Sitting of 22 January 1958

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

    Kiosks
    Mr. Palmerasked the Postmaster-General if he will review the principle governing the provision of public telephone kiosks by which such services must be financially remunerative unless the proposed site is within the boundary of a rural district council.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I wish we could come nearer to the principle stated by the hon. Member. Last year there was a heavy loss on public telephone kiosks, in urban as well as in rural districts, amounting in total to £3 million.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present practice is not very sensible, since many urban district councils have isolated rural areas within their boundaries? Should not cases be treated on their merits?
    Mr. Thompson: We do, in fact, try to treat cases on their merits, and take into account not only the commercial prospects of kiosks but also the public need for them.

    Charges
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General in how many cases the cost of a telephone call was increased to 1s. from 1st January, 1958.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Of a weekly total of some 5 million calls previously charged at 6d., or 9d., about 40,000 are now charged at 1s. and the rest at 3d.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Ascot group, two exchange charges have gone from 7½d.
    1022
    to 1s. and another 10 have gone up from 10d. to 1s.? If that is a fair example, does it not mean that there are exchanges all over the country where the cost of a call has increased? How many calls are affected in that way?
    Mr. Thompson: It is clear, from the figures I have given to the House, that the case given by the hon. Gentleman is not a fair example.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend consider another fair example? Is he aware that it is possible to telephone 19 miles from Kidderminster to Birmingham for 3d.? Is not that very satisfactory?
    Mr. de Freitas: Does the hon. Member for Kidderminster need to telephone?
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not rather a menace to the citizens of Birmingham?

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Reception, Forfar
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the bad reception of sound and television in the Forfar district; and what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation, to improve it.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Reception is not good in this area because of the distance from the transmitters and intervening high ground. Similar difficult areas also exist in other parts of the country, and I cannot yet say what steps will be possible to improve the service.
    Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend, in conjunction with the B.B.C., effect some improvement in this area, because, after all, these people are paying their licences and expect the services?
    Mr. Thompson: We realise the difficulties of viewers and listeners in the area to which my hon. Friend refers, and they are very much in the minds of the B.B.C. and the Post Office at the moment.

    Experimental Transmitter (Site)
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Postmaster-General where the new low-powered unattended transmitter of television programmes, the development of which he recently announced, is to be sited; and whether he will site it in the Forfar district to improve reception there.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The new experimental transmitter is to be given its field trial at Folkestone, where the new Dover station will not be able to give adequate coverage because its power has to be restricted. Further plans for the use of this apparatus must depend on the results of the trial, and on the rate at which the British Broadcasting Corporation can undertake further commitments of this kind.
    Sir J. Duncan: As there is a possibility that this new invention may be the answer to Forfar's problem, will my hon. Friend place the second experimental transmitter in the region of Forfar?
    Mr. Thompson: I think we had better wait to see the result of the first experimental transmitter, and then settle down to the very difficult problem of deciding where priority should be given as between the claims of a great many similar areas.

  POST OFFICE

    Letters, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that his discontinuance of certain long accustomed postal deliveries in the City of Aberdeen has been followed by an intimation to the citizens that they can receive letters, so not delivered, by calling for them at Crown Street Post Office on payment of a 6d. fee on each letter in addition to the pre-paid postage on each letter, and that there is widespread discontent at this new procedure; if he will immediately discontinue it; and if he will state the statutory authority under which he seeks to impose it.
    Mr. K. Thompson: I am sorry I cannot exempt the citizens of Aberdeen from payment of the standard fee of 6d. which is made each time a person calls for letters—but not, as the hon. and learned Member supposes, for each letter collected. The authorities for the fee are the Post Office Act, 1953, and the Inland Post Warrants.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this new practice is retrogressive, invidious and damaging to trade, industry and commerce, and that it will ultimately prove uneconomic to the Post Office itself? Will he look into the matter with a view to withdrawing his exercise of
    1024
    these rather reactionary statutory powers, to which he has just referred?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that anything the Post Office does is damaging to business. This is not a new practice. The fee has recently been increased, but it has always been the practice to charge a fee for all letters separated and handled in this way.

    Tape Recorders
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General how many tape recorders were purchased by his Department during the past year.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Most tape recorders for the Post Office, like other office machines, are purchased by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Eight recorders were supplied during 1957. In addition, we purchased three tape recorders for general research purposes.
    Mr. Lipton: How many tape recorders are now in use in the London region? Can the Minister give an assurance that none of them is required for telephone-tapping purposes?
    Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman reframed that question it would be very acceptable on the Order Paper.

    Sub-Postmasters (Pay)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General when he rejected the pay claim submitted by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters; and when he required them to exhibit a notice that increased postal charges were partly due to pay claims.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The sub-postmasters' claim was rejected in October. The notice about increased postal charges was exhibited from 16th September to 30th November.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster-General himself said last March—I quote his exact words—
    "sub-postmasters work damned hard for very little".
    Is he also aware that six months later the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "We see no justification for any increase".

    1025
    In those circumstances, is it not unfair and misleading to try to give the impression that sub-postmasters are partly responsible for the increased postal charges?
    Mr. Thompson: I should be very happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with the full context of the remarks of my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House. I should inform the House and the hon. Gentleman that sub-postmasters had two increases in salary during 1957, and that when we framed our proposals for increased postal charges we took into account those increases and also the prospect that the sub-postmasters' claim would not be met.

    Service, Madeley
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the dissatisfaction with the postal service in the village of Madeley; and if he will take steps to improve it.
    Mr. K. Thompson: As I have explained in correspondence to the hon. Member, the recent change in the postal arrangements at Madeley was designed to provide a better service. We are doing all we can to make sure that there are no more delays of the kind the hon. Member has told us about. A new posting box with a larger aperture has now been put up at the corner of Furness Lane and the main road.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the changes made so far have produced deterioration instead of improvement, and that very shortly he will receive a communication from the parish council of Madeley on this subject? Would he therefore make further inquiries whether further changes should be made that will make improvement?
    Mr. Thompson: Our intention in making the evening collection at 5.30 instead of 6.40 was to enable the mail posted in the area to catch an earlier and more reliable connection to all parts of the country. In that respect it was an improvement in the service, but if the hon. Gentleman or the council make representations to us we will, of course, consider them very carefully.

    Stamps (New Issues)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General what special postage stamps he proposes to issue in 1958 and 1959.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Present plans for 1958 include special 3d., 6d. and 1s. 3d. stamps to mark the British Empire and Commonwealth Games. In addition, there is to be a new 4½d. stamp in the permanent series, new 3d., 6d. and 1s. 3d. stamps for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales; and a new 3d. stamp for Jersey, for Guernsey and for the Isle of Man. It is too early to say whether any special stamps will be issued in 1959.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that the Minister has not made up his mind about 1959, will he undertake to look again at the request made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that a special commemorative stamp shall be printed to celebrate the bicentenary next year of Robert Burns? Is he aware that he has already departed from precedent by allowing a stamp to be issued for the British Empire Games and that Scots people think that Burns is as important as the British Empire Games? If he cannot do this, will the Minister have the imagination to arrange for bulk purchase of stamps from the Soviet Union and for them to be sold at British post offices?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that we have given very careful consideration to the problem of the Burns stamp. I endeavoured to state the Post Office reasons for the decision as clearly and as sympathetically as I could to hon. Members who came to see me, among whom was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
    Mr. Gower: Will the commemoration stamp for the British Empire Games indicate clearly that the venue is in Wales, namely, Cardiff?
    Mr. Thompson: Welsh Members and the citizens of Wales generally will not, I think, have any cause of complaint about the appearance of the new stamp when it is available.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: The reply of the hon. Gentleman to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) indicates that

    1027
    the Post Office is issuing quite a number of new stamps of various denominations. Does not that indicate that there has been a departure from the normal principle, which was very conservative in the past? In view of that departure, will the Minister look again at the Question of my hon. Friend, in view of the fact that another country is issuing a commemorative stamp for the Burns bicentenary?
    Mr. Thompson: I would not have your approval, Mr. Speaker, if I canvassed all the arguments of this case, but I should tell the House that we are aware of what other countries are doing. It gives us no reason to think that we must follow them. For example, it is not only Robert Burns that Russia is commemorating with a special stamp. There are other figures on their stamps which might not meet with such wide acceptance or approval from hon. Members. I should also tell the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) that we have not departed from the practice followed by the Post Office for more than 100 years of not issuing stamps to commemorate individuals.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Education Branch
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers serving in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force who are now wing commanders or above, will reach retirement age during the next ten years; and how many of them will be in the category permitted to serve until reaching the age of sixty.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): Thirty-six of these officers are due to retire within the next ten years, including thirty-four who will have reached the age of sixty.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air how many squadron leaders now serving in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force are forty-three years of age or older.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Sixty-four, Sir.
    Mr. Johnson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the figures given to me now and on previous occasions make it clear that very few squadron leaders, if
    1028
    any, over the age of forty-three have any hope of promotion? Is he aware of the very keen sense of injustice throughout the Education Branch and that it may have a disastrous effect on recruiting?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that my hon. Friend is misinformed. Up to date, the rate of promotion for squadron leaders and wing commanders has been reasonably satisfactory. We are examining the position because we realise that in the future, with the new shape of the Royal Air Force and its smaller numbers, there may be difficulties in this career. We are examining the matter most closely.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air if the committee, set up in his Department under the Chairmanship of the Director-General of Manning to consider the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, and which in 1956 expected to consider the problem of the promotion to wing commander in isolation and in advance of the general study of the branch, has now completed its deliberations; and if he will make a statement about the promotion prospects of squadron leaders in the Education Branch.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Our study of the measures necessary to preserve a satisfactory rate of promotion beyond squadron leader in this branch has been complicated and delayed by the need to review the requirement in relation to the new size and shape of the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend recall that as long ago as August, 1956, my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), when Secretary of State for Air, told me that he hoped that the problem of promotion to wing commander could be considered in isolation and in advance of the general study? Can he say the reason for the very long delay? The position is extremely unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The delay has been brought about by the entirely new defence policy, the abolition of National Service and the entirely new size and shape of the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. P. Morris: Will the Under-Secretary of State expedite clarification of this matter in view of the very ambiguous position of many young officers? Having

    1029
    volunteered to devote the whole of their lives to this public service, many now suffer from frustration. If anything can be done to clarify the position quickly the action would be appreciated.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes. It is appreciated that there is uncertainty. My right hon. Friend is pushing on with the investigation. I am sorry that it has been delayed by the change in size of the Royal Air Force.

    Pilots (Gratuities)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement regarding the signal sent to the Royal Air Force units in May, 1957, informing pilots that they could transfer to the Reserve prematurely; and what were the terms upon which these volunteers received their gratuities as compared with those pilots who have been compulsorily declared redundant following the White Paper of September, 1957.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The signal to which the hon. Member refers was sent on 20th March, 1957, after we had been asked if we could help to relieve the shortage of civil pilots. It invited pilots within three years of the end of their current engagements to apply for employment with the British Overseas Airways Corporation or British European Airways, and offered those who were accepted premature release under the normal rules for voluntary retirements. These rules provide for the award of gratuity proportionate to the officer's service, with a deduction of 25 per cent.
    The special terms given to officers whose careers are compulsorily cut short because of the run-down of the forces are set out in Command 231 published on 24th July, 1957—four months after the signal to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Johnson: As an ex-pilot, does not the Minister think that he has given these fellows a bad deal? Is it not a fact that because they volunteered to help the Minister in his difficulty over manpower they now find that if they had stayed on an extra month or two and been sacked instead of heeding his request they would have got more money than by volunteering? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a bit harsh?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will
    1030
    agree that when there is a change in conditions one has to set a line. There are always a number of people who fall the wrong side of the line and who feel a grievance. We cannot change that situation and make restrospective compensation payable to people who have accepted another form of exit under previous arrangements.
    Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister say why the White Paper was published so late and not in July? It is said in the Service that it could have been published then. People knew the conditions. The White Paper was ready then, but was held back so that more people could volunteer and help the Ministry out of its difficulties.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that question ought to be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence who published the White Paper and not to myself.

    Hydrogen Bombs
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air how many flights over Great Britain have been made by Royal Air Force aeroplanes carrying hydrogen bombs; when such flights commenced; and to what extent they are still continuing.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to the information given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to a supplementary question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 5th December. It would not be in the public interest to give more detailed information.
    Mr. Swingler: Why should not the House of Commons know, as these things have been advertised very widely by the Prime Minister himself, what, in fact, is happening? Is this not a lunatic policy? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious dispute among scientists about the possibility of a disastrous accident occurring if one of these planes crashed, and, therefore, is it not time that action was taken to stop this panic?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: In the interests of security, I will not ask the hon. Gentleman for details, but can he answer the

    1031
    simple question—are Royal Air Force aeroplanes carrying hydrogen bombs, atom bombs or any kind of bombs during training flights over this country?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on this matter. My right hon. Friend chose his words most carefully and I do not think that it would be in the public interest to tell our potential enemies just when or where we are carrying these bombs.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I am not asking for details of where or when, but merely whether, in fact, our aircraft carry bombs during training flights over this country?
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Under-Secretary at least agree to report to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air the terms of my right hon. Friend's question, which is a simple question and does not ask for the full details or anything like that? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to do that?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Of course, I will report to my right hon. Friend the supplementary question asked. My right hon. Friend will study the points made most carefully and he will be answering Questions first next week.
    Mr. Shinwell: This is a very important matter, and as I see no need for secrecy, at any rate on the general issue, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman can say whether the Soviet Union is unaware of the fact that Royal Air Force aircraft are carrying bombs during training flights over this country?

    Princess Flying Boats
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration has been given to the use by the Royal Air Force of the Princess flying boats for air trooping.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The proposal to use the three Princess flying boats, for air trooping has been fully considered in the past, and we concluded on both economic and operational grounds that we should not be justified in completing them for use in this rôle. With the run-down of our overseas forces and the consequent contraction of routine air trooping, the case against the proposal is now more cogent than ever.
    Mr. P. Williams: Can my hon. Friend give any indication as to the use to which these Princess flying boats are to be put? Is there any possibility of selling them or using them for another purpose?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question on the Order Paper, in which case it might not be put down to my right hon. Friend.

    Senior Officers (Retirement)
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the rank of air commodore and above are due for retirement during the present year.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Thirty-four, Sir.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my hon. Friend say how many air commodores have been declared redundant and how the figure compares with officers of more senior rank? Will he say what is being done to get these men satisfactory jobs in civilian life?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is a total of 140 air commodores in the Royal Air Force of whom 17, that is, 12 per cent., have been declared redundant. This number compares with the figure of 4 per cent. of other officers in the Royal Air Force. With reference to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, it has been announced in the House on several occasions that machinery has been set up on an inter-Service basis to deal with the resettlement of officers, and it is progressing very satisfactorily at the moment.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any idea what Soviet reaction is likely to be when the Russians hear that so many of these air commodores are regarded as redundant?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I have no Ministerial responsibility for Soviet reaction.
    Sir P. Agnew: May I ask my hon. Friend whether his reply means that when the 34 are retired only 17 group captains will be promoted to air commodores to replace them?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a complicated question. I should prefer to see it on the Order Paper and have due notice of it rather than give a snap answer.

    Components and Spare Parts
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what reduction in holdings of components such as aero engines and of spare parts has been achieved by the increased use of rapid carriage to overseas units by air instead of by surface transport.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The level of stocks overseas is largely determined by strategic requirements. We do, however, make considerable use of air transport for stores which are required urgently, which are scarce or which are highly perishable.
    Mr. de Freitas: Cannot the Under-Secretary give us any idea of the reduction in these holdings brought about by the increased use of air transport? In particular, is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous financial savings reported in the United States Air Force by its use of electronic recording of stocks coupled with rapid air transport of these valuable components?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is that there are so many different factors coming into play with the change in the bases, size and disposition of our forces that it is not possible to provide an exact measurement of the change in our problems of supply. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I would say that we are well aware of the great progress in organisation which has taken place in the United States in the supply of its armed forces. In fact, we have several study groups examining electronic data processing and other modern methods of recording and provisioning so that we can bring our supply arrangements fully up to date.

  ROADS

    Double White Line Marking
    Mr. Sharplesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the operation of the double white line experiment.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Following my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of the decision to adopt for general
    1034
    use the system evolved in this experiment, we are now working on the problem of extending the markings as quickly as practicable through the country. We hope to arrange for a considerable extension of this marking to be laid down in the near future.
    Mr. Sharples: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the contribution that this scheme made to road safety during the Christmas holiday period, and, further, any idea of the order of priority under which this extension will take place?
    Mr. Nugent: I would not like to give figures, although I have them, of what improvement has taken place on the two roads where this experiment has been in operation, but the initial implication is that it has improved road safety by preventing dangerous overtaking. I can give my hon. Friend no precise indication of the priority for laying down the white lines, but we hope to see a good deal done this year.

    Traffic Lights
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that, when traffic is light at night in many continental towns, traffic signals are switched to a flashing amber light; and what experiments have been carried out in Great Britain with a view to introducing a flashing red light at night which would avoid confusion with Belisha beacons.
    Mr. Nugent: Experiments carried out some years ago did not show that flashing red lights had any advantage over vehicle-actuated traffic lights, which are widely used in this country.
    Mr. Russell: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the flashing amber light is in great use on the Continent, and therefore, presumably, saves a good deal of time in vehicles not having to pull up and come to a dead stop, and a great deal of wear and tear? Would not my hon. Friend reconsider the matter in view of the fact that this system is so widely used abroad?
    Mr. Nugent: We have considered it very carefully. Most of the traffic lights used abroad are timed for operation as opposed to the vehicle-actuated lights in

    1035
    this country. I think that the balance of advantage is to be had by sticking to our present system.
    Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister be cautious before he introduces any more flashing light apparatus on the roads?

    A.1 Road, Baldock
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of moving the 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit sign at the southern approach to Baldock, on A.1, about 500 yards further south; and what tests have been carried out to discover to what extent it is being observed.
    Mr. Nugent: I am informed by the police that the speed limit automatically imposed on this length by the installation of street lighting last February has had little or no effect on the speed of vehicles, in spite of numerous prosecutions. We are considering whether it ought to be retained.

    Hyde Park Corner and Cromwell Road Extension
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decisions he has reached on the construction of a four-lane instead of the proposed two-lane underpass at Hyde Park Corner and on the flyover on the Cromwell Road Extension at Hammersmith.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I have decided, and the London County Council has agreed, that there must be no risk of under-insuring against future traffic growth at Hyde Park Corner. I therefore propose at the appropriate moment to seek to amend the Bill so that a four-lane underpass can be included at the outset at this point.
    As I said in answer to a Question on 20th December, I hope to make a grant of 75 per cent. in the next financial year towards the construction of the flyover at Hammersmith as I have always taken the view that this flyover was necessary to the solution of the traffic problem here.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: While congratulating the Minister on having second thoughts on this matter, and commending him for accepting the advice which was
    1036
    given to him from both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate, may I ask if it is not a fact that in the original proposals of the L.C.C. there was provision for a four-lane tunnel? Why did the Minister in those circumstances, in spite of the L.C.C. recommendations, decide not to authorise it at an earlier stage?
    Mr. Watkinson: Of course. I am always willing to defer to the collective good sense of this House when it is displayed as clearly as it was when we discussed the problem. As to the other point made by the hon. Member, of course the scheme was always designed for a four-lane underpass, but all the experts took the view—the extreme view—that no underpass was necessary at all. It was not an easy decision, but I think that on the whole it is always right, in London at any rate, to over-insure against traffic growth rather than to under-insure.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: With regard to the Hammersmith' flyover, can the Minister state what extra work has been done which would not have been necessary had the flyover been decided upon in the first place, and what has been the extra cost and delay involved?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member—I do not think I will disappoint him. No extra expense has been incurred, because we always saw that the site was fitted for a flyover. Therefore, no additional expense was incurred.

    Dogs
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many local authorities have made an Order under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, designating a road upon which dogs are not permitted unless on a lead.
    Mr. Nugent: Up to 31st December last, 84 Orders have been submitted for confirmation; of these we have confirmed or agreed to confirm 41 and rejected seven. The remainder are under consideration. Fourteen orders are actually in operation.
    Mr. Champion: Is the Minister aware that if the law of averages is anything to go by, before the end of this year 23 people will be killed, 600 seriously injured and some 2,000 slightly injured

    1037
    as a result of accidents on the roads caused by dogs? Will he not stimulate the local authorities to propose to him many more Orders than have been proposed to date?
    Mr. Nugent: I think it is essentially a matter for local authorities to decide. The enforcement will be difficult, to say the least of it, and co-operation from all concerned will be needed to make orders effective. I think that the present arrangement is right.

    Halt Signs
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what report he has received from the Road Research Laboratory on the value, in reducing the accident rate, of the practice of painting "Halt" on the road surface adjacent to halt signs.
    Mr. Nugent: We have not yet received the final report from the Road Research Laboratory on this subject.
    Mr. Collins: Can the Minister say when he expects to receive this report? Would he urge the matter forward, because it is one of some importance?
    Mr. Nugent: I accept that it is important, but we feel that we should have a full-scale experiment extending over about 100 sites before we finally reach a conclusion. I know that the hon. Member has had a satisfactory experience with this in his own locality, but we feel that we should have a full-scale experiment before reaching a final decision.

    Improvement Scheme, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to state when the trunk road improvement scheme from London Road to Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be carried out.
    Mr. Nugent: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on 18th December, 1957.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Member try to speed this up? Is he aware that many important projects affecting housing and shopping in the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme are held up until a decision
    1038
    or action is taken on this road improvement? Could he therefore give the council a date as soon as possible?
    Mr. Nugent: I will. The main reason for the hold-up has been the necessity to co-ordinate the road with the redevelopment of the area, but I will certainly do all that is possible to expedite a decision.

    Vehicle Lights and Traffic Signals
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the gradual increase in the number of flashing lights on vehicles, Belisha beacons, and traffic signals; if he is satisfied that this increase is not, on balance, adding to the difficulties of drivers, especially during the winter months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nugent: I do not believe that flashing direction indicators, beacons at pedestrian crossings or traffic signals add to drivers' difficulties. On the contrary, properly used and under proper control they are valuable aids to safety on our roads. We hope to circulate to interested organisations in the near future detailed proposals for the regulation of flashing indicators on motor vehicles.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Does not my hon. Friend realise that there must be a saturation point in a matter of this nature? Will he particularly have a watch kept on the flashing lights on vehicles, which are tending to become too big and too bright and which are tending to be kept on for unnecessarily long periods?
    Mr. Nugent: The guidance which we shall send out shortly, preparatory to making regulations, will take account of those factors.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member aware that reflecting advertisements at dangerous corners, in conjunction with these flashing lights, are apt to divert drivers' attention from corners at very difficult moments?
    Mr. Nugent: I agree that they can be a danger and I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

    Accidents
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many people have been killed, how many

    1039
    seriously and how many slightly injured, on the roads in Great Britain since these statistics were first kept.
    Mr. Nugent: From 1926 to the end of 1957, 195,767 persons were killed and 5,568,799 were injured on the roads of Great Britain. The total of injuries does not include casualties in the years 1939 to 1941. The distinction between serious and slight injuries was not made regularly until 1942. From 1942 to the end of 1957, 85,116 persons were killed, 733,821 seriously injured and 2,279,713 were slightly injured.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Would the Minister take some further opportunity of making known these tragic figures, as the impact of these large numbers might, perhaps, do more good even than the routine repetition of the annual totals?
    Mr. Nugent: I thank my hon. Friend for calling attention to them. It is continually my responsibility to bring these very serious losses to the attention of the community and, indeed, to do all in my power to make the public generally aware of the rudimentary rules of road safety.
    Mr. Isaacs: Can the Minister say if there are any records showing what percentage of accidents arise after the closing time of the public houses at night?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, the Annual Report that we publish shows the time of the various accidents, and it is then up to individuals to make their own deductions.

    Accidents

      Ludgate Circus
      Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when, approximately, it is proposed to reconstruct and enlarge Ludgate Circus; and why Messrs. Cope's are being permitted to build on part of the proposed new Circus.
      Mr. Nugent: I cannot say when Ludgate Circus will be reconstructed, but Messrs. Cope's new building has been planned to fit in with the final layout.

      New Trunk Roads (Reflectors)
      Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state his policy about the installation of catseyes on the new trunk roads; and
      1040
      what is the cost per mile of their installation.
      Mr. Watkinson: I shall continue to use catseye reflectors for new trunk roads in the same way as before. Reports to the contrary in the Press are based on a misunderstanding. The cost per mile varies with road conditions, but the average is about £180 a mile.

      Birmingham Road, Meriden—Allesley
      Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he has sent to the Coventry District Committee of the Transport and General Workers Union following their representations for emergency safety measures on the Birmingham road between Meriden and Allesley.
      Mr. Nugent: I am investigating this matter, and hope to send a reply very shortly. I will send a copy of this letter to the hon. Member.
      Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that, even without my seeing that reply, it is clear that this has dragged on for some considerable time, and that if on every occasion it is brought forward by this union the answer is to be that a reply will be sent some time, we are likely to have many more accidents before that reply arrives?
      Mr. Nugent: The road work is really very well advanced there, and I think that the hon. Lady will be quite satisfied when she hears the detailed reply.

    RAILWAYS

      Passenger Trains (Untreated Sewage Discharge)
      Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that long-distance passenger coaches shall be so constructed that untreated sewage shall be no longer discharged on the permanent way.
      Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. This question was recently considered by an expert committee set up by the British Transport Commission. It confirmed the view taken by the European and American railway administrations whom it consulted, that there is no practical alternative to the

      1041
      present method of disposal. The Committee recommended, however, certain modifications in existing equipment which are being considered.
      Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that it has been shown experimentally that fluids discharged from railway coaches are not only desposited between the lines but spread to the side of the lines as well? Will not he agree that it is a filthy scheme to permit untreated sewage to be deposited on railway tracks both in town and country, and, at any rate in connection with construction of new rolling stock, will he consider some better method?
      Mr. Nugent: All the alternatives have been very carefully considered both here and elsewhere and there seems to be no practicable alternative to the present method. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has been able to give certain assurances that this is not a danger to health and I think we must leave it there.
      Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister please not accept that as the last word? Surely further experiments should be made because, not only is sewage deposited on the track but, as indicated by my hon. Friend, it also goes on to the couplings and other things which have to be handled by the men concerned? This has been the subject of much discussion between the trade unions and the B.T.C. Will the Minister refuse to accept that nothing can be done but urge further experiment with a view to ending this awful nuisance?
      Mr. Nugent: I agree that if some better alternative could be found it would be most desirable. We certainly will urge the Commission to continue to study possible alternatives, including the recommendations of the Committee.
      Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain eminent scientists have said that untreated sewage may well be a source of poliomyelitis? If so, can he lightly dismiss this question?
      Mr. Nugent: I did not dismiss it, but I did say that the Minister of Health had given the House an assurance on 29th October that this did not constitute a danger of infection by poliomyelitis. We certainly accept that it would be desirable to find some alternative, and if we can we will.

      Knightsbridge Underground Station (Incidents)
      Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many prosecutions are pending arising out of the incidents involving approximately 200 young men and women at Knightsbridge Underground station on Sunday, 8th December.
      Mr. Watkinson: This is a matter for the London Transport Executive whose police cover these premises. I am, however, informed that they do not consider there are grounds for prosecution.
      Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not rather remarkable that when more than 200 "debs and debs' delights" act like hooligans, inconvenience passengers, play hide-and-seek in coaches and run up and down escalators, no offence is committed? If any working-class lad did that, the whole weight of the police force would be brought against him. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the indifference of the British Transport Commission in this case makes many people believe that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?
      Mr. Watkinson: I think that perhaps the hon. Member is a little muddled in his description of the classes, because I consider that in this country today every single one of us belongs to the working class.
      Mr. J. Griffiths: Should not these young people consider themselves lucky that they were not Welsh and did not go to Twickenham?

      Transport Commission Members (Salaries)
      Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the intentions of the Government with regard to making available to the British Transport Commission additional finance to meet the additional salaries recently awarded to both full-time and part-time members of the Commission.
      Mr. Watkinson: No additional finance will be provided by the Government.
      Mr. Jones: Are we, therefore, to assume that the doubling of the salaries of the part-time members of the Commission means that the additional cost is to be met by the Commission, whereas the statement of the ex-Chancellor of

      1043
      the Exchequer on 29th October is to apply to the wages grades on the railways?
      Mr. Watkinson: Again, I think the hon. Member is a little muddled. These gentlemen who give their time in part-time service to the Commission were, as I think the hon. Member would agree, very much underpaid. They are now being paid more and that fits in entirely with Government policy which says that when pay increases are made, they must be swallowed within the organisation which gives them.
      Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it proper for a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to accuse two hon. Members of being muddled? Is it not also improper to indulge in repetition?
      Mr. Speaker: Whether the number of hon. Members alleged to be muddled is one or two cannot make any difference. I do not think it is out of order. Choice of language is a matter for hon. Members themselves so long as they keep within the rules of order.
      Mr. Jones: I do not mind the right hon. Member telling me I am muddled, but the fact is that the part-time members of the British Transport Commission have had their emoluments doubled. What does the Minister propose to do about making more money available so that the ordinary wage earners on the railways can have some commensurate increase?

      Area Boards (Salaries)
      Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the information contained in Command Paper No. 332, he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission to make available to hon. Members information showing the salaries and allowances paid to the chairman and members of the several regional railway boards.
      Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir.
      Mr. Jones: Why does the right hon. Gentleman insist upon keeping these members of the railway boards wrapped up in the cotton wool of secrecy when
      1044
      the Government themselves have revealed to everybody who cares to purchase a copy of Cmd. 332 the salaries paid to part-time members of the electricity boards, the gas boards, the Atomic Energy Authority and the British Transport Commission? Why does not he provide the same facilities in order that we can see whether the members of the railway boards are paid and whether they have had their salaries doubled, as have the members of the British Transport Commission?
      Mr. Watkinson: The House decided—and it was a decision of the House—that the area boards were to be appointed by the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. They are not my appointments. In my view, therefore, it would be quite inappropriate for me to deal with their salaries.
      Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the area boards are very important organisaions and have a locus not entirely dissimilar from that of some of the regional boards in other nationalised industries, will the Minister tell us by what arrangement or device hon. Members who wish to do so can find out what salaries are paid to the chairmen and vice-chairmen? Can they put a Question to the Minister? If not, how can this information be made available to hon. Members who want to know?
      Mr. Watkinson: As I said, the decision was a decision of the House and it was that these boards should be appointed by the Commission and not by me. In the Commission's current annual accounts, page 23 of volume II, the total amount paid to the members of the area boards is clearly set down as £19,803. That is as far as I think it proper to go.
      Mr. Jones: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's attitude on this Question, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

      Pensions
      Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will raise the pensions of British Railways superannuitants because of the rise in the cost of living since the last adjustment was made.
      Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I must leave it to the British Transport Commission to decide the extent to which its circumstances permit it to give supplements to railway pensioners.
      Dr. King: While I appreciate the good work which the Minister did personally in April, 1956, in getting the industry to raise the pensions of these men, may I ask him to bear in mind that the few shillings which the lowest-paid super-annuitants received in those clays as an increase hardly matched the then rise in the cost of living, that two years of inflation have followed and that some of these veteran servants of British Railways are enduring hardship?
      Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with that. I certainly felt that it was right to press the Commission, as I did, to do the utmost that it could, but when in its judgment the Commission tells me, as it has, that it has gone to the limit for the moment, I must accept its view.
      Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Minister stimulated the British Transport Commission on the previous occasion, for which all railway super-annuitants are extremely grateful, will he bear in mind that a little more stimulus and a little more saving on the part of the Commission could help these people? Is he not aware that a great many of these superannuitants receive a disgracefully small amount, that the railwaymen did a magnificent job during the war and that something further ought to be done to help them?
      Mr. Watkinson: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I must rest on the firm position—I do not want the House to misunderstand it—that the final judgment here is what the Commission honestly thinks it can afford.
      Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what percentage increase has been made in the pensions of British Railways super-annuitants since 1947.
      Mr. Watkinson: The British Transport Commission's schemes of pension supplements are not based on percentages. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the details of the schemes as published by the Commission.
      Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the details, when he sends them, will show
      1046
      that these superannuitants have never had their pensions increased at anything like the same rate as State and local government servants, whose pensions are covered by the various Pensions (Increase) Acts? Will he bear in mind that even in the improvement which he made in April, 1956, to which I referred in my earlier supplementary question, quite a number of these superannuitants received no increase in their pensions at all? Will he give the matter sympathetic consideration?
      Mr. Watkinson: I know that it is very complicated and I know, too, that there are cases of great difficulty. I will draw to the Commission's attention what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, but I must rest on my previous Answer that this is the Commission's decision.

      Lewes—East Grinstead Branch Line
      Colonel Beamishasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what date he received the report of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee on the proposal of the Transport Commission to close the Lewes—East Grinstead branch railway line; whether he is aware of the local anxiety that his decision should be announced as soon as possible; and if he will now make a statement.
      Mr. Watkinson: I received the report on 10th January, and am arranging for it to be published as soon as possible.

    SHIPPING

      Radar Equipment
      Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is taking to ensure that all British registered vessels of over 4,000 tons shall be equipped with radar.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): My Department has given much active help in the development of radar for merchant ships and my right hon. Friend will continue to encourage shipowners to make use of this equipment. He does not think, however, that he would be justified at this stage in making its carriage compulsory.

      Oil in Navigable Waters Act
      Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many prosecutions were brought for contravention of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act during 1957; and with what results.
      Mr. Neave: Full details are not yet to hand. The harbour authorities and others concerned have been asked to supply this information for inclusion in the Annual Report which my right hon. Friend is required to lay before Parliament. I will also send this information to my hon. Friend.

      Flags of Convenience
      Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consult with the Chamber of Shipping as to the possibilities of implementing the recent suggestions by its President for dealing with the problem of flags of convenience by the formation by those nations who suffer from the competition of these bogus flags of a club which would not allow ships built or owned in their countries to be registered in or sold to any country outside the the club.
      Mr. Watkinson: As I understand it, the suggetion of the President of the Chamber of Shipping was put forward on a purely personal basis. It would affect shipbuilders as well as shipowners. I am advised that a committee of the shipowners' organisations is reviewing the whole question, and I expect to have discussions with them as soon as they are ready.
      Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that this flag of convenience business is becoming a real scandal? When will the time come when the nations with real shipping interests instead of merely bogus ones decline their port facilities to these bogus flags?
      Mr. Watkinson: I think that that was something of the substance of the proposals put forward, which are being examined.

    TRANSPORT

      Public Service Vehicle Drivers (Licences)
      Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the recent
      1048
      case where a man with three convictions in four years for careless driving was given a licence to drive a bus; and if, in the interests of road safety, he will overhaul and tighten up his Regulations governing the issue of public service vehicle licences.
      Mr. Nugent: I am aware of this case. The traffic commissioners concerned inform me that, when granting this licence, they knew of the man's convictions, but took account of the fact that he had had a clean record for some time, and warned him as to his future conduct. In view of his latest conviction the licence has been revoked. In general, the system for granting public service vehicle drivers' licences works well, and I do not think that there are grounds for altering it.
      Sir F. Medlicott: Will the Minister continue to do all he can to impress on those under his jurisdiction that, as he has just indicated in reply to Question No. 39, driving is a matter of life and death, and that everything should be done to keep careless drivers off the road?
      Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir.

      Cars (Compulsory Inspection)
      Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further discussions have taken place about the initiation of the scheme for the compulsory inspection of cars, and with whom; whether any decisions have now been arrived at; and how and when the scheme will be operated.
      Mr. Watkinson: Further discussions have taken place with the motoring organisations and with bodies representing motor traders who will be eligible for appointment as authorised examiners. The discussions with these and all other interested parties should be concluded within the next few weeks, and I expect to be in a position before Easter to inform the House of my general proposals for bringing the scheme into effect.

    CIVIL AVIATION

      Brindisi—Athens Air Route
      Mr. N. Nicolsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make representations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that

      1049
      the present air route recommended to civil aircraft flying between Brindisi and Athens passes too close to the Albanian frontier, and that the route should be realigned to pass further south; and whether he will recommend to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that all international air route maps shall mark Albania as a territory over which it is prohibited to fly.
      Mr. Watkinson: I am looking into this question. I will have the matter raised at an I.C.A.O. regional meeting which is to take place later this month, but any change in the alignment of the route is likely to present technical difficulties.
      Mr. Nicolson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recent accident involving a British Skymaster which was forced down in Albania might not have had such, a happy conclusion if it had involved, say, a British aircraft coming back from Cyprus with uniformed troops on board? Would not he agree that it would be a change for the better for everybody concerned if the air route could be taken further away from the frontier, and pilots instructed not to fly anywhere near Albania?
      Mr. Watkinson: As I know my hon. Friend knows, all these things have to be done by international agreement, and I have said that I will have it looked at.

      Medium-Range Jet Airliner
      Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a statement upon the negotiations, between British European Airways and the aircraft manufacturers, regarding the future requirements of British European Airways for high-speed medium-range jet airliners.
      Mr. Watkinson: I have this week discussed with the Chairman of B.E.A. the results of his most recent talks with aircraft manufacturers. Some progress has been made. Further discussions are to take place, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
      Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister endeavour to speed up these negotiations, because this delay must cause concern to the B.E.A.? Will he also bear in mind that redundancy has now taken place amongst employees in the aircraft industry?
      Mr. Watkinson: I am most anxious to speed them up but, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows, it is B.E.A. that is, at the moment, carrying on the talks.

    AIRCRAFT (HYDROGEN BOMBS)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Prime Minister what action is being taken to prevent the ingestion of plutonium over neighbouring areas in the event of an aeroplane crashing on United Kingdom territory when carrying a hydrogen bomb.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
    The Prime Minister has already said that the risk of the ingestion of plutonium, if indeed such a risk exists at all, is very small. In these circumstances no special action is considered necessary.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement by a number of distinguished scientists in the New Scientist of 2nd January, that whilst the plutonium need not explode it could cause heat and scatter over considerable areas; that the evacuation of all cattle would be necessary there; that the vegetable matter would be destroyed; and that the radioactivity would persist for a long period? In view of this, would he ask for further consideration of this danger?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly; we always have this sort of matter under the closest attention. I understand that the danger arises, in fact, if the nuclear material catches fire, but I then understand that the danger is more from inhalation than from ingestion. I have further examined the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I cannot find that the information there is in advance of the information in our possession.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether any Royal Air Force aeroplanes carrying hydrogen bombs are conducting training flights over United Kingdom territory?
    Mr. Butler: I understand that this matter was raised earlier in Question Time today, and I should like notice before giving a considered reply on this subject.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister say whether the information he has just given to the House is that given by the appropriate committee of the Medical Research Council?
    Mr. Butler: It is part of the general information at the disposal of the Government. I could not give an exact Answer to the right hon. Lady's question, but I will certainly inform her on making myself acquainted with it.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that special training is given at least to Royal Air Force and civilian first-aid organisations in those areas over which these aircraft regularly fly?
    Mr. Butler: That would be a very wide answer to give without being able to ascertain the facts. I will obtain the facts and give them to the hon. Gentleman.

    LORD PRIVY SEAL (SPEECH)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal at Felstead on 7th January, on the financial and economic situation, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether he is here today in his capacity as Mr. Hyde or Dr. Jekyll? Does he recollect that, according to the Daily Express, in this speech the Lord Privy Seal pounded the table and talked about a split in the Tory Party following the resignation of three Ministers and that, on the same day, the Prime Minister referred to them as "little local differences". Which version are we to accept?
    Mr. Butler: In my case, as I was in my own locality—that is, my constituency—I was handling the matter in, I
    1052
    thought, a most statesmanlike manner, trying to explain to my constituents the many-sidedness of truth.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
    Procedure of Parliament
    Mr. Oram: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 31st January, I shall call attention to the procedure of Parliament and, in particular, to the timetable and the precedence given to Privy Councillors, and move a Resolution.
    Crimes of Violence
    Sir T. Moore: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 31st January, I shall call attention to the increase in crimes of violence and murder, and move a Resolution.
    Juvenile Crime and Delinquency
    Mr. Godman Irvine: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 31st January, I shall call attention to juvenile crime and delinquency in England and Wales, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE
  Bill to amend the law with respect to the Imperial Institute, presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; supported by Mr. Molson, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Alport, and Mr. Profumo; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings of the Committee on Opencast Coal [Money] and on the Motion relating to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

LITTER
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Rupert Speir: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the abatement of litter.
The Bill which I seek to introduce is as simple as that. Parliament has recently passed into law an Act providing for clean air, and the opinion of many local authorities and other bodies is that the time has come for Parliament to pass an Act designed to provide for a clean-up of our towns and countryside. That is the sole aim of the Bill.
Litter has now become a serious menace to both life and limb. The number of accidents caused to humans and to animals by broken bottles and rusty tins is immense—particularly is this so on our beaches and seashores. Moreover, as we all know, litter is disfiguring all our highways and byways and, in fact, almost every nook and cranny of our country. It causes, too, very great expense. Local authorities are having to spend millions of pounds of public money to provide for its collection and disposal.
Britain, almost alone among the countries of the world, does not condemn litter by Statute. It is true that we have some byelaws dealing with this menace, but those byelaws apply only in certain areas, and experience has shown, I think, that they are vague and uncertain in their effect and are too often disregarded.
I can well understand that there may be some people who will suggest that a Bill of this kind must inevitably be vexatious, lead to unnecessary officiousness, and to a certain extent destroy liberty and freedom. I would answer that it is the "litter bug" himself who is destroying freedom because, by his selfishness, he is ensuring that privileges are taken away and that many beauty spots are closed to the public.
That is why the Bill I seek to introduce is supported by societies such as the Rights of Way Society, the Ramblers' Association, the Youth Hostels Association, and by nearly every one of the many public bodies which are interested in protecting the amenities of the country. They are all pressing for legislation on the lines of the proposed Bill. If hon. Members have the opportunity to see it, they will
1054
not only find that the Bill is short and simple, but they will see that care has been taken in framing it in order to prevent its being unnecessarily vexatious.
The Bill will, I believe, safeguard from prosecution, or even persecution, anyone who accidentally drops, for instance, a handkerchief. A fairly wilful and deliberate act will be required before an offence is committed. Perhaps I may say that I myself have taken a particular interest in this aspect of the matter, because I do not want to increase the number of unnecessary laws.
I have in mind a personal experience in this connection. I remember that, one wintry morning. I was passing the walls of Buckingham Palace and, unfortunately, a gust of wind removed a brand new hat from my head, whisking it over the wall into the Palace gardens—never to be seen again. I should have been highly indignant if, in addition to losing my new hat, I had been prosecuted for spreading litter.
The Bill as drafted will not. I believe, lead to unnecessary prosecutions. There is, however, I must admit, one aspect of the problem which still causes me some concern—whether confetti throwing will remain legal or not. If anyone wishes to continue to indulge in this practice after the passing of the Bill, he should either use edible confetti, which will, I hope, be consumed by the birds, or he should use soluble confetti, which will disappear, and then the evidence will likewise disappear.
The Bill I seek to introduce contains no magic. It certainly will not solve this very grave problem. Parliament can help, by tackling the matter, however, by dealing with it as other nations have done—on a universal basis—by making the spreading of litter an offence throughout the length and breadth of Britain.
3.39 p.m.
Mr. Victor Collins: I should not like the Motion to be passed without a word being said from this side of the House in support of the proposed Measure.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but the Standing Order allows only another speech against the Bill.
Question put and agreed to
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Speir, Mr. Collins, Mr. John Hill, Lieutenant-Commander Maydon, Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Russell, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. John Taylor, Dame Irene Ward, Mrs. Eirene White, and Mr. Whitelaw.

LITTER
Bill to make provision for the abatement of litter, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OPENCAST COAL BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  3.40 p.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a complicated Bill containing a fairly wide range of legal provisions and it clearly will need considerable study in the course of the Committee stage. I do not believe it to be a controversial Bill, but it is just the sort of Bill that will benefit particularly by scrutiny in Committee from hon. Members, on both sides. The Government will certainly preserve an open mind and welcome advice and suggestions on this matter from all quarters.
  In moving the Second Reading, I do not think I should enter into any great detail but should rather confine myself to the broad principles. No doubt, in the course of the debate, hon. Members on both sides will raise a number of points. My hon. Friend the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who has already applied his acute mind to this complicated problem, will be glad to answer points that are raised. I conceive it my duty to put forward the main reasons for this act of legislation, the purpose of which, broadly speaking, is to substitute statutory provisions for the emergency regulations under which opencast coal mining is now carried out.
  I want to try to show why, in the opinion of the Government, the existing powers are unsatisfactory; why, having got rid of the existing powers, we still need opencast coal and, therefore, must have other and statutory powers; and finally, that the powers which we propose in the Bill are, broadly speaking, adequate for their purpose but not excessive. That is really the purpose of a Second Reading speech in these circumstances.
  Let us take the first point—why we consider that the existing system is not satisfactory. At the moment opencast coal mining is carried on under Defence Regulations, that is, under emergency powers. There are three reasons why we do not regard that as satisfactory. First,

  1057
  the present system does not work perfectly. There are, in detail at least, disadvantages and anomalies in the existing system. Secondly, the regulations themselves contain very wide and drastic powers, which are not, in fact, used widely or drastically but which are capable of being so used. We think that they should be removed.
  Finally, we feel that more than twelve years after the end of the war, it is time to do away with emergency legislation and to place the powers that are needed in these matters upon a proper statutory basis, properly approved by this House through the normal processes of legislation. I hope that the House in general will accept that those are adequate reasons, as I believe they are, for doing away with the present systems of Defence Regulations.
  My next duty is to show that there will be a continuing need for opencast coal for a considerable period. I think we all recognise, once again, that the process of opencast coal mining is very distasteful in many ways and does great damage to the amenities of the countryside and inflicts considerable hardship on many of our citizens. Therefore, one should prove the continuing need for opencast coal.
  Altogether, since opencast mining started, about 160 million tons of coal have been produced by this method. That is a very large amount indeed. The amount of ground taken up for this purpose is 109,000 acres, or just about one-quarter of 1 per cent. of all the agricultural land in the country. It is, therefore, fair to say that the very great value of the coal which has been extracted can be contrasted with the relatively small proportion of agricultural land taken up for these purposes.
  Last year we got 13½ million tons of opencast coal, which to import would cost us about £100 million, most of which would have to be paid in dollars. The Government consider that coal must be a plus and not a minus in the balance of payments. In fact, substantial progress has been made in that direction. Last year, the net effect of coal was to earn more by our exports than it cost us to import coal. That is a process which, we consider, must certainly continue. We must aim not only to meet our inland requirements, but also to expand our exports.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to large or small coal?
  Mr. Maudling: I was coming to that point, which, I agree, is important.
  It may be argued at the moment, first, that existing coal stocks are very large and, therefore, there is less need for opencast coal, and, secondly, that if we could obtain more coal from the deep mines we would not need opencast coal. It is certainly true that the more deep-mined coal we can obtain, the less to some extent is the need for opencast; but it would, I suggest, be wrong today to embark upon a lengthy discussion about the situation in the coal mining industry as a whole, interesting as that would be.
  The fact is that present stocks are at record levels, but we should be careful of making too many assumptions on that basis. It would not take more than a few weeks of cold weather or a rapid expansion of industrial output to see those stocks disappearing altogether. We must not forget that.
  The present level of our stocks—this was the point, I think, that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) had in mind—arises partly because of the falling production of large coal in the total "make" of coal. It is to some extent because of the disproportion between the two that we are getting these stocks of small coal on our hands. As the hon. Member will be aware, the National Coal Board is now starting an energetic campaign, first, to stop the fall in the proportion and, later, to increase the proportion of large coal in the total "make". That will help to ease the position concerning any existing surplus stocks.
  By and large, however, when looking at, say, the next ten years, it seems quite clear on any reasonable assumption about industrial activity that the rising demand for energy must outstrip even the most optimistic estimates of the production of coal from the deep mines. Within the ten-year period, we expect, as the House knows, that nuclear power will make a growing contribution to this problem, but it will be only a small contribution relative to the gap between demand and supply. Certainly, the demand for oil and the import of oil will increase over the next ten years, all of which is a burden on our balance of payments.

