests that a perceptible degree of unemployment is not merely necessary but desirable? Does not he consider that acceptance of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) would defeat the whole purpose of creating a pool of unemployment?
    Mr. Macleod: My attention has certainly been drawn to the Cohen Report. but, equally certainly, I have no intention on this Question of commenting upon it.

    National Insurance Contributions
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour by how much the cost-of-living index is expected to rise as a result of the increased National Insurance contributions and the proposed increases in National Health contributions.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As I explained to the hon. Member in answer to a previous Question on 28th February, 1957, the Index of Retail Prices is not affected by changes in the cost of National Insurance contributions.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister explain why it is not affected? Does it mean that every time the Government take action to put up prices, and the cost of living is affected by it, and such things as the Rent Act, that has no effect on the cost of living, whereas when trade unions ask for wage increases to compensate for increased charges, that does have an effect on the cost of living? Why is it that one does and the other does not?
    Mr. Macleod: No. I think it might suit the Government if all these things were included. For example, Income Tax is not included, and we have not been able to gain the benefit in the Index of the Income Tax reductions that we have made. The reason these matters are not included is because that was the advice of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Jay: Is not this a case where the cost of living will certainly rise, even if the Index does not, and would not the Minister agree that this is bound to be taken into account in wage negotiations?
    Mr. Macleod: It may be taken into account, anyway in argument, but whether it is taken into account by a tribunal I do not know; but if we are to have wage increases and increases in taxation of all forms reflected in the cost-of-living index, equally the decreases should also be reflected.
    Mr. Jay: Does the Minister think that this is a form of taxation?

    Young People, Birmingham
    Mr. D. Howellasked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take following the figures recently announced by his Department showing that the number of youths under 18 years of age now unemployed in Birmingham is higher than for many years; and how the Government intend to meet the further deterioration of this position that will follow the ending of national service and the increased numbers of young people shortly to leave the city schools and who will be seeking employment.
    Mr. Carr: While there has been an increase in the unemployment figures, the number of unfilled vacancies for boys and girls in Birmingham is greater than the number unemployed. I do not anticipate that young people leaving school in Birmingham over the next few years should have difficulty in obtaining employment because of the factors mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that that view is not shared by anyone on either side of industry in Birmingham, and that, in fact, there is considerable alarm that the number of proper training schemes and the like which have been provided are already saturated? Further, is he aware that there are plenty of jobs that are unworthy of young people? Will he tell us whether the Ministry is calculating the effect which the ending of National Service and the release of the school "bulge" will have on industry? How will these young people be absorbed in industry? Is he aware that these are the things that are worrying both sides of industry, and will he look into the matter again?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Member asked about employment, and I have replied about employment prospects. I am concerned that there should be adequate training facilities, which is a very important, but somewhat different, question. As the hon. Member will know, a report has recently been issued on that subject, and industry is now considering it.

    Statistics
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour the total number of people in Wales in employment on the latest convenient date; the comparable figure for the same day in 1948; and the number of notified vacancies on the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It is estimated that at the end of 1957 there were about 925,000 employees in employment in Wales. Precisely comparable figures were not obtained in 1948, but the available statistics indicate that between the end of 1948 and the end of 1957 there was an increase of about 30,000. The number of vacancies notified to employment exchanges in Wales and remaining unfilled at 8th January, 1958, was 7,284.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour how many people were in employment in the United Kingdom on the latest convenient date, the comparable number for the same period in 1948, and the latest number of notified vacancies.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The latest figures are for Great Britain. It is estimated that at the end of 1957 there were about 21,510,000 employees in employment in Great Britain compared with 19,950,000 at the end of 1948. The number of vacancies notified to employment ex-changes in Great Britain and remaining unfilled at 8th January, 1958, was 220,047.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Labour the change in the total number of persons in civil employment between 31st October, 1951, and 31st December, 1957.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The total number of employees increased during this period by 840,000 to a total of 21,510,000.

    Injured Workmen (Awards of Fines)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour why fines imposed under Section 133 of the Factories Act, 1937, have been paid over to the injured workmen in only 26 cases since the beginning of 1953, although there have been about 1,800 successful prosecutions under this section during the same period; and whether he will arrange for the section to be interpreted more liberally.
    Mr. Carr: These were the only cases in which my right hon. Friend considered an award of fine justified. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the cases in which such awards are justified have greatly diminished in recent years as the result of changes in the law relating to industrial injuries benefits and civil damages.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister recognise that, despite the changes to which he referred, there is still a considerable gap between the rate of benefit a man will be receiving under the Industrial Injuries Act and the wages to which he has become accustomed; and that, even though he may expect to be compensated for the effects of the accident, very
    358
    often there is a delay of up to two years or more before the matter is settled? Is he aware that during that period he faces real hardship and worry, at a time when the award of a fine of, say, £20 would be a very great help? Further, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the intention of this Section was that the Secretary of State should watch these events over a wider field? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Carr: The main purpose of the Section in modern conditions is to enable the courts to impose a more severe penalty for the breach of the law which has resulted in the injury. The other purpose has become less important, owing to the changes in industrial compensation to which I have referred. As the hon. Member will be aware, a similar provision which used to be in the coal mines legislation, was repealed by the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. We give consideration and make grants where we consider that it is necessary.

    Birmingham Small Arms Tools Factory, Cardiff
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 350 workers will become unemployed by the closure of the Birmingham Small Arms Tools Factory at Cardiff on 31st March next; and what special measures will be taken by his local officers to place them in fresh employment.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have been informed that about 320 workers are liable to be discharged during the coming month and have arranged for my local officers to attend at the factory to register the workers affected for other employment in advance of their discharge.
    Mr. Callaghan: Are the local officials reasonably confident that these men will be able to find other employment? Secondly, in view of the large proportion of skilled workers, will the Minister's local officials make sure that they are not offered jobs outside the area, thus leaving us even shorter of skilled workers than at present?
    Mr. Macleod: We hope to be able to find work for a number fairly quickly, but there are difficulties in absorbing so

    359
    great a number as that. I do not think it would be helpful to give the assurance the hon. Member suggested in the second part of his supplementary question. The vast majority of re-engagements are local re-engagements and people prefer it to be so, but they would also like to have drawn to their attention other work if it is suitable and available.

    Radioactive Substances (Protection of Personnel)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Labour what Regulations have been issued for the protection of personnel in research stations and industrial establishments when such personnel are exposed to contamination by radio isotopes.
    Mr. Carr: As regards industrial establishments, which come under the Factories Acts, the Luminising Regulations were made in 1947 and work is proceeding on two further sets of Regulations on the lines indicated in the reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 31st October last. Research establishments do not in general come under the Factories Acts, but it has been decided that the safety and health of workers in such establishments using ionising radiations, other than hospital research establishments, should be the concern of my right hon. Friend and he is in consultation with the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Janner: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he will ensure that the fullest precautions are taken to see that the Regulations are put into effect and that proper examination will take place in these establishments in consequence of the particularly dangerous position in which these people are placed?
    Mr. Carr: I hope the hon. Member will realise from what I said that, these research establishments not coming under the Factories Acts, the Regulations need not necessarily apply to them; but we have already been in consultation with Sir Charles Darwin, Chairman of the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, and we are conscious that this is a serious matter. When we have found the facts we shall make appropriate arrangements.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take regarding the practice of tribunals in placing conscientious objectors who decline conditional registration on the military register so that in the case of appeals under Section 20 (1) of the National Service Act, 1948, they lose the opportunity to have the balance of their prison sentences remitted.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: None, Sir. The responsibility for deciding applications made on grounds of conscientious objection is laid by the National Service Act, 1948, on the tribunals appointed for that purpose. I have no reason to accept the assumption that it is the practice of tribunals to reject applications solely because of unwillingness to accept the obligations of conditional registration.
    Mr. Brockway: This is a technical point but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it causes great injustice and hardship. May I ask whether he is aware that, though recognising the sincerity of conscience, certain tribunals, because conditions are refused, place the objectors on the military register? The result is that after imprisonment they come again to the appeal tribunal; they are not released if it is found that they will not accept conditions and they are kept in prison as on the military register. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course I will. I realise the implication of such a decision by the tribunal, but I am certain that the tribunals know their duties and the different courses open to them under Section 17.
    Mr. Simmons: Can the Minister tell us the average age of members of the tribunals?
    Mr. Macleod: Not without notice, but I have taken action recently to reduce it.

  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M. Dockyards (Redundant Workers)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what compensation is to be paid to Royal

    361
    Dockyard employees who become redundant under the Government's economy cuts.
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what compensation will be paid to employees who become redundant because of the Government's decision to close Her Majesty's Dockyard, Sheerness.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Employees who become redundant will be given pensions or gratuities on the scales which are laid down under the Superannuation Acts. As these scales cannot be briefly summarised, I will send particulars to the hon. Members.
    Mr. Bottomley: Although the Civil Lord is aware that it is established practice to pay compensation at these levels, may I ask him whether, in view of the quite rightly generous treatment given to serving officers and men, he could give further consideration to the question of making higher awards? In cases where established men seek employment elsewhere because the rates they are offered are lower, will they also receive similar compensation?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not think it is helpful to compare civilians and Service personnel, because Service personnel are having to start out in a quite new form of occupation.
    Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the payments to which he has referred were never intended to cover a case such as the complete closure of a dockyard like the one at Sheerness? Will he consider giving no less generous treatment to these men than to those discharged from the Services?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think that any amendment of the Superannuation Act is really a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? If there are established men who may be redundant because the alternative jobs offered may be below the rate paid for existing employment, will they be given similar compensation?
    Mr. Galbraith: I should like to look into that, but I think the probable answer is "No."
    Mr. Shinwell: When men are being displaced as a direct result of Government policy, surely there is a case for, at any rate, some increase in the compensation allowed? Will the hon. Gentleman approach his superiors around and near him in order to secure some consideration of a proposition of that kind?
    Mr. Galbraith: This problem is not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, a new one. It applies to Ordnance factories the same as to dockyards. As I replied to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells), this is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Rocket Weapons
    Mr. Wallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the rocket weapons now being developed for the Royal Navy are capable of being mounted in a submarine.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): The types of rocket weapons being developed for the Royal Navy are for use against aircraft and are not suited for mounting in submarines.
    Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend agree that surprise is one of the principles of war and surprise is more likely to be obtained by a rocket-firing submarine than by a static land-based rocket? Will he also say something about the development of the American Polaris and whether the Admiralty has been associated with that development?
    Mr. Allan: As the House knows, the Polaris is a weapon of the I.R.B.M. type and is being developed in the United States for launching from submerged submarines. It is being given the highest priority there and is expected to be in service in the early 1960s. On this matter, as on many others, we are in close contact with the United States.

    Royal Naval Air Station, Bramcote
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the concern felt by people in the neighbourhood of Rugby, Coventry, and Nuneaton regarding the closing

    363
    of the Royal Naval Air Station at Bramcote; and what plans he has for the future use of the buildings on this station.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: My noble Friend regrets the necessity to close this station, and appreciates that it must be a matter for concern locally.
    There is no Naval requirement for the buildings. The Admiralty is in touch with other Departments with the object of exploring possible alternative uses for the property.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Civil Lord aware that the local council is keenly interested in this matter and that my council will lose heavily financially? Is he aware that the Mayor of Nuneaton has said that he would like to use this station possibly for industrial purposes?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am very glad to have that information and will look into it.
    Mr. Bowles: Is there any chance of the hon. Gentleman seeing the Minister of Civil Aviation with a view to this station being taken over by the Ministry as a sub-aerodrome for use by industrialists in Coventry, Nuneaton and other industrial towns in the area?
    Mr. Galbraith: We consult with other Departments before deciding on these matters.

  >BRITISH ARMY

    La Salle College, Hong Kong
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for War when the La Salle College buildings, Hong Kong, will be released and handed back to the Brothers for use as a school.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): La Salle College is at present used as a military hospital. We have decided to build new hospital accommodation in Hong Kong which will enable us to give up our tenure of the college. I fear it is too early yet to estimate accurately when the new hospital building will be completed, but as soon as I can I will let my hon. Friend know.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend press forward as quickly as possible with this matter? Is he aware that during the twenty-five years of the existence of this
    364
    college it has been used as a school for nine years and that for the rest of the time it has been requisitioned? Is he aware that it is very badly needed by 1,000 technical pupils in the Colony?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I am aware of the urgency of the matter.

    Officers, Other Ranks and Civilians
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers and men in uniform and the number of civilians employed by his Department in 1937 and in 1957.
    Mr. Soames: In 1937 there were 9,200 army officers, 130,300 other ranks and 32,700 civilians. The corresponding figures for 1957 were 28,700, 301,600 and 238,400.
    Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether those figures were obtained after he had combed out the "tail" in his recent combing, and why he wants so many more civilians now to do the same job as that done twenty years ago?
    Mr. Soames: This was the figure up to 1957. I took up the comb only in 1958.
    Sir I. Fraser: What about the second part of my supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dodds.
    Sir I. Fraser: Why does the Minister ignore the second part of my question? I asked why he needs more "tail" now than twenty years ago.
    Mr. Soames: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I did not mean to avoid the question. The position is the same throughout all three Services. There has been considerable extra civilianisation and there will be more. When the reorganisation is completed there will be a higher proportion of civilians to soldiers in the Army. The Army will be considerably smaller, however, as will the total of the civilian force.

    Barrack Blocks, Woolwich (Demolition)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War how many Servicemen in best battledress and polished brass were in the background of the picture for photographers and movie cameras on

    365
    Tuesday, 21st January when he started the demolition of the 200-years-old barrack blocks at the Royal Artillery Depot, Woolwich; how many men were detailed off to attend and cheer for the photographs; how many voluntarily attended; and what were the objectives in having the men marched into position behind him.
    Mr. Soames: The beginning of work to pull down the old barracks of Woolwich as a preliminary to new building was marked by a small ceremony on 21st January. The Commandant, thirty soldiers and myself were on parade and there were groups of voluntary spectators.
    Mr. Dodds: If all this "bull" were to publicise the riddance of some very ancient barracks, why does not the right hon. Gentleman display on his countenance a heavenly smile and say, "Thanks for the further publicity"? Does he not appreciate that while he and the Commandant probably enjoyed the ceremony, it was not enjoyed by most of the men who took part in it? Would he therefore not reserve such jollification until the new-type barracks are built, when the men can enjoy it?
    Mr. Soames: I am very anxious to get on with the building of the barracks but it is also important from the recruiting point of view that it be seen that we are getting on with it.

    Hook of Holland (Local Overseas Allowance)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for War why officers and men stationed in Army camps at the Hook of Holland are not paid local overseas allowance when this is paid to those in the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Soames: The cost of living at the Hook of Holland is not so high as in Germany and has not hitherto justified an allowance, except for married soldiers in rented private accommodation. The position is reviewed from time to time.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling that the cost of living in Holland is rising? Is he aware that British Service men in Holland feel that they are being treated rather unfairly by comparison
    366
    with troops serving in B.A.O.R.? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Soames: The cost of living in various countries where troops are stationed is reviewed from time to time. In fact, a review is going on at the moment.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only logical thing is to pay an overseas allowance to people who are overseas?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. This is not an overseas allowance. This is a local overseas allowance which is designed to meet differences locally in the cost of living.

    Redundant Officers and Warrant Officers
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that redundant officers and warrant officers who have obtained for themselves the promise of business appointments are being told by his Department that it is impossible to state a firm date by which they will be free, and that, as a result, their civil employment is jeopardised; and what steps he is taking to overcome this difficulty.
    Mr. Soames: All officers, warrant officers and N.C.O.s who are to be prematurely retired between April, 1958, and March, 1959, have already been notified. The majority of them have also been told the actual month of discharge, and this information will be given to the remainder as soon as replacements have been arranged. It is my intention that all those to be retired should be told the date at least six months in advance.

    Maryhill Barracks
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for War why Maryhill Barracks has been excluded from the list of depôts made redundant as a result of Army reorganisation; what are his plans for the future of this depôt, in view of the amalgamation of the Highland Light Infantry and the Royal Scots Fusiliers; whether it is to be retained by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: The list published on 20th February consisted of stores depôts only. Maryhill Barracks is an infantry depôt. We intend to give up these barracks but I am afraid I cannot say

    367
    at present how much longer we shall need them.
    Mr. Hannan: Will the Minister reconsider plans, which have already been considered, about the giving up of these barracks, which are now obsolescent and quite out of date? Will he reconsider the proposals to build modern quarters for the Army at Cardross and relieve this site which is urgently needed for civil housing in the City of Glasgow, where all other sites are already exhausted?
    Mr. Soames: As I have said, we shall eventually give up these old barracks at Maryhill and move out, but I cannot yet give the date.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General how many telephone subscribers there are in the City of Aberdeen; how many, since the recent increase in charges, have ceased to be subscribers; and how many are now on the waiting list.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): There are just over 18,500 subscribers' lines on the four exchanges serving the City. In the past six months approximately 800 lines were given up, and about the same number of new lines were connected. The number of outstanding applications is 265, of which 200 are under inquiry or in course of being met.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the service would have a better chance of being an economic unit and a more used public service if he reduced the charges in order to encourage more subscribers and took steps to extend the facilities further in Aberdeen? Will he consider that?
    Mr. Marples: We already have people waiting for service whom we cannot provide with telephones. In Aberdeen only 65 applications are being held up and there are 18,500 subscribers connected. I think that is not too bad.

    Leaflet (Members of Parliament)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Postmaster-General the cost of preparing the leaflet PH950 W.O.P. 45298. entitled "Telephone Service for
    368
    Members of Parliament"; how many officials were involved; how much time was taken; and how many copies were printed and distributed and to whom.
    Mr. Marples: Preparation of the leaflet cost about £10, including £4 for printing; four officials were concerned, excluding the printers and a typist; about six hours were taken, apart from typing, printing and distribution. Two thousand copies were printed, and a copy was sent to each Member. Copies will be provided for new Members entering the House in the future.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Was it really necessary for my right hon. Friend's Department to issue this leaflet telling Members of Parliament where the telephones are? If, after all these years here, we do not know already, surely we could find out by normal question and answer. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the waste-paper baskets all over the House were filled with these leaflets on the day of their issue?
    Mr. Marples: It was an effort to be helpful to Members, and not everyone has been a Member of this House as long as has my hon. and gallant Friend. It is particularly helpful to Members entering this House for the first time.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this leaflet seems to be inaccurate, in that it states that there is a telephone in the Library for the use of hon. Members? I have been unable to find it.
    Mr. Marples: I will be able to assist the hon. Member by showing him where it is.

    Private Subscribers (Accounts)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will consider restoring the issue of three-monthly accounts to private subscribers, in view of the prevailing high telephone charges;
    (2) the estimated cost of restoring the three-monthly account system for private telephone subscribers.
    Mr. Marples: It would cost roughly £1 million to do what the right hon. Member suggests. There would be great practical difficulties in giving quarterly

    369
    accounts to private, and not to business, subscribers. To do it for all would cost about £1½ million. This we cannot afford.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: While appreciating the information that the Postmaster-General has given to the House, may I ask if he will consider ways and means whereby the present rather heavy burden on private subscribers can be removed?
    Mr. Marples: In the social survey of private subscribers that was recently undertaken, 85 per cent. said that they were satisfied with the six-monthly account, and only 15 per cent. were not. However, I will look at it again, but I do not think that anything can be done.

    DECONTROLLED PREMISES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs at Hampstead last Saturday relative to the re-letting of decontrolled premises represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lipton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the sense of bulldozing through Parliament a law giving landlords the power to evict and then uttering grave threats about what will be done if they use this power? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cat-and-mouse tactics do nothing to relieve the agony of mind of untold numbers of tenants, especially in London? May we now have a firm assurance, without any more wriggling on the part of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or anyone else, that no evictions will be allowed next October?
    Mr. Butler: The Question asked the Prime Minister whether this speech
    "represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government."
    My answer remains, "Yes, Sir". I do not accept in the hon. Member's words
    370
    the motives or the design of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Jay: As this is a matter of the greatest concern to many thousands of people in London and elsewhere, can the Lord Privy Seal say whether an amendment of this Act is being prepared by the Government?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I answered the Question which is on the Paper. I draw attention to the concluding words of my right hon. Friend's speech, in which he said that he would be watching closely to see how things went on. I think it would be in the interests of all to see what effect my right hon. Friend's speech has.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the impression created by the Minister's speech was that if landlords did not behave properly he would do something about it? We are asking whether "doing something about it" means amending legislation, and, if so, when the Government will make up their mind to introduce this legislation.
    Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than the words used by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in his speech—namely, that he gave a warning to landlords and said that he would watch the situation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should agree that my right hon. Friend should watch the situation and not make up his mind until he has seen what happens.
    Mr. Gaitskell: We welcome this slight change in the Minister's outlook, but we are a little suspicious about it in view of our past experience of him. What I want to know is under what conditions the Minister is prepared to introduce amending legislation.
    Mr. Butler: I have nothing more to add to what I have said. The purposes of the Rent Act are quite clear—namely, that it was introduced in the general national interest. Hon. Members opposite know that it was introduced in that spirit just as well as I do. My right hon. Friend has noticed certain actions and he has made certain observations. Until we can see the result it would be wrong for me to go any further.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Biblical quotation that there is more
    "joy … over one sinner that repenteth …"?

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Steel Industry (Propaganda)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Postmaster-General what steps he will take with regard to the proposals to buy advertising time for a propaganda campaign by steel interests against renationalisation, which contravene the Second Schedule to the Television Act, 1954.
    Mr. Marples: The Independent Television Authority informs me that it is not aware of any such proposals: and it assures me that if any proposals were made which appeared to contravene the Second Schedule of the Television Act, it would not accept them.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister state that such political advertising would in fact contravene the Act? Is he aware that the steel combines, backed with unlimited funds, are itching to buy their way into this medium, even if they lose their money?
    Mr. Marples: I think that the Independent Television Authority is a responsible body. It cannot judge any proposals until those proposals are before it.

    B.B.C. Programme "Your Life in Their Hands"
    Sir I. Clark Hutchisonasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware, that many doctors believe that the television programme, "Your Life in Their Hands", will have a bad effect upon viewers; and if he will use his powers under Section 15(4) of the Licence and Agreement to instruct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from showing this type of programme.
    Mr. Marples: I am aware that opinions differ about the merits of these programmes, but I see no reason to interfere with the independence of the B.B.C. in making programmes.
    Sir I. Clark Hutchison: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is rather a morbid type of programme? Will he consult representatives of medical opinion and consider this again?
    Mr. Marples: I must emphasise that the B.B.C. is responsible for the programme, and not the Postmaster-General. As to consulting medical opinion, before the programme, the B.B.C. consulted the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the College of General Practitioners. After the programme, those three Colleges said that they appreciated the programme.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the Postmaster-General give an undertaking that he will do nothing to stop the B.B.C. proceeding with educational programmes of this sort?
    Mr. Marples: As I say, the B.B.C. is independent in the choice of its programmes.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I saw this programme last night? It dealt with an operation on the heart, and I thought that it was done very carefully and respectfully; it was educational, and was conducted in co-operation with the local hospital authorities. May I ask the Postmaster-General not to be unduly influenced by his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Marples: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall endeavour to be impartial.
    Sir H. Linstead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reaction from the public, as received by the B.B.C., has been almost entirely favourable to this programme?
    Mr. Marples: As far as I understand, there had been, up to 20th February, very little reaction in the form of letters. There were twenty-five letters approving and encouraging the programme, six suggesting additions to the service and, I think, seven suggesting that the programme is unsuitable. The Post Office has received no letters.
    Sir I. Clark Hutchison: In view of that Answer, I will endeavour to raise this matter in the course of the Adjournment debate tomorrow.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Kemble (Aircraft Noise)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he has taken, and what steps he will take, to reduce the

    373
    disturbance to life in the parish of Kemble by flying from Kemble Aerodrome; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): Most of the flying from Kemble is done by aircraft from the Central Flying School at Little Rissington. As a result of strong representations, we have changed the programme and pattern of flying as far as we can to reduce the inevitable disturbance. Last year, night flying at Kemble continued after midnight on only nine occasions; and wherever possible aircraft using the main runway take off to the west, and head away from Kemble village. I myself recently visited the Central Flying School to see if there was anything further we could do, and we shall continue to watch the problem closely.
    Mr. Kershaw: While appreciating what my hon. Friend has been able to do, may ask whether he is aware that the noise made by these aircraft makes life in Kemble parish almost intolerable? Is he aware that the rates of the houses there have recently been brought down by 25 per cent. for this reason, and no other; and will he keep the situation closely under review?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend and myself are most anxious to reduce to a minimum disturbance which affects not only my hon. Friend's constituency but, I think, yours, too, Mr. Speaker. I only hope we can control the noise and disturbance as efficiently as you control noise and disturbance in this House, Mr. Speaker, but, in extremis, you can suspend the Sitting; I am afraid that we cannot suspend flying training.

    Rocket Launching Site, Kirton Lindsey
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for Air the reasons which caused Kirton Lindsey to be chosen as a launching site for United States rockets; what damage will be caused to the amenities of the district by the launching of rockets; what consultations have taken place with representatives of those likely to be affected; who will be in charge of the station; and on whose command rockets will be launched and in what circumstances.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on Monday.
    Mr. Mallalieu: May I be assured that when interference of this sort is undertaken by the hon. Gentleman's Ministry there will be really proper, active, widespread local consultation?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In matters that are of a secret nature, consultation cannot he as widespread as, I think, the hon. and learned Member suggests; but my right hon. Friend pointed out that the Ministry would have confidential discussions with the planning authorities concerned.
    Mr. Fell: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks it advisable that this sort of Question should be put down on the Order Paper at all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is well known that it is Government policy not to mention the names of places where these rocket sites are to be, and if a Member of Parliament finds out where one is to be, surely it is common sense that he should not let it be known. Secondly, may I ask how it is that this sort of Question gets past the Table?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that that is not a question that I can answer. It is for the Table, and not for me.
    Mr. BeswickDoes the hon. Gentleman really think that it is possible for these great, clumsy things to be sited in the flats of East Anglia without any other country being aware of them?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend made this point quite clear on Monday, when he said that there was no point in giving away information to the enemy before one needed to, and that we must make the intelligence services of our potential enemies work for their living.

  TRANSPORT

    Markyate By-Pass (Accidents)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of accidents and casualties that have occurred on the Markyate by-pass since it was opened, the number during the same period on that section of A.5 it replaces, and the number during the comparable period of the previous year.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): There were 9 accidents involving 14 casualties on the Markyate by-pass from 8th June, 1957, to 12th February, 1958; 1 accident involving 1 casualty on A.5 in the same period; and 8 accidents involving 12 casualties on A.5 in the corresponding period of the previous year.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not this reveal that the work that has been done on the Markyate by-pass is quite inadequate? Was it not a short-sighted policy to build this as a two-lane carriageway instead of a dual carriageway, with crossings on the level? Is it not better, when new roadways like this are undertaken, that they should be built on such a scale that these accidents can be avoided?
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir; the by-pass was built to carry the traffic that it is now carrying; and, in fact, when the London-Birmingham motorway is opened in two years' time, and the Watford-Doncaster motorway is open, the volume of traffic travelling on the by-pass will be considerably reduced.

    Inland Waterways (Committee's Report)
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to receive the Report of the Bowes Committee of Inquiry into inland waterways.
    Mr. Nugent: I understand that the drafting of the Report is now in hand, but as the evidence has been voluminous and drawn from a wide field of interests it will be some weeks before the Report is complete.
    Mr. Williams: In thanking the Minister for that very encouraging reply, might I ask whether it is possible to have an interim publication dealing particularly with the disused canals many of which are not only a hazard to life and health but are also handicapping the housing and development authorities in getting on with their schemes? Is there no possibility of having an interim publication on that score?
    Mr. Nugent: Many conflicting interests have to be reconciled by this Committee, and I think we had better leave the Committee to complete its final Report. Its members know that we want it as quickly as possible.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I sought to put a Question on the Order Paper. It was to ask the Prime Minister whether he would provide a bodyguard for members of his Cabinet, as, nowadays, they seem to need one. That Question was refused as being ironic. I respectfully submit that things have come to a pretty pass when a suggestion that even Members of this Government ought not to be beaten up can only be regarded as ironic. I ask your Ruling, Sir, as to whether that is not a Question that I should be entitled to put to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: It is a Rule that Questions of an ironic character are not permitted on the Order Paper, for obvious reasons. The Order Paper is not a place for the interchange of witticisms and I should think, though I have not seen the text of the hon. and learned Member's Question, that from what he has told us about it, it fell within that category.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it make any difference to your Ruling, and would it not influence your opinion, if it were pointed out that there is not only the question of the safety of Ministers to be considered, but that at Glasgow there was a shocking and disgusting waste of flour?
Mr. Hale: Mr. Speaker, there is in the records only one direct Ruling on this matter, and that is to be found in HANSARD for 1860, 3rd series, Vol. 160, col. 1827. That was a case in which an hon. Member said something flattering about the House of Lords. The Speaker of the day was so astonished that he asked him whether it was said ironically. The hon. Member replied that it was said more in sorrow than in anger, and he was enabled to pursue his speech.
If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had asked this Question more in sorrow than in anger, would it have been in order?
I myself ventured to submit a Question on the same point, suggesting that for reasons of economy at least, dogs might be trained for this purpose, and that it

377
would be an advantage if they could distinguish between landlord and tenant. Such a Question, of course, would be put clown more in anger than in sorrow.
In the circumstances, it seems to me that we ought to have a Ruling, because the only other Rulings that I can find are on the use of adjectives. Here, there was a Ruling in 1917, and two in 1920, when Mr. Speaker himself repudiated the Questions as vile and dishonourable.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has covered a very wide area, to most of which I do not feel constrained to reply. But with regard to the precedent of 1860, I would point out that because our Ruling is of some ancientry it is none the less valid today. The fact that there are so few incidents of direct Rulings by Speakers on the question shows that the Ruling in 1860 was generally accepted by the good sense of the House and that no attempts to transgress it were made until quite recently.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Sunday Observance Laws
  Mr. D. Howell: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th March, I shall draw attention to the need to revise and repeal the Sunday Observance laws, and move a Resolution.
  British Shipping (Difficulties)
  Mr. Peyton: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th March, I shall call attention to the difficulties facing British shipping as a result of the increasing use of flags of convenience, and move a Resolution.
  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th March, I shall call attention to conditions in mental hospitals and the need for more nurses, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)
  Bill to amend the law relating to disabled persons as regards the minimum age for attendance at certain courses under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, as regards registration under that Act and as regards the provision by local authorities of employment or other work under special conditions; presented by Mr. Iain Macleod; supported by Mr. Maclay, Mr. H. Brooke, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Walker-Smith, and Mr. Carr; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any British subject or British protected person who is deemed or declared to be a prohibited immigrant in any British colony, protectorate, United Kingdom mandated territory or United Kingdom trust territory, or who, being resident in any such colony, protectorate or territory, is refused a passport, may appeal against such decision or refusal to an advisory committee set up to advise the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  My proposed Bill will, I hope, commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House. As hon. Members know, under the legislation which is now in force, in slightly different forms, throughout East and Central Africa, anyone may be declared a prohibited immigrant. I should like to read to the House an extract from an ordinance, the Kenya Immigration Ordinance, passed in 1946, which is typical of them all. A prohibited immigrant is there defined as
  "Any person who, in consequence of information received from any Government through official or diplomatic channels, or from any other source deemed by the principal immigration officer to he reliable, is deemed by the principal immigration officer to be an undesirable immigrant."
  Then there is a proviso that
  "Provided that every decision of the principal immigration officer under this paragraph shall be subject to confirmation or otherwise by the Governor in Council of Ministers, whose decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court."
  Those provisions apply not only to persons who are seeking to enter the Colony, but to people who are already living there. Sometimes they are applied to people who have been living there for a considerable number of years, and who have made their homes and livelihood there. But under provisions of this kind they are suddenly required to leave, and in each case no reason is given.
  The prohibited immigrant has no means of knowing the grounds on which he has been condemned. He has no appeal and no redress. Even if he comes to a Member of this House, it is of no avail to him because the Secretary of State invariably says at the Dispatch Box that he is not prepared to interfere with
  380
  the exercise of the discretion of the local Government.
  Even in the abstract, those powers, it seems to me, would be open to the very strongest objection, but there has, in recent months, been a growing uneasiness among Members of the House of Commons and people outside at the way in which they are being used. Only last Friday we had a debate on the case of Mr. Basil Davidson. He is a well-known journalist, and he is certainly not a member of the Communist Party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) pointed out in that debate, Mr. Davidson is hated by Communists throughout the world because of the way in which he reported the Hungarian rising. He has been banned not from one territory, but from all of them—from Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Central Africa. In his case, as in every other case, no explanation has been given.
  Mr. Davidson's is by no means the only case. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in the same debate, drew attention to the case of Mr. Marles, who has been living in Nairobi for the last five years, practising as an architect and town planner, and who is now required to leave, without any reason being given. Recent Answers to Questions given in the House have shown that during the last year or two there has been an ominous increase in the number of persons declared prohibited immigrants.
  It seems quite clear that, at any rate, some of these people are being excluded because of their political opinions, or because of what are suspected to be their political opinions. This becomes clearer still when we come to the other matter with which the proposed Bill deals, that is to say, the issuing of passports. Here again, there are decisions which are entirely arbitrary and capricious. Passports are refused, and no reasons are given. In the debate on the Gracious Speech, last November, I drew attention to the case of three African leaders, one in Nyasaland, one in Northern Rhodesia, and one in Uganda, all of whom applied for passports to attend an international socialist conference in Bombay, all of them being refused.
  It is, I submit, abundantly clear that these powers are being used for political reasons, the nature of which we in the

  381
  House are not allowed to know. Why should there be decisions which rest upon the unfettered discretion of colonial officials? It is no answer to say that the decision has to be approved by the Governor in Council; even Colonial Governors are not entirely infallible. There is no reason why we should tolerate a form of McCarthyism simply because it appears under a Governor's hat.
  What is proposed in the Bill is that there should be an advisory committee, it being the duty of the chairman of the advisory committee to inform the person concerned of the reasons for his being declared a prohibited immigrant or for the refusal of a passport, furnishing him with sufficient particulars to present his case. If the man is in the United Kingdom, he will have an oral hearing; if not, he will be able to make his representations in writing.
  These are very moderate proposals, but they are designed to give effect to the elementary principles of justice, that a man shall not be condemned unheard and without knowing what it is that is alleged against him. These are principles which we in this country certainly accept, and they ought to be accepted equally in other territories for which we in this Parliament are responsible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Foot, Mr. J. Johnson, Mr. Hayman, Sir L. Plummer, Mr. Brockway, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Benn, and Mrs. White.

  IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS
  Bill to provide that any British subject or British protected person who is deemed or declared to be a prohibited immigrant in any British colony, protectorate, United Kingdom mandated territory or United Kingdom trust territory, or who, being resident in any such colony, protectorate or territory, is refused a passport, may appeal against such decision or refusal to an advisory committee set up to advise the Secretary of State for the Colonies, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

  DEFENCE
  3.45 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Report on Defence (Britain's Contribution to Peace and Security) set out in Command Paper No. 363.
  Before addressing myself to the subject matter of the debate, I feel that the House would wish me to say how much we all were distressed by the death of Wilfred Fienburgh. He spoke on a number of occasions for the Opposition in our defence debates. I remember that, on a recent occasion, I wrote to him myself, congratulating him on his speech. We all realised, I feel, that he had a great grasp of this subject and had a big career in public life ahead of him. It is a loss to the House and to the public life of our country.
  If we compare this year's White Paper with all those which have gone before, we find that the newest feature in it is the amount to space and emphasis which is given to disarmament. As Minister of Defence, there is nothing I wish for more ardently than to see the world disarm. When I speak of disarmament, I mean comprehensive, thorough-going disarmament, right down to the level needed for internal security purposes only; and the White Paper makes it clear that this would eventually involve supervision and control by a world authority. I believe that nothing less than that must be our ultimate objective.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we want summit talks, and we want them to succeed. I sincerely hope that it may be possible to make some serious headway in the months ahead with discussions on disarmament. I base that hope on the simple fact that disarmament is so obviously just as much in the interest of Russia and every other country as it is in ours.
  The main difficulty about disarmament negotiations is that, unhappily, each side distrusts the intentions of the other. Since the whole process of disarmament obviously cannot be carried through all at once, it is essential to maintain the balance of military power at each stage. But that is not at all an easy matter. It is not a simple matter to equate a reduction in nuclear power with a reduction

  383
  in conventional forces. But, somehow or other, we must find a way of doing it, and I have no doubt that some risks will have to be taken on both sides.
  I have spoken first about disarmament, because, although this is a defence debate, we all know that the only ultimately satisfactory solution to the problem of defence is to make it superfluous. Until we can achieve agreed, all-round disarmament—I assure the House that we shall work flat out for it—we cannot afford to lower our guard. Nothing would more prejudice the prospects of world disarmament than for the West to disarm unilaterally in advance of an agreement.
  The White Paper which I presented to Parliament a year ago outlined our defence policy in broad terms over a five-year period. The two main objectives of that policy are to provide armed forces suited to the realities of the present day and, at the same time, to keep the load on our economy within tolerable limits. This year's White Paper is essentially in the nature of a progress report. It confirms that we are going ahead with the policy that we announced last year. In fact, the developments of the last twelve months, both in the economic and military spheres, have fully justified the principles upon which last year's White Paper was based.
  The financial crisis of last autumn showed how very essential it is to keep defence expenditure within bounds and to reduce military demands upon the country's productive resources. On the military side, the outstanding feature of last year was the advance in the science of rocketry, of which the Russian and American artificial satellites provided dramatic evidence. These developments again reinforced the emphasis placed in last year's White Paper on the need to adjust our military plans to the rocket age.
  I will deal, if I may, with the economic side first. Here, there is evidence that our policy is continuing to lighten the burden of defence. During the past year there have been further appreciable reductions in the demands of defence upon the country's manpower and industrial resources. In 1957, the number of men and women serving in the forces, or supporting them, fell by about 150,000, and
  384
  I expect a further large reduction in 1958. Within next year's slightly reduced Estimates we absorbed increases in civilian wages and prices amounting to about £50 million, improvements in pay and allowances costing £32 million, compensation to retired officers and men of about £14 million, together with the ending of American cash aid, which was estimated this year to be about £13 million. It will be seen, therefore, that to keep next year's Estimates at about the same level as this year's, we have had to make savings elsewhere of about £100 million.
  The White Paper confirms that the Government are planning to bring National Service to an end by December, 1962, and thereafter to rely on much smaller all-Regular forces. In paragraph 48 of last year's White Paper, we explained that if recruiting failed to produce the numbers required some limited form of compulsory National Service would be necessary to bridge the gap. That, of course, still stands. We did not repeat it in this year's White Paper simply because it does not help recruiting to go on harping all the time on the possibility of failure.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit? The target is set at 165,000 for the Army and, overall, about 300,000. Is he now saying that if those figures are not reached—and will he say by how much—the Government will continue compulsory service?
  Mr. Sandys: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read that passage in the White Paper rather carefully. I do not want to interrupt the general train of what I have to say to go into that matter of detail. I think he will see that certain ceilings have been allotted to the Services for recruiting purposes. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to say exactly what our military requirements will be in five years' time. But those are the best figures we are able to give and are the figures upon which we are working at the present time.
  As was always foreseen, the main difficulty is with the Army, which needs larger numbers than the other two Services. As the White Paper pointed out, the new six-year engagement came fully into effect only during October, so

  385
  that we have only a full three months' figures to go on. It is, therefore, much too soon to predict how recruiting will go over the next five years. All I would say is that, in so far as the present figures mean anything, they are really quite encouraging. They show that recruits for the fighting arms are coming in reasonably well, particularly in the infantry, which is, after all, the basic element of the British Army. What is more difficult—and we knew that it would be more difficult—is to get the men that we need for the supporting units to do the less romantic, but essential, jobs, such as storekeepers, lorry drivers, pay clerks and hospital orderlies. To some extent, each of these different administrative corps presents a problem which will have to be studied separately.
  I have never thought that men could be bribed into the forces, or that we should try to do so. I have seen a suggestion of that kind from different quarters. On the other hand, I have no doubt that under-payment discourages recruiting. That is why we felt it absolutely right to make certain increases in the pay and allowances of the forces. It is very difficult to compare Service and civilian earnings, because the Service man is provided with so many things free. The only case which can be reasonably compared is the married Service man who is living out of barracks and who is receiving marriage, out-of-quarters and ration allowances. A private in that position will now earn £11 13s. a week, a sergeant £17 15s., and a senior warrant officer £23 a week.
  These increases in pay and allowances, costing £32 million next year, will be more than offset by the reductions in numbers. In fact, the total pay and maintenance bill for the three Services and their civilian employees will be slightly lower next year. We cannot hope to recruit the men and women of the calibre that we need unless we pay them, house them and give them general conditions which are in tune with the times; and the measures which were announced in the White Paper are, I think, evidence of the Government's determination to give the Services a fair deal.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: More inflation.
  Mr. Sandys: The material factors, however important, are not the whole story. Service men and women must also feel that they are doing a worthwhile job and that the value and importance of the service which they are rendering is understood and appreciated by their fellow countrymen. As we say in the White Paper, never in peacetime have the men and women in the forces more deserved the respect and encouragement of all those who live their daily lives under their protection.
  I want to say a word about the relationship between our defence policy and our foreign policy. With the increase in the power and range of modern weapons, no country can any longer defend itself in isolation. The conception of separate national defence has been almost wholly replaced by that of collective security organised through a system of alliances. This entails coordinating our defence plans and our foreign policy with the defence plans and foreign policies of our allies.
  The basic aim of our policy is to play our part with others in preserving peace and freedom throughout the world and in protecting democracy against subversion and aggression. The methods by which subversion must be resisted are primarily political and economic We must demonstrate the value of freedom and try to help the peoples of all countries to attain a decent standard of life, because I believe that that, in the end, is the only sure shield against Communist penetration. At the same time, it is essential that all the free nations should help to defend one another against the threat of armed aggression and intimidation. It is the need for this collective defence which called into being N.A.T.O., the Bagdad Pact and S.E.A.T.O.
  The strength of N.A.T.O. rests ultimately upon the nuclear deterrent which stands behind it; but the nuclear deterrent does not by itself provide protection. The effectiveness of Western defence depends equally upon maintaining strong forces on the ground along the whole front from the north of Norway to the Caucasus. We fully recognise the high importance of this N.A.T.O. shield, and we are most anxious to make our fair and full contribution to it.

  387
  The greater part of the cost of our forces in Germany, and their equipment, is met in sterling, but expenditure on accommodation, civilian labour, public utilities and other local items has to be met in Deutschmarks. This will next year amount to about £47 million. In addition, the troops are likely themselves to spend about £9 million in German currency. That makes a total of £56 million which will have to be paid across the exchange.
  The £56 million may not seem a large sum in relation to a total defence budget of more than £1,400 million, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his Exchequer experience, it would be a very large sum to have to find out of our overseas surplus on current account, which amounted to about £260 million in 1956 and £130 million during the first half of 1957, especially when we have regard to the obligations to repay external debt, for example, the loan from the International Monetary Fund.
  The whole problem is now being discussed with our allies in N.A.T.O., and we are still looking to them to help find a satisfactory solution. The House will not, therefore, expect me to say today what our attitude will be if no such solution is forthcoming. Our allies fully understand our position, and I think they well recognise that we cannot be expected to do anything which would undermine the stability of sterling.
  I should, however, like to point out that this continued uncertainty about the number of British troops to be kept in Germany makes it very difficult for the Services to do their planning, and that this interminable international discussion about money is embarrassing both to us and to our allies. I hope, therefore, that, in everybody's interest, the question will be settled without too much further delay in a way which may remove uncertainty and friction in future years.
  As I have said, it is essential that the N.A.T.O. front in Europe should be firmly held. At the same time, it is exceedingly important not to allow our flank to be turned in the Middle East or in the Far East. That is why we are also making our contributions to the defence systems of the Bagdad Pact and the South-East Asia Alliance. In fact,
  388
  Britain is the only country which is a member of all three alliances. If, sometimes, our allies on the Continent think that we are not playing our full part in N.A.T.O., I hope they will remember that we, are also providing substantial forces to help defend the frontiers of freedom in other parts of the world.
  Our forces in the Middle East and in the Far East fulfil, of course, a dual role. They support the alliances to which we belong. They also protect British territories and British interests in these areas, as, for example, in Libya, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden, the Persian Gulf, Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong. To these must be added the Central Reserve at home from which reinforcements can be sent to meet emergencies whether on the continent of Europe or in more distant theatres.
  During the past year we have given a great deal of thought to the rôle and composition of the Royal Navy, and we have taken a number of important decisions which will now enable long-term planning to proceed. To carry out our varied responsibilities in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf we shall have to maintain East of Suez a self-contained all-purpose fleet of substantial strength. This Eastern Fleet will be roughly the same size as the naval forces which we have at present in those waters.
  Thus it will be seen that the planned reductions in the overall strength of the Navy will fall primarily in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. We could have made proportionate cuts in all classes of vessels and aircraft, but since the main threat at sea comes today from Russia's vast fleet of submarines, it seemed to us wise to concentrate our smaller naval forces more upon the vital anti-submarine rôle.
  It has been said that this emphasis on the anti-submarine rôle is inconsistent with last year's White Paper, in which we declared that our primary aim was to prevent war rather than to prepare to wage it. It is argued that we ought, instead, to concentrate on the naval strike rôle, which would, it is said, add to the deterrent, rather than on the anti-submarine rôle, which would come into play only after the deterrent had failed. I am quite sure that that would not be a good way of spending our not unlimited resources. We have no aircraft carriers

  389
  large enough to operate the long-range bombers which would be needed for an effective strike operation. We really could not contemplate building more and bigger carriers which, with their aircraft, would cost over £100 million each.
  Opinions differ, of course, about whether after the initial nuclear interchange in a global war there would be what has been described as a "broken back" war at sea, but whatever view one may take about that I do not think it should be assumed that the submarine threat could arise only in a global, nuclear war or only in the Atlantic. It might arise in quite other circumstances and in any part of the world. In any case, I submit to the House that it is surely the first duty of the British Navy to pay attention to the protection of the sea communications, upon which the whole life and economy of our island people depend.
  However, I should like to say just this, that the effect of these changes should not be exaggerated. By its very nature the Navy will always remain a flexible force, capable of performing a wide variety of tasks in peace and in war.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether the new rôle of the Navy was decided in agreement with our N.A.T.O. allies?
  Mr. Sandys: A great deal of discussion has taken place with our N.A.T.O. allies, but I would emphasise that, of course, all this does not happen overnight. We have to discuss with our N.A.T.O. allies what our forces contributions are to be for—I forget exactly how many years ahead it is; but this is a five-year plan, and it will take some time to unfold.
  Mr. George Wigg: When did the right hon. Gentleman discover that the weight of the aircraft was an important factor in taking into account the rôle of the aircraft carrier? He will recollect that it has always been a criticism of the DH110 and the N113 and now the NA39 that they were much too heavy for the carrier.
  Secondly, when did the right hon. Gentleman discover that the Russian submarines had become a menace? I would
  390
  remind him that the present Prime Minister, as long ago as the memorable debate in February, 1951, said that the Russians had 500 submarines. [HON. MEMBERS: "At least."] Certainly not less than 500. For the Minister now, for political convenience, to discover a large number of submarines as a reason to make this change is really a bit thin, to say the least of it.
  Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member will not expect me to discuss all these various aeroplanes. I have no doubt that he will have the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during the debate.
  All I would say—I am trying to explain to the hon. Member and to answer him, if he will give me his attention—is that, as he knows, the reason why we have had to look at this carefully is because it flows from the decision to reduce the overall size of our forces. The question was whether to reduce them, as I explained, proportionately, by cutting an equal proportion of every part of the Navy; or whether to concentrate the smaller naval forces rather more on what we consider to be the most important rôle.
  I come now to the specific criticisms in the Amendment tabled by the Opposition. First, I should like to say something about the deployment of ballistic rockets in Britain. In the foreign affairs debate, last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that it could be argued with cogency
  "that there is no essential physical difference between the launching of missiles which do not have to he manned and the launching of bombers with hydrogen bombs which have to be manned …"
  We are grateful to him for making the position of his party so clear.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman went on to make two specific points. The first, he said, was that
  "The British Government must have effective control over, and an effective veto over, the use of these missile bases, without any possible misunderstanding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1241.]
  I think that at the time the right hon. Gentleman spoke he probably had the impression that these missiles might possibly be manned by American forces, but now that the terms of the Agreement have been published he will see that the missiles are to be manned and operated

  391
  by the Royal Air Force. I think, therefore, that he will agree that there is no possibility of their being launched without the consent of the British Government. Therefore, that point does not arise.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Is it axiomatic in this Agreement that atomic warfare must necessarily be started by the West? If it is to be started by us, one can see the reality of a joint agreement between the two Governments. If it is started by the other side, what makes them think there will be a British Government here to carry it out?
  Mr. Sandys: That is rather like the question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) a couple of days ago. If none of us is here, we shall not have this problem to grapple with. But I think that that would be taking me some way from the subject matter of this debate.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is very relevant, though, is it not?
  Mr. Sandys: The Leader of the Opposition's second point, which is included in the Amendment, was that the physical preparation of these bases should be held up until after the summit talks. In winding up the foreign affairs debate last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained why we did not feel able to accept this suggestion. We understand and we respect the motive which inspired the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, but we do not feel that a gesture of this kind would have any practical effect. It is quite clear from what Mr. Khrushchev said in a speech only a few days ago that the Russians are going ahead with their own rocket plans, and I am sure that they would be very surprised if we were to hold up ours.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: They would regard it as an unfriendly act.
  Mr. Sandys: I think that they might even misinterpret it as a sign of weakness.
  The principal specific criticism in the Opposition's Amendment is that our defence policy
  "relies predominantly upon the threat of thermo-nuclear warfare."
  That is the point which was touched on by the hon. and learned Gentleman the
  392
  Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in his intervention a moment ago.
  I am very glad that the Opposition have rejected the idea that we should unilaterally give up the hydrogen bomb. It has very much narrowed the differences between us. I am also glad that in the Amendment the Opposition have not identified themselves with the extreme view that in no circumstances should the West, if attacked, use nuclear weapons first. I am very glad that the Amendment does not take that line, which has been taken by a number of hon. Members opposite, I believe.
  I know perfectly well that some people were surprised and even shocked by the statement in the White Paper that if Russia were to launch a major attack against the West, even with conventional forces only, the West would have to hit back with strategic nuclear weapons. I know that a number of people were surprised and shocked; but, however much we may dislike it, that is, in fact, the position.
  There is nothing new about it. It is the accepted and well-established strategy of N.A.T.O. It is by this method that peace has been preserved over the last decade, and unless we are able to get agreement on disarmament there is, I am afraid, at present no alternative to it. If there was any doubt about this, it is just as well that that doubt should be removed, for I think it is now generally agreed that if the Kaiser and Hitler had known clearly in advance what would be the reactions to their aggression, two bloody world wars could have been avoided.
  Mr. John Rankin: What about the Prime Minister's qualification, made at the weekend, of that paragraph in the White Paper?
  Mr. Sandys: I do not think that I shall shirk any of the central points.
  As was stated in the White Paper, though this has been less quoted than the other sentence, the West will never start a war against Russia. It is equally obvious that no one in his senses would think of launching a nuclear counteroffensive to deal with a minor incursion or, as The Times newspaper today described it,
  "… accidental border incidents …"
  Mr. Charles Royle): What if he was senseless?
  Mr. Sandys: If, on the other hand, Russia, with her incomparably larger conventional forces, were to launch an all-out conventional attack then the Western allies would have the choice of striking back with nuclear weapons—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: And commit suicide.
  Mr. Sandys: Or submitting to defeat and occupation. It is inconceivable that the free peoples would meekly surrender their liberties without a fight, whatever the consequences.
  Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Suicide.
  Mr. Sandys: This issue was explained in simple and telling language by Mr. Attlee, as he then was, speaking as Leader of the Opposition three years ago. He said:
  "It is no use telling the Russians that we would not be the first to use the hydrogen bomb in a war."—
  It could not be clearer than that—
  "It would be as if I and a heavyweight boxer faced each other with revolvers and I told him that I am not going to be the first to fire. He would just say 'Splendid', and put down his pistol and knock me for six with his fists."
  I really do not think that I can put the position more clearly than that.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman entirely discount the possibility that if we say to the Soviet Union, "If you attack only with conventional weapons we will retaliate with nuclear weapons" this is a direct incitement to them, if ever they are minded to make an attack at all, to begin with nuclear weapons? Is it not?
  Mr. Sandys: I would reply to the hon. Member by saying that if we tell the Soviet Union in advance, as the hon. Member, I believe, would like to do, that in no circumstances shall we use the only weapon which is effective in our armoury—
  Mr. Silverman: That is not my question.
  Mr. Sandys: This is my answer. If we do that, we are inviting them to use the superior conventional forces which they possess and which are bound to be successful.
  So much for the facts, but it may, of course, be argued that although what is said in the White Paper is perfectly true it is not helpful to say it at a time when we are hoping to reopen negotiations on disarmament. I firmly believe that it is not only helpful, but necessary. It is really no good mincing matters. We shall get nowhere in negotiations if we shrink from tackling the basic issues. I am just as keen on disarmament as many people who talk in a rather loose way about these things. Our object must be to work out together, with the Russians, some programme of disarmament by stages.
  To do that, we must surely start by recognising frankly the realities of the military position on both sides, that is to say, Russia's overwhelming superiority in conventional forces and the reliance of the West on the nuclear deterrent. I have had a number of talks with Mr. Khrushchev on various occasions, here and in Moscow, and the thing that most struck me about his colourful personality was his complete outspokenness. I am sure that he is the last person in the world to resent, or to be put off by plain speaking. [Interruption.] I did not attend the famous dinner at which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) got into some difficulties.
  The News Chronicle, an independent newspaper which is not notoriously bellicose, devoted a leading article to this particular passage in the White Paper, in the course of which it wrote:
  "In spite of what is bound to be an immediate, sincere and horrified reaction, our opinion is that it is right to give a potential enemy the clearest warning of what serious aggression would entail."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should quote today's Daily Herald.
  Mr. George Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote this morning's Times?
  Mr. Sandys: I just could not understand it, I am afraid.
  The article in the News Chronicle ended by saying that some plain speaking before the summit talks would do no harm.

  395
  I have said that in the event of a full-scale conventional attack against the West, the only alternative to using nuclear weapons would be to surrender. There is, in fact, a third course, which nobody has advocated, involving neither surrender nor the use of nuclear weapons first. That is, for us and our allies to expand our conventional forces to the extent necessary to resist an all-out conventional attack.
  Theoretically, there is no reason why we could not do this. Our combined population is larger and our industrial resources are greater, but, of course, it would entail a stupendous increase in the demands of defence upon manpower, money and industry. We in Britain might have to maintain between 1 million and 1½ million men in the Armed Forces and spend perhaps £1,000 million more a year on the defence budget.
  Pending some agreement on disarmament, defence must go on, but I think that the House will agree that the more we study the various ugly choices about which I have been speaking the more we must be impressed with the importance of bringing about disarmament—comprehensive, balanced disarmament—not, of course, unilateral disarmament. We do not seek disarmament because we are weak or frightened; in fact, the strength of the West is increasing. We seek it because it is the only solution which, in the long run, makes sense. It is the only road to real peace and economic progress for mankind.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: Before I deal with what I should like to say or with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I welcome on behalf of this side of the House and join in the tribute which the Minister has paid to our late colleague Wilfred Fienburgh. Wilfred was a bit younger than I, but in the natural course of events was bound to be very close to me. Ever since he came into this House, although we have sometimes disagreed, we have worked closely together. There are some deaths which seem to be a tragedy and make one sad; this was a tragedy which made one angry. It was a waste of a life which was full of enormous promise for his country, for his party and for his friends, and we all regret very much
  396
  the loss of that man and of the opportunities he had for great service to our mutual benefit.
  At the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said, I have no doubt unconsciously, something which was very revealing indeed. On the point of paragraph 12 and the strategic nuclear deterrent, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the News Chronicle, which happened to suit his purpose—I suppose because of the candidate his party is putting up at Torrington. He did not quote the Manchester Guardian, which did not suit his purpose. Then I asked him whether he would quote this morning's Times, to which he replied that he did not understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Daily Herald."] I understand the Daily Herald very clearly and disagree with it, but that is not what the right hon. Gentleman said about The Times. That is the difference. My point is that I am not saying I do not understand it—I do—but that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand it. The point is that it was The Times, not the News Chronicle, not the Manchester Guardian, which pointed out that this is not a black and white issue. This is not an "either/or" issue. This is not a choice between a border incident, where clearly one would not use a thermo-nuclear strategic weapon, and an all-out global thermo-nuclear war, where perhaps one would.
  The Times pointed out that there were a number of possibilities in between. Our point, which I will develop in a moment, about the White Paper is exactly that. We have a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it. The moment we get outside a purely black and white, "either/or", presentation, the right hon. Gentleman is lost. Last year we had a discussion on this matter in the House, in this very debate, and a number of us tried to question the right hon. Gentleman on a subject which he has left out of this White Paper, the subject of tactical atomic weapons, which most significantly does not appear this year.
  A number of us asked questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) asked many direct and specific questions. As everyone here will recall, the right hon. Gentleman was patently and completely confused by the whole business of intermediate deterrents

  397
  and of how to deal with specific problems. I suggest that the confusion he showed last year in this Chamber still exists. I suggest that it is really at the base of the misapplied direction of paragraph 12, and it is at the base of The Times' most unusual and very heavy criticism of the right hon. Gentleman this morning.
  Whilst I have no special influence with The Times, I will do my best to get it to repeat that criticism in whatever language will be more appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, because so long as he holds his office it is important that he should understand that this is not a black and white issue. Lord Attlee's reference to the big man and the little man was true, but if the big man is not setting about him in that sense, there is no point in saying in advance, "Use your pistol because in any case I am going to use mine"—if something less than that kind of disaster is possible before he leaves the ring.
  The right hon. Gentleman, we think, must be invited to face this problem. It is not an issue of a little man going into the ring with a big man and being always in danger of annihilation, and, therefore, of his thinking that he may as well choose mass suicide at the start, which is the way the right hon. Gentleman is posing the question—do not let us kid ourselves or misunderstand how much genuine fear and feeling there is about this. In the 'thirties we got into a lot of difficulty because public opinion outside became completely out of touch with the opinion inside the House.
  What is shocking people is not the right hon. Gentleman standing up very tough and very firm in the House and saying that if we are faced with an all-out thermo-nuclear attack we will reply and will defend ourselves and may even go first. He says that now in the House, though not in the White Paper. That is not what is shocking people. If napalm bombs were being rained on London or on my constituency of Belper, or anywhere else, I have no doubt about the demand there would be for us to reply with whatever we could reply with in order to try to stop it. It is not that which is shocking people. What is shocking people is that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have no other idea for dealing with any conflict other than
  398
  the merest, smallest border incident except the thermo-nuclear weapon. It seems to fill his horizon. It fills the entire screen. It is directed to any kind of purpose except the one he contemptuously tosses aside as the minor one. I will come back to this inevitably in what I have to say.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Only because it is cheaper. What a justification for nuclear warfare.
  Mr. Brown: I agree with the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
  At the beginning of the Minister's speech, in the middle of his speech and at the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman kept on referring to economy. He said, "We cannot afford this" and "It would cost us so much to do that." He almost said that it would be good if we did, but that we could not afford it. What he came back to every time was, We have chosen this road, we have chosen this defence policy, not because we are proud of it, not because we are sure it suits our purpose, but because we have decided that we cannot afford any more for defence than will cover this."
  I am bound to point out to the Conservative Party that it has done this many times before. We may have to share the guilt of 1939—and I will say a word about that in a minute—but it was the fact that the Government of that day talked big in the 'thirties. They talked about rearmament, they talked about their intentions, when in fact they were not doing anything sensible to carry out those things. That got us into a situation where the Germans thought we would not fight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Listen to me. It would be a good thing to hear the argument even if hon. Gentlemen opposite think it is wrong.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the louder we shout that in any circumstances we will reply with a weapon of mass suicide—which means obliterating London—the more unlikely is it that we shall be believed about anything short of a real, complete disaster. The would-be aggressor would say to himself, "I do not believe they would do that. I do not believe they could do it." Look at

  399
  the Daily Herald this morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is an organ of public opinion; it is no good tossing it aside. Look at the meeting in the Central Hall, Westminster, and look at the Wirksworth Urban District Council, which is completely Tory-run and is calling a town's meeting on the very same subject.
  Mr. K. Zilliacus: Look at Rochdale.
  Mr. Brown: An aggressor would look at all these evidences and say, "I do not believe they would do it for anything short of a really major thing." Therefore, the deterrent is, in fact, being turned into an incentive if the aggressor chooses his ground right.
  This apparently not-thought-out attempt to blanket all defence problems with this assertion seems to me to be doing a very grave disservice to the defence requirements of the country. I tell the House frankly that I cannot deal with it in the black and white manner. It is not an either/or. I will stand up presently for the position of my party; I will not run away from it. I have my own views about the H-bomb and about the deterrent and the value of it. I do not invite everybody to share them. I state them as I believe them. I cannot do anything else. I cannot, however, present it in that black and white way. I cannot see it in that "either/or" way.
  I do not believe that any Minister of Defence or any Cabinet, faced with the choice between what I call the border incident, which is easy—for example, Oman and Muscat—and all-out thermonuclear war, which in a sense is also easy, simply saying, "Well, in paragraph 12 of the White Paper in 1958, we said that we would send the thermo-nuclear weapon and so we shall now send it". They would have much more agonising arguments and many hours would be lost in discussions and telegrams to the diplomats to find out whether it really was like that. By the time they had found it out, the affair would be over and the objective captured and people in the Cabinet would say that they could see no point in blowing up anybody now. That is the danger of the "either/or" position. That is why I do not see it as the Minister does.
  400
  Before I deal with some of the questions that must fairly be answered by us, and posed by me, on that subject, I begin with a reference to one or two of the more detailed questions in the White Paper. Incidentally, I congratulate the Minister on having produced two White Papers, which in this Administration is a record. There have been six or seven predecessors of his, but as far as I know, apart from spending a lot of money, none of them has ever produced more than one White Paper and at least one of them never produced one at all. For the Defence Minister to have produced two is a particular achievement and I congratulate him upon it.
  I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, too, on the fact that people who last year, when we on this side were criticising the policy in his first White Paper, cheered him on and said what a courageous man he was to have discovered the realities of nuclear warfare, are the people who have turned against him this year and are now attacking him. To the right hon. Gentleman, that must be a very confusing situation. Although we enjoy this reversal of form, I sympathise with him about it.
  The main nuclear deterrent argument apart, the real fact of the matter to anyone concerned about the defences of the country is that the White Paper, like its predecessor and like almost every White Paper of recent years, is full of dangerous half-truths, full of optimistic assertions that parade as facts and contains a whole lot of omissions and statements which mislead us. I shall not deal with them all—time does not allow—but I will deal with two main issues. I merely refer to some of them at this stage.
  There will be others from these benches—and, I have no doubt, elsewhere in the House—who will take up the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has produced concerning the Army and recruiting. It is true that the rate has been put up. It is true that the £10 private envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has made a rather earlier appearance on the scene than some people thought—and is now, in fact, a £11 13s. private. It is true that the pay is up. Putting up the pay, however, of which I was always in favour, is merely the way in which the process is started.

  401
  It is the way in which one primes the pump.
  It does not follow that after the early immediate take-on the rate of recruitment will settle down to the level that the Government want to maintain or that they will get the engagements for the right term of years, unless they deal with the other incentives that are required. There is nothing in the White Paper at all about the other problems that affect the Service man—accommodation, clothing when he is not actually on duty and a whole host of other problems—which need to be dealt with if we are to satisfy ourselves that we will have our Regular Army and he able to maintain it at the right figures.
  What is even more important is that if the Government pin their faith to a small, long-term professional Army, mobility becomes more important than almost anything else. We must be able to get the Army where we want it in time. The paragraphs of the White Paper—paragraphs 40 and 41 in particular—dealing with the question of Transport Command and a system of air transport to get the central reserve where it is wanted or to get our overseas establishments where they are needed, contains the perennial assertion that it is being built up. That is no more than half true when checked against the facts.
  For example, last year I asked what was the successor to the Beverley aeroplane, which is our only machine that anything like approaches a heavy lift aircraft. The old Beverley had neither the range nor the lift, nor, possibly, the speed, that was required. Over a year ago I saw the production lines being shut down and last year I asked what the successor was.
  There is still no successor. There is still no heavy lift aeroplane being developed. No development order has been given, let alone a production order. In fact, we have no aeroplane that could take even the moderately heavy equipment that the soldiers would need if the small professional Army which is envisaged in the White Paper had to be moved about.
  Mr. Anthony Fell Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) rose—
  Mr. Brown: I cannot give way at this stage—perhaps later. I suggest to the Minister that it simply is not good
  402
  enough to tell us that air transport is being built up when the Government are not ordering the aeroplanes or stating their requirements. Knowing how long it takes, even with all the good will in the world, to get such an aircraft actually into service, we are leaving ourselves without such an aeroplane for such a purpose for four, five, six or seven years ahead. I could go on with this—
  Mr. Fell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member insists.
  Mr. Fell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The question I have to ask him is a serious one. I know that he does not like misleading the House. He is, unfortunately, a little past the position at which I think he unintentionally misled the House. He talked about there being no mention in the Defence White Paper of accommodation. Has he read the White Paper?
  Mr. Brown: This is the whole problem of giving way. The theory is that if one Member gives way, the next one must. That is exactly the sort of point that might be made in a speech following mine. If it is thought that I have misled the House concerning the White Paper, by all means let it be pointed out in a speech.
  I have read the White Paper. I did not say that it did not refer to accommodation. What I accused the White Paper of was half-truths. I said that no provisions were being made at the moment in the Estimates for sufficient improvement of accommodation to provide the incentives that we require.
  Sir Thomas Moore: That was not what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Brown: That is what I have said. I have now spelt it out at rather greater length, but it remains what I intended. I do not ask hon. Members to agree. I know my own views about this. If anyone knows better, if anyone has recently visited establishments in the Army and knows more than I do, then by all means let him tell the House. But I repeat—
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the White Paper.
  Mr. Brown: One of the things that makes me feel that the Army will never get its recruits is the behaviour of brigadiers in this House. I am bound to tell the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer)—he does this every time I address the House—that if he is an example of brigadiers, we had better change everything that he represents. This continual rudeness is so ridiculous.
  There is the question of the reference to pacts in the White Paper. There is a reference to the Bagdad Pact and to the S.E.A.T.O. Pact. I have always supported both, and sometimes I have been in a minority. But it is foolish to pretend that at this moment there is any military strength in the Bagdad Pact. I do not speak about the S.E.A.T.O. Pact. I have not been able to examine that, but I have been in Bagdad recently and nobody there would claim that there is any military strength or co-operation in the Bagdad Pact. There is a good deal of economic co-operation, but not the military strength or co-operation which it is pretended in the White Paper that there is. I do not see the point in writing a White Paper on defence which is misleading on important issues of this kind. Hon. Members opposite may think that there ought to be or that there ought not to be such military strength. Hon. Members may please themselves which view they take, but for Heaven's sake do not let us pretend that there is when clearly—everyone knows it, and the Russians know it—there is not.
  In the White Paper there is a reference to N.A.T.O. I well understand those people who say that we are devoted to the idea of the N.A.T.O. Pact. We on this side of the House have a special responsibility for it and, in a sense, a special devotion to it. But I should have thought it did not lie in the mouths of this Government to lecture about cooperation and interdependence and to moralise about collective decisions in N.A.T.O. We in this country are the ones who walked away from N.A.T.O. About two years ago, when I moved the first of the Motions to end National Service, I was interrupted again and again by hon. Members opposite, especially by the present Minister of Labour and National Service, and asked whether we were proposing to consult N.A.T.O. We
  404
  were told that our plan was impossible, because it did not sufficiently take into account consultations with N.A.T.O.
  This Government have reduced our troops, pulled out the forces from the Continent, changed the whole pattern of our contribution and changed the rôle of the Navy, all without effective consultation and without listening to the views of the other side, and all contrary to the views of N.A.T.O. To refer in the White Paper to the importance of interdependence, to the importance of listening to N.A.T.O., seems to be absurd. This also applies to the paragraph about the troops in Germany. I do not for a moment pretend that the Germans have behaved in any other way than very badly—
  Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that we have not been consulting with N.A.T.O. about our troops in Germany? That is the reason why I cannot speak to the House about the whole position. If I have said it once, I have said ten times in this House, in reply to Questions, that the whole issue of the size of our Forces in Germany is at present under discussion in N.A.T.O.
  Mr. Brown: The next withdrawals are, the withdrawals that are past were not. I say—other people may dispute it, but I say and I have reason to say it—that in so far as there was any consultation at all, it took the form of telling N.A.T.O. what was to be done. In regard to some things, there was no consultation; about others N.A.T.O. was merely told what we were going to do. There was no effective consultation.
  I do not dispute that Germany has behaved very badly; that Germany is not carrying her share of the burden; that, in fact, she has built up a large export trade, much of which she has secured from us because we have been carrying the defence burden and have helped her. I do not deny any of that. But paragraph 43 of the White Paper suggests that if the question of the cost burden is not dealt with, we shall have to reduce the size of our commitment. I remind the Government—they made the commitment, not us—that this commitment was not to Germany; it was not conditional upon Germany paying. The commitment was in order to get the Paris Treaties through, and was a commitment much more to France, Belgium

  405
  and the other countries than to Germany.
  If paragraph 43 means anything at all, it is threatening the unilateral cancellation of a solemn treaty, made in the most solemn words, that bound us for many years ahead. If the Government are proposing to behave in that way, then I repeat that I do not think lit is much use talking about the sanctity of decisions and of consultations within N.A.T.O. This is a threat to walk out, because the Government have now found that the commitment into which they entered is too binding.
  Sir James Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in the Paris Treaties I here is a Clause which leaves it open o this country to bring up the question in Western European Union in the event of economic repercussions affecting the maintenance of troops on the Continent at the strength initially laid down? That was done regarding the first reduction and that is being done again now.
  Mr. Brown: I do not dispute that this country is entitled to bring up the matter in Western Union, but there is nothing in the Treaties which entitles us to reduce our commitment on the ground of cost. We can bring up the matter and discuss it, but there is nothing which entitles us to say in the form of the words in paragraph 43 of the White Paper that we shall have to reconsider our commitment, as though we were not bound—as the hon. Gentleman knows that we are if words and treaties mean anything—by a long-term obligation. I will not continue to discuss this matter, although on second thoughts there is one thing I wish to say. There is something that worries me, especially in view of the discussions about missiles.
  In paragraph 30 there is a reference to the Air Force and to the V-bomber force. There is a statement that we are developing a propelled bomb and that, I think it says—I had better quote the words accurately—
  "…progress is being made with the development of propelled bombs, which can be released from a considerable distance, thereby making it unnecessary for the aircraft to fly into the more heavily defended target area."
  If we can develop a satisfactory propelled bomb which really will go a considerable distance—I am not talking
  406
  about a hundred miles, but something like 600 miles or 900 miles—then the V-bombers remain the effective delivery system for the deterrent for many years ahead. If that is so, there will be less reason to have a missile delivering the same weapon over the same distance. That would appear to be a duplication.
  It is difficult to phrase one's questions on this matter because we all get advice and information from sources to which perhaps one does not wish to refer. But I ask the Minister specifically to state whether we have in the programme of research and development today a propelled bomb that will go 600 or 900 miles? Are we investigating that matter? I have a feeling that this is a kind of half-truth which is very misleading, and I should like to know whether we are developing such a bomb. It will influence me very much to know that. The difficulty is, of course, that the Russians also would like to know. Tomorrow night we shall be asked to vote, among other things, upon having missiles—which are untested—which will travel for 1,500 miles. How can we decide whether we need them, unless we know whether we have a system which will do exactly the same job? It is important to have some information on this subject.
  I return to the major issue of the deterrent. The basic problem is that this year's White Paper follows last year's White Paper, which was based upon an attractive but dangerously deceptive phrase used by the Minister. Last year he said rather proudly, that we were not planning to fight a war, but to avert one. Propaganda-wise, it is a very good claim to make, but I believe that it is a dangerously deceptive one. Planning to avert a war involves planning to fight a war, unless we are saying that we are relying upon this massive weapon of mass suicide, in which case it is not planning to fight a war or to avert a war; it is planning to smother everything whenever any incident occurs.
  Paragraphs 28, 38 and 45 of the White Paper, and those paragraphs refer to the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, show that this claim is not true. In fact, the Government are planning to do all these things; they are merely avoiding making decisions about the weapons which our forces are to have and the means by which the forces are to get

  407
  about. The Government are not planning to avert a war; if they were there would be no case for what is said about the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman attempts to define the anti-submarine rôle of the Navy. There is no case for that if he means what he says in paragraph 12. If he is going to meet everything but the merest border case with the thermo-nuclear deterrent there is a case for having a Navy with submarines that can deliver Polaris, or some similar missile, but there is not a case for assigning an anti-submarine rôle to the Navy.
  What has happened is that the First Sea Lord and their Lordships in the Admiralty have managed to keep the Navy going by foisting upon the Minister of Defence a statement of purpose which he is prepared to accept on the basis—as Lord Mountbatten put it quite clearly the other day, at one of our dockyards—that we have to keep the Navy alive, and we have to have something upon which we can develop. The rôle which the right hon. Gentleman assigns for the Navy, like that which he assigns for the Army, is tenable only if we do not accept Clause 12. First, the claim is not true and, secondly, it is by planning to fight that the deterrence is established. The question we must ask ourselves is under what circumstances we shall employ the deterrent. To what is the deterrent attached? Are there different kinds of deterrent for each kind of conflict? Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman's statement can be and is used as a cover only to half-do a number of things which would be better done fully or not done at all, in order to save money being wasted on them.
  The Government are turning the weapon of deterrence, which is only a weapon so long as it is not used—and this cannot be said often enough—into a weapon that will in fact be used, and be used very early in the proceedings if we do not have to choose surrender.
  What is the position of the Labour Party? In the days of the Labour Government the Labour Party accepted the responsibility of making atomic bombs, the need for having the means of their delivery, and each successive stage in the chain reaction. At the recent Brighton Conference it rejected overwhelmingly a Motion that sought to bind us not to test,
  408
  use or make these weapons. We have accepted the deterrent theory and the fact that in order to keep any independence at all for ourselves as a nation we must have a voice in international affairs. To help deter an aggressor we need to have this deterrent.
  Let me make quite clear what our view has been. I quote from the resolution of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, issued on 30th March, 1955, which says:
  "Until world disarmament can be achieved weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Britain and her allies in N.A.T.O. form the most effective deterrent against aggression by a potential disturber of the peace possessing not only these weapons but also overwhelming force in what are called conventional weapons.
  As long as this great disparity remains, unilateral disarmament is folly. It is equally foolish to suggest that these weapons will only be used if an aggressor uses them first. It is the knowledge that in the last resort"—
  we should mark those words "in the last last resort"—
  "these terrible weapons will be used that makes them an effective deterrent, but they constitute only an ultimate sanction to prevent war. They could not be used in the event of minor disturbances."
  [Interruption.] Let me go on. I want to establish our position. We have always accepted the deterrent, but we do not bind ourselves so to arrange our defence forces that this has to be used early on in the chain reaction.
  My complaint about the Government, paragraph 12 of the White Paper and its whole presentation is that they suggest that unless there is a border incident—and the Prime Minister took upon himself the responsibility of defining the sort of occasion upon which it would not be used—[Interruption.]—I have only the Manchester Guardian report of what he said; according to that the Prime Minister said that it would not be used in a border incident. If that is where it will not be used, presumably it will be used in all the other sorts of incidents.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The right hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I said that if it were a case of the mobilisation of large forces—say, 200 divisions—or an all-out attack on Europe, or the bombing of London, that would be a case where the deterrent would have to be used. That is what I said.
  Mr. Brown: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman says in the White Paper.
  The Prime Minister: I meant the bombing of London with conventional bombs. The report of my statement which the right hon. Gentleman quoted said that it would not be used in minor cases, and the White Paper says that it would be used in major cases.
  Mr. Brown: The White Paper says that in the event of a major attack in one case, a full-scale attack in another, or anything but the border case of the Prime Minister's—
  The Prime Minister: It would seem that the opposite to "minor" is "major" or "massive".
  Mr. Brown: It is not. What is in between? This is exactly what I want to understand. If we refer on the one hand to a major attack with thermonuclear weapons, or even with conventional weapons and, on the other hand, to his border case, that rules out from the list all possibilities between, and there are lots of possibilities between. We in the Labour Party are not running away from our acceptance of the deterrent in an all-out global war or in a major affair, but the Government have produced a White Paper which everybody has taken to indicate the ultimate deterrent will be used in anything but a border incident. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am glad that we have got that clear.
  Let us go on from there. The thermonuclear weapon, I gather, will not be used in the case of, say, a conflict in Central Europe or a conflict in the Middle East which is not border, major or direct. I ask the Government what they would use in those cases.
  Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition accepted that the nuclear retaliation would have to be used if there were an all-out global war. I would ask him—because this is really the crux of the issue—whether he means an all-out conventional attack or not, and whether he agrees that if there is an all-out conventional attack the Opposition accept the use of nuclear weapons in return? What I would like to make clear is that it is misleading the House—the right hon. Gentleman referred to our misleading people—to suggest that anyone on behalf of the
  410
  Government has said that we intend to use massive nuclear retaliation for anything that was more than a border incident. Nobody has ever said that. We have made it quite clear that if there is a major, full-scale attack, even with conventional forces only, nuclear retaliation would be necessary. We have equally made it quite clear that very small incidents such as have been mentioned would obviously not involve such retaliation. There is an area in between about which I will not speculate and which I will not define.
  Mr. Brown: We are very glad to have it from the Minister that his White Paper does not mean what a straight reading of it has led most people to believe. That applies not only to myself but to everybody. Look what The Times has said. If we have all managed to get it wrong, then we are delighted to have it put right.
  The White Paper provides for nothing but conventional troops, conventional weapons and a thermo-nuclear weapon. The Army Estimates make no reference to tactical atomic weapons in the hands of our troops. For example, the other day a West German Government spokesman was reported as saying that British troops were not going to handle Corporals which had an atomic capability. Everyone knows that if we are to have a small army and no National Service we are clearly not going to resist any large-scale conventional attack with large-scale conventional forces. We shall not have them. On the other hand, we have clearly ruled out anything in the nature of tactical atomic weapons.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman with what he proposes to deal with the in-between area. I ask him to read tomorrow what I am now saying on the matter because it is an issue on which everyone outside the House feels extremely strongly. If we do not provide for tactical atomic weapons and for large-scale forces—and the right hon. Gentleman is doing neither if the White Paper is to be believed—then, in fact, we have nothing with which to meet the in-between areas at all. This is what I meant earlier in my speech when I said that one can talk very big, but, in fact, leave the country without the weapons and the troops it needs with which to do the job that one says one intends to

  411
  do. I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to answer specifically what kind of weapons and troops are envisaged for what the Prime Minister called the "grey area in between".
  Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for interrupting him, but this is a matter on which clarity is obviously essential. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At any rate, nothing can make the Government's policy clear, but I think that our policy is clear enough.
  My right hon. Friend said that we on this side of the House accept the nuclear weapons which obviously meant that, in the context in which he used the phrase, we accept the nuclear weapon as a makeweight to make good the deficiency in conventional forces. I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct that impression because at its last annual conference at Brighton the Labour Party unanimously accepted a resolution which committed the party, at any rate, to the policy of dispensing with nuclear weapons if we could get an international agreement to dispense with them, whether or not such an agreement were linked with other forms of disarmament. That, surely, has a great bearing on the issue.
  Mr. Brown: I think that my hon. Friend and I had better look at that resolution again. My recollection, quite clearly, is that if we are to get rid of nuclear weapons then something will have to be done at the same time about conventional troops.
  I say seriously to the Government that the position at the moment, which, clearly, they think is our fault, is that everybody believes, because of the words they have used and because of the weapons they have excluded, that the Government are thinking of using the thermo-nuclear weapon in the conditions which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence have now declared that they are not thinking of using it.
  I welcome the declaration that they are not proposing to use the thermo-nuclear weapon in the grey area in between, but I repeat that unless they are prepared to tell us what they propose to use we are, in fact, in a position where there is virtually no defence at that point. Tactical atomic weapons are, of course,
  412
  weapons of very difficult definition. I see that the Minister of Defence is now looking very confused and pained.
  Mr. Sandys: I am.
  Mr. Brown: It is a very great difficulty, of course, if we have a Minister of Defence who is always going to be confused and pained the moment that we get off the either/or and black and white issue, but this is a problem which I beg the right hon. Gentleman to try to get Colonel Post to explain to him. That is what the right hon. Gentleman keeps him for.
  Tactical atomic weapons are not strategic weapons, but are the weapons that we always understood were to be used on the battlefield to make up for our shortage of manpower and of conventional forces compared with the Russians. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have ruled them out. He does not once refer to them in his White Paper, and neither does the Army Estimates mention them. I repeat that without them it seems to me that we shall be in the position where we shall be debarred from using the strategic weapon through having insufficient conventional troops with which to meet an attack conventionally. After all, Berlin is a possibility; East Germany is a possibility, and something in the nature of Korea is a possibility.
  We are faced with not having enough conventional troops to meet such occasions, with not having the tactical atomic weapons with which to make up for the shortage of troops, and we have now been told that we shall not use the thermo-nuclear weapon in such circumstances. All this means that our defence policy, as I suspected, is not a thought-out defence policy at all. It moves under the general umbrella of wanting to save some money. It just embodies a number of broad assertions and broad general declarations that have very little to do with an effective defence policy. I hope that some other Minister will return to this matter and will make the position much more clear for us.
  There is another aspect with which I must deal. It is the question of the new missile bases in this country. Let me make it quite clear—it does not have to be read to us—that I do not think any of us would dispute the logic of the case

  413
  of missiles after aeroplanes. If one accepts the fact that an aeroplane is an acceptable way of delivering a thermonuclear weapon, a missile must be equally acceptable wherever one needs a missile instead of an aeroplane.
  Whether anybody else does or not, 1 accept that there is probably much less risk for the inhabitants of an area near missile stations than for those living near H-bomber stations, when it is remembered that the missiles cannot be tested and cannot be practised, whereas H-bombers can be tested and practised. However, as I said to the Minister last year about another matter, because a thing is logical, it does not follow that it is either necessary or inevitable. [Interruption.] It is obvious that if the H-bombers were wrong, the missiles are wrong.
  For myself, the H-bombers were right and I cannot therefore say that the missiles are wrong. The logic of that is clear. Anybody who opposed having the H-bombers is entitled to say that missiles are wrong. It all depends on the original position one took, or whether one says that one was wrong and has since changed one's mind. However, I was in favour of the original thing and for me the missiles are right.
  However, to say that something is logical, is not to say that it is necessary, is not to say that it is inevitable and is not to say that this is the right time to do it. It is on those three grounds that I attack the decision about missile bases. We are to go the summit. The Prime Minister has told us that he is as keen to get there as are the rest of us and that not only does he want summit talks, but he desperately wants that they should be a success. I take that to mean that he wants some agreement to emerge which would either reduce or obviate the necessity to consider dropping hydrogen bombs, or some political agreement, partial or complete, to help to start the movement towards agreement on disarmament.
  If the Prime Minister wants that and if he is hoping to have summit talks very soon, as he said, why has this moment been chosen for the installation of the rockets? There can be only one reason which would be acceptable and that would be the necessity to start installing the rockets now to avoid a gap between
  414
  the V-bombers and the next means of delivery. If the Prime Minister believes that unless we constructed the bases here in the beginning of 1958, then the V-bombers would be out of date and there would be a period when Britain would have no means of delivering her resources, I would consider that argument. However, he has not said that and he cannot say that and he has no adviser who would say that that was so.
  It is absurd in the extreme to poison the atmosphere still further in advance of the summit talks and to create still more ground for suspicion of one's motives before the summit talks by insisting on installing missile bases which we do not have to instal at this moment. I ask the Minister of Defence to say whether I am wrong in stating that we would lose nothing defencewise, nothing militarily, by delaying putting in these bases now. Am I going too far in saying that?
  We would lose nothing, because the V-bombers would still be operative. They are expected to be still capable of delivery beyond the point of the actual construction of the bases. If we develop the propelled bomb and use V-bombers as standoff bombers, there will be a period further beyond that date during which we will lose nothing by delay now. Our case that we ought to delay installation in order to get the summit talks going in a good atmosphere cannot be faulted militarily.
  Let us go one stage further. What are the rockets we are to have? Does anybody really claim that we would freely choose the Thor rocket at this moment if we were looking for a rocket which on its own merits could replace our V-bomber force? I will not bother the House with many quotations, but I invite anybody who is interested to consider not only what has been said here, but American sources of information. I quote from The Reporter an American magazine which is generally well informed on these things and which on 6th February said:
  "Thor and Jupiter"—
  the Jupiter does not worry us—
  "have been ordered into production with only ten per cent. of the scheduled research and development work completed… To assure delivery of a sizable number of weapons to N.A.T.O. on schedule, no major improvements

  415
  made this year can be incorporated. The reliability of missiles produced under these circumstances cannot be high, even if the inherent disabilities of liquid-fuel rockets did not exist."
  The New Scientist of 20th February, having said that the rockets will not be ready by the end of 1958 and not, in its view, even by 1959—in which case we have gone ahead with these bases in advance of the summit talks for no purpose—said:
  "Had the American Government not committed itself to supplying intermediate range missiles to Britain and to N.A.T.O., it is more than probable that these would by now have been cut out of the American defence programme altogether."
  It went on to say:
  "In consequence, the American I.R.B.Ms. are relatively crude versions of the missile that the military eventually hope to have."
  The Minister will have seen the comment of the Observer on Sunday in the same terms.
  Among the people I have consulted have been some whose advice is open to the Minister and who have been good enough to talk to me. They have included military scientists, Service chiefs, civilians and Americans who know about these things and who have felt themselves free to talk to me frankly. I have not found one person who says that these missiles are missiles which we ought to have. Because they are fired from above ground, they are what is called "soft", that is to say, they are vulnerable not merely to a direct hit or a near miss, but vulnerable to a very wide off miss. Anything that falls even a very long way away will be liable to put them out of action, because they are above ground. Our own missiles will not be above ground, for that reason.
  These missiles have not been properly tested. A complete Thor in full battle array—and this missile goes out of the atmosphere and there is consequently the re-entry problem—has not yet been completely tested. To insist upon having these missiles before the summit talks is a political disaster, a political mistake of the first magnitude. To insist on having them at all when other American rockets will be ready by the time our V-bombers are out of date and our own rockets may be available and to have them under an agreement which means that for the first time part of the British deterrent is subject to an American veto must be wrong.
  416
  That has not been so before. The V-bombers are entirely our own responsibility. Responsibility for these rockets is shared with the Americans.
  The Prime Minister had to make some sort of agreement at Bermuda to wipe out the memories of Suez and recently had to do something for the Americans to get them to agree to summit talks. I submit that this decision has had more to do with that kind of political manœuvre than with the military necessities of the moment. We oppose the installation of these weapons on the grounds that politically it is a mistake of the first order to instal them before the summit talks, that defencewise there is no case for having them, that they are extremely questionable objects themselves, and that we should lose nothing and gain a good deal by waiting a little longer.
  Perhaps I might conclude what has been, again, much too long a speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, Government supporters are entitled to their point of view about that. If there is any one thing, no matter how small and unimportant on which they and I are in agreement, who am I to regret it? I have done my best to raise issues which seem of enormous importance to the world and to our people at this moment. The Daily Herald has been thrown at us. There were those meetings at the Central Hall the other night. We all know in our own constituencies that there is a vast public feeling about this—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: A majority.
  Mr. Brown: If it were a majority I would believe it wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] In the 1930s I can truly say that when the Labour Party had an official programme of collective security and many of us ran away from it and thought that a unilateral gesture would be better, although our responsibility was not as great as that of the Government at that time, we had our share of responsibility for 1939. What we were saying and doing may easily have helped to mislead a dictator as to where we would stand. I do not want to see that emotion built up again.
  The primary responsibility is on the Government to see that we are not misled. It is important for them to state the circumstances in which they would use thermo-nuclear warfare. It is important

  417
  that they should state the way in which we should try to deter war at different levels, conventional and tactical, before we even consider the strategical. It is the responsibility of the Government to present a defence policy that makes sense to ordinary people. I believe that the British people will stand for that, but not if we present a policy to them which means death either way, or perhaps life the other way, however miserable that life may be.
  By its apparent concentration on the thermo-nuclear strategic ultimate deterrent, the Government are presenting a defence policy—although there has been some backing down in this discussion—that offers little hope to our people. Their decision to have missiles here that we do not need, seems to further build up the position simply into relying on the thermo-nuclear strategic deterrent that we already possess. It does not give us the appropriate forces nor the means of mobility nor the kind of defence policy that we need. However much too long, I believe that our case is well made out and that we have good reasons for inviting the House to reject the defence policy as put forward.
  I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "declines to approve a defence policy which relies predominantly upon the threat of thermo-nuclear warfare, insists on the installation of strategic rocket bases in Britain before the projected summit talks, and fails to provide effectively for Britain's defence requirements."
  5.34 p.m.
  Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I do not want to be ungenerous to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), but I am bound to say that if anything could take away from the useful deterrent effect of the rocket missiles which are being put into place it would be the right hon. Gentleman's unhelpful remarks about them. If he thinks that is a contribution towards keeping the peace and making the most of their deterrent power, I cannot agree with him.
  Before I go further into the controversy on the missiles and into the question of what the right hon. Gentleman calls the "grey area" between the major and
  418
  minor operations I must take him up—if he will be so kind as to listen to what I say to him since I paid full attention to every word he spoke on what he said about accommodation, which is not a trivial matter.
  He was most unfair to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in complaining that the White Paper had paid insufficient attention to this subject. If he will turn, as no doubt he will do now, to paragraph 75 of the Report on Defence he will find that no less a sum than £90 million is to be spent over the next five years upon improving accommodation. These improvements will cover:
  "naval accommodation and new barracks at a number of R.A.F. stations. Important works already started for the Army at Colchester, Tidworth, Bovington, Windsor and Bicester will be pressed forward, and new barrack and housing schemes will be put in hand during 1958, including those at Woolwich, Arborfield, Aldershot and Borden."
  It does no service to the serious consideration of our problems to make light of steps which are taken in these times of great financial stringency to improve the accommodation of the Services.
  I would now bring the House back to the contents of the White Paper in which matters are dealt with much more plainly and clearly than is easily possible in the excitement and interchange of debate. Paragraphs 1 and 2 set out the problem clearly. Paragraph 2 says:
  "The Western Nations and the Soviet Union face one another with deep-seated mutual distrust. Each fears that the other has aggressive intentions; and no amount of pacific assurances in both directions have so far succeeded in removing these suspicions."
  I wonder whether there is hope of getting a little more mutual confidence between Russia and the West. It is inconceivable to us in this House that Russia can imagine that we would willingly start a full-scale war, but a great many of my hon. Friends, and certainly I, find it impossible to trust Russia's intentions. No remark that has been made by Mr. Khrushchev since he achieved power has led me to alter my opinion that we must be forever on our guard.
  We must try to maintain the position by a balance of defensive armaments. It is the policy on both sides of the House that the arms should be in part conventional and in part nuclear. I very much appreciate that in paragraph 3 my

  419
  right hon. Friend has refused to panic because of the introduction of the Sputnik. We should put it into perspective, but we must be wary at the same time in case the Russians should steal a march on us and spring a surprise for which we are not prepared.
  With that in mind, I hope there is no undue complacency expressed in paragraph 4, in which my right hon. Friend states categorically:
  "In fact, the overall superiority of the West is likely to increase rather than diminish, as a consequence of the advent of medium-range ballistic rockets."—
  I hope it is—
  "These weapons, against which there is at present no answer, could, from sites in Europe and elsewhere, dominate practically every target of importance in the Soviet Union. The possession by Russia of rockets of equal range will not, for reasons of geography, afford her any corresponding strategic advantage."
  Yes, I think that is good enough. We can accept that as being true.
  "It would be of no use to her to attack Western Europe unless she could simultaneously knock out the vital strategic air bases in the United States. She could at present have no reasonable hope of achieving this with manned bombers,"—
  that is clear also, but the next sentence is the one about which I am anxious, and no doubt other hon. Members are anxious, too. It says:
  "and it will still take her several years to complete the development of an accurate intercontinental rocket and produce it in sufficient numbers."
  I am prepared to accept what my right hon. Friend said in the White Paper founded, no doubt, on all the best advice that we have at our disposal in this country and on all the best advice that can be gleaned from across the Atlantic. For all that, I would state once again that the experience of the Sputnik coming unawares, so far as many of us were concerned, makes us urge my right hon. Friend not at any moment to allow any complacency—
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not rise to score a point against the hon. and gallant Gentleman; the debate is too serious for that. The difficulty is, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has already said almost the same thing, that for the last twelve months, almost every Foreign Office statement about Russian experiments, Russian detonations and Russian H-bomb explosions,
  420
  and so on, have been derisory, and have been followed up with almost devastating news of further successes. This has been going on for twenty years. It happened in 1938, and again in 1939 and when the Russians came into the war in 1941. We were always writing them off, and we were always wrong. Is it not time that we tried to face the situation?
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I agree very much with what the hon. Member has said, and if he will turn over the page of the White Paper to paragraph 12, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence says:
  "But it must be well understood that, if Russia were to launch a major attack on them, even with conventional forces only, they would have to hit back with strategic nuclear weapons."
  It is on that very point that I felt happy when the right hon. Member for Belper was speaking for the Opposition a few moments ago and was supporting what was said by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the foreign affairs debate on 19th February, when the Leader of the Opposition—and I quote—said:
  "Nor do we favour unilateral disarmament. At our Conference in Brighton last year a resolution asking us to pledge ourselves, the future Labour Government, neither to test, use or make nuclear weapons was defeated overwhelmingly by a vote of eight to one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1233.]
  I feel that if the deterrent effect of all the efforts that have been made by the present Government is to have any real influence with the Russians, it can only be if Russia feels convinced that the possible alternative to this Government are also prepared to carry on with the same deterrent on which we have embarked. For that reason, I feel grateful both to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Member for Belper for what they have both said on this subject.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? In elaboration of that point, I think it should be recorded that that decision was arrived at after full discussion with all the democratic groups within the Labour Party movement.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am indeed very grateful for what the hon. Member has said. His remarks can do nothing but strengthen the chances of peace being maintained.