  1059
  Therefore, both from the point of view of the growing need for importing energy and from the point of view of the need for expanding our exports of coal, it seems to me that on balance of payments grounds the case for continuing opencast mining for some years is quite undeniable. I do not say that it will be necessary to continue at the present level for the next ten years—I hope not, by any means—but certainly, for five years or so, I should have thought that the present level of output would be essential. Then, we can look at the situation again. For the period contemplated in the Bill, however, some level of opencast mining seems quite essential for balance of payments reasons.
  That certainly does not justify the mining of coal at any cost. In our consideration of the coal industry, we must consider more and more the cost factor, which, I know, the Coal Board is doing. Until recently, it has been true to say that any coal produced in this country, however expensive to produce, was still cheaper than imported energy, but, with the fall in freight rates, and so on, the position is showing quite a change. We must study carefully the true economics of coal production, particularly in the areas and pits where the costs of production are highest.
  So far as opencast is concerned, however, production costs are relatively low and the profit that the Coal Board makes on opencast coal is relatively high. The House as a whole would, I think, agree that we should help the Coal Board to develop, so far as it can, the most efficient and profitable sources of coal production.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: In considering this interesting question of the economic cost of coal, would the Paymaster-General ask the Coal Board to look at the cost incurred by subsidence, to see whether the advantages of getting coal in certain areas where subsidence is prevalent are worth the damage which the Board's operations cause to houses?
  Mr. Maudling: I know that the Coal Board is considering carefully its costs of production at present, and I am fairly certain that it has that factor in mind, but I will make a note of it and make sure it has, because it is a very important matter.
  1060
  I hope that the House will consider that adequate justification of the need for continuing opencast coal mining. It rests entirely upon balance of payments requirements. Considering the state of the reserves and the fact that the opencast coal we got last year would have cost £100 million to import, I think that the continuing need for opencast mining at some level is undeniable.
  My next argument must be this: that it is necessary to have some legislation to continue opencast mining because it may well be asked, why cannot we abolish the emergency regulations and leave opencast mining to be controlled by the existing law? I think the reasons why special legislation is necessary fall under three heads. First, the planning problem; secondly, the acquisition of rights to use the land; and, thirdly, compensation so owners and occupiers.
  As for the planning procedure, we feel that the machinery of the Town and Country Planning Acts and the local planning authorities is not really adequate for this situation. That is for two reasons. First, because the need for opencast coal is a national and not a local need and, therefore, needs planning on a national scale. Secondly, because one of the important things in the planning procedure in these matters is to impose, when consent is given, proper technical conditions for minimising the damage and for the proper restoration of the land. We believe that the adequate technical knowledge concerning the imposition of these conditions resides in the Ministry of Power. For both those reasons we believe that it is right for my noble friend the Minister of Power in these circumstances, in consultation, of course, with his colleagues, to have the function of giving what is called deemed planning permission.
  When we come to the acquisition of land it is the intention of the Coal Board to obtain rights to work opencast coal by agreement wherever possible, but there may be circumstances in which it may have to use compulsory powers. I think it has been accepted since 1923 when the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act was passed that some reserve compulsory powers are needed to ensure the exploitation of the coal resources of the country. I think that has been an agreed principle since 1923, but we feel that the procedures of High Court action, and

  1061
  so on, provided for in the 1923 Act, are really too cumbersome and too slow-operating to meet the situation and, that, therefore, something special in the nature of this 13ill is required.
  Mr. Tom Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a compulsory purchase order ought to be the last resort, in view of the bitterness which has been engendered by the working of opencast coal in many agricultural areas?
  Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree. I was giving what I intended to be an assurance from the Coal Board that it would in every case proceed by agreement in the first instance, but I think it will be common ground in the House, in the light of thirty-five years' policy in these matters, that some reserve powers must exist. These compulsory powers are not as extensive as compulsory purchase powers: they amount to powers for compulsory use not compulsory purchase.
  The final reason why legislation is necessary is because of compensation. There are two reasons why the general law of compensation is not adequate. First, because it would in practice, I understand, give levels of compensation lower than those in practice at present imposed under the Defence Regulations, and those themselves, I think, are very hard in many cases; and, secondly, because, under the special compulsory rights we are proposing, the system of allowing the Coal Board to use the land, and not to go in for powers of compulsory purchase, introduces into our law a new principle which involves the introduction of new rights of compensation.
  For all those reasons I would argue that, having got rid of the emergency powers, and recognising the continuing need for opencast, we must put on the Statute Book some specific provisions agreed by this House to cover planning control and the acquisition of land and the compensation of those affected. I will briefly explain how the provisions of the Bill meet these various requirements.
  First, planning control. It is provided that no opencast operations can take place without the permission of the Minister. This extends to prospecting as well. In the electricity industry, a matter which we discussed recently in this House, a board has power, with certain notice, to enter on people's land for the purpose of
  1062
  surveying. Surveying for opencast mining is a much more laborious and a much bigger business very often than is surveying for electricity purposes, and so it is provided in this Bill that the Minister must give his permission for any prospecting operations.
  In the actual conduct of opencast operations planning permission or deemed planning permission will be given, as I said earlier, by the Minister in consultation with his colleagues after following the detailed procedure set out in the First Schedule to the Bill, which follows very closely the existing procedures under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act. Consents which are issued by the Minister will contain all the normal planning conditions, and, in particular, the Minister will insert conditions ensuring that damage is reduced to the minimum. It is provided in the Bill that when agricultural land is affected the condition must be inserted that the land be restored to a reasonably fit state for agricultural use.
  I think it is true to say—obviously I do not want to make a party point of this; it would not be really relevant—that in the early stages of opencast operations and for some time a lot of the restoration was not very good. The subsoil and the topsoil were mixed up, and so on. I think that recently there has been a very great improvement, and my belief is that by and large most people affected would say that the standards of restoration in this country are good. We intend to follow the general standards of the 1951 code in restoration, which we are considering with the agricultural organisations. They have made some suggestions to us for improving that code, and we are to discuss these with them. Needless to say we welcome any suggestions by hon. Members as to improvements which they think could in practice be made in this code. Perhaps that is a matter which we shall be discussing in Committee.
  A relevant question which may arise in the minds of some hon. Members is how all this relates to the Franks Committee's Report. The drafting of the Bill had to continue and be finalised before we could make up our minds, as a Government, on the detailed application of the Franks Committee's Report. The House is aware from the recent debate of our general attitude to this. What will

  1063
  happen is that when we introduce the Measures which flow from the Report they will be applied to opencast coal mining so far as possible by administrative methods, which are quicker, but where legislation is necessary any legislation on the Franks Committee's Report will include any necessary amendments of this Measure to bring it into line with the Report.
  We thought it better not to delay this Bill, because of the Parliamentary programme, by awaiting the full legislation on the Franks Committee's Report. In the meantime, we have introduced into the Bill certain of the main points made in the Report of that Committee. For example, the Coal Board will have to make a full statement of its case to people who object to what it wants to do, and the Minister will have to give reasons for his decisions in all opencast cases. That, I think, should indicate to the House that we are in this legislation following very much the spirit of the Franks Committee's recommendations in these matters, and I hope that that will commend itself to hon. Members.
  I turn next to the question of acquiring the land or acquiring the rights in the land. It is the intention of the Government and of the Coal Board to proceed in every case where possible by agreement, but we provide in the Bill for what is known as a "compulsory rights order," which may be necessary if it is not possible to reach a reasonable agreement. The compulsory rights order is something quite new. It does not amount to acquiring the land. It amounts to giving the Coal Board the right for ten years to use the land for purposes of opencast mining. The ten years are a maximum period and the order cannot operate for more than ten years.
  I want to make it clear on behalf of the Coal Board that it will be prepared to buy the land at a proper commercial free-market price, in any case where the owner wants to sell the land and says, "I cannot take it back. It is no good to me."
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: If that be the case, surely, over a period of years—and we must envisage the Bill stretching forward twenty years—the Coal Board would become one of the largest farmers in the country. That is
  1064
  surely contrary to good Conservative policy.
  Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend, as sometimes happens, is a little too quick off the mark. If he had not interrupted me I was about to say that having acquired the land when people wanted to sell it, the Coal Board, after the opencast operations had been completed, would dispose of it.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is there any requirement in the Bill that the Coal Board should dispose of land, or is that mere speculation?
  Mr. Maudling: There is no requirement in the Bill that the Coal Board should dispose of it or buy it, but it is a matter on which the Coal Board has declared its intentions, and it has authorised me to inform the House of what it intends to do.
  It is, in a way, the novelty of these powers under the compulsory rights order for a ten years' user, rather than complete acquisition, that leads to many of the complexities of the Bill which we shall have to consider in Committee. Broadly speaking, the procedure envisaged follows the compulsory orders procedure in the Acquisition of Land Act with all the safeguards provided there individually adjusted as necessary to user rather than owner. In addition, there are further safeguards in that, first, powers would be limited to use for ten years. No dwelling-house can be taken over or any building if it is not going to be restored, and no land if it is comprised in a previous order.
  Mr. Harold Davies: There is a very small point, but an important one to country lovers. I can envisage something happening which has actually happened in my constituency. A cornfield through which there was a public right of way was taken over for opencast mining. When the opencast mining is completed, is there any guarantee that the right of way for the public will be restored after the land has been restored?
  Mr. Maudling: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. In Clause 13 there is power to stop up footpaths, but the Minister is required to restore the right of way when the mining operations have been carried out and when he is satisfied that it is no longer necessary

  1065
  that the right of way should be suspended. He is also required to see that alternative ways are provided.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: I would not have interrupted the right hon. Gentleman had it not been for the announcement he has just made, which is quite new, that the Coal Board has authorised him to say that it proposes to purchase land where it can and dispose of it after the coal mining operations have been completed and the land has been restored. Now the right hon. Gentleman goes back to the Bill and says that under it a house must not be pulled down unless it is to be restored. How does that tie up with what he said about the purchase of land?
  When the Coal Board becomes the owner of a piece of land on which there are houses and buildings it can, presumably, tear down those houses and buildings to get at the opencast coal and, since the Board is then the owner of the land, if it wishes to sell it afterwards it need not necessarily re-erect the houses and buildings.
  The right hon. Gentleman left consideration of the Bill to tell us what the Coal Board wants to do. But when the Board becomes the owner of land is it a free owner, and entitled to do with the land what a private owner would be entitled to do with it, or does it have to deal with the question of restoration of houses and buildings?
  Mr. Maudling: The powers under the Bill are solely powers to the Coal Board, to have the use of the land for ten years, after which it must return it to the owner. It cannot use compulsory powers to take over a dwelling-house, and if it uses any compulsory powers which affect a building, it must restore the building. But, quite apart from the Bill and the compulsory powers, I repeat that the Coal Board has said that if any owner says, "It is no good taking my land for ten years and then giving it me back. I want to go somewhere else," and he volunteers to sell the land, it can be purchased. As a matter of policy and not of law, the Board will buy the land at a fair market price. After the opencast mining has been completed, the Board will dispose of the land. It does not want to become involved in the large-scale operation of farmland in addition to its own activities.
  Mr. Nabarro: If it is the Government's intention to prevent the Coal Board becoming large-scale farmers, why not put that in the Bill?
  Mr. Maudling: The Coal Board does not need statutory powers to buy the property. Therefore, I do not see why we should deal with that point at all. There is hardly need to provide in the Bill statutory powers for the Board to dispose of something which it does not need statutory powers to buy.
  The final point of difference in procedure is on the question of compensation. The provisions of the Bill are in themselves novel because they are based on a new form of compulsory right, but I think that they will be found to be more satisfactory and more generous to the people affected by the operations of opencast coalmining. We must always bear in mind that when we come to compensate people in these circumstances it is extremely difficult to go the whole way. We can be quite clear that when someone's land is ruined over the years it can be restored, but what happens to his life and his livelihood and to the people next door who, perhaps, do not like the sight of opencast mining?
  We cannot, however, go beyond the principles of planning legislation and the normal laws of nuisance. It would he fair to state that the Coal Board, like any other industrial enterprise in the country, should be and is subject to the normal laws of nuisance and the normal planning procedures which are the methods accepted by the House as being, the proper ways of protecting individuals against disturbance of the enjoyment of their own property.
  On the question of compensation to the occupier of land taken over, the first item will be the annual rent of the holding as a whole, less the part which he retains. I find this a rather complicated point. At the moment, if a man has a holding and we take half away, we say that we will pay him half the rent of the entire holding, but the half with which he is left is worth less than half of the original holding. That will be taken into account. Compensation will be the rent of the entire holding less the true value of what is left. I think that that is fair and an improvement.
  The question arises of loss of profit. At present, provision is made under

  1067
  various regulations passed in recent years to cover this point by a rather arbitrary extra payment, relating his rent to what is assumed his profit would be by a mathematical formula. We think that this is a little too arbitrary in its operation and we intend to substitute for that formula one which will give the dispossessed holder compensation based on the profit he would have obtained from his holding less the amount of profit he could reasonably have expected to make on what he has left. In other words, if he loses the entire holding lie gets what would have been a reasonable profit on the lot. If he loses half, he gets what he would have made on the lot less what he would have expected to get on the remaining land.
  There is also a provision in the Fifth Schedule for something about which a number of my hon. Friends are concerned, namely, mitigation of damage. The Schedule says that taking into account the amount of compensation to be paid regard must be paid to what the man could have done himself to mitigate the loss. Here, a difficult problem arises. I do not think that one can say that if we take away a man's holding we will pay him all the profit he would have obtained in working that holding, and that he can sit back and draw all that profit for ten years and do nothing. I do not believe that that is a proposition which this House would support.
  On the other hand, we cannot expect a man who has lived his life as a farmer immediately to dash away and do something entirely different, and say that if he does not do so he cannot be paid the full compensation. In the course of the Committee stage, therefore, we shall have to look closely into this point to try to reconcile the definite and conflicting interests of the consumer of coal and of the individual concerned.
  Mr. T. Brown: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because the question of compensation is vital to farmers. What would be the position under the Schedule where visitation of the Coal Board, with its opencast mining and working, happens four times? Will four lots of compensation be paid to the person concerned, or will he have to be satisfied with the first compensation payment?
  Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's point. If the Coal Board takes over the whole of a man's holding, or perhaps part for a term of years—and ten years will be the maximum—during that period he will not be able to operate it. Therefore, he will be compensated both in respect of his land and loss of profit. Also, he will be given the expenses of vacating that part of his holding, moving his livestock, and so on.
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understood me correctly. I was referring to the position where opencast mining operations are performed in the first place, say, in 1944. Then, in pit terms, there is the back fill. Then the Board restores the land. Then it comes along in 1948 and takes for opencast mining the same piece of land which it has worked already, but this time takes a deeper measure. In that case will the owner get compensation for the first lot of damage, for the second, for the third, and for the fourth?
  Mr. Maudling: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if there are four lots of damage the man will get four lots of compensation. This point is covered by what I was saying earlier about the limitation of the powers of compulsory acquisition which exclude dwelling houses and other buildings, and also land comprised in a previous order. This is in Clause 6 (3):
  "No compulsory rights order shall be made so as to comprise any land which is or has been comprised in a previous compulsory rights order, other than a previous order made in accordance with the last preceding section."
  I think that he is covered, and in so far as he is damaged more than once, he will certainly be compensated more than once. That is the principle in the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: I hope so. So far, it has not been so.
  Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman feels that is not fully covered, no doubt during the Committee stage, he or some of his hon. Friends, will raise the point. That is our intention. Our intentions are always honourable and open in these matters.
  Those are the main points that affect the compensation of occupiers. I come next to the compensation of owners. This will be based, first, on the continued use

  1069
  of the land. Secondly, they will be entitled to the restoration of their property. In the case of agricultural land, as I have said, orders made under the Bill impose a condition that agricultural land is restored to a condition of reasonable fitness for agricultural use.
  In addition, the owner will get the difference in value of his land before and after the operation of the compulsory rights order. In other words, if the land is worth £10,000 when the Coal Board starts to operate and £8,000 when the land is restored, he will get the difference between the two. Here, I should mention an important point, namely that the valuation of the land at the beginning of this period will be based on its open market value and not on its value on the basis of compulsory purchase.
  As the House is aware, in the case of compulsory purchase by many public authorities the value taken is not the market value but the value which would have been given if compulsory purchase had been exercised. We are now providing that the difference shall be the difference between the open market value of the land before and after use by the Coal Board, which seems to us to be the only fair basis on which to operate.
  As an alternative, in the case of agricultural land the owner will be entitled to require the Coal Board to restore the land not merely to a state of reasonable fitness, but to its full original state for agricultural purposes, if that can be done at a reasonable cost. I am sorry to use the word "reasonable" so often in these circumstances, but the House will be aware that it is impossible to lay down precise definitions in all these matters.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Would it not take several seasons before one would know whether the land had recovered its original fertility? It will not take place at once, but will probably take two, three, or four years.
  Mr. Charles Grey: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that question, may I ask who is to judge whether on not the land is properly restored?
  Mr. Maudling: In reply to the first question, it is true that these things often take time, but that is not a question of the principle but of how to establish
  1070
  the evidence to ensure that the principle is carried out.
  In reply to the second question, the hon. Gentleman will find that in all these matters provision is made for appeal to the Lands Tribunal in the case of dispute. The Lands Tribunal works effectively in these matters. However, if anyone feels that the provision for disputes in these matters is not adequate, we can consider that at a later stage.
  Those are the main provisions on compensation, which I believe are both more generous and more just than those which exist at present. They will entail certain consequential adjustments as between landlord and tenant, and are broadly intended to ensure that in the case where a compulsory rights order is imposed the relation between landlord and tenant in respect of short term use is the same as when the tenant vacates his holding voluntarily. In other words, to ensure that the proper legal rights of both landlord and tenant are not upset to the detriment of either, this new procedure on compulsory rights orders is introduced.
  Those are the main provisions of the Bill. There are a lot of special provisions in later Clauses. For instance, there is the stopping up of footpaths, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) referred. There is the question of special land, that is, land in the possession of religious bodies.
  Mr. Harold Davies: The British Waterworks Association too?
  Mr. Maudling: Yes. I have seen that document myself. There is the licensing of small opencast operators to bring them into line with the small deep mine operators under the Act. There are also some complicated transitional provisions. By and large, however, the main provisions of the Bill are those which I have been trying to outline.
  To sum up, briefly, my argument for the Second Reading of the Bill is as follows. It is high time to do away with the emergency law on this matter and to put it on a permanent basis. We must continue to have some level of opencast mining for some time. We all agree that the less damage that can be done to the countryside by it the better, and, therefore, the whole process must be under close planning control.

  1071
  The existing law in the absence of emergency legislation is not adequate by itself to deal with the problem. Therefore, we propose this Statute, which will put the planning procedure on a definite and directly controlled basis, giving full opportunities for protests, public inquiry, and so on. We are placing the compulsory powers on a much more limited basis than the compulsory acquisition of land which appears in previous legislation. Finally, we are making provision for compensation which, as I said earlier, is both more generous and more just than the existing system.
  I said in opening my speech that this is a Bill of such complexity and detail that much useful work can be done in Committee on particular details, and the Government will be grateful for advice and help in shaping its final form. In the meantime, I would express the hope that the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill.
  Mr. William Ross: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance—he has referred to the fact that the Bill is very complicated—that there will be a Scottish Law Officer on the Government Front Bench during the Committee stage? There is added to every Clause a subsection concerned with special references, deletions, and so on, which make it almost impossible for anyone readily to understand what will happen in Scotland.
  Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that that lies in my hands, but I will take note of the fact that a number of Scottish legal points are involved, to which I am sure I shall not know the answer.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: The Paymaster-General, with his usual facility for explaining complicated and detailed Measures, has obliged us all by the very clear way in which he has described the Bill. It is a complicated Bill with its 47 Clauses and eight Schedules and its numerous references to 15 other Acts. I anticipate that in Committee there will be a very long, detailed and serious examination of many matters which hon. Members on all sides will want to raise.
  In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's plea for a unanimous Second Reading, I would say right away that my hon.
  1072
  Friends and I feel that the case is well made out and that the time has come when, in continuing opencast coal mining operations, we should cease to operate under the Defence Regulations and should operate under a Bill such as this approved by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill in principle. I would add the warning that in Committee the Bill will have to be given very detailed consideration. As we do not oppose the Bill in principle, I hope that in Committee both sides will apply themselves not on party lines but on lines which will be for the benefit of the country.
  I had the task for four years—I was about to say "the unfortunate task", but it was one which I enjoyed very much indeed—of looking after the opencast coal mining programme when the Labour Party was in office and I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Fuel and Power. I should like to extend a welcome to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. He takes over a very important position in his Government. I hope that he will have a very happy and successful time, though I hope that he will not want me to go on to say that I trust that he will be a long time in that post with his Government. However, our good wishes are with him. I am sure he will find that those of us who deal with the fuel and power industries on this side of the House will always be ready to listen to good arguments and to make our contributions in a constructive manner.
  The Minister has also made out the case for the continuation of opencast coal mining. I would not go so far as to say that all opencast coal mining is a bad thing. I suppose I have visited as many opencast coal mining sites in the United Kingdom as anyone in the House. I have visited sites which have grieved me considerably. I think of the opencast coal mining that we did at the historic mansion, Wentworth Woodhouse, and in many areas in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), rural areas and copses which it seemed a great shame to tear and root up.
  Equally, I have seen areas where, in the end, opencast coal mining operations have been very beneficial to the countryside.

  1073
  I remember that in South Wales the top of a mountain was sliced off, the anthracite was taken out and the top was put back, in a rather better condition than it was originally. It was a considerable improvement to the area. It would be wrong to say that all opencast mining is bad.
  Britain needs the coal and must have it. However, when we get the coal, let us do it with justice to the people who live on the sites and in the area around. Let us be fair to them. Let us remember that we, in our day and generation, are only the trustees of the land upon which we live, that we have had it handed on to us and that it is our duty to ensure that it is handed on to our successors in a better condition and not a worse one than when we inherited it. We have no right to talk in terms even of the market value of the land when it is restored. No one can give the value of an acre of good agriculture land to this country in the years that lie ahead. What we must do is restore the land to the best possible condition. We must give justice to the people who are disturbed, and must make the nuisance arising from opencast coal mining as little as we possibly can.
  Mr. John Hynd: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in the context of responsibility for our heritage in the land, to make some comment upon the unsightly "cemeteries" which have been left by deep-mined coal operations, the derelict villages and the slag heaps throughout the country?
  Mr. Robens: I have no doubt that when we are considering other Measures which sometimes come before us we can have a good discussion about the way the land of the country has been desecrated during the years with gravel pits, and so on. It is not our purpose to go into that in great detail now. We are concerned at the moment to deal specifically with opencast coal mining.
  I wonder whether the country realises what serious damage has been done to our export trade in coal because over the the last few years we have been unable to guarantee supplies for long enough to satisfy people on the Continent who wanted to import British coal, and that today American coal is firmly entrenched
  1074
  in the European market. Because shipping freights have fallen from their peak of 150s. per ton to 25s. per ton today, American coal can now go into the European markets at 10s. per ton less than the price at which we can supply it.
  This is an important aspect of our economy. The Minister was right to stress the fact that we should push up our exports to the utmost, but we shall never be able to have large exports unless we can guarantee the importers that they will continuously get the coal that they want. It is no use saying to the importers in the middle of a season, "We are sorry but we have to deliver short, and we cannot deliver anything at all for next year." That is not the way in which to maintain our markets.
  The coal which we have obtained from opencast operations has, overall, balanced the export position. I should like the Government to make a decision about coal exports and fix a figure, which I should hope would be a high one, certainly more than 10 million tons a year, and declare that we will export that amount, determined faithfully to keep to our bargain, and at the same time take steps within the country to ensure that we manage with what is left either by increasing production or by some of the other methods which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  I take the opportunity to utter this warning. We shall not get our export trade hack unless we make a real attempt now and unless we can guarantee to importers of large quantities—power stations on the Continent and so on—continuity of the supply of the coal that they want at a suitable price resulting from our successful mining operations.
  I also envisage that opencast mining might even become a regular part of our ordinary mining operations. I see no reason why it should not. That would not mean that we should have opencast coal mining on the enormous scale that we have it today. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head. I would remind him of the terrible disaster which took place in Scotland a few years ago. Men were working from below; they got too near the surface and the slimy, oozy bed of a swamp came through and killed many of them. They were working too close to the surface.

  1075
  In my view, we cannot leave such marginal coal, because it is too valuable. With big diggers one can get down to about 250 ft. without benching—in the case of a new contract in Scotland it is possible to get down to about 600 ft.—and so there is no reason now why miners' lives should be risked in obtaining coal which lies too near the surface. There is no reason why the country should lose valuable seams of coal—coking coal in Durham and places like that, for instance—when, by opencast mining, we can get this marginal coal at no extra cost, but with a saving of lives of men in the pits. This would not be on an extensive scale, but if I were responsible for future mining policy, I should certainly give consideration to using opencast mining as part of the ordinary mining operations for this marginal coal as a contribution to safety in the mines.
  The Bill will be important, and I do not believe that opencast coal mining will finish at the end of ten years. The Bill says that opencast operations will finish at the end of ten years and that we shall cease to bother about opencast coal on any large scale because after that time, apart from the conclusion of contracts begun in the tenth year which might continue to the twentieth year—as was indicated by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—the Coal Board will be able to conclude contracts for opencast operations only on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller.
  I do not know what magic there is in ten years. In the seventh year, contractors having to pay probably £350,000 or even £500,000 for the big diggers will not want to put that amount of money into buying machinery for opencast operations without some guarantee of continuity of working, unless they can see some use for the machinery afterwards. I am not sure that it is a good thing to tie ourselves to ten years.
  Let us bring opencast coal mining to a stop where it is injurious to the nation and where its advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages in disturbing the farming community. Let us bring it to a stop when it is sensible to bring it to a stop and not after a magic period of ten years. I have seen programmes for opencast coal working changed so frequently that I have no faith in those people who tell me that a programme will
  1076
  be completed in ten years. In all the years since 1945 I have not seen an opencast coal programme which has not caused trouble to the people doing the job, especially those building the machines.
  It is not a question of going to the site, surveying the coal and saying, "There is the coal which we can get" There must be a sensible approach to this matter, and I cannot believe that after this magic ten years the opencast coal programme must virtually come to an end. We should reconsider that proposal and apply our minds to devising a formula whereby opencast coal operations will naturally tail off to marginally small quantities—two, three or even five million tons a year—at a time when it is in the nation's interests so to do. We should not put ourselves into the situation of deciding today that in ten years we will not need this coal.
  The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to take us through the way in which planning control and tenancy rights will be obtained for the National Coal Board. We can go into this in great detail in Committee, but, as I understand it, the Bill authorises the use of land for opencast coal where actual working is to take place. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give some attention to these important points.
  An opencast coal site cannot be operated without two other things. One is a disposal point and the other is a stocking ground.
  Mr. Nabarro: And a washery.
  Mr. Robens: It is not necessary to have a washery in connection with these opencast coal sites. The washeries of neighbouring collieries can be used, and it is not always necessary to have a washery to deal with the opencast coal.
  Mr. Nabarro: I would not say that it is always necessary. The right hon. Gentleman will remember his former boss's quarrels with me in 1950 and 1951 about opencast coal going to the domestic consumer. In many instances the sources of opencast coal are not near to a washery and it is not practicable to wash the opencast coal. It is that which has caused so much dissatisfaction among domestic consumers.
  Mr. Robens: That may be, but it is not vitally necessary to have a washery with

  1077
  every opencast coal site, whereas an opencast coal site cannot be operated unless there is a disposal site and a stocking ground. That is the only difference between us. What I have indicated is essential for the operation, and a washery may or may not be needed according to the circumstances. There is no question about the necessity for a disposal point and a stocking ground.
  Mr. J. C. Jennings: Would the right hon. Gentleman also include in his necessities an efficient carrying system between the disposal point and the stocking ground? Is he aware that in many parts of the country the carrying of coal produces one of the greatest menaces to pedestrians and motorists?
  Mr. Robens: If I can go on for a little while without interruption, I am sure that I will cover all of these points, because I am well aware of them. It is true that One must take coal to the disposal point or stocking ground. It is true that a tremendous nuisance for local authorities can be caused by spillage on the roadways and by other things.
  I do not want to include a whole list of things which are necessary for an opencast coal site, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for acquiring land which is not to be actually worked for opencast coal but is to be used for a stocking ground or a disposal point. There is not always a disposal point for each opencast site. There may be one disposal point for two or three or even more sites. However, without a disposal point one cannot operate.
  If the Bill does not include provision for the compulsory acquisition of a disposal point, the Coal Board could be in the situation of having gone through all the elaborate procedure for getting the sites and for arranging contracts and then needing a few acres of land for a disposal site, the landowner being in the wonderful position of being able to get virtually what he likes for that land.
  That is an impossible situation. What is even worse is the fact that the landowner could say that he would not sell the land to the Coal Board at any price. The House is agreed that opencast operations are necessary, and has provided a Bill for them. We cannot possibly have a Bill of this kind without at the same
  1078
  time providing that the Coal Board shall be able to gets its disposal points and stocking grounds. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that some consideration has been given to these matters and even that the Bill deals with them. If they are not covered by the Bill, I hope that he will say that the Government are prepared to consider this matter and to deal with it in Committee.
  I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with those people whom I believe to have been under-compensated. I do not say that the Coal Board has robbed them or treated them unfairly, but in many cases there has been under-compensation. I have been to farmhouses where the opencast site has been dug almost up to the walls of the house, where women could not possibly keep a house clean, where a house has been dusted thoroughly and three hours later has been just as dusty as before, where women with two or three children have been living under such conditions for three or four years and where the farmhouse has been on a small piece of land, almost like an oasis in the middle of this enormous uprooting of land.
  No compensation is paid for that; and while money will not prevent the dusty house, will not prevent the twenty-four hours' noise and racket, will not prevent all the inconvenience and, very often, the heartbreaks, the provision of some financial easement does improve matters. People who have been put into this position cannot look at it objectively as we can and talk in terms of the balance of trade and the contribution made to it. All they know is that their lovely little home has been ruined, that nobody seems to care, and officials say, "I am sorry, but there is nothing we can do because nothing is provided."
  If we are to be just, we must look very closely at compensation and make sure that the Board is not required to pay more than it ought to pay; but if we are to err, let us err on the side of generosity to those who are being upset by reason of opencast coal operations. No one could say that we could not afford a few thousand pounds in that direction after profits have been made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked the Paymaster-General about four times compensation.

  1079
  I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman understood the point clearly, but the truth is that my hon. Friend happens to be in a constituency where opencast coal mining started early.
  Mr. T. Brown: One of the first.
  Mr. Robens: Therefore, the machinery then available was not of the character which was available ten years later. It was only possible to take out coal which was a very short distance from the surface. When bigger machines came along they went back to the original site, because it was known that there were more coal seams below, so they turned the land up once again. It may not have been turned up four times, but it has been done twice. The point that my hon. Friend was making was, what is the compensation position if that should happen again? The answer is that now, with the big machines, it is hardly likely that the Coal Board will open a site and a few years later go back with a bigger machine to take out a lower seam. That is a serious point upon which the Minister might like to comment.
  Mr. Maudling: I did find it difficult to follow the point. However, it is covered by Clause 6 (3), which says that a compulsory rights order cannot be made in those circumstances. When use of land has been made in the past, the power to make a compulsory rights order is excluded, and the question of compensation cannot arise because the damage cannot arise.
  Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has still not understood the point. The point—which has been emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)—is, what will be the position of these farmers when they are visited three or four times? There is one farmer in my constituency on whose land there is an opencast coal site, and the Coal Board is now on its fourth visitation. One of the things that trouble me is the colossal amount of money spent in excavating and so on. After refilling and restoration there is a colossal waste of money in going to that site to obtain another coal measure from it.
  Mr. Maudling: If the farmer's land has been dug up for coal mining purposes under the Defence Regulations and the
  1080
  Coal Board says that it wants to do it again, the farmer can tell the Board to go away because it has no power to do so.
  Mr. Robens: There are two further points of importance, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to them. All other matters which we could discuss a great deal today will probably be dealt with by hon. Members in Committee. I am concerned with the transfer of arrangements for opencast coal from the Defence Regulations to the new arrangements under this Bill. I am concerned with what happens to the land which will not be covered by the Bill—that is, the disposal points, stocking grounds, marshalling yards, and so on. When the Bill becomes law the land which is requisitioned for purposes other than the authorised use will not be covered. The present disposal sites will not be available to the National Coal Board except with the good will of the people who own the sites.
  The second point is that the procedure under the Bill will take much longer than the Defence Regulation procedure. I do not complain about that because it is the method by which we now propose to deal with it. My impression is that in the change-over there is likely to be a loss of 2 million tons of opencast coal, which I do not think we could afford to lose. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise ways and means by which we can make this transfer from the Defence Regulations to the Bill so that we do not lose this coal. Two million tons of coal is a large amount, and it would be worth while to spend time in devising a method of making the transference dovetail in such a way that we do not lose the amount of coal that I have indicated is likely to be lost. Other hon. Members may have a more accurate figure, but I believe that it is about 2 million tons.
  The last point I want to make relates to restoration. It is a small point, but I think that it is important. There is more argument about restoration than perhaps anything else in connection with a site. The code of 1951 emerged very patently out of a lot of experience and excellent work done by the farming community, the Ministry of Agriculture and those interested in making as sure as they possibly could that the land was restored to

  1081
  give the very best possible value. Within this Bill it is proposed to continue to restore under the code. Discussions are now taking place with the farming and agricultural interests, and presumably with the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Coal Board, to improve upon that code.
  I have no doubt that with the application of the technical advances in agriculture—new methods of fertilising, and so on—each year will bring an additional improvement in restoration. That is to be welcomed. This is the one point which causes a good deal of contention. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought under this Bill to make provision so that the code, when agreed, can be laid in this House as a regulation and discussed.
  As I was saying earlier, the preservation of the land is not for us alone. I do not think that we as Parliamentarians ought to leave it entirely to those interested for the time being. It is our job to look after the future. I ask the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary whether they could consider this question and decide that the code shall be a regulation that could be laid before the House and debated. That would mean that as changes took place there would be the opportunity for debate on the regulations as to the efficiency of the code, to enable hon. Members to draw attention to deficiencies in the coal in their constituencies. This would not be ill-founded criticism of anybody, but a genuine desire by Parliament to perform one of its functions, namely, to preserve the land of Britain for future generations.
  I have pleasure in saying on behalf of this side of the House that we accept the principle of the Bill and will give it a Second Reading without opposition.
  4.49 p.m.
  Colonel C. G. Lancaster: Before making a few observations upon the Bill I want to follow the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) on becoming Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him well in his appointment—in particular, those on this side who are interested in
  1082
  power problems, because they will welcome his original and vigorous mind on the Front Bench in dealing with such matters.
  This is a non-controversial Bill. I find myself almost wholly in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Blyth has been saying about it. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave us, as usual, a very lucid explanation of the Bill, and he made out a case for continuing opencast coal mining. I think that he satisfied the House that in the light of our balance of payments problem, and of the need for maintaining a reasonable level of exports, we must continue, at any rate for the time being, a degree of opencast coal mining somewhat on the level visualised, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Blyth.
  Having said that, however, I feel that we are entitled to say that we are disappointed that we should now be in a position where such a Measure is necessary. The right hon. Member for Blyth may remember that in the course of the four years which he devoted to this problem he said—I believe that it was in July, 1950—that he visualised opencast mining tailing off by about 1953. No one can criticise him for having made that assumption at that time, but it is a melancholy fact that it proved to be ill-founded. We shall be hearing a good deal about 1 per cent. in tomorrow's economic debate. In this context, I would point out that if, from 1951 onwards, we had produced precisely the figure of 1 per cent. per annum more of deep-mined coal, this Measure would not be necessary today.
  I mention 1951 in particular because that was the watershed in the fortune of the coal mining industry when, to some of us, it became apparent that unless there were drastic alterations both in the organisation and management of this industry there would be no increase in production and, indeed, we should probably see what has, in fact, occurred. That is all that I want to say upon the purely coal mining aspect of the matter.
  The question of compensation is not one merely of giving money to a man who, for the time being, is dispossessed of his land. We have not only affected his way of life; we have disorganised

  1083
  his life, it may be for many years. It is no good saying that he can go off and do something else. More often than not he is a farmer born and bred, with all his feelings, experience, and knowledge acquired over many years, and he is neither desirous nor specially fitted to take another occupation. He is certainly not a man who wants to sit back for years merely receiving an income for which he is not working. We have affected that man disproportionately, whatever compensation we may pay him, and we must always bear that point in mind.
  As to restoration, some hon. Members on both sides of the House were engaged some years ago with a not dissimilar problem, namely, the restoration of ground which had been worked for iron ore. Certainly, at that time we became very well aware that this was a most complicated matter. It concerned not only drainage and water measures but also the restoration of the fertility of the land. The whole matter was excessively complicated.
  I join in the plea made by the right hon. Member for Blyth that the code which has been in operation since 1951, to deal with restoration, should now become of a statutory nature so that we can debate it in the House and gain the benefit of all the work which was done in connection with the restoration of land worked for iron ore and all the experience of opencast coal mining gained since 1951.
  There is one matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned with which I am not altogether in sympathy. He said that very large sums of money needed to be expended upon steam shovels, excavators and the like which were required for this type of opencast work, and that unless we continued this working for a considerable number of years much of the large amount of money invested would be lost. I assume that the great majority of these machines would be applicable to iron ore working which, as we now know, is descending to depths similar to that to which opencast mining has gone. It is not unusual now to have iron ore working up to 180 feet or even 250 feet, and I assume that many of the opencast machines could be transferred to that type
  1084
  of work without any considerable loss of capital invested in those machines.
  Those are the very brief observations that I wanted to make. My right hon. Friend has made out a sound case for the Bill. The compensation Clauses are capable of improvement in Committee, as we consider the matter in greater detail, but, subject to that, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Williams: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) will forgive me if I do not follow him, particularly since I find myself in agreement with so much of what he has said. It would alter the whole tone of our discussions if I joined issue with him upon the points about which I disagree with him, and it can be better done in Committee. I hope, therefore, that he will not regard it as a discourtesy if I address myself to other points and, in particular, to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. In doing so, incidentally, I shall be replying to certain points raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
  If we are going to make progress with this very complicated Bill, it is very important to be quite clear in our minds as to what is the Government's policy. That should be made absolutely clear, and it will certainly affect the Amendments which we shall be bringing forward in Committee. It seemed to me that the Minister did made out a case for the continuation of opencast mining. We must remember that hon. Members on this side of the House feel as strongly as any Members opposite about the interference with amenities, the disturbance, loss and inconvenience caused by this method of mining. On the other hand, we are as a nation under some economic necessities, and we cannot ignore the fact that at the moment we are obtaining 13½ million tons of coal from this source, in a single year.
  That being so, we must ask ourselves if we should seek to obtain easy responses and hand-clappings by simply attacking opencast mining. None of us is in a position to make such an attack. We are all in it up to our necks, because for seventeen years we have gone forward with this work and have achieved, on the administrative side, a high

  1085
  standard of discussion and a smoothness of negotiation, in spite of the drastic powers contained in Defence Regulations 51 and 51A.
  I think it right that we should compliment the National Coal Board on the lessons it has learned. It is certainly not the case today that people are dealing with these matters in the rough way they did in the early years. They have now learned how to get together properly. So much so is this the case that I have received representations from persons not connected with the production side of mining but with the amenity side, representatives of local authorities and people in that position, asking that there should be preliminary consultations before the powers provided in this Bill are put into effect. A request for such consultation would be nonsensical if it were not really the present background and true position that such consultations have been found to be very agreeable and have reached a level where all parties are very happy about the way things are going on.
  At the same time, however happily they are going on the administrative side, we all agree emphatically that the time must come when we must move from the Defence Regulations, leave Regulations 51 and 51A behind, and go on to a statutory code. Here a crucial point is the attitude of the Government in relation to opencast mining. I will read from paragraph 44 of the last Annual Report issued by the National Coal Board, in which it says:
  "As to the future, the Board will need every ton of opencast coal that can be produced to assist in reducing the gap between deep-mined production and the country's ever-increasing demands for fuel. This view was confirmed by the announcement in Parliament by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 1st November, 1956, that as far as could be foreseen it would be necessary to maintain opencast production at a high level for at least ten years if national requirements of coal were to be met. Moreover, costs of opencast production have been relatively stable, and lower than those incurred in the production of deep-mined coal."
  In an earlier paragraph, reference is made to the fact that in the year under review there was a profit in this part of the industry of £8·64 millions, and since 1952, the date from which the National Coal Board took over, 54 million tons of coal have been obtained by this method.
  Are the Government of the same mind today? If they are, and if they want this
  1086
  13½million tons, which could be increased under present methods certainly to 15 million tons—I do not think there can be any question of disagreement about that estimate—there would have to be a tapering-off from the present position to the position sought to be created in this Bill, and it would have to be done very gently and over a number of years. If we jump from the present situation under the Defence Regulations to that proposed by this Bill, I put it to the Minister that that really means that the Government are budgeting for a lower production of coal in this field. They cannot bring in this Bill in its present form without reducing the production of opencast coal, and I will give reasons in a moment.
  It seems to me, and I want to be as non-controversial as I can, that either the National Coal Board has gone back on that pronouncement in accepting the provisions of this Bill, or, on the contrary, the Coal Board has not altered its position but the Government have overridden the Board. I think it is in the public interest that we should know exactly where we stand. If the Government want opencast mining to fail, but fail gradually, I could quite understand from that point of view their saying, "We will make it up in other ways in the economy," but they cannot at one and the same time say that they want increased production and bring in a Bill which will reduce it.
  How is the Bill going to reduce it? We on this side of the House agree that we must move away from the Defence Regulations position, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that practically two-thirds of the disposal points in this country are being occupied by the National Coal Board simply because of the exercise of its powers under these Defence Regulations. The Board has taken them under these powers, and does not possess them as a result of having purchased them. It is true that the Board itself owns some disposal points, and some it may have purchased, but certainly two-thirds of the disposal points have been acquired under these Regulations, which will come to an end in their effect by 1960.
  What is the position there? Taking the country as a whole, we will find that the National Coal Board, before the end of 1960, which is a little less than two years away, will have to dismantle its

  1087
  screening plants and vacate its disposal sites, unless it is prepared to pay the prices which the individual owners will demand. What individual owner in his senses is going to demand a commercial price in that position? Is he not going to demand a ransom price, and who can blame him for doing it? It is not just a question of having his land back after it has been cleared. He will have the knowledge that the Coal Board, unless it pays his price, will have to dismantle all this machinery, and what will be the consequence of that? The consequence will be that this coal will have to be lorried to other disposal points in the possession of the Coal Board, which in many cases will be disposal points which ought not to be disposal points at all, namely, the screening plants at the collieries themselves.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will give details of this position, which I have found very close to my own constituency, where the coal which has been obtained by opencast methods has been taken to a colliery to be screened. There are special practical reasons why this coal should be screened by screens specially constructed and prepared to do that job, and it is very important that an assurance should be given, if necessary by means of an amendment of this Bill, that these disposal points which are now vested in the Coal Board should continue to be so vested, because the disposal point is really the keystone of this structure. We cannot have an opencast industry without having disposal points, and, as the Minister knows, one disposal point serves many production points.
  Here, there is going to be a loss. There will be a serious effect upon production and a reduction of production by reason of the difficulty in obtaining new sites, because here the position is absolutely clear. I beg the Minister, if necessary, to take the advice of the Law Officers on this point, which is not a Committee point. If he looks at Clause 1 (5) of the Bill, he will find that it provides:
  (5) In this Act "the authorised purposes", in relation to an authorisation under this section, means either or both of the following, that is to say, the purposes—

  (a) of working coal by opencast operations in pursuance of the authorisation, and

  1088

  (b) of restoring land affected by the working of coal in pursuance of the authorisation or by operations connected therewith,

  and "authorised operations", in relation to such an authorisation, means operations carried out for, or incidental to, the fulfilment of the authorised purposes.
  Actually, disposing of coal at central disposal points is not within the terms of that subsection, and, therefore, of course, the National Coal Board is left in the position that it may have to vacate two-thirds of the sites already occupied, dismantle all the plant which has been put up at such expense, suffer a loss in production which will flow from it, and also the increased costs which will also flow, all without giving any benefit to anybody. If by this happening any farmer would benefit or any person who otherwise would be injured would benefit, of course, our attitude on this side of the House would be qualified by that fact, but this is not going to benefit them, and it is clearly at variance with the policy as put forward by the Government if they really want to encourage the production of coal.
  On this side of the House, we would certainly be greatly influenced by a declaration on the part of the Government that they wanted disposal sites to remain and that the National Coal Board would be able to obtain disposal sites in the future. I do not suggest that the Board should do it capriciously and arbitrarily, but with all the necessary safeguards affecting other people's interests, such as compensation provisions and other devices for fair play. We have suffered too much in the past from injuries which were not compensated for in various fields for us to have any lack of sympathy with other people who suffer injury, whether it is injury to the person or to his property when something is done for the reasons set out in the Bill.
  We are completely in favour of the idea of compensation, and support the Government in that idea. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said in his interjection, that we are legislating now for twenty years ahead. Let us make up our minds that that being so we must have an efficient opencast industry or we must kill it. We cannot have it both ways. Nothing but misery and economic difficulty will be caused if we try to keep on an opencast industry and, at the same

  1089
  time, damn it with faint praise and discourage people from investing in it and increasing its production.
  It is all very well to say that machines can be used in other places. If a private contractor is to sink half a million pounds in modern machinery for the purpose of providing coal for this country and is doing that to increase production and employs a number of workers, we should not say in this House, "If we do it this way you can find another use for that machine and other employment for those workers." We must say to the private contractor, "This is for the good of the economy and you are to be encouraged to do it." We must say to the National Coal Board, "You are to be encouraged to help in every possible way and not to be hamstrung by the provisions of the Bill."
  Things could go badly wrong under the Bill; that is to say, there could be lots of individual owners who exercised their full rights at the point where, under Clause 1, authorisation has to be given by the Minister and objection can be made by any person with an interest in the property. An objector does not have to give any reason. He can object quite capriciously. The local authorities in the area may be completely in favour of the authorisation, but one person can stand out, without giving any reason at all, and a local inquiry can be forced. The Minister is not obliged to insist upon that local inquiry running concurrently with a compulsory rights order. It is possible for a local inquiry under the authorisation procedure and one under a compulsory rights order to run consecutively. There is consequently bound to be a great increase in the time from the date when the coal has been discovered to the time when it is being worked.
  I have done my best by inquiry to find out how long it takes under the present procedure. I find the answer to be about four or five months. I put it to the Minister that it might easily, under the Bill, take another twelve months to get to the point of production. That is all very well, if the Government do not want opencast coal or want a rundown in the opencast coal programme. If they want increased production of coal and they approve of this method of getting it, they must streamline the Bill to facilitate progress in these fields. They must make it easy for the parties to come to agreement.
  1090
  The parties should be encouraged to come to agreement so that the Bill will run as a sort of background to friendly negotiation between interested parties. That is the object that we have in mind and will have in mind in Committee. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal particularly with the very difficult question of disposal points.
  Mr. Nabarro: Until the advent of the Bill, the work of opencast mining was under Defence Regulations and the owner or occupier of a property that was to be worked for opencast mining had no right of objection at all. Requisition of the, land was purely arbitrary under the: Defence Regulations. Under the Bill, the owner or occupier has a right of objection. Surely that restoration of the freedom and liberty of the subject is worth a few months' delay?
  Mr. Williams: There is no need for there to be any issue between the hon. Member for Kidderminster and myself on this matter. I am talking about something which is rather different from the point that the hon. Gentleman has referred to. Since there is an economic necessity, as put before us by Her Majesty's Government, for the production of coal by these methods, there is a case for saying that a way should not be thrown open for capricious objection which will cause endless delay without any foundation of objection at all. This matter cannot affect the liberty of the subject. In a case where all the parties were agreed, somebody who had some limited right over the property could have it looked at by the Minister so that, in an appropriate case, the Minister could decide whether or not there was a prima facie case. If there was, the Minister could let the objection go forward, with the full rights of objection.
  Let not the Minister be put in a position in which the whole matter can be delayed merely by a bloody-minded crank who is not concerned with the rights of the case at all. Let the hon. Member for Kidderminster bear in mind that the production figures have been achieved by discussion and reasonable behaviour on, the part of people who have had at their-backs the sort of power which could have enabled them to behave in a beastly way if they had wanted to; but they did not. They have done it in a decent way and in relation to compensation, as in other fields.