  421
  Now, having congratulated right hon. Gentlemen opposite, may I ask: Would it not have been absolute nonsense not to have arrived at this conclusion? If we take into account the colossal forces which the Russians are capable of deploying against us, and the White Paper speaks of 200 divisions mobilised, we must ask what we or N.A.T.O. have got to set against that. [Interruption.] My hon. and gallant Friend might be able to guess at a figure, and probably the Russians know it as well. They have 500 submarines. Have we got 10 per cent. of that number? They have 20,000 aircraft, and Russian aircraft are very good. We would have no chance of survival at all if we were to attempt to defend ourselves against such overwhelming forces as these.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: So what?
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: So we have the deterrent.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this country can possibly find forces to meet a Russian navy of that size or a Russian air force, let alone match the immense technical advances which the Russians have made in every sphere?
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the whole purpose of the deterrent is to prevent the Russians from deploying their conventional forces in such a way that they will smother us. That is the justification of the deterrent.
  May I turn for a moment to the subject of the missile bases to be established in this country? I follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as a Scottish Member, in saying that I, too, am very glad that they are not to be in Scotland. Having said that, I must add that I have no doubt that I carry my constituency with me in saying that we in any county in Scotland would not flinch from accepting these bases if we found that that was vital for the security of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes rose—
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend, in answering questions on this subject, was able to meet all the complaints from
  422
  the other side of the House so adequately, and I think that, in particular, it is very satisfactory to know that these missiles will be in the hands, not of United States personnel, but of British Royal Air Force personnel. It is very satisfactory to know that they cannot be fired without the joint agreement of both Governments, and that no American military commander would have the power to give the order to fire them. That can be done only by joint agreement of both the British and the United States Governments.
  Furthermore, the danger of accident has been very much reduced by the fact that the warheads will not be fitted to these missiles but will be kept separate. Finally, when we think about tests—and not only in the interests of safety—it will come as a great relief to those who live in the neighbourhood to know that tests are not to take place from bases here. These are very noisy things indeed, and I am sure that the Government are grateful to the Australian Government for allowing these tests to he made in Australia if they cannot be made in the United States.
  I make no complaint at all about the location of these bases not being published. As I think my right hon. Friend himself said, there is no reason why we should do the work of foreign secret service agents for them, and I agree that we should keep this information as secret as we possibly can. I will now leave that subject, and how difficult all these things are, because one is talking largely about things one does not know how to manipulate; for myself, I have not got a clue as to how to fire a rocket.
  I now turn to a question which is still extremely important, even in this age—the question of manpower. Whatever the weapons may be, the question of manpower remains vital to the success of the British defence effort. I was very well pleased to read in the White Paper that the pay of the Services was to be increased. I think that the whole theme of the White Paper was very sound on that subject. I liked the caption at the top of the first page, and I am sure that there is no harm in reading it over again. It said:
  "Never in peacetime has the British soldier, sailor or airman had a more vital part to play. Never has he more deserved the respect and encouragement of all those who live their daily lives under his protection."

  423
  Let us say that today, and let us live up to it. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and the soldier should be adequately paid.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman apply that to the National Service men already in the Forces? Are they worthy of their hire?
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Yes. I think the National Service men are doing a good job, but the conclusion to which I shall bring my remarks in a moment is that it is a good plan that we should get rid of National Service as soon as possible. Both sides of the House are committed to that. Even the principle critic, who wonders whether it may not prove impossible to obtain the necessary volunteers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), made it clear in a notable speech in November that he thought that the best thing possible for the health of the Services was to get rid of National Service as soon as possible.
  Mr. Fernyhough: In the meantime, pay them properly.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: They are doing very good service in the meantime, and I have heard of no strikes among National Service men. I think their work is being well done, but I look to the future when we shall have a Regular Army consisting of men willing to join and, I hope, attracted by the present rates of pay.
  Although the White Paper, with the increase in Services' pay, came at a moment when foremost in many people's minds was the need for economy, to check inflation and to be very sparing in granting any wage claim, I do not believe that the impact of these increases—up to £1 a week or a little more for a soldier, from £70 to £100 a year for most officers and just over £100 a year for a Lieutenant-Colonel—has had the effect of causing any wage claims. I do not think the industrial worker is jealous, but if he is a little jealous the answer is that the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Navy would welcome him very much.
  We must hope that we shall succeed in our objective of getting rid of National Service. I see many soldiers from time
  424
  to time, and one and all they tell me that it is a great drain on their time to train National Service men and that it is most uneconomic when they have a man trained to do his job to find that he is leaving.
  Worst of all is the damage to morale. If there are three men in a barrack room, and if one says, "Thank goodness, I shall be finished with all this in a month's time", and if the second says, "I am better off because I shall go out in a fortnight", it is not very encouraging to the third man who is a Regular soldier and who has just signed on for six years. It may be difficult for us in the House to appreciate that point of view because most of us here, apart from those who leave through old age, stay here as long as we can. It would be very demoralising if every other hon. Member said, "Thank goodness, I shall soon be out of this business. You are a mug to stay here, with no pension and having to work all night".
  My right hon. Friend has now left the Chamber; he has been here a long time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War is here and I should like to take this opportunity of making some remarks to him. There is still uncertainty whether the measures to get voluntary recruits will be successful and it may be that in the end the required number of volunteers will not be forthcoming. If that is so, then I urge on my hon. Friend that as long as he can get fighting recruits—and the Minister said that recruits to the infantry are being obtained—for the Armoured Corps and the teeth of the Army, he should not be unduly distressed if there is a shortage of such people as storekeepers, pay clerks, lorry drivers, hospital orderlies or cooks. The Secretary of State for War has now returned. May I suggest to him that shortages in the lines which I have indicated could easily be made good without tampering with the principle of voluntary service. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has that in mind.
  May I ask whether more could not be done to enable the W.R.A.C. to take the place of men in some of these barrack duties? The same comment applies to the W.R.N.S. and the W.R.A.F. I wonder whether it has occurred to my right hon. Friend that there might be an attraction to the parents of girls who

  425
  might join if they were given an assurance that, except in emergencies, the girls would not be sent overseas. I have in mind that part of the women's Services could enlist voluntarily for service in any part of the world; the women would be prepared to go wherever they were sent. Another part of the women's Services, on the other hand, could have the opportunity of enlisting only for home service, except in emergency.
  In pre-war days a large number of British troops used to serve for a considerable period in India while other regiments served most of their time at home, except in emergency. Both types of soldier fought equally well when an emergency arose. It was a fact that we could obtain a great many recruits for the regiments which knew that they would be stationed at home and would not have to spend several years in India at times when it was difficult to get enough recruits for regiments due for overseas service. That is a point worth considering by my right hon. Friend when he goes into these matters.
  The last comment I want to make to him arises out of a Question which I asked this afternoon about officers and warrant officers who have been declared redundant and who are looking for a job in civil life. As I said in my Question, I know of more than one of these people who have been given the offer of a job in civil life, but the future employer has said, naturally, "I will take you on, but when will you be ready to start?". It has been the experience of two officers I have in mind—no names no pack drill—that they have been unable to discover when they can start. As a result, in one case the civilian employer has said, "If you can give me a date I will give you a firm offer of a job, but unless you can do that I am afraid I shall have to look elsewhere."
  I was not satisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply today. He said that at least six months' notice would be given. I had hoped that officers who were about to be declared redundant would have been told by now when they would be redundant. It is no good keeping on a man too long when he knows that he is to become redundant. If a man were told that he had to go and yet he could not foresee signing on for a job on, say, 1st August, he would be rather half—
  426
  hearted about his work, which would not be done as well as otherwise it might be. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that carefully.
  Hon. Members will see how easy it is in these matters to go from subjects of vital importance to smaller affairs which affect individual soldiers, but the whole thing is wrapped up in one. Unless the personnel and the accommodation are on a satisfactory basis, we have no hope of getting the volunteers we need. Unless we get those volunteers we shall not be able to have the high-class Services which we require. And unless we have high-class Services, in vain do we talk about missiles and the rocket deterrent, because, in the end, it is the spirit that matters in preserving the safety of this land.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: There was one small item in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), which I wish to correct. I hope he will not mind my doing it because his speech was a well-argued one, whether hon. Members agree with it or not. He said that the Labour Party was partly responsible for 1939. I sat in this House, as my right hon. Friend did not, before the war, I saw events unfolding then as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) also did.
  The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who used to sit where the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) is now sitting, was constantly attacking his own Government, and being supported by the Labour and Liberal Oppositions because of the Conservative Government's lack of effort and purpose in making this country safe from Hitler. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is on the record. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper was merely saying that we bear some responsibility because we voted against the Government on Service Estimates. I can understand what he means, but, taken in the wider context, that the Opposition were responsible for 1939, I deny that emphatically.
  Mr. G. Brown: I used the phrase, "the Government share of responsibility was greater than ours", and I said we could not escape responsibility.
  Mr. Bellenger: In so far as an Opposition share responsibility, the whole lot of us are in the same basket.
  In this debate the Opposition are at a considerable disadvantage. We are as it were, groping in the dark. Responsibility for defence must lie where it truly belongs, with the Government of the day. When we are the Government of the day we shall have to take that responsibility, as we took it when we were the Government. Hon. Members are constantly referring to some of our actions over the atomic weapon, the deterrent in those days. We accepted that responsibility and, therefore, we say that the main responsibility is that of the Government. Only they have at their disposal the facts on which to base their White Papers and policy and to say whether or not nuclear power is the right policy in certain circumstances.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: Although some of us point out that the Labour Party was responsible for the atom bomb, no one is blaming right hon. and hon. Members opposite for that. In fact we have supported them from the start.
  Mr. Bellenger: I used that expression to show that when we were the Government of the day we took our decisions on the facts as we knew them. The Government have to take responsibility today when they say in the White Paper, particularly in paragraph 12, that in certain cricumstances we shall use the ultimate deterrent even before the Russians have a chance of using it. I do not propose to criticise that policy at all. I do not know the facts, the vital facts. That is one of the complaints I am constantly making in this House. Hon. Members are not taken sufficiently into the confidence of those who know. I have always advocated that there should be a military affairs committee of this House. When the Select Committee considers this matter it will have to consider very carefully, particularly after this debate, whether the House of Commons is really in a position to assess the policy of the Government adequately.
  I make no distinction between backbench supporters of the Government and the Opposition on this matter. We are indeed all in the dark. All we can do is to take the White Paper as it is given
  428
  to us and listen to the Minister of Defence. He did very little to elucidate many of the points which are obscure in the White Paper. It is small wonder that the Opposition have to take the constitutional and traditional means of voicing this disquiet and apprehension at what they consider lack of preparation to meet something which, as much as any hon. or right hon. Member opposite, we recognise may be as great a danger as Nazism was to this country before 1939. We recognise that just as much as many hon. Members opposite recognised the lack of adequate preparation before the last war.
  What can we say in relation to this White Paper that is based on any substantial evidence? Reading it, one is confronted with a series of assertions, backed by no evidence that would count—I will not say in a court of law—in a responsible assembly such as this ought to be, where many of those present have served in the Services and understand many of these problems in their wider sense. We have nothing but assertions, and even those assertions contradict themselves as one reads paragraph after paragraph. The first paragraph says:
  "The world today is poised between the hope of total peace and the fear of total war."
  I am not so sure that the issue is as simple as all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper posed certain questions to the Government which, as it were, go midway, or not so far on the extreme flanks as this assertion seems to go. Is the whole question one of using the ultimate deterrent on which the Minister of Defence bases his arguments, particularly in paragraph 12? If that is so, what does he mean in paragraph 5 which says:
  "There is thus no military reason why a world conflagration should not be prevented for another generation or more through the balancing fears of mutual annihilation."
  I doubt whether hon. and gallant Members opposite believe we should base our defence preparations on such false premises as that. I agree that if we are to face an enemy also possessing the ultimate deterrent, obviously we must possess a means just as strong or potent as his to protect ourselves. That is the least any British Government can do, whether they stand alone or in association with allies.
  Of course this is all conjecture; we cannot do more than that. I wonder whether the Russians would ever use that

  429
  ultimate deterrent? I do not think they would need to. They must realise, without any statement in a White Paper, that once the issue is joined it would be not a question of winner and loser, but of sheer annihilation. Therefore, I think it quite unnecessary to disturb public opinion, as the Government are doing, by putting in the White Paper an assertion like this. I doubt very much whether, if the issue came to a climax, any member of the Government would give the decision for the launching of that weapon.
  Mr. Hale: I am trying to follow the argument of my right hon. Friend, and am certainly not trying at this moment to disagree with him, but, if the Russians are unlikely to use the ultimate deterrent—by which I think my right hon. Friend means thermo-nuclear weapons and not the new penultimate weapon we are being asked to use as a deterrent—where do we come in?
  Mr. Bellenger: It is all part of power politics, that are based on national force—
  Mr. Hale: And France will get it, and Germany will get it—
  Mr. Bellenger: The whole idea of having force, whether it be thermo-nuclear or conventional force is the pursuit of a policy—a diplomatic policy, if hon. Members like—so that countries may gain their ends, and the Russian aims are very definite—
  Mr. Hale: But they do not want—
  Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue without interruption. He may not be able to follow my argument, in which case I am sorry that I do not make myself clear to him.
  Paragraph 12 of the White Paper is quite unnecessary. It says that the deterrent, the H-bomb, the thermo-nuclear weapons will be used in certain circumstances, but if it is said, as the Government say in this White Paper, that those circumstances are never likely to occur, paragraph 12 would appear to be totally unnecessary. Indeed, I wonder how much it means, or is intended to mean?
  Do the Russians really believe that we will be free to use that weapon as easily as that? After all, one cannot ignore
  430
  the agitation, the campaigns going on outside this House, which, although they may not have been extensively reported, are likely to have some influence on the Government. They are certainly likely to have an influence in elections. I wonder whether some hon. Members will be as courageous then in the face of their electors as they may be in this debate today—
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman Mr. R. H. S. Crossman (Coventry, East) rose—
  Mr. Bellenger: I would willingly give way to my hon. Friend, but I want to finish my speech as quickly as possible so as to allow other hon. Members to speak. My hon. Friend may then have his opportunity. I do not want to be discourteous to him.
  I have a feeling—and, after all, this is only based on conjecture—that the real reason for the Russian propaganda about the possible siting of their missile bases in Albanian areas is not so much that they believe that they will use them but that they know the power of a threat. They have the experience of the Nazis before the war to teach them that often much more can be accomplished by the threat than by the actual deed. Everybody now knows that Hitler was accomplishing a lot by threats before he launched the 1939 war. The Russians have certainly accomplished a lot without going to war.
  Although I do not go so far as Mr. George Kennan, with his Home Guard idea, I believe that we have to pay much more attention to factors of psychology and morale than, perhaps, to some of the physical means of defence. That does not mean that I want to dismantle our defences entirely. Of course, I do not; but I do say that the Government are failing to see the wood for the trees. They cannot see that if some of their efforts were turned to what used to be called psychological warfare, they might bear more fruit. Psychological warfare is something of which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) had some considerable experience. We have been told that it helped us to win the war. No less a person than Field Marshal Montgomery has said that the ratio between the moral and the physical is, perhaps, as is three to one.

  431
  Hon. Members may ask what that has to do with defence. I reply that it has a lot to do with it. What I regret to see is that the Minister of Defence has been sold this present policy by S.H.A.P.E. without examining it in all its aspects. The use of heavy forces to achieve their aim has been the policy of the Americans, but that is not the way that diplomacy should follow. A defence debate like this cannot be dissociated from foreign policy, and I regret that, when it comes to the political policy followed by various Governments, there is no unified command.
  Today, it seems that we are tied to the chariot wheels of the United States of America. There is this latest policy of supplying this country with weapons that are not even the ultimate deterrent; weapons that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said, are of doubtful utility even at the present time. I wonder, as many do—and no evidence has been given by the Government—whether these missiles will be of value to us. Indeed, the Government dismiss that idea in part because, in the very next breath, they say that we are developing something far better.
  I am not against missiles, as such. If we are to have the H-bomb, missiles are its corollary. The only difference is the method of delivery. I would prefer to see them both done away with. We listened this afternoon to a long dissertation on disarmament by the Minister of Defence, but I can see no real effort on the Government's part to achieve that—
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Oh.
  Mr. Bellenger: The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) can laugh that one off now, but perhaps he may see with different coloured spectacles later. I suggest to the Government that in the cold war that we are now undergoing, propaganda can be of potent value.
  In the course of his speech, I interrupted the Minister to ask him to be more explicit on what he meant by doing away with conscription in 1962. Believe it or not, we do not believe him. We do not believe that it will be possible for this Government to do it, even if they are still there. Indeed, there are
  432
  some of us who do not believe that it will be possible for any Government to do away with conscription by then.
  The Government have put certain target figures in this White Paper. As I say, I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to ask him to say whether the figure of 388,000–165,000 for the Army—was to be the ceiling or the floor for his policy of abolishing conscription. Will the Government be frank with us, and with the country, and say that if they can reach the targets given in the White Paper they will do away with conscription; and that if they do not reach them, they will not abolish it?
  It is misleading the country, and it is certainly misleading this House, for the Government to say that they are to do away with conscription; to give certain figures which appear to be the ultimate numbers on which they aim to base their policy for the Regular forces, and then to say, as did the Minister this afternoon, that we cannot plan ahead for five years hence. What is to happen in five years? The Government have given a pledge to the country, and they have to answer questions like this. So far, they have not attempted to do so.
  Defence is a serious subject, and a debate on defence should not be used by either side as an occasion for partisan profit. Looking back to pre-war days, one sees that issues as serious as this were discussed with a great deal of acrimony and chivvying on both sides, and if that is to develop today it will be regrettable. Some hon. Members will say—perhaps some of my hon. Friends will say—"What you are after is a bi-partisan policy." I do not care what it is called. I am concerned with the adequate defence of the country, and not only by military means.
  The Government have not taken us into their confidence. They have given us no evidence on which they can ask for our support—or, rather, as I am speaking not for my party but for myself alone, I would say that they have not produced any evidence which would enable me to support their policy, though in certain respects I can see what they are aiming at and I do not disagree on some of those matters.
  I shall certainly support my own party Amendment in the Lobby tomorrow

  433
  night. That Amendment is quite different from the Liberal Amendment. I could not support the Liberal Amendment, even if it were moved. The Labour Party Amendment, while being couched in moderate terms, criticises the Government because we believe that the end for which the Minister of Defence said this afternoon we were working—namely, disarmament—will not be achieved as a result of this White Paper. This White Paper, in my opinion, even prejudices the possibility of a limited disarmament, and that is all that is possible in these circumstances.
  I do not expect miracles. When dealing with the Russians we have got to have one or two cards which are not exposed on the table. I would say, though, that I would believe more in the bona fides of the Government if I could see some attempt to achieve that disarmament which will obviously have to come about by diplomatic methods and on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke at length this afternoon.
  I would say only this in conclusion—and I hope I have kept my promise that I would not speak for too long: if the Government are right, then the outlook may be bleak but not hopeless. But if they are wrong, we shall have to pay a terrible price for what may be their folly, as we did with previous Governments before the war.
  6.22 p.m.
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: With the best will in the world, I found the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) a little difficult to follow, but I tried to fasten on to one thing that he said which struck me as particularly surprising. That was his suggestion that the Government ought not to frighten or upset public opinion by putting alarming things in White Papers about nuclear deterrents, and so on. That seems to me unworthy of him—if, indeed, he said it and, as he does not deny it, I think he must have said it. After all, there is nothing more important than that the British public should clearly understand the issues involved. It is most important that they should have a clear and realistic appraisal of the situation.
  The other thing which is equally important is that any potential enemy should have a very clear understanding
  434
  of our intentions—what we are prepared to stand for and what we are not. As has already been said in this debate, it was the failure on the part of the Kaiser and Hitler to understand our intentions, and perhaps the failure on the part of the British Governments then in power to make their intentions clear, that largely caused the last two world wars. Therefore, I think that that part of the White Paper has absolutely nothing wrong with it at all.
  I must admit that until this afternoon I felt some uneasiness about one specific aspect of the Government's defence policy, and that was the balance between nuclear and conventional defence. I felt that there was a danger that while we might be prepared for a hot war—which, with any luck, we shall not have to fight—we might in the event find ourselves under-prepared for the cold war which, whether we like it or not, we are fighting now and shall almost certainly have to continue to fight for a long time.
  I felt in particular that there was a danger that the strength of our conventional forces—in particular the Army, which, after all, has to bear the brunt of the cold war—might be allowed, if things went on as they were going, to run down to a dangerous extent. I felt, too, that perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence had nailed his colours rather too firmly to the mast of voluntary recruitment, and I felt that the nails had been driven home with perhaps rather more energy and enthusiasm than was called for by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
  For all these reasons, I was particularly glad to hear my right hon. Friend, in opening this debate, make very clear statements on a couple of points. I was very glad that he reaffirmed our 100 per cent. support for N.A.T.O. because I think there has been some doubt in Europe and in America about the seriousness of our intentions, and I am sure that what he said today will go a long way to dispel that uneasiness.
  Secondly, I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend reaffirm what was said in last year's Defence White Paper but which seemed once or twice in danger of being forgotten, namely, that it was the intention of the Government, if they were not able to get the necessary number of recruits by voluntary recruiting, to resort

  435
  to some form of conscription. I certainly hope that the Army will get all the recruits it needs by voluntary recruitment. I do not think that anybody in his senses wants to carry on with conscription. Nobody likes it. It is a burden on the national economy. The conscripts certainly do not like it. The Regular soldiers, whether they be field marshals or sergeant majors, do not like it either. And the party machines do not like it at all. Therefore, the sooner we get rid rid of it the better.
  But it may well be that conscription is the only means by which we can get the number of troops we need to fight the cold war, and I am very glad to know that so long as a Conservative Government is in power there will be no danger that we shall not have enough troops. We can always be sure that in the event of need the Government would resort to conscription to bridge the gap.
  Now, one of the things that have worried me most about this question has been the danger that it might become not a minor but a major party political issue, and for that reason I had rather hoped that the right hon. Member for Be1per (Mr. G. Brown), who opened the debate for the Opposition, would in the course of quite a long speech have taken the opportunity to make the position of the Opposition equally clear on this point. I think that quite a lot of hon. Members on both sides would have been glad to hear him do so, and I certainly would. Perhaps the trouble was that it would have meant eating too many of his own words, because he led the agitation for abolishing conscription at a time when it was quite manifestly impossible to do so without gravely weakening our defences.
  But because he did not do it, is no reason why someone else should not do it later. I imagine that the two days of debate are to be wound up on both sides, and I hope that one or other hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite who winds up for the Opposition on one or other day will take the opportunity of saying what is the policy of the Opposition in this respect. I was much encouraged by a speech made in another place not many weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who, I understand, had the advantage
  436
  of having been briefed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The noble Lord came very near giving the assurance which I should like to hear given from the benches opposite, and I hope that whoever winds up for the Opposition will go just that much further and give it.
  If both front benches were able to make their position on this matter absolutely clear, the whole question would be taken out of party politics, where it never had any business to be in the first place.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Yates: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean) seemed to question the only statement by the Minister of Defence which I myself welcomed, which was his resolve to end National Service. I shall not say, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), that I cannot believe that. I am certain that any Government today, if they did not do everything possible to bring about an end to this system, would be very severely reprimanded by the nation. Opposition to it is undoubtedly widespread.
  The Defence White Paper is one of a series of similar documents which I have read and heard explained in the House during the twelve years since I have had the honour to be a Member, and I feel very sad that the conception or basis behind them all, that is, the psychology of fear, should be given greater emphasis than ever in the one now before us. The great delusion in the mind of the Government is that success can be won by increasing one's power to frighten or to deter. In that way, no object worth achieving can be achieved. The Minister of Defence said a great deal about disarmament. It is impossible for any Government or Minister to go to a Summit Conference in the atmosphere engendered by this White Paper and hope to achieve success.
  Since 1945, we have spent, until this year's Estimates, approximately £14,500 million, and we are now told that, in the coming year, we are to spend £1,480 million. This is a total of £16,000 million. What have we achieved by it? When I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) I was not sure whether he wanted us to spend

  437
  even more. It sounded to me as if he was not quite clear whether we should have even more weapons, more tactical weapons, dissipating even more of the nation's wealth in this futile policy called "peace through a deterrent" or "peace through strength".
  The present Prime Minister believes in the psychology of fear. That is true, is it not? In 1955, he said in the House:
  "Until the passions of mankind can be cooled by reason or by love, they must be chained by fear, and there is no other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 2181.]
  That is the attitude he has maintained ever since. He went to the Summit Conference in 1955 in the same frame of mind. He complains today that that Summit Conference was not a success, yet he went to it in the same atmosphere, with all the strength he could muster, and Russia then, of course, was not so strong as she is today. When he came back from the Summit Conference, he was reported as saying, on 25th July, in effect, that it was a success. He said:
  "There ain't going to be no war."
  In fact, within a very short time, the Government embarked upon a diabolical attack upon Egypt, which cost no less than £90 million, including £60 million worth of stores lost—a suicidal adventure, all stemming from the belief that in that way lay the right road.
  Today, we move a step further in the intensification of fear. Paragraph 5 of the White Paper states:
  "There is thus no military reason why a world conflagration should not be prevented for another generation or more through the balancing fears of mutual annihilation."
  The White Paper goes on to say:
  "In fact, there is no reason why all this should not go on … indefinitely."—
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Almost indefinitely."]—The White Paper goes on to say that there can
  "be no ….confidence or peace so long as the arms race continues".
  This is all absolutely illogical, and there is no common sense whatever in those statements.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, speaking in support of the Amendment before us, mentioned the paragraph to which we take such strong objection, which says:
  438
  "If Russia were to launch a major attack on"
  the Western nations,
  "even with conventional forces only, they would have to hit back with strategic nuclear weapons".
  I must confess that I was not shocked to read that. I always understood that it was implicit in the White Papers which have come before us. Two years ago, on the last occasion I spoke in a defence debate, I quoted American statements to the effect that this was American policy then, and it seemed to me to be very clear in the White Paper at that time. The present Minister of Defence, of course, has made it clear beyond any possible doubt that the policy now is to meet what is called a major attack—we shall argue for a very long time about what is a major attack—by the use of these deadly weapons.
  I believe that this White Paper, together with the agreement on ballistic missiles, spells death to our nation if this is the direction in which we are moving. It makes us target No. 1. It is an invitation for us to be attacked. It is an invitation for us to be destroyed. It is purely negative and destructive.
  I was interested in a letter from Mr. Bulganin—one of the many letters that Mr. Bulganin has written in the past year or so—to the Prime Minister of Norway on 21st March last. Mr. Bulganin, of course, in this letter said what the British Government say and what, in fact, all Governments say. He said:
  "As for the Soviet Union, we have no intention of attacking anyone."
  That is what is said in the White Paper. But, of course, nobody believes in these statements, otherwise how can one amass these armaments in the manner and to the extent that we do today? Mr. Bulganin went on to say:
  "It is the natural right and duty of any state attacked to see to it that the bases set up for the attack against it are destroyed immediately. No one can expect anything else."
  Is it not now clear that we definitely say that, in circumstances which we shall decide, in co-operation with America, we shall not only use bases in this country from which to launch hydrogen bombs, but, that from additional bases established in our country—how many we do not know—we shall launch ballistic missiles?

  439
  Then we say later in the White Paper that Civil Defence remains an integral part of the defence plan. What absolute balderdash. What nonsense it is to talk about increasing the number of our bases, extending from hydrogen bomb bases to ballistic missiles, from which these rockets can be fired 1,500 miles or more and about, in fact, having any defence whatsoever from any attack that may be made.
  We have become so panicstricken that the bombers have to be above, patrolling day after day, almost every hour, laden with hydrogen bombs in case an alert takes place. What a policy of despair. It cannot be based upon any true conception of the international situation today.
  Mr. Mellish: It is a fact that Russia has rockets poised at Britain which are placed, as we all know, in strategic positions along their Eastern frontiers. My question is straight and firm. Supposing, at the end of it all, we do not get any agreement on disarmament with Russia, what do we do under those circumstances? Does my hon. Friend say that we have no defence, and, therefore, that we have to give in completely to Russia?
  Mr. Yates: I do not accept the view that it is not possible, even in these difficult circumstances, to achieve agreement. If it cannot be achieved, we have to look at the situation.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "look at"?
  Mr. Yates: Certainly the country has to consider what the facts of the situation are, in the same way that it would have to look at the situation if my right hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted and these bases were not extended until summit talks.
  I believe that this policy—and that which has gone before—has done everything to poison the prospect of peace, and the policy which we are now pursuing is doing more to poison the prospect of peace than anything this country can do.
  Mr. Tomney: If my hon. Friend will read paragraphs 15 and 16 in conjunction with paragraph 12, he will see that disarmament proposals, originating in the
  440
  United Nations, went to a vote. Fifty-six countries were in favour and nine against disarmament, and the nine votes were from the Soviet Union bloc.
  Mr. Yates: I do not accept that any nation that bases its policy upon this conception is right. I have never doubted that Russia did not make the right approach.
  Looking realistically at the facts today, what we are doing is to make it impossible for a Prime Minister to go into a conference with any degree of success, clothed with armaments and bombs of the worst possible nature. One may argue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) argued earlier, about the military difficulties. I do not believe that the British people are concerned whether the rockets will go right or wrong. They do not want the bases here. They object to the bases being here. That is public opinion.
  I have often disagreed with my hon. Friends over the past twelve years. I appreciate that I have been in a minority. Of course, this is a free House and we can express our views as we feel. I have endeavoured within the party to change what I believed to be a wrong conception. If one reads today's Daily Herald one will find that more and more people are supporting the view which many of my hon. Friends and I take. I condemn the Government because they have clearly shown that they are more concerned with preparation for war than with negotiation.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: That is not true.
  Mr. Yates: Yes. The Prime Minister has said, "Arm and parley"; but it is more arm than parley, as far as he is concerned. He talks about arranging "jaw-jaw". But where is he going? He says that he wants to go to the summit, but he is dragging his feet. We do not know what he wants. Who is to go with him, where is he to go, and what is to happen? This is an impossible situation. When the right hon. Gentleman reaches the summit, if he ever goes, he will be armed with all these detestable weapons, which will make it extremely difficult for him to achieve agreement.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Will my hon. Friend give way to me?
  Mr. Yates: I will take interruptions whence they come, but I do not wish to delay the debate. I am coming towards the conclusion of my speech and I want to give other hon. Members the same opportunity to speak as I have had.
  I believe that the policy which we are now asked to approve is anti-British because I believe that it is a denial of all Christian principles. It shows a disbelief in the international brotherhood of man. I do not believe that any representative of Christianity can defend rockets being fired from this country which may set ablaze a conflagration which will destroy not only civilisation but everything which we know and hold dear in our own country.
  In my judgment the Government have shown that they cannot effectively represent Britain in the councils of the world. Many suggestions have been made to the Government by right hon. Members from time to time. Deputations have waited upon the Government about international policy. Every suggestion has been declined. The Foreign Secretary, a cold and colourless man, has thrown back at us every suggestion and every idea of initiative which we have put to him.
  He could have accepted the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to start with one initiative, such as unilateral disarmament or the abolition of the hydrogen bomb tests. He could have followed that up with an attempt to reach agreement with the Russians one lines which would have enabled our troops to be withdrawn from Europe. He could have done something to solve the problem of Germany, on which I have argued so many times in the House. Many suggestions have been put forward and the Government have failed to accept any of them. They come to us now with White Papers which I can only call death warrants, unless there is some change to sanity in our policy. I therefore urge the Government to think again.
  I shall support the Amendment. It does not go far enough for me because I am not in favour of bases in this country either before or after summit talks. I do not believe that this is the way to peace. It is a way to hell, and I believe that the British people will show their feelings about it in due course. Let the Government resign, as the by-elections tell them
  442
  to resign. Let them go to the country and test the views of the people on this issue.
  6.55 p.m.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: It is not my intention to waste the time of the House in trying to reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). We have all known the hon. Member over the years and we know that if he had his way—and this comment applies to a few others like him on the Opposition benches—not only should we not have bases in this country and not only should we not have weapons but we should not have an Army, a Navy or an Air Force today. Those are his pacifist views. Let him have them. Thank heaven they are not the views of everybody in his party.
  We are discussing today a Defence Estimate of over £1,480 million, which is a colossal sum. It is the duty of the House to examine this Estimate and to see, as far as we can, that the money is well spent and that the nation, which has to pay the bill, is getting value for its money.
  The emphasis in the White Paper is on nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional weapons. We know that it is inevitable that there should be a change, but what is exercising the minds of myself and many others is whether or not in this transitional period we are laying too much emphasis on nuclear weapons and neglecting conventional weapons.
  My view is that there is a very important part to be played in the defences of this country today by the conventional weapon, particularly aircraft. That is why I am rather alarmed at what is happening in the aircraft industry. I am glad that the Minister of Supply is here, because I am particularly concerned at the fact that the Government have decided to scrap the S.R.177. I do not say that because it was being manufactured in my constituency. It happens to be an aircraft about which I have some knowledge, and there is no doubt that it had unique features. It was certainly a world beater in its field. It had features which no other aircraft in the world has today. It was an aircraft which the Navy wanted very badly, but which it was not allowed to have. As I suggested at the time, if

  443
  the Government could not carry out the full programme they should at least have manufactured two or three of these aircraft for research and development purposes.
  That brings me to the question of research and development and especially to aeronautical research. We are told that we are not to have more military aircraft. If that is so, what is to happen to aeronautical research? It is vital that that should be carried on. There is no doubt that our engineering industry owes more to aeronautical research and development than to anything else. Most of the development in engineering in the last 30 or 40 years has been in the aircraft industry. In addition, we have had a very large export trade in the aircraft industry. Last year we exported over £115 million of aircraft and spares, which is no small item in these days when we have to live by our exports.
  What will happen to the aeronautical industry with the withdrawal of Government support for military aircraft? Is there to be any research at all? Are the Government to make any contribution? If the aircraft industry dies and there is no aeronautical research, that will be a very severe blow to the engineering industry, to the country generally and to our export trade. It is my view that this question should be tackled immediately.
  I suggest that an aeronautical research tribunal should be set up independent of the Government to investigate the whole of the aircraft industry, which is going through a very serious crisis at the moment because of Government action. I do not blame the Government. I support them in the action they have taken in trying to reduce the number of firms competing for the limited amount of aircraft under construction. That is inevitable, and it is a proper policy. I also support them in the idea that any projects which are put forward in future for civil aircraft should be financed by the firms themselves.
  However, while that is happening there should be a research and development organisation set up independent of the Government and with the best brains we can possibly muster to go into this very important question of aeronautical research. Otherwise we shall in time have
  444
  no aircraft industry at all. Certainly we shall be beaten by other countries, and that would be a very severe blow to this country's engineering industry as a whole.
  We have in the White Paper talk about deterrents. I notice that the Vulcan and Victor aircraft are mentioned and I want to know how many Vulcans and Victors exist today and how many squadrons of Vulcans and Victors we have in the Royal Air Force. My information is that there is not one single Victor squadron in the Royal Air Force today. If I am wrong I want to be corrected by the Minister who replies to this debate.
  It is no use putting these things in a White Paper only to discover afterwards when it is too late that we have not really got the weapons. We had experience of that between the wars. We got a very severe shock when the Second World War came. I remember joining the Air Force and being asked to form a Hurricane fighter squadron, which I did. Then we were told we should have to go to France with Blenheims which my boys called "something" day bombers and not fighters at all, which was true. I put up a fight with authority and I succeeded in getting Hurricanes eventually before we went to France, but it was a very severe battle to get them. The reason was that they were not available, we were told, in any numbers at that time. It was quite a shock to me, because we had had a White Paper before that which told us that there were so many squadrons in the Air Force of both Hurricanes and Spitfires. In fact they were not there. They were paper aircraft. I think that some of these aircraft mentioned here are paper aircraft. If I am wrong I shall be very pleased, and I hope that a Minister will inform the House how many Vulcans and how many Victors they have in the squadrons in the Royal Air Force today.
  The emphasis in this White Paper is upon nuclear as opposed to conventional weapons. One thing which alarms me is the rapidity with which we are moving from the conventional to the nuclear weapons. It takes a very long time to prove and produce nuclear weapons, and I myself do not think that we are yet in a position safely to abandon the conventional weapons, certainly not the aircraft for the defence of this country, to

  445
  the extent we have and we should not abandon them until we are sure we have nuclear weapons to take their place. That is the view held very strongly by people whom I know and who are in the forefront of the defence of this country today. I hope the Minister of Defence is proved right but I think he is taking very serious risks at this time in scrapping conventional weapons, very advanced conventional weapons, before he has nuclear ones to take their place.
  A good deal has been said in this debate upon what is said in the White Paper about what we should do in the event of Russia starting a war. I myself think that what the White Paper says is sound common sense. It says in effect that this country and our allies have no intention whatever of making war upon any nation but if a major war is started by Russia we should use everything we have including nuclear weapons. That is really plain, sensible talk. It is language the Russians understand.
  I am old enough to have taken part in two wars, and I remember that in the First World War we were told that if only we had warned the Germans before the war that we intended to come in there would not have been a war. I remember meeting the Kaiser in Holland after the war, and his one complaint was, "They never told me the truth. They lied to me. They never told me the truth."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who did not?
  Sir P. Macdonald: His own generals.
  His complaint was that if he had known that we and our allies would come in there would not have been the First World War. The same thing was said during and after the last war.
  Certainly there can be no doubt about what is being said today, and it is right that it should be said. It was said long before this White Paper. It was said by Field Marshal Montgomery on behalf of N.A.T.O. in 1954. This is really not news at all. I support whole-heartedly the line taken in this White Paper, because there is no ambiguity, and no one will be able to say he was not told of our intentions in the event of a war being declared upon us.
  The Opposition Amendment says that the House
  446
  "declines to approve a defence policy which relies predominantly upon the threat of thermo-nuclear warfare, insists on the installation of strategic rocket bases in Britain before the projected summit talks, and fails to provide effectively for Britain's defence requirements."
  I will not bother about the Liberal Party's Amendment. It is typically woolly and obnoxious, as one would expect. Frankly, I cannot understand the Labour Party's Amendment because we have had speeches by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) at the Labour Party Conference, very important speeches in which he carried with him not only his party conference but the redoubtable Frank Cousins. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Cousins had to swallow his morning speech with his lunch. There was no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman said at that time. In effect it was that there was no use going into a disarmament conference empty handed. He supported the hydrogen bomb.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.
  Sir P. Macdonald: I do not think the hon. Member was there.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want only to correct the hon. Gentleman for the purpose of the record. Mr. Cousins made a very strong speech against the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). There was an interval in which he consulted his union, and there was disagreement. Mr. Cousins himself is strongly opposed to the H-bomb policy.
  Sir P. Macdonald: That is what I said in effect After luncheon he swallowed his speech. He had to vote as his union said, as a good delegate. However, I will not split hairs. At any rate, that was the policy of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale at that time. I do not know what treatment he has had since, but evidently he has had some treatment and he now follows the line followed by other people, like Mr. Priestley and other fellow-travellers outside, who say that we should go to the Summit Conference without having anything in our hands at all.
  Obviously, that is not the way to negotiate with the Russians. I support wholeheartedly the Government's line in this matter. They are going on with the rocket bases and their defence programme, and they have every intention

  447
  of doing so until the Summit Conference—if it ever takes place—decides that there should be reductions on all sides, theirs and ours. That is a policy which I understand and which I think the Russians understand as well. Certainly the Americans do. I hope that it is the policy which will be followed.
  The White Paper lays down that in future we are to have a different kind of defence force in this country. The Secretary of State for Air, when he wound up the defence debate last year, said:
  "The object of the Government's plans is to create smaller and more efficient forces, but continuity must and will be preserved, and long careers will continue to be open to good men, with the interest of new and constantly-developing equipment and techniques."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1394.]
  Then he went on to lay stress on mobility which is a feature that I have always supported.
  Instead of having our forces scattered all over the world in penny-packets we should have in this country a mobile striking force which could operate quickly in any part of the world. "Mobility" and "striking force" are the key words, but some of us suffered a severe shock when the Suez crisis occurred and found that it took ten days to get our troops to Suez from Malta. Before this debate is over, I hope to find out that a little more mobility has been instilled into the Forces since that time.
  I am all in favour of a strong compact, small, mobile striking force, and I hope that that will be the new defence force of the country. I hope also that there will be more combined operations and that the forces will be able to work closer together than they have done in the past. I wish the Minister every success in his efforts to recruit a voluntary Army. I have said on more than one occasion in the House what I thought was necessary to encourage recruits for the Air Force and the Army, and some of those things are being carried out today.
  First, there was the question of pay, and I think that the pay now offered to recruits to the Services is very generous. But pay is not everything. Accommodation is of vital importance. Another matter of great importance to married soldiers, airmen and sailors is education for their children and also the question
  448
  of leave and transport for leave. All these things are mentioned in the White Paper and are being dealt with. I sincerely hope that the Minister's hopes and prognostications for a voluntary Regular Army, Navy and Air Forces come to fruition, and I wish him every success in his efforts.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), like so many hon. Members, gives general support to the White Paper on Defence, but when its proposals affect his constituency he finds particular objection to it. In the words of the popular song:
  "You can do that there anywhere else,
  But you can't do that there 'ere."
  Where the S.R.177 is affected the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight finds that his own political needs require him to look into the needs of the aircraft industry—
  Sir P. Macdonald: I have been in the Air Force and have been looking into the needs of the aircraft industry for the last forty years, long before the hon. Member was interested.
  Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member had been looking at those needs as hard as he has been looking at them extensively, I am sure that he would have found answers to his questions.
  In 1957, the United Kingdom was spending 6·48 per cent. of the United States total on aircraft procurement and 6·2 per cent. of the United States total expenditure on research and development. This marks a decline of about 9 per cent., the reason being that United States expenditure is rising all the time. If this trend continues, before very long we shall be spending 4·5 per cent. of United States output on buying and 5 per cent. of its total on research. In other words, one of the byproducts of the Government's defence policy is that the British aircraft industry will make its final bow about the middle of the 1960's.
  This brings me to the most curious phenonemon in the White Paper. At a time when the requirement of the Royal Air Force is that it should supply air mobility to the central reserve, and when it is charged with the task of responsibility for the missile, we find Air Force

  449
  expenditure recorded in the White Paper as falling by 2 per cent. and naval expenditure as rising by 2 per cent. The truth is that the White Paper, as the Minister of Defence says, is a report on last year's policy, but last year's policy was not the origin of the Government's defence policy. In my judgment, we have to go back to the speech made by the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, to foreign correspondents in, I think, May, 1956—the "pipe" speech. The trouble is that the Prime Minister must have been smoking hashish and become bemused rather than clear in his thinking.
  The Government have failed to educate their own party and public opinion on the realities of the situation in which we find ourselves. There is no better example of this than the confusion, which is not confined to the benches opposite, which exists about paragraph 12 of the White Paper. There is nothing new about that paragraph. Field Marshal Montgomery said this on 21st October, 1954:
  "I want to make it absolutely clear that we at S.H.A.P.E. are basing all our operational planning on using atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons in our defence. With us it is no longer: 'They may possibly be used'. It is very definitely: 'They will be used, if we are attacked'."
  Lord Montgomery said it again in 1956. General Gruenther said it, and so did General Norstad. Hon. Members, and particularly those of my hon. Friends who take the pacifist view and are not pacifists, and indeed some of my right hon. Friends, should listen to the concluding words of the paragraph I have quoted from Lord Montgomery's lecture. He said:
  "The reason for this action is that we cannot match the strength that could be brought against us unless we use nuclear weapons; and our political chiefs"—
  that means all of us, not merely the Government, not merely the Opposition Front Bench, but all of us—
  "have never shown any great enthusiasm in giving us the numbers to be able to do without using such weapons."
  I believe definitely that if ever the thermo-nuclear weapon is used, those who have played politics on either side of the House, in internal party struggles, in struggles between parties, should search their consciences. If this great country is brought to the borderline of military impotence, if it is brought to
  450
  the point where it can only use the thermo-nuclear weapon, it will be because we have laid down the objective and then have denied the means.
  In talking about defence, I want to make one political point that arises in the realm of foreign politics. It is a comment on the statement made by the Prime Minister in his interview last Sunday night. Talking of the thermo-nuclear weapon, the right hon. Gentleman said that the fact that we were in a position to use it had a great influence on the United States. There is not much difference between what the Prime Minister was saying then about the possession of the thermo-nuclear weapon and what I understood the speech made at Brighton by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to mean.
  They were thinking of thermo-nuclear power in terms of power politics, but I believe we suffer from a great illusion. Forty years ago Sir Norman Angell wrote his book "The Great Illusion", the illusion that it was possible for any one nation State to win a war. This country suffers from another illusion today, namely, that we are still a great Power.
  Now I will deal with the pacifist's point of view. There was a statement in this morning's Daily Herald, which has been referred to constantly in this debate, that if this country renounced the thermo-nuclear weapon it would give a great moral lead to the world. Let me remind hon. Members of one of the quips of the last war, when in a discussion between Generalissimo Stalin about the Pope, Stalin asked how many divisions the Pope had.
  That is one of the factors which count, and when we come to paragraph 12 of the White Paper, both sides of the House delude themselves if they think we have any contribution to make in the dropping of a thermo-nuclear weapon. I am a disciple of Oppenheimer and of Kennan. I did not have to wait until the Reith Lectures to become the latter's disciple. I have read and re-read "A Nation's Security" which is an abridgment of the inquiry into Doctor Oppenheimer's security record. The first lesson he taught me was that we cannot separate the bomb from the means of delivery. The two must be seen together because, if in our thinking we separate them, we get into a jam.

  451
  Now I will examine our capacity to deliver the bomb, at the present time or in the near future. The reason why we have been driven along the missile path is because the Minister's basic policy is to keep expenditure at not much more than £1,400 million. The right hon. Gentleman must not go beyond that figure. So last year he took the basic decision to abandon the manufacture of the supersonic bomber. We have the V-bomber and nothing more. He said—and here again is one of those little tricks which gets across to civilians but not to those in the game—that the V-bomber flies higher and faster. That was a stupid statement, because V-bombers do not fight V-bombers. We have to measure the V-bomber not against the Badger and Bison, but against the all-weather fighter which will attack it. If we want to test the V-bomber against the B-47 or the Bison or the Badger, it is not higher and faster, but can it go further?
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked about the stand-off bomb. A few have been ordered, but none have been made. They have not got a range of 600 miles, and they never will have. Their range is 200 at the most. So here again the Minister is on the wrong track. The development of the new technique which is brought out clearly in that admirable book on nuclear weapons by Dr. Kissinger shows that the development of the United States' hitting power comes about because they have developed a re-fuelling technique. Their B-47 and B-52 can be refuelled and their missions can be based on more than one re-fuelling.
  Now let us look at the numbers. The right hon. Gentleman was asked how many Vulcans and how many Victors there are. I think that 75 Victors have been ordered and 18 have been delivered. In the case of the Vulcans, 75 have been ordered and 35 have been delivered. The total of our V-bomber force is to be, I imagine, 240, of which 160 have been delivered and are in squadron use. Now the Minister has said "No more."
  Since my figures are sometimes challenged—never specifically but in general—as exaggerations when they are politically inconvenient, I will give my sources. They are the Symington Report, which I am willing to lend to hon. Gentle-
  452
  men, and which is entitled, "A Study of Air Power Before the United States Congress"; Kissinger, pages 100 to 103: and my own researches.
  We have 240 V-bombers and the United States have 1,600 B-47's. They have produced a succeeding generation, the B-52, of which they have ordered 603, and 200 have been delivered. Following that, they developed the B-58, of which 77 were ordered and 8 have been delivered. Then they developed a fourth generation, the WS 110A, which flies at Mach. 3, which is three times the speed of sound. There followed a fifth generation, the WS 117, the WS 117L and the WS 118. These will take them up to the end of the century.
  The capacity of the United States to hit compared with that of the Soviet Union is overwhelming in terms of numbers and overwhelming in terms of refuelling technique. Moreover, the West has the great advantage of geography. We in Britain are not in this business at all, and it is idle to pretend that we are. The reasons why we got caught up with missiles are purely political.
  Some of my hon. Friends are very innocent—they are honourably, decently innocent. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) ever asked himself why the Government produced a missile White Paper on Monday? Why not the Monday previously or next Monday? It contains nothing. It is absolute, complete slush. They did it to get the effect they wanted. They wanted to get the maximum amount of hoo-ha about missiles, and they have got it. The military truth is that once the Minister had taken his decision to cut out the supersonic bomber he had to go for the missile. Nobody followed him because he was not a major or even a minor prophet.
  I can supply the Minister with 50 or 100 quotations to support the view that the Americans are continuing their manned aircraft policy. I have culled the American papers for an authoritative statement from American quarters. The right hon. Gentleman was not a prophet who was followed. He was the pied-piper without the rats. Therefore, he has to go for the missile because, to keep up our prestige, not with the Kremlin, but with the Pentagon, he has gone on with

  453
  the hydrogen bomb at a cost of £300 million per annum; and now we have a V-bomber force which in any case becomes obsolescent by 1963, or at any rate by 1965 at the very outside. So the right hon. Gentleman has to go on with a new vehicle as a means of delivering his H-bomb.
  There is, of course, something else. Once the United States had come to the end of their B.47s, America's policy began to change. It is a matter of simple inquiry to discover that for every wing of American bombers in this country, there is a wing of tankers. In other words, we started off under a Labour Administration by being an aircraft carrier. What we have become is a petrol station and a missile-launching site.
  Let me point out another odd thing about this missile policy. What my right hon. Friend said was quite right. We have been landed with the Thor, which is obsolete American equipment. The Americans have the Thor, the Jupiter and the Polaris, and they are putting their money on the Polaris. I understand that they have ordered 16 submarines capable of firing these missiles. When we talk about the Russian submarines, has it never dawned on anyone that they were built not as commerce raiders but because the Russians want mobile sites from which they can launch missiles?
  There is something else that astonishes me. We have had no mention of it in the White Paper or from this side of the House. Last September, we had the dispatches of General Keightley on Suez. I ask hon. Members to use their imagination a little. Suppose there had been a Labour Administration which launched an operation in a good cause as a servant of the United Nations and then, after those operations, which had not been exactly successful, the Commander-in-Chief had come along with his dispatches and complained that there was a shortage of transport aircraft and a shortage of landing ships. If the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—who I hope is now fit and well again—had been leading the Opposition, at least we would have had some Questions asked, if not a debate; but from our side of the House there has been not a word. The Minister, of
  454
  course, does not put a single word of this in his White Paper.
  The reason I mention it now is to ask whether the situation has improved. The first thing I looked for was the Explanatory Memorandum concerning the Navy. Are we any better off now with tank landing ships? Again, let me quote the right hon. Member for Woodford. Before the war, one of his quips was that if we had handed out our defence to the Army and Navy Stores they would have done better. The parallel is that if the Government had handed over to Carter Paterson they would have done better still in the realm of transport. If we look at the figures of tank landing ships, we are no better off if the same thing were to happen again tomorrow.
  But that is not all. Let us look at the question of aircraft. The Secretary of State for War has just launched an exercise. I remember that two years ago, in 1956, the formation of the 24th Independent Brigade was announced. That was excellent. These were to be the shock troops, the riot squads, who would be transported by wonderful magic carpet, flown here and flown there, to do the job.
  The right hon. Gentleman has recently dispatched 500 men to Tripoli.
  The Brigade embraces the 1st Yorks and Lancs Regiment, 1st King's Own Regiment and the 1st D.L.I. and the 14th Field Regiment. The aircraft used by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose are the Beverleys. The pilot must have had to spit to get into Idris. He had to cut his pay-load because the aircraft has no range. Did the 14th Field Regiment go? No, it did not, because if it had taken the guns it could not take the ammunition. That is the situation. There is no secret about all this. It was reported in the Daily Telegraph for everybody to read.
  Again, how many aircraft have we got? It is a very interesting exercise to consider the poor maligned Labour Government. I always say this, because we are an odd lot. We manage to exploit our differences, but never our successes. The fact is that under a Labour Administration—I supplied these figures with great pride the other day to Lord Alexander—we provided 170 Hastings aircraft with a total lifting capacity of 2,607,800 lb. They are obsolete now, I know, but they

  455
  were better than nothing. That was what the Labour Party supplied, Hastings aircraft. Let me point out to those who say that they are bad aircraft that the Government are still using them. We supplied 400 Valetta and Varsity aircraft with a lifting capacity of 3,560,000 lb. and about 150 Pembrokes—again, a tiny aircraft—making a total lifting capacity of 6,482,800 lb.
  The Government have been in office for seven years and this is what they have got: 47 Beverleys, with a total lifting power of 2,538,000 lb., and 20 Britannias. These Britannias are wonderful. First, we were to have eight, then 13 and now we are to have 20. How many have we got? None.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) has talked about paper transactions. This is a wonderful example. The total of it all is that the Government have supplied, on paper—I am throwing in the Britannias for make-weight—an airlift capacity of 2,900,000 lb., as against the Labour Government's 6,500,000 lb. The truth has, of course, been discovered by the Americans, and it was known by us, but it was not politically convenient to say it. This time, the Minister has no excuse.
  What the right hon. Gentleman is now doing is to have zoned bases—for example, Singapore. Let us go back to the White Paper. I do not think that many people have read it. They read the first paragraphs, but do not get very much further. I will not ask hon. Members to go very far through it, but let us go as far as paragraph 22. This is the Minister's policy. He states:
  "But the very success of the deterrent"—
  I have proved my case that it is not our deterrent, but the American deterrent—
  "compels the Communist Powers to seek to achieve their stated goal of world domination by other methods.
  It must, therefore, be expected that they will now increasingly concentrate their efforts upon political subversion, economic penetration and, where the risks to themselves are not too great, indirect military action."
  I accept that.
  The Americans' superiority is proved overwhelmingly. Again, I will give the figures, and I will shock the pacifists by repeating them. The Americans have assessed their capacity to kill 108 million
  456
  Russians in two hours. Their assessment is that the Russians could kill 8 million Americans.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: How many British?
  Mr. Wigg: I am leaving them out.
  Mr. Hughes: That is the important thing.
  Mr. Wigg: It is not important, because we do not count in this. I have not given the Russian aircraft figures, but they show an overwhelming superiority over ours. The fact that the Russians can kill 8 million Americans means that we would go out with a bang.
  Therefore, living under the shadow of the stalemate, we ought to give up this nonsense of spending £300 million on a thermo-nuclear deterrent which is quite useless. It does not deceive the Pentagon, and it does not deceive Moscow. We ought to be prepared to spend the money where it really matters.
  What is our situation? Honourably, this country finds itself no longer a great Power, but still a country of 50 million people with a very high standard of life and with influence to bring to bear, not if we talk about it, but if we act and have the will-power. I am a believer in the economy of force, and I would not make any promise which I could not carry out. One of the causes of the last war was the reckless promise to go to the aid of Poland and Roumania. That is the sort of nonsense which people do not understand. If I gave a promise to commit this country to four and one-third divisions and a tactical air force in Europe, I would honour that promise.
  I fought with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about German rearmament. We now have a proposal for disengagement. Disengagement is a new word for withdrawal, a new word for "welshing", welshing because we have committed ourselves to Germany rearmament and have not got the guts and honesty to honour the undertaking. This White Paper is concerned with welshing. We are to welsh on Europe. We have already started to welsh, but we know that in welshing we can expect the Americans to underwrite us. They have said that they will, and General Gruenther has said that if

  457
  there is a thermo-nuclear weapon or an atomic bomb on any N.A.T.O. country, then, as sure as night follows day, the whole force of American air power will retaliate.
  But the Americans will not underwrite us in Bahrein, in the Yemen, in Malaya. We have got to deal with those areas ourselves, but because of our policies about air transport, tank landing ships and the organisation of the Army, we could not knock the skin of a rice pudding. We sent the 1st Battalion, the Worcestershire Regiment, to Honduras and to the Bahamas. I asked the Secretary of State for War a Question about their personal weapons. They had the same weapons as those with which their grand-fathers fought at Mons. I spent a profitable day at the School of Infantry last autumn, and I made copious notes. I did not want to take unfair advantage, and so I asked the Secretary of State for War to confirm my impressions.
  What were our great shortages at Suez? We had produced an anti-tank weapon, but the ammunition was defective and so we used the American 106 mm. Now we have an improved version, but none has been issued. An armoured personnel carrier is vitally important in cold war operations. We have eight. The Army is littered with new uniforms, with telecommunications, with new rifles—
  Mr. Shinwell: Junk.
  Mr. Wigg: It is not junk. It is first-class equipment, but nobody has it. We are producing the F.N. Mk. 14, but none is in use. The F.N. Mk. 8 is in use, but not the Mk. 14. That sort of thing is constantly the story.
  I listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean), who referred to the speech of the noble Lord Lord Mancroft. I not only read that speech but listened to it. The noble Lord had all the answers absolutely to a "T" and had all the order of priorities, accommodation and married quarters and so on. There was a new word he had discovered, no doubt because of the nocturnal researches of the Ministry of Defence—panache. There is to be no more "bull" but panache. Finally and fourthly, the noble Lord wanted to increase pay. If the noble Lord had all
  458
  the answers—and the hon. Baronet the Member for Lancaster wanted to nail his colours to the mast—why did the Government set up the Grigg Committee?
  I do not agree that pay is the answer to the problem but I am all for more pay. Chaps join and stay in the Army because they think that their "mob" is better than another "mob". They think that B Company is better than C Company. Nothing riles them more than being in some "lousy," "crummy" unit and with equipment they know to be out of date. They know perfectly well that at the moment the British Army is ill-equipped and badly housed, and they also know that the recent pay increases were given for political reasons, as sugar for the pill.
  I now turn to the perennial subject which is half of the problem, that of manpower. I was delighted to hear the statement of the Minister of Defence this afternoon about last year's Defence White Paper. His right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) sought assurances from him which I had previously got from the predecessor of the Secretary of State for War.
  The figures are not too bad. I do not want to rub it in, but I did say for about six years that we would never get rid of National Service until we got rid of three-year engagements. It now strikes me as odd that Government supporters should cheer the present figures. However, we now have to get rid of the three-year engagement and have a six-year engagement or we will have another manpower crisis in six years. If we are to keep the Services' structures right, as one lot of men go out, another must come in, and they must be in six roughly equal proportions. That is what we must aim at, although we will not get it exactly.
  I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way he has handled the pay increases. It was a very clumsy, politically-minded action. Do not let it be thought for a moment that I am against pay increases. I still have relatives serving in the ranks of the forces, but I do not make the mistake of thinking that pay increases will solve the manpower problem. Those problems are still with us. The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the great success in stepping up recruiting has been gained by intelligent use of the differential.

  459
  I add a word of warning on a point, which I am surprised has not yet been made. The Secretary of State for Air is an honest man and tells us the truth, and he has pointed out the weaknesses in recruiting which are beginning to appear in the Air Force. The truth is that there are only so many men available. If the manpower problem is solved for the Army, a crisis is created in the Air Force. If it is solved in the Air Force, a gap opens in the Army's recruiting. The gap in recruiting for the Air Force is opening. The Secretary of State for Air says that present recruiting for the Air Force is sufficient to maintain the figure he wants when he gets it—only he has not got it. He has a gap of 10 per cent.
  I congratulate him on having the courage to state that. I have had quarrels in the past about figures, and I am willing to put my figures to the test. If the present trend continues—not the trend over the last nine months, but that over the last two or three months as the Army closes its gap—the Air Force gap will be no less than 20 per cent. The Army has got off to a reasonably good start. The Secretary of State for War is getting 1,000 to 1,100 men a month, and I believe that the figure will settle down around that mark.
  The Secretary of State for War is responsible to the House for the Army. He is responsible for every 1d. spent by the Army, and if anybody does something foolish he has to come to the Box to answer. However, he has another responsibility, a responsibility which has not always been discharged, his responsibility to the Army for the actions and decisions of the Government and the House of Commons. We have only £1,400 million to spend a year. There is not enough to spread all the way round, especially if we spend £300 million on prestige weapons. We must never ask the Army to undertake tasks for which the House of Commons is not prepared to provide the means. That has happened in the last fifty years. In South Africa, on the road from Mons to the Marne and back to Ypres, the ground is littered with wooden crosses showing how many British soldiers have paid the price for politicians' lack of courage. It is because I realise the difficulties and complexities of the problem that, although I am a
  460
  passionate supporter of deliberative assemblies such as this, I believe that we must find a new way to clear not only our own minds but those of our fellow-countrymen. The British people have never failed when they have been given a reason for action and have understood it.
  At present, all is confusion; some are for the H-bomb and some are for missiles. We do not know where we are. I would remind the House again of the last sentence in Field Marshal Montgomery's speech, which I have already quoted. The fact that we live under the shadow of the bomb is because we in this House have failed. We have set the tasks, but we have failed to provide the means.
  7.51 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I am sure that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will forgive me if I do not follow his most interesting and, latterly, very moving speech. As usual, he has regaled the House with a great wealth of information and a considerable amount of wisdom.
  Today, the question of defence is rapidly becoming bedevilled by pacificism, much as it was in the 1930s. There is nothing to be ashamed of in pacificism, as such. All sane people are pacificists at heart. No one who has experienced war enjoys it. Today there are no victors, no spoils and no rewards. All who take part are the vanquished and all humanity, whether involved or not, suffers. The difficulty is that pacificism tends towards emotionalism, even to the point of fanaticism, and fanaticism is bad for logic and inhibits clear thinking.
  Periodically, we British people, who are naturally courageous, indulge ourselves in a frenzy of fear. We bury our heads in the sand and refuse to face facts just because they are somewhat unpleasant. This is due partly to a kind of synthetic cowardice—a sort of inverted inferiority complex which, no doubt, is encouraged by certain Left-wing interests. It is intensified by ignorance, both of our own capabilities and those of our enemies. But it is also due partly to a sensible reluctance to spend good money and productive effort on wasteful war weapons. I deplore this, and I hope that our native, common sense will quickly get us through

  461
  this phase, which I believe, is purely temporary, as it was in the 1930s.
  Some hon. Members opposite could, perhaps, help a little more by adopting a more responsible attitude. As far as we can imagine it, modern warfare leaves us with a new outlook. We have a new type of war confronting us, where freedom of manœuvre and space for dispersal are of the greatest importance. For once it seems that the outside lines of communication are probably more of an asset than a liability.
  The free world has its advantages. We do not want to be complacent about our technical lead because in many spheres it is non-existent; we are behindhand. But we, together with our allies and those who have sympathy with our way of thought, have the advantage of a surrounding and dominating position from which, if it ever becomes necessary, we are well placed to retaliate. We have one other advantage. There is only one possible enemy the Sino-Soviet bloc. We do not have to go through all those pre-1939 exercises, when we had to think out, in a rather hypothetical way, how we could defend ourselves against any possible combination of force.
  If ever there is war it will be a war to defend ourselves against the Communist bloc and its satellites, or some part of them. We can count on staunch allies in N.A.T.O., the Bagdad Pact and S.E.A.T.O. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that he saw no signs of the military alliance when he was in Bagdad. Nobody who has studied the terms of the Pact, or has been to Bagdad, would be so mistaken as to think that the signs of that alliance, in a military sense, were to be visible for all to see in the city of Bagdad, which has no strategic position in that part of the world.
  I welcome the statement made in paragraph 12 of the White Paper, to which so much reference has been made. It is well that it should be understood without any shadow of doubt that we cannot contend on equal terms in conventional weapons, and that if we are faced with serious threats we intend to use the ultimate weapon to defend ourselves. We are always being told that the Soviets have 500 submarines. In my opinion, we cannot possibly enter into a naval arms race to try to meet that U-boat threat from Russia, ship by ship and force by
  462
  force. The only logical answer today is that we will be prepared, under threats from under the sea, on the surface or in the air, to use the nuclear deterrent to defend ourselves.
  I also welcome the ballistic missiles agreement. It adds earnest to the statements in the White Paper. It is significant that only yesterday Moscow Radio beamed its British broadcast sending to us a virulent attack on this forthright statement of policy. It is undoubtedly unwelcome to the Soviet, for it diminishes their power in Europe. That is the only sort of thing they understand. How foolish we would be to take the Socialist advice and not implement this agreement until after the summit talks. That would be throwing away one of the court cards we have in our hands.
  Mr. Hale: I appreciate that there are two points of view about this, but how does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that it helps the summit talks to get the Russians into such bitter anger that they are not in a mood to talk at all?
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Why does the hon. Member think that the Russians are in such bitter anger?
  Mr. Hale: The hon. and gallant Member said so.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: They have been directing a virulent attack against us by radio, but the hon. Member completely misunderstands Russian psychology if he thinks that that denotes bitter anger. Far from it. If we were to do as has been suggested and wait for the summit talks, how long should we wait? Who knows that Russia will agree? She has talked a lot about it, but she has talked about a lot of things in the past. We should like to see a little action and not quite so much talk. How do we know that we can immediately carry our allies with us? How long will it take us, the Western free nations, among ourselves to reach agreement on what is to be prepared, the agenda and other matters for preparation?
  Assuming that we reach the day when our leaders meet in some neutral capital, how do we know that any solid good will come of it? We have been through all this exercise before, and little good it did us. I am very sceptical about it.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Defeatist.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. Member can call it defeatist if he likes. When one has seen that sort of thing worked up with all the fanfare of publicity, as we have seen very recently, and then seen that it has achieved nothing, there is good reason to be sceptical about it. I believe Khrushchev is a realist. He does not respect weakness and appeasement any more than his predecessor, Stalin, did.
  One feature which comes out in this White Paper is, I think, most remarkable. The total cost of the nuclear deterrent, ballistic missiles to carry it, the strategic bomber force and all the related research and effort accompanying it, is one-tenth of the total Estimates, about £140 million, which is approximately equal to four times what we pay in support price for pigs. It hardly makes sense to my mind. I feel that we are taking enormous risks in cutting these things so fine, although at the same time I realise that we just cannot afford to spend more money.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: As I represent an agricultural constituency, I should like to know what objection the hon. and gallant Member has to pigs.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: None whatsoever. I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) misunderstood me. Nevertheless, I will not be drawn on that.
  There has been much criticism in the Press and elsewhere of the new weapon Thor. I believe the Minister has the best available advice at his disposal. British scientific competence is not negligible. We have produced some good weapons and some good machines of peace for ourselves in the past. Scientific advisers available to the Minister are well provided with the most up-to-date knowledge to assess the possibilities and probabilities of these untried weapons and then to make a final choice.
  In this new and rapidly developing technique, there is always room for error. Undoubtedly mistakes have been made in the past. That should not mean that we should be frozen rigid in our places and never take a step for fear of making mistakes. There is criticism of this weapon because it relies on liquid instead of solid fuel. Where they get their knowledge I do not know, but some say that it takes far too long to prepare for its first state of readiness.
  Mr. Tomney: Four hours.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: There are natural and understandable arguments about hard and soft launching pads. Future developments for putting these weapons, or some other weapons, underground, are bound to be expensive and it will be difficult to find sites. I do not think the criticism of Thor is nearly so valid as the criticism of the airborne strategic bomber forces. In these days these machines are becoming ever more vulnerable to modern defence techniques. They require a tremendous manpower effort and expense in design, in research, in production, and, finally, to bring them into service in large numbers.
  They have a somewhat vulnerable starting point on large airfields which take up valuable land required for other purposes in this very small country. Those airfields are very easily identified as military targets and can be neutralised immediately war commences. We have to look for a new mechanism for bringing retaliatory power into action. The weapons with which we are likely to be faced travel at 2,000 or more miles an hour.
  We have to imagine that in a period of international crisis the whole radar defence of Great Britain will be set in action. Hon. Members can imagine a girl, a W.R.A.F., a W.R.A.C., or a W.R.E.N., sitting watching a radar screen. Suddenly upon that screen is presented what technically is described as a blip, or a series of blips, approaching these islands at a very high speed. In a matter of seconds, that radar operator has to decide whether those little pinpoints of light, streaking across her screen, are missiles coming towards this island, or whether the machine, temporarily, has gone wrong, or whether there is some meteorological reason for those blips. Finally, with all her training she makes up her mind that it is the real thing, and presses the alarm. Then the decision has to be reached whether this is the start of a major war and whether we should put in train all our own retaliatory methods.
  I think it is far too ponderous and therefore far too dangerous, and for that reason I feel that we must find a new method. The method which immediately comes to my mind is that of the submarine weapon. If we placed these

  465
  retaliatory missiles in submarines we should remove many of the political prejudices which arise through having these infernal machines based in our Islands. We should remove the disadvantage of having a fixed base, whether it be hard or soft. We should reduce the cost of the strategic bomber forces, because submarines can carry these weapons far more economically and in far greater numbers than can a large number of bomber squadrons.
  I believe that we have to set our hearts on Polaris—the Pole Star, well named—or perhaps a future development of it; and I trust that it will be a British development of a retaliatory missile with nuclear warhead which can be fired from submarines in any place in the world. These missiles will be fired from submarines at considerable depths. This would lead to complete dispersal of our effort so that it was invisible and mobile, and therefore no longer vulnerable.
  I am told that the submarines of the future, certainly nuclear-powered, will be able to carry about 32 of these weapons. They will be able to remain at sea for a very long time owing to their nuclear propulsion. They will be cheaper in money, cheaper in active manning and cheaper in maintenance manning. There will be no elaborate airfields or launching pads, for these undersea craft can use any of the world's harbours for revictualling. They will not need refuelling, because their fuel will last for years. They will be far more effective. At times, if necessary, they can be used as anti-submarine weapons.
  In my opinion this is the weapon of the future, and our money could be much better spent on it than on many of these transitory weapons—I hope they are transitory—on which we seem to be spending so much at present.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I think the House will agree that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) was very informative and interesting. It came from an hon. and gallant Member who is an expert in his own field. One of the contributions which he made, in which he suggested that missile bases could be sited on submarines, raises only one of the many questions to which we hope to have an answer this evening from the
  466
  Government Front Bench. Many questions have been posed in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) posed so many that I hope that a list was taken of them, although I noticed that throughout the speeches it did not appear that many notes were being made on the Government Front Bench. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells certainly made a very interesting point.
  I have some sympathy with the Minister of Defence. He has a very difficult task to perform, bearing in mind that his defence policy has to be based on what the foreign policy is at the moment. When we think of the present set-up at our Foreign Office we realise how difficult is his task. In my view the Foreign Secretary is about the most incapable man in the House to hold that office. To see a Minister of Defence trying to devise a defence policy around the activities of that right hon. and learned Gentleman is an interesting spectacle. The Minister of Defence has indeed a difficult task.
  We have talked a lot today, as we have in the past, about summit talks. What frightens me about the summit talks is that when they are held our Foreign Secretary will probably be there. I can imagine no greater disaster for Britain than that the Foreign Secretary should attend these talks on behalf of this great country. In view of the Foreign Secretary's past record I always believe that when he goes into the councils of the world and argues a case for Britain it is like an immoral woman arguing a case before the Marriage Guidance Council.
  It is time that we put on record once again from this side of the House that we recognise that the prospects of getting peace in the future, with the present Government and, in particular, with the present occupant of the Foreign Office, are very remote. I repeat that I have some sympathy with a Minister of Defence in this Government who has to construct a defence policy around the sort of results which we can expect from our present Foreign Office.
  I want to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that he is not the only one who has read the White Paper all the way through. He may be surprised to know that one or two of us have read it, although I should be the last to claim his great knowledge of defence

  467
  matters. Nevertheless, I have read the White Paper carefully and thoroughly.
  It frightens me, although not for the same reasons that it frightens my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). It frightens me for other reasons. To begin with, it has contradictions. It frightens me by what is left out. The references to collective security, for example, are shocking. I regard it as deplorable that we read in the White Paper that only now, for the first time, have we initiated discussions with some of our allies in N.A.T.O. about research on certain weapons. In the first part of my speech I want to deal with what I regard as a very important part of our defence policy today and tomorrow, and that is our relations with our N.A.T.O. friends.
  I am one of those who thinks that N.A.T.O. means a great deal and I am not one of those who wish to abandon the alliance, because I believe that we should gain nothing by that. But if N.A.T.O. is to mean anything at all there are a number of priorities in which by now we should have achieved a great measure of success. For instance, we should by now have tried to get the alliance working effectively in the standardisation of armaments and common production.
  The Government have been in power for nearly seven years and they are responsible for our present position in our N.A.T.O. alliance. What has been the result of that alliance in the standardisation of armaments and the common production of armaments? What money has Britain saved by pooling with our allies? The Secretary of State for Air is here, and perhaps he can confirm what I say. I have read that there are six types of jeeps in the N.A.T.O. forces and that not one part of them is interchangeable. We have not enough ingenuity amongst us to produce even one jeep which is standardised.
  If hon. Members turn to the White Paper they will see that a clear statement is made in paragraph 26 as follows:
  "The members of N.A.T.O. possess between them the world's greatest manufacturing and scientific capacity. If weapon research and production could be jointly planned, considerable economies in time and resources could undoubtedly be secured. Within the framework of the Western European Union, Her
  468
  Majesty's Government have, during the current year, initiated discussions on this subject with the French, German and Dutch Governments."
  Mr. Hale: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware—indeed, much more aware than I am—that the difficulty about having standardised jeeps and guns is that we have only 15 divisions between us in Western Europe, of which five are American and fully equipped, about four are British and 50 per cent. equipped, and the remainder are not equipped at all. There are no French divisions because they are all in Algeria. We have 15 divisions against 275 divisions. That is the result of our N.A.T.O. planning in which there is frequently no consultation between N.A.T.O. and the heads of Governments.
  Mr. Mellish: That was a jolly good speech from my hon. Friend, and I do not quarrel with most of it. I merely say to him that what I am objecting to in the White Paper is that no explanation is given as to why there has not been an effective planning job in N.A.T.O. I say that, down the years, standardisation and common production should have been regarded as the first essential.
  Then we come to the sharing of costs in N.A.T.O. What has been done about that? Is there a common pool? Are we, as one member of this great alliance, paying more than we should? If we are, what is the reason? Why is there no mention about that in the White Paper? I should have thought that the other essential of an alliance would be a common assessment of military needs. Have we that common assessment? Do we know what N.A.T.O. requires of Britain, and what Britain requires of N.A.T.O.? Is there any real common policy?
  I now make a reference to the Royal Navy. Look at the so-called co-ordination of the strike force. It was always supposed that our Royal Navy, in the event of a major war, would bear the brunt on the seas; that it was, in fact, to be the strike force. The Minister referred to that today, and seemed to have a guilty conscience about it. As far as I understand, it has now been decided that the main function of our Navy is to be confined purely to anti-submarine warfare, with carriers in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean equipped with helicopters for this work, and that it will not be part of the strike force.

  469
  Has this been decided in agreement with our N.A.T.O. allies? Have they approved of what we have done? What I say may not suit those of my hon. Friends who have purely pacifist views, but these are matters that are important to me, because I believe that N.A.T.O. is worth while. If it has not been done in consultation, the Government should give an explanation. In any case, this change of function makes absolute nonsense of earlier White Papers—I have been doing a bit of homework, and have been reading back. Is it N.A.T.O. that has altered the previous concept of a strike force of which the Royal Navy was to be the main part?
  My first condemnation of the White Paper, therefore, is that, apart from a few glib phrases about collective security, about our good friends in N.A.T.O., about the fact that at last—and it has taken us since 1949—we have instituted discussions with the Dutch and the French Governments on a common plan for research, we have heard no more about what N.A.T.O. is really doing in this way.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: Can the hon. Gentleman define what exactly he meant when he said that the Navy had always been regarded as a strike force? I thought it never had been. I know that the Americans have favoured the idea of close support for the Army, but I wonder what the hon. Gentleman had in mind for this country?
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's knowledge of the Royal Navy is, of course, far greater than mine, but I find, on reading previous debates on this subject in this House, that it was always considered that the function of the British Navy, at any rate in European waters and in the Mediterranean, was to play the major part of a strike force in the event of a nuclear war—that it would be especially equipped for strike force purposes—rather than to be just a purely detection force, as is its present function. That is an entirely different part for the Navy to play—
  Mr. Patrick Maitland: Surely the traditional rôle of the Royal Navy is to protect the sea lanes.
  Mr. Mellish: I am talking in terms of modern war. I have always understood that the Royal Navy's part was to be a striking force, with carriers and so on, and possessing nuclear weapons and the rest, and to attack the enemy. We hope to find out more about that. I ask again: was this change—if there was a change—made in conjunction with N.A.T.O. itself? If we have changed the policy, we are entitled to know whether our allies were consulted.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood is present, because I want to say that the next part of the White Paper that frightens me—though not in the same way—is paragraph 12. My worry is that, once again, the Government seem to have lagged behind our N.A.T.O. friends. If paragraph 12 correctly defines the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and I do not want to go fully into the question of whether or not it is the right one, and what I think of nuclear weapons—it is certainly not the policy of the Americans now.
  It was the Americans' policy about a year ago. They believed that if there was an attack from the East with conventional arms the only answer to that massive attack would be the ultimate deterrent. That was their point of view then, but they have changed it now. Mr. Dulles has moved away from that.
  Only last October, in the American quarterly review, Foreign Affairs, he dealt with the strategy of collective self-defence and, talking of the deterrent. said:
  "In the future it may thus be feasible to place less reliance upon deterrence of vast retaliatory power. It may be possible to defend countries by nuclear weapons so mobile, or so placed, as to make military invasion with conventional forces a hazardous attempt."
  He goes on to argue that the idea that in the event of an attack made by ordinary conventional forces the Russians should be attacked in Russia is obsolete, and yet that is what we see in paragraph 12; that we should immediately drop the H-bomb on the Russians themselves. If the Americans have moved away, and we have moved in, why have we done so? Again, has there been consultation on this with our N.A.T.O. allies? Has there been consultation with them, not only on the question of our Army being coordinated with those of our allies, but

  471
  on the question of military strategy? It would appear from the White Paper, and this is one of my main criticisms, that Britain is going it alone to a very large extent, and we need a good deal more assurance from the Minister of Defence than we have had so far to convince us that that is not so.
  From paragraph 12 we go to paragraph 28, and at once find the contradiction that I mentioned earlier as frightening me. Paragraph 28 completely contradicts what paragraph 12 says. It talks of what we would do in the event of a mass attack and speaks of our dealing with mass conventional armies by fighting them on the ground. The White Paper seems to me to have been written in an arrogant way. One paragraph denies another, and there is no idea of any general strategy.
  Now I turn to the question of missile bases. I do not see much difference between a missile base from which rockets are fired and a base from which aeroplanes fly with H-bombs. I think it is illogical to say that the possession of one is wrong without saying that possession of the other is wrong. We either get rid of them both or we have them both. The whole purpose of my party's policy in this respect is to make it clear to the Government that now that the three great powers—Russia, America and Britain—have the ultimate deterrent, we have reached a stage where each country can destroy the other. We would certainly be destroyed. We could probably partially destroy Russia, and the Americans could totally destroy Russia. But how much more do we want than the existing ultimate deterrent? I do not know.
  I would remind the House that I am dealing with the purely military argument and I am not speaking on moral grounds. My party believes that we have reached a complete stalemate and that now is the time for Britain to set an example—something that we have never done in N.A.T.O. We have never given a lead to N.A.T.O. We have never said what N.A.T.O. ought to do and how it ought to be done. It would not be a bad idea if we tried to set an example now. That is why I beg Her Majesty's Government to take this initiative. The tragedy is that we are asking
  472
  the Foreign Secretary to do it. It makes me shudder to think that we are asking him to do so. However, he is in office, though for how long I do not know.
  In saying that we do not want missile bases in this country, I am not arguing party politics. I genuinely believe that our hand must be strengthened if we can say to the Russians, "We have made certain gestures of good will; we have abandoned H-bomb tests unilaterally." It is not a bad thing in trade union affairs, if one is in trouble, to go to an employer and say, "This is how I have tried to meet the situation".
  But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be convinced that this attitude of ours is purely one of party politics. It is, in fact, a genuine belief by the party to which I belong that we have all come to the stage in world affairs where we all have the ultimate deterrent and that we ought to take this opportunity to see how far we can go to make these gestures to which I have referred. If at the end of the day, after all that we have tried to do, we get a "No" from the Russians, I hope that some of my hon. Friends who spend a lot of their time criticising, and quite properly, our defence views will attack the Russians. I cannot accept the idea that all that we do—not only Britain but my party—is wrong, whereas whatever the Russians do is right.
  Mr. V. Yates: My hon. Friend should know that many hon. Members on this side of the House who take the same view that I take have condemned Russia for her actions, such as her action in Hungary, which was an outrage to human dignity.
  Perhaps I might also make this point. My hon. Friend has accused me of being frightened, or something. I am not. But I have been in this House long enough to take a philosophical view of these matters. I am only sorry that he does not see that the extension of these missile bases is a considerable extension at an additional cost, and does not give us the security that the White Paper would have us believe.
  Mr. Mellish: I am sorry if my hon. Friend misunderstood my use of the word "frightened". I do not say that he quaked in his shoes or that he lacked personal courage. I never thought that

  473
  a pacifist was without courage. I believe that in this day and age more courage is required to be a genuine pacifist than is required by the average person who automatically and blindly signs as a conscript. It takes a lot of courage to be a conscientious objector provided, of course, that we can distinguish between the genuine conscientious objector and the man who is not genuine. That is always the problem.
  All I am saying is that besides pointing out where Britain is going wrong—and, of course, we have a perfect right to do that as a democracy—let us now and again say something about the Russian policy which has put us in this plight. I am one of those who believe that Ernest Bevin died of a broken heart trying to get peace. In 1948 when Russian policy drastically changed, Britain under a Labour Government was headed for a policy which none of us wanted but which we had to tolerate. We all want peace. I want peace as much as the hon. Member for Ladywood does. I have got five sons, and I cannot tell him how badly I want peace. They are growing up, and will be eligible for the Army. All I am doing is to say that the strategy in this White Paper is wrong. We have no real idea of a N.A.T.O. alliance and of how it ought to work.
  I have been disgusted to think that, over a number of years, we have not got more out of N.A.T.O. and our other alliances, but I believe that, in the ultimate, we must have adequate defence forces for this country. I have said so to my constituents so many times that they are sick and tired of hearing me. At the last General Election, I had an anti-H-bomb candidate against me. He had the lot—anti-H-bomb; £5 a week old-age pensions—he had every solution in the world, and he got 700 votes.
  The people of Britain are not fools. They want peace more than anyone. The British people deserve peace, but they are fully alive to the fact that one cannot glibly say that all the problems of the world are due to this or that British Government. They are the problems of foreign policy dictated by foreign Powers. My complaint is that we have an inept Foreign Secretary. I feel sorry, really, for the Service chiefs who have this wretched man round their necks, getting them into trouble; they have to
  474
  arrange their policies and defence forces in such a way as to try to meet the troubles he brings them. Suez is only one thing. I will not go into that again.
  Mr. George Lawson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a party gets the Foreign Secretary it deserves?
  Mr. Mellish: That is a fair point, although I do not think that even that Front Bench deserves all that lot.
  As regards Service pay and allowances and the problem of recruitment, I understand that we are to have an Army Estimates debate some time next week. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley who is, perhaps, one of the greatest experts in the House in these matters, and who does so much research, posed the question which the Minister of Defence really ought to answer instead of telling us the sort of things he says in his White Paper. Even assuming that we can achieve a Regular Army of 165,000 men, I wonder how it will be possible to manage, considering the commitments we have today.
  I do not believe that, even when a Labour Government come back into office in 1960, these commitments will automatically disappear. I do not believe that we shall get rid of the Cyprus problem overnight. The Turkish-Cypriot demonstration last week showed us that. We shall not solve the problem of Cyprus easily though we should like to. We shall not solve the Far Eastern problems or Middle Eastern problems overnight. We can wish and pray that we will, but we shall not find them easy. We shall need adequate "trip" forces in various parts of the world, and I am wondering how we can do it, with 165,000 men, in view of our present commitments. I should like to hear much more about that.
  I believe that my party last week, through the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, made it perfectly clear to the nation where we stand. We support N.A.T.O. We believe in a military alliance of that character. We have said that the time has come when certain gestures ought to be made, in order to ensure that the summit talks will be conducted in the right atmosphere. My right hon. Friend said all these things, and we

  475
  support him. I only pray that we can knock some sense into hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite so that they may understand that, if they do these things, it will not be party weakness on their part but the offering of a gesture of goodwill. If, at the end of the day, they fail with the Russians, then we shall have to think about missile bases and H-bomb tests, but let us show that we have tried. If we try and fail, at least we shall have done our best.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: When the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was speaking to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) about taking a foreign point of view, I was reminded of the quotation at the beginning of Guedalla's "Life of Lord Palmerston"—
  "But in spite of all temptations
  To belong to other nations
  He remains an Englishman!"
  I am sure hon. Gentlemen will agree that we must remain that, whatever may be our international outlook, however broad, towards foreign and defence affairs.
  I hope the hon. Member for Bermondsey will not think me discourteous if I do not follow in argument some of the points he made. I agree with many of the things he said in the course of his speech, though naturally he would not expect me to agree with all his criticisms.
  I am sure we shall all agree that the object of our defence policy is to protect British interests. Yet surely now, unless we admit that suicide is inevitable, its goal must also be to build up a position in which disarmament, both in the nuclear and conventional spheres, can become a practical reality. That is why I welcomed the remark of the Minister when he said that we were building up our defence forces because we were going flat out for disarmament. I am certain that no one believes that this objective of disarmament can come unless we speak from a position of strength.
  What must we do so that we can speak from a position of strength? First, the Leader of the Opposition has said that it would be fatal to approach the problem of disarmament unilaterally as we did before the war. I welcome that statement. Secondly,
  476
  I am sure that the lesson of the 'thirties, not to mention our experiences in 1956, is that a House divided against itself cannot stand and cannot carry out an effective foreign or defence policy. In those years, in the 'thirties, the Peace Ballot and the Fulham by-election not only influenced our leaders to go slow on rearmament, but also made the German leaders think that we were soft and were not prepared to protect our vital interests. We shall not get another chance if we make these mistakes again.
  It is against this background that I view the establishment of these missile bases in East Anglia. I know that certain people say, "Ban the H-bomb and its successor, the missile". I do not deny the sincerity of genuine people who take that pacificist view. However, I hope that the House will recognise my sincerity when I say that I am convinced that the existence of the H-bomb and its successor, the missile, is not only the best safeguard against it being used, but is also a supreme bargaining counter for disarmament. We cannot discount lightly the threat to this country of 500 submarines, especially when we recall that the Germans at the outbreak of war had only 57 U-boats and when we think of the trouble that they caused. I must admit that I am much more in favour of sea-borne bases. Surely such bases would be far less vulnerable. If it becomes necessary to develop further these suicidal weapons, I hope that this point will be seriously considered.
  But why should the nuclear warhead remain in American custody? Will this be altered when the MacMahon Act is amended? Once the MacMahon Act is amended, let us hope that we shall see the same kind of Anglo-American co-operation as we saw during the war. I trust that by proper Anglo-American co-operation we shall avoid duplication in the development of these very expensive weapons which we have been building up to now.
  I regard the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act as part and parcel of the policy to have missile bases in this country. But if we are to speak from strength, how vital it is that we should maintain our alliances. I know that the Leader of the Opposition in the foreign affairs debate said that he supported N.A.T.O. But almost every other speaker on the

  477
  Opposition side during the foreign affairs debate, except the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), did not seem to appreciate that disengagement without safeguards would be bound to undermine N.A.T.O.
  Would not a disengagement which left Germany disarmed and neutral be likely to cause another Korea in Europe? Do not let us forget the lesson of Korea. Disengagement was carried out in 1949, but in 1950 a war broke out which resulted in one million casualties. Is not this enough warning of the dangers of a too hastily conceived policy of disengagement? Could, or would, we be indifferent to a German civil war?
  Surely disengagement would lead to American withdrawal from Europe. Yet was not one of the mistakes of the prewar period that we failed to get the United States to play her part in the balance of world power? Indeed, if America had played her part in Europe before the war I am certain that peace would have been preserved.
  However, I must admit that the situation before us is one which we cannot but approach with humility. Certainly, the problem is not one which we can consider in any hastily conceived manner. The consequences of a faulty decision are far too great. It is with this thought in mind that I submit that when both sides have the H-bomb as effectively as we have it today the strategical use of the bomb is very unlikely, for surely no statesman in his right senses will take the decision to press the button which will end our civilisation?
  Yet I can conceive of a situation in a few years' time when a ruthless general may, because we have not sufficient balance in conventional forces, take a risk, on the ground that the existence of the nuclear bomb, on both sides, precludes its strategic use. Such a mind might then take the risk of a limited war, gambling on the sentimentality of the West and democracy against the use of the bomb in a strategic manner.
  It is with these thoughts in mind that I look upon the present proposals being put forward for disengagement. I must say that they make me extremely nervous. We must be careful to ensure that, if they are carried out, they do not lead to a weakening of N.A.T.O. caused by the detachment of the German contribution
  478
  if disengagement came about, and eventually complete American withdrawal from Europe. How dangerous that would be at a time like this when we have to rely much more on conventional weapons supported by a tactical deterrent as the chief safeguard for peace; for I am convinced that the growing possession of the nuclear bomb by both sides will preclude its strategic use.
  In these circumstances I am not a bit surprised that those who support the extreme Left should be advocating the dismemberment of N.A.T.O. and the destruction of regional military pacts. I can imagine nothing more in Russian interest. What disturbs me very greatly is to see how widely this view is held by the Opposition, though I admit that the Leader of the Opposition has in the House paid lip-service to N.A.T.O.—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Surely the Leader of the Opposition made it abundantly clear that our whole policy is to support N.A.T.O. It is most important that that should be realised.
  Mr. Ridsdale: I appreciate what the hon. Member says—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Ridsdale: —but I must honestly say that when I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and heard him at the beginning of his speech say that he supported N.A.T.O. and at the end of it talk about the policy of disengagement—without the safeguards that I have been suggesting—I wondered how sincere he was in advocating that policy. I am sorry that I cannot withdraw what I said, because it is a view which I hold and feel.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I feel bound to say I am one of those who has been advocating that we should spend less of our national income on defence because I am convinced that we have been shouldering too heavy a share of the Western defence burden. However, though I realise how difficult are the economic consequences for the West as a whole, I feel that those who are richer than we are should look again at Western defence strategy now that we are reaching apparent equality in nuclear power. Surely, once this point is reached, the threat of conventional forces

  479
  supported by tactical atomic weapons will be of vital importance to deter a major attack.
  Has not the time come, therefore, for us to view with concern the growing disparity between the conventional forces of East and West? Surely, the argument against the Rapacki Plan is that Russia has great superiority in armoured formations, and that if we had an area in which atomic tactical weapons were not used we should give the Russians a decisive military advantage. It would be a case of letting the Russians, if alas war were to break out, to arrange the terms of the fighting in their favour. How unwise the West would be to agree to such a plan, unless the Russians were willing to carry out a large-scale disarmament agreement on conventional forces and weapons so as to redress the balance of arms.
  I do not believe that at present the Russians think it is in their interest to have a major war, though I am certain that they realise far more than we do that the real battle to be fought out between the Communist world and ourselves is a battle for men's minds, for the minds of newly-emerging countries in Asia and Africa. That is why we must be careful in planning defence strategy that we do not get committed to a race in heavy conventional armaments, as well as developing nuclear and atomic weapons.
  We must pay attention to the economic factor in defence planning. Indeed, it was disregard of that factor in the Far East that led us to drop atomic bombs. We must balance very carefully our military and economic resources so that we can win the economic battle in Africa and Asia as well as see that we have an adequate defence.
  Let us, however, keep our objective clear in mind. It is not war. Indeed, nuclear war today is suicide. Perhaps if every time we used the term "war" we used the word "suicide" as well we might get more quickly to our objective of disarmament. But surely the lesson of the 1930s was that unilateral disarmament by itself would achieve nothing, except to make aggression more likely. What matters is the balance of armaments, because it is only when we have that balance that we can negotiate to bring the level of armaments down.
  480
  I take the view that we have about reached that balance today. That is why I believe that, providing we remain steadfast and do not panic, there is reasonable hope that some agreement in disarmament, disengagement and nuclear weapons can be reached. But if the Austrian Peace Treaty is any example, it will not be without a great deal of negotiating for a long period. At least it would be something to make a start, but if we want to succeed let us be clear that we must speak from strength—and strength in democracy and in our democratic world must be based on unity of outlook and action.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: I suppose that it is convenient that a two-day debate on defence should follow so shortly after a two-day debate on foreign affairs. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) indicated in his speech that he believed that even in a defence debate a speech on foreign affairs was very relevant and to the point. After all, the need and nature of our defence is determined by success or failure in our relationships with other countries. Therefore, inevitably foreign affairs and defence are interwoven in our debates. This is not surprising, because a great deal was said about the White Paper last week and much has been said about foreign affairs today.
  The first twenty-one paragraphs of this White Paper deal exclusively with matters handled by the Foreign Office. Whether or not they are intended as a bridge for the present Minister of Defence to cross into the Foreign Office, I do not know, but no doubt time will tell. Leaving foreign affairs aside, I think that we have had a good debate, with many constructive suggestions, and the Government have been subjected to much severe criticism.
  First, as was to be expected, a great part of the debate took place on the interpretation of paragraph 12. There were some interjections when the Minister of Defence dealt with this matter, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) got the Prime Minister himself to his feet to try to elucidate the policy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean), when he discussed it, rather indicated that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw

  481
  (Mr. Bellenger) said that he ought not to put frightening things in White Papers. I do not think that is the point. I think the Government have completely missed the criticism on this matter. It is true that the Minister of Defence and hon. Members who have spoken from the Government benches have said that what was wanted was a blunt, clear statement, and that is what appears in paragraph 12.
  Other paragraphs among the twenty-one opening ones actually show some of the constructive things the Government had been trying to do, but unfortunately they were completely lost in the publicity. All that the newspapers seemed to grasp was paragraph 12 and what it meant. Another difficulty was that there was a feeling of hopelessness. For the first time the public began to realise exactly what the policy of the Government meant, and out of it all there arose this feeling of hopelessness. There was nothing constructive and no suggestions or alternatives came across. That is why I think the Government themselves are to blame for much of the criticism which has been aimed at them in this matter.
  President Eisenhower dealt with the deterrent in his message to Congress in which he asked for a sum of £1,408 million for foreign aid. Curiously enough that is practically the same figure as this Government are asking for to cover the entire defence policy. Even so, in his message to Congress President Eisenhower said that foreign aid itself was a good deterrent to general war. In those first twenty-one paragraphs of the White Paper there is nothing like that. They are devoid of any constructive ideas, and the only thing which comes out clearly is that this Government have said bluntly and plainly that they will have the courage to press the button for suicide if that should be necessary. I say to the Government that it would be much better if the Prime Minister today pressed the button for a General Election and allowed this Government to commit suicide at the polls.
  Secondly, questions have been raised about the location of guided missiles in this country. Apart from the fear and anxiety which has been expressed on this matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper who opened the debate from this side, dealt with the position most effectively from the standpoint of military
  482
  effectiveness. We would like an answer on that from the Minister of Supply.
  My right hon. Friend devoted considerable time to the contradictions in the White Paper in paragraphs 12, 28 and 38 and the difference of approach between the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister. The Minister of Defence was in some difficulty when trying to explain his policy last year. Frankly, we are not much clearer today. While we welcome the Service Ministers into the debate this year, it is a pity that the Prime Minister is not winding up the debate on this occasion so that we could have his personal views on this important matter.
  I should like to say a word about paragraph 78 concerning the cost of defence. It is difficult to get actual figures because of the method of presentation, but I understand that. £1,465 million is given as the estimate for 1958–59. The White Paper goes on to say, however, that as in previous years, this figure does not take into account receipts in respect of the local costs of our forces in Germany. This item is estimated at £47 million, so that the Estimate to be presented will be £1,418 million.
  Despite what the Minister of Defence said today, I do not think there is any evidence to show that we may expect any contribution from Germany in this direction. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper that that is wrong, but looking at the facts as we see them today, it is hardly likely that a contribution will be made. Two problems, therefore, have to be faced. One, which was mentioned by the Minister himself, is that of foreign exchange. It is possible that the question of foreign exchange could be solved. I understand that certain discussions are proceeding, but it is such an important matter that we should have more information about it.
  It is also true that in paragraph 43 of the White Paper the Minister of Defence has given a warning that
  "in the event of adequate financial assistance not being forthcoming"
  the Government
  "fill … have to reconsider the size of the British … forces … on the Continent."
  That is all very well and it may in effect, by a reduction of forces, ease the balance of payments problem. That, however,

  483
  has nothing to do with the actual cost. Whether the troops remain in Germany or are brought to this country, the cost has to be met. The Minister will have to decide, and very soon, how it is to be met. It may be that he will have some idea about cuts in another place. It may be that very soon we will have a Supplementary Estimate. On the other hand, it was, after all, a sum of £50 million over which a senior Member of the Government has already resigned. The Minister of Defence, however, would be much more likely to get promotion.
  Mr. James Griffiths: For the same £50 million.
  Mr. Steele: For the same £50 million. One thing is perfectly clear, the introduction of nuclear weapons, guided missiles and reliance on the deterrent does not, as some people would have us believe, give us defence on the cheap.
  Despite what the Prime Minister said, and despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in explaining his policy, many hon. Members on this side of the House criticised the Government about reliance on the deterrent and were doubtful about not maintaining conventional forces. I was rather interested in President Eisenhower's message to Congress on 19th February, when, referring to mutual security, he said:
  "Our defensive power must be directed as well towards deterring local aggressions which would lead to global war or to peacemeal absorption of the free world by Communism imperialism. It is imperative that the free world maintain strong conventional forces capable of dealing effectively with such aggressions whenever and wherever they may occur. America alone cannot maintain such forces on the scale required. They must be developed by the threatened nations themselves."
  I wonder how much consultation there was between the Government and the American Government on the policy of the deterrent as put forward in paragraph 12 of the White Paper.
  The point was also brought out by Admiral Briscoe, Allied Commander-in-Chief, Southern Europe, in answer to a recent article in the Washington Evening Star. The whole implication of the article was that the rapid shift to guided missiles would be cheaper and would require fewer personnel. I have no intention of quoting the whole of the Admiral's statement, interesting though it
  484
  was, but the point of it is that in his view, after forty years of active service, any new weapons never meant any reduction in costs. He went on to give this warning:
  "Less there be some impression that I am against guided missiles, in any form, I wish to reiterate that we must have them and have them in quantity and types. But I feel that it is a mistake to sell the plan for new weapons to the nations of the free world on the basis that it will give them a more effective defence with less expenditure of men, money and industrial capacity."
  That is more or less what the Government have been trying to do, but with the bill for this year increased and with no contribution from Germany, their illusion about defence on the cheap should now be killed.
  While we are discussing the White Paper, we never get an opportunity to discuss the Estimates of the Ministry of Defence. I was interested to note that in the Minister's own Department there is an increase of 74 in the number of staff compared with last year. The only economy I noticed was in accommodation and it seems that the 74 extra people are to be squeezed in any how. There is also an increase of 126 in the number of people sent from this country to N.A.T.O. That is a total increase of 200. It is all very well if the increase comes from greater integration in the Services at home and greater co-ordination in the services of N.A.T.O. It could then be justified. But as I look through the White Paper and the other documents I see no evidence of that. Tomorrow we may be told why the Minister of Defence requires this extra staff.
  We welcome the Minister of Supply to the debate. I take this opportunity of saying something about Transport Command, in which I am sure he is interested. Last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) raised this matter most effectively. In an intervention in my right hon. Friend's speech the Minister of Defence admitted that we did not possess adequate air support, and he claimed that the Government were determined to have it. We want to know the extent of the Government's determination. Last year we were told that Britannias would be ordered, and this year we are told that they have been ordered. That represents some advance.