  1091
  I hope that we shall not get into the position of arguing about issues when we are not at issue at all. I would remind the hon. Member for Kidderminster that the Minister and I have been engaged in this sort of legislation for a considerable time. We have spent many months on it, and have done it, I am glad to say, on the most friendly and co-operative basis. There is no reason why we should not do so at the present time. I will not be put in the position, by any diarrhœa of words on the part of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, of appearing to be less concerned with the liberty of the subject than he is.
  Mr. Nabarro: But the hon. Member is.
  Mr. Williams: I simply ask that this matter be dealt with in a responsible way and not influenced by the rather foolish interruptions that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has made.
  Mr. Maudling: I appreciate the point of view of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) when he talks about cranks, but it is rather difficult to decide in an Act of Parliament whether some objectors are cranks and others are responsible people. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view that the principle is very big and important.
  Mr. Williams: All I am asking the Minister to do is to be consistent and to do in regard to authorisation orders what he does under compulsory rights orders. He has the right to do it under the compulsory rights order procedure. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster would say that that is an intrusion on the liberty of the subject. It would be a perfectly reasonable administrative arrangement under the same Bill. It is simply a question of saying that the principle which the right hon. Gentleman accepts in relation to compulsory rights orders should be accepted in relation to the authorisation order. The point is no bigger than that.
  Let me extend to the Minister my sympathy—I am not being cynical when I say this—at his having to come to the House with such an extremely complicated Measure.
  The Bill is rather more complicated and certainly more lengthy than the Electricity Bill and the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill put together. Therefore, it seems that
  1092
  a very heavy task lies ahead in Committee where the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House will be to try by all the constructive means at our disposal to make it a better Bill. The Minister will find that there will be no lack of co-operation. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, who is so ready with his interruptions, will, I hope, be on that Committee to give us the benefit of his vast experience and help us to come to conclusions on these complicated subjects.
  The Minister is in a difficulty with regard to compensation for loss of profits. In relation to such compensation, the right hon. Gentleman knows the view of hon. Members on this side of the House because we have put it forward on previous occasions. This is a question of consequential loss of profits following upon opencast mining operations. All the arguments which can be used to justify this principle in this Bill were used from this side of the House on the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill and were rejected by the Minister in the most cogent, powerful, far-reaching refutations of our submissions which I have ever heard.
  It follows, therefore, that at a certain stage in Committee when we come to deal with this principle the Minister will have to ask us to accept our own arguments used on that other Bill, since this is an identical principle. With all my heart I say that we support the idea that there should be compensation for loss of profits. It is a last-minute repentance on the part of the Minister, perhaps due to the political climate, because, much as we like him as a person, we all realise that he will not be in his present position very much longer.
  I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as the compensation principle is concerned, I should have thought that the right way to approach that matter would be to concentrate on speed and simplicity whilst providing justice at the same time. A speedier method than that proposed in the Bill is applied now. The complaint is not about the method applied at present, but about the amounts paid. It is much better to deal with the matter in that way than in the way provided in the Bill.
  Mr. Maudling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I must take him up on the point about our earlier discussion. I would not dissent from his

  1093
  assessment of the value of the argument put forward on behalf of the Government, but there is a great difference under this Bill. When we are saying what the National Coal Board must pay by way of compensation when taking over land for opencast mining we are not imposing upon the Board, as was done under the earlier Bill, the obligation to pay for a second time compensation which in many cases it had already paid under the then existing circumstances.
  Mr. Williams: We shall be left with the anomaly that in one and the same village there will be a person who has suffered loss of profit as a result of mining subsidence who will get nothing whatever in respect of this loss and, side by side with him, a person who has suffered loss of profits because of opencast mining who will be provided for. That is an anomaly created by the Government. In Committee, the Minister will have the painful embarrassment of being obliged to put forward our arguments and asking us to accept them. However, that is a difficulty into which he will have been placed by the Government.
  Let us concentrate upon the idea of providing the compensation quickly and well because under the complex provisions suggested in the Bill what we are really giving to the injured person is the right to demand a scrutiny of books of account with long drawn-out investigations and disputes. Although I defer to the Lands Tribunal in agricultural matters, in which it can do a splendid Jon, I have still to be convinced that the Tribunal can deal with a financial dispute. Farmers are not financiers or accountants and will be at a disadvantage in dealing with the matter. Therefore, we must make the assessment of compensation simpler and turn it into real compensation without any disputation and reference to books of accounts.
  To summarise what I have said so far, I think that, firstly, the Bill as at present drafted will most emphatically result in a loss of coal production, that it may even result in a substantial loss of production, particularly if my point about disposal points is not fully covered by the Government; secondly, that it will certainly lead to great doubt on the part of those who are investing large sums of money in the provision of up-to-date machinery for opencast mining; thirdly,
  1094
  that although we can say with the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we are legislating for twenty years ahead, that, of course, is on the assumption that the day this Measure comes to an end nearly ten years hence a compulsory rights order will then be drawn ten years further ahead. That can happen, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster has his debating point. But we know, in fact, that it will not happen like that at all. What will happen is that when the Act has been in operation for four or five years there will he a run-down in opencast production followed by a substantial run-down because nobody will then be interesed in financing developments even though they have earlier had the benefit of opencast coal.
  I ask the Minister to take another look at the principles and to make the Bill a gentler Measure more in line with National Coal Board policy. I say to the Minister, "Do not override the Board as you have apparently done here. Do not give divided counsel and create confusion of thought asking at the one time for increased production and at the same time bringing in a Measure which is going to result in reduced production."
  Despite the fact that I have had to speak at length and forcefully on certain points, I assure the Minister that I will give the fullest support I can in the masses of Amendments which lie ahead in Committee. All I would say is that from my previous experience I anticipate that, however many Amendments I put on the Order Paper, the right hon. Gentleman will probably match them in number if not in substance.
  5.27 p.m.
  Sir Albert Braithwaite: It seems a very long time ago since the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) started opencast mining in this country. It was due to his consideration and foresight that we were able in a national emergency in war-time to get moving in the matter, and a lot of things have happened since then.
  I must declare my interest in the matter because I have operated in this direction ever since those earlier Measures were introduced. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has many times invalidated our friendship on the basis of opencast coal mining. In everything that I have tried to do in the matter I have

  1095
  been actuated only by the national interest and the real desire of the nation to produce more fuel for its needs.
  I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General for bringing in the Bill because, for the first time, it puts the industry on a more or less statutory basis. Up to now we have operated under the Defence Regulations, and I must say that it has been very difficult for those in charge in the National Coal Board and those on the National Opencast Executive to carry on their work under the arrangements which they had to make. They have now an amount of coal proved of over 70 million tons which is available to the nation. But of this amount of coal very little is available because of the long procedure in getting possession of the land and starting work on it.
  I ask the Government quite frankly what are their real intentions about opencast coal mining. The National Coal Board says that we should get the maximum production possible. Are the Government prepared to go out for maximum production? I believe, in view of our national financial obligations and our present parlous position in foreign exchanges, that it is vital for us to get every ounce of coal we can. Atomic energy may be in the offing, but it is not here yet. Our balance of payments in Europe was always maintained on the export of coal. We have a lot of people in the mines who are coming along very nicely and who are going to create possibilities for the production of coal.
  I am not going to deny the work done by the miners, but this is something which helps them. In 1956, while the National Coal Board lost £8 million producing 200 million tons of coal, the opencast division of the Coal Board made £8 million for the nation on the production of 13 million tons of coal. Those figures must show everyone in this House the vital necessity of going on with the programme on a substantial basis.
  Mr. Rupert Speir: What does my hon. Friend mean by "a substantial basis"? Is he suggesting that amenity interests and agricultural interests should be disregarded?
  Sir A. Braithwaite: Certainly not. I am as much interested in the amenities
  1096
  of the countryside as anyone in this House. In fact, I farm many thousands of acres myself and have a large amount of land. Therefore, I can appreciate the views of people concerned, but, after all, the guts of this country are in the coal industry. If we want industrial prosperity we cannot neglect these indigenous resources. The fact that we are spending vast sums of money in buying American coal is disgraceful and does not allow any of us to be complacent.
  I think it vital to recite some of the things which have happened. Since the inauguration of this scheme we have taken up 100,000 acres out of 48 million acres of agricultural land, and 60,000 acres are now held by the National Coal Board for opencast operations. Of that land, 28,000 acres are being rehabilitated for farming and 32,000 acres are being actively operated. That does not seem to be a substantial amount to cause all the disturbance there has been about this operation for so many years, but it means a great deal, not only to the coal mining industry, but to the whole future of this island.
  This industry has saved the country £100 million a year ever since the war. We have been told about all kinds of difficulties in financial operations, but can we afford to ignore sums of that magnitude? I am told that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned over £50 million. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who told you that?"] This sum is £100 million per annum, not for one year, but for seventeen years. If there had been no opencast mining we should have had no export of coal from this country since the war. It is obvious that this is something we have to do. No one likes to see the great holes which are made in the ground, but they do not do so much damage as do many gravel pits and pit heaps, which take up, not the same area, but ten times the area used for these opencast operations.
  In addition, 34 million tons of this coal has been large lump coal, of which we are very short and which cannot be obtained under modern deep mining methods. That is why we have to buy coal, in order to supply the lump coal required by the domestic market. I suggest that these considerations are well worth the study of every one of us.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: At the same time, 10 million tons of small coal was produced which cannot be sold.
  Sir A. Braithwaite: I have not heard of very much small coal which cannot be sold. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are plenty of outlets for that. When we compare the large lump coal which comes from these operations with that obtained by ordinary mining, the percentage looks silly.
  I pay tribute to those who have been operating this system. The technique has greatly improved. The restoration is very much better than it has ever been before, and I am informed by the heads of the agricultural industry that the yield from this land is quite good in some areas. I am sure that the technique now employed is really satisfactory and something of which we can be proud. When we see the operations which are going on in America and compare them with what is being done in this country we can be very gratified. The technique employed, and the fact that we now go to greater depths, reflects the greatest possible credit on those responsible. Mr. Casey and Mr. Baker, who have operated this scheme for the last seven or eight years, have done a service to the country which all should appreciate. The whole set-up of the opencast mining operations of the National Coal Board reflects credit on a State undertaking of this kind.
  I am pleased that the provisions for compensation, for the first time, have been put on a statutory basis. Prolonged arguments will now disappear, but I have some fear that this Bill may retard and restrict production this year because we cannot change from one system to another without some delay. I do not think the nation can afford to brook delay in this connection at present. I hope that any methods which we can suggest in Committee to speed up the change-over will be considered by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has proclaimed to the House that he is a large-scale farmer and landowner. Supposing the National Coal Board wanted to requisition part of his land and he objected strongly, would he not favour a system of public inquiry? If there were a public inquiry, would that not lead to the delay to which he
  1098
  referred? Is not that delay legitimate in such circumstances?
  Sir A. Braithwaite: If the Coal Board operated on my land I should expect a fair price, but I certainly would not stand against the national interest in a matter of this kind.
  Mr. Nabarro: That is not the question. Does my hon. Friend favour the democratic process of a public inquiry by which an objector may state his case? If he does, he would have to put up with the delay.
  Sir A. Braithwaite: Let us see if we can speed up the public inquiry if that is the case. Let us get these public inquiries operating more quickly, as frequent delays dishearten people.
  The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) spoke about the period of transition. I am in agreement with him. I do not think we should set a definite statutory period. If the scheme needs to be closed earlier and sufficient coal is coming from deep mining, that would alter the situation, but we cannot foresee that happening for a very long time. I do not think a statutory period should be set. If we go to the seventh year, from where are we to get the people who have sufficient confidence to put up the vast capital sums necessary for this operation?
  This is a mechanical operation. Every man engaged in this industry—and it is an industry now—produces 1,200 tons of coal a year compared with 300 tons produced by each miner in deep-mined production. It is quite substantial, but the bulk of the work is done with heavy machinery. If there were no limitation on the time for this operation, these machines would be built in England, but at the moment we have to pay large sums of money in dollars to import them from America. I believe that if some security were given under this Measure, the big machines would be built in this country by the machine makers and we should not have to import them. It is essential to go in for the largest machines we can get to make this operation economic.
  I want to thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill and for putting the industry on a statutory basis for the first time. May I also welcome the new Parliamentary Secretary to his post; his

  1099
  financial acumen in this connection will be very valuable to the coal mining industry. We appreciate the logic of his arguments and the sound commonsense which he will bring to this great industry. It is an industry which needs all the help and all the brains we can possibly put into it, because with the success of this industry we shall get out of our difficulties. We could easily export £100 million of coal to Europe today if we could produce it, and that would make all the difference to our balance of payments. It can be done if we apply our minds to introducing that urgency which is so vital.
  I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that opencast coal mining will make a substantially increased contribution to the country and will make its effect felt throughout our economy.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: While I do not agree with one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite), I welcome his reference to the deep-mined coal industry. It refreshed me considerably when I heard him say that this industry was coming along very nicely. We had never heard that before from hon. Members opposite, either in the House or in their public speeches. I do not want to create a controversial atmosphere, but I must say that that reference was very refreshing. May I congratulate the hon. Member on his honesty in stating that the deep-mined coal industry is coming along very nicely? We agree about that.
  The hon. Member has recently returned from America. I have had some experience in my constituency of opencast mining and the damage and the ravages which result from it. When I met the hon. Member walking along the corridors in the House I used to say, "Here comes the man who has given me more headaches and heartaches than any other hon. Member." I put the responsibility on him.
  It is extremely difficult to disagree with the Paymaster-General, who introduced the Bill. His pleasantry is very charming. I said to myself, "By the way in which he delivers his speeches from the Box he could almost charm ducks off a pond." Nevertheless, I must make some reserva-
  1100
  tions, because although I agree with the manner in which he introduced the Bill, I must make some comments in the short time at my disposal, not altogether about what the Bill omits, but about what the Bill contains.
  While I have been sitting here I have been thinking of the debate we had on 19th July, 1950, when a few hours of a Supply Day were allocated to the discussion of opencast mining. I well remember how we were chided by an hon. Member of the party opposite who is now in another place. He said that opencast mining ought to be brought to an end. He said that we had had it long enough, it had despoiled our countryside, people had suffered and it was about time that the Government of the day—we were then the Government of the day—brought it to an end. The same party, now in office, say, "We will promote a Measure to lengthen the working of opencast mining by ten years."
  Dr. Barnett Stross: Possibly twenty years.
  Mr. Brown: Under the Defence Regulations it was six years. The Bill carries on the period for ten years, and it has been hinted that it may be even longer.
  I have been reading the Report of the debate which we held in 1950. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will forgive me if I say that he tried to get out of the difficulty by giving an assurance that opencast mining would taper off and would have disappeared altogether by the end of 1953. At least the sensible hon. Members among us know why that statement was made. It was made because of certain circumstances which we were anticipating. We expected that there would be a considerable and rapid improvement in the output of deep-mined coal. This is what my right hon. Friend said:
  "What the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee really wanted to know was what was the opencast programme."
  That was a specific and definite question which arose from many speeches made by hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend continued:
  "In January of this year we announced that we wanted 45 million tons by 1953. The output we are planning is as follows: 1950, 13 million tons; 1951, 12 million tons; 1952, 11 million tons: 1953, 8 to 9 million tons, and then the contracts will tail off as this particular programme finishes."

  1101
  He was then questioned by the right hon. Gentleman leading the Opposition at that time, who asked:
  "And then will it all end?"
  My right hon. Friend replied:
  "It will tail off after 1953. It is not proposed to go on with any extension after that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2332–2333.]
  I am not complaining about that statement made by my right hon. Friend. What I am complaining about is that the Government in 1950–51 were trying to deal with this situation and were meeting with vigorous opposition from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. The situation now is completely the reverse. They are introducing a Bill to extend opencast coal mining operations for ten years.
  Three main reasons were given for the continuation of opencast mining. It was said to be necessary, first, for the maintenance of our coal supplies, so essential to our national economy; secondly, in order to do away with the need to import coal from abroad, and to save dollars—a very desirable thing; third, to build up our stocks to meet any emergency that might arise. Those were the three main reasons given—I shall not mention the others.
  The position today is that our stocks of coal have considerably increased. Our output in deep-mined coal for the year ending 28th December, 1957, reached the magnificent total of 210,054,700 tons—a considerable increase in the output of that type of coal since opencast mining began in 1942. Then we have the stocks of coal that are now on hand to meet any national emergency.
  Our stock in hand in 1941 was 22,095,000 tons. Today, the figure is considerably higher. I therefore do not see that the strength of the reasons given in 1950 applies today. We have increased our output of deep-mined coal from 203 million in 1942 to the present figure of 210 million, while our stocks, and our output of opencast coal, have also been increasing. We are in a much better position today than we were in 1950.
  I agree that there has been—and I hope that it will continue for a few years yet—a great deal of capital invested in the deep-mined coal industry, which has been starved for so many years. In five, six, seven, eight, or even ten years' time
  1102
  we should be getting some good returns for the capital invested in the deep-mined coal industry, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—whom I congratulate upon his appointment—the following question.
  If, in the next few years we have a surplus of deep-mined coal, will opencast coal production continue, or will it come to a full stop? I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, West that it would be unwise to venture too far in capital investment in opencast coal production unless we are assured that the large quantities of machinery in which we invest will be used and will not lie idle.
  There is a feeling, although I should not like to think that it was put forward seriously, that this Bill has been brought forward simply to provide for the continuance of work for three of the large contractors. I hope that that idea will not go forward, but that is the feeling, born from rumours that have been spread about. I do not attach very much importance to rumours, but there is that feelings.
  Here, I must mention names. It is said that this Bill has been drafted in order to give work to McAlpine's, to Sir Lindsay Parkinson's and to Wimpey's. When statements like that are made, the people making them should sustain them—
  Mr. Nabarro: Who made them?
  Mr. Brown: We hear them in the mining districts.
  Mr. Nabarro: Who made them?
  Mr. Brown: We hear them in the mining districts, but I wish to give way to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir).
  Mr. Speir: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Ince for giving way. I entirely agree with what he is saying. These rumours are circulating in the mining districts. I have heard them myself. But would he not agree—I am sure that he would—that it would be far better if these large machine's were used for building the country's very-much-needed trunk roads?
  Mr. Nabarro: Before he replies, perhaps the hon. Member for Ince will allow me to say that the House of Commons

  1103
  is not very interested in rumours. The hon. Gentleman is saying that statements are being made to the effect that three large-scale civil engineering contractors are being kept in work deliberately by these opencast contracts. Will he not substantiate those statements and say where they came from?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Hexham has just said that he has heard the same thing. It is extremely difficult to find out where rumours begin, but I am told—and I have to listen—that it is for that reason that this Bill has been brought forward—
  Sir A. Braithwaite: Perhaps I may say that I know each of the companies mentioned by the hon. Member for Ince—I am a director of one of them—and there is no foundation of any kind to the rumour he has mentioned.
  Mr. Brown: I am very glad to hear it denied by a gentleman of authority. I do not like to have to listen to such rumours as that. It is said that if a rumour is repeated often enough it becomes the truth, but that is not the case here, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to give a straight denial to these rumours.
  I want now to deal with the Bill as it affects my constituency. After all, to a very large degree I am here to voice the views of the people in the division of Ince, where I have lived since I was born, and which I have had the honour to represent for fifteen years. That part of the country was one of the first to be invaded by the opencast people, and we still have the opencast workings. It is true that we have had very many promises given to us that it is to come to an end—"Be patient, be patriotic, be tolerant, and in a few months' or a few years' time all this will have come to an end." That is what we have been told, but what do I find?
  I regret to find that this Bill seeks to give powers to the N.C.B. to go on and on. I am beginning to believe that, like Tennyson's brook, it will go on for ever, although I hope that it will not. In the mining areas in my division the words of the poet have lost their meaning. We have none of "…England's green and pleasant Land" in my constituency. The
  1104
  opencast workings have seen to that, and, before that, the deep-mine coal owners of the past put pit heaps on it and caused subsidences which have rendered that land derelict and devastated. So we have very few of those pasture lands, or green and pleasant lands, to which we are as much entitled as are other parts of the country.
  Recently, there was a very important meeting of the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers' Union held in Preston, which was attended by many small farmers. Amongst the many questions they discussed was the continuation of opencast mining and its effect upon their farms. Eventually, all that could be said to meet the complaints of delegates attending that meeting, was, "We can do very little as a Farmers' Union. The only thing you can do is to write to your M.P. about it." That is the obvious way out when people are in a difficulty and—my word!—they have written to their M.P. about it, and sent deputations to me, too.
  The Bill seeks to increase the permitted period under the Defence Regulations, about which we have already heard, from six years to ten. This, in itself, is very disturbing, especially in its effect upon low-acreage farms, of which there are many in the north-west industrial area. The hon. Member for Harrow, West has spoken of what is done in the vast spaces of America and Canada, where farms of 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 acres are to be found. For the small farmer, farming 100 or 114 or 200 acres, the taking of 80, 90 or 100 acres makes a very serious inroad into his livelihood. There is, therefore, no comparison between the farms of America and the small farms of this country.
  I described the Bill as a new compulsory rights order. That is what it comes to. It gives power to the National Coal Board to operate opencast mining, without any peace-time precedent. I have searched the records of legislation in the House and I have failed to find anything like it. There is nothing in the legislative enactments of this country which bears any relation at all to the Measure now under discussion. This is very disturbing, to say the least.
  In the light of the experience gained in my constituency during the last fourteen years, I take very strong objection

  1105
  to many Clauses in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister responsible for it will manifest the same reasonable attitude towards this side of the House as he manifested when we were discussing the Mining Subsidence Bill. On that occasion, he was very tolerant and accommodating. As a result of his tolerance and accommodation, we were able to present to the House on Third Reading a much better Bill on mining subsidence than would have been the case without our help.
  I therefore plead with the Minister not to adopt a stupid attitude, as some Ministers do when discussing Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. It is no good beating about the bush. Some Ministers adopt a stupid attitude, while others are tolerant and accommodating. The tolerant and accommodating Minister always gets the best results, and the stupid man does not get anywhere at all. I am a Lancastrian, and I speak straight from the shoulder. We have a saying in Lancashire,
  "Speak your mind, yet be kind;
  Give good advice, yet be nice."
  We shall be very nice to the Minister if he gives us all our own way, within reason.
  The Ministry has inserted what are called safeguards. I welcome those safeguards, but what disturbs me is this. Who are the people to apply these safeguards? Are they to be representatives of the Coal Board, of the Minister, of the Mineworkers' Union? Somebody must apply them, and they will have to be applied in a reasonable and tolerant manner. We have had considerable experience in meeting officers of the Board and we have found that, in any question of the application of safeguards, their only concern is the production of opencast coal. It is a very serious thing when an officer of the Coal Board, an officer of the Ministry, or the Minister himself, has before his mind, transcending all the arguments advanced by the people affected, the production of coal. He must do something else. He must take into consideration the effect of coal workings and remember why the safeguards were inserted in the Bill. I hope that we shall, during the Committee stage, have some information from the Minister on the point.
  1106
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth mentioned the human problem. There is nothing in the Bill about that. There is, of course, a compensation Clause, but there is nothing in the Bill which refers to the damage done to a farmer's homestead, to the inconvenience the farmer's wife and family go through. As a matter of fact, on one farm in my constituency the workings came right to the doorstep. My right hon. Friend mentioned that case.
  The result was that the house had to be pulled down and they built another farther afield in the country. That sort of thing ought not to take place. A bit of common sense should have been applied. Consideration ought to be given to a farmer's family living where their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers before them have lived. Yet opencast mining operations are allowed to make such inroads upon a farmer's land that his house has to be pulled down.
  Farmers in my division have had to sell their stock. There is no reference to compensation for that. When a man sells his stock it is almost like selling his lifeblood. The hon. Member for Harrow, West, has some very valuable cows on his farm. He cannot have opencast working there because there are no coal measures in that district, but he has a very valuable heard of cattle. He would not like to part with them, except when they are ready for killing. They become part of the family, and there is a sentimental value about them. I know that we cannot approach these things purely on grounds of sentiment, but there is that very deep feeling whatever we say. When land is taken for opencast purposes, and a farmer has to dispose of his stock, it is a heartbreaking experience for him and his family. Yet many of them have had to do it.
  When the land is restored and the process of restocking is embarked upon, officers of the Coal Board—I say it with all respect to them—seem possessed of the idea that a stock of cattle can be rebuilt by return of post. It cannot be done like that. These things require years of hard work, expenditure, and experience; they require all the knowledge and skill of the farmer and his herdsmen. Once a farmer's stock is disposed of for the sake of opencast mining, it takes a number of years to rebuild it. Again, I

  1107
  make the plea that there should be a different approach to the payment of compensation for loss of stock.
  There are in my constituency, in one town—Ashton-in-Makerfield—29 farms. Every one of them, without exception, has been subjected to opencast mining. On the 7th of this month, I had a letter which informed me that the Opencast Branch of the Coal Board is coming on to the Smithy Wood site, on which there are five farms. Three of them have been visited two, three or four times. That is my reason for putting to the Minister the point about compensation for the continual visitations of the Opencast Branch.
  I make this plea to the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope that it will be conveyed to the right quarters. Does he not think that these people have had enough? Does he not think that when five small farms have had these constant and continuous visitations of opencast mining since 1944, an armistice ought to be declared? Surely, after all these years of coming and taking the coal and upsetting everything, it is time to call a halt on the Smith Wood site. That is my plea on their behalf.
  I have said a lot in this House about restoration and I shall continue to say it. I am the first to admit that since we raised the question, many years ago, there has been a considerable improvement. A different technique is adopted, different things have been done and suggestions have been considered. Way back in 1944 or 1946 suggestions would not have been accepted. Ours was to do and die and not to ask the reasons why, and no notice was taken. Now, such is the force of circumstances that notice must be taken of the ordinary man and the ordinary farmer. Considerations and suggestions have now been applied and the restoration of land is much better than it was, say, ten years ago.
  I welcome that, because the restoration of agricultural land, particularly in the mining areas, is very welcome. It is desirable that it should be done quickly, effectively and properly so that the farmer may continue along his journey as one who is responsible for the production of food for the nation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) referred to disposal points. There is nothing in the Bill
  1108
  about disposal points on opencast sites. Such sites are very desirable, and I shall explain why. At present, coal which is produced on an opencast site is generally conveyed to the nearest colliery, where it is screened. That ought not to be. The Coal Board should not mix the opencast coal with the deep-mined coals, because there is such a vast difference between the two in cleanliness and in calorific value. When the two are mixed, the opencast coal spoils the deep-mined coal. It is essential, therefore, that those responsible for opencast mining should ensure that there are disposal points where opencast coal is produced and that it should not be mixed with the deep-mined coals.
  That is what is causing the complaints. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and rightly so, has frequently had something to say about the excessive amount of foreign substances, stone and slate, which are found in coal. That is one of the reasons for it. Therefore, we shall have to consider the installation of disposal points and the erection of screening plants. We shall have to consider something approaching what is done for deep-mined coal if we are to get any satisfaction from opencast mining.
  There is in the country, and particularly in the coalfields, a large acreage of under-productive land, due not altogether to opencast mining, but also to deep mining. The deep mining of coal has left dereliction and devastation in its trail. Pit heaps, marshes, water and flashes of water are all part of our inheritance from deep mining in the past.
  I suggest that without a disproportionate expenditure of money, steps should now be taken to restore infertile land to fertility. If that is done, it will be a national gain. The Coal Board, in its opencast operations, should see that a fund is created for the specific purpose of supervising and helping the restoration of this derelict land, of which we have several thousands of acres, to useful production. If that was done, it would be a paying proposition. It would get results and, what is more important, it would give a great deal of contentment to the people who have long lived in these areas.
  I have often asked why we should have so much sorrow and pain around us. Why

  1109
  should our people live in these conditions when there should be praise and victory? That praise and victory can be brought about only if the Government, the Coal Board and all concerned set their minds to do that which is right for the people who have done so much for the nation in the production of coal.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Fort: I follow the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in the gloomy view which he took about the continuation of opencast mining, because in north-east Lancashire, as in south-west Lancashire, we have small farms which have undoubtedly suffered a great deal more from opencast mining than the areas where the farms are larger.
  I do not share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) and of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) for the continuation of opencast mining and I am bound to say that it was only the powerful arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, in introducing the Bill which give me any feeling, and that only with a sigh, that I suppose we must support this wretched operation for a good many more years.
  However, there are provisions in the Bill which are welcome, particularly the provision to end the war-time regulations under which the opencast operation is carried on at present, and those which I think most hon. Members of this House feel express the modern attitude towards compulsory acquisition, especially having better rights of appeal, and so on, which were discussed in the Franks Report originally and then in this House. I turn to one or two matters on which I am critical of the Bill as drafted. Some of them are of sufficient breadth to be brought up now on Second Reading, although there are others, and these, too, will have to be developed in detail in Committee.
  I am sorry to see from Clause 2 that the Minister of Power has the sole responsibility for initiating opencast mining operations—the sole constitutional responsibility. My right hon. Friend gave what I must call the conventional arguments for this provision when he said that it is not the constitutional practice for Acts of Parliament to lay down that one Minister should consult another. He
  1110
  added, in a general sort of way—and I think that these were his exact words—that "There will be consultations, of course, with my colleagues."
  A general undertaking like that is not a satisfactory substitute for an undertaking put into an Act, and I fail to see why there is not expressed in the Bill an obligation on the Minister at least to consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has the responsibility for the implementation of the Town and Country Planning Acts, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who obviously is deeply concerned. I should ideally prefer the appeal procedure to be operated by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as an impartial outsider, as it were, in what may be difficult cases, if they are appealed but at least we should have written down an obligation for consultation.
  The next and equally important matter about which I feel critical of the Bill is one raised by the hon. Member for Wigan, and I had a good deal of sympathy with him when he asked that the compensation proposals should be simplified. The present compensation procedure is, in brief, that there is a rental compensation upon requisition of the site. It is one which favours the small farm whose rental value is under £100 a year, or whose size is less than 50 acres. I shall not now go into the full details, because they can be discussed in Committee, but there is compensation based on a diminution in the capital value as a terminal compensation upon derequisition. Finally, there is a rehabilitation grant three-fifths of which goes to the owner and two-fifths to the tenant.
  Certainly, in the area round Burnley, which I know well, and where we have so much opencast milling, the three-years' rental to the landowner is in the overwhelming number of cases—I have heard of no exception to this—being spent on rehabilitating the farm, improving the water supply, putting in additional drainage so that the farm can have as good drainage as possible instead of the minimum required on rehabilitation, and on rebuilding walls, and so on, as well as upon any contingencies that arise.
  It is a system which has worked for twenty years, though, as the hon. Member for Wigan said, the rates have been improved in the last six months. It seems

  1111
  to me fair to both landowners and tenants; the land agents and others who advise them fully understand its workings, and so do the farmers. I cannot think what the reason can be for such a wide departure from it as is proposed in the Bill, unless it be an excess of logic on the part of the legal and financial sections of the Ministry of Power, who feel that basing it on the loss of profit in some way or other is more logical than basing it on a rental value.
  Yet in the proposals in Clauses 15, 16, 17 and 19 there are two striking points. The first is that there are as many assumptions made in trying to base compensation on profits as in basing compensation on rental value. The second is that in practical administration the proposal to compensate on the basis of loss of profits raises very practical difficulties which I am most afraid will bear unfairly, certainly upon the small farmers whom I know so well.
  For example, if some fields are taken from a farm, how will it be possible, except on a very arbitrary basis, to allocate to those fields the loss of profit as a proportion of the loss of profit on the farm as a whole. It is often difficult to work out accurate figures for these small farms to satisfy the Inland Revenue—figures for a farm as a whole. To try to do it for perhaps five acres out of 40, or for seven and a half acres, will certainly introduce an element of arbitrariness just as marked as it is in the present procedure.
  The matter is complicated, too, by the fact that in paragraph 7 of the Fifth Schedule there is a proposal to offset against the loss of profit the money which could be earned in alternative ways. What we are very much afraid of in our area, where the farms are all around industrial towns, is that those who are responsible for administering the Measure, if it passes in its present form, will say to a farmer. "You can go to work in a factory or a mill and make much more money than you can as a farmer."
  I thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) put the powerful argument against that, that those farmers who are having their farms or parts of them taken away from them for opencast working wish to continue as farmers
  1112
  and do not want to work in factories. The proposal in the form in which it is in paragraph 7 of the Fifth Schedule certainly looks to them and to me as though there is an effort to induce them to go away from their farms and to take work in factories.
  Another matter worth mentioning now on Second Reading is that under the present arrangements the rehabilitation compensation is paid when a place is derequisitioned. There is no mention of that rehabilitation rate, and yet it has been valuable in the past. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will tell us that in Committee he will look sympathetically at proposals which we are prepared to put forward to make the rehabilitation arrangements much more favourable than they are in the Bill as it is. I should also like to make somewhat the same point about proposals for compensation for timber felled. At present, compensation is paid when the timber is felled and it is welcome money at a time of great disturbance on a farm, but under the Bill compensation will have to wait for ten years.
  I hope that, having indicated my acceptance of the Bill on Second Reading, I shall be shown in the winding-up speech that Ministers have not closed their minds to drastic amendment in Committee of the compensation Clauses as drafted. They are very far from being satisfactory, certainly for small farmers in difficult farming areas.
  6.31 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: It will have been noticed that it has been quite customary in the debate for hon. Members to rise and say that in great measure they have agreed with what had been said by an hon. Member opposite who had just sat down. I feel that I am no exception to the rule, particularly with reference to the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), when he spoke about Clause 2. He was right to suggest that we have no evidence so far in the history of the Ministry of Power that that Ministry is skilled and adept in matters of amenity.
  The hon. Member rightly suggested that questions of amenity belong to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They are within the purview of

  1113
  that Ministry. It is accustomed to it and should be consulted. I agree entirely with the hon. Member that a promise of consultation with colleagues is not enough, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a promise, if possible now, that provision for consultation will be written into Clause 2.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there are precedents for this type of consultation and joint discussion with Ministers on planning matters. There is a precedent in Section 35 and the Fifth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in connection with the granting of planning permission for the use of the operational land of statutory undertakings. If we have a precedent of that kind there is no reason why it should not be written into Clause 2 of the Bill. It would please the House and it would give some real guarantee that less damage would be done to amenities than might otherwise be done. I believe that such a step would find support from all parts of the House.
  We absolutely accept without complaint that the main purpose of the Bill is correct and that we require a statutory basis for opencast coal production rather than the Defence Regulation under which the operations have been carried out up to now. I note, however, that some local authorities, and the Association of Municipal Corporations, are nervous about some of the implications of the Bill. They certainly wonder, as so many of us wonder, whether a period of ten years is needed.
  This period, of course, is not merely one of ten years. The reference to ten years in Clause 3 (1) is to the time-limit within which the Coal Board can make application. After the application is made, the power to work the land is for a farther ten years. Therefore, in the ninth year any order given by the Minister will have a further ten years to run. That makes the period nineteen years as from today; and if application were made on the last day of the tenth year we know that a little over twenty years from now opencast coal mining would be still possible.
  I wonder how much of our power will be derived from coal in those days and how much from other sources, including the new ones to which we look forward with such expectation and hope. I
  1114
  wonder whether we should pin ourselves down in legislation to powers of this kind and whether we should not assume that it is a matter of great urgency to rid ourselves altogether from an operation which is ugly and which none of us likes, although, like other hon. Members, I absolutely accept that if we are satisfied that the operation is essential in the country's interests we must continue with it.
  In putting this point I am not speaking only for myself. I am sure that it is a point which has been put in consultation by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard it more than once, in particular from that body. We should be greatly obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give us his views on whether our stocks are not rather large now, whether we are finding difficulty in stockpiling and whether distribution is not presenting some difficulties. We should be relieved if we heard from him that there are no such difficulties. Perhaps he will tell us the exact position.
  The town clerk of Stoke-on-Trent, in which my constituency lies, has raised with me this important point of consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary will have noted that the procedure under Clause I and the First Schedule is quite formal. It is quite good as far as it goes. I am sure that no one can complain of it. Twenty-eight days' notice must be given. Local authorities, and owners and occupiers, are all to be notified if they are interested parties, and there will also be Press advertisements. That is fine, but that is a formal piece of machinery.
  Local authorities have found when dealing with Government Departments that informal consultation is often most useful. It is quicker and pleasanter. There is no formal cross-examination and calling of witnesses, and the procedure is very much less expensive. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to note the point, and, if possible, give us some assurance that that procedure will be available. Such an assurance would please all local authorities, including those of Stoke-on-Trent. Wigan and Kidderminster. We should like to have the opportunity to consult in these matters as informally as possible and as early as possible so as

  1115
  to avoid a formal consultation and the expense which that involves. I have nothing to add on Clause 2 except that I feel that the hon. Member for Clitheroe was on a very strong point indeed, and that we want written into the Bill the provision for consultation for which he asked.
  Again, with reference to restoration in subsection (2) of Clause 2, I note that the word "land" is used in one paragraph, whereas in the next there is a special reference to "agricultural land" We are wondering about other forms of land on which work takes place and which are damaged, for example, allotments. Has this point been put to the Parliamentary Secretary? If allotment holders are dispossessed they will certainly lose their crops and they may find that all the work they have put in for some years is of no avail and must be started again if some time later they get their allotments back. Have they no right to compensation? I would have thought that, practically and morally, they had as much right as the farmer. If hon. Members agree with me, I hope that someone will take up this point during the Committee stage, on which I would like to have served, but on which Committee I cannot serve because I am enjoying myself on the Slaughterhouses Bill on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
  Another point with reference to subsection (2) about damage is that done to highways. Local authorities declare that contractors employed by the Coal Board sometimes use highways very roughly indeed near the seat of operation, and leave them badly damaged. If that is true, as I am sure it is, should not the local authorities have the right to claim that the damage be made good?
  We speak with some feeling upon these matters when we come from areas which are undermined, and when our roads tend to sustain damage so easily in any event because coal is taken from under our feet. If opencast coal mining operations are added to that, and if double damage is thus sustained by portions of our highways, we have a right to say that this is a legitimate grievance and that we ought to have compensation, or at least a restoration of our highways so that they are properly usable again.
  1116
  Now I come to another point, if the Parliamentary Secretary will be patient with me and the House will excuse me for raising so many points at this stage. Clause 35 refers to prospecting operations by the Coal Board, and these are to be carried out without any prior notice to anyone, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. At present, local authorities receive information, so do owners and occupiers, of the Board's intentions before the Board is authorised to carry our prospecting arrangements. The Association of Municipal Corporations asks that this useful type of procedure should be continued, notwithstanding the formal procedure which is introduced in this Clause.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): Many of these points can be dealt with later, but the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. If he will look at subsection (5) of Clause 35 he will see that with one very small exception, which is not material, notice has to be given.
  Dr. Stross: I am glad to have that assurance and I accept the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has spent much more time on this Bill than I could have done. We have all received notices from the water undertakers about their fears if working takes place on their gathering grounds. It is not only that they ask for compensation, they ask that there should not be opencast operations, for they do not want any pollution of water supplies. Nor do they wish to risk any damage to structures. They say that compensation is not what they are interested in. They want to be left alone, because these are vital matters. If they must be touched, they should be the last rather than the first. If there are to be priorities, careful consideration should be given to their point of view,
  Lastly, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to think of the situation of a city such as the one I represent, where the only opencast work will have to be on land on the eastern side of the City of Stoke-on-Trent where we know coal outcrops. It is bad land. It has surplus coal, but it happens to be virtually the only piece of land on which we can rehouse our people. If this land is denied us it will mean that within the boundaries of our city there will be hardly any land

  1117
  left for this purpose. We are in the midst of an extensive programme of slum clearance and the majority of houses are being built in this area. It would be a great blow to us to lose this land on the eastern side of the city. I do not know what we should do in that event.
  I know that the Bill will not give any powers without scrutiny, without care, without the possibility of reference. I have mentioned this difficulty because we have had to suffer in Stoke-on-Trent, as have the constituents of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) for the fact that coal lies under our feet and also on the surface. When, in addition, the situation is such that the only piece of land left for rehousing within the city boundaries contains coal near the surface, and we may lose that land, we begin to wonder whether it would not be better to desert the city and build a now one. Of course, if we approach the Government for the necessary finance, we shall be told that there is no money available. Therefore, we feel that we have every right to say, as do the water undertakers, please leave us until the end or leave us alone.
  In a special case of the type I have described, I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will always remain our good friends, if they are in office, and will help us by ensuring that the little land we have left for rehousing remains within our possession.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Opencast coal mining is a universally unpopular operation. Farmers dislike it, landowners dislike it, local residents—where opencast mining operations are being carried out—dislike it. The National Union of Mineworkers dislikes it. Most Members of Parliament are keenly aware of the feelings of their constituents in the matter, and most Members of Parliament dislike it themselves.
  It has been forced upon this nation as an economic necessity and I think that many speakers in this debate have fallen a little short of the truth in failing to face that simple fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) was possibly the originator in the United Kingdom of the civil engineering operations which have led to the large-scale opencast coal mining industry of today. But that was in the stress, and under the duress, of war. It
  1118
  was, to put the matter in its correct historical perspective, immediately following the important decision taken by the then Minister of Labour and National Service, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, to call up coal-face workers. They had been called to the Colours from 1940 onwards.
  There was a steep decline in the number of men available in the pits. Coal production—there were no exports of coal in those days—had fallen a good deal lower than the aggregation of demand for industrial, domestic and transport purposes, and the scrapings of coal from seams close to the surface were, therefore, brought in solely, as far as we could see at the time, as a wartime measure. It was continued after the war by the Socialist Government because they could not get enough coal from the pits.
  In 1947, after the great freeze-up and the shut-down of our factories when the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was Minister of Fuel and Power, it became necessary to plan for at least a further five years of opencast coal production, which was said at the time to be for the purpose of making good marginal deficiencies. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), during his tenure of office as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, gave, on 19th July, 1950, what is now regarded as an historic pronouncement nearly as inaccurate as all his other prophecies in similar fields, that opencast coal mining would be brought to an end in 1953. That was received with acclamation by both sides of the House of Commons.
  The right hon. Gentleman looked just three years ahead. He was basing his prophecy upon the presumption promulgated by the National Coal Board in its highly inaccurate "Plan for Coal", published in 1950, that deep-mined coal output, as a result of nationalisation and new investment, would steeply rise and render opencast coal mining unnecessary.
  Year by year, the failure of the pits under the present arrangements to produce enough coal for our needs has rendered it necessary to continue opencast coal mining. As late as 1956, the then Minister of Fuel and Power, the present Minister of Supply, was forced to the conclusion that opencast mining would have to continue for at least another ten years.