  485
  But since we were told by the Minister of Defence that adequate air transport was the linchpin of his whole policy we should be told a little more. He should tell us when he expects delivery of the first Britannia, and when he expects to have them all in operation.
  I put this point because not so very long ago I led a deputation from a Dumbarton factory to the Minister of Defence; I have no doubt that he remembers it. The aircraft factory at Dumbarton was tooled up to produce a certain part of the Britannia at the rate of three per month. The deputation went to the Minister because work on the Britannia had stopped. The men on the job were dismissed, and they are now on the street. It seems crazy that the Minister of Defence should talk about adequate air transport being the linchpin of his policy while, at the same time, workers who could produce the required air transport are turned out on to the streets. The accusation of being crazy mixed up kids should be levelled entirely at the Government.
  Many questions have been asked about the number of men and the weight of equipment to be transported by air, but the Minister has always refused to be drawn in this matter. Two weeks ago Exercise Quickstep took place, and it would be interesting to have the views of one of the Service Ministers upon it. I understand that the Secretary of State for Air will be speaking in the debate, and he will no doubt say something about it.
  It is clear from the White Paper that the intention is to build up heavy stores at various parts of the world. It is also evident that they will be transported by sea. If it is the intention to keep ships in readiness at certain points to ship the heavy stores I should like to know if the necessary number of ships will be available. The whole point of having a central reserve in this country, and to use air transport to get it to any given point, is surely speed of operation. If so, there is little point in flying the men to a given point and leaving the heavy equipment still lying in the depôt.
  Last year the Minister of Defence received many compliments for having written a White Paper all by himself.
  Mr. G. Brown: After many attempts.
  Mr. Steele: It was even whispered that he rewrote it twelve times before the final draft was printed. As to the section headed "Sea Power," it would seem that his effort last year left him completely exhausted, because the paragraphs under that heading have been lifted almost word for word from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in the House last November.
  Mr. Sandys: It shows consistency.
  Mr. G. Brown: Rather sticky dough.
  Mr. Steele: Probably he was tired of the efforts in the past.
  Mr. G. Brown: Tired of the Navy.
  Mr. Steele: The reference to seapower begins with the usual formula:
  "the Government have reviewed the rôle, composition and disposition of the Royal Navy."
  It should be remembered that this comes after the White Paper issued last year in which we were informed that the whole character of the defence plan had been revised and we were given an outline of future policy, a five-year plan. In that plan we were told that the rôle of the aircraft carrier had become increasingly significant. That was elaborated in the debate on the Navy Estimates which followed, and we were given a picture of what was intended. The conception given to us for the future was of a streamlined Navy,
  "consisting of carrier task forces"
  fully balanced and independent, and able to be
  "deployed in the most advantageous manner round the world."
  Those were the words of the Secretary of State for War, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. He went on to say:
  "No other military organisation can be so self-sufficient, so mobile and so versatile."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1957; Vol. 570. c. 56–7.]
  Having been given what appeared to be a clear picture of how the Navy was to be organised, we are told that is not so. The only "fully balanced task force" will be the one based on Singapore. As for the rest of the Fleet, the White Paper reflects that as:
  "the Royal Navy will be operating in conjunction with other allied navies,"
  balanced British forces will not be necessary. I am not disagreeing with that

  487
  point of view. It might be very sensible in so far as
  "operating in conjunction with other Allied navies"
  is a form of insurance against another Suez, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper illustrated quite clearly a number of contradictions in policy which various paragraphs in the White Paper make with one another. In that connection, I find it difficult to understand what the new rôle of the Navy is to be when set against what is said in paragraph 12. If a major attack or full-scale attack takes place, what then? We are told that our Navy will then
  "make the most effective contribution to the combined forces of the Alliance".
  I ask the House to note the words, "effective contribution". May I ask what with? Not surely with the four cruisers which have not yet been delivered and are already obsolete. There is nothing in the White Paper to indicate that the Navy has any part to play in the deterrent policy. It is true that today the Ministry of Defence gave us the reason. It was going to cost too much.
  The threat of Russian submarines is often mentioned in our debates. I am not here attempting to minimise the risk, but is the use of a carrier with helicopters the best anti-submarine defence? It certainly is not the least expensive. That perhaps is the one virtue of this decision, which is in line with what has already been said about carriers—flexibility. It will enable the Minister next year, if he so desires, to change his mind on this policy. That would not be surprising. The Marine Commando carrier borne forces is in line with the suggestion made from this side of the House last year, but it is obvious, as was made clear in the White Paper on the Navy Estimates, that work has not yet been started on this project and it will be a long time before it can be in operation.
  All this brings out what I believe to be something of overriding importance, on which I think we are entitled to have an answer. On what basis, on what consultation and with whom are these decisions taken?
  For instance, all this presupposes a degree of co-operation and planning among the N.A.T.O. countries which I
  488
  am very doubtful exists. Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the White Paper, which deal with collective defence, are excellent in so far as they set out the benefits which would be obtained if the countries involved were prepared to do something about it, but paragraph 24 starts with an "if" and ends only with an expression of hope that ways may be found. It is nonsense to be still talking in these terms after so many years.
  Why I raise this matter about the organisation of the Navy is simply that if what was said in the White Paper about the rôle of British ships with N.A.T.O. is the outcome of an agreed plan, it was quite unnecessary to be so pessimistic in paragraphs 24 and 25. One cannot help but get the impression that this decision was not the result of any discussions with N.A.T.O. and that in fact little consultation took place. How can there be proper planning and co-operation as long at this chopping and changing goes on and these apparently independent decisions are taken? When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged on this very point by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) he gave the whole show away, because he started by saying not that we consult N.A.T.O. but that we tell N.A.T.O. Those were his words, which I noted.
  Paragraphs 24 and 25 deal with collective defence in the political and military sphere. Paragraph 26 deals with co-operation in the industrial and technical field. In this paragraph I find a statement which is extraordinary. This is how it reads:
  "Within the framework of Western European Union, Her Majesty's Government have, during the current year, initiated discussions on this subject"
  —that is, on weapon research and production—
  "with the French, German and Dutch Governments".
  Hon. Members may wonder why I say that this is an extraordinary statement. Let us look at the composition of Western European Union. In it there is an agency for the control of armaments, but there is also a Standing Armaments Committee charged with this very task of developing co-operation among the member countries in the field of armaments research, development and production. What has this Committee been

  489
  doing? If I ask that question, as I do, can I get an answer? Is there any Minister here who is responsible for what happens there and can give us an answer?
  I have been looking through the reports of the Western European Union on this point. The Minister of Defence is smiling, and there is no reason why he should not smile. I have been looking through these reports to try to find some evidence of co-operation, but instead of finding any evidence of co-operation I found nothing but criticism. It is evident that nothing is being done. If this work is being done by N.A.T.O., then it is all right. We should be the last to criticise, because it is certainly not our desire to see any duplication of the work, but the White Pa per does not give us that impression, particularly in paragraphs 24 and 25.
  The implications of those paragraphs go far beyond the word "co-operation". I have no doubt that in time much more discussion will take place on that than is taking place today, and I think it is well that the House should bear in mind that the more defence is entrusted to international bodies the more difficult will it be for this House to know exactly what is happening.
  At present, although we may probe the Government, it is difficult to get answers as to exactly what is happening in N.A.T.O. and in paragraph 13 of document 63 of the Third Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Western European Union there is a very significant observation which this House would do well to ponder. It is this:
  "There is, however, no Parliamentary supervision in N.A.T.O. Governments alone are directly informed. Ministers transmit to their Parliaments only what they think fit, and in case of disagreement, Parliaments are only given one side of the story because, as the N.A.T.O. Council cannot engage in public controversy with governments, they cannot make a quarrel known, nor can they state their own point of view. The peoples rely on N.A.T.O. for their security, but they do not realise that they are badly informed of the real situation."
  What is the real situation? What is it that we should know, and what is it that we are not being told? The lowest danger is that there is not sufficient cooperation, and the highest danger is that there is no co-operation at all, and that the whole system is not working.
  490
  We should have some information on these matters.
  Let me turn from the contemplation of co-ordination, or the lack of it, abroad to what is being done at home with the three Services. If this White Paper is, as it purports to be, a progress report on the White Paper of last year, I would like to point out one omission. There is absolutely no information about what has been achieved in research and development. Attention was drawn last year to the great shortage of scientists and technicians, and to the consequent necessity to restrict the programme. From that, one would have thought that we would be given some information this year about how this problem had been tackled.
  It is true that the Navy has "The Way Ahead" Committee. It is also true that, as far as one can see, the Army has begun sonic studies leading towards the simplification of administration and the reduction of paperwork. That is, no doubt, a very excellent idea, but both of these are internal committees, and I should have thought that the Minister of Defence would have been giving some attention to the co-ordination of effort both in weapons and materials, and that he could have given us some information on this matter.
  I have been doing some homework, and have been reading some of the excellent reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure during the last war. I must confess that some of the examples of lack of co-operation, both between the Services and between the Services and industry, are almost impossible to believe. I am certain that the Minister desires efficiency. He would be well advised to take heed of much that that Committee had to say.
  The three Services, after all, are all being equipped with guided missiles. The Services may have different functions but, basically, they must have much in common, both in the initial development and in production and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) drew attention to this matter in his speech. Surely the Minister of Defence has some powers of investigation or co-ordination so as to ensure the necessary co-operation in these things. There are a lot of other matters which he should

  491
  tackle, if he had the power to do so. Has he that power? That is the question.
  Not long ago, the Prime Minister announced in the House that new powers had been given to the Minister of Defence. When the Prime Minister was questioned about this, and whether, in effect, it really meant the abolition of the present arrangement of Chiefs of Staff and, perhaps, the appointment of a Chief of Staff with central direction, he rather led us to believe that all these matters would be considered. Has that consideration taken place and, if it has, can we be told anything? Is anything likely to follow from it? If not, are we to assume that everyone is satisfied? I believe that co-operation and co-ordination, both at home and in N.A.T.O., are terribly important. The House will agree that it is necessary from the point of view of efficiency. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee of this House for a number of years, I can assure hon. Members that it would bring about some economy. May I say in conclusion that never were effective and efficient forces, allied to economy, more necessary and essential than they are today.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): This debate, like most defence debates, has been rather far-flung, and I am afraid I could not possibly hope to follow it into all its ramifications. But I feel fortified by the thought that there are other Front Bench speakers tomorrow.
  I think the best thing I can do is to talk about—
  Mr. Roy Mason: Sputniks.
  Mr. Jones: Yes; I suppose that is closely related to my Department. In other words, I will talk about weapons. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) came near to suggesting that weapons were a neglected subject, and he asked me some pertinent questions, which have been repeated by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). In due course, I will try to answer them.
  To talk of weapons is to talk about technology, both military and civil. There is no real distinction between them. As I have just been reminded, we have
  492
  had during the last few months a very significant demonstration of technological power in the launching of the Sputniks. Anybody who has seen them with the naked eye will realise how extremely impressive they are. The White Paper says that the Sputniks do not of themselves alter the balance of deterrence merely because a deterrent is such a great weapon that these small changes do not upset the rough balance.
  I do not think, however, that we ought to ignore the fact that the Sputniks offer us a confirmation, if indeed we needed confirmation, that in certain aspects of technology Russia is ahead of the Western world. I think this is one of the most important defence problems that we have to face. It is a matter of immense military significance and can be of immense economic significance, too.
  I think we ought to ask ourselves how it has come about and what we should do about it. Of course, there are several explanations. We live in an industrial age, and I suppose it is natural that revolutions nowadays should identify themselves with industrialisation. The Russian Revolution did. It has thrown up a cult of science and technology in a degree which perhaps we in our older industrial civilisation do not fully grasp. I do not, in fact, think that we do fully grasp it. But I do not think it is the only explanation, or the more important explanation.
  The more important explanation, to my mind, is this. I would affirm—and I grant it is a very bold affirmation—that there is nothing, provided it is scientifically possible, that cannot be achieved in the realm of technology, given a sufficient concentration of resources. The point is that a totalitarian society like Russia can bring about this concentration of resources, and a free society like ourselves, distracted as we are by the multitudinous private claims, cannot bring about such a concentration. This, I think, is our real dilemma, and it is to this that we have to find a counter.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West provided a counter. It is not just education, although I grant that something has to be done in the way of technological education. I hope none of us will show much sympathy with the Oxford Classics don who was in the common room when the first Sputnik was

  493
  launched and said to his colleagues, "Drat the Sputnik coming just at this time when all the talk of extending technological education is dying down."
  Of course, we must have technological education. The point I am trying to make is that education in itself is not the answer. It is not an answer to the greater concentration of resources which a totalitarian society can command. The answer is the answer, which I fully accept, just given by the hon. Gentleman, namely, closer technological co-operation between members of the Western alliance.
  I ask hon. Gentlemen to remember that we are but one member of an alliance, and the answer does not, therefore, depend entirely upon ourselves alone. One appreciates how much it depends upon others if one looks at the difference between the situation when the war ended and the situation now. When the war ended, there was, between the Americans and ourselves, full and frank exchange of technological information. What was more, there was informal agreement under which the Americans concentrated on some things and we concentrated on others. They, for instance, concentrated on transport aircraft. Very important also was the fact that there were no currency difficulties; they were not allowed to stand in the way of the transport of arms.
  Since the war, there has been a great change. We have had currency difficulties. More important and more significant, certain security barriers have been raised which impede the full exchange of information. Half the technological resources of the whole Western alliance are on this side of the Atlantic, but I am afraid that the two halves, during the past ten years, have not been yoked to the common purpose. It was in order to do something about this that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to the United States last autumn. He initiated a movement which, of course, is now to be continued.
  What we are after is not only closer co-operation with the Americans but closer co-operation with the European countries also. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West mentioned Europe specifically. I go so far in meeting him as to say that the scope for co-operation with Western Europe is certainly as great as that with America, particularly since,
  494
  as I see it, the industrial and strategic problems of Western Europe and ourselves are much more alike.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked how one reconciled the bilateral discussions mentioned in the White Paper with the multilateral discussions proceeding under the Western European Union Agreement. They are perfectly reconcilable; the one does not contravene the other. The justification for the bilateral discussion is that, very often, greater progress is made between two parties than is made between several. The bilateral discussions were decided on in order to facilitate the multilateral discussions. There is no conflict.
  One hon. Gentleman earlier in the debate mentioned the crux of the whole problem. As I see it, it is no use deciding, at a late stage, that one country should develop and produce one weapon, and another another. What is needed is that, right at the outset, countries should get together to determine their weapons requirements and then, after determination of the joint requirements, they should allocate or share out the work. The great obstacle to be overcome is the—shall I say?—affront to national pride which interdependence causes.
  I came across an example of this in going to a French aircraft works some months ago. The French had there a weapon which seemed to me to be perfectly serviceable, and I asked whether they had sold it in large numbers to the N.A.T.O. countries. The reply was "No, for the simple reason that, when representatives of other countries come here, they go away thinking to themselves that they can do something better, that they can improve on this". There is this affront to national pride. But we have become reliant on other countries for some of our weapons. Some might say that this is a qualification of external sovereignty and external freedom. It might mean that. The point of what I am saying is that we are matched against a totalitarian régime. In that match, I doubt whether we can sustain absolutely unimpaired external and internal freedom.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: In matching ourselves with the U.S.S.R., has not the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that it is not only the totalitarian aspect of the U.S.S.R. with which he has to compete, but their socialist planning?
  Mr. Jones: As put by the hon. Gentleman, I have difficulty in appreciating the distinction between the two things. I would say that the second is subordinate to the first.
  There has been talk in the debate about the Government's scientific establishments. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) particularly mentioned this matter. Our great strength in this country—I am not trying to be boastful about this—vis-á-vis the Americans lies in basic or fundamental research, the kind of work done at the Government scientific establishments. I think that these scientific establishments of the Ministry of Supply are the real silent service—the Navy has nothing on them. I should like to pay them a compliment and say that they have achieved very great results with very slender resources.
  There have been complaints of high expenditure and so forth, but we have achieved results with, as the Americans would put it, research on a shoe string. That is an absolute fact. I think also, apart from the basic research, we also compare well with the Americans in weapons. Take, for instance, the P.1 fighter, the first real supersonic fighter. The Americans have produced a whole range of supersonic fighters—the Century series, known as the F.100, F.102 and F.104 and so forth.
  Mr. Harold Davies: They are very touchy. Be careful. The right hon. Gentleman will upset them.
  Mr. Jones: I hope that I can modestly describe the British contribution. After all, I am talking about interdependence. Within this range of experimentation, we have in the P.1, which is now practically developed, an aircraft comparable to American aircraft.
  Mr. Bellenger: Yet the Germans will not have it.
  Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman might well be anticipating events. I have not the faintest idea what the German mind is on this matter. He is mistaken if he thinks that this particular aircraft has been rejected by the Germans.
  Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are now entering their final trials. Indeed, I think that they have already started.
  496
  They are up to the standard of and equal to any current American weapon.
  Of course, we have weaknesses. Some of them have been mentioned today. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made a speech which I regret I was not present to hear. He dwelt in some measure, I think, on the theme of our weaknesses. One of our weaknesses—a weakness often described by the Americans—is that, while we are extremely good at ideas, we are, so it is alleged, slow in developing the ideas and subsequently brought into production. It is because of this criticism and this possible weakness that some months ago I announced that, in placing future aircraft orders, regard would be had not only to the initial design but to the ability in the shape of production and technical resources to develop and complete the weapon and bring it to a successful conclusion. I am sure that that was the right decision. I think, then, that we have a technical contribution to make to the collective effort.
  Much of the debate has been concerned not with our technical contribution but with our strategic contribution. Questions addressed to me specifically by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) were concerned with our strategic contribution. I wish to say something about that matter. A collective defence effort tries to provide for every contingency. Jointly, the whole alliance tries to provide a deterrent to global war, a preparation for conventional war, a preparation for limited war and a preparation for police operations.
  There are some people who would say that the principal rôle of this country should be preparation for police operations and localised emergencies overseas. I would not disagree with that. The White Paper does not disagree with it. That emerges from paragraph 38. What we have done over the past two years, over the period of the two White Papers, is to revise our conception how the rôle—"our principal rôle", if hon. Members like—can be met. Both White Papers have said that the rôle is better met not by large numbers of troops stationed at odd places round the world, but by a small number of troops made mobile. I accept the corollary, and if I do that, then I ask the right hon. Gentleman in his turn to accept the fact that, once the

  497
  conception is changed, the extra mobility cannot be given overnight.
  The mobility has two facets—the troop-carrying aircraft and the freight-carrying aircraft. Plans have been announced for the expansion of the troop-carrying fleet. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West may see no concrete results in the form of employment in his constituency, but the expansion is nevertheless planned. I should have said that in the view of most authorities the number of troop-carrying aircraft now provided for is adequate.
  Mr. Bellenger: How many are there?
  Mr. Jones: I will not give the number. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that a Minister is inhibited in giving numbers.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is it any more than three?
  Mr. Jones: Of course it is more than three.
  Mr. Frank Beswick: When the Minister says the expansion is planned, does he mean that the orders have already been placed or that it is proposed to give orders?
  Mr. Jones: I mean that the orders have been placed.
  Mr. de Freitas: When the right hon. Gentleman says "provided for", does that mean "ordered"?
  Mr. Jones: There have been extra Britannia orders.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air will be dealing with this matter again tomorrow.
  Mr. G. Brown: Will the Secretary of State deal with it better?
  Mr. Jones: I am trying to deal with it in a broad way. It is an accepted fact that, granted the conception of a small number of troops made mobile, there will be sufficient troop-carrying aircraft.
  Hon. Members: When?
  Mr. Jones: The other aspect is the freight-carrying aircraft. The right hon. Member for Belper suggested that this
  498
  subject was being entirely neglected. That is not so. If he will look at the Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates he will find it stated there that as the Britannias come into service, so the Hastings are switched to freight. Also there are in this country certain designs for freighters for short range and long range. These designs are undergoing close examination to ascertain whether or not they match the requirement. I cannot say more than that, but the subject is not being neglected.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked me some other very important questions. If I may recapitulate, I accept that it is an important and possibly a primary rôle of this country to prepare for localised operations overseas. But I cannot accept that this is the only rôle for this country and that because this is an important rôle we should therefore be excluded from any contribution to the nuclear deterrent. In speaking about the summit talks and giving the Opposition's case that American missiles should not be accepted in this country before the summit talks, the right hon. Gentleman attempted to buttress this political argument with a military one, namely, that since the propelled bomb is under development any missile is unnecessary.
  Why are we developing the propelled bomb? We have V-bombers, and it is economical to extend their life as far as possible, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not delude himself into thinking that even the V-bombers, equipped with propelled bombs, are invulnerable. They are vulnerable to the long-range interceptor and to surface-to-air missiles. The whole theme of my speech is that in certain aspects of technology the Russians are ahead of the West. Is it not, therefore, prudent to conclude that this vulnerability will come far sooner than we originally thought?
  I remind hon. Members that a little over a year ago the Russians threatened this country with a missile over the question of Suez. I am not arguing Suez policy. But let us observe that at that time we were threatened by the Russians with a missile. And since eventually the only answer to a rocket is another rocket, ought we therefore to delay in equipping ourselves with rockets?
  Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have a go on that point?
  Mr. Jones: My time is very short. It has been abbreviated by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West who preceded me.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable assertion. Why not let us probe it now? He has said that the V-bombers are already outdated.
  Mr. Jones: I am not saying that they are out-dated. I am saying that it is economical to extend their life but we ought not to assume that their invulnerability will last as long as we thought possible six months ago. Therefore, it is prudent to have as soon as we can the successor weapon. The Thor missile is the first version of this kind of missile in the West. The right hon. Member for Belper made great play with the alleged deficiencies of this weapon.
  Mr. Brown: Alleged?
  Mr. Jones: The right hon. Member is making a great mistake if he thinks that at the very first effort one can reach perfection in any of these things. Of course there are improvements to be made in this weapon. This is the sole reason, or at least the main reason, why we are developing a missile of our own.
  Mr. Brown: Why we should have it first.
  Mr. Jones: There must be improvements in all kinds of ways. The weapon is more suited to our range than that of the Americans, for it is a medium-range and not an inter-continental missile, and there is a geographical reason for our undertaking development of the successor weapon.
  There is also an industrial reason for our undertaking it, and it is my answer to those who suggest that this country ought not to be contributing in any way to the nuclear deterrent. My answer is this. I was most impressed, when in the United States a few months ago, to observe the way in which a new industry had gathered round the ballistic missile. The ballistic missile offered to American industry a challenge. It was calling into being all kinds of new techniques, new
  500
  materials, which were bound later to fertilise civil industry. We are an industrial country, more than any other living on our industrial and technical skill, and I ask myself, is it right that we should be excluded entirely from this knowledge?
  Mr. Harold Davies: That is a bit Machiavellian.
  Mr. Jones: It is an additional reason. I have given a military reason. There is an industrial reason, and I also think there is a political reason, namely, that the alliance ought to have a balance of power within it. I would not like to see any lopsided alliance. For these reasons, I think that we in this country ought to make a contribution to the nuclear deterrent, provided that it does not distort our military pattern too much and does not cost too much. On this question, I would like to say that we would welcome the development of the ballistic missile as a joint project with any other European country which agrees to participate in it.
  Lastly, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West talked about costs. Weapons are costly not because of any maladministration by the Ministry of Supply. I think I can talk objectively about this, since like most scapegoats, it is an innocent one. Weapons are costly because cost is inherent in the nature of the weapon. These weapons become more and more complicated and more and more costly.
  As I see it, the Russian Sputnik calls for an enlarged technological effort by the West. Granted this cost, granted this extra effort which I think we have to make, the scope for reduction of expenditure is therefore limited, and I feel that one of the things we have to do is not only to look for financial economy but to try to extract more in the way of results of civil usefulness from the military research and development work we do. It is untrue to say that this work is entirely wasted. There would not be any such thing as nuclear power today if it had not been in the first place for military nuclear power. Even now the Atomic Weapons Establishment is making a significant contribution—
  Mr. Harold Davies: Honestly, that is not true.
  Mr. Jones: It is. If I may conclude, the argument which I have tried to put is that we are confronted with a totalitarian society. We are all of us believers in freedom, but we ought not to blind ourselves to the fact that in the short-term, the intermediate term, the totalitarian society has the advantage of concentration over the free society. What I am trying to suggest is that we have to try to counter this advantage in the way of extra co-operation between the members of the alliance, and also by co-operation between military and civil technology. I think that the most vital task facing us is to overhaul the Russians in technology, and I think that on our success in that the whole future of the Western world ultimately depends.
  Debate adjourned.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  CREMATION CERTIFICATES (FEES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to raise the question of the charges made by doctors in the National Health Service for cremation certificates. This subject may seem a little pedestrian after the debate we have just had, but perhaps it is not without some connection. Anyway it is a matter which in my view ought to be debated by this House, and I am delighted to see the Parliamentary,Secretary to the Ministry of Health here to answer the debate. I say that because those of us who have from time to time tried to ask Questions on the matter have had the misfortune to have our Questions, which we directed at the Minister of Health, deflected to the Home Secretary. The latter gave us the kind of answer we did not want, because the Home Secretary has the power to regulate these charges under an Act of Parliament. It is not on that aspect of the matter I want to speak tonight, although I have no doubt that the Minister will touch upon it.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  Mr. Howell: It is well known that before a person who has died can be cremated, there must be two death certificates. This is a wasteful and an extravagant method. I do not consider the second death certificate necessary. Indeed, from my researches, I am sure that the formality of examining the body as carried out by most doctors is little short of farcical. In many cases, they hardly know whether they are viewing the right body, especially when they do it in the chapels of rest of funeral undertakers.
  There is a lot to be said for getting rid of the second certificate altogether, but I do not wish to pursue that point

  503
  because it would probably require a change of legislation and would be out of order in this debate. I wish, therefore, to concentrate on the fact that we have in the hospital service highly-paid consultants and specialists who, when a request is made for cremation, have to give two certificates.
  I understand that by the Regulations of the Ministry—"Terms and Conditions of Medical and Dental Staffs, Great Britain"—there are two categories. The first certificate comes within the first category and no fee can be charged. Under the second category, however, a fee can be charged for the second certificate, which is not necessary for an ordinary interment but is necessary for a cremation.
  The first certificate, it is interesting to note, is normally issued free, but it is the second certificate to which I wish to direct my attention. I am quite certain that practice varies throughout the country. The British Medical Association has, I understand, suggested to its doctor members that for these certificates they should charge a fee of two guineas, which they consider to be reasonable. I know that this fee is not binding, but in practice some doctors will sign a certificate without any fee, very few charge two guineas, although some do, the majority of doctors in the hospitals charge at least double the fee recommended by the B.M.A.—that is four guineas—some doctors charge six guineas and there are isolated examples of charges much above six guineas. This is obviously wrong.
  It is not without interest—and it is important in view of the Minister's responsibility for the Health Service—that I am told by some of the largest undertaking firms, who have to pay the fees for the cremation certificates, that they rarely get a receipt for them. In other words, we are dealing with tax-free "perks" for the medical profession, money which its members get for these certificates but for which they rarely give a receipt. I have no doubt that they regard it as a small addition to their salary. I would not object so much if that applied to junior members of hospital staffs, who are underpaid, although I object in principle to all tax evasions. In the case of the consultant and specialist staffs, however, who get very good salaries
  504
  indeed, the objection is much more strenuous.
  Why should there be any charge at all for these certificates when these people are full-time employees of the Health Service, full-time public employees, paid from the public purse? Why should they receive a fee from the relatives of a deceased person for doing a job which the public is paying them to do? They know from what complaint a person who has been in their care has died. If they do not know—and this applies in all the cases of the people with whom I am concerned—then in hospitals there is usually a first class pathological service, also paid for by the Health Service, to find out the cause of death.
  These medical officers either know, or, as the result of a service provided by the taxpayer, can easily find out the reason for a person's death and in those circumstances the signing of the form is a formality and should not attract any charge. In other words, members of the public are paying twice for this service of having a death certificate provided, once as taxpayers and once as the unfortunate relatives.
  If there is to be a fee, it should be regulated. It has come to my knowledge that in at least one hospital in the Midlands the medical staff has recently had a meeting where it decided that instead of four guineas for the second cremation certificate, the charge would be six guineas. I understand that that has not been put into effect because in the meantime I started asking one or two Questions and the medical staff at that hospital is awaiting the answers. However, the staff had that meeting and, inflation being what it is, decided that the charge should be increased from four guineas to six guineas, although nobody could suggest that any extra effort would be involved in the task of signing the second certificate.
  The matter was first brought to my attention by a senior official in the Health Service who became aware that while most hospital doctors signed these certificates as a matter of routine, there were one or two who were certainly exploiting the position. I know of at least one case concerning an old couple. The man died and his unfortunate widow, an elderly lady, wanted to have his last wish—to be cremated—respected. However,

  505
  she was asked a fee in the higher range I have mentioned and because she was not able to afford it, her husband had to he buried and not cremated. One can easily see that if these charges are to be imposed, that sort of situation can easily arise.
  I do not want to make too heavy weather of this, but I want to put some propositions to the Minister. Firstly, he must accept responsibility for all this. It is no good telling us that the Home Secretary can make regulations, and that it is quite legal to charge a fee. I know that it is legal to do so; that is one of my complaints. I want the Minister to look into the question and to accept responsibility for what goes on in the Health Service. These people are paid to do their job and look after the sick, and if they are unsuccessful in keeping people alive it is their duty to give a certificate showing the cause of death. There is no reason why, in performing that duty, they should make money by imposing an extra charge.
  If a charge has to be levied it should at least be uniform throughout the country. We should not have a situation where the doctors at one hospital can get twice or three times as much money as doctors in other hospitals for issuing second death certificates. The Minister cannot object to that proposition.
  I suggest that in any case where the public pays money over to a servant of the Health Service the Minister is responsible for accounting to the House and to the public for it. He should state to whom the money has been paid. By virtue of their employment in the Health Service these people are receiving extra money for which they are not accountable to anyone. I am a member of a hospital management committee, as other hon. Members are, and I have no doubt that this question has never come before any such committee in the past. Although we are responsible for what goes on in our hospitals, this is a private arrangement between the doctors, whereby they fix and pocket the fees. If we must have fees they should be regulated by the Minister, and he should know what is being paid by the public to full-time servants of the Health Service.
  That is the burden of my complaint. I do not know whether, at such short
  506
  notice—since I first said that I would raise this matter only last Thursday—I can expect the Parliamentary Secretary to have made a full inquiry so that he can provide all the answers. All I am asking is that he should at least agree with me that these certificates should either be free or should be provided at a regulated and uniform charge. At least he should undertake to examine what is going on and inform himself of the exact details. If he cannot give us all the information today I hope that he will find out what is the practice and give us much more detailed information later.
  This is not a subject that I want to make a great deal of, but it shows that there is an inconsistency in the Service which can bring hardship. It has done so in at least one case, and I have no doubt that it has done so in others. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter in this spirit.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Reeves: It is not my object to eat into the time of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to support my hon. Friend. He said that the Parliamentary Secretary had not had time to investigate the situation thoroughly, but I would point out that the Parliamentary Secretary must be fully apprised of the situation. Many of us have been informing him and the Home Secretary of the situation which is developing and which, if it develops much further, will become an absolute scandal.
  During the Third Reading debate on the Cremation Act, 1952, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made a very significant statement. He said:
  "In the course of the Committee stage, I said it was certainly the desire of the Government the fees which were to be prescribed should be maximum fees. The question was raised in Committee, and I have checked on the point; and I can assure the House the fees will be maximum fees and that it will be open to a doctor to charge a lower fee in appropriate circumstances… I hope and believe that it will be possible to reach an agreement and that no regulation will be necessary, therefore because the agreement will be binding and satisfactory to everybody concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 848–9.]
  There was no agreement; there was an arrangement with the B.M.A. and it was quite a voluntary affair. The result is

  507
  that doctors are charging what they can get. Some of the charges now being made are extortionate. I have before me the report of the Annual Conference of the Cremation Society. During that Conference it was revealed that in many cases charges were excessive. I can give the Parliamentary Secretary details should he require them. In twenty-six cases in a certain area various doctors were charging three guineas, but 10 guineas were charged in another district. The whole of these fees are quoted in this document.
  The Home Office and the Ministry of Health should do something about this. It is high time we had another Departmental Committee to make investigations into the whole of the regulations governing cremation. Cremation is becoming acceptable in this country. In more than 28 per cent. of registered deaths the bodies are now cremated, and local authorities are establishing crematoria in various parts of the country. Many of them subsidise the loss of burial departments of local authorities. In view of that, an investigation is required. If we can persuade the Home Office and the Ministry of Health to institute an inquiry, I hope that the Cremation Society and the Federation of Cremation Authorities will be invited to serve on such a committee of investigation. My hon. Friend has revealed a very serious situation. I hope that his speech this evening will not have been in vain.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) for raising this matter, which is of some public interest, and for the manner in which he has raised it. I think I am right in saying that there are two points for me to answer. The first is a question of principle. Should whole-time National Health Service employees be allowed to make a charge for certificates of this character? The second point is, whether we agree with it or not, are the present charges too high and should they be regulated by Statute? I think it would be right if I concentrated my reply on those two questions.
  Whole-time hospital doctors, as the hon. Member well knows, are debarred from private practice. They may not
  508
  make any charge for work within the scope of hospital and specialist services under Part II of the National Health Service Act, 1946.
  This principle was agreed between the Health Department and the profession in 1949, and it was incorporated in the terms and conditions of service under which hospital doctors are employed. Section 14 of these terms and conditions of service, however, specifically recognises that hospital doctors can perform a number of tasks not strictly within the scope of the hospital and specialist service. By way of example, I will quote medical examinations for purposes of insurance, medical examinations for prospective employers, medical examinations required by prospective emigrants and the issue of reports and certificates of various kinds.
  It might interest the hon. Member to have a copy of these terms and conditions of service, which I will gladly send him, because in the matters which we are discussing we are bound, to a great extent, by what is laid down in them. He will find listed therein certificates and reports for which no charge can be made, and I am sure that this will rejoice him because that is what he feels ought to be the general situation. He will also find listed certificates and reports of the kind which are considered to be outside the scope of the hospital service and for which charges at present may be made.
  We ought to consider what is the dividing line between these two sets of cases. Broadly speaking, it is that a certificate or a report arising from examinations undertaken in the care of the patient or on a reference of the patient from another doctor is considered to be part of the hospital service work and no charge may be made for any certificate arising from it. On the other hand, a certificate or report which is not connected with the health of the patient and not on the reference of the patient from another doctor is considered to be outside this scope and a fee may be charged.
  In cremation, two certificates are required. The first is from the doctor who has attended the patient in hospital and has a knowledge of the case and of the cause of death, and that is free. A charge can be made for the second, which requires a separate examination,

  509
  but not an examination in the course of treatment.
  I thought that perhaps the hon. Member might take the line that as this second certificate is required and as, in his view, it should not be provided as a paid item by somebody in the full-time service of the National Health Service, then somebody in the part-time service might more appropriately supply it, but the hon. Member indicates his dissent to that and I will not pursue that theme beyond saying that it would be impracticable to require a part-time medical practitioner in the hospital service to sign that kind of document. Such a man might not be found when he was wanted.
  Mr. D. Howell: The hon. Member is entitled to reply to any conceivable permutation of what I said, but in fact I did not say that, despite what is in the hon. Member's brief.
  Mr. Thompson: Perhaps I may say that my advisers probably have some experience of dealing with the hon. Gentleman's requirements, and, quite properly, they regard the scope of his remarks as being quite wide on almost every possible occasion.
  Any question of changing these terms and conditions in order to alter the situation, which, quite clearly, is what the hon. Gentleman wants, is a matter for discussion by the Medical Whitley Council, in pursuance of an undertaking given to the medical profession in 1949, when we said that we would not seek to make any changes in these conditions without first discussing the matter with the appropriate body.
  The hon. Gentleman, having made his case, may reasonably ask what we propose to do about all this, and I have just two things to say which, I hope, he will find helpful. The first is that, as he well
  510
  knows, the Royal Commission on the Remuneration of Doctors and Dentists is now sitting. I can tell him that my Department has drawn the attention of the Commission to the fact that whole-time as well as part-time consultants in the hospital service may receive payment for services outside the scope of the hospital and specialist service under the 1946 Act. In other words, the situation to which he has referred has been made known to the Royal Commission, which is looking at the remuneration of hospital doctors in the broadest way.
  The second point is the size of the fees. Here, I do not think that I can be very helpful to the hon. Member because, quite frankly, as these fees are outside the National Health Service my right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction over them. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has power to regulate the fees that may be charged for medical certificates required under the Cremation Act, although, so far, it is true that he has not found it necessary to exercise his powers. It is also perfectly true that the British Medical Association has recommended a fee of two guineas, plus mileage allowances, as an average that would be appropriate up and down the country.
  The best that I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what has been said in this debate, including the observations of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves). I have no doubt at all that my right hon. Friend will give the most careful consideration to this, and I think that that is probably about as far as I can go.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Dumbarton
  Dumbarton
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  Norwich
  Norwich
  Earnings and Cost of Living
  Earnings and Cost of Living
BRITISH ARMY
  N.A.A.F.I. (Clubs)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Clubs)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Long-Service Pension (Retired Personnel)
  Long-Service Pension (Retired Personnel)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Molesey Exchange
  Molesey Exchange
  Private Subscribers (Withdrawals and Applications)
  Private Subscribers (Withdrawals and Applications)
POST OFFICE
  Sorters
  Sorters
ROADS
  Pedestrian Crossings (Traffic Signals)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Traffic Signals)
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Junction, Gateshead ("Halt" Signs)
  Junction, Gateshead ("Halt" Signs)
  Improvements, Caldecote and Grendon
  Improvements, Caldecote and Grendon
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
  Highways Enactments (Draft Bill and Committee)
  Highways Enactments (Draft Bill and Committee)
CIVIL AVIATION
  London Airport (Landings)
  London Airport (Landings)
  Air Transport
  Air Transport
  Independent Airlines
  Independent Airlines
  Elizabethan Aircraft (Inspection)
  Elizabethan Aircraft (Inspection)
  Aircraft Accident, Munich
  Aircraft Accident, Munich
TRANSPORT
  C Licensed Vehicles
  C Licensed Vehicles
  Speed Limit (Pick-up Vehicles)
  Speed Limit (Pick-up Vehicles)
RAILWAYS
  New Line, Ince
  New Line, Ince
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Bristol Aeroplane Factory (Engine Contract)
  Bristol Aeroplane Factory (Engine Contract)
  Princess Flying Boats
  Princess Flying Boats
HOME DEPARTMENTN
  Northern Ireland (Workers)
  Northern Ireland (Workers)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Water Grants
  Farm Water Grants
EDUCATION
  School Meals
  School Meals
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty (Works of Art)
  Estate Duty (Works of Art)
  Supplementary Estimates
  Supplementary Estimates
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Nuclear and Allied Radiations
  Nuclear and Allied Radiations
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Doctors (Visits)
  Doctors (Visits)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Employment, West Fife
  Employment, West Fife
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE STAINES BY-PASS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: 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 when work will start on the Staines By-pass; and when it is estimated the road will be open to traffic.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation hopes to make a statement shortly about the timetable for the work on the Staines by-pass.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, in view of the fact that it is about twenty years since the first Order was made for the Staines by-pass, I cannot but express disappointment that the Minister cannot make a statement to-day. But perhaps I can ask Her Majesty's Government if they can give me any information whether it would be possible to start building the bridge prior to the building of the road, because this seems a vital link in the by-pass.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, I understand that the bridge is likely to be commenced before the road.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he expects that he will be able to give a definite answer on this matter? The road is blocked for seven to eight miles, and it takes one and a half hours to get through the town because of the Staines bridge. Cannot we be told something a little more helpful? Will it be soon that the Minister will say something?
  LORD MANCROFT: Shortly, my Lords.

SOUTHERN ELECTRICITY BOARD AND STAMPED RECEIPTS
LORD JESSEL: 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 whether they are aware that the Southern Electricity Board has printed on its accounts the following phrase: "In view of the provisions of the Cheques Act, 1957, no receipt will be issued"; and whether this practice has their approval.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I think the House would like to know the exact wording which is attached to their accounts by the Southern Electricity Board, which is not couched exactly in the words used in the noble Lord's Question. It runs follows:
"Section 3 of the Cheques Act, 1957, which came into force on 17th October, reads as follows:—
'An unendorsed cheque which appears to have been paid by the banker on whom it is drawn is evidence of the receipt by the payee of the sum payable by the cheque.'
Since, under this provision, paid cheques can now be regarded as evidence of receipt, the Board, in the interests of consumers generally, wish to take advantage of the opportunity to effect economies in administrative costs involved in the issue of receipts. They propose, therefore, to discontinue forthwith issuing receipts for all accounts paid by cheque. The Board will, however, be prepared in response to specific requests to issue receipts in special cases. They hope that consumers will be prepared to co-operate by not asking for receipts."
There is no objection to this wording. It does, of course, contain a strong suggestion that a customer should not ask for a separate receipt if he pays by cheque; but it is, I think, quite clear that the Southern Electricity Board are prepared to send receipts if requested and, indeed, they are obliged to do so by law under the provisions of Section 103 of the Stamp Act, 1891, if the sum paid is two pounds or more. I need perhaps hardly add that the nationalised industries do not enjoy any privileged position whatsoever in this matter.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I may say that the words on the Order Paper were

925
copied exactly from the bill I received from the Southern Electricity Board. Since then I have received a receipt from them, and the words which have just been read out have been stamped on a piece of paper since my original account was received. I have no quarrel with what is now on the paper, but I must say that my question, as framed, is correct.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, what is upsetting people is that recipients of these cheques have not the common courtesy to send an acknowledgement. It is not a question of a stamped receipt. Does not the noble Earl think that the Electricity Board—which, after all, is a large and responsible undertaking—might set a good example to other people by sending an acknowledgement on these occasions?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure the words of the noble Lord will be noted. He is perfectly aware, being a member of the Committee which investigated it, that: an acknowledgement would not be valid as a receipt.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am talking about courtesy—not legal obligation.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they, too, share the apparent confusion of thought from which the Board suffers, which confuses an acknowledgement of the payment of a sum with a settlement of a debt?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that that is very much the same question. I appreciate that it is a point of courtesy.

CONSTRUCTION IN ROYAL DOCKYARDS
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who regrets that he is unable to come to the House to-day owing to weather conditions, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the fifty-seven ships and
926
craft at present under construction to the order of the Admiralty are being built in Royal Naval dockyards.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, of the vessels shown in my Explanatory Statement on Navy Estimates as under construction, two are under construction in Her Majesty's Royal Dockyards. Last year one was completed in the Royal Dockyards, and in the next year work will start on a further five ships.