  1119
  I state as my first point—I do not think that it has been emphasised sufficiently clearly so far in the debate—that the presence of the Bill before the House for Second Reading today is a measure of the failure of State ownership and operation of the pits, and that that ought to be recognised by every hon. Member.
  Mr. T. Brown: Not a bit.
  Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who occupied the attention of the House for a long while, really believes what he has just interjected, will he explain why his right hon. Friend proclaimed, in 1950, the ending of opencast coal mining by 1953, thus promising to end it within three years? Yet, seven years later, we are still dependent for marginal supplies upon these miserable scrapings of coal with all the dislocation, loss and misery that the system causes in areas of rich fertility and good farmland.
  Mr. Brown: I will certainly reply to what the hon. Gentleman says. We did not realise our anticipations in 1953, and we have not realised them yet. However, as has been said by the hon. Member for Harrow, West, we are well on the way. One does not sink a shaft in twelve months; it probably takes five years. The development plan which was started in 1947 has still not yet been completed, but we shall realise what we set out to do when we nationalised the coal mines.
  Mr. Nabarro: I invite the hon. Member to re-read the "Plan for Coal", and to compare the position today, eight years later, with the promises made by the Board in 1950. There he will find a genuine measure of the deficiencies of coal output from the pits.
  I do not want to attempt to turn the debate into one upon deep-mined coal matters which would be more appropriate to a nationalisation day, but in this context I am not alone in my opinions. They have been widely expressed and canvassed in the national Press. An admirable view was published in the Daily Express on 2nd January, just three weeks ago. I quote from its Opinion column:
  "Despite modern machinery and new methods, mined coal output in 1957 was almost static.
  1120
  On the surface there was a better story. Opencast sites produced a record 13,581,800 tons.
  Until the mines raise their output, Britain cannot do without opencast coal. But the price is high.
  To the bill for ripping the coal from good farming land, add the cost of replacing the torn-out topsoil. Add, too, the value of the crops never sown or harvested.
  Opencast has existed since 1941. It is time Britain, whose technical ingenuity has solved so many other problems, learned to do without this crude and wasteful system."
  The Daily Express is right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West—he declared his interest late in his speech—is a director of a civil engineering firm which operates opencast coal mining sites, and, of course, he supports these methods. I am much more concerned, in the national interest, as to where the genuine balance of economic advantage lies in a matter of this kind. I believe, as the right hon. Member for Blyth believed until he left office, that the sooner we do away with opencast coal mining the better it will be for the community as a whole and for our national economy.
  Insufficient attention has been paid during the debate to the source of machinery employed by the civil engineering contractors. Many hon. Members will remember a series of Parliamentary Questions which I put to the President of the Board of Trade last year about the very large expenditure in United States dollars authorised by the Government for bringing to this country two very large dragline excavators for installation on the North-East Coast. One of the excavators promptly broke down and was out of action for several months.
  It appears—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm or deny this—that the capital equipment for opencast coal mining today comes almost entirely from American sources and is being paid for in dollars. The late Mr. Richard Stokes, who was the managing director of a famous engineering firm responsible for the production of equipment of this kind, joined me at that time in condemning the purchase of the American capital equipment. He said, to very great effect on many occasions in this House, that the whole of the equipment could be manufactured in this country.
  I would ask my hon. Friend to deal with this point when he replies to the

  1121
  debate. The Bill asks for powers in effect for a twenty-year span for continuing opencast coal mining operations. Are the Government proposing to rely on American machinery for the next twenty years to carry out these operations, or, as a matter of broad economic and financial policy, as the sums of money involved are considerable, are the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Supply taking proper steps to build up in this country sources of supply for opencast coal mining machinery, thereby rendering it unnecessary for us to continue to spend large sums in dollars to import machinery?
  I must also deal with the reply which I received from the Paymaster-General—I am very pleased to see him here during one of my speeches—to an intervention concerning the acquisition of land by the Board in connection with opencast mining operations. I received a very unsatisfactory answer. It is true that there is nothing in the Bill to empower the Board, if it so desires, to acquire land by purchase from a private owner, but my right hon. Friend will readily concede that such a need might occur. The implication of his reply was that the Government would not regard it as inimical to their policy in this context if the Board so purchased land and retained it permanently.
  Mr. Maudling: Would my hon. Friend prefer that we should give a direction to the Board not to purchase land even if the owner wanted to sell it?
  Mr. Nabarro: No, Sir. What I would prefer my right hon. Friend to do is to be quite explicit today and to say that in Committee he will consider the addition of a Clause stating that the Coal Board may purchase land if it so desires—purchase as compared with a compulsory rights order for a span of years—work the coal, but then be obliged, following restoration of the land, to resell it either at market value or at the highest price it can obtain for it. That would be reasonable. My right hon. Friend has said that the Coal Board might wish to acquire land, but he did not give the counterpart and say that the Board should later get rid of the land—or does he believe that it is desirable that the Coal Board should set itself up as a major farming enterprise, for if it continues to acquire land plot by plot that is what will happen?
  Mr. Maudling: As well as interrupting me, my hon. Friend might also listen to me. I dealt with that point specifically. I made it clear that if an owner wants to sell his land, the Coal Board will buy it, but I also made it clear that the Board said that when it had finished opencast operations it would dispose of the land and did not intend to hold it for farming purposes.
  Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend did not say that in response to my intervention, but I may have missed it in his speech. I will study HANSARD tomorrow. I am anxious that this point should be thoroughly ventilated, because there have been many complaints from this side of the House about the multifarious activities of the Board which are not directly associated with its fundamental purpose of winning coal.
  I am prepared to give what support I can to the Bill in broad principle. I do not like opencast coal mining any more than the majority of hon. Members do.
  Mr. T. Brown: We do not like opencast coal mining.
  Mr. Nabarro: I gathered that from the forty-five minute speech which the hon. Member made. The fact is that, for all the reasons which I have explained, we have to put up with it for a few years longer. There will be hosts of Amendments in Committee to satisfy many of the Committee points, many of them controversial, made in the debate today.
  However, there are four reasons which the majority of us should accept on Second Reading of this Bill. The first is that we are all satisfied that it is desirable to have fairly long-term statutory powers instead of Defence Regulations, but I hope that we accept that there will be delays, greater than at present, in winning the coal as a result of the interpolation of public inquiries to hear objectors.
  I tried to make that point in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), who proclaimed that he was no less a supporter of the freedom and liberty of the individual who was having his property compulsorily acquired than I, but he did rather less than justice to the argument in failing to recognise that at present there is no means by which an aggrieved person can protest other than by the somewhat futile one of writing to his Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Maudling: It depends on the Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend is on very dangerous ground. He sits for a delightful residential constituency called Barnet, on the outskirts of London, far removed from the coal fields. I was threatened in my constituency, in an area of especial scenic beauty, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I laboured under a disadvantage, which was that my only way of trying to stop the Ministry of Fuel and Power from carrying on opencast mining operations was to raise the greatest possible agitation, to get petitions signed and to make public speeches, in other words, to kick up one devil of a row publicly and to ask innumerable Parliamentary Questions.
  There was no statutory process by which the objectors, that is my constituents resident in this area of especial scenic beauty, could have their objections publicly heard and later adjudicated upon by a Minister of the Crown. I compliment my right hon. Friend on the proposal to change that position, a proposal which is common justice and highly desirable. I shall speak in greater detail, if privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee, on the provisions concerning the rights of appeal for objectors in an effort to satisfy myself that they are adequate to the needs.
  Secondly, I welcome the Ministerial adjudication contained in Clause 1. The Coal Board already has far too many arbitrary powers in the autonomy it enjoys for mining coal on a near monopoly basis and the fact that a Minister of the Crown is to be the final adjudicator on whether opencast mining will be carried out, and to what extent, will give private Members of Parliament an opportunity by Parliamentary Questions and in other ways—and I am sure that the Table will be generous in this matter—to put many Questions to the Minister on this very important aspect of affairs.
  I welcome the provisions for preservation of timber and, provided that there is generous and wide interpretation of the compensation proposals, I think that we should not experience any undue difficulty or trouble upon that account.
  Subject to all those qualifications and my general condemnation of opencast
  1124
  mining, I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Grey: It is not my intention to keep the House long, but I have one or two comments to make because, as the Bill is to go to Standing Committee, I may not have an opportunity to make these points in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) took an unfair advantage of the House in his opening remarks by condemning nationalisation as a principle. He would have been better to have left that for another occasion, when he could have been attacked from this side of the House and it could have been proved beyond all doubt that nationalisation as a principle has been very successful since 1947.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that the hon. Member should think that I was being unfair. I have not failed to speak in nationalisation debates in the last eight years. What have he and his hon. Friends been doing to allow me to get away with those opinions? I unfailingly express them.
  Mr. Grey: We are dealing with a Bill about opencast mining and not with the principle of the nationalisation of the mines. I still believe that the hon. Member took an unfair advantage of the House in saying what he did.
  It is true that none of us likes opencast mining, and many people in the country dislike it, too, but we must accept it as a necessity. But since the operations began the country has benefited to the extent of the coal produced which has helped to supplement deep-mined coal. Having said that, I believe that the Bill is necessary for safeguarding the people concerned.
  There are two points I want to mention, to one of which I referred when the Paymaster-General was speaking. That was on who is to adjudicate when the land—I am referring to agricultural land—is restored to reasonable fitness. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite sure of himself when he suggested that the Lands Tribunal would decide. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm or deny whether that is so.
  I believe that when negotiations for acquiring land are in process, and also

  1125
  in the matter of its restoration, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be consulted. It may not be feasible to put such a provision into the Bill, but we should have an assurance that that Ministry will be consulted.
  I do not propose to enter into the ramifications of compensation, but to say a word about the terminal compensation problem. It is a fact and quite true that, regarding much of the land that has been excavated and then restored, compensation has been paid to the owners. But the land itself has still not reached its former standard because there has not been sufficient done to it. This is my personal opinion. I feel that when compensation is paid to owners of land there should be an obligation upon them so that part of that compensation is used to restore the land to its normal standard.
  I do not know whether that is a feasible thing, but perhaps in Committee, when hon. Members consider these points, it will be possible, by means of an Amendment, to make it an obligation on the compensation receiver to plough back part of it into the land.
  Those are the only two points that I wish to make. They are Committee points, but I am sure that they are important principle points. I recall what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said about safeguards. I hope that when these new opencast operations are commenced care will be taken to ensure that they do not go too near to farmhouse buildings. A farmer who lives near my constituency told me yesterday that the jibbing is taking place within 40 yards of his building. That is too near, and I feel there should be safeguards so that operations of this kind are far removed from buildings. As the House will be aware, if these operations—cutting, shot firing, and so on—are near to houses the danger to the houses and the occupants is enormous.
  I hope the Minister will consider these points to see what can be done to have this danger removed.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott: I intervene in the debate to make only one or two points. I agree with a great deal of what has been said, and therefore I shall not delay the House longer than is necessary.
  1126
  Generally speaking, the Bill has been well received on both sides of the House. It has been called, quite rightly, a complicated Measure. I believe that it will be welcomed, amongst other things, as a long-delayed recognition of the right of the occupier, whose land and livelihood have been removed, to compensation for loss of income. We have been reminded that opencast coal has saved the country about £100 million annually for the past 17 years. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that opencast coal mining is disliked and generally deplored. That applies to both town and country. Quite a number of urban areas are threatened in that adjacent open green spaces may possibly be torn up. That is the case in my own constituency, where opencast coal mining has come close to the town and may come again.
  Although opencast coal mining is generally loathed, it has to be accepted. Those people who have disliked seeing green and pleasant land torn up have at least seen it torn up in the national interest. It has been the hope of so many that this method of mining would come to an end. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) suggested that opencast coal mining may become a permanent method of production. He also suggested that we cannot estimate beyond ten years. I suggest that so long as it is in the national interest it must continue, and in consequence this Bill quite reasonably makes certain solid provisions.
  It is always to be hoped that when land is required for this purpose it can be acquired with full agreement on all sides. The Bill quite rightly includes a provision regarding compulsory rights orders. I express the hope that a compulsory rights order will be the last resort in every case, and that every effort shall be made before a compulsory rights order is made.
  I further suggest that the general atmosphere of co-operation can be further improved by a stricter control on restoration conditions. We have heard a great deal about this problem this afternoon. Certain early sites were very badly restored. The code of restoration in existence is non-statutory. I am quite sure that the force of law in this direction will be more than welcome. I agree

  1127
  with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture might be consulted at certain stages. Surely the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Agriculture might very well work together regarding restoration.
  I should like to emphasise also the possible danger to land of terminal compensation. This type of compensation surely should be paid on the condition that it is spent on the affected land. I realise that complete restoration to a former state is sometimes quite impossible. Timber and identical buildings obviously cannot be replaced. However, I contend that the principle of compensation paid being ploughed back should be accepted. The provisions in the Bill regarding compensation are generally reasonable. It is inevitable that the calculation of lost incomes, based, as they must be, on a notional rent and on a notional productivity, must be hypothetical.
  I contend that the problem of compensation should be considered against the background of the average farmer's very natural resentment at this interruption in what is, after all, his chosen way of life. Loss of profits is far from all that the average farmer who has known this interruption to his life is interested in. The Bill will not compensate him for the loss of the pleasure of the pursuit of his everyday work or for the enjoyment of the peace of his home.
  Much has been said today about opencast coal methods, but I believe that a tribute should be paid to those people who have suffered during the past seventeen years. They have not complained a great deal, despite the fact that in many cases, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has stated, the opencast workings came close to their homes. There are many cases of homes being demolished. It does sometimes seem quite unnecessary to remove a house and farm buildings for the sake of the coal underneath.
  I conclude by paying my tribute to those people who have put up with a great deal, and are in the national interest prepared to put up with a great deal more in order that opencast coal mining can continue.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Champion: Like other speakers, I deplore the necessity for the continuance of opencast coal mining, but, like them also, I welcome the Bill, which is to replace the Defence Regulations under which vie have been working. I am glad to see that we shall now give some permanence to this legislation, even though it is to be hoped that this form of mining will not be perpetuated beyond the period of absolute necessity.
  I strongly agree with those who have welcomed the compensation provisions. It so happened that in the Session 1948–49 I chaired a sub-committee of the Estimates Committee which looked into the question of opencast coal mining. At that time we found that the occupier was not compensated for the loss of his livelihood during the period when his land had been taken over. We made some recommendations about that and other matters, and I am glad that much of the harshness which was then part of this job of opencast coal mining has been removed.
  Mr. David Grenfell: The process was started at a time of crisis.
  Mr. Champion: As my right hon. Friend says, it was started in a crisis, and it continued in a time of fuel crisis. When one passes out of a crisis, however, it is right to try to relieve those who suffer from the misfortune of having their land taken from them.
  It is to be hoped that the Minister and the Committee which will consider the Bill will remember some of the points which have been so well put in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) have called attention to some of the anomalies and difficulties that will remain even under the Bill as at present drafted. I hope that in Committee these points will be very carefully considered and amendments introduced where necessary. The livelihood of the farmer is being taken from him. His future is at stake and he stands to lose much which has taken him years to build up. He cannot, for example, easily replace a herd which has been built up over the years merely by going into the

  1129
  market and buying cows which happen to come on to the market on that day, or subsequently.
  Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can state whether research is still going on into the subject of the fertility of the topsoil which is scraped off initially, put on one side in a great heap, and eventually put back on top. The Estimates sub-committee was given to understand that as a result of this operation some of the beneficial bacteria were destroyed. I should like to know whether research is still going on into this matter, and into the question of the restoration of these bacteria, or the implementation of some other method of dealing with the topsoil which will ensure that these bacteria are not destroyed.
  It seems to me that the Minister is undoubtedly trying to make adequate provision for the restoration of agricultural land, as far as possible. I am glad that that is being done, because it is vital to our countryside, but as I travel through my constituency I can tell exactly where restoration has been carried out after opencast working, by the concrete posts and wire fencing which mark the boundaries of the fields. It does not seem at all like the English countryside; it looks like a little bit of the Middle West. I hate the sight of these posts and fences. They are anathemas to me, and I should like to think that between these temporary boundaries, we can ensure that good haw, thorn or other hedges will be planted.
  We all recognise that the beauty of the English countryside springs very largely from its hedgerows. If one goes abroad one sees the difference straight away, and coming back to this country one thanks those who went before us for dividing up our country and planting hedgerows. We should not permanently destroy this beauty by making concrete posts and wire the permanent boundary fences. We should ensure the planting of decent hedgerows in their place. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned the importation of huge dragline machines. In 1949, when I was on the Select Committee on Estimates, we were given to understand that we were coming to the end of that importation and were reaching a position where, in the future, capital expenditure upon that sort of thing would be made
  1130
  with firms in this country, and when we could not only produce them here but would be in a position to export them to Australia and other countries which use them to a considerable degree.
  I was disappointed to hear from the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we still have to incur large amounts of capital expenditure in dollar form abroad on this equipment. I hope that some consideration will be given to this question and that we can give further stimulation to our great manufacturers of these devices. Despite the fact that we should like to see the end of opencast coal mining, we must realise that it will not cease for some time and that the use of these machines will certainly continue in the Dominions and the rest of the Commonwealth. If we can do anything in this regard, surely we should be trying to do it. Although I hate having to do so, I support the hon. Member for Kidderminster in this matter.
  Nearly a quarter of the total amount of coal produced by opencast methods is produced in the county part of which I have the honour to represent. Of the coalfield area of Derbyshire, which is a very great one, about one-eighth has so far been cleared for opencast working. The same thing is happening there as in other parts of the country where this work is going on. There is the hideousness, the blasting, the dust, the noise, and the heavy traffic to and from the site which damages the roads, as we have been reminded. All this has to be borne by the very people whose lives are spent in this sort of atmosphere. They work underground in the dust and noise and everything which coal mining brings, and they come back up from the pit and experience precisely the same sort of conditions on top.
  I quite understand why Derbyshire County Council and other local authorities in this area are being urged—and why they, in turn, are urging us—to do something about this. It so happens that because these seams are very near the surface in Derbyshire that county seems to be bearing an undue proportion of the evils which opencast coal mining brings. There have been complaints about the fact that at the time that all this is going on the county council is being urged to find sites for stocking coal because it is not immediately saleable. In addition to

  1131
  the inconvenience caused by these huge opencast mining sites, which make a hideous mess of the countryside, a further large area of the county is being used for stocking the coal after it has been won.
  I understood the Minister to say that this was inevitable because we have had some mild winters, and that these stocks might be dispersed in a very short time if we should run into a very cold period. Inevitably and understandably the people of Derbyshire feel that they have had more than their whack in this matter of opencast mining and the stocking of coal on the surface. They suggest that perhaps the time has come when the operation could be suspended in a county which has had so much of it and the coal regarded as being stored in situ, prospected to find the proximity to the surface, and so on, but left there until a national emergency, or a fuel emergency, actually demands the mining of that coal.
  It is for the Minister to consider whether that is a possibility. They suggested it, and I support it for obvious reasons. I hope the Minister will consider this and that some of the other points I have made will be considered now and during the Committee stage.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) reproaching those who, when restoring land after opencast mining operations, erect concrete posts and wire round fields, so leaving much disfigurement of the countryside. I hope he will agree that if it is not possible to plant a quickthorn hedge at least posts and rails cut from home-grown timber, and impregnated with creosote, which is a by-product of British coal, makes a better fence than cement posts, which crack in frosty weather.
  The few things I wish to say concern woodlands and particularly their amenity value in coal mining areas, and I think that that follows logically on what the hon. Member has been saying. In our mining areas today, the acreage of woodland is very small. It would make a great deal of difference to amenity if the woodland acreage were much larger. Therefore, I hope it is not the policy of the Minister that the remaining woodlands in mining areas should be massacred too hastily, as
  1132
  happened all too often in the years immediately following the war, when there were one or two very bad cases.
  The loss of good agricultural land is always deplored because of its waste, but the loss of a half-grown woodland is infinitely worse, because it takes so much longer to put it back. Therefore, when it may be thought necessary to mine coal under existing woodland, I hope it will be the policy of the National Coal Board to consider the timing of such fellings. A delay of ten years might allow such timber to have a value for mining, instead of being cut and used only for firewood.
  If the loss of woodland involves compensation, I hope that the Clause dealing with that question will be interpreted as generously as possible for agriculture. I do not want to enter into what might be called Committee points, and, in any case, Clause 26 is extremely difficult to understand because it is almost entirely calculation by reference. I hope the principles are correct, but I suspect that they may not be. For instance, the loss of annual profit on a young wood will always be hard to prove. An oak wood of ten or fifteen years may be costing something every year. It may still be at a stage when there is no annual profit, but a small annual cost, yet, quite apart from general amenity loss, the loss of that young plantation is a definite loss to the owner.
  What happens if part of a woodland is taken and the wind blows down the remainder, as often happens, when protection is removed? Terminal compensation may often be difficult to decide. An oak wood may be fifty years old when the land is taken for opencast mining and would have been sixty years old when the operation finished, yet at neither age would the timber be of great value in the market, although the loss might well amount to quite a substantial sum.
  I make my final plea in connection with restoration. Some land is much more costly to restore for agricultural use than others. Whatever some people may say, I believe that some land will never again be as good for farming as it was before opencast mining took place on it. I have heard that in some cases the land has actually been improved, but there are certainly other cases in which the reverse has happened. Is it wise to spend a great deal of money on the restoration

  1133
  of such land, which could become very good woodland for the expenditure of a smaller amount? If we increased the area of woodland in our mining areas we would make a very substantial addition to the amenities of those areas.
  I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend ought to encourage a policy of wholesale acquisition in cases where previous owners and occupiers want their land back for farming, but occasions may arise when it is possible, after opencast mining has been completed, to add to the woodland acreage and, in so doing, to add very materially to the amenities of a district which today is windswept and bare, and not very attractive to live in.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: The reason I ask for the indulgence of the House while I intervene for a few minutes is that I hope I may be able to throw a little light on a matter raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in connection with American machinery used in opencast coal mining.
  It happens that during the war I was a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and a subcommittee on which I sat was asked to inquire into the reason why the cost of production of opencast coal was above the revenue obtained at the time for that coal. In other words, the Ministry was facing a considerable loss every year and yet it was so important to get the coal that it had to be obtained at all costs. During our inquiries, we found that one of the reasons for the high cost of production was that we were using very inefficient excavating machinery produced in this country. It was the introduction of American machinery, some of which we saw in action, that caused a considerable drop in cost and more economic production of opencast coal as a consequence.
  I do not know what the position is now. I did not know that this matter was to be raised, or I should have tried to look into it before this debate. At the time, it was very important to use this machinery because it enabled coal to be produced by opencast methods at a reasonable cost. The Americans had had very considerable experience of this kind
  1134
  of opencast mining. In the Pennsylvania coalfield where this method is used, there are very thick seams just under the surface and they had specialised in this form of winning coal, whereas at that time we had not. I hope that when he replies, the Paymaster-General will tell us something about this matter. Possibly that American machinery could be replaced by machinery produced in this country, and in that case the hon. Member for Kidderminster made a very good point. If that is not so and if the Americans are still the best producers of this kind of machinery, then the hon. Member's case falls completely to the ground.
  I should like to support the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) about preserving the amenities and the agricultural and silvicultural values of our English countryside, which will be seriously damaged by the extension of opencast mining. When I was going round the country with this sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure we visited the Wentworth area of Yorkshire and South Wales and saw the devastation caused by these operations. On the other hand, I well recall seeing that in most cases the top soil was being carefully preserved and put back. After the top soil had been put back I saw crops growing on it and they seemed to be as good as those on ordinary ground.
  It may well be that conditions vary very much. We all know that bacterial action is a very important matter in the growing of crops. It is a question not only of the chemical composition of the soil but also of its bacterial content. That ought to be considered and steps ought to be taken to recondition the soil in such a way that it produces crops again.
  It is also true that timber has to be cut away as a result of these activities, and I think there is a case either for making the National Coal Board responsible for replanting or for handing the ground over to the Forestry Commission for replanting. Quite apart from woodland timber, hedgerow timber is a very important aspect of our English countryside, and that hedgerow timber completely disappears in an area where opencast mining is taking place.

  1135
  I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland, who said that woodland planting is sufficient. I should like to see steps taken to restore the hedgerow timber, too. I should not like to say how that can be done, but I am sure that the Forestry Commission would be able to do it. Whether the Commission would welcome the job, in view of all the other work it has on hand, is another matter.
  Mr. Vane: Is not the difficulty about putting back hedgerow timber the fact that it is extremely unpopular with agricultural interests? We ought to get the small woodlands and spinneys planted first.
  Mr. Price: I agree that it is unpopular, but I am not prepared to give way on the matter to the prejudice of the farmers, although I am a farmer myself. Farmers are not the only people who dislike trees. If one cut down every tree which one was asked to cut down, there would be hardly any trees in the countryside. We all know the prejudice which exists against trees anywhere near a house and even against trees some distance away from a house. In my opinion, we must take into consideration the restoration of hedgerow timber, too. I should not like to go into the question of how that could be done, but I should like to support hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised this matter.
  I am sorry that it is necessary to consider the continuation of opencast mining for many years and I wonder what the present position is. I understand that the levels of consumption and production of coal are moving nearer to each other. There is, however, the problem of exports. Does the Paymaster-General consider that opencast coal will be used mainly for exports or will it be used for home consumption? As it is of a somewhat dusty nature and is small coal, I assume that the demand for it will partly come from the Electricity Authority, but I should like to know what the position is. In view of the fact that the level of production is nearer to the level of consumption than it has been for a long time, why is it necessary to consider continuing opencast mining for so many years?
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Rupert Speir: I think that the time has come to say quite frankly that the attitude of the Conservative Party to opencast mining has been neither consistent nor very honourable. When we were in opposition we bitterly opposed opencast mining and now we are governing the country we are bringing forward proposals for continuing opencast mining for many years to come. It should also be said that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) is by no means the only person who has been compelled to eat his words in this respect.
  There can be only one justification for this somersault and it is that the Government can show that there is an overwhelming need in the national interest for the continuation of opencast mining. Certainly, the victims of opencast mining and those who are threatened with it in the future—and there are many of them in Northumberland—will take a lot of convincing that opencast mining is essential for national economic survival.
  As has been pointed out in the House today, the National Coal Board is almost embarrassed by the quantity of its stocks of small coal. The Paymaster-General, in his opening remarks, said that the Board was to indulge in an advertising campaign to get rid of the 20 million tons of small coal. Much of the coal which will be produced by opencast mining, if not the majority of it, will be small coal of poor quality.
  Mr. Maudling: The proportion of large coal in opencast mining is slightly higher than in deep mining.
  Mr. Speir: That may be so, but the fact remains—and I hope my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the majority of the coal produced by opencast mining will be small and of poor quality. It is not surprising that in those circumstances the victims of opencast mining are suspicious about the necessity for continuing it for another ten or twenty years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) has pointed out that opencast mining is a very profitable proposition. The opencast executive of the Coal Board was, in fact, the only section of the Board to make a profit last year, and the civil engineering firms, as my hon. Friend was honest

  1137
  enough to admit, are making very good money cut of these contracts for opencast mining operations.
  I want to join with other hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West {Mr. Philips Price), in asking for an assurance that we shall not buy any more opencast machinery from America, which costs us dollars. Surely that cannot be in the national interest.
  If opencast mining must continue, in the national interest, for the next few years there are certain safeguards which I think should be laid down by the Government and which should be strictly adhered to. First, I do not think that the amenity aspect of this problem has had sufficient attention either from the Government in recent years or today in this debate. I know that the Government's view is that the amenity aspect will be taken care of by the necessity to get planning permission, with all the rigmarole of a public inquiry, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that the views of local authorities will not be lightly overridden, and that they will be allowed to make their views quite clear on the scenic aspect of these operations.
  Personally, I should like to see inserted into this Measure a definite provision putting the Minister under a statutory obligation, when considering the desirability of a site being opened up, to give weight and thought not only to the agricultural side, but to the amenity side, particularly if the local authority has opposed the site in question.
  I should like also to urge that not only should the actual operations on the site be very carefully considered, and the views of the local authorities listened to, but that consideration should he given to the opinions of county councils and other local authorities as to whether even prospecting and boring should take place. Fairly reasonable terms are provided in the Bill for compensating both owners and occupiers of land that is to be opencasted, but no provision whatsoever is made for those who are living in the immediate vicinity of a site and who may suffer very real hardship and financial loss. I think that the hon. Member for
  1138
  Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has had examples of that in his own constituency—
  Mr. T. Brown: A number.
  Mr. Speir: As soon as the Coal Board goes into a locality and starts boring merely to see whether or not the coal is there in sufficient quantities, the word goes round that opencast operations are to take place and the value of the property in the area tumbles overnight. Yet those people get no compensation whatsoever under this Bill. Therefore, I think it essential that there should be careful safeguards to see that even prospecting and boring is not started without the views of local authorities being carefully considered.
  As opencast mining is a financial proposition—and a paying one—the Government are surely under a duty to see that the terms of compensation are generous to all who suffer injury thereby. I do not think that it is too much to ask the Government to provide that when anybody can clearly show that, as an individual householder, he has suffered financial loss as a result either of opencast mining, or even as the result of boring, that loss should be made good by the Coal Board.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he may be able to give us some assurance on that score. I hope, too, that the code for the restoration of agricultural land will be still further improved. It has been improved in the last few years, but from the information that I have received it is quite clear that it could be improved still further, particularly as regards drainage. At present, the drains are too far apart.
  This is a highly technical Bill, and I am quite sure that it will require very careful consideration in Committee. After all that has been said today about the horrible nature of opencast operations, I hope that the Government will be prepared to respond in a generous and a humane manner to any proposals that are put forward during the Committee stage with a view to lessening the loss and the injury which victims of opencast mining are inevitably bound to suffer.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Although I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) about the necessity for safeguarding those whose interests

  1139
  may be affected, to a greater or a less extent, by the operation of opencast mining, that is not what I wish to speak about.
  This is a United Kingdom Bill, and applies to Scotland. I do not know why there is not a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench watching the progress of the Bill, particularly when we see the manner in which Scotland is treated by it. With some experience of the House, and of examining Bills affecting Scotland, I must say that I have never yet seen a Bill in which Scotland has been treated in such a fashion. At the end of almost every Clause there is a subsection making it applicable to Scotland. In Clause 2 there is a long and involved subsection (7) telling us how the Clause applies to Scotland, and, indeed, right through the Bill there are these references to the application to Scotland.
  In the first place, this makes the work of anybody dealing with this problem in Scotland exceedingly difficult. Any legal firm, any county council or other local authority, or an individual, or an agent acting for an individual who has to interpret the Bill is placed at an immense disadvantage, and there is waste of time and money. To me, the whole thing seems to be rather absurd.
  There is another side to the manner in which Scotland is dealt. This Measure deals with a number of matters about which Scotland has its own laws. There would not be the necessity for this vast number of references to Scotland and to interpretation were that not so, and if it is true that the Bill deals with matters about which Scotland has its own separate law surely we should have had a separate Scottish Bill. If this is to make sense in Scotland, or if we are to act in the tradition common to Scotland, legal matters affecting Scotland should be covered by a separate Bill. That seems to me to be the natural and right thing to do.
  I can only think that the Government, anxious to save time, and aware of the fact that if this Bill had gone to the Scottish Grand Committee it would have been vastly improved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. Certainly. It is the experience of this House that the Scottish Grand Committee improves Bills to a much
  1140
  greater extent than does any other Standing Committee in the House. Anyone with knowledge of the House knows that to be true.
  I can only think that the Government, anxious to avoid this business of improving the Bill, and to avoid the careful scrutiny it would have received had it gone to the Scottish Grand Committee, have sought to dodge that by the most ridiculous process laid down in the Bill where, at the end of every Clause, there is needed an interpretation subsection. That cannot be right. This Bill cannot be the right method of dealing with Scottish legislation, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary—whom I wish to congratulate on his first appearance on the Front Bench—what consultations were held with the Scottish Departments in relation to this Measure?
  Did the Scottish Law Officers accept this? We have a right to know. We ought to have had a Scottish Law Officer on the Front Bench. Where are the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General?
  Mr. Ross: Away studying the Bill.
  Mr. Willis: They will need to study it if they are to understand it. What consultations have taken place with the Scottish officers, particularly the Scottish Law Officers, about the Bill? Was it accepted by them in its present form? It seems to me that, to maintain and continue our own separate legal traditions in Scotland, we ought to have had a separate Bill for Scotland.
  Although I realise that it may well not be possible, it would certainly be helpful if, when the Bill is published in its final form and ultimately achieves the status of an Act of Parliament, the various interpretations could be made clearer than they are at present to those who will have to deal with the Bill in Scotland. I doubt whether that will be possible, but I feel that an effort should definitely be made to do something about it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, when he looks at the Bill again, will himself agree that it is exceedingly difficult and wasteful of time to deal with these matters in Scotland on the basis of the method at present proposed.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I must confess to feeling a certain difficulty in following the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who has raised questions as to whether or not the Scottish Law Officers have been consulted upon the Bill. The Bill, it is true, is made to apply to Scotland. My difficulty, representing a Northern Ireland constituency, is that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and, even if it did, we most unfortunately have neither coal nor Law Officers, or officers of any kind, here from Northern Ireland. I have, however, beer surprised today that there have not been more hon. Gentlemen opposite from the mining valleys of Wales. I did at one time have the pleasure of contesting a Welsh constituency, and it would perhaps be permissible, in the circumstances, if I were to mention a problem which has come to me from Wales. I am glad to say that, although I now sit for a Northern Ireland constituency, I still have a great interest in Welsh affairs.
  The problem concerns compensation for that type of exploratory work which has to take place before it is decided whether to work opencast coal in the way we see it done. The case I have in mind, which well illustrates the point, is one which comes from Caergwrle, near Wrexham in Flintshire. It is a rural area. Very little has been said today about disturbance in largely built-up rural areas. Although many words have been said about disturbance to farms, little has been said about disturbance to the individual who is living in a more urban community, whose outlook and the enjoyment of whose property may be disturbed or damaged by an opencast site being started almost next door. This type of person usually lives on a property which does not extend beyond half an acre, and half an acre is the area adopted in the Bill in dealing with matters of compensation. Such an individual can face very real hardship.
  I welcome Clause 46 of the Bill, which deals with disturbance during the time of exploratory work when the authority is deciding whether or not it is worth proceeding with opencast operations.
  Mr. Willis: Not Clause 46.
  Mr. Currie: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ross: That is a special Scottish Clause.
  Mr. Currie: It is Clause 35. I had my finger marking Clause 46 because that was the general application Clause to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred in his speech.
  All hon. Gentlemen will, I think, welcome Clause 35. It gives some right to compensation, but I should like to know whether that right to compensation will be given to people who are at the present time suffering this disturbance. In other words, will it be made retrospective? The case to which I referred has been going on for two years; drilling has been taking place in the land during the past twenty-four months, and the disturbance has been continuous during the whole of that time. Will these provisions for compensation be made retrospective so that that disturbance can be compensated in the way envisaged in Clause 35? Alternatively, are opencast exploratory operations and the opencast workings themselves to be suspended from now until the time when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? I hope that my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate will consider those alternative questions.
  It is a very curious commentary on our skill in getting coal out of the earth that in this island, which is probably the tract of land richest in coal under the surface to be found anywhere in Europe, that we have to resort to this method of coal getting. Vast sums of money have been expended in the modernisation of our coal mines, as we all know. To come back to one concrete example which contrasts clearly the winning of coal from a mine with the winning of coal from opencast workings, it is estimated that from this site in Caergwrle 100,000 tons of coal may be won from the proposed opencast site whereas, on the other hand, 100,000 tons of coal could be obtained from the Llay Main colliery, which is only two miles away, within six weeks. The estimated yield from the opencast workings represent no more than six weeks' output from the Llay Main Colliery.
  Is it really worth while to cause all this disturbance, to incur the great expenditure required and lose the agricultural land taken from farming not only for the duration of the operations but for the time necessary for reinstatement, to

  1143
  say nothing of the expenditure of dollars for the purchase of the machinery we have heard about? Having regard to all that has been said, it hardly seems worthwhile, when one compares the output from opencast workings with six weeks' output from an orthodox coal mine.
  I shall be greatly obliged if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look into the question of the proposed site at Caergwrle and consider whether, in Clause 35 or some other appropriate part of the Bill, the Government can see their way to incorporating some limitation of the time during which exploratory borings are to be carried out on land in private ownership. Two years is a most unreasonable length of time for a disturbance of that nature to continue. Surely, work of that kind could be completed in, at most, six months. In that way, the disturbance to the individual would be minimised as far as possible.
  I should like to say a general word on the principle of compensation, because it has been raised during the debate. The compensation to which I refer is for the loss of occupation, which applies mainly to the farming community. It is, and always has been, a fundamental principle of English law that a person who suffers an injury as the result of a wrong or an action of a third party shall do his utmost to minimise his loss flowing from that injury. In other words, if he is deprived of his occupation, he must do his best to mitigate the damage by accepting some alternative form of employment. That principle, which is fundamental to our English common law, should have application to the matter we are considering this afternoon.
  The compensation provisions in the Bill are very necessary and I do not for one moment suggest that any of them should be taken away, but I hope that in the application of those principles in the Bill when it has become an Act, the Minister will have regard to that legal principle and will not wantonly part with money to a greater extent than is utterly necessary. That may in some way sound inconsistent, but what I am trying to say is that the effect on our economy of all these additional and unnecessary expenditures of money must be to aggravate the inflation from which we have been suffering for so many years. They all add up and
  1144
  it is essential that we should keep a tight rein on the expenditure of public funds.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I welcome the quiet nature of the debate, but cannot help but be reminded of the mood of the House when we were discussing exactly the same thing ten years ago. Hon. Members opposite, who were then in opposition, were clamouring for the Labour Government to bring an end as quickly as possible to opencast coal mining operations. I remember it well, because, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I was a member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Estimates that went into the whole question of opencast mining.
  I remember very well the kind of debates we had and the feeling of Conservative Members in the House at that time. The question of the national interest was then very much of secondary importance to constituency interests in relation to the disturbance caused to the lives and property of their constituents in agricultural areas because of the need for opencast coal mining.
  It is a very marked change today that in 1958 we should have a Conservative Minister who not only tells us of the need for opencast mining, but who is prepared to bring in permanent legislation regularising the procedures for commencing these operations and saying that they are required to be done for ten years. Indeed, the Minister was brought to book by some of his hon. Friends, who said that ten years was probably not nearly long enough and that it was foolish to stipulate such a figure.
  I make that point because the party opposite has often been caught up by its own slogans and by the points its members make for political purposes against this side of the House purely to achieve local support in their areas and forgetful of the true national interest.
  It was unwise for the Minister today to give the appearance that these operations would last for only ten years. It was quite unnecessary for him to say that, because there is no such limit within the Bill. From the aspect of the procedure of obtaining the coal, the expensive equipment which is used is a factor in cost which is dependent upon the length of

  1145
  time over which operations are conducted. This point was made to us by the contractors in our inquiries some years ago. At that time, the operations were conducted not by the National Coal Board, but by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, as it then was.
  It is interesting to notice that there have been fewer complaints since this matter has been dealt with by the Coal Board in relation both to actual operations and to the problems of restoration and reinstatement of the ground. Both in the earlier days, when the Minister of Fuel a id Power was responsible, and now, when it is the responsibility of the Coal Board, we have considerable ground for pride in that we have been able to do this job so well that there has been so little complaint in the long run.
  I remember, for example, that when the Estimates Committee examined the question and tried to obtain information, we called in Stewarts and Lloyds to find out what they did in the case of restoration in relation to iron ore workings.
  Mr. Willis: They did nothing.
  Mr. Ross: We found that they did nothing at all. In other words, once again, an entirely different set of values was placed upon the work carried out by a nationalised industry or by a Department of Government than upon the operations of private enterprise. Indeed, if things are improved in relation to that industry, it is thanks to the work that was done so well and the standards set by my right hon. Friends on this side of the House when they had control from 1945 to 1950.
  I believe that it was as the outcome of the work of the Estimates Committee in those days that the code concerning reinstatement was instituted and regularised. I emphasise the point made today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that it would be as well if the House could look at the code and discuss it when it is being brought up to date by means of an order.
  That brings me to yet another aspect concerning the silence of hon. Members opposite. We used to hear a great deal about delegated legislation and the powers that were given to Ministers, but today there has not been a single whisper about the powers to be given to Ministers. Today, a Conservative Minister is gaily
  1146
  taking over powers of direction, the bringing of orders and delegated legislation throughout the Bill which will have considerable effects throughout the countryside. This is one more example of how the party opposite behaves by sloganised politics and then comes up against the practical realities of government.
  I hope that now we are attaining a more objective frame of mind in considering the nation's need for coal it will be appreciated that the 131 million tons—I think it was of—opencast coal mined last year, the 160 million tons since opencast operations began in about 1942, have been absolutely vital in the economic battles of this country. Even if tomorrow or next year we were very considerably to increase the output of deep-mined coal we should still need this additional coal being got by opencast working.
  There is no doubt, however, that it creates rather serious problems, more particularly in some areas, not only for owners of land and especially owners of agricultural land and farmers, but also for those who have a care for the scenic beauties of the country. Nevertheless, we have now worked out an administrative formula whereby objections are properly met and a balance of justice properly struck between the needs of the nation for agricultural production and coal production. It is not always that the Minister will give the right to the Coal Board to continue its operations without properly balancing the needs of the nation in those respects.
  I come now to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). It was important, and I was surprised that the Paymaster-General did not rise to answer it. My hon. Friend asked whether or not this legislative change being made will curb the activities of the Coal Board in the opencast mines. I am referring to the rights the Board presently holds to stock coal and dispose of it. My hon. Friend has legal experience, and I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the words "authorised operations" in Clause 1 (5) cover those things about which my hon. Friend was speaking. Indeed, I was sorry that that Ministerial silence was continued during the whole of my hon. Friend's speech.

  1147
  There is no doubt that because of the Bill the number of areas in which the Board can operate in future will be cut down, if it is not to have made available spaces in which to handle the coal and store it prior to its disposal.
  Apart from that, the Bill may increase the cost of operations because of what may be demanded of the Board in return for continued use of land. This is one of the most serious defects of the Bill. I presume it is a defect since the Paymaster-General took no pains at all to answer my hon. Friend at the time. It is one that we must seek in Committee properly to amend.
  When the Paymaster-General finished speaking I got up and asked him—I do not know what impression I made upon my hon. Friends—if he would ensure that in the Committee on the Bill there would be a Law Officer from Scotland to help us. He replied that he could not promise since that was a matter which was not within his province. I appreciate that, but I think he has a certain amount of influence, and I would advise him for his own safety to have a Scottish Law Officer there, because from the Scottish legislative point of view, or from that of anyone trying to understand the law, this is the most ridiculous hotchpotch jigsaw Measure I have ever come across. I think I am understating the case. The new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, whom we wish well, and from whom we hope for many things, will not be able to rise to all the Scottish legal implications. We do not expect him to, and I am sure he agrees with me.
  We read through Clause 1 and through Clause 2, and then, towards the end of Clause 2, in subsection (7), we suddenly come to our senses by reading:
  "for references to the Act of 1447, to Part ill of that Act, and to sections fifteen and twenty-eight of that Act, there shall be substituted respectively "—
  this that and the next thing, and so on, for at least half a page.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Quite normal.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, but we get language like that again in Clause 2 and again in—
  Mr. Willis: Almost every Clause.
  Mr. Ross: Yes. I have them all marked. We have it in Clause 8 and Clause 9 and again in Clause 11. Is this normal?
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: The hon. Member should read the Labour Party's nationalisation Acts.
  Mr. Ross: I am asking whether this is normal, and an hon. and learned Member opposite has already said it is. He is only quoting the Paymaster-General, because the right hon. Gentleman said that we were returning here to the normal process of legislation. I would correct him by saying this is the process of Tory legislation. This is the sort of thing we have in Scotland had to stand from our legislative masters for far too long.
  I had reached only Clause 11. The same sort of language occurs again in Clause 12, and Clause 15 is the same. In every one of these Clauses there is a special application to Scotland. We have a right to ask the Government whether they will produce a Bill for Scotland with all these references properly set out so that we shall not have to trudge through this complexity of English legislation and make the consequential changes afterwards.
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend is not forgetting, is he, that after all the subsections making these applications to Scotland we have a Clause of about four pages in length relating to Scotland?
  Mr. Ross: Yes, Clause 46, a very important Clause indeed, so important that one hon. Gentleman opposite mixed it up with something else; a shocking thing to do.
  How nonsensical all this is. We keep reading of the Scottish Act of 1947. I am the first to admit that there were one or two Scottish Acts in 1947, but we have to travel a long way back to find out that the Scottish Act of 1947 is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. Then we have mention of the Scottish Act of 1949, and we eventually discover it is the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949. We have to be very careful about that, very careful indeed, because of Clause 22. I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to this, for this is the kind of thing about which we have to be worried, we exploited Members of Parliament for Scotland.

  1149
  Clause 22 (4) says:
  "In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the Act of 1948 and to sections forty-three, fifty-seven and fifty-eight of that Act there shall he substituted respectively references to the Scottish Act of 1949 and to sections forty-four, fifty-seven and fifty-eight of that Act."
  That is perfectly clear, until we get to Clause 46. This is not a Committee point. I could deal only with each Clause as it came in Committee.
  Clause 46, which itself consists of about four pages of application to Scotland, says in subsection (4, a):
  "…for references to section fifty-seven of the Scottish Act of 1949 "—
  That is the bit that I have just read in Clause 22—
  "there shall be substituted references to section ten of the Crofters Holding (Scotland) Act, 1886—or "—
  We have our choice—
  "section fourteen of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, as the case may require…"
  Was there ever such a tangle?
  If it ended with the Clauses it would not be so bad, but we get the same thing all through the Schedules. Clause 38 is a very popular Clause relating to Scotland. I can imagine Scottish lawyers sitting down and poring over that Clause and regarding it as important because it deals with provisions as to settled land, mortgaged land, and other special cases. But subsection (6) of that Clause says:
  "This section shall not apply to Scotland."
  They, therefore, immediately ask themselves, "Where are the special cases in respect of Scotland dealt with in the Bill?" And they look and look and find no answer. It will be up to us as Scottish legislators to find out where they should be inserted or whether they should be inserted at all.
  It is most unfair that I should be addressing these remarks to an hon. Gentleman who has absolutely no responsibility for this part of the Bill at all. Some of my hon. Friends have felt that I have been a little carping in my criticism when, at times when major Measures which bore the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland have been before the House I have insisted that there should be a representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench opposite.
  The second name on this Bill is that of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  1150
  He is its chief supporter, but during the whole proceedings, certainly when I have been here—and I went out only for a meal—there has not been a representative of the Scottish Office present. Yet we have not only a Secretary of State but three Joint Under-Secretaries. We have also a Minister of State. He is in another place and, therefore, we do not expect to see him here, but we also have two Law Officers for Scotland.
  Not one of these Ministers has graced the Front Bench opposite for any length of time, if at all. It is most unfortunate that when we are faced with such a tangle, which cannot possibly be made to make sense in Committee, we should not have some explanation as to why this way was taken in relation to Scottish legislation. This tangle has arisen for the simple reason that Scotland has its own legislation in relation to town and country planning to which these aspects of planning permission, entry and compensation are related. Special legislation relating to agriculture Acts is another important consideration in the actual starting or possibility of starting on opencast sites.
  Once we start to interfere with these things by means of some other new piece of legislation, the only real lucid way of tackling the matter is to have a purely Scottish Bill. This Measure is a very poor second on which no Government should embark. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage I shall not be a member of the Committee, because I shall be blamed for keeping the Committee at it.
  Sir I. Horobin: It is not as bad as that.
  Mr. Ross: I might lengthen the proceedings by raising these points and asking for explanations, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be able to give me. It is not too late even now to hope that someone will run out for the Secretary of State for Scotland and that the right hon. Gentleman will come here with the news that the Government propose to withdraw these Scottish applications from the Bill and put them in a special Scottish Bill to deal with opencast mining in Scotland.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the realms of Scottish law. I

  1151
  will only say to him that the United Kingdom Bill, with the references over to the Scottish Act, should present no difficulty to anybody. Indeed, such pleasant expressions in Clause 46 as
  "'easement' means servitude;" and—
  "'freehold interest' means the interest of the owner of the dominium utile;"
  remind me of the days when I read Roman law, from which I do not doubt much of the Scottish law is derived. There should be no difficulty for any draftsman in transferring the relevant Clauses of this Bill to the expressions in Acts which a Scottish lawyer could easily follow.
  I do not recommend the detailed application of this Bill to anybody in England and Scotland for light reading, because it is complicated in its wording when we get to the compensation Clauses. However, anybody who reads it with an English or Scottish lawyer should have no difficulty in following it, provided he takes enough trouble. So to bring in two separate Bills would be unnecessary in the circumstances.
  Mr. Ross: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it was unnecessary to have an agricultural Act for Scotland? Is he saying that it was unnecessary to have a Scottish National Health Service Act? All those things arose from the body of Scottish law, and yet a departure is made in this instance. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman as a lawyer in England to say that the Bill is all right, but the fact is that it just does not make sense.
  Mr. Doughty: Upon that I join issue with the hon. Gentleman. The Bill makes sense, particularly to a Scottish lawyer. I should have to look up the Scottish Acts if I wanted to follow it.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? The point we are making is that the Bill adds to the difficulties of people in Scotland in trying to understand this legislation. First, they have to read the whole Bill, and then they have to read something else to modify that which they have been reading. This is a waste of time, money and labour.
  Mr. Doughty: I am sorry to deprive the hon. Gentleman of a Scottish grievance, but English lawyers have to do the
  1152
  same with English Statutes. Some people do not like legislation by reference, but we have to do it just the same. I am sure that the Scots, who are a hardworking race, will not object to a little paper work with a book or two to follow what this Bill means.
  Mr. Willis: It is all very well for a lawyer, but what about the client who has to pay for his help?
  Mr. Doughty: He should be very pleased, because he will find that lawyers are very good value for his money. I have the greatest admiration for the Scots, but I will leave this point and go back to the point on which I rose to address the House.
  Every hon. Member who has referred to the Bill and to opencast mining has said the same thing in different ways, namely, "I do not propose to object to this Bill, but I do not like opencast mining." If we do not like it, how much less will it be liked by the person who is directly affected by it? How much more strongly will he object to it in his own case when his land, which he is working in whatever form, is suddenly affected by one of these peremptory orders?
  I wonder whether the House realises the sweeping powers it is giving the Minister in Clauses 1 and 3 by a simple order of one Minister? Please do not think I am criticising the present Minister or any other, but the general public will not understand why the Minister of Fuel and Power does not have what we would call in this House an interest in the making of these orders.
  Under Clause 1, all that he has to do is to give an authorisation, and under Clause 3 he gives a compulsory rights order, and there is an end of the matter. One's farming comes to an end or one's property is taken from one for very many years and, however it is restored, despite the best efforts, it can never be the same thing. Yet these powers are given to one particular Minister.
  Has the House already forgotten the Report of the Franks Committee, which stressed that openness, fairness, and impartiality ought to be the characteristics of the tribunals and inquiry procedures? Yet we have in this Bill exactly the procedure which has been so criticised in other Bills in the past and was criticised by the Franks Committee.

  1153
  The public inquiry and the report to the Minister of Power will not satisfy the members of the public who are affected. Even if it is the best order that can be made in the circumstances and everything is as fair as can be, it will not satisfy them. Probably it will not satisfy other Ministers. The Minister of Agriculture will be vitally interested in the matter. When farming land is taken, representations will undoubtedly be made to him. Where does it say in the Bill that he has any interest in the matter?
  If we take away farming, there are all the other mineral interests if we include soils as minerals. If operations on a site are for the purpose of obtaining coal, the Minister of Power is concerned. If the soil is clay, the Minister of Supply may be concerned in the operations, if it is limestone it will be the Minister of Works, and there are various other types of clays which are important to industry and in their case it will be the Board of Trade which will be concerned.
  In the light of these conflicting interests, why should we give one particular Minister the sole power of deciding the question? There must be a conflict of interests, and we must take great care not only that we get the right decision as between the conflicting interests, but that the results give the utmost satisfaction to the public and that the public are not left with the thought, which may be entirely wrong, that the Minister concerned with the production of coal, the Minister of Power, is the one who has decided the question. If I were a farmer making a complaint, I should not like to think that the question had been decided only by the Minister of Power, a Minister not concerned with farming.
  Having made my criticism, I do not wish the House to think that I have come here to criticise without making suggestions which I hope will be helpful. If we cannot have an outside tribunal to decide these questions in public, and give a public decision, which is the only real way by which the interests can be satisfied, then at least a Minister who has no sectional interest in the matter should be appointed in place of the Minister of Power. I suggest that the correct Minister would be the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for he is concerned with the use of the land of the country, wherever it may be. He
  1154
  could properly weigh up all the conflicting interests and competing claims for the use of a piece of land. The Minister of Power could make representations to him in the proper way, in public.
  I submit that the Bill would be a better one if these very wide and very sweeping powers were vested not in the Minister of Power but in the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I rise to introduce what is a local point on this issue, and I am very glad of the opportunity of doing so. The council of Chorley was informed in August of last year that it was proposed to prospect about 150 acres of land owned by the council and already partially developed for housing. The council was asked for its views, which it expressed very forcibly, against the land being used for opencast mining. The council had plans drawn up to cover the land with houses, and part of it was to be used as a site for a secondary school.
  There was another difficulty which I raised with the Ministry of Supply. Almost adjoining this area is a large Royal Ordnance factory whose work is of such a nature that dust must be excluded from the buildings. I pointed out to the Ministry of Supply at that time that if the area were used for opencast working—I have some knowledge of the way in which opencast mining is done in Lancashire—when the wind was blowing in the direction of the Royal Ordnance factory, it would certainly carry dust into some of the buildings. Workers in those buildings have to wear special clothing and rubber boots before being allowed in the buildings, which will show how serious is the danger of dust in the buildings.
  The Ministry of Supply took up that point but so far has not decided whether it should object to the opencast mining. However, the matter has been in the hands of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government since that date and the Ministry has now given permission to the Ministry of Power to prospect by boring holes in the land to find what coal there is.
  Chorley Council is very much concerned about the fact that all its plans are in abeyance, it cannot build houses

  1155
  and the Church of England education authority cannot continue with its plans for the school. Everything is held up. In the agreement which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has made with the Ministry of Power for the prospecting of this site for coal, the Ministry of Power has been given permission to continue until July next year, so that it has a hold over the land even if it does not begin to develop it this year. Even if it is found that there is not sufficient coal to make development worth while, the Ministry of Power will still have control of the land until July next year.
  I think that is altogether against the best interests of everyone concerned. The council is in great need of houses. It wants to develop this land for houses. Its plans were drawn up years before. This land was purchased before the war, when some of the houses were built. It wants to continue with that development, but in the centre of the town there are almost 150 acres of land which is sterilised because of the delaying action of the authority. I urge the Minister to look into this matter to see if a decision can be reached with the greatest speed. The first necessity is the school. The authorities wish to proceed with the plans for the erection of this school. We all know that it takes some time to build a school, and the children in Chorley are at the moment in great difficulties regarding secondary school education.
  Many things can be improved in the actual working of opencast mining. The contractors do their work, I suppose, as well as they can under difficult circumstances, but the top soil ought to be kept far more separate than it is at the moment. There is far too much mixing of the top soil with the subsoil. We all know that if subsoil is mixed with the top layer when the land is restored we will not get crops from that land for some time. Therefore, greater care should be taken with the separation of the top soil from the subsoil.
  The second great difficulty is drainage. When this land is restored it must be drained, and all the drains and the subsoil have been broken up. When the coal is taken out there is always subsidence. For up to ten years that land is gradually sinking. I have seen drains broken within 12 months of being laid.
  1156
  The result is that over all these areas there are drains which are high and low, broken and disjointed. It seems to me that there should be a method of consolidating the subsoil before the top soil is put on. I think that with the machines in existence, such as heavy rollers, the subsoil could be consolidated when it is put back, to such an extent that it would shorten the time during which subsidence would break the drains. If greater care were taken in that respect, the results would be far better. In restoring the top soil it is inevitable that the soil will get mixed, but it need not get mixed as much as it does.
  Another point is that when the top soil is put on, it should not be run over with heavy machinery to the extent that it is. By all means let the subsoil be consolidated, but the top soil should not be crushed and rolled to the extent that occurs. It should be allowed to sink more naturally, and the drainage should be carried out after the whole of the soil has been consolidated. If that is done, there is no reason why the land should not be brought into good productivity again. It cannot be brought back into full productivity for many years—that is an impossibility—but it can be brought into a good state of partial restoration which will enable the farmer to carry on his work and gradually to restore the land to a measure of full fertility.
  I hope that these matters will be kept in mind when the new set-up provided for by the Bill is brought into effect, and that the Minister will look into the question of the long delay which I have brought to his notice. There is no need for it. I hope, too, that the opposition of the council and the Church of England school education authority will be fully and fairly considered. There are very few sites upon which these schools can be conveniently placed in industrial areas. If the Minister will consider this case sympathetically, I feel that the council will be able to proceed with its housing development, the school authority will be able to proceed with its school, and the centre of Chorley will not be broken up and disfigured, as it certainly will be if the present scheme is allowed to proceed.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Neal: Almost every speaker has confirmed the need to regularise the production of opencast

  1157
  coal; indeed, from what we have heard during the debate it would seem that both sides of the House must accept responsibility for not having introduced legislation along these lines years ago.
  The Paymaster-General commended the Bill to the House in another of his excellent speeches. I never cease to envy the ease of his delivery and the capable manner in which he presents the salient facts of his case. It is pleasing to know that he can avert his eyes from the glitter of the European Common Market to consider the mundane affairs of the British coal industry. We were glad to hear him say that he will be pleased to receive, and will welcome, advice from both sides of the House in connection with the Bill.
  With some of his conclusions, however, we find ourselves in fundamental disagreement. We shall make our objections known at a later stage in greater detail; meanwhile, I want to take up some of the points which have been raised. It may be that in doing so I shall speak somewhat disjointedly. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) began opencast mining as a wartime measure, when he was Secretary for Mines, not even the most responsible people in the coal industry calculated that it would have been continued to the present time. I do not know of anyone connected with the industry who predicted that we should be getting outcrop coal twenty-six years after this process had begun, but that is the period that the Bill foreshadows.
  One notable feature about the debate has been the silence of those hon. Members opposite who, at a time between 1945 and 1951 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and myself were attempting to defend the continuance of opencast mining, were pleading for its complete cessation. I wonder what they are thinking now that their Minister has introduced a Bill extending it for ten years.
  It seems both surprising and neglectful on the part of various Governments that opencast coal mining has been carried on for fifteen years under Defence Regulations. Nobody would deny that serious anomalies have persisted throughout that period, or that there has been considerable dissatisfaction and social convulsion in the areas affected by these operations.
  1158
  This is a good Bill, a Bill of good intentions, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said, it is enshrouded in so much mysterious nomenclature of the law that it is difficult for us to appreciate the goodness in it. But I believe this about the Bill: there is a clear intention to establish responsibility at every phase of the operation.
  Originally, the Ministry of Works was responsible, as agents to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, for the service of notices under the Defence Regulations for prospecting and requisitioning land and minerals, The Ministry of Works was also responsible originally for settling the terms of compensation. Later, those duties were absorbed by the Ministry of Fuel and Power and, subsequently, by the National Coal Board. The outstanding advantage of this Bill is that there's responsibility placed on the Ministry of Power and it is self-evident almost from the beginning to the end of the operations.
  Under Part I of the Bill, the Coal Board is forbidden to work opencast coal except under an authorisation of the Ministry of Power. Before the authorisation is finally confirmed all parties concerned, tenants, owners and local authorities, have all to be notified of the intention to work coal and, if they make objection, a public inquiry can be held locally. I am sure that everyone welcomes the fairness of that provision.
  In the past, notices have been served to requisition land and only in rare cases has the intention to excavate not been fulfilled. Requisition of the land—perhaps sequestration would be a better word—has meant that civil engineering companies have conducted opencast mining operations and have not only requisitioned the land but have accepted almost a carte blanche requisition of the entire village in which the land is situated and all the roads leading to it.
  One of those companies in the East Midlands Division rejoices in the name of "Earth Removals Limited". It is a title sadly in accord with what residents think about the huge operations for getting surface coal in the area. Little opportunity has been provided in the past for aggrieved parties to raise objection and there has been even less opportunity for their objections to be sustained.

  1159
  We on this side of the House compliment the Paymaster-General upon the proper recognition of local authorities in the provision for public inquiries. Only those who reside in areas where opencast operations take place really understand the enormity of the inconvenience that is suffered by residents in the area. Not only is there loss and inconvenience to the tenant and the owner of the land concerned, but in the summer there are clouds of dust floating towards residential areas, clay and soil are deposited on the roadways in winter, there is noise of high-powered machines working day and night, there is the detonation of explosives and, as the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said this afternoon, there is the awkward problem of coal being strewed on the road because vehicles carry heavier loads than they are designed to bear.
  If one is a motorist in an opencast mining area one is often behind a huge excavator which is being towed from one side of the area to another under police surveillance. I can assure the House that such a vehicle is more difficult to overtake than was a wartime Army convoy. These and other grievances not affecting the contracting parties can now be the subject of consideration' by a public inquiry. The local authority, until now the ugly sister in these matters, will have an opportunity of complaining and presenting its case if it believes that its area will be despoiled.
  I know only too well from personal experience that opencast mining has few friends. The miners in my constituency call them sunshine pits, because coal can be obtained in the sunshine. Whenever a site is chosen the agricultural experts say, "This is the most productive piece of land in the area". The amenity lovers say, "This is an ideal beauty spot, the best in the country". The Minister finds himself between the devil and the deep sea when he has to make a decision.
  I fully appreciate that if all objections were listened to there would be no opencast operations, but the public inquiry will be of assistance in guiding the Minister when he is deciding on priorities. I hope that all objecting parties will be made to feel satisfied of adequate opportunity to present their case. Landowners, tenants and local authorities will,
  1160
  I am sure, welcome this provision and gladly avail themselves of it.
  In this connection, there is a strange omission from the Bill. After the compulsory rights order provided for in Clause 3 has been finally confirmed by the Minister, operations begin, and from that point there is no provision for any aggrieved party to raise any objection. Not all opencast sites are in remote rural areas. Some towns of 25,000 population and more have them close to their housing estates. Sometimes there are dust problems to contend with—dust emissions which are difficult to control.
  Another thing which causes a great deal of trouble is the fact that no statutory duty is placed upon the contractors to work during daylight hours. Imagine what it means to nearby householders when the grinding roar of high-powered excavators continues all night long. Much of the heaviest movement of overburden takes place by floodlight. People asleep in bed are awakened by the noise of these machines. Where is there any provision in the Bill for any protest to be considered after operations have begun? There is none at all. Often in opencast mining the lowest strata of the overburden are unexpectedly strong and blasting operations have to take place. The detonations of these explosives damage roofs and windows of houses in the area.
  I once had the privilege, if it were a privilege, of going up a church tower and watching instruments record the vibration of explosions on an opencast site. There was no redress to be obtained by the church authorities for any possible danger or damage to the church tower as a consequence of the vibrations from the blasting. The public at large are at the mercy of the contractors and I believe that some means must be provided of allowing objectors to make their objections after the public inquiry has been held.
  I have one further query about public inquiries. Clause 45 (5) says:
  "Any reference in this Act to the working of coal or other minerals on any land, or to the carrying out of any other operations on any land, shall be construed as including a reference to the working of the coal or other minerals…"
  Apparently this is a reference to stocking sites, because one cannot get opencast coal without having stocking sites and

  1161
  disposal places. Are these to be the subject of compulsory rights orders, or will they be referred to public inquiry in the same way as working sites?
  This is often a matter of as much serious concern to the landowner and to the tenant as is the acquisition of the land for the working of the coal. In the East Midlands coalfield we have some peculiar stocking sites. For instance, coal is being taken 30 miles by road and clumped into a disused stone quarry in the Peak, in Derbyshire. It costs about 10s. a ton to put it down and it will cost a lot more to take it up again.
  Are sites of this kind to be the subject of compulsory rights orders? I do not know what the Minister will have to say about this peculiar stocking site in the East Midlands, but I suggest to the Government that they should bear in mind that, in a time of recession this filling of holes and emptying them again might help to solve the unemployment problem. That should not be lost sight of.
  One further thing I would urge on the Minister. I hope that where a farmer has suffered the inconvenience of opencast operations on his land, he will be spared the incongruity of a second dose, in the form of having his land confiscated for stocking sites or even having a second seam taken out after his land has been restored. It would also be appreciated by myself, and by my colleagues I am sure, if, in his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify Clause 5, which deals with limited compulsory rights orders.
  Here, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) will permit me to join with those who have today congratulated him on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary. It is good to know that his rebellion against his senior colleagues during the recent crisis has not precluded him from joining the Front Bench. There must be something in the old saying that old poachers make good gamekeepers.
  As I say, we would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would clarify Clause 5. Where there is a seam of coal on only part of a farm, the amount to be requisitioned ought to be the subject of very careful inquiry. When only half of a farm bears coal, the other half should not be used for carrying the overburden. I know of a case in my own constituency.
  1162
  A seam of coal 4 ft. thick outcropped vertically on a farm, and a "dish" 120 yds. wide was made to get that thin seam of coal. It was only a 30-acre farm, and although the coal was deposited on only 10 acres of that farm another 18 acres were requisitioned for stowing the overburden.
  The incongruous part of it was that nearby there was another farm 400 acres in extent, quite untouched, that could easily have taken that overburden and so have saved the little man from going out of business. Matters of that sort should be very carefully looked into so that every point of food production can be kept open, and the farms sustained.
  I now turn to the Bill's provisions for compensation. When the necessary modifications are made, it will be possible to decide which claimant is entitled to compensation at any particular point for any loss or inconvenience. That is not very clear in the present Defence Regulations, and it will be a blessing to those affected to know to just what compensation they are entitled. Farmers are mostly affected by this provision.
  Here I would interpolate a word of appreciation. Farmers are sensitive men, very sensitive about their rights and privileges and very vehement in their criticism when those rights and privileges are assailed. Yet, with all the great traditions and ideals embodied in the farming community, never have farmers shown such tolerance and public spirit as they have shown during the period when they have been afflicted with opencast mining operations. Scores of millions of tons have been got from under, our farm lands. The House and the country owes a debt of gratitude to the farmers for their co-operation in this matter.
  I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and I were responsible for promoting opencast working, we often found ourselves in friendly conflict with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), then the Minister of Agriculture and a doughty champion of the farmer. I hope that there is still conflict between those responsible today, for it is only by conflict and argument between the respective Ministers that we can get the best for the country out of these proposals and out of opencast mining.

  1163
  Inevitably, there has been some contention, but I have never known a case of dissatisfaction with the annual rent. Most disputes arise over the compulsory sale of cattle, the removal of chattels, the payment for grazing, the diversion of watercourses or the amount of terminal compensation. Much work has fallen to the Coal Board in dealing with claims, and I am sure that officials of the Board in the department affected must be looking forward with pleasure to the time when these items are provided for in the Bill.
  So far, I have mentioned only tenants and owners entitled to compensation. What of the adjoining occupiers? There are cases where the adjoining occupiers have had temporarily to leave their houses because they could not bear the strain of the noise and the dust. Some provision ought to be made in the Bill to fit those cases, and they ought not to be left to the generosity of the Coal Board.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I repeat that we accord the Bill general approval. We shall examine it very closely during the Committee stage. We hope to clear up some of the anomalies and make it a better Bill. This is the first, and possibly the last, piece of legislation on these lines. For that reason, when it finally leaves this House it ought to leave it with the unanimous approval of both sides.
  One final word of advice to the Minister. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite), when referring this afternoon to the stocks of coal in the country, said that there were plenty of outlets for the stocks of opencast coal. If the hon. Gentleman is persona grata with the Paymaster-General and his senior Minister, he had better tell them where it can be sold. I and some of my colleagues believe that the present enormous stocks of coal, particularly of small coal, increase the unpopularity of opencast working; they create an undoubted impression that the demand for coal has lessened and there is no need to continue with these troublesome operations.
  The Paymaster-General, in reply to recent Questions, and in the opening of his speech today, appeared not to be perturbed by the enormous stocks of coal in the country. Anybody who is not perturbed is out of touch with informed
  1164
  opinion in the coal industry. We on this side advise him to reduce his stocks of coal, particularly small coal. If he cannot sell them, though he may convince this House he will have difficulty in convincing the country of the economic necessity to continue opencast coal mining for another ten years.
  9.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made kindly reference to myself on my new office, and I certainly need their good wishes in inheriting a Bill of this complexity. I do not know whether it was an accident, but when I went to take possession of my room downstairs I found that some humorist had placed me with a room marked "Parliamentary Labour Party" on the one side and "Mr. Speaker's Chaplain" on the other side.
  I have been closely concerned over the last twenty-five years or so with almost every Town and Country Planning Bill. This Opencast Coal Bill confirms me in my long-formed opinion that whenever dealing with land it takes six pages of small print to do what one wants to do and then the courts say that one has not done it. I can only hope, therefore, that as this Bill goes through Committee we shall, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said, have the constructive assistance of both sides of the Committee to improve it and that perhaps even occasionally ordinary Members may be able to combine against the lawyers, who are, of course, the common enemy of mankind.
  I think I can best assist the House, first, by traversing very briefly certain points which arise on the Bill and then dealing as far as I can with some, but of course, not all, of the points that have been put to me, and then I should like to say some words generally on one aspect of the Bill—a problem which has been referred to several times by many speakers on both sides which is deserving of a little special consideration, namely, the question of amenities as affected by these operations.
  It is necessary, first, to be quite clear what this Bill is. One or two contributions from both sides seemed not altogether to have borne in mind that this is a powers Bill. It does not directly affect, one way or the other, the amount of opencast working. Its primary object and its justification is to improve and

  1165
  bring up to date the methods by which we operate.
  On this side of the House, and, indeed, in the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), it has been made clear that the general feeling is that it is quite intolerable to continue any longer working under Defence Regulations. We need not argue this in detail. I put only the one point that under Defence Regulations nobody, whether an individual, a local authority or anybody else, has a legal right to be heard by anybody. At this time of day, that is an intolerable situation which must be brought to an end.
  What, however, would be the position if we did nothing else than bring the Defence Regulations to an end? There are two points to be borne in mind. There is no question that if we did nothing but bring the Defence Regulations to an end, there would be a substantial fall in the production by opencast working. This is not the occasion, nor would it be possible, to go very far in answering some suggestions which have been made in quite opposite senses from different parts of the House and to attempt to lay down a general principle on what we expect, in the future, the output from opencast workings to be. We on this side of the House are very sceptical anyway of these long forecasts and crystal gazing about what will be the situation in five years or ten years, but I do not think anybody can really seriously contend that there is no real prospect in the immediate future of some opencast coal being needed. The foreign exchange consideration seems to be conclusive in itself.
  It is not realistic—I am not going into any argument at this stage as to why or whose blame it is, if it is anybody's blame—to suppose any longer that there is going to be any immediate or drastic increase in the output of deep-mined coal which would make it completely unnecessary in the immediate future to do without opencast work. Therefore, I do not think we need complicate our discussion by going further than saying that we cannot afford to do nothing if we get rid of the Defence Regulations because we cannot afford to do without, at any rate in the near future, some substantial contribution from opencast working.
  The second point which I think must be stressed is that it is in any case wrong.
  1166
  in our view at any rate, to give powers to operate by a process which involves buying land on a large scale when all we really want is to use it for a comparatively short time, and that is, of course, why we have introduced this novel process of compulsory rights orders, compulsory rights orders as we shall call them, corresponding to the compulsory purchase orders of which we have had only too much experience in our daily life.
  I think the three main points we want to consider, if that be the background of our problem are: Is sufficient consideration being given in the new legislation to what is being done? Are the proposals for restoration being made reasonable? And are the compensation provisions fair?
  As to sufficient consideration, it is sufficient for me at this late stage simply to remind the House that both prospecting and working require authorisation by the Minister, and at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way a public inquiry will be held, which gives everybody directly concerned—owners, occupiers, planning authorities—the right to be heard, which, of course, is an enormous advance on the present situation.
  As for restoration, the code, to which much reference has been made, will, broadly speaking, be included in the authorisation. The deemed planning consent will contain the necessary provisions of the code. That code is by no means final. It is now the subject of discussions with interested parties. Some suggestions have been made that it should be included in regulations. This would not be the moment for any final decision to be taken on that. There are, I understand, very considerable technical difficulties, but it is a matter to which we must direct our attention in Committee.
  As to compensation, this will no longer be arbitrary. It may be perfectly true that in many cases the present quite arbitrary system is working not too badly, but it has no rhyme or reason, and has been altered because we feel that we ought to try to find some rational basis upon which to pay compensation. I am not at this stage going into the various Sections under which that compensation can be paid, because we shall, of course, have to go into that in great detail at a later stage. But the general principle is important, and it is reasonably clear.

  1167
  As far as possible, we are trying to put back everyone concerned to where he would have been if none of the operations had taken place. That, of course, is far from being the principle under compulsory purchase procedure. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, this is a much juster situation and a long-called for improvement. I am sure that it will commend itself to all on this side of the House, and I am pleased to see that it appeals to so many hon. Members opposite.
  At least one hon. Member made the extremely valid point about the importance of speed in settling these matters. I would refer to the provisions in the Bill as it stands. We shall have to consider whether they can be improved. Firstly, the Order, without which prospecting cannot take place, must contain a time limit. There is no time limit actually stated in the Bill, but the Order must contain one, and that will make it impossible to have a right to go prospecting indefinitely, which if not exercised would seriously depreciate the value of the land. If nothing is done for six months, the compulsory rights order itself becomes null and void. Therefore, a serious effort is being made to prevent damage being done to land by things being initiated which are not followed up within a reasonable period.
  As to occupiers, and I speak mainly of farmers, because I am advised that about 90 per cent. of the land concerned is agricultural land, the principle is that the occupier should be paid a rental compensation, because he still owes a rent to his landlord, and a calculated mitigated profit. There has been some discussion as to whether that mitigation is fair. One of my hon. Friends strongly stressed that it was, but some other hon. Members felt that it might be awkward to administer. I can quite see that it may be, and it is certainly a matter which we must consider. But the broad general principle when we are dealing with public money must be accepted by all of us—that it is not reasonable to pay somebody all the profits that he would have earned and leave him in a position where he either need to do no work at all or, if he does, he has all the advantage of it. Undoubtedly there may be complications in administration, but it is a matter which
  1168
  we can well consider at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.
  The owner of agricultural land has a choice. If he chooses a cash payment, which will be the difference between the value of the land as it is returned to him and what it would have been if no operations had taken place, that is the end of it. But he can, and probably in many cases will, choose a cost-of-works payment where agricultural land is concerned. This brings me to a point which was made by at least one hon. Member opposite. As it was pointed out, many of the things which are necessary to be done if the land is to be put back to its full bearing condition do not make themselves evident for a long time afterwards.
  The question of drainage was referred to. In many cases it would clearly be a waste of money to start such work and then have to do it over again twelve months afterwards. Therefore, in many cases it will be to the advantage of everybody concerned to choose not a cash payment but a cost-of-works payment, which will be made when it is reasonable to do the work.
  So much for the very rough survey of the general situation. Now I will answer briefly some specific points which have been put in the debate. The first I choose is an interjection made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), which was a kind of hors d'oeuvre before the main speech. My hon. Friend raised the point that the National Coal Board might become a large-scale farmer. The fair answer to that is two-fold. First, we have had a definite assurance from the Board that it intends, if it buys land which people offer—it cannot buy land otherwise under this Bill—to sell it when the work is finished.
  Secondly, what would be the alternative? If it acts under the existing law, which is slow and awkward, the Board has to buy everything. Today it cannot get any land for work of this kind without becoming the owner. We are providing a way in which the amount of land which the Board will own when it has finished with it will be less, to the extent that it has acted under compulsory rights order procedure, and, when the work is finished, the land will return to its original owner.

  1169
  There was a certain amount of discussion on the question of small coal in the speeches of several hon. Members, which, unless I have misunderstood it, seemed to me to be slightly misconceived. I am advised that the proportion of large coal from opencast mining is, if anything, slightly larger than from deep-mined coal. Of course, one cannot get the one without the other, so that it seems to me that the question of whether we have too much small coal in stock or too little is irrelevant to our discussion. In other words, if we get the same total quantity of coal, and it is all deep-mined, there will be more and not less small coal.
  Mr. A. Roberts: According to figures of opencast mining last year, we produced about 3 million tons of large coal. Consequently, I suppose we saved a certain amount of dollars by not importing American coal. Yet it has been said here this afternoon that we import American machinery to work on the outcrop sites, so one thing balances the other.
  Sir I. Horobin: I am coming to that point, so perhaps it would be more convenient if I were to follow the sequence of the debate. There were also a number of extremely important points raised by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). As far as I can, I will treat them together. As I understood the right hon. and hon. Members, they were rather against the period of ten years going into the Bill. They felt that for various reasons it was undesirable to limit the permanent legislation on this subject. To a certain extent they were answered by some other hon. Members on the same side of the House, of whom the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) was one. He stressed with great vigour and emotion the deplorable consequences which inevitably followed from a permanent continuation of opencast mining.
  On this matter one has to try to strike a balance. If we have too short a period, all the arguments about the difficulties of contractors and so on become overwhelming. On the other hand, it is very difficult to see very far ahead. In about ten years' time the whole nuclear situation, for instance, will be very different from what it is now. Progress is so rapid that it may be completely transformed. Therefore, I think the balance of argument is in favour of saying, "We must
  1170
  have some opencast mining for a reasonable period, but, in view of all the objections and difficulties which have been argued so forcibly in the debate, we can always have another look at the matter and it will be a simple procedure in ten years' time to alter our plans if we so decide."
  This would perhaps be a convenient moment to take up the point about the dollar content as an argument against having any opencast coal. I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding here. While there is a great deal of dollar machinery, it is by no means true that all or even a large proportion of the machinery is bought with dollars. Another point which seems to me to be even more conclusive is that if, as has been argued very strongly on both sides of the House, the alternative to not having opencast coal is the importation of coal, that costs dollars too. Consequently, I do not think there is very much in the argument. It seems to me better to give ourselves a reasonable period and see how things work, and it will not be difficult in ten years' time, if we so decide, to alter our plans.
  The question of disposal points and stocking grounds was argued at considerable length and was made a major point. First of all, it would be unwise and unfair to exaggerate the matter. I understand that a substantial number of these grounds are commercially held now and are not at risk. I understand that friendly negotiations are proceeding which are likely to lead to mutually satisfactory results, as the previous ones have done. Consequently, do not let us run away with the idea that all the operations of the National Coal Board are completely at risk.
  The second point that we should bear in mind is that in any new undertaking, if the ancillary undertakings are part of the process of getting coal, the compulsory rights order procedure could apply. It is true that it would not apply where the disposal point and stocking ground is separate from the process of digging the coal.
  The third point is that hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate feel that we want to limit compulsory powers as much as possible. We do not like to add to the number of people who can run about taking property from people

  1171
  who do not want to part with it. We desire not to do it if we have not got to do it. There is a big difference from taking the land where the coal is, because one must have that land. If there is no coal there, it is no good taking it. However, the Board is not in the same position with regard to stocking points. If it cannot get one, it can probably get another. Therefore, the Board can go about the matter in the ordinary commercial way and enter into negotiations. The pressure on it to have compulsory powers is at least very much less cogent—I put it no stronger than that—than it is when it has to have the land where the coal is and cannot do with any other land.
  Mr. Robens: About two-thirds of the present disposal sites are held under requisition and not by commercial agreements. Do I understand that after the passing of the Bill the Board will have to complete ordinary commercial negotiations on sites already working? If so, does that not mean that the Board can be held to ransom for the acquisition of disposal sites which it has already obtained under Defence Regulations and which are essential for the operation of opencast sites now being worked under Defence Regulations?
  Sir I. Horobin: It is true that the Board must negotiate—about those sites which are not held commercially. I am saying that the Board is negotiating—already successfully in many cases—and my information is that in the majority of those sites which are still at risk negotiations with a reasonable prospect of a satisfactory termination are being conducted.
  Mr. Robens: This matter is very important. This enables those who own the sites upon which the disposal units are situated to have an unequal bargaining power, inasmuch as they are in a very strong position to bargain with the Coal Board because they can stop output from more than one site to which the Board is committed. If the Coal Board is unable to negotiate on reasonably commercial terms as between a willing buyer and a willing seller for the continued use of the disposal points which the Board now has and which serve opencast sites which the Board now operates under Defence Regulations, will the Government provide the necessary compulsory
  1172
  purchasing order or requisitioning order so that those disposal sites shall remain available for the completion of opencast operations on the sites obtained under the Defence Regulations?
  Sir I. Horobin: No, I do not think that we could possibly be expected to do that. As I have a number of other matters with which to deal, I must leave it at that. I am advised that there is a reasonable prospect of fair negotiations in the bulk of the outstanding cases. We are not in favour of giving compulsory powers for the Board to have a specific site it is not geologically necessary as it is in the case of the coal itself.
  I want to deal with a similar matter raised by an hon. Member opposite. He suggested that everything could be held up because any crank could put in an objection and force a local inquiry. Nobody disputes that there will be some initial loss of coal because of the provisions of the Bill. One cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. We are giving more protection to everybody and, although it will not be a continuing loss, in the initial stages there will be some loss.
  However, again we must not exaggerate, and the hon. Member who made that point was under a misapprehension because only those persons directly concerned, either owner-occupiers or local authorities, have a right to object and force a local inquiry. It is true that if there is an inquiry, outside persons, such as those bodies dealing with amenities, are, in practice, always heard—and a very good thing, too. But if all the local authorities, owners and occupiers have come to an agreement and there are no objections, then nobody else can force an inquiry. They can simply communicate with the Minister or act through their M.P., and so on. I think it is a misconception to think that any crank who has any case at all can force into operation this rather cumbersome machinery of local inquiry.
  The next point raised by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and other hon. Members was that on the whole there was a preference for the code to be put into regulations. This is a matter which, I think, requires careful consideration. I ought to warn the

  1173
  House that I am advised that there are very serious technical difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a great difference between what can be put down when it is an informal document and what can be put down when the legal gentry are concerned and the rules of the House apply. It is not a matter upon which our minds are closed. It is conceivable—I put it no higher than that—that it may be possible to meet it in some way.
  This question has been answered before, but I would like to answer it quite definitely again. It is this fear that in future—I know it has happened in the past—under these provisions people can be disturbed twice. It is categorically laid down in the Bill that once a C.R.O. has been applied to land another C.R.O. cannot be applied to it. I do not think we could have gone further. Under the new régime once is quite enough.
  Then a point was made about allotments. At this stage I would only say that this is a matter upon which the Government may be tabling Amendments of its own, but in any case the very complicated legal situation is being sympathetically considered.
  I have tried to answer a few of the main points, but I will take the last five minutes to say a few words on a matter upon which I hope many hon. Members share my own great interest and anxiety, namely, amenities. We shall have to give a great deal of careful attention to this aspect when the Bill is upstairs.
  Let me go very briefly through the process. First there comes the prospecting, then the authorisation, and then the C.R.O. Prospecting is a much more serious business than in the case of electricity. With electricity one makes a survey and then goes away. With opencast coal mining, holes, trenches and so on are dug. I do not think we ought to allow ourselves to be too much bound by the precedents in the Electricity Acts. First, permission must be obtained from the Minister before prospecting can be carried out.
  But the more important point, once the Defence Regulations are out of the way, is this: prospecting is a development which comes under the Town and Country Planning Acts and, therefore, it would be necessary to obtain planning permission. It is right that I should tell the
  1174
  House that for reasons of speeding up—there is always a balance in these matters—it may well be that by the time the Defence Regulations come to an end there will be an amendment to the general development order which would not make it necessary to obtain individual planning permission.
  Even if that does happen, that does not take away the power of the local planning authority to intervene, because under the existing law—I shall not go into the exact references—where anything in the general development order does not require specific planning permission, the relevant planning authority can make what is called an Article IV direction, which stops everything for the moment. The matter then has to go to the Minister. If he confirms it, that takes the operation out of the general development order and ordinary planning permission must be obtained. If, on the other hand, the Minister refuses it, at least the planning authority has had every opportunity of ensuring that its views are known.
  In addition, twenty-eight days' notice has to be given, in which time it is possible to alert those concerned. The figure of twenty-eight days is one of the matters that might well be considered in Committee from the point of view of its being a sufficient length of time.
  I have time to deal only briefly with the questions of authorisation and compulsory rights orders. It is the intention that they should go together. This will save time and expense. I also want to make it absolutely clear that while there is apparently some constitutional objection to providing, in a Statute, that one Minister shall consult another—there are a few precedents for it but they are considered to be bad ones—I can give an absolute assurance that, in all these matters, at the planning stage the very closest consultation will in practice take place between the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Power.
  Mr. Ross: And the Scottish Office.
  Sir I. Horobin: I cannot undertake to say that it will be carried out in Gaelic, but we shall do our best.
  Mr. Ross: The language in the Bill is bad enough.
  Sir I. Horobin: I have done my best to show that the broad structure of the Bill is not only a very great improvement upon what we have now but the only possible alternative, if we are to bring the Defence Regulations to an end. I hope that I have at least given interim replies to the main points which have been made—although I know that I have not carried conviction in regard to one. At any rate, I have done my best for the moment.
  I hope I have shown that while these provisions can by no means be held to be perfect they are probably the best that we can make. At any rate, the vital question of amenities has not been overlooked. It is very much in the minds of those who have drafted and introduced the Bill, and it will be permanently in the minds of the Ministers who have to administer it. With those words I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman going to make no reference to the speeches which have been made complaining about the implications for Scotland?
  Sir I. Horobin: That can much better be done when we have the advantage or the disadvantage of the presence of Scottish legal representation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38(Committal of Bills).

OPENCAST COAL [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84(Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, with respect to the working of coal by opencast operations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Minister of Power.—[Mr. Maudling.]
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move,
That this House is of the opinion that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure relating to opposed Private Bills.
As the House is well aware, a special procedure is laid down when local authorities and other public bodies promote a Bill in Parliament. The Bill has to be deposited by a certain day in November. It has thereafter to be inquired into by two examiners to make certain that the regulations dealing with advertisements and notice to parties affected have been complied with, and copies of the Bill have to be sent to various Government Departments with plans and documents, and also to others. When this procedure is completed, about the beginning of the following February, the Bill is presented to this House for Second Reading.
Normally, Private Bills come to us in batches of three or four at the beginning of the sitting on Mondays to Thursdays. They are not then debatable. It only requires one hon. Member, sitting in his place and completely anonymous, to say "Object" and the Bill cannot be proceeded with on that day. The Chairman of Ways and Means brings the Bill up again on subsequent sitting days and, if the objection to it persists, he has to set it down for Second Reading at seven o'clock on a subsequent evening. That means that the business set down for that day has to be interrupted in order to take the Bill.
This involves local authorities and other public bodies in needless additional expense, because the real objection to any Bill is not in a sense taken on the Floor of the House; it is dealt with upstairs before the Select Committee when persons, organisations and bodies who feel aggrieved can appear, either in person or through counsel, and fight the thing out there. Nevertheless, up to now it has been, and still is, the rule for one hon. Member, who may or may not know quite a lot about the Bill, by the simple use of the word "Object" to hold that Bill up indefinitely. That, I repeat,

1177
means a fair amount of additional expense to those who promote any Bill.
The matter came to a head a year or two ago and, as a result, the then Conservative Government set up a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses. Its terms of reference were
"to consider what alterations, if any, are desirable in the practice and the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to private legislation, having special regard to the desirability of lessening the expense at present incurred."
That Committee sat for several months. It had a great many meetings and some very high-powered witnesses were willing to appear and give evidence, including the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Committee reported in May, 1955. It made 22 recommendations. The astonishing thing is that although the Report was issued nearly three years ago and although—I hope I carry the House with me here—it affects every hon. Member of this House, we have not yet had any debate upon it. No one to this day really knows what the sense of the House is on any one of those recommendations.
When some of us approached the present Leader of the House to ask whether a debate might be arranged, we were made to feel—I say this deliberately—that our request was unreasonable. In fact, those who saw him felt definitely non-U. when we were in his presence. We came away wondering whether we had asked for something which, quite frankly, was not possible and almost, I was going to say, obscene.
This is not good enough. In matters of this kind it is for the House to decide what procedure it should apply. We felt then, and we still feel, that the House should be given an opportunity to debate the recommendations of this Committee which, as I have said, sat for a considerable time and went into the whole question very thoroughly.
We frequently hear criticism of our procedure, and many people think that some of it is out of date. Recently, following a rather scathing leader in The Times, there has been correspondence in its columns, as I think most hon. Members are aware, and the general feeling seems to be, even amongst hon. Members who have written letters to The Times in the
1178
last week or two, that something ought to be done to speed up the procedure and to bring the way we conduct our business more into keeping with modern times.
It is our view that many of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, and particularly that which we shall discuss in a minute, would have helped to improve the speed and the efficiency of the House in Private Bill procedure. Although, tonight, we are to deal with one particular aspect of that Committee's Report, there are other recommendations on which at some time the House ought to pass judgment. For example, the Committee made a recommendation for the abolition of town meetings and town polls, which are a public scandal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Those who followed the Press and read the recent case in Birmingham, where votes cost a good many shillings—
Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the Motion which we are considering concerns solely the recommendations of the Committee relating to opposed Private Bills. I do not think that town polls or anything else in that context have much to do with the Motion.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Motion deals with opposed Private Bills. I should not like to rule a passing reference to such matters out of order altogether.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not intend to pursue that line. I was using it only as an illustration in pointing out that while, tonight, we are dealing with only one recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, there were others which have not been implemented and upon which, in my view, the House should at some time pass judgment. The House has not yet been given an opportunity to consider the Report at all, including the recommendations about town meetings and town polls, which I think should be abolished and which at present, where-ever they are held, amount almost to a public scandal and involve the ratepayers in considerable sums of money.
Mr. F. Blackburn: I am in some difficulty as to exactly what we are discussing tonight. My right hon. Friend said that we were

1179
discussing only one recommendation, but the Motion on the Order Papers refers to
"the recommendations of the Joint Committee."
Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are dealing with Private Bill procedure. My hon. Friend has not finished reading the Motion.
In my view, it would have been much better had we discussed the whole Report rather than have a discussion at this late hour on what, after all, is a relatively narrow issue, but the blame for that does not lie on this side of the House. The Government agreed to our having a discussion only on condition that we confined it to the terms of the second recommendation of the Select Committee, to which the Motion refers.
Mr. George Wigg: I must confess that this is an extremely novel doctrine—and my name is on the Motion—that the Government, presumably through the usual channels, should agree to the Motion being put down on the Government's notion as to how it should proceed. Surely the question of what is or what is not in order is a matter for you to decide, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and is not to be governed by any rubber-stamp opinion coming through the usual channels.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is governed by the Motion which has been put down, and which the House is now discussing.
Mr. Henry Usborne: On a point of order. Can you give a ruling on this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? What we should like to know is whether we are entitled, on this Motion, to discuss the procedure relating to opposed Private Bills. A Private Bill such as we are discussing does not originate in this House. The last one that concerned me originated in Birmingham, and was opposed in Birmingham before it reached here. Are we then entitled to discuss the nature of the opposition to that Private Bill before it actually reached the House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course, it is not a Private Bill until it reaches the House.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. It is, no doubt, not a Private Bill until it reaches
1180
the House, but something or other originates in Birmingham which comes here as a Private Bill, and a Committee which is inquiring into the procedure and practice of the House with regard to certain matters did hear evidence, and report on the question of the opposition to these, shall I say, inchoate Private Bills in the place where they originated—opposition in the form of town meetings and town polls. The Committee took a vote on that matter and came to a decision about it. I would submit that, in the ordinary sense of the procedure relating to opposed Private Bills, we must investigate their birth as well as their future progress: and that to investigate the health of the hen without some consideration of what happens when the hen is born—that is to say, the hatching of the egg—may lead to a misunderstanding and to a certain waste of time. I would suggest that while one no doubt wants to keep the main discussion to the particular points, it would be in order to refer, at any rate summarily, to the question of town meetings and town polls.
Mr. Usborne: Would you, therefore, also consider this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? If, as you said in answer to my first intervention, this thing cannot be a Private Bill until it reaches the House, can you explain how procedure Joint Committee on Private Bill procedure could have discussed, to the extent of two pages, what was clearly nothing to do with the Private Bill; and since the Motion before us on the Order Paper is to discuss that which the Committee recommended, namely, Clause 79, and includes this, how is it that you can fairly rule this out of order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There was a wider reference than that. The reference related to private legislation, not merely to opposed Private Bills.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Am I not right in thinking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this Motion deals with the recommendations printed in the Report in pages xx-xxiii? It is quite simple. We are just dealing with the recommendations.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: If that is so, the Motion covers town meetings and town polls, because the Select Committee make a recommendation about both town meetings and town rolls.
Mr. Mitchison: If, in fact, we are entitled to discuss private legislation but not everything about Private Bills, what exactly is the difference between private legislation and Private Bills?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Committee was dealing with private legislation. The Motion before the House relates to Private Bill procedure in relation to opposed Private Bills.
Mr. Mitchison: But, with respect, the procedure relating to opposed Private Bills must include the statutory requirements about town meetings and town polls; otherwise, it would not have been within the Committee's purview to consider them, and that is not suggested. Surely it is part of the procedure to get them into being, as it were, in the way in which they are. What is opposed in a town meeting or a town poll, I would suggest, is a proposed Bill.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The difficulty is that the Committee had rather wider terms of reference than those of the Motion now before the House. But I do not want to be difficult about this matter. Any passing reference to town polls would not be objected to by me.
Mr. Douglas Glover: May we have the matter clarified? It seems to me that a Select Committee can sit on the method of dealing with Private Bills, and that while part of its recommendation may concern only the procedure of the House other of its recommendations would involve legislation. The question of dealing with town polls, and so on, would involve legislation. Therefore, in our discussion of this matter tonight town polls are out of order, because it would involve legislation to alter that procedure. We are dealing with the procedure of the House as it exists at the moment.
Sir Peter Agnew: It will be within the recollection of the House that, during the last Session, there was a Private Member's Bill dealing with this very subject, called the Promotion of Bills Bill, which was extensively discussed both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and which failed to secure passage through the House. If we are now to have simply a repetition of that debate, shall we not be out of order?
1182
Taking the terms of the Motion, when it speaks about opposed Private Bills it cannot possibly be deemed to refer to what goes on before a Private Bill reaches the House because, at that stage, nobody knows whether the Bill will be unopposed or opposed. Surely our discussion this evening should refer only to those Bills which are found, on arrival here, to be opposed.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the question is one strictly relating to opposed Private Bills.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not quarrel with that at all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am simply saying that, when we had the discussions with the Leader of the House, he agreed that we should have a debate of this kind, and I rather gathered from him—he will correct me if I am wrong—that we should confine it to this particular point which, quite frankly, is one of the main points of the recommendations made by the Select Committee and not yet implemented. I quite agree that town meetings and town polls will need legislation, although they are the subject of one of the recommendations. It cannot be done by any alteration of Standing Orders. The object of the Motion I am now moving, if it has the approval of the House, can be achieved by a change in Standing Orders.
While I have no desire whatever—far from it—to curtail what anyone else may wish to say, subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am, for my part, dealing with the one narrow point as to whether the House should continue in future to allow one hon. Member to say, "Object" to a Private Bill when it is brought forward for Second Reading at the commencement of business on any Monday to Thursday in the early part of the year, or whether we should now decide to alter our procedure to prevent that practice and its possible abuse.
Mr. E. Partridge: On a point of order. May I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) is saying now that this matter has not been discussed and, therefore, the opinion of the House is not known. Though he may speak for himself, a great many of us—I would say the

1183
majority—have considered it at great length and know what our views are.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of argument.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I sincerely hope that other hon. Members have thought about it and have made up their minds. I was not saying that they had not. I was merely saying—if I am wrong, no doubt I shall be corrected—and I believe it to be within the recollection of everyone within the sound of my voice—that the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate this particular Report, certainly not this part of it. We have been given by the Government this opportunity, a very late one, to discuss it and, if possible, to get a majority of the House to agree to the recommendation made by the Select Committee in this particular direction and no other.
Those who have read the Report will have noticed that the number of Private Bills presented in the years 1947–48 to 1953–54 was, on an average, about 40 per Session; and those Members who have looked down the list of Private Bills which presently will reach us will have found that the number is about the same on this occasion. During that time, so we were told by witnesses who appeared before us, an average of about five or six Bills had to be debated at seven o'clock during those Sessions.
Although that may not seem to be many, there is the risk always that every one of the 40, or whatever the number it is, can be objected to. That means that the Chairman of Ways and Means would have to find time and interrupt business at a very congested part of the Session so that the Second Reading debates should be held. We hold the view—and the Select Committee, by a considerable majority, took the view—that that is not right and it is time that that procedure was changed.
The Chairman of Ways and Means, upon whom rests the duty to find time for these debates, was good enough to present a memorandum to the Joint Select Committee. In page 22, paragraph 5, of the Report, he said:
"The numbers "—
that is, on an average, the number of occasions for which he had had to find
1184
time for a Second Reading debate, which was about 9 per cent., during the period with which he was dealing—
"may not appear to be significant, but with the increasing extent to which successive Governments have pre-empted the time of the House for their own business, the task of making arrangements to ensure that an evening is selected which suits all the interested parties has become steadily more difficult."
I should like hon. Members to bear that in mind. It is the evidence of the present Chairman of Ways and Means, who, as we all know, has occupied his high office with great distinction for a long time and has had a vast experience in this direction.
Those Members who are interested will also find that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give oral evidence before the Committee. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting from the evidence he gave, but it came out quite clearly during the time he was before the Committee that it is difficult for any Chairman of Ways and Means to fit in the Second Reading debates when the Government and the Opposition between them, in the early part of the year, have such heavy calls on their time.
It came out quite clearly, not, perhaps, from the evidence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but certainly from the evidence of others competent to judge, that, I will not say always, but very often, Members say "Object" without any real knowledge of what a Bill contains. Sometimes, of course, most of us are quite aware of what is in a Bill and objections are raised from all over the House, and very properly so, because it is felt essential that a Second Reading debate should take place. It does, however, happen, and we were given evidence that it has happened more often than one would care to believe, that objection is taken without foundation.
I should like to read a short paragraph from the Report of the Committee which deals with this point much better than I could possibly do. It is in page vi of the Committee's Report, as follows:
"Mr. Abraham, now Clerk of Financial and Miscellaneous Committees and sometimes Clerk of Private Bills in the House of Commons"—
incidentally, he has been in the service of the House for forty years—
"drew the Committee's attention to the view long held by Chairmen of Ways and Means