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION OF MARRIED WOMEN
2.43 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD LORD BLACKFORD rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, artificial insemination of a married woman by a donor other than her husband is tantamount to adultery, that it should be sufficient ground for divorce, and that all children so conceived are illegitimate. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper. There are at least three methods of artificial insemination. There is A.I.H., where the husband is the fertilising agent; there is C.A.I., known as confused artificial insemination, where the husband co-operates with the donor; and there is A.I.D., which is artificial insemination by an unknown donor. My remarks this afternoon will be confined to the last of these three methods. Your Lordships' House is rich in ecclesiastical dignitaries, legal luminaries, medical leaders and others who may have made a deep study of this subject, and it may well be thought that it would have been more suitable for this debate to be opened by one of them instead of myself. I am bound to say that since the impulsive moment about thirty days ago when I handed this Resolution to the learned Clerk, I have often thought the same thing. Still, it may not be a bad thing, perhaps, that an ordinary man in the street who a month ago knew nothing about artificial insemination should submit his opinions to your Lordships after a cursory study of one month, and then leave them to be torn in shreds by the experts afterwards.
I thought my first action should be to find out whether this matter had any Parliamentary history, and I was not at

927
all surprised to find that your Lordships' House has been in the van in this matter. As long ago as July 23, 1943, a debate was initiated by my noble and ever-enterprising friend, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in a speech of great brilliance,
"full of wise saws and modern instances."
many of them highly scientific. The subsequent half dozen speakers, including the Minister in charge, made scant reference to my noble friend's remarks, possibly because they did not rightly comprehend they confined themselves almost entirely to the question of the insemination of livestock. Then in 1945, the most reverend Primate set up a Commission of representative men of science and the law, and so on, and they reported in 1948 in a comprehensive document which is well worth reading by anybody interested in this subject. In 1949 a debate took place on two Motions moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and again by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and only three speakers followed the two movers—a total of five. This afternoon fifteen peers have put down their names to speak, which shows the measure of increased interest in the subject.
I thought my next job would be to try to find out something about the historical antecedents of A.I.D. and something about its numerical scale. This is not an easy matter because of the "cloak and dagger" secrecy in which the whole transaction is wrapped. No doubt there have been isolated, unknown instances of the operation down through the years, ever since the celebrated surgeon, John Hunter, produced a baby for the benefit of a linen's draper's wife by A.I.D. in the year 1790, but as a regular, recognised branch of medical practice this method is certainly hardly twenty years old in this country. In the year 1938 a small group of scientists and doctors was formed under the ægis of Sir William Gilliatt and Sir Charles Reid, two eminent gynecologists, to experiment in this field. I have interviewed a practitioner belonging to this group. The group practised for ten years and then broke up, because they came to the conclusion that their experiments were bad from the point of view of the child and because they said that so many of the couples who approached them were unsuited to become parents at all.
In answer to the question, how many babies had they produced during those ten years, the doctor was extremely sensitive to secrecy, and all I could achieve was that they had at any rate reached three figures. Of course, that could mean anything from 100 to 999, but for the sake of argument I have taken the figure of 200. Doctor Mary Barton, who is a leading exponent in this field, in a speech in 1947 said that she had started the practice in 1942 and up to that date had produced 300 A.I.D. babies. What has happened since 1947? The News Chronicle, in an article on February 4, estimated that there are now 10,000 A.I.D. children in this country. I wrote to the editor and asked him for his basis of information, and I received a most polite letter from the writer of the article saying how difficult it was to arrived at any accurate estimate, owing to the secrecy, but saying that he had consulted eight doctors and had come to the conclusion of the 10,000 figure.
At this point I ought to say that I have had the great advantage of a long interview with Dr. Mary Barton. She is a most co-operative individual, who answered all questions with frank directness, or with vigorous rebuttal if she did not agree with me (which was often the case); she is devoted to her practice and utterly convinced that she confers a great benefit and happiness on all her patients. At the end of our interview, which lasted an hour and a half and was conducted in the presence of two other doctors, I asked her to what extent, if at all, I might quote her. After a moment's consultation with the doctors as to whether to allow her name to be used might be unethical, she looked at me directly and said, "You can repeat as much as you like; I have nothing to hide,"—altogether a most engaging personality.
Now let us get back to the figures. Dr. Mary Barton will not admit to a higher figure than 5,000 A.I.D. children. She herself has produced about 900; she speaks of another practitioner who has produced about the same number, if not rather more. She mentioned also five other practitioners, and agreed with the News Chronicle man and with me that it is very difficult indeed to arrive at any accurate estimate. So I have chosen a figure mid-way between that of the News Chronicle and that of Dr. Barton; I take

929
a figure of 7,500 as being the number of A.I.D. babies hitherto produced, of whom only about 500 were produced prior to 1947. That is a significant thought, because if 7,000 have been produced since then, their average age can be only about 5 to 5½ years. That will be a point to remember when, later on, we come to consider the effect of A.I.D. upon the children.
May I now turn to the case which aroused my interest in this subject, the case of Maclennan v. Maclennan, recently heard in the Court of Session at Edinburgh before Lord Wheatley. In this case the husband petitioned for divorce from his wife, on the ground that she had left him and gone to America, and had produced a child which she alleged had been produced by artificial insemination in that country; and the appellant's counsel argued that that constituted adultery. Lord Wheatley has delivered an opinion on that argument. I obtained a copy of it which I have here—it runs to thirty-one pages of closely typed foolscap. The Scots are a very thorough race. Your Lordships would not wish me to read it all to you. At page 2 Lord Wheatley says that this case is
"unique in the annals of our law"—
by which no doubt he means the annals of the Scottish courts, but I think the statement is equally true of the English courts. Then, at page 7 he says:
"It is almost trite to say that a married woman who, without the consent of her husband has the seed of a male donor injected into her person by mechanical means in order to procreate a child who would not be a child of the marriage has committed a grave and heinous breach of the contract of marriage. The question for my determination, however, is not the moral culpability of such an act, but is whether such an act constitutes adultery in its legal meaning."
Then he goes on, for twenty-seven pages, to say why it does not constitute adultery in its legal meaning; and in support of that view he quotes a large number of cases and a large number of definitions of adultery by eminent bygone jurists, like Stair, Erskine and Sir George Mackenzie, who used such phrases as "violation of the marriage bed", "conjunctio corporum","carnal concupiscence" and other similar repugnant words. Of course, these jurists were quite right. But when they made their definitions they were not aware of this new scientific knowledge: they
930
were concerned only with the age-old conception of sexual intercourse; so it would be idle to try to argue that artificial insemination is adultery. That is why I say in my Resolution that it is "tantamount to adultery", and I will now proceed to try to enlist your Lordships' support for that argument.
To do so I will rely on only two points. The first is this: in normal sexual intercourse between a married couple, assuming that they want to beget a child, there are two ideas present, the love idea and the reproductive idea. At the crucial moment, of course, the reproductive idea is submerged in the love idea, but immediately afterwards the reproductive idea reasserts itself, and the wife may well turn to her husband and say. "Well, I hope we have started a baby this time", or words to that effect. If the wife surrenders herself to a lover, of course, only the love idea is present. She in a state of emotional rapture, wants to give him ecstasy to receive from him the same; and she positively prohibits the reproductive idea by the use of a contraceptive; and the last thing that the lovers wish to do is to produce an illegitimate child. But in artificial insemination by a donor the situation is quite different. There, there is no love idea present, only the reproductive idea; and the woman surrenders her reproductive organism to the seed of a total stranger with the cold-blooded, deliberate hope of begetting an illegitimate child. If she does that without her husband's consent has she not committed just as grave and heinous a breach of the contract of marriage as if she had given herself to an illicit lover? I believe that she has done worse, because she has foisted an illegitimate child on an unwilling husband, for him to bring up for the rest of its life, whereas in the first case no harm is done.
The second point that I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice is the condition known as fecundation ab extra. This is a very rare happening in normal sexual intercourse but one which is admitted both by medical science and the law. It was a crucial point in the case of Russell v. Russell and the late Lord Dunedin delivered himself of an opinion on that case when he said that if this condition occurs in an illicit intercourse then fecundation ab extra is, without doubt,

931
adultery. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, will not accept that, nor will so great an authority as the Lord President of the Divorce Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman—unless he has changed his mind since he spoke in 1949. On the other hand, I must say that the two eminent lawyers who drew up the legal section of the Archbishop's Report—Mr. Justice Vaisey and Mr. Henry Willink—do not agree. They take the opposite view, and those two learned gentlemen will be much fortified to know that I agree with them.
Of course, when Lord Dunedin was speaking in 1924 this new field of scientific knowledge had never been heard of, at least in this country. It was sixteen years before it began to be practised here and there is no question that when Lord Dunedin gave his dictum he was thinking of ordinary sexual intercourse, with the close juxtaposition of bodies, organs and so forth; but if he were here to-day l should like to ask him, as I would ask anybody else, if artificial insemination is not fecundation from outside, what is it? Those are the only two points that I bring forward in support of my argument that this behaviour is tantamount to adultery. I believe that if it is performed without the husband's consent the husband should be entitled to relief by divorce if he so wishes. I believe that the law ought to be amended to that effect, and I ask your Lordships' support for that part of my Resolution. Now we go on to the third phrase in the resolution which speaks of illegitimacy.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, just before the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, leaves that point, will he make clear what is his attitude on artificial insemination by a donor with the husband's consent? Does he want that to be considered adultery, or not?
LORD BLACKFORD: I am only arguing that the actual act is tantamount to adultery. If the husband has consented then of course he has connived in the act, and there is nothing more to be said—
A NOBLE LORD: Oh, yes, there is!
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I appreciate that there is, but I am only answering the point put by the noble Viscount.
932
There seems to be some confusion of thought about illegitimacy in this matter. I have had two or three letters, particularly from other practitioners, pointing out that a child born in wedlock is held to be legitimate in the eyes of the law until its legitimacy is challenged in a court. We all know that, of course; but surely it is equally true to say that the only legitimate child is the one who is the joint product of a husband and wife; and an A.I.D. child is not the joint product of a husband and wife and therefore basically is illegitimate. The fact that in the eyes of the world he may appear legitimate is due only to the fact that the husband and wife have conspired to conceal the truth about his birth and have committed the crime of perjury in putting down the husband as the father of the child when signing the birth certificate. Surely that is the correct view.
What makes husbands consent to artificial insemination in preference to adoption? There is one chief reason which, I suppose, applies in some 80 per cent. of cases: it is the wish to satisfy the cravings of the childless wife for maternity. That is a reason with which we can all sympathise. I suppose we men cannot possibly appreciate the feelings of a woman who has not produced a child from her own body and the cravings she may have to do so. We are not in a position to pass an opinion on that subject because as the male sex we cannot understand it. But it is a reason with which we can very deeply sympathise and it is a good reason. A second reason is the wish of both the husband and the wife to have a child which is at any rate 50 per cent. theirs and to have the interest of bringing up that child rather than a child which is adopted.
There is a third reason: the fear of the husband that unless he consents to a practice of this kind his wife may run away to another man. Doctor Mary Barton said that in her experience that was a very rare reason. Then there is a fourth reason, which is a bad one. It is to get a spurious heir to a title or the life tenancy of an entailed estate or a trust fund. That is obviously a bad reason because naturally one would thereby defraud the rightful heir. When I put that point to Doctor Barton she seemed rather surprised at it and said, "Surely people of that kind would never

933
apply for artificial insemination by a donor." She went on to say that her patients were mostly what she described as moderate, middle-class people, that she has some patients from the wage-earning classes and has even had one application from a couple who were on public assistance. But is there not the possibility that the moderate, middleclass person may unexpectedly become the life tenant of a trust fund? That idea cannot be entirely ruled out.
I have given your Lordships four reasons for my view, and no doubt noble Lords can think of others, but your Lordships will notice that there is one characteristic which is common to all four reasons: that they are all completely selfish reasons. They gratify the longings and desires of the husband and the wife. But they take no account of what effect their action may have upon the religious aspect; upon the community; upon the family unit, and, above all, upon the end product: the child. In the presence of so many distinguished divines, of course, I should not dream of touching upon the religious aspect of this question, but I should like to say a word or two about the effect upon the community and the family unit.
I suppose it is true to say that the strength and integrity of the community is dependent upon the strength and integrity of the family unit, by which I mean not just the childless couples, but all the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and so on. I think this country believes very strongly in the family unit, and some of us feel that there is a tendency for the family unit to weaken in these days, through the enormous increase in divorce; through the rush and hurry of modern life; through the laxity of parental discipline, and so on, which gives rise to juvenile delinquency, and insulting hooliganism at Glasgow University, and hysterical dancing, unhealthy plays and so forth. Is A.I.D. likely to increase the weakening of the family unit? Of course, Dr. Barton and her co-practitioners would say, "No; on the contrary, we help to strengthen the family unit because we give a child, or children, to couples who would otherwise be childless, and we inject into the family healthy blood from a virile donor which would not otherwise be there." And I am bound to agree that it is a little difficult to argue against that view in the presence
934
of the idealistic, highly selective, highly-trained practitioners with whom I have been in contact.
But there is one proviso about that thought, and that is the keeping of the secret. That is my most serious thought and doubt about this whole operation: will the secret be kept? Last Spring, my wife and I attended a tea party on Salisbury Plain, and there were three young girls there of about seventeen or eighteen years of age. The conversation turned to the subject of adoption, and suddenly the three young women, who up to that point, had been modestly listening to the wisdom of their elders, burst unanimously into song, with intense vehemence, to say how they would all have hated to think they were adopted children. I was very much struck by that attitude—but what would they have thought if at about that age they had been told they were A.I.D. children? I venture to think that the result would have been psychologically disastrous.
At this point, I would remind your Lordships that the average age of the 7,500 A.I.D. children I have mentioned is still only about five. It is a cardinal principle of adoption that one has to inculcate the adopted child with the truth, or, at any rate with the story that one is going to carry on through life with him, about his origin. One cannot possibly do that in the case of A.I.D. On the contrary, one is enjoined to keep the secret from him for the whole of his life. We all know how difficult it is to keep secrets; and we all know how precocious and inquisitive young people are. Boys of twelve or fourteen years of age—and girls, too, for that matter—know a tremendous lot in these days. They have access to newspapers and so on. Supposing your young boy, of, say, twelve to fourteen years of age, suddenly looks up from to-day's Daily Mail and says, "Look at this article on the middle page, Daddy. What does 'A.I.D.' mean?" What is your answer to that question? It is no use in these days telling him to turn over the page and to look at the football news. You have to give some answer to the question, or he will go and find it out from somebody else.
I remember, in the case of my own boys, when they came home for the holidays at about the age of twelve or

935
fourteen, what a great deal they knew, and how it was quite obvious that their conversation at school was directed to all sorts of social questions, and how they quizzed and criticised other boys' parents and so forth. I find it extremely difficult, in face of that sort of knowledge, to believe that it will be possible to keep these secrets inviolate. I went and saw a psychiatrist about this matter, a well-known man in the Harley Street district. He said that most children pass through a phase in their youth of doubt about their parenthood. I am not conscious myself of ever having passed through any such period, but then imagination is not my long suit. I asked my son whether he had ever passed through such a period. He said "No; I have always given you the benefit of the doubt!"
Let us have a look at the question from another point of view. Not all marriages turn out to be happy—goodness knows! we are aware of that. Dr. Barton, will tell you of the parents who bring children to see her year after year, and of parents who send her photographs at Christmas time. Those, of course, are all the successful cases and the happy ones. I wonder what percentage (I forgot to ask her about it) of her children or parents act in that way. Let us put it at 10 per cent. What happens to the other 90 per cent., of whom it is not possible to keep a record in these days? They are not all happy, by any means. And what is going to happen in the case of unhappiness? For instance the mother may lavish her affection on the child to the neglect of the husband—that is quite a common occurrence in an ordinary marriage. The husband may one day say, in a fit of fury, something to the effect, "Thank God, you are no child of mine"—and the secret is out. A man may be impotent with one woman and potent with another. A man may run off and the wife may have to divorce him; and the A.I.D. child would be left in the custody of the wife. Then the wife, in her turn, may marry another man and have a child in the normal way by him. I think she would certainly tell her second husband the truth about the first; and I wonder whether that secret would be kept.
Two of the practitioners I interviewed admitted that they both had cases
936
in which normal children were born to couples who had already had A.I.D. children. What is the position of the A.I.D. child there? Is he going to receive the same love and affection as the normal child? I could go on thinking up instances of this sort ad nauseam, but the long and short of it is that I do not believe that in a large number of cases the secret will be kept. I think that the effect of a child getting to know, at the age of fourteen, fifteen or sixteen, that he is what is known as a "test-tube baby" would be disastrous psychologically. Therefore, I come down definitely against A.I.D., and I think that it ought to be discouraged. I use the verb "discouraged" advisedly, because I agree with Dr. Soper, the Methodist leader, when he says that A.I.D. has come to stay and that we must adjust ourselves to its difficulties and perplexities. I may say that in all the conversations I have had with various people during the last month, besides the three practitioners and one other person I have not met a single soul who is in favour of A.I.D. I am authorised by the current President of the Royal College of Obstetricians, Professor Clay, whom I interviewed, to say that he is against A.I.D. and that, in his opinion, most gynæcologists are also.
Having reached this conclusion, I should be rather feeble if I did not offer some suggested solution. As a matter of fact, when I first handed the Resolution to the learned Clerk, I had a solution tacked on to the end, but on the next day I recanted it, for two reasons: first, because on reflection I thought that it was the wrong solution; and secondly, because I knew that any suggested solution was bound to be highly controversial and I did not want to introduce a note of controversy into the Resolution. I have not the least idea what line the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will take, but I hope that the House will support me in this Resolution, which seems to me a necessary first step to remedy a lack of justice.
When we come to try to suggest any solution to the whole practice it then becomes a highly controversial matter. However, I will make four suggestions to your Lordships. The first is to do nothing, as we have done hitherto. In

937
America, where they started this practice about fifteen years before we did, there are said to be 100,000 A.I.D. babies; and as the population of the United States is 150 million that means one A.I.D. baby to 1,500 normal babies. Here there are said to be 7,500, and if the population is 50 million, that works out at one A.I.D. baby to 6,666·6 normal babies. Your Lordships may well think that that proportion is so small as not to be worth bothering about.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord not putting a total figure against the yearly figure and getting this result? If I understand him, that is what he is doing.
LORD BLACKFORD: No, my Lords, I do not think so; still, my arithmetic is not good. All I am seeking to show is that the proportion in this country is much smaller than it is in the United States. The second solution is to set up a Royal Commission to make a thorough investigation into the whole matter. That entails a delay of three years before any legislation can be forthcoming, and during that time I should expect to see A.I.D. increased, on the principle of getting the gallop over while the going is still good. I do not think that a Royal Commission would achieve very much more than the comprehensive Report produced by the Commission of the most reverend Primates. The third solution is to make A.I.D. a criminal offence. That is what the Church wants to do. I am dead against the Church on this.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, has the Church said that?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has any justification for that statement. The Church has never pronounced on the matter.
LORD BLACKFORD: Of course, my Lords, I must take the most reverend Primate's reproof to heart; but that is what he said in his speech of 1949.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord two things. First, I am not the Church. Secondly, that was nine years ago and he has no means of knowing what I might think now.
LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be
938
allowed to say that a Royal Commission has investigated recently the question of whether A.I.D. without the consent of the husband should, or should not, be a ground for divorce. That Royal Commission, without expressing any view about whether it was adultery or not, because that was not within their field, said that in their opinion it should be a ground for divorce. That Commission was the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
LORD BLACKFORD: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much, but just now I am busy about the Church. If I am wrong, then, of course, I withdraw and apologise, but I thought that the whole tenor of the speeches and attitude of the right reverend Prelates and the most reverend Primate was along the line that they wished to make A.I.D. a criminal offence; and if, in their speeches to-day, they do not show they are completely opposed to A.I.D., I shall be very surprised. But let me assume that they still want to make it a criminal offence. If they do take that attitude, I am against it. I am against it for several reasons, but I will give only one: that is, that adultery is not a criminal offence and I am sure that Parliament will never make it a criminal offence. Adultery is a sin but not a crime. I argue that A.I.D. is "tantamount to adultery"; therefore it cannot be worse; and I say it is the same thing. It must not be made a criminal offence. Nor do I think that A.I.D. is a sin if it is performed with the consent of the husband. All I think is that it is an undesirable practice.
I come to the fourth solution, which is some form of registration. This idea was touched upon by the President of the Divorce Division when he spoke in 1949, but perhaps he has changed his mind, like the most reverend Primate. He only touched on it rather indefinitely, but there seems to me to be something to go for along this line. I believe that the most discouraging thing of all would be to insist upon the registration of donors. I think, for one thing, that donors would be very unwilling to register. There is one disadvantage. If they had to be registered they would be known, or it is highly likely that they would be known, to the woman; and practitioners say that if the woman knew who the donor was,

939
there would be a great danger of her running away to him.
One could insist upon registration by parents. I think that that would be very difficult to do, because it is asking a lot of a man to register his own impotency. I think that a system of licensing a very limited number of practitioners who may carry out this operation would decrease the increase which is now going on. But, after all, it is not for me to argue all the afternoon on this matter. I am here only to initiate a debate, and I want to hear what the experts will have to say later. I see that I have already detained your Lordships for no less than forty minutes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Forty-five minutes.
LORD BLACKFORD: My noble friend says forty-five minutes. Well, all I can say in mitigation is that it is about twice as long as I have ever spoken before. I thank your Lordships for your forbearance, and now, with you. I look forward to hearing the experts. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, artificial insemination of a married woman by a donor other than her husband is tantamount to adultery, that it should be sufficient ground for divorce, and that all children so conceived are illegimate.—(Lord Blackford.)
3.31 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I think it is true that since the debate on this subject which took place in your Lordships' House in 1949 the volume of accessible testimony about the practice of A.I.D. has vastly increased. There has been a good deal of responsible testimony from parents about their approach to it when they have used it; from doctors about their attitude towards the type of people who approach them and towards the conditions which, in their view, justify the use of A.I.D.; and from families in which A.I.D. has been used. As one who holds that A.I.D. is thoroughly wrong. I want to say that, from the volume of available testimony, it seems to me that we are bound to acknowledge that high motives of doing good to unhappy people are often very conspicuous, and that amongst doctors who practice A.I.D. ethical distinctions are shown to be clearly present
940
as to when it is right and when it is not right for A.I.D. to be given. I say this because I am anxious to give the fairest possible consideration to the plea that A.I.D. might be controlled by ethical standards and made to start a sort of new moral way of doing things.
We have had doctors, writing with a great sense of responsibility, setting out what they regard as the right and only right conditions for the giving of A.I.D. Doctors have said, in effect: "I do not do this for any married person who asks for it. I weigh the circumstances, according to clear principles, so that the thing is, and can be, ethically controlled." What seems to me to undermine this assurance is that when a fair-sized volume of testimony is looked at there is a vast discrepancy as to what the so-called principles of this ethical control are. To-day the Manchester Guardian, in a leading article, defines carefully grounds on which A.I.D. is set out as being right.
"It is worth attempting",
says the writer.
"for the sake of the few instances—and they are few—in which the use of A.I.D. can be a real blessing to family life. Those instances come when it is psychologically improbable that the husband can father a natural child, when both husband and wife have studied A.I.D. and its implications, when both strongly want a child by this means, when their marriage is stable and secure, and when both hold the same religious beliefs. Each of these conditions must be satisfied."
That is the plea that is made.
Behind that plea there was an interesting and responsible article in the same newspaper on February 8, entitled: "A.I.D., a physician's view." The writer was emphatic that a doctor should agree to give A.I.D. only when there was some organic defect in the husband and when the sexual life of husband and wife was harmonious and happy. In his view, it would be wrong, and dangerous for the potential child, if A.I.D. were given where husband and wife were strained or unhappy, or incompatible in their physical union. He goes so far as to say this:
"… to perform A.I.D. in order to hold together a marriage which is already strained is in my view unpardonable. A child obtained by A.I.D. is in my view the crowning happiness of a marriage which would go on reasonably well in any case."
There is here some sort of a claim for carefully defined ethical conditions

941
about the giving of A.I.D., but how far is there agreement about this? The view of this particular physician is but one of a veritable forest of medical and psychological opinions which have come across amongst the bulk of testimony. This same article refers us to a massive work by Dr. Schellen, Artificial Insemination in the Human—and your Lordships will note that, whereas we used to call them men, women and children, we move into a world where "the human" has become the phrase. In this massive work there is a review of information about the theory and practice of A.I.D. in America, in England and in other countries, disclosing the variety of conditions which are deemed, now this, now that, to make a sound plea for A.I.D. While the writer in the Manchester Guardian vetoes A.I.D. where a marriage is strained, I find amongst this body of testimony other writers commending it as a way of salvation for a marriage under strain. I am trying to be fair to those who have pleaded for A.I.D. on the ground of careful discrimination in the practice. But it is the tangle of inconsistencies which makes it impossible to believe that, with the spread of A.I.D. in the country, any one agreed theory as to what is the right occasion for the granting of it can come about or can control the practice.
But, my Lords, I do not believe that there ever can be a right occasion for the granting of A.I.D. Take the point of deception. When the matter is discussed, phrases are used like "the happiness of a family"; and it is often found that the phrase is used in sole regard to a husband and wife and a child. But has not a brother a right to know whether his brother's supposed children really are his brother's children? Has not a grandfather a right to know whether those who are described as his grandchildren are indeed his grandchildren? It was this point which was criticised with much force in the Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee of 1948. The Report said:
"It would change the whole basis of society if a man could not safely regard his brother's child as of the proper common stock of his and his brother's parents, and could not feel assured that it was not the product of an anonymous 'donor' We can imagine few suspicions more fatal to family confidence than that of infusion of suppositious offspring into a family."
942
I now turn to what the Motion before your Lordships' House sets out to do. Let me say, first, that, for myself, I do not think it would be wise to legislate to make A.I.D. a criminal offence. If other right reverend Prelates or the most reverend Primate said something different it would not disturb me. There might be a hundred views amongst Churchmen as to by what legislation it is best to try to promote what is right to withstand a particular evil. That on which Churchmen are agreed, and many other people are not, is a matter of vastly more importance. What I am convinced about is the need to eliminate any shred of an idea that A.I.D. can somehow be made to lie within the marriage bond. The Motion of the noble Lord uses the word "tantamount". I should guess that noble and learned Lords will not recognise "tantamount" as a legal term, and I should not myself recognise it as a theological term. Perhaps "tantamount" is no more than a rhetorical term.
I do not want necessarily to plead that A.I.D. be defined as adultery, or that morally it has all the features of adultery, for obviously it has not. What I think is essential is that if there are divorce laws, A.I.D. should be a ground for divorce as adultery is a ground for divorce. A logical corollary seems to me to follow from this, and I mention it in passing: that if the law is to be framed so as to treat A.I.D. as akin to adultery, it ought also to be framed so as to treat A.I.H. as akin to marital intercourse in its own legal context. So far they are parallel. But only so far; for while A.I.H. is an attempt by married persons to fulfil one of the ends of marriage, A.I.D. is the intrusion of a third party in a way which is incompatible with the pledges of marriage.
I am sure it is the earnest hope of many of your Lordships that we shall have to-day from Her Majesty's Government the promise of legislation. We should gladly not have had legislation. We should gladly have avoided discussion of this unpleasant matter altogether. I think it was the hope of many that it might turn out that judicial decisions would of themselves provide something of a solution. If they have not, then it seems that the alteration of the law is requisite. The matter seems to me to be urgent because people—doctors, parents and young persons—want to be

943
given the answer to a number of questions about which they are at present in doubt.
But there is another reason for the urgency of this matter, related, I think, to the trend of public opinion. There is an idea abroad—I do not say it is widespread, but certainly it is abroad—that A.I.D. can, so to speak, be brought within the terms of a decent fulfilment of the contract of husband and wife. It is this that needs to be resisted. If that idea were ever to grow in this country it would have its effect upon the interpretation which a man and a woman put upon the marriage contract when they make it. It would mean that a man and a woman could be making their promises at their marriage with this sort of interpretation put upon them. I will quote the words of the marriage ceremony most familiar to me, but the point can equally be made by quoting any lawful marriage ceremony, religious or civil. The bridegroom has this question put to him:
"Will you love her, comfort her, honour and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep you only unto her, so long as you both shall live?"
Is the man to think this interpretation possible?: "I will—if need be, with the help of the seed of another man." That is a serious issue. The intrusion of the seed of a third is as contrary to the proper meaning of the marriage bond as is the intrusion of the illicit affection for body of a third. It is for the trend of public opinion that this fact urgently needs to have recognition in our law of divorce. Towards that public opinion and public sentiment your Lordships' debate to-day is able to give a lead. That is why I believe it would be lamentable for the country if we drift on and delay in getting the legislation for which the noble Lord's Motion calls.
3.47 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, this subject is of profound social significance, but I would consider its legal significance because it is more my line of country. Some doctors who carry out this practice by a donor to a married woman think that it is lawful for them to do so: that there is no law against it, and there is nothing wrong in it. If it is done openly and without concealment, truly there is
944
no law against it. But if it is accompanied by secrecy and deception, I would say it is unlawful. It is a criminal conspiracy, as I will show.
First of all, let me make it clear that the child so produced is illegitimate. In order to prove a child to be legitimate you must show that it is the child, the offspring, of both husband and wife, a married couple in lawful wedlock. You must not only identify the mother; you must identify the husband as being the father. One of our most experienced judges laid that down only three years ago. If you cannot identify the husband to be the father, but someone else, then that child is illegitimate, and this has been the law of the country for centuries. So much so, that the only question in legitimacy cases is what evidence is admissible. Is it admissible for the husband himself to prove non-access? It was held that he could not, but that by his friends and relatives he could. Now, by Statute, a husband can prove non-access himself; and once it is established in the court that the husband is not the father, then the child is illegitimate. Therefore, with this artificial insemination by a donor, if you ask: "Who is the father?" and the answer is: "It is not the husband, but somebody else," the child is illegitimate. Let there be no doubt on that.
From that a whole train of consequences follow in law. Secrecy and deception are the badge of conspiracy. If the wife and the doctor agree together to keep secret the fact that a child is illegitimate and falsely to pretend that it is legitimate, they are guilty of a wicked conspiracy. If they do it without the knowledge or consent of the husband it is a gross fraud on the husband. He is made to maintain a child which is not his and which he is not liable by law to maintain. For centuries, in the old books you will find that when a woman, the mother of a bastard, agrees with others by fraud or concealment to saddle an innocent person with the maintenance of that child, it has been held to be an indictable conspiracy. Lord Holt so ruled in 1705, Mr. Justice Buller, a very learned Judge, in 1788, and Lord Denman in 1834. It is, I believe, if done without the knowledge or consent of the husband, a fraud and an unlawful, indictable conspiracy.

945
But even if the husband does know and consent, so that it is no longer a fraud on him, is it not a potential fraud on others? Suppose a grandfather leaves his money, as many do, to his son and his son's children; or suppose there is a trust for the couple and their children. As the law stands this child, being illegitimate, should not receive it; but by the fraud and deception, if successful, this illegitimate child will receive it. Or suppose a simple case. If the husband dies without a will, by law his property is to go to his wife for life and after that to his children. This child is not in law entitled to it; it is not the husband's child. But by this fraud and deception it would receive it.
What is the effect of this contingent fraud, this potential fraud? Again if you look into the old books you will find that the fraudulent foisting off of a child as legitimate when it is not, has been held to be a conspiracy, because, as Lord Hardwicke, the Lord Chancellor, said, it impedes the due course of descent; and Lord Chief Justice Wiles at the same time so ruled. So I say that this action, when done in fraud or potential fraud, is an unlawful conspiracy by both the wife and the doctor with her. And I have not mentioned the Register of Births. The conspiracy goes back long before that. The conspiracy is when the plot is hatched. But when it comes to a false statement in the Register of Births, there is not only the overt act of the conspiracy; there is an additional crime, the crime of perjury, making a false statement in a Register of Births, when it is said that the husband is the father when he is not.
So much for the conspiracy between the doctor and the wife. What about the agreement between the doctor and the donor? What have they agreed? The whole essence of it is that it should be secret, not told to anyone, not told to the mother or the child, told to no one. And for what purpose? So that the donor should evade the responsibilities which by law attach to him. The natural and probable consequence of this is that he gets exemption from maintenance or responsibility for his own child. If he could be defected and found he could be made liable to maintain this child, not by the wife herself, because she is a married woman, but through the National Assist-
946
ance Board. So I say that there is a double unlawful conspiracy, by the doctor with the wife and by the doctor with the donor. And not only is that so in the criminal law; it also gives rise to damages by any person injured by it.
Now, my Lords, let me turn to the question of adultery. A judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, in 1921, applying our English law, ruled that it was adultery. The Court of Session in Scotland, which in many ways in its divorce law goes on divergent lines from ours in England, has ruled that it is not adultery. In view of this divergence, may I suggest a rather different line of approach: not whether artificial insemination is adultery but whether it is any defence to a charge of adultery. The way in which any petitioner proves adultery when there is an illegitimate child is that he proves the birth of the child to the wife and then proves that he is not the father. He has to prove no more; that is sufficient proof.
Let me give your Lordships as an illustration a case which arose a few years ago. A soldier went off to do his military service in Germany; 360 days later—nearly twelve months—his wife gave birth to a child. He brought a petition on the ground of adultery relying on that one fact: the birth of an illegitimate child. The wife swore she had not committed adultery. There was no evidence of any association with any other man, and much evidence of her good character. The judge at the trial refused to find adultery, but this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, inferred beyond reasonable doubt from that one fact that she had been guilty of adultery and a divorce was granted. No one knows whether the child was produced by artificial insemination or how it was produced, but on those two facts, the birth of the illegitimate child and the husband not the father, adultery was inferred.
If I may trouble your Lordships with an indelicate case, the Russell case, I would point out that it shows the same thing. There was a case where the wife was not penetrated by any man; she was fertilised from outside. Some man must have lain sufficiently close to her to emit seed which found its way into her and gave rise to the child. On that

947
a divorce petition was brought. The husband gave evidence that it was not he. The jury accepted his evidence and found there was adultery with a man unknown. This House reversed that decision solely on this ground: that as the law then stood the evidence of the husband was inadmissible. Since that decision Parliament has enacted that the evidence of a husband like that is admissible, and if the case were reconsidered to-day there would be no ground for quashing the jury's verdict. Therefore in that case, although there was fecundation ab extra (fertilisation from outside), there would have been a finding of adultery. Is that not the right way in any of these cases? The husband can prove his case by showing that a child has been born and that he is not the father of it.
Then, I ask myself, is it a defence for a wife to say, "I was voluntarily fertilised by artificial insemination in fraud of you"? I should be surprised if the law held that to be a defence to such evidence of adultery. I know, of course, that the burden is on a woman to prove that she is raped. That is a defence because she has not voluntarily surrendered her reproductive organs to another man. But if she has voluntarily surrendered her reproductive organs to the seed of another man, not only is it no defence, but I, for myself—I am sure I should be following Lord Dunedin's opinion—would say, not only is it tantamount to adultery, it is adultery.
So much for the legal considerations. Just one word on its social significance. It seems to me that if this practice became widespread it would strike at the stability and security of family life; it would strike at the roots of our civilisation. I would say to the doctors "Where by your science are you leading us? Seek to relieve suffering by all means, but do not do it by secrecy and deception.
'For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'"
4.3 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, not only for initiating the debate on this curious subject but for the most interesting speech which he has made to us this afternoon. The noble Lord is, if I may say so, not only one of
948
the most attractive but one of the most virile speakers in the House, and I am not at all surprised to hear that in a certain matter he was given the benefit of the doubt. We among your Lordships would, I know, always give it to him.
We have listened, since he spoke, to two weighty pronouncements. For my part, I do not rise this afternoon to give what might be called the point of view of the Opposition. My noble acting Leader, Lord Silkin, in the regretted absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, wishes me to make it plain that, so far as the Labour Party is concerned, there is no Party line with regard to A.I.D.; and I should imagine that that applies also in regard to other Parties. We can speak or vote on it entirely as the spirit moves us. I am most grateful to my noble colleagues for what I might call a plenary indulgence in being allowed to offer views this afternoon which may inflict on some of them a short spell in purgatory, though I hope that will not be the case. I have no reason to think, of course, that it will be the case, in particular, with my noble friend Lord Stansgate—I am not associating my noble friend in the remotest degree with A.I.D.
I felt it right this afternoon, if the House will allow me, to offer some arguments from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, more particularly in view of the fact that leaders of the Church of England have been, and will be, making very weighty pronouncements. When I say that, I have the advantage, or disadvantage, of committing no one but myself, although I shall be surprised if my remarks are not regarded as fairly acceptable to Roman Catholics. Certainly this is not a matter upon which the Roman Catholic Church has been backward in making its position plain. In a broad sense artificial insemination was rejected sixty years ago, in 1897, by a Papal pronouncement by Pope Leo XIII following the interest which was aroused in A.I.H., where the husband was concerned, by the work of a well-known Roman Catholic gynæcologist, Mantegazza.
Anyone who is interested in studying Roman Catholic teaching on this subject might do worse than consult three documents, in particular. There was an Address which was delivered to Catholic

949
doctors by the late Cardinal Griffin on April 8, 1945; there was an Address by the Pope (from which I will quote in a moment) to physicians on September 29, 1949; and recently there was a sermon preached by the present Archbishop of Westminster at Wembley on Tuesday, January 28 of this year. As the most reverend Primate has told us, there has recently been published a most impressive survey of the whole subject by a Dutch doctor, Dr. Schellen, and in it the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, and of all the Churches and many of the main bodies concerned, is treated in a most comprehensive way. I should also mention a pamphlet called Artificial Human Fecundation, written by a Professor Davis, which appeared some years ago, and an article by Dr. Letitia Fairfield which appeared in the Tablet of January 25 of this year.
To-day we are concerned with two aspects of this most important question. There is the moral aspect and how far artificial insemination should be approved, tolerated or condemned. Then there is what might be called the public policy question of what steps should be taken to give effect to this moral verdict. On the question of practical policy there is plenty of room for argument among Catholics, as among others, in this country and abroad. I will return to that before I close. But on the moral issue the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church can be stated briefly without any distortion.
I realise that to-day the House is concerned with A.I.D.—that is the case where, as we have been told more than once to-day, artificial fecundation is brought about by a donor who is not the husband. Concerning the Roman Catholic attitude to A.I.H., I will confine myself to a few words which are taken from the Address of the Pope, which I mentioned just now and which was delivered in 1949. The Pope said:
"One does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined only to facilitate the natural act or to secure the accomplishment of the end of the natural act regularly performed."
But he made it plain that there can never be a legitimate justification for obtaining the sperm by actions that run counter to nature, such as masturbation. In the words of Dr. Fairfield, who I think puts the matter clearly,
950
"… this leaves the practice of A.I.H. for Catholics licit in principle but greatly restricted in practice."
As a matter of fact, as I think most of us are aware, the total number of people affected is in any case very small. But the procedure which is regarded as morally blameless for Roman Catholics is better perhaps described as assisted rather than artificial insemination, in view of the associations that A.I.H. has acquired in this country.
However, our topic this afternoon is A.I.D. where an outside donor is concerned. This, in the words of the Pope, is unequivocably condemned, whether it occurs outside of marriage or whether it occurs within a marriage, and irrespective of the husband's attitude. So I find myself. I am glad to think, entirely in line with the most reverend Primate who has addressed us. The House will perhaps forgive me (because there is no point in my paraphrasing words when the words are available), if I quote a few sentences from the short statement made by the Pope on September 29, 1949. He said:
"Artificial insemination outside of marriage must be condemned as essentially and strictly immoral. Natural law and Divine positive law establish, in fact, that the procreation of a new life cannot but be the fruit of marriage. Only marriage safeguards the dignity of the spouses, principally of the wife in the present case, and their personal good. It alone provides for the well-being and education of the child."
The Pope went on to make plain that there can be no divergence of opinion among Catholics on the condemnation of artificial insemination outside of marriage and that the child conceived in those conditions would be by that very act illegitimate; but he also said that
"artificial insemination produced in a marriage by the active element of a third party is equally immoral and consequently to be condemned without appeal. For only spouses have a reciprocal right upon each other's body to generate a new life—an exclusive inalienable right which cannot be ceded and so it must be, even out of consideration for the child."
I feel that there is no discrepancy there, between what I have read to the House and what the most reverend Primate told us earlier on behalf of the Church of England.
So far as I can make out from fairly careful study, basing myself on this recent work of Dr. Schellen, the Christian Churches of the world are united in the I strength of their condemnation of

951
artificial insemination. The words of the right reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who is to speak later this evening, have been quoted very often on this subject. I believe one may say that they have been quoted all over the world, and with great approval among my own co-religionists. Your Lordships will remember that in the last debate on this subject the most reverend Primate said, that since A.I.D. involves criminal perjury, since it is based on a gross deception, since it imperils the moral safety of the child, family and community, since it is contrary to Christian principles and teaching, it should not be permitted to spread or continue. Those words were used some time ago, but I hope and believe that he will reaffirm them this afternoon—I am glad to see him nodding assent.
The American Episcopal Church is described in Dr. Schellen's book as rejecting A.I.D. emphatically and stigmatising it as adultery. In Sweden, where I am sorry to say the practice appears to have made considerable strides, theologians of the Lutheran Established Church have denounced it violently. They say:
"There is no room in a marriage for a third person. And any process which breaks this exclusive union between marriage partners must go by the name of adultery."
In Paris the Professor of Divinity states with emphasis that Protestantism utterly rejects A.I.D. as conflicting with the principle of monogamous marriage; and another interpreter of the French Protestant point of view sees in A.I.D. one of the strongest manifestations of man's revolt against God's creative power and defiance of the Scriptures which hold to him the close association of appropriation with the mystery of the one-ness of man and wife. A representative of the Protestant Committee in the Netherlands concluded that A.I.D. violates the validity of conjugal intercourse because it is, in essence, adultery. So much for a fairly wide selection from Christian teachers. I hestitate to dogmatise about the Jewish Church, in which possibly more than one trend could be detected. But it is worth observing that the present law in Israel puts A.I.D. on the same footing as adultery. A Mohammedan is allowed by law to have four wives, and there is therefore perhaps not the same temptation there towards A.I.D. In any case,
952
it seems incompatible—and it is generally felt among Mohammedans to be incompatible—with the Mohammedan duty to see in a barren wife the will of Allah.
I have quoted the Jews and Mohammedans to show that it is not just the Christians who are concerned and that it is fair to say that there appears to be an absolute conflict between A.I.D. and the great Monotheistic religions. But this country is supposed to be a Christian country and in some respects, in spite of all our failings, it seems to me to be more Christian than it was when some of us were growing up a number of years ago. Whether Christians are wise or foolish, they must at least be supposed to know more about their own religion than non-Christians. And there appears to be overwhelming agreement among Christians, whatever the denomination of the sect, that A.I.D. is in sharp and flagrant contradiction to the God-given institution of the family and, indeed, with the whole Christian idea of the proper attitude of man towards his Maker.
I cannot believe that any practising Christian who knew what A.I.D. involves would have any hand, lot or part in it, or refrain from doing all in his power to discourage it. I hope that some of those who are present and who cannot accept the beliefs of the Christian (and this is a free country) will understand that if I do not stop to wrestle with them this afternoon over the whole plane of belief and disbelief, and the Christian versus the non-Christian concept of the family, it is not through any lack of regard for their earnestness and sincerity but simply through shortage of time and the fact that there are many other and better speakers. But I would venture to offer non-Christians one very striking quotation from an article which appeared in the Sunday Times of November 10 last year under the heading "Can Scientific Man Survive?" written by one whom we must all admire, whatever we may think of his views about religion—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the most distinguished living rationalist.
In that article he argued with much feeling that world survival now:
"demands a morality which will be new only in the sense of being acted upon. As an ideal it is not new but very old. It has been preached for countless centuries by sages and religious

953
leaders who have been highly honoured after being put to death."
Surely he must there include the Founder of the Christian religion, for I do not know who else he has in mind. Bearing in mind that quotation from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is it possible to hope that the new horrors of to-day—nuclear warfare and all the rest of it—may be bringing this compensation at least: that they may help even the most modern and sceptical of us to realise that we neglect traditional wisdom and traditional morality at our peril, and that if a procedure is contrary to nature and is inherently evil then no scientific magic or justification can make it natural or good?
So much for the moral assessment. But when we face the question of how to combat this growing evil we must expect, at any rate at this stage, a considerable divergence of opinion. It may well be true, and probably is, that by means of some kind of registration or other form of regulation some, at any rate, of the worst consequences of A.I.D. could be averted and the amount of perjury and disception involved diminished, although if people are going to perjure themselves and deceive the community I do not see how another law will stop them doing so. But some good consequences could follow—on paper—from registration.
Here, however, as in other cases, such as prostitution and certain aspects of gambling, it seems to me that we have the dilemma that while, on the one hand, we want to regulate the practice and possibly to reduce it, by statutory action, yet by doing so we may well appear to condone it. It is very difficult to recognise a practice of this kind, for purposes of regulation, without appearing to give it some kind of official recognition and what may even seem to be condonation. Perhaps I might quote here words used recently by the Archbishop of Westminster, who I imagine (though I am not certain) had this kind of point in mind:
"To pass any legislation which seems to condone even the worst sins against Nature would be so damaging to the morality of the nation as to militate grievously against that peace and well being of a people that is the object of all government."
And so I find myself in great difficulty in supporting any kind of State registration.
Should A.I.D. be described as adultery? Of course, this is the actual crux
954
of the debate this afternoon. Whether it is to be legally so described I leave to lawyers; but few who listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would remain unimpressed after hearing that powerful address. I leave any statement about the position to the great lawyers, including the Lord Chancellor, who have addressed or will be addressing us. From the point of view of the Roman Catholic, certainly its heinousness (as was said, I believe, by the Scottish judge who decided a recent case, and this cannot be overstated), must surely be regarded as analogous to that of adultery.
I may therefore be asked whether in the Roman Catholic view it should be made, like adultery, a ground for divorce. There, of course, is a problem for Catholics which is familiar to many of the House. As noble Lords are aware, Roman Catholics do not accept adultery as a ground for divorce. Therefore we are somewhat inhibited as to whether grounds for divorce should be extended to cover A.I.D. But, speaking as a citizen, I can only say that it would seem to me, and I think probably to most Catholics, logical that in a community which recognises adultery as a ground for divorce, A.I.D. should be placed on the same footing; and in that I join with the most reverend Primate who spoke earlier. It is perhaps hardly for Roman Catholics to take the lead in extending the grounds for divorce, but if that proposal were brought forward I should certainly find myself in support of it.
Finally, should A.I.D. be treated as a criminal offence? I shall listen with great care to what the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, has to say on that point this afternoon. I do not want to cover once again the ground which some of us covered and which I covered at great length in the debate on the Wolfenden Report. We drew at that time a distinction; we drew it in various ways and applied it in various ways, but we all, in one way or another, drew a distinction between crime and sin. Here I would not apply the distinction in quite the same way, although the distinction can only, in my opinion, be drawn in the same way. I think you can contrast the two situations.
I am stating here not any kind of official view, but I think a fairly representative Roman Catholic opinion, when