1185
(including Mr. (afterwards Speaker) Shaw Lefevre and Mr. (afterwards Speaker) Lowther and by otter eminent members (including Sir Winston Churchill when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1909) that the House of Commons is not, on Second Reading, normally in a position to come to a considered conclusion on the merits of a private Bill, because at that stage it has not sufficient knowledge of the issues to form a proper judgment. The Committee are of opinion that there is much to be said for this contention so far as the great majority of private Bills are concerned, although there are obviously some Bills where the issues are fully apprehended from the time they are introduced, for example, Bills seeking county borough status or the extension of boundaries.'"
These are weighty witnesses. Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre was giving evidence on the business of the House in 1854, over a hundred years ago. Mr. Speaker Lowther was giving evidence before a Select Committee on Private Business in 1902, over fifty years ago. If we add to those very knowledgeable witnesses the present Chairman of Ways and Means, who, in his evidence before the recent Select Committee, acknowledged the difficulty, and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who also took the same view, I think that we have a formidable team, and one to which we should pay some attention.
I think it is permissible—one cannot prove it—to believe that if other Chairmen of Ways and Means and former Speakers of this House had been called to give evidence before similar Select Committees they probably would have come to the same conclusion and given evidence in the same sense.
In page vii of the Report we come to what the Select Committee proposes. It is the suggestion of the Select Committee that I desire to commend to the House. Having examined the evidence some of which I have indicated, it came to this conclusion, contained in paragraph 18
"The Committee have given considerable thought to this matter. They have throughout been anxious if possible not to suggest any change in procedure which would restrict the freedom now enjoyed by Members to insist, singly if necessary, upon a Second Reading debate on any private Bill. They have, however, reluctantly come to the conclusion that the present procedure can no longer be justified. They believe that it should no longer be permissible for a single Member to block the Second Reading of a Bill at the time of unopposed private business by the simple device of saying Object.' They therefore recommend, subject to the exceptions mentioned below, that Mr. Speaker should in all cases declare the
1186
Second Reading carried unless a reasoned amendment to the motion for the Second Reading stands on the Order Paper signed by at least six Members. They further recommend that this rule should not apply if the Chairman of Ways and Means indicates at the time the Second Reading is first moved that the Bill raises a new and important principle."
The Committee then states what the exceptions are. They are two:
"Bills seeking county borough status or extension of boundaries; Bills promoted by nationalised authorities in the case of which it may be the practice that the Second Reading should provide the occasion for a general debate on the affairs of the authority."
To go back, the main recommendation is a reasonable one, and it is one which has obviously had the sanction of Speakers like Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre over a hundred years ago when business in the House was nothing like what it is today and when hon. Members had far more time for debates of this kind than we get now.
Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that when it used the words "reasoned amendment" the Select Committee of which he was Chairman had in mind that it would be impossible for any Member, whether or not supported by other Members, to put down an Amendment for complete rejection on Second Reading of a Bill of this kind? Was it to be a reasoned Amendment affecting part of a Bill, or was it considered that it might be possible for Members to reject entirely the Second Reading?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Committee, of course, makes the suggestion, but it would be for the House either to accept it in its entirety or in part, or to reject it altogether, or to make some other arrangements.
I think that the Select Committee felt that the present procedure was unrealistic and that in modern times, when a Chairman of Ways and Means has so much difficulty in arranging Second Reading debates, procedure should be adopted to prevent capricious objection which has no real feeling behind it and which is sometimes directed towards a Bill about which the hon. Member who objects knows very little.
Major Legge-Bourke: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is on the point that I am trying to make. Does

1187
he visualise that under the proposed procedure it would be impossible for a reasoned Amendment for rejection of a Bill to be put down by hon. Members entirely without any reasons being given? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is sometimes rather important that hon. Members should have the power to reject a Bill completely without having to give the reason for so doing?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Again, I can only say that it would be for the House to decide what form an Amendment must take in order that it should be accepted at the Table.
Although I was a member of the Committee and am in duty bound moving the recommendation as it stands, having thought about it since I am not wedded to this form of words. I am not wedded to six as being the quorum for putting down an Amendment and I am not necessarily wedded to the view that the Amendment put on the Order Paper must be a reasoned one, although there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment being one which gives some reason why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
However, it would be for the House itself to decide what form the Standing Order should take and what general rules Mr. Speaker should follow when applying the Standing Order. At the moment I am simply moving what the Select Committee decided, and if, tonight, we can get the House to agree to accept the principle I, for my part, am not so much worried about the way it is put into effect. But I feel, and feel profoundly, that the time really has now arrived when it should be impossible for one hon. Member just to say "Object", sitting in his seat and not even standing up, thus causing local and other public authorities a great deal of expense and leading the House to waste a good deal of time and trouble by having Second Reading debates on matters which can best be discussed before a Select Committee upstairs.
I hope, therefore, that although, at first glance, it might appear that we are asking the House to rob itself of a long-sustained right, on reflection most hon. Members will realise that they are not really losing a right. They could still object, but in future they would have to object on proper grounds and in proper form.
10.34 p.m.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Perhaps I might begin by explaining why I am intervening in the debate. As Chairman of Ways and Means I exercise a general supervision over Private Bills during their passage through the House. In particular, I am given powers under the Standing Orders to ensure that the House considers and disposes of all Private Bills whether objection is taken or not. I would emphasise, however, that I am not concerned with the merits of Private Bills. That is a matter for the House. My only concern is to ensure that the practice and the Standing Order in regard to Private Bills are observed and that the supporters and opponents obtain a full and fair opportunity of putting their cases before the House.
As Chairman of Ways and Means, I should like to express my gratitude to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and, in particular, to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who was Chairman of the Committee. The Committee sat through the best part of two Parliamentary Sessions and made a number of valuable recommendations. The Committee made its Report over two years ago, and since that time a great deal of work has been done by the Officers of both Houses to give effect to many of the Committee's recommendations.
I should like to indicate shortly what action has been taken on those recommendations which touch the responsibilities of the authorities of both Houses. In taking action on these recommendations, priority was given to those which would directly reduce the cost of private legislation. The most spectacular saving has been achieved, by carrying out recommendation No. 9, namely, that duplication of the minutes of evidence taken before opposed Private Bill Committees should, in general, be substituted for printing. The Standing Orders of both Houses were amended accordingly on 21st February, 1956, and the resultant saving to promoters during last Session, when comparatively few Bills were opposed in Committee, was approximately £3,000. In a normal year that amount would be about double.
Smaller savings resulted from a review, in accordance with another recommendation of the Joint Committee, of the

1189
existing arrangements for printing Private Bills and Private Acts; and, following a proposal made by the Officers of another pace and myself, this saving has been divided equally between the Stationery Office and the promoters of Private Bills.
Fees charged by both Houses have been reviewed and synchronised, and modernised lists of agents' charges have now been approved by Mr. Speaker and by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Finally, I agreed with the late Lord Chairman, Lord Drogheda, that the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to Private Business should be reviewed by the Officers of both Houses in the sense of recommendations Nos. 17 and 18 of the Report of the Joint Committee, which will, of course, take some time. Recommendations such as those relating to town meetings and polls which need legislation are, of course, no affair of mine.
The actions taken have modernised and serviced the machinery of private business and have made its operations both less expensive and more efficient. I am sure that the whole House will approve of this achievement. However, the proposal which has been put forward tonight, the effect of which is to modify the existing procedure in this House for objecting to private Bills on Second Reading, is clearly more controversial. Indeed, the Joint Committee itself was not unanimous on this matter. Although it adopted without a Division the paragraphs of its Report embodying this proposal, it divided on an Amendment which, if carried, would have had the effect of preserving the existing procedure.
May I remind the House of the exact words of the Committee's recommendation:
"In the House of Commons, subject to certain exceptions"—
this has already been read, but it is very important—
"Mr. Speaker should in all cases declare the Motion for Second Reading carried unless a reasoned Amendment to the Motion for Second Reading stands on the Order Paper signed by at least six Members; this rule should not apply if the Chairman of Ways and Means indicates at the time the Second Reading is first moved that the Bill raises a new and important principle."
The Joint Committee goes on to explain that the exceptions to which it refers
1190
—these are the ones to which the Chairman of Ways and Means would not be called upon to deal with—are Bills promoted by nationalised industries and Bills seeking county borough status or extension of boundaries. Since the war these Bills have given rise to approximately one-third of the debates held on the Floor of the House on Private Bills, and under the Joint Committee's proposals they would still attract the present procedure.
As regards other Private Bills, the Joint Committee recommends that a reasoned Amendment signed by not fewer than six Members should be required to force a debate on the Private Bill unless the Chairman of Ways and Means declares that a new and important principle is raised. I am opposed to this recommendation.
In the first place, it would remove from the individual Member the right to object to a Private Bill. His rights would thus be more restricted in relation to a Private Bill than to a Public Bill, because a reasoned Amendment to reject a Public Bill may be put down by a single Member. A Member's duty to scrutinise a Private Bill is at least as important as his consideration of Public Bills. Erskine May defines private legislation as
"…legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons—including individuals, local authorities, statutory companies, or private corporations—sometimes in excess of or in conflict with the general law."
If this definition is accepted, it seems wrong to put difficulties in the way of a Member who finds an objectionable provision in a Private Bill. This provision might affect only his own constituency, and even if he found five other Members willing to help him, the Motion which they would be called upon to sign might well deal with a matter in which they were not interested. This would seem to be an undesirable practice.
Again, a Member may have great difficulty in finding five other Members to support him. Under the existing procedure, the pressure of a single Member may oblige the promoters of a Private Bill to alter an objectionable provision; and it seems wrong that a Member should be prevented from exercising his constitutional rights merely because he is unable to find five supporters.

1191
Secondly, the recommendation does not, in my opinion, do justice to the flexibility of the existing procedure. It would be wrong, for instance, to assume that because a Private Bill is objected to at 2.30, an evening debate necessarily takes place. Not all Members may be aware of the close attention with which proceedings on private business at 2.30 are studied by Officers of the House and Parliamentary Agents. The full extent of the opposition to a Bill is quickly identified, and negotiations between the objecting Member and the Parliamentary Agent for the Bill are at once begun. It frequently happens that, as a result of these negotiations, an objection can be settled and the Bill allowed to go to Committee without further objection.
Promoters thus derive benefit from the existing procedure. So do Members. Many Members will have had the experience of being requested at short notice by an outside body or person to look into a particular provision in a Private Bill. The procedure of objecting at 2.30 is a quicker and more convenient method of discharging this obligation than that of collecting five other signatories and giving notice of Motion. Once a Motion has gone down, attitudes tend to harden, as all hon. Members will be aware. I am afraid that if at any stage in the negotiations a Member is required to put down a Motion backed by five other names those negotiations would be less fruitful, and the number of Second Reading debates on Private Bills might well increase.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley made some play with my evidence. I do not think that he quite did me justice. My point was not to avoid the seven o'clock debates, but the difficulties that I have to keep the Standing Orders. It may appear simple on paper but, as he knows, it is not as simple as all that. The amount of to-ing and fro-ing that I have to do before a seven o'clock debate is nobody's business.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. My regard for him is so strong that it is the last thing that I would want to do. What I wanted to say was that he had stressed the enormous difficulty that he
1192
has in getting evenings for these debates, and he has now borne out what I said.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: That is perfectly true. But this might add to my difficulties and increase the number of seven o'clock debates. Once the matter goes on the Order Paper it is much more difficult, as we all know, to get it agreed to.
My last criticism is perhaps the most important. The Joint Committee recommend that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be empowered to decide whether a Private Bill raises a new and important principle and, therefore, whether a debate on Second Reading is appropriate. But if this procedure were adopted the Chairman would be obliged to concern himself with the merits of Private Bills, and, as I have already pointed out, it is not the function of the Chairman to consider the merits of Bills.
In any case, it is difficult to see how he would decide what was a new and important principle in a Private Bill. Apart from extension Bills, Bills for county borough status and Bills promoted by nationalised industries, almost all the Bills which are nowadays debated in the House are Bills promoted by local authorities. If the Chairman were called upon to decide whether a particular power sought by a local authority raises a new and important principle, the exercise of his discretion would undoubtedly conflict with the non-party character of the office of Chairman of Ways and Means. It could not be avoided.
Under the present system the power to debate a Private Bill lies with the Members, and I am not aware that this power has been abused. It might be suggested that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in objecting to the Second Reading of every Private Bill, abused the procedure, but the hon. Member's ultimate objective was legitimate, even if his methods were unusual. Although the existing procedure is vulnerable, it is preferable, in my view, to the suggested alternative of requiring a Motion to be put on the Order Paper, signed by six Members. For all these reasons, I cannot advise the House to accept this recommendation.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether

1193
this procedure is so very unusual? There was, I believe, a precedent which was put to him in Question 286 in page 35 of the Report of the Joint Committee. It was:
"I am right, am I not, that in our time there has been a group of Members who made a regular habit of objecting to nearly all Private Bills; Sir Herbert Williams used to object to a great many?"
The right hon. Gentleman's answer was:
"A great many, not all."
Perhaps there is the difference that he objected not to all but only to a great many, whereas my hon. Friend has been even more comprehensive. Otherwise, there was a similarity.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: That is true. The late Sir Herbert Williams used to do that in quite a big way, but he was a very energetic man and took a great deal of trouble about it. If I had any criticism, it was that he had a group of people, who called themselves "Active Back Benchers", who knew nothing about them but told me that they would block Private Bills and when I asked them why they said that it was because Herbert Williams had told them to do it.
Mr. Mitchison: I want to urge the House to take some action in this matter. The Select Committee spent a very considerable time in trying to reduce the expenses and the time spent by people promoting Private Bills in this House, and, as we have just been told, the majority of those promoters are local authorities. Consequently, if their money is wasted or unnecessarily spent, it affects the ratepayers concerned. The more we can succeed in reducing the expense and the delay, the better service we shall be giving not just to corporations as such but to the people living and paying rates in the places concerned. I was very glad indeed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that so much had already been done in that direction.
This is not so much a question of direct expense as one of delay, although the delay involves expense. But we were told, rightly, that when this happens the objector is usually identified and negotiations take place, and so on. If the objection is constantly repeated that involves a whole number of attendances.
1194
I suggest to the House that there is a considerable number of Private Bills which cone forward, many of them from local authorities, some from other people, to which no reasonable objection could be taken.
Major Legge-Bourke: That is a matter of opinion.
Mr. Mitchison: Yes, it is a matter of opinion, but I wonder whether even the hon. and gallant Member would find it possible to object on principle to some of the Bills which at the moment, for instance, are on the list of Private Bills coming forward. Perhaps I do not have as acute a sense of principle as the hon. and gallant Member, but I should find it impossible to object to a number of them, particularly the small ones.
Some are promoted by people other than local authorities, possibly limited companies which are incorporated by charter and which want some reasonable and commercial extension of their powers. I must say that if there is objection to all of them, then I cannot feel that the impression made on either local authorities or the public can be very good. Nor can I believe, to put it frankly, if with some diffidence, that the impression can be one worthy of the best traditions of the House. If we had to defend ourselves on this matter before public opinion, we might find it difficult to do so.
There is no doubt—and let us face the facts and try to be reasonable in this sort of matter—that there have been cases, one or two of which have been mentioned tonight, in which hon. Members have objected to a whole bunch of Bills without having the least idea what was in them. That was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means himself in his evidence before the Select Committee. I quote from page 34 of the Report. He was asked whether, on
"…the procedure whereby a private bill becomes objected to, any Member can object on the Second Reading motion?—Yes. Sir.
276. He has to give no reason at all?—No, Sir.
277. So that you can get purely factitious opposition, or some purpose which may have nothing whatever to do with the Bill?—Yes, Sir.
278. By people who never have any intention of putting down a petition or anything of the kind?—That is so."

1195
On the following page there is the reference to
"…a group of Members who made a regular habit of objecting to nearly all Private Bills…"
There was one hon. Member, unfortunately no longer with us, who used to object to a great many.
I appeal to hon. Members who know what has happened on these occasions not to take refuge in saying that in every case an hon. Member who objects to a Bill really knows to what he is objecting. I am well aware and, if hon. Members are straight about it, they are well aware, too, that a great many objections are made not for that reason at all, or, indeed, for any reason connected with the Bill. Is that quite fair? The fairness to the petitioners, particularly local authorities, has to be considered.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is only fair to say that while no one was more of a thorn in my side than the late Sir Herbert Williams he always had reasons for objecting. It was not blocking for frivolous reasons, although some of his hon. Friends had no idea why he was doing it; but he knew what he was doing.
Mr. Mitchison: Let us leave this person out. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, both as regards his hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), he certainly agrees with me that there have been cases in which hon. Members have objected to Private Bills without knowing anything about them.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: I supported the hon. Member for Dudley at the end of my speech. I explained that although his methods were unusual he got what he wanted.
Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that there is any difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself on the facts. It is a matter within the knowledge of every hon. Member. I simply appeal to hon. Members to consider what actually happens. If they can assure me that they know perfectly well that everyone who objects to a Bill always knows what he is objecting to, and why, I will accept their opinion in that sense, but I am not sure that many Members will
1196
be able to do so. I take leave to express my own opinion. There are quite a number of cases in which I believe—and some in which I know—that Bills have been objected to for reasons quite irrelevant to the character of the Bills in question.
If that is the position—and it is rather probable when wholesale objection is taken to one Bill after another—it is not a very creditable one. I respectfully agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that in this matter one has to balance, on the one hand, the convenience of promoters and fairness to them—particularly local authorities—with, on the other, the rights of hon. Members who may have had short notice; who may know that the Bill is objectionable to the majority of their constituents but may not, at the moment when they first hear of it, he well acquainted with the reasons.
It is a question of balance between the two considerations, but I do not think that the right answer is to say. "We will come down entirely in favour of the present practice", more especially when we have had criticisms, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, from a number of people, some of whom have subsequently held your office, Mr. Speaker; another of them being one of the most distinguished Parliamentarians that have lived in this country for a long time—the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—and all of them taking objection to this practice and, indeed, taking the matter rather further and saying that it happens in the vast majority of cases.
I respectfully agree that a Bill ought not to be objected to on Second Reading in this House, but that objections ought to be taken in Committee. I agree that there are exceptions, but starting with that. I wonder whether it is not possible to take some action.
I make one suggestion, which I made in the form of an Amendment on the last occasion when this matter was on the Order Paper but which, having regard to the character of the Motion and the way in which my right hon. Friend was going to move it, I thought it better not to put formally on the Order Paper on this occasion. It seems to me reasonable that a first objection should be

1197
taken in that way. If there is a case for negotiations; if the hon. Member's constituents or he himself feels that the promoters have not really given the matter sufficient consideration or publicity, in spite of the statutory precautions for that purpose—which are very considerable—it would be reasonable to let him object in that way once, but to allow him to go on objecting without reason given, or possibly for some reason alien to the character of the Bill, is surely too much.
If that is so, what ought to be asked of him? I would not have thought that he ought to be asked to give any detailed reason. If he were to say that he did object to the Bill, and took the trouble to put an Amendment on the Order Paper to that end, I would regard it as better than nothing. I would like him to go a little further and get some support, but if, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means—which I greatly respect—he ought not to be asked to get any support, then let him at least be obliged to put down an Amendment. If he can give his reason I should think that it would be preferable that he should do so. I should have thought that there was no great difficulty in drafting an Order in a form which would enable him either to object generally or, if he had a special reason, to indicate it. Surely there must be very many cases in which hon. Members objecting to a Bill object not to the whole Bill but to some Clause in it or perhaps some principle in it which they feel to be wrong.
Sir James Duncan: In that case an Instruction is put down.
Mr. Mitchison: I agree, but that is a later stage. We have to reach that stage. If that is to be done, then there is no difficulty about putting something of that sort down at this earlier stage.
All I am suggesting to the House is that, on the one hand, we should be fair to the promoters of the Bill—and I do not think we are being fair to them at present—and, on the other, we should not deprive hon. Members of any opportunity or any right which they themselves would consider it fair to exercise.
I have put forward two suggestions and I will make one further observation
1198
before I conclude. I may be wrong, but I can find nothing definite in the Standing Orders about this practice. There are provisions about times and about unopposed and opposed Bills, but there is no provision which says in terms that all one has to do is to sit here and murmur "Object" loudly enough to be heard. It is not a question, therefore, of amending a Standing Order—
The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is the practice of the House. It is not in the Standing Orders.
Mr. Mitchison: That is exactly what I thought. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. This is, therefore, a question of introducing a Standing Order, not of amending a Standing Order. I do not know the history of the practice. It is obviously fairly long standing. How far it is a recommendation and how far it is not is for the House to judge, but what we are asking is a very small concession and, I suggest, a reasonable concession to people to whom we owe a duty and, among others, to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have lately been somewhat critical of the procedure of the House in matters of perhaps greater weight than that which we are considering now.
11.03 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am sorry to delay the House at this hour, for I realise that this subject is to some extent specialised. I am sorry that some hon. Members may find me tiresome in rising to speak now, but I want to say a few words if only because I have had some experience of being Chairman of Select Committees which have considered opposed Private Bills. It so happens that I have had the British Transport Commission Bill in the last three successive years.
Underlying the debate so far has been the fact that, on the whole, hon. Members believe that private legislation of this kind is a good deal less important than Government legislation. I have always been in considerable doubt about that. What I like about private legislation is that, for a change, it enables people to do things instead of enabling the Government to prevent people from doing things which they want to do. To that extent I am always sympathetic towards private legislation.

1199
Turning to the recommendation of the Committee over which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) presided with such ability, I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is absolutely right when he says that we should be extremely careful before we impose upon him or his successors the duty of deciding on the merits of a Bill or anything approaching that. It is important we should avoid asking him to decide whether any Private Bill introduced raises a new question of major principle. It seems to me that that would be a dangerous thing to ask him to do if we are to preserve, as I hope we always shall, the complete impartiality of the occupant of the Chair of Ways and Means.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that at the end of my speech I indicated that I was not wedded to that part of the recommendation. I moved it only because it is the whole of the recommendation which the Committee made, but for my part I should be willing to drop it, although I may add as a rider that the Chairman of Ways and Means has extremely good advice behind the Chair and it is not necessarily his decision to which he may have to come.
Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that—
The Chairman of Ways and Means: I do not get political advice.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not political, no.
Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman himself said, but I also appreciate that in a Committee of this kind there are, obviously, some differences of opinion even though a unanimous report is finally produced. But I think that we should be very careful before imposing on Chairmen of Ways and Means, or on the holders of other great offices of this House, the obligation of deciding upon merits which essentially would, sooner or later, involve party considerations.
A matter very much brought out in what has been said tonight is whether or not it is desirable for an ordinary back bencher to have the right just to say "Object" and so delay the passage of
1200
a Private Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made it very clear that he was not stressing the expense occasioned to local authorities by the delay caused when a Bill is about to achieve its Second Reading. He questioned whether or not it was right to delay the local authorities getting the Bill to the Committee stage. As I understood him, he stressed the delay rather than the expense. I am glad that he did, because I do not think that that expense is really very great.
What I do think is extremely important is that a back bencher should have the right to prevent a piece of legislation that might easily affect his own constituency, if nobody else's, going through without question. That right would be sacrificed if the recommendation was accepted. It would mean that a Member who found a piece of legislation was being introduced that would adversely affect his own constituency would be virtually powerless to do anything about it unless he could get six backers, and I do not think it is fair to expect those backers—who are, in any case, very busy men—to get down to the details of what will happen in the Member's constituency.—
Mr. Glenvil Hall: But his own constituency or groups, or whoever it might be within the constituency, would have the complete right to petition, which would be much more effective than the Member making a speech.
Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. If his aim is to save local authorities expense, I would say that it is infinitely less expensive for the Member representing the constituency to get up and say that he objects than it is for the local authority to prepare a petition. To that extent, I would say that it is very important—and the smaller the authority the more important it is for the back bencher to have the right to be able to object to a Private Bill.
There is another important consideration. Every day we get a large bundle of Order Papers, including Questions for the day, and on a separate piece of paper there is the private legislation which has been put down for consideration. Human error being what it is, that legislation sometimes get overlooked, and sometimes at the last minute emergency action has

1201
to be taken. It may be that had there been time, or if the Member had noticed it, he could have consulted the Parliamentary Agents for the promoters. There will be occasions when he will not have time to do that, in which case his only opportunity before the Bill goes to Committee is to say "Object". There are, therefore, many reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is absolutely right in saying that we should not accept this recommendation of the Joint Committee.
Finally, perhaps I may say that, in my experience at least, instructions on Second Reading are not altogether satisfactory when the Measure comes to the Committee, and I would agree with the quotation produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Collie Valley from the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee. It is really undesirable, in general, that the House should arrive at opinions about a Bill on Second Reading before it has heard all the evidence. I realise that there is something somewhat, contradictory in my saying that, but I still think it very important that we should still have that right. Occasions will arise when it is perfectly obvious that there is some matter which should be objected to on principle on Second Reading. If it were successfully carried it might very well prevent the Bill going any further, and that would save money for the local authorities or whoever was promoting the Bill.
If our aim is to try to ensure that local authorities and others promoting Private Bills are not put to unnecessary expense, we shall find, I believe, after taking and weighing carefully all the pros and cons, that less money would, on the whole, be wasted by rejecting the Motion than by accepting it.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. George Wigg: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but since my actions have been, not called in question, but mentioned, perhaps I might explain that my view is that the reform of the procedure of the House should be carried as far as it can be by consent. It is perfectly clear, now that we have heard the views of the Chairman of Ways and Means tonight, that the tide has gone as far forward as it can go at the moment. I would, therefore, think that my right hon. and hon.
1202
Friends would be well advised to call it a day and not press the Motion to a Division.
I do not regret taking the step I did in opposing every Bill, and I say quite plainly that I should do it again if it were necessary. At the moment, however, I believe that the procedure is working much more smoothly than it did. Of course, I do not quite share the old-world view—if I may say it with respect—of the Chairman of Ways and Means; nor do I share the completely old-world views of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). When I took the action I did in 1954, it was perfectly clear that there were influences at work in the House operating on Private Bill procedure which not only influenced what happened to a Bill when it came here, but which also influenced people before a Private Bill even got on the stocks. One has only to look at the influence of municipal advertising.
When I adopt a certain course of action, I try to do a little research beforehand. I was convinced that there were influences at work here that were not wholesome in their effect, and I therefore blocked all the Bills in order to focus attention on them and force the Government to do something about it; that is, to set up a Select Committee. That Select Committee has done a very useful job, and the influences to which I refer do not now operate.
I feel that we should be wise to leave it at that. The procedure has been to some extent simplified. The Chairman of Ways and Means is not quite right: I have not got all I wanted. I have got only some of it. But it will do for the time being, and later on, perhaps, we may start again.
In my view, we have gone as far as we can. We should be well advised to leave it as it is. I am influenced by what has been said, that if we adopt a new procedure it might result in greater complication in finding time at 7 o'clock. It might. Therefore, perhaps, we might let it go and see how it works, Of course, if there are further abuses at any time there will be opportunity again for objecting. One of the weaknesses in the thinking of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, for whom I have a great respect, is this: he said

1203
that any hon. Member can stand up and object. Hon. Members do not stand up to object; they sit down and object, and in some cases they even get some other "mug" to come and do the objecting. That has happened. The process has not always been one of sweetness and light.
I would go so far as to say that there is no more disgraceful episode in the history of the House of Commons than the operation of the Private Bill procedure during the last 150 years. Great fortunes have been made. Blocking Private Bills has feathered the nests of many. But that is not true today. Reform having gone as far as it can, I am extremely glad I took the step I did. I hope very much that it will never be necessary to do it again, but if it is—well and good: I shall do it.
I have always thought it was the job of the Leader of the House on these occasions to be present and to advise the House. I agree that the present Leader of the House seems to be unaware that the House of Commons is not his personal property but that he is its servant. He has treated the House with scant respect all through the negotiations on this matter, and the fact that he is not present tonight is a piece of gross impertinence.
11.16 p.m.
Mr. Henry Usborne: Since this Commission reported two and a half years ago, and since the Government have not apparently bothered to find time to let us debate it in all that time, and then put it on only as second business, I do not think Government supporters have any reason to complain if we take an hour or two of their time at this late hour. One cannot amend the procedure of Private Bills, except with virtual unanimity and agreement on both sides, and it is clear tonight that this Motion as it stands on the Order Paper and as it has been moved, would not get by. I think it could be supported as it is printed on the Order Paper. As printed, it asks the House to accept the recommendations of the Committee—recommendations in the plural. But, as it was moved, it was apparently proposed that only one—a comparatively minor one, dealing with the objection on the nod at 2.30—should be carried or dealt with.
1204
I think that the procedure, in which I have had some part to play myself, whereby a Private Bill is objected to by one person at 2.30, is pretty absurd. But I also think the procedure on Private Bills, from their genesis to their conclusion, is pretty absurd all along the line, and that one cannot really change one element of the procedure in this unless one is prepared to change many others. For example, one of the most ridiculous parts of this archaic procedure is the apparent necessity by which the corporation seeking powers prepares a Bill, has then to put it to the town meeting and, if it gets objected to there, has then to put it to a town's poll where it can be thrown out, as happened in Birmingham a few days ago, when nine Clauses were thrown out by a very small minority of people. If objectors in Birmingham, a small handful—scarcely two per cent.—more than half of whom did not know what they were objecting to, can object at that stage, it seems to me perfectly—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but reading the Motion, I think that it relates to our procedure in this House, and an opposed Private Bill means a Private Bill that has been opposed in this House. At the stage with which the hon. Gentleman is now dealing—the town meeting and the town poll—it is not really a Bill from our point of view; the Bill has not come into existence in a Parliamentary sense. It may be a draft Bill or a proposed Bill, but I do not think it is within the terms of this Motion.
Mr. Usborne: I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, after all, the Motion on the Order Paper does say that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Included in those recommendations, No. 22, is this: "Resolutions should be introduced to abolish town meetings and polls."
Mr. Speaker: But the Motion is not on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, but those recommendations relating to opposed Private Bills, and I think the words "opposed Private Bills" in this context must be read to mean Private Bills opposed in this House. What we mean by "a Bill in this House" is a Bill that has been introduced in this

1205
House, and not a draft in the hands of a local authority.
Mr. Usborne: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I must accept your Ruling, and I will merely say that one of the reasons—and I suppose that I am here entitled to say it—why I think it illogical to wish to remove the right of one hon. Member to object is that it is the parallel of a right which is apparently only quite absurdly granted to electors in the borough before the Bill reaches Parliament. I say, therefore, that until we can get all the absurdities, right from the genesis to the conclusion, changed and amended and the whole procedure altered, it is absurd to try to tinker with one very small part of a complicated and almost unmanageable procedure.
That brings me to another point I wish to make. As things stand today, I think it appears to most people to be absurd, undemocratic and unfair that one person sitting in his seat can say "Object" without very often even being able to say why he has objected other than that some hon. Friend of his asked him to do so. I myself have been responsible for doing precisely that.
Hon. Members will remember that last Session a Private Bill was introduced by Gloucester Corporation to which I and a number of other people objected on a large number of occasions. Finally, as a result of this objection, the Bill was introduced at 7 o'clock on a date which I do not happen to have in mind, and was then thrown out within ten minutes. Very few people, I believe, wished to throw it out. Nobody really quite understood why it was objected to, and those who had objected in the earlier stages merely wanted Clause 109 of the Bill altered. I believe that almost everyone, including the Home Office, was quite prepared to have that Clause altered.
How could one put down a reasoned Amendment to explain why one wanted Clause 109 of the Gloucester Corporation Bill altered? It was a particularly technical Clause involving the installation of oil burners, and very few people understood what it was all about. I happen to be in that trade, and I was informed by the association that the Clause was being introduced into a number of corporation Bills, that it was a totally unworkable instrument, and
1206
would I kindly look at it and try to explain in the House during the passage of such a Bill why that type of Clause was unworkable and why another type of Clause would be better.
I wanted to have an opportunity to explain this to the House, but I have not had it yet. I had to object on a large number of occasions to the Gloucester Corporation Bill in order to try to get an opportunity to make a speech after its Second Reading had been accepted. But I never got that opportunity because, having objected and got the Bill put down for a Second Reading at 7 o'clock, it never got its Second Reading, and I was never able to make a speech explaining why I wanted Clause 109 changed.
I would not labour the matter but for the fact that I must warn the Chairman of Ways and Means that there are two more corporation Bills on the stocks, both containing this objectionable Clause, to which I shall be obliged to object, or, if I am not able to be present at the time, to ask a number of my hon. Friends to object on my behalf. I am going to do this and give the House notice that I am determined to do so, and also that I am not going to try to explain to my unfortunate hon. Friends exactly what it is all about because it is extremely technical. I shall only say to them, "Please will you sit in your seats on a given Tuesday and say "Object", because if we can get it debated at 7 o'clock I shall make a speech and you need not bother to be here. If we can then get it debated at 7 o'clock I will make the speech myself." I take it that there are probably a great many other people who object in that kind of way or get other people to object for them.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: One should leave other people's constituencies alone.
Mr. Usborne: I do not follow that remark. Surely this matter affects almost every Member's constituency. I understand that the Home Office has it in mind, as a result of the discussions which went on about the Gloucester Corporation Bill, to prepare a model Clause for use in all subsequent Corporation Bills, so that in due course this will affect the whole nation. So important is this

1207
matter, in my view, that I have no reason to be ashamed of telling the House that I shall do my best to ensure that this model Clause is a workable and sensible one.
At the moment, I see no other method than to object as I have described. As a result, the Gloucester Corporation Bill came up at 7 o'clock one evening, and, as I have already said, for no reason that anyone could understand—except that the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) was a little aggrieved because he could not fish in the reservoir in Gloucester—the whole thing got thrown out in five or ten minutes, and Gloucester Corporation lost its Bill for a reason that it still cannot understand.
The whole of this procedure is extremely hard to work and difficult to understand. If there were a change, it would seem to me that a sensible method—I am no expert—would be to contrive a procedure under which Private Bills of this order should always automatically get their Second Reading on the nod and then should go to a Committee where a large number of particularly interested Members could manage to make their objections and criticisms.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are only four Members on the Committee?
Mr. Usborne: That is my point. Unless we can change the arrangement of the Committee which deals with these Bills upstairs so that more Members get onto it, those Members who want to speak will have to occupy the time of the House. Under the present arrangement they cannot get their voices heard where they ought to be heard—
Mr. Hayman: Does my hon. Friend realise that a Member on the Committee never makes a speech? He merely listens to evidence. The Committee's Report is never debated on Third Reading on the Floor of the House at all.
Mr. Usborne: That is exactly my point. Under the present arrangement Members of Parliament go upstairs and sit as judges or members of a jury. Then learned counsel who are paid high fees
1208
do the job which Members of Parliament ought to be able to do and address themselves to hon. Members. It seems to me to be topsy-turvy. The whole business does not seem to add up or to make any sense at all. I am merely saying that the procedure from start to finish is so rusty and absurd that it needs to be changed root and branch.
I conclude by saying that I do not think the procedure can be changed little by little or piece by piece. The whole thing must be changed fundamentally, and at the same time when that is done I am convinced that the whole concept of the town poll and the town meeting must be scrubbed and abolished. It is complete lunacy and utterly undemocratic, and the sooner we can get rid of it the better.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Will the hon Gentleman take it from me that the reason why the Gloucester Corporation Bill was objected to had nothing to do with the fishing rights of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), but that there was a substantial objection to several Clauses of some importance?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before we come to dispose of the Motion, which in a moment I shall ask the House to permit me to withdraw, may I ask whether it is not possible for the Leader of the House to say something to us? As I said earlier, this is the only opportunity we have had to debate this matter. The debate has been useful. Although the hour is now late and we all want to go home, in a matter of this kind we obviously ought to carry a majority of the House with us if we are to make a change. So far, at any rate, it is quite obvious that we do not carry the Government Front Bench with us, but I should like to commend to the Leader of the House the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), which certainly meets my views and, possibly, also the views of the majority of the House. I will not ask leave to withdraw the Motion at the moment because I understand that the Leader of the House intends to say something to us before I do.
11.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I did not intervene earlier

1209
because the Chairman of Committees had put many of the points with which I as Leader of the House and the Government are in agreement. I remember having a conversation with the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and I have actually been out to check the record of that conversation. A full record was kept, but I do not recognise in the record or from the witnesses who were present and whom I have now been able to summon, any allusions to my regarding those who approached me as non-U, as the right hon. Gentleman put it. My whole career has been devoted to a classless society, and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman as a brother in that society.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was very irate that I had left the Chamber.
Mr. Wigg: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I withdraw, but I also thought that he was not going to address the House. That is what made me angry.
Mr. Butler: I had some very cherished notes, but I did not wish to prolong the proceedings. That is why I did not address the House earlier. I accept the hon. Member's regret, but I hope that this will mean that he will temper his language on future occasions.
The case put and set out at length in the Select Committee's Report, and particularly in sub-paragraph 7, to which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley referred, is the crux of this debate. There is, of course, some anxiety in some of our minds about the expense and financial burden of promoting private legislation. This burden in the case of a local authority Bill falls upon the ratepayer and, therefore, this is not a matter which one can dismiss without any consideration at all. However, I do not think that considerations of expense and convenience are the only ones that should be present in our minds.
I think it is true to say that from time immemorial, in the tradition and history of Parliament, one dissentient voice in the House has been able to stop certain proceedings. An experiment was made in 1882, when the provision allowing objection to be taken by notice and not by
1210
personal attendance was done away with. As far as Private Business is concerned, one Member has always been required, if he is to be the dissentient voice, to attend and voice his objection in his place. This is an old tradition and one which, I think, we should not lightly let go by. After all, a Private Member is merely saying, when he objects at the time of unopposed Private Business, that he is not prepared to let the Bill have a Second Reading without a debate. This is the sort of right which we should be very cautious of taking away from a Private Member and one which we should preserve to him.
It is, of course, almost impossible—and this is what makes our business so difficult to understand outside this House and makes writing letters to the Press about us so easy—to restrain human nature. We cannot guarantee the motives and ideas which may flow transiently through the mind of any hon. Member when he indulges in this agreeable recreation of objecting to a Private Bill. But there is no doubt that if we were to do away with the privilege we should be taking away one of the principle privileges of a private Member. Therefore, I suggest that the expense and inconvenience should be accepted as a price worth paying for the strict control which individual Members rightly exercise over all the legislation which emanates from this House, be it public or private.
I have only one or two other small points to make. I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman's case as seriously as I can.
It is true that under Standing Order No. 60 (4), for example, the names of six Members must be put down to an Amendment to prevent Scottish Bills being committed to the Scottish Standing Committee, but I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House to the fact that this is not at a time of unopposed Private Business, and it is, therefore, different from the case that we are considering here. The present proposal on the Order Paper, for the acceptance of this provision, places an entirely novel restriction on Private Members, and is one which I could not recommend to the House.
There is one more reason. This is especially so because the same conditions

1211
apply to unopposed public business as to unopposed Private Business, and it would, therefore, be logical for any concession made in regard to the one to be extended to the other. I should certainly be opposed to any proposal to deprive a single private Member of his right to block the passage of Public Bills without debate after the hour of interruption of business, and for similar reasons I consider the proposal before the House unacceptable.
I do not believe that the right to block Private Bills is as often abused as we think. So often when a Member's conduct appears to others to be ill-considered or even irresponsible there are reasons which to him are cogent enough. I should prefer, therefore, that the House should continue to rely upon the good sense of hon. Members in this matter.
That is the conclusion to which we have come. It does not mean that this debate has not been worth while or that the labours of the Committee, which are enshrined in this volume, are wasted. I think it is regrettable that we did not have an earlier debate, but there were a variety of reasons why it had to be postponed. However, we have had a debate tonight, and I shall always be glad to be at the service of the House to carry forward debates on our procedure, and I hope that on other occasions I shall be able to be more constructive than I have been tonight.
Mr. Usborne: The whole debate hitherto has been conducted on the assumption, arising from the Ruling from the Chair, that the discussion of what happens to Private Bills before they reach here is not in order. Will time be given in Parliament when those parts of the Private Bill procedure and the 1933 Act can be discussed in the light of the recommendations of the Committee?
Mr. Butler: I should not like to give an undertaking tonight, but if the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends would like to discuss it with me, I should be glad to see them.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before I ask for the leave of the House to withdraw the
1212
Motion, I should like to make two observations.
First, I am extremely sorry that I made the references which I did to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards us when we went to see him. I regretted them as soon as I had uttered them. I did not entirely mean them. However, at the time we felt a little aggrieved that no opportunity was given us to debate what we thought was something which the House should consider.
Secondly, we shall see whether the present procedure—I admit that at the moment it obviously carries a majority of the House—can exist indefinitely, but I am afraid that for the moment we must leave it there. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not meet us even halfway.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Thomas Dugdale added to the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
Mr. J. Enoch Powell discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts Mr. Simon added.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Simon discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Renton added.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
Sir Thomas Dugdale appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund, in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
ESTIMATES
Sir Ian Horobin discharged from the Select Committee; Sir Peter Agnew added.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

REGULAR ARMY RECRUITING
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
11.40 p.m.
Mr. George Wigg: I am very sorry indeed that I am the cause of the Secretary of State for War having to take an Adjournment debate at this late hour, but at least it gives me the opportunity of wishing the right hon. Gentleman the best of luck in the very difficult task he has to handle. I am sure that from time to time I shall have critical things to say, but we have it in common that we both want to do the best we can for the Army.
In my good fortune in having this Adjournment debate, I do not want to weary the House. It is my purpose to bring to the notice of the House, and perhaps even to those outside the House who are interested, the fact that the November recruiting figures, published in the early days of January, now give us a firm basis upon which to make a projection, a short and long-term projection, which enables one to say that if these recruiting figures continue, certain results will follow.
Of course, I readily agree that one month is a short time in which to form an opinion, but it is equally clear that neither the Government nor the Opposition have all that amount of time for their defence manpower policies to work out. My right hon. and hon. Friends are committed to a four-year plan. The Government are committed to a policy which will have to be confirmed or abandoned before the existing National Service legislation expires at the end of the year.
It therefore becomes a matter of great interest to both sides of the House, to all the young men who may be called up, to industry, to those responsible for technical education and to the universities and the like. One is helped by the fact that one has almost the complete 1957 recruiting figures under all heads. For example, we know that in 1957, making an estimate for the December figures which are yet to come, 21,000 men enlisted on a three-year engagement. Those men will be serving in 1960. If one takes the 251 men recruited on a three-year engagement in November as a basis for a projection, that is 3,000 a year, 27,000 men will be serving on a three-year engagement on
1214
1st January, 1960. On 1st January, 1961, there will be 9,000, because the 21,000 who enlisted in 1957 will have left the Colours and will have been replaced by men enlisting at the rate of 3,000 a year which, for three years, makes 9,000 men.
We have also got as a guide the policy announced by the then Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Bill, that it was the Government's intention eventually to put a ceiling on the three-year engagement of 1,000 a year in order to get sufficient men for the Brigade of Guards, the Army Catering Corps, the Intelligence Corps, R.E.M.E. and the Corps of Military Police. So we can again carry on with our projections. On 1st January, 1960, there will be 27,000; on 1st January, 1961, there will be 9,000; on 1st January, 1962, there will he 7,000, and on 1st January, there will be 5,000. Finally, with the Government's announced ending of National Service, we run down to their figure of 3,000 on 1st January, 1964.
Now let us turn from the three-year engagement to the new nine-year engagement. In November, 830 men enlisted on the six-year engagement and 190 on the nine-year engagement. We have the exact figures for the rest of 1957, so that we know that in that year there enlisted 3,024 men on the six-year engagement and 1,865 on the nine-year engagement, making an assumption of the figures for the month of December. The figures I have taken are 750 on the six-year engagement and 170 on the nine-year engagement. I think that they are rather high figures.
There is another category about which, if one is making a projection into the future, one must take into account. I refer to that valuable recruiting source—boys. So far the number has remained constant. The figure for 1956—the last year for which we have the complete yearly figure—was 2,608. For my purpose I have taken a figure of 2,600, and I have assumed no casualties, deaths, invalidings, discharges by purchase—no non-effectives at all. For the purpose of doing my sums I have conceded that each ex-boy will give at least eight years' men's service, which is higher than the pre-war figure.
Taking those figures together, one can make a projection that by 1st January,

1215
1963, 5,000 men will be serving the three-year engagement; 52,884 the six-year engagement; 13,265 the nine-year engagement, and 20,880 ex-boys. Although I always work on the basis of male Regulars, I am allowing a figure of 18,000 for officers.
The answer, as on 1st January, 1963, is a total of 109,949, as compared with the Government's ceiling of 165,000. But one has to remember that we did not suddenly start the Army from scratch in October or November. There is a considerable number of men serving long-term engagements—ten years and twelve years, and there are even some on the three-year engagement who may continue to serve. One does not know what that figure is. I do not know; I do not believe that the Government know; I do not believe that anybody can know, because in thousands of cases the men have not yet taken the decision either to leave or to stay in the Army. My estimate—again on the high side—is 25,000. If the Secretary of State says that that is low I would not deny that that is possibly so, but that would make a total of 134,000.
Turning to 1st January, 1964, the comparable figures are 3,000 on the three-year engagement; 59,832 on the six-year engagement; 15,545 on the nine-year engagement; 20,800 ex-boys and 18,000 officers, giving a total of 117,177. If I make the allowance of 25,000, that gives a figure, which is on the high side, of 142,000. The same limitations apply in this case. I have made the allowance of 25,000 for those who are serving at present and who will stay in the Army. I admit that that figure is more a guess than an estimate.
May I turn to the long-term projection. If hon. Members are in doubt about these figures I ask them to take a minute to do this simple sum. Let them start in October, 1957, and imagine that two men join the Army every month after that, one on a six-year engagement and one on a nine-year engagement. This is the crux of the man-year calculation which I have had difficulty to persuade many hon. Members on both sides of the House to accept. This is the crux of the matter, whether we are talking in terms of commitments or in any other terms. What we get out of these men in terms of man-years is what matters.
1216
The two men start equal but one is on a six-year engagement and the other is on a nine-year engagement. After six years the Army will be 144 strong. After nine years it will have risen to 180. But there is a further factor to take into account. In order to keep the bias against myself, I am making no allowance for non-effectives at all—no deaths, no discharges, no invaliding out, no desertions. I am allowing an average of eight years' man's service for every man, which, again, is higher than the pre-war figure. The Army which we shall eventually get on that basis is 192. That figure will be attained only after 22 years, because it takes into account that some men enlisting for six and nine years will extend their service to 20 years and in some cases longer.
Let us do a projection based upon the November recruiting figures, taking every available factor into account and leaving no margin at all for non-effectives. The assumption which I make is that in the case of three-year engagements the Army will gain at least ten per cent. by extension of service. As I have said, in the case of the man on six years and nine years, we shall get an average of eight years out of each man. From boys we shall get eight years' man's service each. The figures are then 3,300 men on three-year engagements; 96,000 on six-year and nine-year engagements; 20,800 ex-boys and 18,000 officers. The total figure is 138,100.
We thus reach an extraordinary situation. I ask right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to see the logic of the position in which they have landed themselves by playing politics with this problem. Suppose that as a result of the Government's pay increases and the improvement of conditions, or suppose that as a result of my right hon. Friend's four-year plan, we succeed in doubling the rate of recruitment at once. Suppose that the thousand a month recruiting now on six and nine-year engagements becomes 2,000. I warn the Government that that is the figure which they will have to attain; they will have to double the recruiting figure if they are to close the gap on the basis of this long-term projection. That is what they must do to reach the figure of 165,000.
If they doubled the rate of recruiting they would reach the figure of 165,000,

1217
but four years later they would have about 40,000 or 50,000 too many. One now sees the rhythm of the Government's proposals. In July they introduced a compensation White Paper in which they announced proposals costing £50 million by which men would leave the Army.
In January they have a Treasury crisis. The Chancellor and his colleagues resigned because they do not want to give any more money to the Forces, but the Defence Minister must save the situation, and the Government will now spend £35 million to £40 million to get more recruits. If the policy succeeds and the Defence Minister has his way, and we double recruiting, then, in another four or five years another Chancellor of the Exchequer will resign, because another Defence Minister will come to the House and offer £50 million to the 40,000 or 50,000 surplus men to leave the Army.
That is the wonderful position into which we have got ourselves. I am not suggesting for a moment that tonight the Secretary of State can refute my figures. I know that he cannot. I know the answer that I would give myself were I in his position: the argument that we have not all the data, that it has not yet finished, and that this is only one month. But in a few months' time we shall have the December figures, and if I am lucky enough to get the Adjournment debate so soon I will do my sums again, because the country should know the truth at the earliest possible moment. The one thing we cannot afford to do is to go on doling out £50 million every half year to induce men to leave the Army and, in the other half, to offer £50 million to get them into the Army. Someone must make up his mind.
I am quite used to being told that my information is incomplete. On 29th January, 1953, I said that the three-year engagement was not the answer, and I was howled down for saying so. I went on saying it, and later, when we were given the figures of re-engagement, I again expressed my doubts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and that by some magic he will get the recruits he wants, but I tell him quite honestly, even though I may rouse the ire of the Minister of Defence, that I do not think that it is possible. I say that because the problem is not primarily one
1218
of recruitment. What has gone wrong as a result of the introduction of the three-year engagement, and as a result of its absurd retention long after its usefulness had ended, is that the structure of the Army has been so distorted that it, will take several years to put it right. My guess is 12 or 13 years.
On the whole, the long-term recruitment figures for November are good, and better than the Government had a right to expect. If the Government were wise, they would abandon the absurd proposals they have put forward in the last White Paper and adopt a slow-but-sure policy—better accommodation, better married' quarters; better pay, if they think it necessary—better conditions all round. As was said in another place earlier, let the Army be a good employer. A good employer does not give good pay and good conditions only when it suits him, but does it as an act of justice to those serving him. If the Secretary of State for War will do that, he will lay the foundations of what will, one day, be a successful recruiting policy.
11.58 p.m.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the kind words he addressed to me. One of the agreeable features of this particular post is that one has frequent opportunities of debating these matters with him.
I would first of all like to deal with his point that the Government are paying a large sum of money one year to encourage people to leave the Army and then in the next year paying a large sum of money in order to try to attract more people into it. He knows, of course, that the two payments are not in any way comparable. If one is running down the Army one can run down the number of other ranks very quickly, but one cannot do that with the corps of officers. The compensation payments are, of course for officers and senior N.C.O.s, whereas the other payment to which the hon. Member referred would be made try) attract a large number of recruits.
About two things we would all agree. First, we would agree as to the great knowledge the hon. Gentleman has of defence in general, and particularly of the Army, and, secondly, we would agree as to the assiduity with which he gains

1219
his facts, checking them and rechecking them before he airs them in public. As a result, those who are responsible for matters of defence on this side of the House do not often find themselves differing from the hon. Gentleman over facts, but where we frequently have to differ from him is over the conclusions which he draws from those facts. That is the position in which I find myself this evening. I am grateful to him for having given me a sight of the figures which he has quoted, which enables me to give him a considered reply.
There are two main reasons why I differ from his conclusions. To one of them he referred himself. It is that his conclusions are not based on adequate statistical information. The three-year engagement only came to an end at the end of September; in fact, there was a hang-over into October. And, of course, the three-year engagement does distort the picture of the six and nine-year engagement; so that November was the first month when we could get some idea of the numbers coming in on six and nine year Regular engagements.
November, on the other hand, is the only month on which the hon. Gentleman drew up his figures. I cannot blame him for that, because they were the only figures available to hip. But what I am saying is that the conclusion which he tried to draw was, what was going to be the size of the Army in 1963; and he based that upon one month's recruiting in 1957. If he were running a cricket team, he would not drop a batsman who did not score a century the first time; and he certainly would not do so if it was on a sticky wicket. November is a sticky wicket, notoriously so. November and December are bad months for recruiting. Just before Christmas, if a young man is contemplating going into the Army he is inclined to remain at home over Christmas and join the Army soon afterwards, in January or February. The variations in recruiting figures for different seasons of the year are really very considerable. Here again, what the hon. Gentleman has done is to take the figures for one month only in the year and project those forward. If one does that, surely one falls into the oldest statistical trap of all, which is to multiply error by starting from a false premise.
1220
If one's premise is wrong, the further one has to take it and the more one multiplies it, the greater becomes the error. So my first reason for disagreeing with his conclusions—although I fully see his point, that they are the only figures open to him—is that he has tried to draw conclusions too hastily and base them on insufficient information.
Secondly, even if we were to accept that the hon. Member's conclusions were soundly based, all that they would show us would be the numbers of men who would be likely to join the Army as Regular soldiers under existing conditions. But conditions will change; they must change. He referred to the good employer policy. A good employer must be flexible in both thought and action, and he must change with the times. Conditions will be changing for the better. Financial improvements are to be announced shortly. A large building programme has been got under way, which will make living conditions very much better.
I know that the hon. Member would not under-estimate the effect of the added incentive to recruitment, for a man who wishes to go into the Army as a vocation, of spending a goodly part of his life in the Armed Forces as a volunteer. How much more agreeable is it for a true volunteer to spend his time with other volunteers. While not in any way denigrating the National Service man—we all pay tribute to the good they have done in the past years—the fact remains that in almost every barrack room every week there is one National Service man going. I think the barrack room terminology is "release happy"—he sticks up a calender behind his bed, ticks off the days, and gets more and more excited as the day gets nearer. That has an effect on morale and on those who are contemplating signing on; and if one wants to be a regular career soldier, it is more agreeable to be so in an all-Regular Army than in a mixed Regular and National Service Army.
I shall not try to forecast tonight what effect these considerations will have on the level of recruiting, but I am sure they will have a considerable effect and should not be ignored. But of necessity the hon. Gentleman, only wanting to start from definite, established figures, has ignored them; and they will, I am sure, make a considerable difference.

1221
To sum up, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if the figures for November, 1957, are not improved upon we shall not get an Army of the strength we require. But I do not believe the shortfall will be as serious as he has suggested. I do not agree either that there is enough statistical evidence yet available from which to draw conclusions for the years ahead, or, more important, that the present recruiting figures for November will not be improved. I do not regard
1222
the task we have set ourselves as being impossible of attainment; but neither am I complacent about it. We are going fiat out to close the gap. I know his concern for the Army is such that he will be as pleased as any of us, if in the event the figures confound his pessimism.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Books (Postal Rates)
  Books (Postal Rates)
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Postal Delays (Member's Complaint)
  Postal Delays (Member's Complaint)
  Television Reception, Swindon Area
  Television Reception, Swindon Area
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Pedal Bicycles (Rear Lights)
  Pedal Bicycles (Rear Lights)
  Working Hours (Staggering)
  Working Hours (Staggering)
  Road Programme (Schemes)
  Road Programme (Schemes)
RAILWAYS
  Automatic Train Control and Radar
  Automatic Train Control and Radar
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Rocket Sites
  Rocket Sites
  Ballistic Missiles
  Ballistic Missiles
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Minister of Defence (Personal Assistant)
  Minister of Defence (Personal Assistant)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (FERTILISERS AND FORESTRY)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (FERTILISERS AND FORESTRY)
  HUNGARY (HUMAN RIGHTS)
  HUNGARY (HUMAN RIGHTS)
  U.S.S.R. (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  U.S.S.R. (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  YEMEN (DELEGATION)
  YEMEN (DELEGATION)
MIDDLE EAST
  Oil Supplies (Development)
  Oil Supplies (Development)
  United Nations Emergency Force
  United Nations Emergency Force
EMPLOYMENT
  Cost of Living (Railway Fares)
  Cost of Living (Railway Fares)
  Shipbuilding (Draft Regulations)
  Shipbuilding (Draft Regulations)
  Defence Production (Redundant Workers)
  Defence Production (Redundant Workers)
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
  Daimler Company (Foundry Workers)
  Daimler Company (Foundry Workers)
  West Fife
  West Fife
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Machine Tool Industry, Coventry
  Machine Tool Industry, Coventry
  Scotland
  Scotland
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Call-up
  Call-up
ROYAL NAVY
  Shipyards (Steel Supplies)
  Shipyards (Steel Supplies)
  H.M.S. "Royal Oak"
  H.M.S. "Royal Oak"
  Naval Ordnance Design and Inspection Pool (Report)
  Naval Ordnance Design and Inspection Pool (Report)
  Suez Canal (Clearance Cost)
  Suez Canal (Clearance Cost)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Chew Valley (Reservoir)
  Chew Valley (Reservoir)
  European Local Authorities (Conference)
  European Local Authorities (Conference)
  Public Open Spaces (Grants)
  Public Open Spaces (Grants)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wardle Airfield, Nantwich
  Wardle Airfield, Nantwich
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Supersonic Airliner
  Supersonic Airliner
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY DELEGATION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  North Eastern Trading Estates Limited
  North Eastern Trading Estates Limited
BRITISH ARMY
  Civilian Doctors (Payments)
  Civilian Doctors (Payments)
  Lord Montgomery (Statement)
  Lord Montgomery (Statement)
  Royal Scots Fusiliers and Highland Light Infantry
  Royal Scots Fusiliers and Highland Light Infantry
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in view of the fact that there are twenty speakers down for to-day, it may be necessary to sit during dinner, and arrangements have been made for dinner to be served.

DEFENCE
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to questions of defence, with special reference to the situation arising from the N.A.T.O. Conference; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am sure it is in the minds of all your Lordships that in the past few weeks there has been growing anxiety in the public mind about our position as a nation in relation to defence and security in all the modern circumstances which have arisen; and that that anxiety has included, certainly among large sections of the population, what is likely to be the policy arising out of the Conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Paris last December, the White Paper in respect of which was laid before Christmas. One thing that is always essential in these matters of defence and security is that we ought to try on all occasions to abstain, so far as we can, from utterances which may give rise to unnecessary fears in the minds of the population. Anybody who has been associated with the organisation of national defence knows how strongly this aim has to be promoted in the course of that organisation. The situation is such, however, that I think the more frank the Government are with the population the less likelihood there will be of misunderstanding and of unnecessary fears arising, although far be it from me to say that at the present time there are not sufficient circumstances operating as would be
72
likely to give rise to fairly widespread fears.
This Conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation took place in Paris, and if we are to have a number of references to it in the course of our debate to-day, as no doubt we are, it might be as well for me to say a few words at the outset about my own Party's attitude to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There seems to be a tendency in some quarters to be surprised at the fact that a member of my Party should have reiterated in the other place during the debate on December 20 our general support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But the people who take that line must surely have forgotten that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was not initiated in the United States of America. It was initiated largely as a result of the failure to come to anything like a reasonable basis of agreement with Russia and the satellite States at the Paris Conference of 1946, and subsequent near events after that date, which led to my noble friend who will be replying to the debate to-day for our side, Lord Attlee, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, and at later stages, myself, being responsible for the ab initio steps which led to the formation of what ultimately resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There is no need for anybody to question the general support of the Labour Party; and no Party has less reason to be ashamed of its contribution in the defence elements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation than the Party which I have the honour to represent. I say that at the outset only because I want us to have in mind in what we say, so far as we can, the general anxiety for a desire to contribute to the security and safety of our nation and the Commonwealth.
The situation arising out of the 1946 Conference and leading to the initial steps which were first brought near to fruition was the signing of the Treaty of Dunkirk, in March, 1947; and I am proud to be the only living British representative who signed that Treaty. It had very important and wide developments. We could not have got the Treaty at Dunkirk (let me say this factually) if we had not already published the decision, later to be implemented in May, 1947, to introduce National Service. We should not have got the Treaty at Dunkirk and, therefore,

73
we should not have proceeded to the Treaty of Brussels, nor to the stocktaking of the military position of the Brussels Treaty Powers, to which we invited representatives of Canada and the United States; and, therefore, we should not have got, so far as we can see, looking back, the beginnings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I think it is important to keep these earlier basic facts in mind. I also want to make my position quite plain—and I am sure I speak also on behalf of the great majority of my Party in the country—as to the reason for doing it.
The position was made equally plain, as some people think it has been made plain to-day, that some such steps to empower the Western nations to defend freedom against any departure from it were made necessary by the clear attitude of the Russian representatives during the three and a half months of the Paris Peace Conference and by the subsequent breakdown of the negotiations at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Secretaries. The attitude that we as a Government felt obliged to adopt, taking the advice of our military advisers, and gradually getting to some understanding with the United States and Canada, was that it was essential to bring about the greatest organisation of power possible, within the limits of what could then be done by Western nations, recovering from the enormous contributions that they had had to make in the general fight for freedom.
There is no doubt in my mind—subsequent events have proved it—that if we had not taken the initial step to get the Dunkirk Treaty, in announcing our decision on National Service; if we had not had National Service to give us the strength, we could not possibly have carried out our commitments, both as regards occupational forces and as regards the more violent, although more minor, outbreaks of trouble in different parts of the Commonwealth, and also our general Commonwealth policing work. The building up of the Western defence service in general could not have been carried on for the length of time that we carried it on, unless we had had adequate personnel to do it.
There came a time—and all these things must be borne in mind—in the late 1940s, when the attitude of the
74
Russians in Germany was such that my Government had to co-operate with the United States in a vast and continuous airlift to relieve the West German section of Berlin and other surrounding West German territory. Without that organised operation we should perhaps not be in the position even that we are to-day, of being able still to discuss what we are to do. That particular phase led to what was perhaps the breaking of the chain in the building up of collective Western strength, because it led to the obvious conclusion that, if there was a possibility of still further developments of the Russian attitude, that certainly was something we had to guard against. That led to the triennial programme, which amounted in the first instance to an enormous figure, of which the British share was to be £3,500 million in three years and which, during the course of the early operation of that programme, we were persuaded by the United States to raise to £4,700 million.
Looking at the state of affairs to-day, and looking back, one has to sort out the contributory factors which have led to the kind of national defence and security position that we have to face to-day—apart, of course, from the other obvious scientific and technical developments in major weapons of aggression. We were able to go on with that programme right up to 1951. We had in the meantime to strengthen overseas forces; we had to send another division and squadrons of aircraft to Hong Kong, and we had to take part in the operations in Korea. Again I say that we were able to do it only because the forces were kept up to strength in manpower and equipment. Let all who contemplate the general situation of national defence and security first of all bear these basic and modern historical facts in mind.
As the Government in 1951, we were faced with a deterioration in the situation of the £, and we had been facing two Election campaigns—and here I must be political—in which the country was urged to give up controls and restrictions and told that there must be much more economic freedom for the people and no restraint. The consequence was that, instead of getting the controls for which we asked for a mandate to continue our defensive as well as economic measures, we had the political results which have gradually led up to the situation to-day.

75
For mark the general position of our forces! They are not on the basis of the Labour plans of pre-1951. Our expenditure has been increasing from year to year almost up to the full monetary position in figures that would be one-third of the £4,700 million programme. But we have not the forces or manpower, or the equipment, that would have been provided under the estimates of costs in 1949 to 1951. As a result of the general economic policy and a free-for-all, we have had to continue spending almost the same figurative amount on the armed forces, yet finding delivered far less, in really trained manpower and the modern equipment that we need to-day, than was planned. I want to make that clear as my plain opinion of what the situation is.
Having regard to what I have said, your Lordships will see that my conviction, at any rate, is that if we are to have an adequate defence against the possibilities of the onward march of totalitarian Communism in the world we must go on supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But there are more ways than one in which that can be done. It seems to me that if this country was in fact one of the countries responsible for bringing into being the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we ought to have and to continue to retain the most vital influence in that Organisation. The question I ask myself after the Paris Conference is, do we still retain that position? Of course, in the United States the Conference is claimed as a general victory for the enormous programme which is now foreshadowed in the record total amount of the Budget announced in the President's message to Congress. We are told it is a victory, whereas it is quite clear, from reading the concurrent detailed and informed Press accounts, that there was a good deal of division of opinion among certain members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
When we come to consider that position, I wonder whether we have done all that we could, as a nation, to retain our vital influence in the Organisation and to be able to speak our mind at the right time. First of all, we dealt a shattering blow to our influence in the Organisation by the Suez adventure; of that there can be no doubt at all. The details of that matter I am certainly not going to discuss
76
this afternoon. But the other thing which I think has had an equally deteriorating effect upon our influence is the fact that we find, if we look the facts straight in the face, that we as a nation at the present time are in process of unilateral disarmament, included in which is the withdrawing of certain British forces from the occupational forces. We must bear in mind that it was Sir Anthony Eden, as Foreign Secretary, who gave the pledge, wise or unwise, that we would retain our occupational forces there for fifty years. We cannot close our eyes and ears to the utterances amongst the Powers as to the general effect upon the collective strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, especially in view of the dangerously increasing offensive power of a potential enemy, of our withdrawing forces at this time.
I think there is a lot of sound logic in the Ministers who have said that we must do the best we can in present circumstances and we ought not to have to take more than the fair share we have to bear. That was always a point in my mind when I was arguing with Ministers of Defence of other countries in the years 1947–50. But if you want to retain the vital influence in this great Western Organisation, you must, in both those matters I have mentioned, see to it that you consult them first. Was that done? There was certainly no consultation over Suez, and I do not know that there was any consultation at all about the reduction of our occupational forces. Some people say that perhaps there were consultations; others on the Continent have denied that there were any such consultations. However, I am putting this position forward because I want our country to be a worthy member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was set up with our help purely for defensive, and not offensive, reasons. I feel that if we are to make it into the wider organisation, as is indicated—and I am glad to see it indicated—in the White Paper, of economic co-operation in general, then we must have the common sense to be really frank with all our Allies in that Organisation, and before we do things have consultations with them.
I would add also that when we come to the general consideration, as we must do, of what is to be done about the great

77
and new powerful weapons that are called the ultimate deterrents, we must remember that all the Western nations have said that, even if an agreement were made, partial or whole, on the banning or putting out of action for the time being of this ultimate deterrent, it would not be satisfactory to them unless we proceeded to a wider and fuller agreement covering conventional weapons as well. I beg the House to note that in the process you are now in the middle of pursuing, of unilateral disarmament, you will have little to put on the table if it comes to a discussion, ultimately, on the banning of the ultimate deterrent and then continuing to a further agreement on conventional weapons.
I must say, too, that I think it is much to be regretted that we have been forced to this position of unilateral disarmament not because of international political considerations; we have been forced to this position, as I understand the statements of the Government from time to time, purely on economic grounds. And those economic national results can truly and fairly be laid at the door of the "free-for-all" policy for the community ever since 1951. I think that that is a very serious position to take for a country which must, whatever mistakes this section or that section of political opinion may make from time to time, secure its defence and its security.
Having said that, let me say a few words about some details of the present defence position. The announcement was made last July by the Minister of Defence of the reorganisation of the Army. I am certainly not going into any of the minor differences that have taken place about the regimental dispositions which the Government desire. But I do remember that all this arose out of the decision to cut the Army very much indeed and to do away with National Service and finally to bring in a system by 1960, if possible, of voluntary recruitment. I said at the time that I thought it was very unwise to make a public decision on the abolition of National Service without first having ascertained, as nearly as possible, that you would be able to meet your target of manpower in the Army by 1960.
Since then most of us have been watching the recruiting figures closely, and I have been able to obtain some estimated figures which I think are most important and far-reaching. They were prepared,
78
strangely enough, by my honourable and gallant friend in another place Mr. George Wigg, who, again strangely enough, has an Adjournment Motion on this matter on this very day. When I examined these careful estimates I came to the conclusion that the Government ought to consider this matter again and try to find out what should be done. An announcement was made (I have not the exact reference in my mind) to the effect that it was the intention of the Government, within about twelve months, to reduce the target for three-year enlistments to an annual figure of about 1,000—I think I am right—and to promote enlistments for periods of six years and nine years respectively, including, of course, any re-enlistments from those periods for even longer periods of service, if acceptable, afterwards.
I have looked at these figures most carefully. In dealing with the strength, we have to take into account what will be the actual number of men serving under the existing three-year enlistment. The calculation is that in 1957 the number under this enlistment was 21,000. But in 1958 we take into account only the expected recruitment of 1,000 per year under the new plan, and the figure will have dropped to 3,000; and by 1959 it will still be 3,000. In 1961 the strength at the beginning will be 9,000, and the intakes in 1958, 1959 and 1960 will be 3,000, and so it goes on until 1964. You get 1,000 in each of the years 1961, 1962 and 1963.
If you take the effect of the figures which have been estimated for the longer-service enlistments, you find that, in the six-year enlistment category, starting in 1957, there should be just over 3,000, and that in each of the next five years there will be added (if you take the optimistic figure enlisted for the month of November, 1957, as likely to be continuous through that period), an actual figure of 9,972, which would give a strength in 1963 for the six-year enlistments of 52,000-odd men. Without going through the details I can say that in the case of the nine-year enlistments there would be a total in 1963 of 13,265. That makes a total of just over 66,000. With the further addition of the three-year enlistments, and with the addition of those who enlist as boys and who will have fairly long service—perhaps an average of eight years—and allowing for a fixed

79
figure of, say, 18,000 officers, the strength by 1963 would not be more than 109,000, whereas we have understood from the target of the Minister of Defence that his requirements for the Army at that date will be 165,000. That is a very large shortage. What is to be done in those circumstances?
It could well be argued by people who have had the sort of experience that I have had in regard to National Service that you ought to make quite sure that you have something at work to replace your lack of voluntary recruits by National Service. But it seems to me (the Minister who replies will correct me if I am wrong) that the decision to revert from National Service to voluntary recruitment was taken without having in mind a certain plan to be operated if there should be a shortage of recruits.
Various experts that I have met have examined this problem, and I was interested in the note in the leader in the Daily Telegraph of January 16 emphasising that, in their view, the ending of conscription is anti-inflationary in the long run and therefore worth what they called the extra expense in the short run. We do not yet know, and I take it that we must wait until we have the annual Defence White Paper and the various Departmental Estimates to know whether it is the intention of the Government to launch a special scheme of high inducements to potential voluntary recruits. I am told that "Rumour is a lying jade," but there have been a good many people who have an opinion—this is one of the matters upon which dispute arose among Ministers which led to resignations—as to the amount to be provided to boost the number of voluntary recruits. Of course, that will remain to be seen by events as they emerge, unless, of course, the Minister in charge to-day can tell us more about that particular aspect of the matter.
I should have hoped that the country would not want to reach back into a National Service scheme of the magnitude and breadth of the one which we have had operating for the past few years; but if we are going to be faced with some form of service it is almost certain that, in existing circumstances, it would not be possible to rely upon the general kind of National Service that we
80
have had, but that some selective scheme of service would be required. But directly you come to a selective scheme of service you find that you have so many exemptions or long delays in the professional and technical categories—from the medical, engineering and scientific sides—that in the end it would be the poor ordinary industrial, general clerical and lower middle-class section which would have to bear the burden of selective conscription. Therefore, I hope that we may have at least some general indication from the Government about how it is proposed to deal with what seems at present, on all the reasonable estimates that we can make, to be a serious lag behind the target—the reduced target, let me emphasise—for the Forces which was set by the Minister of Defence in his Statement last April.
There is another thing I should like to ask about which gives me some cause for concern. Your Lordships will remember that there was issued a dispatch from the Commander-in-Chief of the Government's forces which were engaged in the expedition to Suez. I want to draw special attention to two short paragraphs. At page 5328, in paragraph 3, he mentions among the main limitations to his operations:
"limited resources of landing craft and air transport,"
and he says:
"We had only a total of 18 L.S.T.s and L.C.T.s. We had an air lift for two battalions but very limited air supply resources."s
On page 5330 he again emphasises:
"The next problem was when to use our airborne forces. We had a limited airborne effort but in particular our air supply lift and air supply resources were very restricted."
I believe that as recently as in the Defence Paper of April, 1957, the Minister laid down that there were to be central reserve forces and that, because of the need for moving them about, an ample or sufficient lift to convey them must be provided. Will anybody suggest that the kind of resources placed at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief whom I have just quoted were anything like adequate?
The original Labour Government programme provided that by Hastings and certain other classes of aircraft we could have reached, certainly long before 1957. a total airlift weight of nearly 6½ million lb.; and, so far as I can gather, taking

81
an estimate of the wastage that has taken place in the planes built under that programme, we have had delivered as replacements only about forty-seven Beverleys. I believe that there are Britannias on order but not one has been delivered, and I should like to ask the Minister a straight question: whether the total airlift at our disposal to-day would reach 2½ million lb. I hasten to say that, disastrous as a position of that kind is, and could be in an emergency, the same thing applies to naval craft and should also be very carefully examined. In fairness to this country, I would say that if one looks at the evidence of Admiral Radford, the Allied Chief, before the Congressional Committee, one sees that he had to admit that they had not sufficient transport planes to give an airlift to one division to any other place in the world—and America is the principal military country in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. These things that I am saying to your Lordships this afternoon are not just wisps of fancy. So far as I can check them, they are the facts, and I want to ask the House, and the country if need be, whether they are satisfied with our state of defence and security.
There are one or two other things I should like to say briefly. I am sorry to have taken so long, but I wanted to be quite careful about my facts. From the beginning of my association with my noble friend Lord Attlee in setting up the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, I have argued the vital importance of being able to proceed at our international discussions from strength. I have never Jailed to support that principle. I am not for a moment saying that that view has always been secured from every section of the supporters of my Party; nor has that been so in other Parties. But I have wanted to be able to proceed to argue from strength. But the situation to-day is that, while we have become, on the whole, very much stronger than we were, to take a date, in 1948–49, when we were still in course of beginning a build-up, nevertheless Russia has grown much stronger still and is all the time under the great advantage that by her totalitarian and cruel methods at home she can so move up or down the standard of life of her people as to make sure, whenever she wants to concentrate on technology and scientific
82
rearmament, that everything else goes by the board. That is a very serious position. During the whole of the time that we have gone on increasing our strength there has never been any let-up in the numerous conferences with Russia on disarmament and cognate subjects.
Is it to be thought that in our present economic position, with the continued drain not merely upon our resources but also upon American resources, with the kind of Budget now projected by the President, the free populace in these countries will accept a continuance of that rate of expenditure to enable us to say that we are going to negotiate only from strength? Or have we to return to a very old and, I believe, on the whole, in our history a well-tried system—to arm as much as we can and to parley?
That is almost all I have to say. I am afraid that I have taken too much of your Lordships' time but I do beg this House and the other House, and the nation, to note some of the facts that I have tried to put before your Lordships; and I beg of Her Majesty's Government that when they come to present their White Paper on Defence within the next few months they will try to give the country some hope on two things. First, we want to be sure that they are seeing what they can do to improve the efficiency of the defences that we have and deciding a better basis for the defences we may yet have. If we are going to cut our Army by one half then we must surely give them much more powerful weapons of defence. What, and at what cost? It is matters of this kind that I have never heard discussed or projected here, and which we ought to know when we are dealing with major defence policy in the circumstances in which we live today.
The second thing for which I would ask is that there should be a clear indication not only that there may be closer consultations between this country and other N.A.T.O. members before we go into individualistic action, but also that the members of the N.A.T.O. Council will see that they are in control. We have had a great deal of anxiety shown in this country about flying hydrogen bombs in American aviation practices and the like. All kinds of things have been appearing. I have been reading of the kind of mentality that gets into the minds of professional staffs when one is dealing with

83
these things. I have protested over and over again about the policy statements made by high officers in the course of the last five or six years. Let me quote from the Royal United Services Journal of November, 1956. Though this is not in quite the same category it indicates a frame of mind.
In answering questions after a lecture on "The Panorama of Warfare in the Mechanical Age," the noble and gallant Viscount Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein said this:
"We at S.H.A.P.E., at Supreme Headquarters in Europe, with the full political agreement of the N.A.T.O. Council, are basing all our plans on the fact that if we are attacked we use nuclear weapons in our defence."
That is to say, if we are attacked by conventional weapons we will use nuclear weapons in reply. That is agreed, he says, with the full agreement of the N.A.T.O. Council. He continues:
"The only proviso is that the politicians have to be asked first. That might be a bit awkward, of course, and personally I would use the nuclear weapons first and ask afterwards. I believe that a firm statement on those lines by the West would stop any aggression."
He went on to say:
"As regards the difference between the tactical and the atomic weapon, we do not distinguish them; we use a nuclear weapon if we are attacked. Now it is a nice point which you might take me up on as to whether it is considered likely that in the limited war such as, for instance, of the size of Korea, if it occurred again, nuclear weapons would be used."
He added:
"I would not call Korea a small war. It was quite a party, and it is my view that if a war of the size of Korea occurred again nuclear weapons would be used. I do not say our political masters would agree, but you asked me what I thought!"
It is about time, I think, that, from the American, British, German and French sources, statements on policy, military and other, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should be confined to ministerial statements. When the country expresses its anxiety about the way in which atomic weapons are thrown in practice, they are bound to take note of what is being said of this sort of thing and how far they can trust the particular finger which is likely to be on the trigger. As to my second point, therefore, I do
84
beg that the Government will see to it that statements, when they are made, are made by Ministers and not by professional staffs.
In conclusion, I will ask the House, and the country, to believe—and I am quite sincere when I say this—that perhaps one of the most notable things (which most of our Press did not report) at the N.A.T.O. meeting in Paris was that, at the end, the President of the United States asked the delegates to stand and join in prayer. It was noted at the time of the settling of the basis of the United Nations Organisation at San Francisco that nobody bothered to think that prayer was required. But if ever this nation required to resort to prayer for its condition and security, I do not recognise the need as being greater than it is at the present. I bet; to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE had given Notice of his intention to move, That there be laid before the House a Paper relating to the plan of military disengagement in Central Europe, to include relevant statements by Sir Anthony Eden at Geneva, Mr. Allan Rapacki at the United Nations, President Eisenhower. Mr. Khrushchev and others, with a view to enabling the opinion of this House to be further expressed before definite commitments are made as to the distribution and control of nuclear weapons in Europe. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you may well think it bold for a private Member of the House and a civilian to put his name down to speak in this debate. I listened with great pride to the account given by my noble friend and Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, of the part played by the Labour Party in the war and in the construction of the, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation., As a defensives shield its value has been proved, and no one desires to destroy it. But if my noble Leader will permit me to say it, he seems to have made his speech—I am not complaining of it—in a "pre-Sputnik" setting. He told us about the number of recruits, the difficulty in getting recruits, the number of recruits in five years' time, and so on but what he did not mention until the end of his speech—again, I am not criticising his

85
speech—is that one bomb would destroy your recruits of fifty years at once. It is in the "post-Sputnik", post-bomb era that we really have to consider the problem. Therefore, it is in no sense in contradiction or criticism of what my noble Leader has said that I put down a Motion which asks that certain considerations should be taken into account before we go further and deeper into the nuclear era.
The strain is immense. We cannot keep it up. I do not profess to have the figures exactly in mind, but when one reads that 4,000 million dollars is to be added to the American Budget for missiles alone, it must be obvious that our small country can do nothing. It is quite impossible to compete with that sort of thing. We are clean out of the race. And when we come to a stage—and this is the particular reason for my venturing to address your Lordships—when we are going to spread among all the fifteen N.A T.O. Powers the potential ability to set that type of war in motion, then I think it is a reasonable and cautious thing to ask your Lordships if the Government would tell us whether they have explored every other possible way before we are submerged in this sea, in which we shall be very small fish.
I think that one of the most depressing things of to-day is to read the accounts of what goes on in the discussions of our great ally, the United States of America. You may have read Mr. Sherman Adams this morning, or Mr. Dean Acheson. They are not denouncing Russia; they are proving, on the one hand that the Democrats, and on the other hand that the Republicans, are responsible for the condition in which they find themselves. It shows a lamentable lack of proportion, of which we are not guilty. We recognise, and I am sure the Government do—it is recognised on both sides of the House—that we have an absolutely common and united desire to defend our country. The lack of proportion in America is a dangerous thing, but more dangerous still is the fact that one would have to search with a powerful glass to find in the American speeches any idea of how to settle this matter, except by a vast and mounting increase in nuclear power. There is no other idea at all—nothing. A cheque, somebody said, can settle anything. That is not so. It is absurd to use fantastic phrases, but a
86
cheque might cause tremendous and inconceivable harm to mankind.
Therefore, what I am asking is this, that before we carry out the apparent intention to supply and authorise every one of the fifteen members of N.A.T.O.—to supply them either under control or otherwise—to use atom bombs and ultimately to authorise their use by their commanders, we should explore other avenues. Because what my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough said was perfectly true: a commander is not going to wait for a word from someone at a distance who can perhaps reply only slowly, if he sees an instant military need be will meet it, and if it has to be met with a nuclear weapon, he will meet it with a nuclear weapon. In my opinion, Lord Montgomery of Alamein spoke the plain truth. As a Parliamentarian I believe that the control should be retained by Parliament. But when you come to a moment of acute emergency, the duty of a military officer is to succeed with the means at his disposal.
Therefore, all that I intend to ask the Government, and it is only, one might say, an addendum to the debate, is what their policy is in reference to exploring other avenues before this decision to distribute the bomb to the N.A.T.O. Powers is finally made. Have they some plan? Is there something they are aiming at? Or are they a sort of blind Samson, like the United States, merely attempting to amass, or to get others to amass on our behalf, a mighty strength, and will then consider what to do. On the other hand, have they considered the situation, particularly the more recent situation, in order to see whether there are some means, if not of solving, of mitigating, or beginning to mitigate, this horrid affair?
If I may run through from memory the situation since the war, it was like this. At the end of the war the bomb was exploded at Hiroshima. That hastened, or tended to hasten, the end of the Japanese war. Incidentally, historically, that will not be its record; it will be recorded historically as an event which stamped for a long time to come the Asian thinking on world affairs. Then the strain between ourselves and the Soviet Government increased. Our relations with them have always been on a basis of strict realism. In 1919 we did our best to prevent their coming into

87
existence. Efforts have been made to reach agreement from time to time. I think that one of the most successful visits was that of Sir Anthony Eden to Moscow in 1935. But after the war the Dictator of Russia showed tendencies to try to build up again, on a Bolshevik foundation, the great Empire of the Czars. This caused a great amount of anxiety. so much so that Sir Winston Churchill, as he tells us himself, at one time sent a telegram to Field-Marshal Montgomery telling him to be ready to hand over arms to the Germans to prevent any further Russian advance.
That is a relationship of what we may call intelligent realism, a relationship which is based upon what is imagined to be for the moment our community of interests. But people were seriously concerned and we were always told (I hope I am right in this, but I am only a member of the public) that it was all right; that they could not act because we had a monopoly of the Bomb. That reassured everybody. We had the monopoly of the Bomb and so long as we had the Bomb, they would be kept in order. But the appearance of the sputnik began to turn back the pages and made it clear that we did not have the monopoly of the bomb, and that at some point Russia had enough of this power to commence the general destruction which the bomb involves. When the sputnik went into the sky, people were rather too excited about it, but it became clear by all measures that partly—I do not think I would say entirely—public enthusiasm, combined with central and severe disciplinary organisation (I have visited Russia widely three times and have seen something of this), had produced a technological level which was extremely high.
When the Russians were in this position of strength, with their sputnik and with their technology, one would have expected that they would have renewed their diplomacy of firm demands, wanting this and wanting that, because they were in a position of strength at that time and they knew it—although we did not know it. Yet they did not do this. For some reason or another they pursued a policy of going around the world spreading the idea that they were pursuing a policy of peace and that we were opposing it. And they had a tremendous success in this. I
88
was in India at the time Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev made their tour and they had a great success in persuading the people of Asia and of the uncommitted countries of their policy. They did not put forward a number of demands for themselves, backed by their inner knowledge of their power. What reply are we going to make, on our initiative? We do not want to wait until other people put forward a policy and then try to prove that they have some sinister motive behind them. We want a policy of our own. When any idea comes forward, we should examine it and, in my modest judgment, the Government should say whether it is a policy they can support and whether it will help us or not.
For some months now Mr. Adam Rapacki, the Polish Foreign Minister, has been promoting the idea that it would be possible to have an area of Europe which should be free from nuclear weapons. He thinks, and I think most people would agree, that if there were an area such as he has in mind—I have forgotten what the square mileage is, but it has about 100 million people—in which nuclear weapons would be forbidden. effective control could be enforced. It is not a new idea that we should have a "demilitarised" area—I do not know what the right word is, but this type of area. It was put forward in one form by Sir Anthony Eden when in Geneva in 1955. But this suggestion was renewed by Mr. Rapacki at the United Nations in October. It was approved and patronised by Mr. Bulganin in his recent letter to the Prime Minister. The modest proposal of the Poles, which was that they, in agreement with the Czechs and the East Germans, should ban nuclear weapons from their countries, was embroidered and enlarged authoritatively by Mr. Bulganin in his letter, when he said that so far as the Russians were concerned they were prepared to join in the scheme; and at one point he said that they were willing to withdraw their troops from the satellite States.
What do we say to that? What is our policy? I listened to Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's speech in another place and read what the Prime Minister said, but I have never heard the Government tell us what is the objection to an examination of this scheme. It does not matter whether we have a summit talk or not—as Mr. Dulles said rightly the other day, all

89
talks are summit talks. No talks can take place without the assent of the "All-High", and it does not matter at what level it is. But is this scheme to be examined, and, if so, what will be the judgment of the Government on it? Its advantages, if it were possible, are patent.
First of all, it would relieve the area involved of a tremendous sense of strain. We are still an island, although hardly an island in the air era; but the strain of people living in Czechoslovakia or on the Oder-Neisse border is very much greater than anything we can conceive. It would enormously relieve the financial strain. It would avoid also the very difficult question that is coming—namely, who is going to have the launching sites. I can imagine that the Danes and the Norwegians will not be very popular if it is known that they have refused to be the targets for attack but are willing to profit from the fact that other countries are willing to have the sites and take up the position of being targets. Furthermore, if such a scheme were possible (I do not say it is possible; there may be some irrefutable argument against it, but I have never heard it and it has never been put forward by the Government) the political effect would be enormous.
The sore point in Europe, as everyone knows, is the German frontiers with Czechoslovakia and with Poland. Once Dr. Adenauer has the atom bomb he will be in a position to veto any decision, because he will be in a position to pull the trigger that brings the whole world down. But so long as there is this unification of the two Germanies—if it is possible; if the Russians think again—and there are no nuclear weapons, there is a much better chance of dealing with the question of the frontiers. If you speak to a Czech or to a Pole about East Germany—we speak about East Germany as something you must not mention; you must not call it a State—you Lind that to them East Germany is the one part of organised Germany which, has accepted the boundaries and made a treaty to that effect. So far as the Bonn Government are concerned, I do not know what their policy is. But there are people in Federal Germany to-day who claim that the settlement made at Munich and the frontiers fixed at Munich are still the legal frontiers
90
of Germany; and so long as any substantial body of opinion takes that view, it must be obvious that there cannot be peace in that part of the world.
Will the Russians do any of these things? It is pure speculation as to whether they will, and I do not know. Some remarkable speeches were made on the wireless a few months ago by Mr. Kennan, an expert who has a great knowledge of Russia and also a great knowledge of diplomacy. The sort of argument he puts forward is this. He says: Is it not possible that, after the Hungarian experience, and knowing perhaps more about the state of public opinion in the neighbouring small States than we do, the Russians have come to the conclusion that they would be well advised not to hold these countries by a display of force? So far as I know, there are no Russians in Czechoslovakia; but there are in Poland and in East Germany. If the Russians were out of East Germany, then the whole solution of the unification of Germany is settled, because the fact that they are there and will not move until some settlement is made is the great stumbling block. If they will do these things, there will be an immense advantage for the peace of Europe.
Finally, Mr. Kennan said this—and I was very much struck by what he said: Are we doing the outlook of the Russian public full justice? We always imagine them as people who are crushed under the heel—and I have no doubt there is a lot of truth in that. But they are also a great people who are very proud of their own country. They have great pride in building a new dam or making a new road, and they regard that as a proof of the success of their way of life. I remember in the war they regarded the destruction of the Dueipestroi, which they had to do when the Germans advanced from the Balkans, much in the same way as we should regard the destruction of Westminster Abbey. Therefore, is it possible that one of the thoughts in their minds is a desire to maintain and protect from atomic attack these wonderful productions—their great university, with its skyscraper, and even their underground railway and other monuments of their industry, some produced under duress, but much of it produced by patriotic pride.
Some time ago I went to the Black Sea; and all along the banks of the Black Sea to the Crimea and right round to the Turkish border was one array of convalescent homes on which millions and millions of roubles had been spent. I asked myself: How can these people be so foolish as to erect all these targets which would disappear overnight if the Turkish Fleet came across the sea? Therefore, one reason that may explain the strange conduct of the Russians in not taking advantage of their temporary military strength may be pride and the desire to protect their own internal achievements. Another reason may be that they think the success of their ideology, their philosophy, is more likely to be achieved if they have the money to act generously to the countries of Asia that need their help. Some remarkable figures were published in detail in the New York Times a few days ago, but what I remember was a figure that came out in The Times recently, where they said that for every fifteen units (milliards, or whatever you call them) the Russians were spending, America was able to spend only nine.
I do not agree with the idea that we are on the way to Armageddon and everyone must be on one side or the other; I think that is a narrow and uninformed opinion about the state of affairs. But if it were so, it may be that the Russians consider that by economy and by putting their money into this other effort they may do better than by maintaining unwanted troops in the centre of Europe. All these things are speculation, and my own opinion has, of course, no value whatever. My only purpose in putting down the Motion is to ask the Government in their reply, before they commit us to something which will nuclearise the whole of Europe and bring right up to the border this inflammable material, which, if it is lit, will blaze a way through the whole world, to tell us whether they have examined these Polish proposals; and, if so, what their judgment is upon them.
3.48 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, it has been a great joy to listen to the speech the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has just made and, if he will forgive me as a man at any rate a few years younger than he is for saying so, I would say that we
92
on these Benches most heartily agree with a great deal of what he has said. Modern science has progressed—if "progressed" can be considered the right word—to such an extent that complete destruction can come at any moment. If there is to be destruction, then it is we, here in this island, who will be the first to be obliterated. Geographically we should be much happier and much safer here if many modern scientific discoveries had never been made. However, we must accept the position as it is and attempt to carry out our heritage in the way that is wisest for those who follow us.
In matters of defence, therefore, I would suggest that if we wish to survive we must speak as one voice. I was always brought up to understand that there were certain things above politics, irrespective of how we were born or what we thought, and that although, through our democratic principles, these things were always debatable, they were agreed upon by all members of all Parties. If only this debate could further that point, it would do much more than a great number of things have done since the end of the war. In another place, before the Recess there were sharp exchanges between the leaders of the two main Parties on the carrying of hydrogen bombs by American planes over this country. That was only one instance of the fact that, unless we speak as a nation, whichever happens to be the political Party in power, we can never restore our position as leaders; and if we are not leaders, the world becomes an even more dangerous place than it is at the present time.
We realise, of course, that we can no longer live in isolation, as our American friends have tried to do on more than one occasion. Now, there would appear to be little difference between defence and foreign policy. But if anyone had to live in isolation—and let me make it perfectly clear that I should never support that—then I think we should make it quite clear that our Commonwealth would find it less difficult to do so than any other nation in the world. It still seems to me that it is only on Christmas Day, when we hear that wonderful and inspiring message from Sandringham, that we realise the extent and greatness of the Commonwealth, of which we are the original member. It is true that the Prime Minister is at present on a Commonwealth tour, and I feel we should wish him every possible success in his venture. But it really

93
is a tragedy that this is the first time that a Prime Minister has ever made such a tour. Nevertheless, it is just as important that he is making it, even though that is the case. I propose to refer to the Commonwealth later on, but unless we associate ourselves infinitely more closely with them than we are doing now, we shall not make our voice heard for the benefit of peace and prosperity.
There is one great difference between now and pre-war clays, and that is that in pre-war days the defence of this country was built up against any adversary. Nowadays, the whole world is divided into two camps, East and West, with some poor unfortunate countries between the two who have the choice neither of allegiance nor of independence. This cannot go on in perpetuity. Sooner or later either someone will go too far and the global war will have started, or, if that does not happen, the expense on both sides will amount to such excessive sums that some settlement will have to be made. I feel that the sooner that settlement is reached the better, though I think we must agree that we have now realised that we can go into such a settlement only through strength. Again, I welcome the Prime Minister's approach to this matter in his New Year's reply to Mr. Bulganin regarding a non-aggression pact. These things are so easy to scoff at—they are "another piece of paper". But an approach in that way must be made while the balance of power is reasonably stable. I know we have the sputnik against us, but that is not in itself at the moment a military weapon, and I do rot think it has proved that the Russians are so vastly superior in military strength, although they are perhaps superior at the moment in scientific discoveries.
There have been many abortive attempts at top-level talks and, of course, they of themselves are no answer. But they are at least a base upon which peace can be secured, and however doubtful we may be of the result of such talks I do not think we should refuse an opportunity when it is offered. Communism is an evil which must be kept under control. We cannot obliterate it, nor do I feel that we should attempt, at any rate at this stage, to do so; but we must not allow it to interfere with what to us is a completely different view of the value of life. I realise the great things the Russians are doing in their own country, in their buildings
94
and everything else. But let us make one thing quite clear: their belief in life is material while ours, I hope, is still religious. Unless we realise that vast difference we cannot go completely with understanding to get the answer. But we must come to some mutual understanding whereby co-existence is possible. In fact, unless we do so our days and their days are numbered, and so our chief attempt at the moment should be for a reasoned form of disarmament to prevent what will otherwise be inevitable destruction. But under such a plan all countries must be able to live the life they wish. Hungary is too near to our thoughts for us to think that that is in actual fact the case at the present time, and we must not allow these Communist offers of peace, genuine though they may well be, to lull us into any sense of security.
By all means let us have these talks, but do not let us relinquish at this stage one iota of our defence until we have some kind of proof that there is a true move from the other side for understanding with us; and that, at the moment, has not been evident. The Government's reply to Mr. Bulganin's letter gives them a chance of showing that they are genuine. It is now up to them. It is up to them to show that all the things we have believed up to now have been pure propaganda and, more than that, that they are sincere in their wishes. However determined the Communists are to expand their doctrine, I believe they are now realising that, without some understanding with the West, they will destroy themselves as well as us.
We have accepted N.A.T.O. as our basis of defence, and to that we are pledged. I know the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is going to speak on that particular subject a little later in the debate, and I am not going into it fully. The members of that Organisation are, of course, in theory equal, though from the material point of view we rely to a great extent on the United States of America, and in accepting this situation we have allowed this island to become a huge armoury. The example of American planes flying with hydrogen bombs is only one point. Heated arguments have been made about this matter, not because of the danger, which is completely negligible, but because the whole thing may well get out of control. We are told, and I read in the Press, that

95
we have a complete veto on these planes. But how far is that in practice effective? Can we really stop them doing anything if they want to? I feel that the nation is very much in the dark in this question, and I would call for a positive and clear statement as soon as possible.
I realise, and I think we all do, that a complete understanding between America and ourselves is essential for the wellbeing of N.A.T.O. and, in fact, for peace in the world. We know that in a global war our alliance with America is simply signing our own death warrant, and that there is no contracting out. It is difficult to know, when we look at the question of global war and our alliance with America, whether we are right in allowing America the leadership of the West. They are a very young country, and though materially they are of the greatest help they do appear to lack that something which we in this country seem to feel and know is necessary for true leadership. Twice in war time they have procrastinated to such an extent that they came in all but too late. In peace time there has been some kind of feeling of petulance which it is very hard indeed for us to understand. I feel that we cannot hand over the leadership of the West until we are infinitely more satisfied that they are more capable of fulfilling the true function of leadership than they have been in the past. There is no certainty that in the future they might not, by an impetuous act, lead us into global war, leaving us as a mere pawn without any say in the question at all.
While we are the arsenal of the West, we really have no say in anything that happens. If, however, we worked as a Commonwealth, rather than as a nation, I think that things would be very much different. This country became great through brains and bravery. We have no vast national assets except these to offer to any possible conqueror, and those assets would never be handed over for their use if that time ever came. The present policy means that if we were destroyed our Commonwealth would be scattered and have no centre. Though a strong front is absolutely essential against the East, our part in it should be with our Commonwealth and not by ourselves.
I sincerely hope that during the Prime Minister's visits on his present tour he
96
will encourage that idea, and that through it he will widen the West to include those countries that are not at the moment in N.A.T.O. but who are so nearly and, I sincerely hope, so genuinely attached to ourselves here. Together we could work for peace very much more strongly than we, as a nation, could on our own. As long as amateurs are allowed to speak in your Lordships' House I am going to go on fighting for a strengthening of the Commonwealth cause. Of course if we accept a united Commonwealth we must be prepared to guarantee some kind of security to them in times of trouble; and that in itself adds to the bill. But I feel that it is a very small price to pay for an, understanding and loyalty between nations which could completely change the whole destiny of the world.
The chief policy we have in N.A.T.O. seems to be the strategic distribution of nuclear weapons throughout the area. In so far as that is a proof of strength, which is the only thing the Russians understand, that must be correct, but I think that in deciding the maximum effort we can put into this we should try to consider the Communist mind. Only they, of course, know the true answer to that. But whereas the Hitler doctrine was to infiltrate by force, to go into one country after another, the Communists take the fifth column way of infiltrating from within, building up from however small a start until they have an interest in the politics of a country and, finally, control the political sphere of that particular country. Of course there is absolutely nothing new in that. I suppose that it could be claimed to have been the down fall of the Garden of Eden. But it is none the less dangerous, even in those countries, including our own, where we think it is completely impossible. In practice, it may well be the only way of winning a global war, because military conquest of that size, with the holding down of people of various countries that would be essential, would seem to me to be now an impracticability. I agree that it would be completely foolish entirely to rely on that, but we should be prepared for it, and in the defence of any country it is just as important to defend ourselves against fifth column activities from inside as it is from military aggression. I think we in this country rather tend to look at that as something quite negligible, but it is one of our weakest points.