955
I say that the social consequences of A.I.D.—the long-term social consequences, quite apart from the immediate moral evil—could be so damaging to the welfare of our nation, particularly our children, that the Government can fairly be asked to consider how best to bring this practice within the orbit of the criminal law. I recognise the practical difficulties involved, but I put it to the Government as something they could reasonably be asked to consider.
I sit down now with this final thought. There are some in public life in this country, in the House, in various Parties and various churches or belonging to no Party or to no church, many of them more eminent than I and most of them more active, whose main interest in public questions derives from a desire to help the weak, the afflicted, the oppressed, the poor, the mentally sick, the delinquent, the old and the lonely. The sentiment which animates people of this kind—we are accustomed to being called sentimentalists—would place many of us naturally and easily on the side of the childless couple. Speaking personally, if I may, as one whose marriage has been greatly blessed, I should be callous indeed if I did not feel for childless people and did not recognise the great love of children shown by so many childless women, and the great services to children that so many of them render—a point to which I know the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury referred when he last spoke in this House. But however we like to describe our own ethical system—Aristotelian, Kantian,Utilitarian, Humanitarian or simply Christian—we must all be aware (and surely at this point the whole House is at one) that immediate happiness, as was brought out in those fine articles by Lord Radcliffe a day or two ago, while a laudable objective to be promoted by all legitimate scientific means is not the highest value here below. Grapes cannot be won from thorns, or figs from thistles.
It is literally impossible to help anyone, however humane our purpose, by means of evil, and A.I.D. defies the laws of God and the wisdom of Man. It has been brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Denning, that it involves for its so-called success, as even its advocates admit, deliberate and prolonged deception, and perjury at one point or another,
956
and this may or may not be successful. A lie, indeed, is of its very essence, which is not surprising as it appears to come from the Father of Lies. It opens the door to possibilities still more loathsome than itself. We must, and I believe this country will, reject with horror this brain-wave of Beelzebub. We must redouble our efforts to relieve the distress of those who in their affliction turn towards this terrible remedy; and whether we ourselves be fortunate or unfortunate in the quantity of our descendants, we must reaffirm once more our Christian purpose and re-dedicate the quality of our family life to nobler ends.
4.26 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to say a few brief words to your Lordships from a rather different point of view from that which has been expressed before. It follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has just said. What I want to do is to address your Lordships for a few moments on the ethical and social aspects of this particular problem. I should like to get one or two points which do not appear to be very clear in some of your Lordships' minds out of the way before I start, because I think it is obvious that the number of people who are going to resort to this form of begetting children is going to be extremely small. The vast majority of people can, and do, produce their children in quite normal ways, but you will find that there is a certain number of men and women who cannot—a fairly constant trickle, which does not increase a great deal, so far as I can judge. It is difficult to find out the exact figures. My informant, as in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has been a doctor practising in this line for about twenty-five years. It is not the same doctor as the noble Lord mentioned but one who has been practising in the West Country for a long time, and it is from her that I have received a certain amount of my information which I propose to give to your Lordships.
The first thing I should like to do is to follow up what I have said before. So far as the general population figures are concerned, the number of children produced by this method of A.I.D. is going to be a very tiny drop in a very big ocean; but from the point of view of the sum of human contentment and

957
human happiness I would suggest to your Lordships that the matter is much larger, and from that point of view the subject requires sincere consideration by your Lordships. I was rather puzzled to find out what was the total number of children involved, because I think the figure of 7,000 may be rather on the large side. My informant (I admit, only one), has seen about 2.500 sterile, barren couples in the course of the last twenty-five years. From those 2,500 there were only 200 considered suitable for trying A.I.D., and the number of successful cases was approximately half. So I do not think the figures involved will ever become very large or formidable.
The work, I consider, should certainly be kept in the hands of the medical practitioners, who should be able to exercise certain criteria before using A.I.D. The practitioner must know the would-be parents extremely well. He must be satisfied that their marriage is really stable and that they do want a child. One may think that that is going to be difficult to enforce; but I am not at all sure that if public opinion, or any other means of training people which exists, is put into force sufficiently firmly you cannot build up some kind of ethical code like that which will cover the majority of people who wish to carry out this work. Obviously, if we are dealing with human beings—and, like other people, doctors are merely human beings—there will be occasional rogues who will go wrong, but I think that we can build up a good standard of ethical behaviour and therefore would not get results by this method that are not justifiable and right.
There should be two indications for the use of this method. One is that the husband is incurably and irremediably impotent. Whether one can say, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that a man might be impotent with one woman and not with another, it is difficult to judge, but I think it is possible for the family doctor to know that a man would be impotent generally and not merely with one particular woman. It must be that a woman desperately desires to have a child and her husband can convince the doctor that he would prefer a child by that means rather than by the more normal means of adopting one.
958
I am informed by my West Country informant that he made inquiries of the people who wished to be treated in this way and found that the general theme running through their wishes could be roughly summarised as follows. They wanted children very much and felt that marriage was only half fulfilled if a child was not going to be horn. The wife felt that she was barred from having a child by the person she had married but very much wished to have a child. The husband had chosen the woman for his wife not only because he loved her but because he wished to have a child by her. Therefore, he would rather have a child by her, given by some accredited donor, than a child from an adoption society. If that is the general feeling of the people who wish to have this operation performed on them, it seems to me that we have to give serious consideration to the great human factors which are involved.
In the case of my informant, the work of artificial insemination has been going on for only about twenty-five years, so it is difficult to judge what becomes of the children and what type of children they are; but so far as the records have been kept and the follow-up has gone, the children born in this way appear to be of perfectly sound stock and have turned out to be perfectly satisfactory children. Although I said at the beginning that this operation must not be done if the marriage is considered shaky, it is the case that marriages seem to be consolidated by this means rather than broken up, and certainly the parents are not found to be psychologically upset by the fact that children are born as a result of insemination by a donor. I think it gives some assistance towards a happier result if semen from the donor can be mixed with some semen from the husband, where the husband's semen is found to have a certain amount of sperms but not enough for fertilisation normally and yet enough to make him feel that he has contributed something towards the birth of the child. Perhaps that is not a happy form of reasoning, but it does appeal to people, and here we are dealing with people and not with theories and abstract ideas.
There is one matter which has not been mentioned so far. It has been said that people born in this way may get

959
into great trouble through marrying someone born from the same donor. I think this bogy of inter-marriage is enormously exaggerated because it is doubtful whether the figure of A.I.D. children in this country will be big enough to cause any danger. There can be no more danger than we have now from illegitimate children happening to marry a brother or sister, or where several children of the same family are adopted, of them meeting a natural brother or sister in after life and marrying them. I do not think that the danger is one about which we need to worry. It is a possible but not a serious danger.
If I may, in the presence of so many noble and learned Lords and of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, I should like to turn to two legal points, on which the noble and learned Viscount can probably enlighten me. I am worried about the fact that this act should be considered to be adultery. So far as I can judge, after looking up dictionaries and books of reference, one of the bases of adultery is what is called carnal concupiscence ".The term indicates some kind of subservience to lust or unlawful love, which is a bad thing for society as a whole because it tends to break up family life. I cannot see that the transferring of sperm from a little glass tube by means of a rubber syringe can afford, except in very strange people, any kind of sensory pleasure and the purpose of A.I.D. is to encourage family life, which is one thing which adultery definitely discourages. So I should have thought that from that point of view there was no real reason for putting A.I.D. under the heading of adultery.
From the purely legal point of view, the question I want to be assured about is this. Suppose a wife were to resort to artificial insemination unknown to her husband, which I think is something that we should all deplore, would it not be possible for the husband to obtain a divorce on the ground of cruelty, rather than on ground of adultery? Suppose husband and wife had concurred in wishing the operation to be done, and then, five or ten years later, the husband wanted to get rid of his wife, would that not be regarded as an offence (if it were one) connived at, and therefore preventing the husband from being able to get a divorce and abandon the artificially con-
960
ceived child? I should deplore very much any recommendation for legislation to make artificial insemination a crime. It is an act which I am convinced will never become a large factor in the world. The one thing to make it safe and proper is for it to be carried out freely by responsible people. To do as the noble Lord suggests, to make it subject to regulations and rules, is to drive it underground and to have it done by charlatans and quacks, and the last state of affairs will be far worse than the state of affairs now.
4.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who so cogently and engagingly introduced this Motion remarked, it is now some nine years since I ventured to introduce for your Lordships' consideration a Motion upon this subject. I did so at that stage from a purely personal and objective angle, and to-day I approach it from the same position. In his opening speech the noble Lord said that among the possibilities of dealing with the present situation was one which, I confess rather to my regret, he discarded as of little account—that was, the suggestion that there should be some inquiry into all the facets of this extremely intricate and elusive question. It was my object, when I introduced the Motion in 1949, to obtain from the Government their consent to an inquiry of that kind—and it is perhaps not entirely germane to the present debate to say that I received in reply, as reason for the fact that no immediate action was taken, an excuse which was superb in its monumental irrelevance. I confess that I had somewhat hoped that the present Government might in the intervening years have taken some steps to arrange an inquiry of the kind I had in mind. But to-day we are again debating this subject, after an interval of nine years, and no progress has been made. All that has happened is that probably the wider-spread character of this particular practice has during those years increased.
What concerns me in this matter—and I am reinforced in this view by the weight which has been drawn this afternoon into almost exclusively one scale—is that if we are to take any action upon a matter of this immensely important kind we

961
ought to know ourselves exactly what we are doing. We ought not to turn our eyes away from the subject because it is an unpleasant one; on the other hand, we ought not to be stampeded into premature action before we know exactly where we are going. It seems to me that that applies not only to Members of your Lordships' House, but also to the public at large. If legislative action is to be taken upon a matter of this kind, it would be right, and it would certainly be advantageous, for any Government to have behind them the feeling that the public support them in the direction in which they are going. It is my belief that in present conditions the public are mystified, uneasy and still groping in the dark in quest of authoritative information upon what is to many people a new and striking and equally, to many people, a repulsive subject. But it is a question which is before the public, just as it is before your Lordships' House, and I do not believe that, in present conditions, the public either have the information or the means of obtaining the information.
It seems to me essential that, if we are to have a public opinion on the matter, we should have an instructed public opinion, but that under present conditions what we are getting is, in many cases, a fragmentary and sensational presentation of a case, instead of a comprehensive and responsible one. That is, in my view, not the lead which should be given to the public in a matter of this profound social importance. I believe, therefore, that there should be—not a Royal Commission, because the wheels of a Royal Commission traditionally turn without marked rapidity, but perhaps a Departmental Committee, which is, in my experience, better equipped to get on readily with a particular task and to produce a Report. But I do not believe that we ought to commit ourselves to dealing with so intricate a matter until we and the public are better informed than most of us are at the present moment. It seems to me that the need for consideration of this subject by a Committee has only increased in the time which has passed since we had our discussion nine years ago.
I regret somewhat that the noble Lord who introduced this Motion confined its terms of application to the case of A.I.D.
962
without the husband's consent. In my view, the whole question ought to be brought under the review of a Committee; the one particular aspect should not be isolated in this way. What I suggest we are a little forgetting if we try to deal with this matter piecemeal is this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, called attention to a great number of extremely serious possible legal complications, many of which, if I may say so respectfully to him, were present to our minds, and indeed were mentioned, in the course of the debate nine years ago. But the objection in my mind to the limited character of the present Motion is that many of those difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord called attention arise just as much in the case of A.I.D. with the husband's consent as they do in the case of A.I.D. without the husband's consent. There are exactly the same questions about the inheritance of property and settled estates; exactly the same question in regard to this complex matter of registration, and the possible commission of perjury by one of the parties, and even the possible implication of the medical adviser in a conspiracy. Therefore I think it would be a great pity if your Lordships' House committed itself to a definite opinion on what is only a partial and limited approach to a whole question of this great importance.
How important this matter is, and how conflicting are the views held upon it, is well illustrated by the debate this afternoon. If I may say so, it is not often that both archiepiscopal barrels are discharged in the course of a single debate. I hope that it is neither sacrilegious nor, indeed, disrespectful to refer to an Archbishop as "a barrel"; but that is incidental. The most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who has just come in, has not, I think, realised the context in which I made the last remark. We could perhaps again have no sharper contrast than in the speeches to-day of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—the one, if I may say so, advocating proscription and the other almost prescription on the subject. So it will no doubt go on in public discussion on the matter. The most reverend primate, the Lord Archbishop of York, referred to the leading article in this

963
morning's Manchester Guardian, and there have, of course, been other articles of different trends and tendencies reproduced in other papers since the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, put down his Motion. In view of that strong diversity of opinion, and in view of the ignorance which I still feel, in spite of all I have read and the speeches I have listened to in your Lordships' House, I would urge that we should not commit ourselves to any final view this afternoon.
I am not going to argue this afternoon the question of whether this practice does or does not constitute adultery. There is, of course, always the remedy to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, called attention, which was outlined in his Report. Moreover, there is also (if I may add this comment, somewhat at a tangent) in that extremely able and comprehensive Report a recommendation as to the means of getting rid of a trouble arising in nullity cases in regard to artificial insemination by the husband, which was one of the matters I raised in the earlier debate, but which I do not propose to go over again. The noble and learned Lord's report dealt largely on that aspect, with the legal question, and there are immense social, moral and, indeed, medical questions lying behind the whole matter which I feel ought to be further developed. I do not propose this afternoon to go at all into the actual merits of this much-disputed subject because, as I say, I think the first stage—and I hope the Government will come to the same opinion—is to have this matter thoroughly inquired into. It may be said that that would be only playing for delay. There has already been quite substantial delay in dealing with this matter, however, and I would rather see a little more delay and an opinion arrived at upon solid material, than I would see us hurry into action without a proper basis of knowledge and understanding behind it. Therefore I hope that, when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack comes to reply, he will be prepared to say that some form of Departmental Committee should be set up to inquire into this matter, because I feel that, for the general interest of the country and for the instruction of the public, it is right that we should, in endeavouring to come to a final assess-
964
ment of the situation, not struggle along through a morass of ignorance and uncertainty but along an open and properly surveyed path.
4.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Marquess who has just sat down would have been quite so emphatic in his demand for a large inquiry on this subject if he had had in mind the Report, Artificial Human Insemination, produced by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission less than ten years ago.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I say that certainly I had that Report in mind. We discussed it freely in the previous debate. But it is now thirteen years since that Commission started to operate, and ten years since the Report came out. It was a Commission appointed by the most reverend Primate. I want a Commission or Committee appointed by the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I accept entirely the noble Marquess's view. Quite obviously, this Motion must raise, and has raised, this afternoon, a large field of thought and discussion: the legal aspect, large and important; the social aspect, the religious aspect, the meaning of marriage, and so on. I want to speak only of something that lies right behind all those, for all those different sides of our reorganisation of our common life have grown out of, and are meant to maintain, the sanctity of family life. That is one foundation that this country has always considered to be essential, and our laws, for instance, have not been the product of judicial pundits. They have grown out of the necessity to preserve, maintain and extend the principles of family life. One might say the same of religious principles, for religious principles are not only given, they are also demanded by the creaturely nature of people in this world. The laws of marriage, for instance, are not merely the laws of the Church, but are Divine guidances by which the family life of the country can best be maintained. Therefore, I should like to direct our thoughts for a moment or two to the simple human factors that lie behind this question of A.I.D.
What is the source of the demand? The source of the demand is, in essence,

965
the sentimental longing of a married woman for maternity which is apparently denied her. For that longing, for that unsatisfied desire, every one of us would, of course, have the deepest possible sympathy. But it is true that there are many great and deep desires of human minds and spirits which, for one or other reason, cannot be satisfied; and the happy individual is the one who adjusts himself Or herself to those limitations. Is, indeed, this longing for a child a sufficient foundation for accepting a new method of propagating family life? Does it not mean building a very large structure on a very flimsy foundation? However this may be, have we not all known many cases of childless couples who, just because of their inability to have children, facing all the frustration which that entails, have been brought far more closely together than they could have ever been before, and so have become, as the years pass, centres of shining love and influence to all around?
I am taking the human factors, one by one. What of the husband? It is said that no one advocates A.I.D. except where the husband is in agreement. But what is to happen in a case where the wife is insistent that she must, and will, have a child? Suppose her husband hates the idea, and tries to argue her out of it. He tries to point out to her the higher happiness that the two of them can develop without the child. He fails. She continues insistent, and she becomes more bitter. He loves her and cares for the stability of his own life. Is it not almost inevitable that he will agree and let her have her own way? And he, having agreed, perhaps reluctantly, it would be a small step for him to say to the doctor, or anybody else: "Yes, of course you have my full consent in this." But can we be certain that it will really build a family life when A.I.D. has been used?
I come now to the third human element in this situation, lying right behind this question of religion and of legality. Supposing all goes well and there is born a happy, healthy child, what of this child, this A.I.D, product. He or she is going to be brought up in a false position. Are they, the father and the mother, going to forget completely what the child's origin really was or his relationship to them? May it not happen that, at some
966
moment, by some accident or otherwise, the truth will come out? Think of the shock to the child. It would be—and some of us have seen it—a pretty desperate tragedy for the young man or young woman to realise that he or she was illegitimate. At least they may gain some consolation from the thought that they were what is sometimes called a love child—what consolation, indeed, from the realisation that he or she is a test-tube child. Is it fair that anyone should be subjected to such a danger?
But supposing things do not go right—and one cannot guarantee they will. The donor may be most wisely chosen, but who can be certain what will be the character of the offspring of this strange man and this married woman? Suppose there is friction. Suppose the child grows up unsatisfactory. Is it not likely that, in some fit of forgetful anger, the man will say, "Well, he is your child. He is not mine. You can do what you like with him". Or, equally, "You forget that I have a right to decide what is to happen to this boy: he is mine, not yours". So the whole fabric of artificial secrecy topples to the ground. It may be said that that is an exaggerated and unreal picture, but is it ever possible to secure without doubt the complete secrecy, extending over years and years? Is it ridiculous to suggest that, some day, some Member of your Lordships' House who has inherited a title and estate might discover that he was not the son of his reputed father and has no real right to either?
That leads me to think that the whole case for A.I.D. rests on the assumption that it is the wishes of the spouses that must be regarded as paramount. Surely that is not true. It is not the welfare of individuals or of couples who are married but the welfare of the community that is paramount; and that cannot be overruled or strangled by clandestine arrangements that imply, and must imply, a measure of deliberate falsehood. There is not, we are told, a great deal of this practice now. Surely this is the moment when, by one means or another, it should be declared that this practice is illegal and must not be allowed to occupy a place in English national life.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, the noble Lord the mover of the Resolution was kind enough to remind your Lordships that I moved a Resolution about this particular, rather unpleasant, subject in 1943, and I see that I wound up with these remarks [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 128, col. 823]:
"I do not think we should live in a fool's paradise and ignore this subject on the ground that it is, as it is, unpleasant. I do not think that is the right attitude to adopt. It is our duty, as I see it, to know the problems that are about to face us, and in our wisdom to do the best that in us lies so to direct those new forces that they will result in bringing happiness and good into the world."
That was in 1943. In 1945 the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, not prompted by the debate, so he tells us, set up a Commission. That Commission reported in 1948. We had the Reading debate in 1949, and now, fifteen years after the original Motion, we are having a debate on a very narrow issue of the whole subject. I want to say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Reading that we should explore the subject a little further than the very narrow point that the mover brought forward to-day.
There is no doubt about it, as my noble friend Lord Denning said, that A.I.D. without the husband's consent or knowledge is nothing short of a conspiracy. With his consent, the law is in a very difficult situation, and it is interesting to note that in America (I quote from Nature)
"Since the publication of the Report"—
that was the Church Report—
"there has…been a case in the Supreme Court of New York State which had a direct bearing on the problem. In it the judge, Mr. Justice Greenberg, was asked to declare that a child whose mother had been artificially inseminated without the husband's consent was illegitimate. This he refused to do, saying that it would be inhuman and inhumane and contrary to the highest concepts of sociology. Further, he declared that the child was legitimate and that the husband was the legal father."
I do not say that that is binding on anybody, but obviously the judge gave what he thought was the best decision on a difficult case, and "that was that." So the lawyers are going to have a most enjoyable time among themselves settling some of these difficult points.
But when we come down to brass tacks the whole question really revolves on
968
whether the child should be a bastard or not. It is quite true to say that the word "bastard" is still a term of abuse, but as time goes on bastards are viewed with much less horror than they were fifty years ago, and we cannot get away from the fact that all the marriage ties and the whole of marriage is slowly becoming discounted by many forces which act upon it. It always astonishes me that in an Established Church where things are regulated by law the Archbishop of Canterbury should advocate that divorced people should not be married. I am perfectly certain he is sincere in that sort of attitude.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I say that I do not advocate that divorced people should not be married. The whole of the civil ceremony of marriage exists so that they should be married, and I approve it.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I thought the Lord Archbishop instructed his clergy that he did not like them to marry divorced people.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: In church: that makes the whole difference.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: That may be true, but most people think they are married only in church, and if they are not married in church it deprives them of a great deal of their satisfaction in marriage.
A second point is the agreement which the Roman Catholics endeavour to get that all the children born of the marriage should be of that religion. Whether that is binding in law, I do not know; but it is a deterrent to marriage in many cases. Then we have the State, with its arrangement of taxation by which both incomes are amalgamated for the purpose of surtax. I have always wondered what would happen if two people went to church and were married and, when they are asked to sign the register, said, "No, we will not sign the register." They would be married in the sight of God, so to speak, and of their friends; but legally, from the point of the State, they would not be married and each would be able to maintain his or her separate income. I should like two people to try that, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be

969
able to give us his decision on that particular matter.
We also have the Welfare State coming along and looking after the bastard just as much as the legitimate child—quite rightly; I am not complaining about it. But it is this sort of thing which is diminishing the objection to bastardy in its broad sense. I do not believe that fifty years ago one could have heard what I understand is a true story of a lady who engaged a maid and asked her if she was married. The maid said that she was not. But after she had been employed for three months, three children turned up. Obviously, they were her children, and the lady said to her, "You said you were not married." She said, "No, ma'am, I'm not married, but I haven't been neglected." It shows what a situation we are coming to, when such an incident can happen, because it never occurred to this woman that she had done anything wrong at all. I think we must consider these other points as well as the very narrow ones.
Take the case of a couple who are unable to have a child because of the man's inability. People may say that certainly they can adopt one. But, surely, even from the father's point of view—the father who cannot be the father—it is better that they should have a child which, at any rate, is half his wife's than to adopt the child of a perfect stranger, having a different father and a different mother. These are subjects which must be considered in the general outlook and consideration of this particular problem. I end by saying that I sincerely hope that we shall not hurry in this matter, but that the Lord Chancellor, in his wisdom, will have some investigation conducted and some appreciation made of this tiresome subject in the many fields where it disturbs us.
5.14 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add my tribute to those which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, for giving us the opportunity of debating this important subject, and for doing so in a speech which was full of information, most objectively argued and interesting from beginning to end. Before I heard him I felt that it might have been more useful if he had postponed his Motion until such time as we have Peeresses of Parlia-
970
ment helping us in our discussion, because a woman's view on this particular matter would have been not only of great interest but of great importance. I should like also to say how much I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his plea that there should be an inquiry into this matter. Whichever side one takes, obviously there are a number of important matters which are difficult and which need to be cleared up on a factual basis. He referred to the reply which I had to give him on a previous occasion as "monumentally irrelevant." I think that was perhaps a little unkind; there was a certain amount of relevance in the view that until the Commission on Population had reported the situation was not altogether clear. But, of course, on these occasions a very junior Minister has to do what he is told; and secretly I quite sympathised with the noble Marquess's desire that there should be some investigation into this matter.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the Eugenics Society, itself obviously most concerned with this matter, has quite recently set up an Artificial Insemination investigation Council on which there are a number of distinguished scientists, lawyers and sociologists. It will be a fact-finding body to look into this matter from its genetic, medical, legal and social aspects. Of course, we have already the most useful and, I think, very fairly argued Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission, which has been referred to more than once this afternoon. But it is a pity that one should have to rely on these outside organisations for the fact-finding into, and the discussion of, this problem, which is obviously one of considerable concern to the State and ought to be looked at by some Committee or Commission appointed by the State.
My Lords, I find myself rather in opposition to most of the conclusions and a good deal of the argument which has been addressed to your Lordships this afternoon. I must say that I think it is because this Chamber tends to be so much out of touch with public opinion in matters of this kind that this House has lost a great deal of the public support which at one time it certainly had. I believe that the march of events is against the views which have been

971
expressed by most noble Lords this afternoon, and that the weight of what I, at any rate, regard as progressive opinion is against the proposal to try to put down A.I.D. in one way or another. I rather gathered that the most reverend Primate has altered the view which he expressed in 1949, that it should be made a criminal offence——
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not know how the noble Lord knows that. All I said earlier was that the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, did not know whether I had altered my opinion or not. I have not.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to deal with that aspect of the matter in a little time; but it seems to me that in the view of many enlightened, forward-looking and sincere people, A.I.D. can do a tremendous amount (I was very glad that Lord Amulree put this matter so clearly) to relieve suffering and misery and frustration among, it is quite true, a small but not an unimportant number of people in the community. I think personally that to that extent it ought to be encouraged and made more readily available rather than proscribed in the way that has been advocated by so many noble Lords this afternoon. It is this point of view for which I propose to make myself the spokesman to-day, for want of better qualified advocates. I am following largely the sort of line which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree took. I agree with practically everything he said in his speech. I appreciate, no doubt just as he did, that in doing so I am sailing into rather stormy waters and under the guns of the Church, in particular; indeed, to change the metaphor, I feel rather like Daniel in a den of Bishops.
This debate, as I think was to be expected, has ranged rather more widely than the exact terms of the noble Lord's Motion. He himself did not keep strictly to the Motion, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I too range rather widely. I think it has now been agreed—at least, I thought it was, until I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, this afternoon—that in English law A.I.D. is not adultery. In the debate of 1949 the President of the Divorce Division, the noble and learned Lord,
972
Lord Merriman, described the view that A.I.D. was adultery as "nonsense"—which is a rather forthright expression to use, though it is one with which I entirely agree. It is surely quite absurd, and indeed asking for trouble, to use a word which has been used down the centuries to describe a certain form of conduct to refer to such a completely different conduct as is connoted by the expression "A.I.D.". And I believe that to introduce a qualification like "tantamount to" does not help us in the slightest degree.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that if a woman agrees to A.I.D. against the will of her husband, that is a breach of the agreement she made with her husband at the time she married him, that she would bear his children and nobody else's. It seems to me that if she breaks that bargain, that ought to give the husband the right to a divorce; and I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, reminded us that the very important Royal Commission over which he presided with such distinction made a recommendation to that effect. That certainly ought to be the law; and if the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, likes to introduce a Bill to make that clear I shall be glad to support him.
I believe that it would be most unfortunate to try to get round this difficulty in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, by means of the subterfuge (for that is what it is) of employing a rule of evidence. The case of Russell v. Russell was an example of the employment of a rule of evidence. It gave rise to a great deal of difficulty and heart-searching, and to many unfortunate situations, and the law had to be changed. If the point ought to be dealt with, then it ought to be dealt with in a straight-forward manner and not by saying that although it is not adultery the rules of evidence can be used in such a way as to make it adultery. Actually, I do not agree with the interpretation of the decision in your Lordships' House which was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He is a much more eminent lawyer than I am, but it seemed to me that the House of Lords was merely laying down a presumption that in the kind of circumstances he mentioned there was adultery. If the woman had given positive evidence to the effect

973
that the child resulted from A.I.D., I should say it was very arguable that the decision would be the same as that in the Scottish case which has been referred to more than once. This only shows how difficult the problem is. Decisions of this kind ought not to be reached without proper argument on each side. Surely that is the elementary principle of the administration of law in this country and we ought not to advance our views ex cathedrâ in this way about problems of this kind until proper argument has been heard on either side and the matter has been properly considered by those of us who are really qualified to come to a decision.
I believe that in the great majority of cases—and this is the real crux of the matter—not only has the husband's consent been given to what has taken place but he has been just as interested and concerned in it as the wife herself. That is certainly the experience of many of the doctors who have been most actively engaged in this kind of practice over recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the valuable work done by Dr. Jackson. She makes perfectly clear that in her opinion it is the husband, more often than not, who comes and asks that this should be done. The noble Lord quoted a most moving letter from a husband who explained how it came about that he had not only agreed but had encouraged his wife to have this treatment.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, could not the noble Lord take that aspect a little further? Is it not the case that a doctor will not act unless he is himself satisfied, by the most vigorous investigation and inquiry, that the husband is a fully consenting party?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I believe that that is so with all reputable doctors, and it has been laid down time after time by doctors. If this matter were to be made criminal and driven underground, it would be the bad type of man—for example, the man who does abortions—who would come into this kind of work, instead of reputable doctors doing it, as at present. We have therefore to face the fact that if an attempt is to be made to suppress this conduct, we shall in the great majority of cases be interfering with an action which the parties to it—not only the parties themselves but also the doctor, a
974
member of a most respectable and highly respected profession—believe to be perfectly right and moral. That is a very serious position to take up.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He said that this practice might be driven underground. But is it not a fact that it is now underground, and that the doctor, donor, husband and wife do this in secrecy—which is what I understand by the term "under-ground"?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not for a moment agree with the most reverend Primate. The object of doing this confidentially is to protect the child; and that was the very point: with which the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was concerned to make this afternoon. To use the epithets which have been used in regard to a practice which has been carefully built up for the purpose of protecting the parties to the marriage and the offspring of A.I.D. is really a most unfair way of treating the doctors in question.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord said that this is done to protect the child. But the child does not exist.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the child is going to exist. The whole object of this practice is to produce a child, and surely it is chopping logic to look at it in any other way. I believe that to make this practice illegal or a criminal offence would be to take a very grave decision, because it surely strikes at the liberty of the citizen. It is a commonplace of political wisdom that criminal law is not concerned with private morals but, as the Wolfenden Committee have recently reminded us and stressed so clearly in their Report, is concerned only with public conduct, and with public conduct which injuriously affects public order in a community. I am not convinced by any of the arguments I have heard this afternoon or read elsewhere. If A.I.D. is a sin—and I do not believe it is, though I suppose that whether or not a certain conduct is a sin is a theological matter on which one ought to bow to the theologians—as a student of law and of politics I suggest that it would certainly be a sin, against political wisdom at any rate, to attempt to suppress it

975
by making it a criminal offence or by any other means than by the persuasion of rational argument.
In the 1949 debate, if my memory serves me aright, it was the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, himself who stressed how important it was that a practice of this kind should not be driven underground. I entirely agree, and I have indicated some of the reasons why I believe that is so. It is important that this practice should not get into the hands of unscrupulous and charlatan doctors. Almost all of the doctors who are now engaged in this kind of work, if not every single one, are doing so, I am sure, with a high and reverent sense of the responsibility they are taking on themselves. From what I have heard I am quite satisfied that some of them, at any rate, take very great care to find a suitable donor, suitable both in respect of health, physique, mental strength and also in respect of compatibility with the mother. That is certainly an onerous and difficult task, and I believe that the doctors who have been prepared to undertake it are deserving of our praise rather than of the censure which so many of your Lordships have passed on them this afternoon.
These doctors, too, become great friends of the patients, and do their best to keep in close, helpful touch with the family afterwards. Lord Blackford said that that could not be possible in more than a very minute number of cases. Dr. Jackson, with whom Lord Amulree and I have been in touch, has succeeded in keeping in touch with almost all of the cases she knows, and her report is most encouraging.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that I understand that Doctor Margaret Jackson has assisted in the production of far fewer cases? All I say, and Dr. Barton agrees, is that when you get up to figures like 900 it is almost impossible to keep in touch with them; and she, at any rate, makes no attempt to do so.
LORD CHORLEY: It is true that Dr. Jackson has not had so many cases: I think that she has had about 70, and the other doctor whom Lord Blackford consulted had about 300, so far as I can remember. At any rate, the course
976
which is advocated, as I understand it, by the Bishops would drive these patients into the clutches of charlatans. That would be a most unfortunate thing, because, instead of having good donors, they would bring in inferior donors, and that would have the result, in many cases, of producing, instead of a very high-class progeny, a progeny which was very poor in all sorts of ways, both moral and genetic.
But I should like to return to this question of liberty, which seems to be closely involved in this problem and which is fundamental to this matter. They should surely be compelling reasons which would persuade us to deprive a married couple of a free right to get a child in this way, if, after giving the matter due attention and considering it carefully and reverently, they decide that it is the right course to take. Indeed, we should not only be interfering with the liberty of these people, but we should be intruding into the marital relationship in a way which I think the law has always set itself against—the relationship which should be sacrosanct from the prying eyes of the law and of the State. It may be that in the case of members of their own confessions the religious leaders have the right to intrude in this sort of way. But I emphatically deny them the right to intrude into the affairs of other people who do not belong to their denominations and do not accept their religions. Nor do I believe that the people of this country would be prepared to accept from the Churches that point of view. I think the fact that the Churches are almost always to be found taking up this sort of attitude is one of the reasons why the great majority of the people in this country at the present time have not got any religion at all.
And what are these reasons for making A.I.D. a criminal offence which should be of such an overwhelming character that the balance goes down, and goes down with a bang, in favour of repressive legislation? They amount to very little, if I may say so. In his speech in 1949, which I heard at the time with great pleasure, because it was an admirable speech, and which I have read again with great care, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury used a long list of adjectives—sociological, eugenic, psychological and

977
legal reasons—which he submitted to make out a case for criminality in regard to this work. He made a great point (and it is a point that has been made this afternoon) about the false registration of the birth by the putative father, if one may call him so. The word "perjury" has been used more than once this afternoon. But this is not perjury at all. It is a criminal offence, but it is not perjury; and the fact that the word "perjury" has been used is, I think, typical of the way this debate is conducted.
The offence of making a false statement in connection with the registration of a birth can be brought before a magistrates' court and tried summarily. That is not the case with perjury, which is a much more serious offence, triable only on indictment. I personally find it very difficult to regard this matter as so serious as has been made out. It has been called a "white lie," and I think has been very well described in those terms. But this is a point which might well be looked into by the sort of Committee that Lord Reading has suggested. The difficulty could be overcome, of course, perfectly easily by putting on the register "Father unknown"; and it may be that that is the right course to adopt, afterwards having an adoption for that child. But if that were done it would mean that the secrecy was at an end, and the possible psychological shock to the child, which Lord Blackford regarded as so important, would become inevitable; because the child would in due course get a birth certificate in connection with going in for an examination, or something of that kind, and the whole matter would conic out.
The question of the legitimacy of the children, with rights of inheritance and succession involved, is clearly very much more important, and this was one of the matters with which Lord Blackford and Lord Denning were particularly concerned. Many people attach enormous importance to descent by the blood, and in your Lordships' House that point of view is obviously likely to carry very considerable weight and to be strongly held. Yet we all know that until very recently in English law, as Lord Denning explained to us, children born in wedlock were normally presumed to be the children of the marriage, however well known it was to everybody that a par-
978
ticular child was not the child of that marriage at all. Even in your Lordships' House in the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century it was very well known that a number of people who succeeded to peerages were not really peerages of the blood; and even a very famous Prime Minister, I believe, falls into that category. Although the abolition of the rule in Russell v. Russell, which has been explained to us, has now made this sort of thing much less probable, it will continue to be a perfectly possible event—and much more possible outside A.I.D. than within A.I.D., because A.I.D. is a very fractional business and affects only a very minute proportion of the community. The saying,
"It is a wise father that knows his own child"
goes back a long way before A.I.D. was even thought about.
In spite of the decision in the United States that Lord Brabazon of Tara told us about, I think that in English law (and I am sure this was Lord Denning's view) if it could be proved that the child was the result of A.I.D. it would undoubtedly be held to be illegitimate. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will no doubt give us his view on this particular point. But I should think such cases would be very rare indeed, and that, generally speaking, public policy and the interest of the community as a whole will best be served by treating these children as legitimate offspring of the mother and the husband.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Are we to understand him to say that, if the case arose, a peerage ought to descend by A.I.D.?
LORD CHORLEY: It would be just as right that it should descend in that way as in some other ways by which some peerages have descended in the past. I think that, on the whole, from the sociological point of view, what was adopted in the United States by Judge Greenberg, and which was read to us by Lord Brabazon of Tara, represents a very sensible point of view. But if there was a dispute as to whether a peerage had descended properly, it would be open to proof before the Committee of your Lordships' House by the use of ordinary methods of evidence as to

979
whether or not a child was an A.I.D. child; and if there was sufficient proof to satisfy the Committee that the child was an A.I.D. child then it would be perfectly clear that he could not inherit the peerage.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Lord said that such a child ought to be regarded as legitimate; then on what ground could the claim to a peerage be refused?
LORD CHORLEY: I said that in general there was a great deal to be said for the point of view that he should be regarded as legitimate, but if in a court of law he can be proved to be an A.I.D. child, then of course he is not legitimate. I entirely accept the view put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in regard to this matter. But in the ordinary case, because no-one knows that there has been any A.I.D., the presumption is that the child is born in wedlock; and surely that is the best view to be taken of the matter from the point of view of public policy and the ordinary interests of the community.
Of the other reasons advanced against A.I.D. in 1949 by the most reverend Primate, the only one that weighs a great deal with me is the possible psychological injury to the child involved in a disclosure. This has already been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. It is a real possibility, although, I think, a rare one. It is so rare that on the whole I think we need not attach too much weight to it. A.I.D. has now been practised in the United States and on the Continent for a considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has told us that it was used in France in the last century, and that the Holy Office of the Roman Church held against it so long ago as the 'nineties. In the United States there are thousands of people engendered by A.I.D. who are already grown up, and if this were a serious psychological problem, it would be well known already to psychiatrists and the medical profession. There is no evidence, however, that it has had this bad effect. In England, although it is true that A.I.D. children have not reached completely adult years, many are approaching their twenties, and all the evidence I have seen shows that there is no real danger of this. I suspect
980
that this is typical of the bogies put up by the opponents of A.I.D.
I should have thought that psychological damage was much more likely to follow in the case of adoption, which is the remedy for childlessness usually advocated by the opponents of A.I.D. I certainly have no wish to decry adoption. In my view it is an admirable institution, and your Lordships have a Bill before the House at the moment for regulating it to some extent. But the suggestion that adoption should be preferred to A.I.D., which has already been criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, does not stand up to rational argument. The A.I.D. child is at any rate the child of a party to the marriage, so that we start with genuine maternal love; and if the husband sincerely loves his wife, as almost certainly he will do if he consents to A.I.D., then he will have a father's love for the baby also. I think that the quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, bears that out strongly.
The adopted child is not only a stranger, but generally an illegitimate stranger, the fruit of some passing and often sordid sexual gratification. It seems to be generally agreed that adopted children should be told about their origin. This may well make them realise that they are illegitimate, and may well result in their trying to find their mothers, who by that time may have settled down as perfectly respectable married women. This may give rise to all sorts of difficult problems and the establishment of all sorts of neuroses. An A.I.D. child, on the other hand, is engendered after careful thought and in a way which one may call reverent—often much more reverently than many children conceived in orthodox matrimony. He is likely to be a better human specimen than the lightly conceived offspring of many ill-considered marriages and certainly than an adopted child, who is often illegitimate.
Not only is he or she likely to be a sound, healthy human being, but such experience as has been published, I think, strongly supports the view that he actually is. Dr. Jackson, to whom I have referred (incidentally, she gave evidence before the Archbishop's Commission, and her report on this matter has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree), has said that these children tend to grow up with habits, characteristics and minds closely

981
resembling not only those of the mother but those of the father as well, such is the importance of environment. There is no evidence that parents become psychologically disturbed. Dr. Jackson has found the contrary, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, these marriages have become consolidated. What might have resulted in divorce has become a consolidated marriage. Surely we all ought to support, surely the Church ought to support, anything which results in marriages becoming consolidated rather than divorce taking place.
There is one other point to which I want to refer—that is, the bogy which has been raised of the possibility of semi-incestuous union between half-brothers are half-sisters which may result from the use of A.I.D. This is such a slight possibility that it is hardly worth while considering it, but it does indicate the sort of attitude which is so prevalent in regard to this matter—the completely fallacious misunderstanding which can put up an argument of this kind. Obviously, the small number of A.I.D. children, which at the outside is said to be about 7.000 from the very beginning, compared to the 33,500 illegitimate children born in this country in one year, 1956—over four times as many—means that the chances of semi-incentuous union amongst the 33,500 illegitimate children born in 1956 is much larger than amongst the whole of the 7,000 A.I.D. children (if there are, in fact, 7,000) who have been born since the beginning of this practice. So I suggest that there is no real danger in it.
To emphasise how small a problem this is from a practical point of view, I would point out to your Lordships that all the doctors who have discussed this matter say that A.I.D. is not even indicated as a possible treatment in more than one per cent. of childless marriages; and of that one per cent., for all sorts of reasons, under half will wish to have A.I.D. A number of them will prefer adoption. Others, on religious grounds, will not be able to accept A.I.D.; yet others will find it distasteful. By the time we have broken it down, we find that not more than a fraction of one per cent. of the births in this country are going to be A.I.D. births. The idea prevalent that this is a widespread public problem surely breaks down before this statistical analysis.
982
I have taken a great deal of your Lordships' time, partly because I have been heckled a good deal and partly because the case for A.I.D. has been put only by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and myself, and I feel that it deserves to be put fairly carefully before your Lordships. Therefore I hope your Lordships will excuse me.
In conclusion, it seems to me a little ironic that at a time when physical scientists, by discovery and invention, have made the continuance of human life on this earth a doubtful possibility, when the biological scientists and the medical scientists have provided us with a method of creating life, and not only of creating life but of creating life of a high and sound quality and standard, the Church, which, so far as I know, has not condemned the invention of nuclear weapons, should be found to be opposing it. I hope that in the bowels of compassion your Lordships will agree that this ray of light that has brought warmth into a number of households where the voices of children had not been heard is right, and will decide that this practice should not be suppressed.
5.50 p.m.
LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, I do not think I should have inflicted myself upon your Lordships at this stage of a full debate had it not been that the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, in introducing this Resolution challenged me, in the friendliest possible way, on two topics. The first was whether I was still of opinion that A.I.D. is not adultery. I nodded in assent to the proposition that I have not changed my mind. I have not; and I will shortly tell your Lordships why. The generally accepted definition of adultery is sexual intercourse—and I emphasise the words "sexual intercourse"—between a married person and a person of the opposite sex who is not the other spouse. Since I developed that opinion nine years ago certain things have happened. One is (and I think I ought to be allowed to refer to this) that the late Lord Jowitt, who was not present in this country at the time of the debate, in official correspondence with me indicated in the plainest possible way that, though he would like to reserve consideration until there was some further discussion, he agreed with the view I had expressed. That was nine years ago.