97
I feel, therefore, that there should be a genuine and immediate attempt at disarmament. As we know the seriousness of our position in a global war, so we must realise that we have equal responsibilities in the way of providing defensive power in a limited war. Our policy (I may be wrong in this, but I read it as such) seems to sacrifice some of our strength in conventional weapons in order to enable us to keep up with our big brothers, in the nuclear race. Only if we can use this nuclear power for peace as well as for war should we make any efforts in that direction. Cancellation of the order for the S.R.177 was a perfect example of reducing our strength for a limited war for the sake of bigger nuclear weapons. To me, that was an extremely serious mistake. For the defence we want, to sacrifice that particular machine seemed to me to be far too high a price to pay.
Let us not forget that in saving money and personnel on defence for a limited war we may well turn it into a global war, with the consequences I have mentioned. It would be an absolute disaster if, were we to be attacked in any part of the world in a limited way by conventional weapons, we had no reply except the use of nuclear weapons. The Communists appear not to be interested in limited wars, but there is always the danger of their waging such wars, and particularly if they think they can do so without any risk of a global war. I feel that this country would fulfil its obligations much better if we went on with the limited sphere of conventional weapons rather than race side by side with people, infinitely richer than we are, towards what is bound to be the goal of pure destruction.
Let us leave atom bombs to others, and if we are going to make bombs at all, let us make bombs for peace. It is again a question of leading or following. May I reiterate what I said in the last debate? What nuclear power we have let us use in our Commonwealth, getting out of this unbelievable state of being an arsenal—or an Aunt Sally really—to be put up to be knocked down at the first possible opportunity. With our limited resources we can fully carry out our pledge to N.A.T.O. if we concentrate on highly trained mobile conventional forces. And again let us train these forces in the Commonwealth, with the Commonwealth, and not entirely by ourselves here. Let
98
us, of course, in that include all three Services, because a small mobile Navy in the next war may well be our saving grace. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that those of us who are not in the Government do not really know the facts of the case; that we can only read things; that we hear only as one of the public. But it would appear that we have the grave danger of running into a global war which we neither want nor can prevent.
In conclusion, may I say this. We must curb our expenditure. We cannot afford the vast sums that we are now spending on defence, and if we must save let us save on nuclear and not on conventional weapons. With our experience it must still be our duty to lead, and our first effort, surely, should be to attempt some form of disarmament and some form of understanding with the East. Let us, above all, speak with one voice in this country and, if possible, with one voice as a Commonwealth, so that, by leadership, we can bring back some hope of peace to a very despondent and demoralised world.
4.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear from the noble Viscount who moved this Motion that he and his Party still support N.A.T.O. in spite of one or two dissident members. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount on the question of National Service and recruiting, as that largely refers to the Army. I was most interested, as I am sure were all your Lordships, in the most thoughtful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
I should like for a few moments to deal with the proposal to establish missile stations in England and Scotland foreshadowed by the N.A.T.O. Conference. At first sight it would appear to be the right thing to do, but I should like to examine the proposal a little more closely. Surely these proposed stations will add less to the deterrent than perhaps would obsolete bombers. Bombers can at least keep in the air and they can be immune from surprise attack. What good will these missile stations do? The Russians will have their situations pin-pointed and they will become vulnerable, and surprise attack could come to them at any time.
Can we not look towards submarines equipped with missiles? Have we the design for such a submarine, bearing in

99
mind, of course, that the Americans have one or two, and it is very likely that the Russians have some? The ideal would be the nuclear-powered submarine, equipped with missiles, which could live almost continuously under the sea. Owing to her high speed she would be very difficult to detect and destroy, and her great asset would be that she would be a movable base both for offence and defence. I cannot help feeling that the proposed land missile bases will tend to be a great waste of money, possibly out of date before they are completed, and definitely dangerous, as they will attract reprisal on land and could be so easily destroyed by the enemy.
I fully realise that it is extremely difficult to come to a proper judgment on these highly technical matters unless one is in full possession of the facts, and it may well be that Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot fully disclose them, but I feel that much more consideration should be given to these proposed missile bases before they are in fact established. I am well aware of the immense cost of the nuclear submarine, but could not two or three American nuclear submarines be established on our Eastern seaboard, as we are the first line of defence to America? Surely that would be much better than establishing missile land bases. I presume that it is not essential to have a nuclear submarine. Why not a conventional type of submarine specially designed to carry missiles? Surely that would be much cheaper to build than the nuclear type. I think that the country should have an answer to these questions as far as it is possible to go, as I believe there is a good deal of anxiety about them.
I should like now to deal with another matter raised at the N.A.T.O. Conference. It appears that it was proposed that the Royal Navy should concentrate particularly on anti-submarine measures and that the power to strike should be left to the United States Navy. Does that mean that our Task Forces are to be immobilised and some of our aircraft carriers laid up? I think many of your Lordships would like to know a great deal more about these proposals. We have heard a good deal about the establishment of an Eastern Fleet. Can we be told what steps are being taken in that direction? It may be right to move towards a balanced
100
collective naval force amongst ourselves and our Allies, but it must not be carried too far. We must not forget that we may have to fight a conventional local war on our own, and we must have a few, and a sufficient number, of the necessary type of ship available apart from antisubmarine vessels. I do not think the country has yet realised the possible effect of the agreements entered into at N.A.T.O. on our future naval position. Are we going to witness a reorganisation and a streamlined Navy completely under the command of a N.A.T.O. Commander, both in peace and in war? Are we going to see Coastal Command also turned over to the N.A.T.O. Command? Those are all questions to which we ought to have an answer.
I think we must know what the term "interdependence" really means. It reminds me of the word "rationalisation" which used to be bandied about by many people who did not quite know what it meant. If the word "interdependence" means anything at all, it must mean a regrouping or a rearrangement of national military forces to fit into N.A.T.O. defence, so as perhaps to avoid duplication, and that each State will make its own particular type of contribution. But I think we must hear in mind that it may well involve a loss of national sovereignty—in fact, it might be that Britain would cease to have any kind of balanced defence force. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply for Her Majesty's Government will be able to enlarge on these military agreements so that we shall all know where we are going.
It is generally agreed that defence must be based on a sound economy, but I must say I was rather struck by the recent speech of a member of the Opposition in another place when he indicated that it was not worth while to maintain the exchange value of sterling at the expense of the effectiveness, and hence of the morale, of the armed force on which the prestige, the greatness and the position of England depended. I cannot say that I can go quite so far as he, because of course we must strike a sound balance, and I hope that that will be done. The weaker our conventional forces become, the greater becomes the risk that they will fail to provide a cushion against wars waged with less desirable weapons. We

101
must realise that we cannot get defence on the cheap, and I trust that in the forthcoming Defence White Paper we shall not see a slashing of the forces instead of economies in perhaps another direction.
4.18 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this debate was originally put down as a straightforward defence debate, and the noble Viscount has changed his terminology so as to make it a debate on N.A.T.O. I take no exception to that; in fact, I think it is right and proper, because in the course of a few months we are to have a White Paper on the defence policy of the United Kingdom and it would be much more appropriate to discuss in detail on that occasion the more domestic side of defence. I do not intend to anticipate what may lie in that Paper.
I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, speaking in the very robust way he does, say that there is no need to question the support of his Party for N.A.T.O. policy. In fact, I think that he should take, as he did, proper pride in the development of this plan which was, as he says, built up while he was Minister of Defence. I think that he should take a little more pleasure than he has done in the meeting which took place in December. Frankly, I think, the communiqué which was issued on that occasion is the most informative communiqué which has ever been written about one of the ministerial meetings of N.A.T.O. It contains a great deal of information which is of considerable importance. I believe it is not only fundamental but of great advantage to this country that our policy in supporting N.A.T.O. should be bipartisan—because this is a great organisation, formulated, as the noble Viscount has said, after Czechoslovakia became a satellite and the Berlin blockade occurred. It is a defensive Alliance, comprising fifteen countries who have guaranteed each other against aggression for twenty years, and one which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, will be of indefinite duration.
it is fair to say that such a Treaty is unprecedented, not only in the history of this country but certainly in that of the
102
United States of America; and that is probably so of any other of its members. I would just correct the noble Viscount on one point: there is no intention of our entering into unilateral disarmament. If there should be evidence of any considerable change in Soviet policy then it might be right and proper for us to disarm. The point about our new defence policy is that to-day there is an increasing need for highly trained personnel—a need which is it not wise to underestimate. But let me correct the noble Viscount on another matter. We have not removed a single unit from Germany without the prior acquiescence of SACEUR and of our Allies.
I think it is also fair to say that during the time of its existence N.A.T.O. has gone quite a long way, and that the measure of military integration which exists to-day is without parallel in peace time. Anyone who has seen the N.A.T.O. international headquarters at work (and I believe that many of your Lordships have done so) will, I am sure, have been struck by the efficiency with which staff officers of the different nations work in the closest association, extremely harmoniously and efficiently with each other. When they say "we" they do not mean their own particular country they mean SACEUR or SACLANT, or one of the organisations to which they happen to belong. The same thing applies to the N.A.T.O. Defence College which has an Italian commander, a British second-in-command and pupils drawn from Portugal, Turkey, Belgium and, indeed, from all the other N.A.T.O. countries. This is a remarkable achievement, one which I do not think anyone can decry and which gains in strength as it is more and more understood.
If anyone should ask, "What is the necessity for this Organisation?" I would simply state the facts: that there are to-day, counting the satellites, between 300 and 350 divisions which can be called on behind the Iron Curtain. There are some 500 submaries and some 20,000 front-line aircraft; and eventually, according to their own declaration, there are to be inter-continental ballistic missiles. This is the position to-day when nobody covets one yard of Russian territory. I believe that we can claim that in our Organisation we have had some success. The noble Viscount who

103
opened the debate emphasised the importance of arguing from strength, but I believe it is true to say that there has been no Soviet advance in Europe since the time when N.A.T.O. was formed. Broadly, their tendency has been to change the emphasis from the military to the economic and the political, and more and more to go outside Europe rather than to attempt to advance in Europe. Probably we can say that that is the measure of our success.
Turning to the political side, and considering the importance of getting a political understanding, I believe that this Organisation is necessary because if we are to make the fullest use of the resources of these countries we must draw them together, so that there can be real co-operation and an intimate sense of association. This is the more necessary to ensure that the resources are turned to the best use and that uneconomic duplication does not take place. It is well known that once a year, at least, Parliamentary representatives from the various countries of N.A.T.O. come together to discuss and learn about the problems of the Alliance. I have not yet had the pleasure of doing this myself, but I believe that those who do go come away from these meetings convinced of the importance of the work that is being done and of the necessity of seeing that it receives the fullest support.
The chief criticism that is made is that we do not exercise enough influence in the counsels of N.A.T.O. Many people have written books on how to influence one's friends. Perhaps the noble Viscount will write a hook on how to influence other countries. It is not always easy, in a gathering of fifteen countries, to ensure that one's will is necessarily the one that is accepted. But, as the noble Viscount knows well, the Organisation is there to enable voice to be given to everyone's views. The North Atlantic Council sits in permanent session and provides a channel through which any one of its members can put forward views which he wishes to voice. The Ministers meet together. Heads of States met in December last to give emphasis to what is taking place, and quite a number of things have flowed from that meeting. The first—one on which there has been some discussion
104
to-day—is the question of interdependence. That arose from a meeting of the President and the Prime Minister in Washington, at a time when M. Spaak was also there, and serves to indicate a further step in the close co-operation between the countries. To a certain extent we have always had interdependence, but this is a recognition that it must be taken a stage further. We are not simply an assembly of national units but a single balanced force whose members can contribute those forces which they are best equipped to provide and which fall into the N.A.T.O. plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred to one example mentioned by the Prime Minister—the provision by the Royal Navy of anti-submarine forces for N.A.T.O., and perhaps I might elaborate upon that matter. We have our Commonwealth and Empire commitments for which we require a balanced all-purpose Navy. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has said, the importance of a balanced mobile Navy might be considerable in certain circumstances, and it is always necessary for the Navy to play its part in maintaining stability in different parts of the world. In the Atlantic, however, N.A.T.O.'s main task is the maintenance of communications; that is no new task for the Royal Navy—indeed, it is a problem we have had for more than forty years. But that does not mean that our carriers there would not carry fighters or strike aircraft; in fact, they would be defenceless without them. It does mean, however, that greater emphasis would be placed on anti-submarine aircraft and equipment of all kinds.
The other point to which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred was control. There is no alteration in control. The position of the control of the Royal Navy is exactly as it always was under N.A.T.O. We have declared virtually the whole of our naval forces to N.A.T.O. and in the event of global war they come entirely under the control of N.A.T.O. Command. But in peace time our naval forces are, as usual, entirely under the control of the naval authorities. We do, of course, conduct a substantial number of exercises and work closely with N.A.T.O. staff in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, and we are constantly exchanging information and knowledge

105
about our defence equipment. But it is only in the event of global war that our Navy comes under N.A.T.O. Command.
One other point I should mention which is of importance is this: the field of research, development and production. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has very properly said that we cannot afford all we want. That is true, I dare say, of Russia, and, I have no doubt, of America too. What is important is that, so far as possible, we should share the cost, particularly in the research and development fields, because there the increasing cost of producing modern weapons is extremely heavy. What we intend is that certain countries should specialise in certain types of research and development and production in order to meet the requirements of their fellow countries. What I can say here is that a good deal of the preliminary work has been completed, and is being carried on, and that is particularly so in the field of research and development.
There are other fields, of course, in which the meetings were successful which have not been mentioned to-day, and I would refer to them shortly. N.A.T.O. agreed to extend the field in which they were prepared to examine problems, particularly a closer association with the Baghdad Pact. Indeed, the representatives of Turkey called a meeting of the Baghdad Pact Powers before the N.A.T.O. Council, so that they could speak authoritatively on the views of the countries in that part of the world. It was also recognised that part of the defensive armour of the Free World was to assist in providing a rising standard of living in non-Communist countries. I am sure that no one differs from that in principle, and, indeed, we welcome the assurances given by the President of the United States for increasing both the Development Loan Fund and the lending authority of the Import Export Bank. This sustained flow of dollars will be of great value not only to the whole of the Free World but particularly to the less-developed countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, asked a question about intermediate-range ballistic missiles. I will only say here that discussions are proceeding with the United States authorities, and that there is nothing further I can say at the present time, though a statement will be made as
106
soon as anything has been arranged on I that point.
My Lords, I do not want to go into the foreign affairs field in this debate—I think it would be wrong—but there is a good deal of emphasis on the anxiety felt on the divisions which divide Europe at the present time. I must say that I always feel the words "competitive coexistence" strike me as a pretty low level of life, and we ought to strive to achieve something a little more constructive than that. We have, of course, invented these weapons of immense power, and it is the supreme test of our civilisation whether we are going to be wise enough to live in peace with them.
I have discussed the various aspects of the military strength of N.A.T.O. May I turn to one or two other things which have been suggested? I should at the outset like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it really is not quite true to say either that we have no other plan or, indeed, that we had not tried other policies. I would ask the noble Viscount whether he would be good enough to look at the Communiqué and see the passages on disarmament, paragraphs 8 to 17. It seems to be a pretty full statement on all we have struggled for in this country for years and still are in trying to get a measure of agreement at the present time.
Two things have been mentioned in some detail here. One is what is called discussions at the Summit, and I would just say this: I think it is an illusion to believe that the only way in which we can ever get agreement is between heads of States, if an agreement is going to endure, I believe it is perfectly possible to reach it at a lower level. In the second place, a Summit meeting would actually do more harm than good unless it reached a substantial measure of success; it would be a terrible disillusionment and, indeed, there would be an increase of tension. It is for that reason that I am certain that a great deal of preparatory work would be necessary before we should enter into anything of that sort. If I may say so, the sort of lack of courtesy with which the Soviet spokesman is reported to-day to have spoken of our Foreign Secretary does not seem the best method of procedure for this type of thing.

107
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has also raised the problem of what is generally called disengagement. He was speaking, he said, as a private Member. When he regards himself as a private Member, I often wonder what the rest of us are. Be that as it may, I think in his Motion—though he did not say much about it—he asked whether we could help him in getting the information together. I can assure him that all the statements on this subject have been made public, and if he has difficulty in obtaining copies I should, of course, be glad to give him any assistance; but I do not think it is necessary for the Government to put those statements together.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that there have been many sources of these suggestions, starting mainly with the Polish Foreign Minister's statement? Could not the Government consider whether the Foreign Office might, in the course of some White Paper in which they would deal with the points themselves, include the documents from these various sources?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should be glad to let the noble Viscount know all that we know about the statements. There are only about three or four, I think, but I should be glad to do that. I should not like to undertake to make a special document—we are not a reference library, and publications must have some sort of purpose. What I wish to say to the noble Viscount is that the letter of Mr. Bulganin referred, of course, to a nuclear-free zone. As the Prime Minister has said in his reply, we are studying this with a view to seeing whether there are elements in it which can be made the basis of some alternative proposal. That is already being considered now, and I assure the noble Viscount that it will be considered extremely carefully. But I should like to say this—and I do not want him to misunderstand me—that we should take no action of this sort except in full concert with our Allies in N.A.T.O.
These proposals make no reference to the reunification of Germany. That does not appear in any of the proposals at all. I believe that Mr. Rapacki makes no reference to evacuating East Germany.
108
I should like to emphasise that we regard the reunification of Germany as an essential element to future stability on the Continent. We have no intention of deserting Germany by any arrangement of this sort. I would add that, so far as I can see from the German Chancellor's reply, this proposal does not seem to commend itself to him. But I would add this point: we have really no particular reason to believe that this particular proposal would increase security, because with the modern weapons, with much longer range, it is difficult to see how a limited nuclear-free zone would be of any greater strength in maintaining security.
I would end by saying this: we intend to play our full part, commensurate with our economic strength, in the N.A.T.O. alliance. We have done so in the past and we intend to do so in the future. I think we can say that N.A.T.O. has achieved quite a lot during its life and I believe its basic structure, with commands in Paris, Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia, is sound. Their staffs are working well together and their common services are being used with increasing effectiveness. Adjustments, of course, will be necessary from time to time to meet new methods and new weapons. No doubt there will be growing pains; but I am confident that both the direction in which the growth is taking place and the strength of the association are matters on which we can be well satisfied.
May I add this final word? We are members of a great defensive Alliance, whose central purpose is to deter aggression against any one of its members. We have an immense interest in maintaining world peace, probably greater than any other country in the world. Our whole trade position, our whole survival, depends on international conditions: and we believe profoundly in free institutions, in human rights and in human dignity. These purposes can best be pursued by giving our full support to N.A.T.O. If we hold together, there is small danger of aggression, but if we allow any action, or any sequence of actions, to weaken this position, we may probably find ourselves defeated piece by piece. I have endeavoured to answer the points which the noble Viscount has raised. The point

109
about recruiting will be answered by my what the noble Viscount is saying is noble friend Lord Mancroft when he replies later.
4.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I believe that I have the right of asking leave to withdraw my Motion. That I intended to do at the end of the debate, but I think that it would serve the purpose of the debate better if I did it now. I have never heard a reply which was so disappointing and so depressing as the noble Earl's reply on the question of the Rapacki proposal. He says that I can see it in the newspapers. Of course I can see it in the newspapers but this is an Assembly of Parliament. He says that we cannot do anything without the North Atlantic Council. I put in my Motion that it should come before the Atlantic Council, but what the noble Earl has failed to tell us up to now is that the Government will give any serious attention to a proposal, coming from the highest quarter, which suggests that three great countries of Europe should neutralise themselves and which, secondly, has been supported by the Russian Prime Minister, who has said that Russian troops may withdraw from Eastern Europe. The noble Earl says that that makes no contribution to the reunification of Germany. We cannot re-debate the matter now, but it is perfectly certain that the noble Earl's reply will strike dismay into the hearts of people who saw perhaps some escape at the last moment from this nuclear disaster.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am always encouraged when the noble Viscount says that my reply is disappointing, because probably it is better than he suggests, but I must assume with great respect the noble Viscount has just not heard what I said in my remarks. Either that or the noble Viscount is deliberately distorting what I said, which I trust he is not doing. I said that in the reply which the Prime Minister has made already to Mr. Bulganin, which I can only conclude the noble Viscount has not read, this proposal of a nuclear free zone is being closely examined.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I know that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Viscount knows it, why does he say that it is not taken seriously? I think that
110
what the noble Viscount is saying is absolute nonsense.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, we need not charge one another with not reading one another's documents—a pardonable offence—but I do not think that the noble Earl has read my Motion. Would the Government postpone the distribution of nuclear weapons to fifteen petty N.A.T.O. Powers until this question of Polish neutralisation has been settled?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this question, as he proposes withdrawing his Motion after the extreme denunciation he has just delivered. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as I understood him, said plainly that the Polish proposal would be commented upon when the British Government made their statement in reply to the Bulganin letter. Would the noble Viscount not agree that it is much more important to everybody in this country, and also to all the N.A.T.O. Powers, to have not some isolated consideration of one proposal but the considered pronouncement of the Government, both on the Bulganin letter and on this Polish proposal, and also on all other matters which are relevant, all of which must be considered surely in their proper perspective? That, I understand, is what the Government are taking time to do and are proposing to do. One thing I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, wanted, or certainly other noble Lords on his Benches would wish, is an initiative from the British Government and not merely a re-statement of everything everybody else has said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if I may be permitted to reply to the question put to me, I would say that I do not at all disagree with the noble Earl. All I am saying is: do not make a decisive reply, such as the decision to install these nuclear sites, until this issue has been clarified.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I hope that I shall still be in order if, in a moment or two, I make some reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said in his earlier speech. This debate is not one of the easiest defence debates we have

111
had in your Lordships' House for some time: it comes only a short time before the White Paper. I should like to say how pleased I was that my noble friend Lord Selkirk was able to say so much at a time which cannot have been too favourable. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, changed his focus several times. He opened his speech with a consideration of wide matters and then came to one or two points, important enough, but relatively minor compared with those with which he opened. Perhaps I may say a word or two on these minor points first.
I should hesitate only a short time before accepting the figures of the noble and gallant Member for Dudley, who is an expert in these matters, and whose figures I have studied before with great interest. The question of recruiting is bound to cause anxiety to everyone interested in the Regular Army and what it is doing. I think the noble Viscount will remember that in previous debates there were voices from this side of the House, not opposing the idea of recruiting our Forces on a Regular basis but asking that we should reserve judgment on the discontinuation of National Service until we saw how successful the efforts in Regular recruiting had been. I hope that, before my noble friend Lord Mancroft sits down, we may be able to hear from him about the measures taken to stimulate Regular recruiting. I agree that these are not going too well at the present time. Perhaps my noble friend may be able to tell us something on the credit side, while he is about it, on how the support costs in West Germany have been settled.
To my mind, the same applied to what the noble Viscount opposite said about the scarcity of landing craft and transport aircraft, though it does not apply to his general remarks on the Suez campaign in which I am not going to follow him. This is a point that has been made many times from these Benches. One of my noble friends who has ventilated it is the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He is not in the House at the present time, but he has spoken about it several times. That is something which will go on being a trouble so long as transport aircraft can be obtained only at the expense of weapons, fighter aircraft, bombs and so on, in the Air Estimates. We shall never get the position right so long as this
112
conflict of interests goes on, and in Whitehall we must try to find some way of removing that conflict of interest.
May I go back to the main theme of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, which was the general position of N.A.T.O. and Great Britain's position in it. I am sure that everybody was pleased, and not surprised, to hear his firm championship of N.A.T.O. I think that will show in pretty well every speech that we are likely to hear to-day. But the fact that we champion N.A.T.O. does not mean that we are not aware of a number of difficulties through which we are going at the present time.
I am not sure that some of our difficulties are not created by thinking too much of the political set-up of N.A.T.O. and not enough of the military set-up. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since the time of which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, spoke, when he was Minister of Defence, ten years ago. These powerful weapons have been invented, and are still being developed, and because of the increased range of these weapons and the weight of shell which they carry, in one way or another we are now being led into certain geographical considerations which did not exist even ten years ago; and still less, of course, when people were armed with muskets or with bows and arrows. The range and weight of shell have increased so much, indeed, as to traverse a great deal of our earlier conceptions of what we call sovereignty.
It is no good thinking that if we, or any other nation, for that matter, are in possession of these weapons of long range and great weight we shall not end up by using them. None of these restrictive covenants has stood the test of history in the past, and I doubt very much whether they will in the future. Nor do I think, whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, may say (and I am anxious not to provoke him) that it was wrong for Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein to discuss that matter in his own way before a purely Service audience at the Royal United Service Institution.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not complain.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: We are, indeed, faced with those factors, and our

113
political consideration of N.A.T.O. defence must, I think, work within those limits, at least, unless and until there is some change in the political boundary between the free world and the N.A.T.O. countries and the Iron Curtain countries. If there were a change in the boundary, then we should have to reconsider our strategic ideas and the layout of nuclear weapons and their sites. But so long as there is no change in that boundary, we shall be largely governed by the range of weapons and the weight of shell; and not only by the weapons as they are, but by the weapons and the equipment as we conceive they will be in, say, two or three years' time. If we knew, as I think ray noble friend Lord Teynham hinted just now, that we were going to have submarines which would do away with expensive bases in difficult political situations, we should not spend a great deal of money and time in constructing such bases, particularly if they could not be completed in time to be equally useful to the submarine.
I have no idea whether that type of submarine is a possible conception, but I am trying to make the point that we must base our strategy on the weapons we are going to have; because those weapons are so expensive, as several noble Lords have said this afternoon, and because other things we want in this country are also expensive, that we cannot afford to waste any effort, whether it is financial effort, manufacturing effort, or effort of any other kind, in duplicating within the N.A.T.O. set-up. I do not think one can emphasise that aspect of the situation too strongly at the present time.
Yet this is not an easy matter, because whereas we want to avoid duplicating with the Americans, or anybody else, and we think it right that we should share between the two nations our scientific secrets and our manufacturing potential, it is at the same time important that, in our particular situation as the centre of the Empire, and with our Commonwealth associations, we should maintain a flexible defence organisation, able not only to play our proper part in a global war, if by chance it should come, but also to deal with the emergencies which since the end of the Second World War have plagued the British Commonwealth
114
and Empire. We can do that only by keeping a flexible organisation. I am not going to use the words "conventional weapons" that were used by one noble Lord; I believe that term to be entirely misleading: it suggests that it is possible to draw a hard and fast line between one type of weapon and another. About thirty years ago, I think, an attempt was made to do that at one of the old Disarmament Conferences at Geneva: an attempt was made to distinguish between offensive and defensive tanks. Nothing was more futile and nothing had a more baleful influence on our preparation for the Second World War. So do let us think not of conventional or unconventional or nuclear weapons, but of keeping within our own British defence organisation a range of weapons suitable for every emergency we are likely to encounter or, at any rate, of having access to that range of weapons.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am most interested in this argument, which the noble Viscount has put so clearly. What I am anxious to know is whether those of his professional experience really feel that, in having this range of weapons within the British organisation for all our British needs, we are going to use an atomic bomb of the weight of the Hiroshima bomb as a tactical weapon, as outlined by the Minister of Defence. Is it really contemplated that we shall use an atomic bomb up to the weight of the Hiroshima bomb as a tactical weapon?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Viscount must ask that of somebody in the military profession who is much more up to date than I am. But the correct use of a tactical weapon, surely, depends on one's appreciation of the state of affairs on the battlefield at the time. The state of the battlefield, the strength of the enemy and points of that sort will decide the weight of the weapon to be used against the objective, bearing in mind the old doctrine, which so far as I know still stands, of using the minimum force needed to achieve the desired object. That is the best answer I can give to the noble Viscount, and I hope that it is a satisfactory one. However, I should be sorry to become involved in a tactical discussion when we are debating a subject which goes so much wider.

115
I will conclude by repeating shortly what I have just said. The important thing now is for us to stand firm with N.A.T.O.; to waste no effort by duplicating our range of weapons, our manpower or anything else with any other member nation of N.A.T.O., and to do everything we can to see that no other constituent member of N.A.T.O, falls into the same pitfall. And. with that, we must keep our own flexible range of force for use within the British Commonwealth and Empire. I do not see that those two aims are mutually exclusive. Anything short of complete unanimity and integration of effort with N.A.T.O. will never, I feel, achieve the object we have in mind, which is to provide a deterrent sufficiently real to make disarmament conferences sufficiently real too.
5.0 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be considered presumptuous if I speak for the first time in your Lordships' House in a debate on such an important question as that of defence. I feel fairly strongly on certain aspects of this subject, however, and I trust that I shall be granted the customary leniency shown by your Lordships on such an occasion. As the purpose of this Motion is
"To call attention to questions of defence, with special reference to the situation arising from the N.A.T.O. Conference",
I should like mainly to limit my remarks to the question of our strategic air defence, with particular reference to our medium-range bombers and medium missiles. I welcome the declaration of the Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Paris—namely,
"That the Alliance will never be used for aggressive purposes."
At the same time I feel that we could find ourselves in a position, arising out of Russian influence in the Middle East, where the Western Powers might no longer be considering the U.S.S.R. as a potential aggressor. For she might be achieving her aims in the Middle East by propaganda, cold war, ideological theories, economic pressure and infiltration, whereby we should have to consider possibly taking decisions which could be termed offensive in order to protect the supply of our vital oil requirements—for I believe I am right in saying that no other deposits or outputs can compare with those of the Middle East.
116
Whilst agreeing with the Government's proposals outlined in the Defence White Paper of last April, and in particular with paragraph 14—namely, that
"While comprehensive disarmament remains among the foremost objectives of British foreign policy, it is unhappily true that, pending international agreement, the only existing safeguard against major aggression is the power to threaten retaliation with nuclear weapons".
I feel that at this stage of development in guided missiles it would be wrong to rely exclusively on ballistic rockets. I therefore welcome the Government's statement in the Defence White Paper that they will only "supplement" our strategic bomber force. If it is this country's policy to adopt the principle of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, should not the Government's aim be to provide this country with a more flexible form of nuclear deterrent-launching vehicle than the 1,500-mile-range Thor or Jupiter missile, with its static base? I should have thought—and here I am in agreement with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—that one of the essentials for the launching platforms is that they should be mobile, particularly in view of the geographical situation of this country, in which case one of their main advantages would be to provide unpredictable launching points which would not be subject to surprise attack.
For that reason (I believe that this question has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham), I should like to see consideration given by the Government to the fitting of certain of our surface vessels or submarines of the future with launching platforms. If that is not possible, on the ground of cost, perhaps the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that we should obtain from the United States some of their nuclear-powered submarines, may be a good one; for these submarines, I believe, can carry two solid-fuelled Polaris intermediate-range missiles. The solid-fuel missiles have the advantage of ease of handling and of having a short count-down. Apart from the questions of the cost of these I.R.B.M. bases, with their great blockhouses, fuel storage facilities, dispersal and transport problems, there still remains the question of vulnerability of these bases. It may be felt by the Government that it would be simple to conceal these missiles below ground, but,

117
much of the equipment will still remain above ground. I believe that in the event of attack, which I sincerely pray will never come about, the No. 1 objective of the enemy would certainly be the destruction of these bases.
That brings us to the highly important question of density of population in this country. It is wise, I feel, to remember that England and Wales together have a density of population of 753 inhabitants per square mile, while Scotland has 171. Compare these figures with those of the European Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, with its 46 inhabitants per square mile, and the United States, with their 50 per square mile. If one remembers that the Asian Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic has less than five inhabitants per square mile, one can easily appreciate how different the problem is when considering static missile bases in these countries.
There is another aspect of this problem which also has its importance, and that is tile range of these intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The design range for these missiles is 1.500 miles, in which case, for instance, the highly industrialised Urals would be out of range. Your Lordships may be interested in being reminded that the Urals are one of the richest sources of metals in the world, producing such minerals as iron ore, tungsten, platinum, chrome. lead, nickel and several others. The population of such important Ural industrial areas as Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk and Magnitogorsk—the last-named town being the greatest centre of ferrous metallurgy in Russia—is rapidly developing, for the Moscow or Central region accounts for only one-third of the total industrial production of the U.S.S.R.
May I enumerate one or two of the reasons why I should like to see a development in our V-class bomber force, fitted with the megaton bomb, the stand-off bomb, or an air-to-ground guided missile? First, there is the possibility of maintaining it at immediate readiness, whilst liquid-fuelled intermediate-range ballistic missiles can be fuelled only immediately prior to launching. Even assuming that solid fuelled I.R.B.Ms, were available for static bases, and basing my argument on the natural assumption that we should not launch the first nuclear attack, I think it can be safely assumed that, as I have previously said,
118
the enemy's first objective would be to render inoperative those bases whose location would be known well beforehand and pin-pointed, so that whether the missiles were at immediate or at 15-minute readiness would make little difference. Furthermore, our bomber squadrons could be based at alternative airfields; they could take off from this country and land at another, or vice versa. A bomber has also the advantage that it carries a crew with human brains, thus making it a weapon which can adapt itself to changing conditions, as well as one which can seek out its target.
Before I conclude, my Lords, I would refer to the American Government's recent prototype order for a chemically fuelled supersonic high-flying bomber, the WS110A. Will not the repercussions, although not exactly within the sphere of defence, adversely affect our own aircraft industry, in so far as the indispensable research into heat-resistant steels and higher-energy fuels will no doubt benefit the American commercial airliners of the future? We must not forget that at the end of World War II the turbo-jet, which is so extensively used in our airliners of to-day, was then considered suitable only for military aircraft.
So, to sum up, I would repeat that I sincerely hope that constant attention will be paid by the Government to any development in the Middle East occasioned by Russian influence, being in complete agreement with the statement in the Communiqué which says:
"We believe that the stability of this important area is vital to world peace."
I should like also to repeat that I do not support any proposals for the establishment of static missile bases in this country. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's words at last month's Conference in Paris, which he quoted in another place on December 20 last—namely [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 580 (No. 34), col. 853]:
"…we believe it is right…to adapt the contributions we make to the alliances which we support so that they produce the greatest possible accretion of strength to those alliances."—
should not our contribution to N.A.T.O. consist mainly of powerful, highly efficient, mobile strategic bomber forces fitted with the stand-off bomb (I believe I am right in saying that this bomb will be made available to

119
the V-squadrons somewhere in 1959), or even with the free falling megaton bomb? The mobile I.R.B.M. bases can be provided by surface vessels or nuclear-powered submarines with their launching sites—if I may use the term "site" in considering Naval craft—far removed from populated areas. Naturally, this would imply the acceptance of the stockpiling of the requisite nuclear warheads.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, before making the few remarks which I intend to make it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on his maiden speech in this House on a subject which he has obviously made his own and knows a very great deal about and which is very interesting. I know I am expressing the wish of those who are here and those who are absent when I say to the noble Lord that we hope he will take an active part in the discussions and sittings that lay before us.
My Lords, I am afraid that my remarks will be on a lower level than many of those that have been made this afternoon. Between the debates we had in July last upon the Naval Estimates and the recent meeting of N.A.T.O. the Government seems to have modified and revised their appreciation of the naval situation. I hope that that is true and that a more realistic view is now being taken. I was rather (if I may use a vulgar expression) "bucked up" by the remarks of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, if I may presume and venture to say so, I like very much the full-blooded remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that this new view is a good thing, because it obviously is going to take first things first. It is not going to allow the future to blot out the present, and it takes note of the great danger that exists at this minute of a possible Russian attack by her submarine fleet.
As a result of the N.A.T.O. Conference the naval forces have been integrated, and presumably that means more close working together and is to be welcomed. But I join my noble friend Lord Teynham in saying, "Please do not make this too generous", because there are British responsibilities for which we must have not only the ships necessary to carry them
120
out but a margin of safety—and a good margin of safety. For instance, one responsibility which can be only a British responsibility and nothing else is that we must take the full burden of the protection of our food and the supply of our food to other people. It will not satisfy the people of this country if we come to starvation point and are told that Ruritania did not have her frigates in the right place at the time. That matter should be administered by the Admiralty without any reference to foreigners working in the Atlantic further South. Home waters ought to be guarded by ourselves.
There can be no question of the fact that we are living in a very dangerous time and a war might be commenced, perhaps by accident. You cannot have nations armed and looking at each other and blackguarding each other as they are now without there being a great risk of some war starting. If so, are we ready to repel that war? Certainly not. On the contrary, we are doing what is unusual in countries which may be forced into war at a moment's notice, and that is we are reducing our armed forces, our three Services, and getting rid of trained reserves. We are doing this on the plea of economy. For this sort of economy we are taking a risk of great national danger.
We have one advantage, if we choose to make it so, and that is that we know what the enemy's strategy is going to be at sea, and what they are going to do. The development of the Russian fleet since the late war has been one of the most significant happenings in the world. We know now—the First Lord has told us—that the Russian Navy has 32 cruisers, 180 destroyers, 500 submarines, 300 escort vessels and frigates. It is a mighty armada. What is it for? The Russians make no secret of what it is for. We have been told by a prominent Russian officer that in the next war the sea is going to play a more important part than it did in the last war. He went on to say that the object of this Russian armada is to cut the lines of communication between the United States and their Allies in Europe. We call them "lines of communication". Whatever they are to others, to us they are lifelines; if they go, we go.
In an East German magazine there appeared an article by their Moscow

121
naval correspondent which stated quite clearly that the N.A.T.O. alliance in Europe consisted of small industrial States, none of which was self-dependent and all of which, to some extent or the other, had to depend on seaborne supplies. He also stressed the fact that the United States, the most powerful Power in N.A.T.O., was 3,000 nautical miles from her European Allies. According to Russian computation there are in the Atlantic on any given ordinary day 2,500 Allied ships, and in the ports bordering the East and the West of our coast there are another 1,800 ships. He points out, quite rightly, that on a declaration of war the shipping will be largely increased by the movement of the American Army, with its vast stores and machines, to reinforce the N.A.T.O. forces in Europe. If those do not get across, for a time it will go very hardly with the N.A.T.O. forces in Europe, and they will not be able to hold out for long. All this indicates exactly and precisely where these 500 submarines are to go. A large proportion of them are quite powerful vessels, and it is said by authorities that the fact is now known that the Russians have nuclear submarines.
Those who ventured to express any anxiety about our position at sea in the recent past have been met by some rather superior people who say, "We are in the nuclear age now", or, "We shall not be alone." So far as the nuclear age goes, it will be some time before we are in the nuclear age at sea. We have no guided missiles; yet we were told quite recently that they were laying down the first vessel. We were told that they were going to build a nuclear submarine. I am not trying to complain that these things are not being done; but I say that they are not done yet, and we are not in the nuclear age. Of course, many great changes have to be made, and we shall make them as our resources allow, but I think it is wrong to talk only of the future and not to have regard to our armaments at the present moment. Who knows but that in three months' time a war may not have flared up? We are promised many naval weapons for 1960, but that is two years ahead. If your Lordships would carry your minds back to the two years from 1939 to 1941, you will be reminded of the vast number of things that may happen in such a time.
122
The White Paper on Defence tells us that a considerable number of vessels in the Reserve will now be disposed of. This is part of the economy. I believe that some 100 vessels have been sold or got rid of since the war. No doubt some of them were worn out and useless, but many more were capable of being quite useful. Within the last three weeks we have been told that another seven frigates are going to Germany. It is cold comfort to be told that in two years' time they will be replaced. We do not want replacements; we want additions.
To those who put their trust in the fact that we shall not be alone, all I can say is that those people who have worked with some of the people we are going to work with cannot be quite sure of that. Many calls will be made on the two principal Allies. I am not suggesting that they will not be where they are wanted, but they might not be. France and the United States have long coast lines—the Americans have a very long coast line. They have to guard their frontiers; they have their troops at sea, being supplied on the sea, and they will want their vessels for their own particular use.
In reading a number of books that have been published about the war with Germany we have been able to discover why we were not always able to carry out the operations which had been decided upon: it was because they did not happen to fit in. America had the Pacific, and the vessels which were to have been used on ventures were not available. We even had Mr. Churchill writing to Mr. Stalin and telling him in regard to the Second Front, I think in 1943:
"We have got the soldiers all ready, but we have not got the ships or the escort duties."
Reading those books through, and particularly Lord Alanbrooke's book, one sees time out of number that these international agreements fell through because there was no shipping. "Shipping" was the constant cry.
After Munich, and after a year of preparation for war, what happened? In the first fortnight of that war we lost 285,000 tons of shipping—sixty ships, and the loss of life must have run into hundreds. That is where a number of these small vessels might be most useful. That is not always counted; it is not always considered. The number of crew that has been lost when

123
a ship has gone down is hardly ever mentioned. We cannot spare officers and seamen at such a rate. Through both wars there have been constant calls for more merchant seamen to man the ships, and they, in diminishing numbers, have always found a way to do it and have brought us through two wars. Without the Merchant Navy bringing home supplies, and doing much of it in unarmed and often unguarded ships, we should not have got through either of those wars.
I foresee a situation. It occurred in the last war. It would be much more dangerous with 300 or 400 enemy submarines out in the Atlantic. If our ports are to be bombed and our harbours destroyed, the food has still got to arrive off our coasts. This is a British responsibility and nobody else can take it. It is going to be very difficult to get the food to the people. It will have to be done partially by trans-shipping at sea and in the small inlets and harbours, and we should need something to get the food away to the people. I have not seen that difficulty mentioned; I hope it is provided for. I do not see the First Lord moving his head to indicate that it is provided for; I hope it is.
The work that we require from small inshore navy vessels and maritime air units would be tremendous and constant. We should want everything that we could get. No submarine wishes to come to the surface and engage in a gun battle, or to have its position accurately recorded. For that purpose we want more and more ships and those ought to be under one control—under British control—and kept out of entanglements in expeditions in which we are not really interested. I am not asking for great sums of money to be spent on the Navy at the present time, for probably it would be useless to do so; but we can do a lot by keeping the vessels that we have and making use of them. I defy anybody to stand up and tell me that those five destroyers which we sent away the other day and which were built in 1945 could not engage some of the dated submarines that the Russians have. Many of their ships were built in 1945. Those vessels have engaged in useful work, but now they have disappeared up the Eastern Mediterranean and are as much good to us as a headache. I conclude these rather disjointed remarks by
124
submitting that in all these discussions we have to remember that the Navy is built, and always has been built—not for just forty years but always—for the great battles which were fought in defence of our trade, to bring food and materials to this kingdom.
5.32 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, as usual I propose to address your Lordships for only a few minutes, but I feel that I must add to what was said by my noble friend who has just spoken in praise of the noble Lord. Lord Merrivale. I believe that he will be a great asset to this House as a Back Bencher with a vast and intimate knowledge of our present-day affairs, covering a wide range of weapons, and I heartily congratulate him on his very informative speech.
We are discussing defence, with which the noble Viscounts, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and Lord Stansgate, have both dealt to a great extent, and I believe it is proper for the House to do so. One noble Lord behind me thought we had departed a little from that subject, but surely it is the one thing we must talk about some time. I hope that some of the very wise remarks made by the opener of this debate and by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will become known in the country and make people realise that the situation is a serious one. I will put to your Lordships a proposal which has not yet been touched upon, except that it is embodied in the Prime Minister's wish to have a non-aggression pact with the Russians. This is no Party question, as the noble Viscount who opened this debate, informed us, and I was very glad to hear him say how united his Party were with this side of the House and Her Majesty's Government in attempts to deal with this appallingly difficult situation.
What would be the most splendid thing for our defence? It would be if, somehow, we could get the Russians to collaborate with us and get on more intimate terms with us. There is no question that they are not on intimate terms with us now. That may be all their fault, or it may be our fault to a great extent. We have an intimate relationship with other countries. We find that our Foreign Minister "pops "over to France to have a discussion with the Foreign Minister there. I should like to see us reach with

125
Russia something of the intimate relationship that we have with other nations. I do not despair that they would come considerably nearer to us if we were to do what I suggest. These long discussions at N.A.T.O. and the United Nations seem to lead only to sarcasm from the Russians; and they make propaganda out of them. Would it not be simpler to point out to the Russians in a friendly way that they must realise that the first thing they must do to help towards disarmament is to lift the Iron Curtain a bit? That Iron Curtain is there, and anything we get through it, over it or round it is very problematical. If we could get nearer to them it would be very much easier to raise the Iron Curtain a little.
The Prime Minister mentioned only the other day that there must be agreement on inspection. If we had such an Iron Curtain I should not expect the Russians to reciprocate with us. I feel they must know now that this Iron Curtain is a great impediment to our getting on more friendly terms with them. They must know that we want peace, and they must realise that the only reason why we have all the frightful weapons which are being produced, and which have been mentioned ad nauseam this afternoon, is the growth of their power: that if it were not for their great power, power that has been built up since the last war, we should not be worrying as we are, nor spending this enormous amount of money in order to protect ourselves should they come to use what they have now brought about in armaments.
Then there is the question of sites for guided missiles. I believe that the Russians are seriously worried about that. I wonder whether, if we got on more favourable terms with them, we might say to them, "We do not know how many sites you have; we are only guessing; and the only way in which we can really protect ourselves is by doing what we imagine is done behind the Iron Curtain. There must be any number of sites for these missiles that we are frightened of, and therefore we must prepare, in case you use what we are only guessing about at the moment" I feel that if we got closer together we might easily get information and agreement, and a realisation that, if we are going to do certain things, then they will do
126
certain things; and that if they do certain things we are bound, in order to protect ourselves, to do the same.
It seems to me that we have periods in which things quieten down a bit, yet we never seem to take the lead. It is always Russia that comes out with something, so that we are put on the defensive, explaining something which is often not accurate on their part; and that puts us in a bad position. Why should we not come out sometimes and say, "Look here, we are worried about this or that. We should like to talk to you about it"? I believe that it would not be impossible to ask them what they would agree to with regard to this question or that question. My Lords, I feel that my suggestion is quite worth thinking about and studying, and I believe that if we pursue what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred to, namely. this non-aggression pact idea—which some people do not seem to like, though I do; I think it is a splendid idea to have that combined with an attempt to get on more intimate terms with the Russians—then we might get into a situation in which neither of us would be as worried as we are to-day.
5.43 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am intervening in this debate to bring one matter only to your