983
But recently, as we know, there has been a decision of Lord Wheatley in the Court of Session in a case which raised the issue in the most complete form. In a word or two, the action was for adultery. It was proved beyond doubt—indeed, it was admitted—that the husband had been far away at any time which could possibly be within the period of gestation, and that the wife had borne a child. But the wife pleaded a defence: that the child was the result of A.I.D. This was objected to as being irrelevant; and that was the case that was decided. It was said to be irrelevant because A.I.D. was adultery. The learned Lord of Session, Lord Wheatley, after an elaborate consideration, rejected that view.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, introduced what I thought was rather an unfortunate observation about the difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England. It is perfectly true that, as regards the offence of desertion, owing to the historical development of that subject in the two countries, there is a marked difference in the law. The Scots have had desertion on a Statute of Elizabeth, the details of which are still pretty strictly adhered to; whereas desertion in this country was introduced almost in a parenthesis by the original Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 and, of course, it has been developed since then. But historically and legally the two conceptions of desertion are miles apart. However, as your Lordships' House decided a short time ago, there is no difference between the laws of the two countries in the other major offence of cruelty; and in the particular case to which I have referred, Lord Wheatley went out of his way to say that he believed he was following, as, indeed, I think he was, the corresponding law of England.
The other thing which has happened—and it has already been referred to—is that the whole of this topic of A.I.D. in connection with adultery has been considered by what, for short, I may call Lord Morton's Commission; and as I completely agree with what the Commission recommended on this topic and it is only a short passage, I should like to read it to your Lordships. It is under the heading: "Artificial insemination by
984
a donor without the husband's consent". The Commission say:
"Our terms of reference do not embrace a consideration of the moral and social implications of artificial insemination, but we have felt it right, to consider in what, if any, circumstances artificial insemination by a donor should constitute grounds for divorce. In our view, if a wife accepts artificial insemination by a donor without the consent of her husband she is doing him a grave injury, an injury which, in its possible consequences, is as serious as that of adultery. The intention is, and the result may be, to father a child on the husband without his knowledge. It was in fact suggested to us that this conduct should be deemed to be adultery for the purpose of the divorce law, whether or not it can accurately be described as adultery. We think that this would not be desirable. Instead, we recommend that acceptance by a wife of artificial insemination by a donor without the consent of her husband should be made a new and separate ground of divorce."
I absolutely agree with every word of that; I am sure it is the right solution. There is nothing worse, in my opinion (I am old-fashioned enough to say this) than calling things by the wrong name and making things fit which do not fit. It is much better to grasp the nettle thoroughly and make this a ground for divorce.
While I am on that point, I should like to refer to a further matter in this context which I think is also something that could be dealt with at once and quite simply. The Commission recommend (I will not read the passage, but will paraphrase it in a word or two) that if the parties have assented either to A.I.D. or to A.I.H.—which is the insemination artificially by a husband's own seed—it should not be possible thereafter to raise the question whether the marriage has been consummated. That seems to me so eminently sound a suggestion that I hope it will be adopted. I am going to say a word about the possibility of a committee, or whatever body is decided upon to investigate the matter, but I should like to say, first, that, in my opinion, on those two topics to which I have just referred, there is no real reason why the legislation should not be immediate.
I hope the Lord Chancellor will not mind my saying this. A good many steps have already been taken to put the Morton Commission Report outside the category of the fate which sometimes falls to Royal Commission Reports—namely, the pigeon-hole or the waste paper basket. Everything that can be done by

985
rule has already been done. I think I may say this without betraying any secret: so far as legislation is concerned, with the assistance of those who advise the Lord. Chancellor and the Treasury Counsel, one Bill has already become law to implement a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I think I am right in saying that seven others are in one stage or another of presentation to another House. So if one or two more Bills dealing with these two points are added, it will merely be carrying out the set determination of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to do what can be done to implement the scholarly Report which was presented by my noble and learned friend who is sitting alongside me.
Now I turn to the other matter upon which I was challenged, and that is the question of registration. On the previous occasion I expressed the strong opinion that there ought to be registration. I ventured also to anticipate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, by pointing out to the House that false registration might involve both the doctor and anyone else party to the falsity in the charge of conspiracy. With deference to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I agree that I also used the word "perjury" in connection with false registration. If the noble Lord looks at the Perjury Act, he will find that there is a section—I have forgotten its number, but I think it is Section 14—which makes it an offence of perjury if anyone who is obliged to make some declaration by Act of Parliament makes a false declaration. Of course, that is not perjury in the ordinary acceptance of the term of lying on oath in court, but, nevertheless, it is perjury under the Perjury Act. In that sense I still stick to it.
Agreeing as I do that there must be some further inquiry, I would urge strongly that we are on the wrong lines altogether in this secrecy. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich said about secrecy being unreal in the sense that somehow or another the fact would probably get out, but I think it is essentially wrong to have absolute secrecy at all. I have already advocated that A.I.D. without the consent of the husband should be a ground for divorce. How is the matter to be proved? Mainly by the record of
986
the fact that A.I.D. has occurred. If it acts, incidentally, as a deterrent to A.I.D., it perhaps would be no bad thing. hope that, whatever is decided about this matter, there will be none of the sort of circumstance in which a Secretary of State or his underlings can present a certificate that it is contrary to public policy to produce the facts from this particular record. It is in that context only that the facts should be known.
I do not agree, with all respect, with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when he described as a bogy, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, when he described as an exaggeration, the idea that there may be unwitting incestuous marriages as a result of A.I.D. It is not unreal when one realises that in the very Report which has been referred to—the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission some nine or ten years ago—it was stated then as quite a common thing that one donation, so to speak, could actually fertilise one hundred women. Now suppose in the country circle comprised in the practice of one doctor that sort of thing occurs in one small neighbourhood. In the next generation the chances that the children thus produced will fall in love with each other is certainly not negligible and, I submit, is not a bogy at all. On the contrary, the very fact that there is this natural kinship, though they may not know about it, may be the very thing which leads to the sort of affection which arises between them.
I would suggest, therefore, that instead of absolute secrecy there should be safeguards. What form they should take should be a matter for consideration by the Committee who inquire into this subject. I would suggest, tentatively, that on really good cause shown, either for the purpose of a particular marriage which is contemplated or for the purposes of divorce, and so on, a Judge of the High Court should be empowered to allow discreet access to the register. I would make the register compulsory, containing a full statement of the facts, the name of the donor and the rest of it; or if it is the horrible case—I think it is horrible—of the mixed seed of the husband and the donor, that fact should be recorded, so that at least everybody would know where he stands. But, subject to that safeguard of the sanctity of the register, I would make the facts available to the

987
public—not the general public, but the public involved in the particular inquiry. I do not want to stray at all into the sociological aspect of this matter. I have tried to deal faithfully with the two points on which I was challenged, and there I leave the matter.
6.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I find myself in substantial agreement with this Resolution, but I fear I am not able to go the whole way. A.I.D. constitutes a direct, violent attack upon the essence of the marriage contract, and deals as direct and deadly a blow at monogamy as does the sin of adultery. But I am not greatly concerned as to whether we shall call it adultery or not. It seems to me almost certain that it is not adultery in the accepted legal definition of that term. It seems to me also certain that A.I.D. has a different kind and degree of guilt than has adultery, for A.I.D. has not that element of carnal concupiscence or lust. On the other hand, for that fact A.I.D. substitutes another quite different sin, for A.I.D. involves the complete depersonalisation of the properly intensely personal procreative act, and it seems to me that for that reason alone it must be pronounced to be sinful and against the law of God and of nature.
Until I heard the Lord President of the Divorce Division speaking, relying happily on the vigour and power of the noble Lord, Lord Denning, I felt confident that there was really no need for any special legislative action in order to make A.I.D. without the husband's consent a ground for divorce. I remember that the powers of your Lordships' House when sitting in Judicial Committee to deal with legal definitions cannot be overestimated. In the case of Baxter v. Baxter the legal definition of the consummation of marriage was radically altered, and that in spite of much contrary evidence in earlier definitions in law hooks and hooks of morals. I was hoping that if and when a case came before your Lordships' House in Committee, where a woman had been impregnated by the seed of a donor without her husband's consent, a decision would speedily be reached that in future the term "adultery" should be held to rover that.
988
I am certain in my own mind that had the practice of A.I.D. been known in the days when these older definitions of adultery were drawn up the definition would have been so framed as to include it, because, after all, one of the most important elements in adultery is that it gives rise to the possibility of the birth of a child by the intervention of a third party. I suspect that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason, why in olden days the sin of adultery in the wife was held to be more grievous than the sin of adultery in the husband was that the wife's adultery might lead to the intrusion into the family of an extraneous child. Therefore I say that had A.I.D. been known in the days when these definitions were drawn up, the definition would have been so framed as to make it perfectly clear that A.I.D. constitutes, as I have said, as flagrant and violent an attack upon the very heart and essence of the marriage relationship as does the acknowledged sin of adultery.
But what of the practice of A.I.D. in itself? Does it stand in need of action by the State for its control and regulation? For myself, I find that I must admit that at the moment A.I.D. in this country does not seem to constitute a very grave problem. It is practiced, so far as I can judge, to a very limited extent. As your Lordships have heard, it is extremely difficult, owing to the secrecy which surrounds the whole matter, to arrive at anything like an exact figure of the number of A.I.D. births which have taken place in this country. But Dr. Margaret Jackson, to whom I was speaking the night before last, gave it to me as her opinion, based, of course, largely on her own perhaps somewhat limited practice, but taking into account the knowledge that she has of the activities of her colleagues, that the figure of 150 births per annum would be an exaggeration, and that the probable figure is much nearer 100. That does not seem to me in itself to constitute a very grave problem.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the right reverend Prelate? That figure appears to be in total contrast with the estimates given in the House earlier on. That is so, is it not?
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: It is indeed, but I can do nothing about

989
it. I have no access to any other information.
LORD BLACKFORD: I can tell the right reverend Prelate of two doctors who admit that they do sixty each themselves. That gives us 120 per annum for only two practices.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: Then Dr. Margaret Jackson must have misinformed me and be herself misinformed. I think it will be agreed that at the moment, surely, the treatment of A.I.D. is in the hands of a very small body of highly-responsible, careful and magnanimous doctors, and that those doctors take the utmost trouble to provide this treatment only for couples who they assure themselves are, in their own words, "child-worthy"—that is to say, whose marriages are well founded and stable, and who are themselves psychologically normal. Further, those doctors for the most part select their donors from among their own personal friends and are sure of their physical, mental and moral fitness for the purpose. I am bound to say that I myself find it quite unintelligible how those donors, who are honourable men, are able to convince themselves that in coming forward as semen donors they are acting comparably, almost identically, in the scale of morals as are those who come forward as blood donors. I find it extremely difficult to understand how the donor can reach this conviction, though I accept that in fact he does, and he is able to perform an act which in any other set of circumstances he would find irresistibly repugnant and offensive. But I must accept what I am told: that those donors are nevertheless honourable men and act as they do with the same motive as that of blood donors.
Such, I think, is the situation concerning A.I.D. in this country at this moment. But it is, of course, not difficult to imagine that the position might quickly and radically change. The practice might increase substantially till it reached or passed the proportions which it now has reached in the United States of America. If that happened we might see here in England students lining up to offer their semen to the clinic in return for extra vacation pocket money. I understand that that is a not uncommon thing in the United States of America. The average fee for the students is from
990
five dollars to fifty dollars a time. That would not be a development which any of your Lordships would wish to see come about in this country, and it would certainly be the most unhealthy preparation by our young men for subsequent marriage.
Again, if the practice were to increase considerably we might find that instead of the fine, admirable doctors who now control this field of medicine, other doctors would move in under the motive not of generous compassion but of an easy and lucrative practice. If that were to happen we might be fairly confident that the donors would then be much less carefully chosen, and that men who were mentally, morally and physically unfit—men possibly suffering at that time from venereal disease—would be employed as donors, to the disastrous loss of the child to be conceived. We should also find, with this other type of doctor, that unsuitable couples were treated—psychologically abnormal couples, couples whose marriages were strained already almost to breaking point, and then there would undoubtedly ensue the psychological disasters which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich described. Again, if A.I.D. became at all common as a remedy for childless marriages, every late-born first child of a marriage would come under suspicion. Society and the family could never be sure about any first child which was born more than—what shall I say?—three, five, certainly ten years after the wedding took place. It would be said "They have been married for ten years and now they have a child. I wonder!"
Sooner or later, therefore, I feel confident that some control of this practice of A.I.D. will become necessary, but perhaps later rather than sooner because at present we have so little information. Because of the secrecy which surrounds this practice there has been little follow-up of the case histories of the families and children involved. Perhaps now this will soon change. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has told the House, the Eugenics Society has already set up a council to investigate carefully the continuing development of A.I.D. from its medical, social and legal angles, and it may well be that this council, having collected its information, will be in a position to recommend to Her Majesty's

991
Government that some kind of control should be established.
But that immediately raises the question: what kind of control? I myself was a member of the Archbishops' Commission which has been referred to so often to-day and which recommended that A.I.D. should be made a criminal offence. I signed that Report, but I should not sign it to-day. I am convinced that such a step would be gravely unwise. It would certainly have the effect of drawing the conduct of this practice from the responsible hands in which it now rests to totally irresponsible, possibly even disreputable, hands, as has happened in the case of abortion. I think, too, that to make it a criminal offence might open the door to a perfectly fiendish type of blackmail.
If it were a criminal offence—this is where I part company with the noble Lord who introduced this Resolution—I suppose it would be absolutely certain that the child conceived by A.I.D. would be illegitimate. I cannot but feel that to make these children illegitimate is to press most unfairly and hardly upon the child who is, after all, the only really innocent party in the whole matter. In my view, it would be far better to institute a system of regulation and control in some such way as this: that only those selected doctors who had been enrolled upon a panel by a competent medical authority should be allowed to practise A.I.D., and anyone else so doing should be guilty of a criminal offence; that the doctors selected should be empowered carefully to treat every donor for suitability; to give A.I.D. only to married women—that is a most important point—and then only with the husband's consent. Where the husband's consent has been given, the child, if born, should thereafter be deemed to be legitimate, so that it should never be open subsequently to the father to change his mind and to repudiate the child. Lastly, the fact of the A.I.D. should be registered either at Somerset House or on the birth certificate.
Of course, the chief difficulties in any system of control requiring registration centre round the profound secrecy which the advocates of A.I.D. think to be so necessary. It is this very secrecy which opponents of A.I.D. feel to be one of its most objectionable features. I am inclined to question how far this secrecy
992
is in fact necessary. The disadvantages of the secrecy are obvious enough: it increases and encourages the irresponsibility of the donor—the donor begetting children of whom he never hears and moving among his neighbours as the unknown father of "who-knows-who". Moreover, by this secrecy, as your Lordships have been told ad nauseam this afternoon, the family and society are imposed upon—whose child is who's? On the whole, the results of the secrecy seem to me to be unsatisfactory.
Of course, there are two sides to this secrecy. There is first of all the secrecy as to the identity of the donor. This is held to be necessary in order to avoid emotional entanglements: the jealousy of the husband towards the father of his wife's child; the interest in and growing attachment towards the father of her child on the part of the wife; the paternal interest of the donor in his offspring and a possible itch to interfere. All these are advanced as reasons why the identity of the donor must be kept a secret from the child and from the husband and wife. But it is only fair to note that not all the doctors seem to be agreed about this—that at least in the United States of America some doctors think that the couple should be told the identity of the donor; and their reason is that they wish to avoid the possibility of a gnawing and a nagging curiosity developing in either husband or wife into a positive obsession. It is not for me as a layman to presume an opinion where doctors disagree on a point like this. But at least this can be said: that the necessity of keeping the donor's identity secret is not profound and that there is certainly here a matter for further investigation.
The other side of the secrecy concerns the fact that recourse has been had to A.I.D. at all. This is said to be necessary, first, because no husband would wish his own infertility to be known; secondly, because the effect upon the child of knowing the truth about its birth would be psychologically disastrous; and thirdly, because the present state of public opinion is such that if it were known that a family had used A.I.D. they would suffer some kind of social damage. Yet the result of all this secrecy is that the whole life of the family is, and must be, based upon fraud and deception. Parents will continually speak of the

993
child as "our child" and will continually speak to the child as its father and mother. The whole life of the family and its very centre will therefore rest upon and be vitiated by a living deception. I cannot believe but that it would be much better to get rid of all this secrecy and, with the secrecy, of that unmistakable element of furtiveness which at present surrounds the whole of this business.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has been extraordinarily interesting, but from what he said at the beginning I gather that he will continue to regard this practice as gravely sinful.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, would the noble Lord let me finish? Whether the identity of the donor is concealed on not, let the fact that there has been A.I.D. be openly registered as the facts are now to be registered in the case of adoption. Would it really be so disastrous for the child if it be told at the right moment and in the right way by its own mother the truth about its birth? Is the child in so different a situation from that of the adopted child, or that of the child whose mother divorced its father in its infancy—with an unknown father, or a father of whom one never speaks, but also a loving and a loved stepfather?
In the judgment of the Church—and I am in profound and complete agreement with it—A.I.D. is against the law of God. It is sinful, and wife and donor are guilty of the sin of adultery or something very like it; and the consenting husband and the doctor are guilty of formal complicity in that sin. Only the child is innocent. In my judgment and in the judgment of the Church that is the true state of the case, morally, for A.I.D. But of course there can always be some who will not accept that judgment To them I would say, and I believe the State also should say: "If you really believe that A.I.D. is right, then do it openly and without shame. Be rid of pretence and deception. Accept the necessity of open registration." If they cannot do so, may it not be because in their heart of hearts they know that A.I.D. is a wrong way in which to satisfy the desperate and noble urge towards parenthood, and that for doctor and donor A.I.D. is a wrong impulse of com-
994
passion to satisfy a need? And if, in their heart of hearts, they do think that, I would say to them, For God's sake, do not do it!"
6.34 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, at this late hour I will leave out some of what I had intended to say, for I am sure that we all want to hear the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, for having put down this Motion, which he has moved so ably, and thereby done a great service to the country. That is a first step. I feel strongly that it is time for action, and I was hoping to find out to-day what is to be the second step. Legislation has been recommended. The Commission of the most reverend Primate recommended legislation in 1946, but what has been done? The Royal Commission has made recommendations, but what has been done?
I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I believe that it is our duty to the public for this House to make the position clear to them. I am quite sure that the public do not know where they are. Since Lord Wheatley has given his judgment in the case that has been mentioned, I believe the public are more than ever at sea, and that as a result of that decision this practice may grow. It is up to this House to do something to stop that increase, and there is a grave danger that Lord Wheatley's judgment will be misunderstood. How many people read a judgment like that? Public opinion is formed very much more by the headlines, in the newspapers, and those headlines, as I have read the Press, have been misleading on this point. Here is one which says: "Insemination Not Adultery: Judge's Ruling". I believe that that is a misleading statement. The public will say, "They say that it is all right."
What in fact did the judge say? He made no such remark as that insemination was not adultery. What he said was:
"Whether such an act constitutes adultery in its legal meaning … it does not conform to the common conception of adultery … it is not adultery as the law interprets that term."

995
The judge went on to refer to case after case throughout the world, and he went through the law of France and Holland, as well as that of Scotland and England which, as has been said, is the same. He concludes that, as defined by the law, A.I.D. cannot be held to be adultery, for the simple reason, to take one of his conclusions, that it takes two people to commit adultery, as defined by the law; that that has always been so, and therefore, this practice cannot logically be regarded as adultery. It is all very misleading, and I do therefore urge, in my old age, that we must have a new definition of adultery.
In Scotland I find that all my legal friends to whom I have spoken are in agreement. All are urging that action be taken. I said to one judge who is a friend of mine: "How slow you are! Why have you not found a new definition?" His reply made me think. He said, "Who is to blame? Are you a Member of the House of Lords? We have been waiting for ten years for you to do something, and what have you done?" I feel that is a fair rebuke, and that it is up to us to take action. I feel therefore that we might know—I believe the public are entitled to know—what action is to be taken, and I would venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether, in replying to this debate, he could give us an answer to this question: Have Her Majesty's Government taken, or do they contemplate taking, any steps to promote legislation to prohibit A.I.D.? Or do they intend to set up an inquiry of some kind into the question?
6.40 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has dealt so clearly with the judgment made by Lord Wheatley. That is to a certain extent the reason for the Motion before us. I agree with him very heartily that it would be well if we could make the position absolutely clear, although I think that there is very little room for disapproving of the Motion. Within the limits of this Motion, I feel myself able to go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who moved it. I am glad that he moved it, because I feel that it is time for this controversial subject to be ventilated and for something to be done regarding it.
996
I was out of the Chamber for a short time when the earlier speeches were being made, but I came back in time to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who declared in favour of an inquiry by the Government. I think that the position at the moment is so clear that it should be possible for a Government statement to be made and for Government action to be taken. I was greatly interested in the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter, and it was particularly interesting to me to see how he came round to the point of putting the child in the principal position with regard to the use of A.I.D. That is what I have in mind all the time when I hear illegitimacy being spoken about and talk of illegitimate children. To me there are no illegitimate children; there are only illegitimate parents.
What we see here is a breaking of our moral code. We agree that abortion, for instance, is a breaking of our accepted moral code in this country, and that fornication is against that code. But the practice we are discussing now is even more objectionable, I consider, than fornication, because it is so deliberate and cold-blooded in the way it is carried out. Fornication might produce a child in what Robert Burns calls the impulse of a "treacherous inclination." A.I.D. is used in cold blood for the purpose of producing a child which cannot be other than illegitimate. A child born as a result of a sudden impulse can be made legitimate by the marriage of the two parents, but a child produced under this means, as I see it (and I am keeping within the terms of the Motion before us), cannot possibly be made legitimate. When the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter spoke about the child, he seemed to me to make the secrecy that was necessary so difficult that I felt it would be much better for us to work for the discouragement, and even the abolition, of the practice of A.I.D. rather than to think of remedying things or doctoring things up in a way that might lead to more agreement with what is being done under this practice.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of making this an offence, of taking steps to ensure that those who carry out this practice should be made aware that it is against what we stand for in this country, and of sanctions being taken against doctors who go to the length

997
of practising this means. I think that all these steps are necessary in order to clear away and to clean up the position that we are examining under this Motion to-day.
6.46 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope to detain the House for only a few minutes. This has been a very long and most valuable debate. Nine years ago I spoke myself on this subject. It is there on record and everything I said then is relevant and right to-day. I would just mention, as an indication, that we do not really want a long delay for more experience of this thing, because nothing has happened to alter its broad outline in the last nine years. What was said then is true now. Nor do I want to attempt to add to the debate, because there is nothing remaining to be added.
I want to do one thing only, in essence, and that is to say that I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will commit the Government to some kind of action. I do not very much mind, so to speak, what action, so long as some action is taken; for if we go on as we have done for the last nine years, talking occasionally about the subject and doing nothing, we shall get more than ever into the state where, by sheer inadvertence and inertia, this habit will be established as part of the social life of this country, and people will say all the more violently, as they are beginning to say now, "There is no going back on it. It has come to stay." I am perfectly sure that the matter cannot be allowed to stay in its present form.
I wish to say two things, merely to clear the air. First, so far as I can speak for the Church of England, there is no objection at all to A.I.H.; and I say this because even this afternoon I have been asked whether the Church's attitude is the same on A.I.H. as on A.I.D. It is totally different. A.I.H., as I conceive it, is a method for helping the fulfilment of one of the main purposes of marriage which would otherwise fail, and there can be no kind of moral objection to that. But A.I.D. is utterly different. Secondly, I would say, as I think my brother of Exeter said, I am not in the least interested in whether you call A.I.D adultery or whether you do not call it adultery: it is a matter of language and not the real thing. If the law likes to say
998
it is not adultery, let it say that; if it prefers to call it adultery and have done with it, let it do so. But the fact remains—and this, I think, everybody has admitted—at present it is a matrimonial offence; and that is what we have to deal with. Is this matrimonial offence to be allowed to continue unregulated and uncontrolled? It is on that question that I should hope we shall hear something from the Government.
I would add this. I am told that the Church is accused once more—and I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, had not got it in mind—of being too negative and of being always content to say "No" when anything new is discovered. That is really not true. I would say, in passing, that the Church has said "No" a good deal about atomic bombs. We have by no means taken them "lying down," if I may put it like that. We have a strong moral compulsion against the very idea of atomic warfare and atomic bombs. As we know, a negation has often a real positive value. Most of the Ten Commandments are negative, and they are none the worse for that. Therefore the Church considers this matter from a very positive point of view.
As has been already demonstrated by some of my brethren, the Church rests on the positive Christian doctrine of personal responsibility for every act. Every person shall carry his own burden and stand for what he is, honestly, before all men and before God. That puts an end at once to the whole of the environment of secrecy and conspiracy which surrounds A.I.D. A.I.D. involves in falsehood and deception—and nobody has denied it—the husband, who falsely claims the status of father; the mother, who pretends to bear in wedlock a child who is born out of wedlock; the donor-father, who, by his own choice, can never know his own child or the mother who bore it to him and can never discharge any of the responsibilities of his fatherhood; the child, who, after all, need not have been born but who is to be deceived as to his parentage and can never be undeceived but remains an anonymous child, bearing a false name; and (we may as well face it), however high-minded he may be, the doctor, who not only connives at a perjured declaration of birth but also makes the supposed father and mother promise to conceal the truth for ever from the child

999
and from society. I call that a conspiracy and nothing else.
If, as my brother of Exeter suggested, we can get rid of all the secrecy, at least that would bring the matter into a healthy atmosphere, but in the judgment of many doctors, that would kill the whole idea. Well, that would not be a bad thing. This moral confusion, resting on a series of deceptions, cannot be tolerated, because truth is the very cement of a civilised society and cannot be sacrificed merely to satisfy personal desires.
May I bring the debate back to the question: what is the reason for A.I.D.? There is only one reason. We may sympathise with it naturally and wholeheartedly, but that does not end the question. Out of all the married women who are childless and who really desire children, many—I suppose most—successfully come to terms with their disappointment. Some feel unable or unwilling to do that. They are torn by a longing, a psychological longing, to have what they cannot have within the terms of their wedlock, and they turn to medical science to resolve their conflict and secure the satisfaction, the noble satisfaction, for which they crave. We can understand and sympathise. But how many psychological longings there are which men and women have and which they have to learn to control and sublimate! If this particular longing is to be satisfied, it can be only at a great, and some of us think a disastrous, price. How great a price this debate has revealed. It cannot but destroy the integrity of marriage as ordinarily understood. It is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of marriage, in which soul and body, spiritual and physical, the act of conception and the mutual bonds of responsibility which precede and follow it, are inseparable and sacred.
But on the lower level of social order, if A.I.D. is accepted there are most unwelcome consequences. The law will have to decide whether for purposes of divorce it is a matrimonial offence or not, and I am sure that that could be decided at once. But every couple who, after a period of childlessness, have a child will have to bear the suspicion of their neighbours that the child has been born by A.I.D. I would repeat what I
1000
said nine years ago, and it is still true: that many nervous, adolescent children will have a haunting fear from time to time, as they do now, one which can never be resolved, that they do not belong to their supposed parents. If a child asks his father, to end the whole atmosphere of doubt, the father will have to reply with the truth or a lie; and I cannot think that the father will lie to his own supposed son.
The strange thing in the whole of this matter, to my mind, is that the medical profession should have been content that some of its members, on their own individual authority, should take the law out of the hands of Church and State into their own hands and should act in a conspiracy of secrecy in a matter of such far-reaching spiritual, moral, legal and social import. I should suppose that the medical profession itself would desire authoritative clarification of what may or may not lawfully be done in this matter. For that reason alone I think that the Government ought to act. If, as I trust, the Government recognise that they must take some action, there are three possible, courses.
I put first that which I believe to be the only impregnable one: that, if all that we have heard to-day of the complications and perils and risks of A.I.D. is true, it should be forbidden by law. If the social welfare requires it, I cannot see why this should not be done. And I have a feeling that throughout the country as a whole there would be a great relief if the people knew that, clearly and definitely, it had been decided by Parliament that this matrimonial offence should be in itself even more illegal than it appears to be now; for I gather from the noble and learned Lords who have spoken that it is already against the law. Well, let us make it finally against the law before it is too late.
As I listened to some of the speeches, I could not but feel that this would cut away an immense amount of the confusion and complexity which it is unfair to ask the medical profession and the country to bear. As I listened to the noble Lord. Lord Chorley, and to my brother of Exeter, I found them involving themselves in more and more complicated issues about what to do to make A.I.D. possible in the social environment. At least my brother of Exeter all

1001
the time said that it ought not to be there at all, and the logic of the right reverend Prelate's argument to me was that the sensible thing was to put an end to it altogether. But I have learned by hard experience that what is right, obvious and sensible is not always done in this world, and I can quite believe that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not feel it possible at this moment to commit the Government to such action.
Is there any other action to which he can commit the Government at once? I should have thought that after this debate he could without hesitation commit them to some form of registration—still to be worked out in detail, no doubt, but certainly to be accepted as the cardinal principle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, made, as I thought, a quite convincing case for the necessity of registration; and, indeed, if the use of A.I.D. is to be a matrimonial offence, quotable for the purposes of divorce, it must be registered somewhere. That fact alone demands it. I hope that the recommendation of the Royal Commission will be accepted; and that with it will go some form of registration. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, amplified the idea, and gave many more details, but the object is that there should be no secrecy; there is an official record, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, should be accessible only on an order of the court.
Supposing that the Lord Chancellor, in his wisdom, says: "I dare not commit the Government so far as that," what remains? For myself, I am sure that it ought to be either prevention or registration. But whichever it be, I would add that we need not really be afraid that the law will be unworkable. For the whole medical profession will accept scrupulously, as a matter of professional honour, as it always does, what the law decrees. Let this practice be driven underground, as abortion is, and no responsible doctor would practise it; it would have the ignominy that it deserves. For myself, I should expect the medical profession to welcome a step which would relieve them of a spiritual, moral and social responsibility which does not belong to the medical profession alone. That is what I feel most deeply about in the whole matter: that, while we
1002
honour and respect the medical profession beyond expression, they must not arrogate to themselves—and only a few of them do—the right to settle a matter of such profound spiritual and moral significance. I think it is the fact that the majority of the medical profession, and its leaders, will not touch this method. That itself is, I think, an indication that they need the support of a clear guidance to deliver them from it.
The responsibility now rests firmly on the shoulders of the Government, and demands some kind of action. If the Government feel that they dare not commit themselves to anything more positive than an inquiry, then all I can do is to quote the final words of the speech which I made nine years ago, when I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 161, col. 409]:
"… if nothing else can be done there should be a full official investigation.…"
My Lords, I have the hope that, after nine years, there might at least be an affirmative answer to that question.
7.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I rise to speak for only two or three minutes, because I should not like it to be thought that the point of view put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Chorley, has not some sympathy on this side of the House. If one thing is clear from this debate, it is that the House is unanimous in thinking that A.I.D. without the husband's consent should be a ground for divorce; that the Scottish ruling should not be followed in England. I am sure that, whatever our views or religious beliefs might be, we should support the Government in that respect. On the other hand, I think it would split the country deeply if A.I.D. was to be made a matter of a legal crime, rather than a matter of personal morals. What we want to-day is not a priori arguments, but an investigation. We have had a priori arguments which might equally well have been directed against the adoption of children. We have had a priori arguments which should be put to the test of careful, scientific investigation. A.I.D. has been practised, and as a result many children have been born. It is possible now to have a careful scientific inquiry to find out what have been the social, personal and family effects of what has been done for a long time. I hope that, before we are asked to make up our

1003
minds on the general principle, the Government will undertake such a careful inquiry to try to produce the facts showing what has happened in these cases.
7.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, before I disclose what degree of satisfaction I can give to the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and to others who have asked for it, I am sure your Lordships would like me to say, in winding up the debate, that we all desire to express our thanks in no small measure to my noble friend Lord Blackford for initiating this debate; and indeed, I believe that those outside the House will feel gratitude to everyone who has spoken in the course of this afternoon, from so many different points of view, on this delicate and difficult subject.
We have had evidence to-day of the strength of feeling that exists in this House on this matter, as it must, I am sure, exist in the country as a whole, on one side or other of this controversy; and that must be so in a controversy which touches the most intimate aspects of private life. We have heard of the variety of important problems with which society is confronted by the practice of artificial insemination as it affects the wife, the husband, the child, and family life generally. I think this has become clear: that we have been made aware that after all the controversy of recent weeks, there remains a great deal about the practice itself, and about its effects, which is still largely unknown, except to the few who have been closely associated with it. On that point, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Astor has just said.
It is inevitable that we should to-day have turned our minds back to the last occasion on which this subject was discussed in this House, in March, 1949, when my noble friends Lord Reading and Lord Brabazon of Tara put the Motions before the House. I think at the end of that debate there was a fairly clear indication that some sort of inquiry on the part of the Government was necessary. Again, much reference has been made to the fact that a year before that debate the Commission appointed by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of
1004
Canterbury had already produced a Report on this subject; I have recently devoted further study to the Commission's Report, and I should like to add my tribute to those that have already been paid for a remarkable document. Whether or not one supports its conclusions, one cannot but admire the lucidity of its arguments and the scrupulous exposition of both points of view throughout the Report. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter is here, and I hope that he will take that comment as a most sincere reaction of mine when I studied the Report carefully before this debate.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate agrees—this is the impression that I got—that the Commission seem to have recognised that many aspects of the problem required fuller examination than they were able to give them, with the necessarily limited information they had at their disposal. It is now over twelve years since the members of the Commission were appointed, and over ten years since they produced their Report. It is reasonable to suppose that there is to-day a good deal more information than was available in 1948 about the practice of artificial insemination and its effects, although I agree that it is bound to be hard to come by, when one bears in mind the delicacy of the subject and the natural reluctance of those concerned to discuss these intimate, personal problems. But as I understood both my noble friend Lord Blackford, and the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, it appeared to me that they seemed to accept that more information was available. I think that is an important point. Also, if I may draw the threads together, since the debate nine years ago we have had, as my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman, and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, reminded us, the Report of the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Morton of Henryton, who were concerned with artificial insemination as it affected the law relating to marriage and divorce. I hope your Lordships will confirm that, among all the aspects of the subject on which there have been divergencies, there is no divergency and nothing but support from your Lordships' House on both the recommendations which the Morton Commission put forward.

1005
May I remind your Lordships that the Commission recommended unanimously that artificial insemination by a donor without the consent of the husband should be a ground for divorce or for judicial separation. They also recommended that artificial insemination with the husband's consent should be a bat to proceedings for nullity on the ground of impotence. I am taking it that I can go back to my colleagues after this debate and say that both these proposals of the Morton Commission have the approval of this House, and that we should operate on that basis. It was not within the Royal Commission's terms of reference to consider the wider implications of the problem, as appeared from the actual words which my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman quoted to the House.
Our debate owes its origin, as my noble friend Lord Blackford has reminded us, to the enormous public interest in this subject that has been aroused during the last few weeks by the decision of the learned Judge, Lord Wheatley, in the Court of Session, that artificial insemination of a woman without the consent of the husband does not constitute adultery, and, if he will allow me to say so, by the speech made to the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury by the most reverend Primate. I find it difficult to remember a topic which in so short a space of time has aroused as much interest in the newspapers, on the radio and, indeed, among men and women with (if I may put it that way) the quietest and most reflective minds when they meet. I want to make this point, and I hope the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury will consider it a fair one. This is due partly to the novelty of the subject to many people, because it has hitherto been rarely discussed, at infrequent intervals; and partly, as I have said, to the fact that it concerns so intimate and private a matter of human life.
My noble friend Lord Blackford has concentrated his Motion on the legal aspects of the subject, and of course that is the direct issue. I hope he will not take it amiss if, before I come to these—and I promise him that I shall do my best to deal with the legal aspects—in deference to the fact that the debate has dealt with wider aspects of the matter, I first say a word about these wider aspects. Wherever Christianity and Western civili-
1006
sation have spread, the family has been the basis of the structure of society. Whether that basis should be changed can be argued about like any other subject in the world. Some—and a powerful supporter of this view was the Dean of St. Paul's in the Minority Report of the Archbishop's Commission—would say that we take it too much for granted. Others would go further and would substitute some kind of institutionalised society. Others regard the family as sacrosanct. But whatever our personal views, we must all agree that in fact today the family is the basis of our society; and before welcoming any process which may upset that basis we must give that process the most careful examination.
I should like to put the balance, I hope fairly, from the two points in this regard. Artificial insemination by a donor, like divorce, may work a startling change in the relationship of husband and wife, parent and child. We cannot calculate what psychological disturbances may be caused, after the child is born, by doubts, suspicion and resentment. There is the difficult question, which has been in all our minds to-day, of whether one should tell or whether one should keep the matter secret. If the child is told, he will know that he is not his apparent father's child, but he can neither know nor be able to find out whose child he is, and who are his half-brothers and sisters. If he is not told, there will be a permanent cloak of deception about his life which may at any time be accidentally or deliberately pierced.
As has been pointed out, and as I fully accept, quite apart from the legal position, there are the moral aspects of that deception. One must face, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter asked us to face, that A.I.D. is the final step in the depersonalisation of sex. It is more than a technical process; it removes procreation entirely from the nexus of personal relationships, whether inside or outside marriage, when there is not even the most fleeting contact between the man and the woman. That is a side which we must all face, and I hope that I have put it fairly; I have certainly tried to do so.
But, my Lords, look at the other side. We all know of many women whose lives are made miserable because they

1007
are denied the opportunity of bearing children. We cannot be unsympathetic to those women. Nor is that the only facet that we must consider. We must consider the husband who, through no fault of his own, has placed and is placing the woman in this position. We must consider that those two people are married, if your Lordships like to consider it that way, husband and wife in the sight of God, and there is that precious relationship which, it is urged, the use of this practice can do much to make beautiful and to continue to exist in the world. Again I hope your Lordships will not think that unfair—I think it is a fair way of presenting it. There is evidence that in some cases A.I.D. has made an enormous difference to the success of marriages that were in that parlous state. The reasons, I think, again require greater consideration. They could not be put more forcibly or clearly than they are in the Report of this Commission, even by the majority who disagree with the practice. But it must be read with the Minority Report which the Dean of St. Paul's put in. That, I think, makes a very formidable problem, apart from the legal position. I will be as short as I can, but I think my noble friend Lord Kinnaird, and others, indicated that they would be helped if I gave your Lordships the legal position as I see it. As I say, I will do it as briefly as I can. I thought that I ought to mention those more general points in order to make clear to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the possible far-reaching consequences of lie practice.
May I turn now to the legal aspects of the matter? The word "adultery" has been used, and I think that, as the debate has gone on, the importance of the actual use of this word has steadily declined, not with any idea of saying that adultery is an unimportant thing, but because in this context the label is not, I think, of great importance. I agree with those who have said so. But the first question is: Should A.I.D. be labelled—I put "labelled" in inverted commas—adultery? That is, does it now, in law, already have the same consequences as normal extra-marital intercourse? That is to say, if there is no consent by the husband, is it already a ground for divorce; and if there is consent, is it
1008
tantamount to adultery which has been connived at? I think that is the first point. The second point is whether, if it is not now adultery in law, it should be a ground for divorce. And the third point is whether it should not only be a ground for divorce but should be prohibited.
Noble Lords who have read the Report of the most reverend Primate's Commission will have seen that there is authority there for the proposition that A.I.D. is adultery. Both Mr. Justice Vaisey and Sir Henry Willink, who were members of that Commission, took that view. There is the obiter dictum in the Canadian case of Orford v. Orford (1921, 58 D.L.R., 251); and there is a very serious addition to that weight of authority in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning to-day. But the dictum of Lord Dunedin in Russell's case, on which Mr. Justice Vaisey and Sir Henry Willink also relied, does not in my view really support that proposition. On the other hand, there is the highly persuasive authority of my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman, who has spoken to-day, and then there is the judgment of Lord Wheatley in the Court of Session.
I do not wish the House to think that I am pronouncing a considered judgment when I say that, for my part, I am most impressed by Lord Wheatley's reasoning. I should certainly not be disposed without much more argument to endorse the confident view of the most reverend Primate's Commission that A.I.D. is adultery at the present moment, either in English or in Scottish law. Somebody raised the interesting point of whether it could be cruelty. That is a matter which might well be considered, but it is off the general line of our discussion to-day and I will not pursue it now.
My Lords, we come to the second point, and that is about A.I.D. as a ground for divorce. As I have reminded your Lordships, the Royal Commission of which my noble and learned friend, Lord Morton of Henryton, was the Chairman made a unanimous recommendation that A.I.D. without the husband's consent should be a ground for divorce. Your Lordships may have noticed, and my noble friend. Lord Blackford, who read the judgment so

1009
carefully, may have seen, that Lord Wheatley said that it constitutes a grave marital offence. From what has been said to-day, I have no doubt that all noble Lords agree. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are impressed by the force of the arguments adduced in support of this proposal, and they will be all the more impressed by what has been said to-day. On the actual timing of legislation there are a number of considerations that I should like to consider, including my proposal for dealing with other aspects of the subject to which I will come in a moment.
That was A.I.D. without consent. Whether the same result should ensue if the husband consents is a very different question. I think your Lordships would agree that it is on an entirely different footing. The Royal Commission did not recommend that it should be a ground for divorce, and it would be difficult to regard it—that is, artificial insemination with the consent of the husband—as a more serious marital offence than adultery connived at by the husband. I do not know whether the most reverend Primate actually formulated it as I have done. I rather thought he was approaching that at the time he used the word "connivance" in his speech. There obviously is all the difference in the world between A.I.D. with consent and A.I.D. without consent, from the point of view I am considering at the moment.
Now, my Lords, I come to the question which the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has put to us again to-day, that really the most satisfactory solution would be to make A.I.D.—think he means without consent—a criminal offence. I understand that I am right.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Or with consent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In fairness, I ought to remind the House that the most reverend Primate's Commission, with one exception, again the Dean of St. Paul's, thought that A.I.D. should be made a criminal offence, though I am glad to think, in view of what I am about to say, and if I understood him correctly, that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter said that he would not have signed that part of the Report as he is informed to-day. The last thing in the
1010
world I want to make is a debating point, but I think that emphasises the general argument I am trying to make—that this is a subject on which there is much that has happened in the last ten years that: can be learned and applied before the mind is made up. I say nothing further than that, and I hope that that is not unfair. A.I.D. is certainly not a criminal offence now.
The most reverend Primate, in relation to the Wolfenden Report, discussed the rightness of existing and, indeed, long-established and accepted law encroaching on the field of private morality. Whatever our views are on that subject, I should have thought that everyone would have agreed that great care must be exercised before new law creating fresh criminal offences is enacted in that field. I have not forgotten the other aspects of the matter. I will consider most carefully what my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has said about the general conspiracies. I think he would agree that although the law on conspiracy is perhaps one of the most complicated sections of our law, one must in the end come to consider what was the agreement made between the parties at the time: and then one must consider, was that an agreement to do something that was criminal, or to use criminal methods in achieving that end? I have also not forgotten, I want to say at once, that there may be, but need not be, a consequential offence in making a false entry in the Register.
May I say one word on the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, after a most admirable and full account of the position of his own Church in this matter? He raised the question of regulation or licensing. Lord Amulree also came to that point from another point of view, and the right reverend Prelate also approached it; and, indeed, the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop, put it to me as number two of his heart's desires. I want to say only this. Lord Pakenham argued that regulation would amount to approbation, and of course that is an argument with which we are familiar in regard to betting and gambling and prostitution. I take that point because it is one I have often had to consider.
But before the question of regulation can arise, the Government and Parliament will have to make up their minds

1011
on the more fundamental question: is the practice of artificial insemination generally so harmful that it must be suppressed, as the most reverend Primate desires; or, though harmless in some cases (for example, artificial insemination by the husband gained the most reverend Primate's support) harmful and to be prohibited in others (for example, A.I.D. without consent, or of a single woman); or—and this might arise—is it generally harmless, but in practice either physically dangerous or liable to abuse if practised by unscrupulous or undesirable persons? In this case regulation might be necessary. My Lords, if one considers that point, which has been posed as a secondary point, both by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and by the most reverend Primate, I suggest to your Lordships that there is not sufficient information, either as to the extent of the practice or its consequences, nor is sufficient Parliamentary or public opinion yet formed, to enable this fundamental, prior question to be answered.
I should like to deal for a moment with the question of legitimacy and legitimation, because I think that that is an important facet of the matter. It seems to me difficult to deny that the children of artificial insemination are, for purposes of legitimacy and legitimation, in the same position as if they were conceived in the normal way. That, I think, is what my noble and learned friend Lord Denning expressed as his view earlier in this debate. I cannot say, and I do not think my noble and learned friend would claim to say, with absolute certainty that this is the law, because there is no decided case that absolutely covers all possible variations of the matter, and it has not been to the House of Lords. But I think a particularly difficult case, from the point of view of proof, is that of the child born by A.I.D. with the husband's consent—I say "from the point of view of proof," because clearly in these circumstances it is difficult to imagine how the proof would be forthcoming. That is a point that we have to recognise. Then there is the completely different question of whether these children should be, as opposed to whether they are, legitimate.
Again, I think the last mentioned case—that of a child born by A.I.D. with the husband's consent—is the most difficult.
1012
But it is an important question because, apart from the general matters that I mentioned earlier in my speech, on legitimacy depend many gifts of property, the rights on intestacy, as we have heard, and, of course, inheritable honours of which we have spoken. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich dealt with that aspect of the matter. Then, lastly but not least—I do not want the right reverend Prelate to think that there is any least about it—there is the important question of falsifying the Register and thereby committing an offence under the Perjury Act.
But that is not an end to the matter. There is a more general point which may be difficult. As your Lordships can well imagine, many Statutes refer to "father", "son", "daughter" and "parent". Are these expressions apt to describe the donor-child relationship? It is a question of real importance. May I give the House two obvious examples. One is the Punishment of Incest Act, and the implications there are obvious. Then there are the Bastardy Acts, where there are difficult questions as to whether a single woman who has a child by A.I.D. could or should be able to claim maintenance from the donor if he could be identified. I hope that those two examples are enough to show how really complex the problem is and. I hope, to dispose of any possible lingering impression in your Lordships' minds that I am merely making a debating point, because I am not.
May I say a word about nullity? May I remind your Lordships that it is not only A.I.D. that causes difficulties. In 1949 the attention of this House was drawn by my noble and learned friend Lord Reading (who has told me that he has to go to an urgent engagement) to a decision of the High Court in that year. It was held by the court that the birth of a child by A.I.H. was not necessarily a bar to a petition for nullity on the ground of impotence, and the question there is whether the parties have approbated the marriage. But I would remind your Lordships (though the law was different before 1949) that even if the marriage is annulled, the child in such a case is now deemed to be legitimate by reason of the amending legislation of Section 4 of the Law Reform Act, 1949, which is now the

1013
Matrimonial Causes Act. But that legislation was not retrospective and the new principle did not apply to a decree of nullity before December, 1949. That was the position with a form of artificial insemination which has not been animadverted against. The wife got a decree of nullity, and in all cases before December 16, 1949, the child was illegitimate. We have improved that for the future.
LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount allow me to remind him that a judgment was given by Mr. Justice Pearce (as he then was) and that he was party to the unanimous decision that artificial insemination, whether by husband or a donor, so long as it was with the consent of the husband, should be approbation of the marriage? That is in paragraph 287 of the Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and as he has been so modest I will remind the House that if the advice of my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman had been taken with regard to a Bill twenty years ago the problem and the injustices which I have mentioned would not have arisen. I am glad to recognise that again. I was reminding the House that the Royal Commission made a recommendation on that point, and I am taking it that the House approves of that recommendation; and I shall carry that back to my colleagues as well.
So far as the scale of the problem is concerned, I am afraid I cannot help your Lordships any further because this is a subject on which it is so difficult to get information. There was a difference between the figures given by the noble Lords, Lord Blackford and Lord Amtilree—2,500 to 7,500—but they are still small figures, and my information is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Blackford: that a small number of doctors only are dealing with this matter. I have tried to show that that is so. Also there is the fact, which one must face, that for a woman artificial insemination is the last resort. Nobody is going to suggest that any woman will employ artificial insemination unless she is compelled to do so. I believe that both those facts show that the practice is within a small compass. I have tried to show
1014
your Lordships that that is not the end of the matter. After all, our information as to the potential acceleration may be faulty, and in any case the importance of the issues is beyond argument.
Perhaps I may summarise those issues to your Lordships. There is the Divorce Law and the effect on the parties themselves. There is the legal position of donor and child through the possible consequential effects on many existing Statutes and branches of the law. In addition, views expressed in this debate have shown concern for the future of the family and the structure of society. Then we have the acute divergence on religion and morals disclosed by the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the most reverend Primate, on the one side, and the Minority Report of the Dean of St. Paul's on the other. Were it not so late I would read to your Lordships the two passages, one on page 58 where the Majority summarise their views, and one on page 62, where the Dean of St. Paul's replies. I shall not trouble your Lordships with those. But is it unreasonable in a situation such as that for my noble friend Lord Reading, the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Astor, and many others, to ask for an inquiry?
I do not think Her Majesty's Government would be expected to-day to give a final view on all these matters at once. The factual information that we have is by no means sufficient. This practice is still novel and those concerned are unwilling to disclose information; and we are conscious that we cannot yet know what the long-term effects are likely to be. But, as the noble Lords, Lord Blackford and Lord Amulree, emphasised, we now have the advantage of more information and discussion than we had in 1949, and I should like to see those who have spoken with great force on the general problem address their minds to the more particular problems arising from the effects on the citizen and the law. The differences of opinion between those best qualified to judge show that there are no obvious answers. I recall the conflicting views of men of great authority as to whether A.I.D. is adultery from the legal viewpoint. I recall the conflicting views on the moral and theological side. From its novelty, and because of the difficulty of at once perceiving the repercussions in so many

1015
spheres, this whole question causes these most acute differences of opinion, and I feel that we should be well advised to look at the matter most carefully before deciding what action to take.
In view of the interest in this subject, and the many difficult and controversial questions to which it gives rise, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the right course is to appoint a small Inter-Departmental Committee to inquire into it and make recommendations. I say a "small" Committee, because I think that meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—and Lord Reading emphasised it—that a Royal Commission is apt to take too long, and a small Inter-Department Committee can really get on with the matter. And I hope my noble friend Lord Blackford, from his great experience in both Houses, will appreciate that there is a real difference in the potential results. The precise terms of reference of the Committee have still to be decided—for a very good reason: I did not want to decide the terms of reference and then find, after listening to this debate, something in it which would make me change them. Naturally, before their final form was reached the Government wanted to consider everything that had been said in this debate. I want to make it clear that in my view it would obviously be necessary for the Committee to investigate what the existing practice is, and what are and what should be its legal consequences. I am quite sure that not only Her Majesty's Government in considering the final form of the terms of reference, but also the Committee when, as I hope, they come to consider this matter, will be greatly helped by what has been said in this House to-day. We have heard a wealth of argument applied to very difficult points, and I am sure that it will be of the utmost help to those who have to give the next consideration.
The appointment of the Committee means a Report, and the Report of the
1016
Committee means that the Government can be challenged as to whether they are not taking action. From the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, it would be difficult to get these Bills in during this Session, as I have mentioned, even if we wanted to. I should like to consider whether it would not be a good thing to have the subject considered before we introduce the Bills. My Lords, I have given the undertaking to appoint a Committee, and I hope that, from that and from the way I have approached his arguments, my noble friend Lord Blackford will not wish to press his Motion tonight.
7.52 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, my object in putting down a month ago my Motion for consideration to-day was to rectify the absence of justice in the case of Maclennan v. Maclennan. I think that every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate feels that that injustice should be put right. My second objective was to use the Motion as a peg on which to hang a full debate on A.I.D. I feel that both those objectives have been achieved. We have had a very powerful debate, and an exceedingly interesting one, and the experts have all spoken up in fine style. I feel that I owe an apology to the Church, because I said that they wanted to make A.I.D. a criminal offence. It is evident that the Church has changed its mind—certainly the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter has changed his mind. I doubt very much whether the most reverend Primate has changed his mind. I gathered from his speech a feeling of, "If only I could make it a criminal offence I would do so, but I have got to move with changing thought and make the best of the situation as it presents itself to-day." My Lords, I have nothing more to say but to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MEAT IMPORTS AND FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
  MEAT IMPORTS AND FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE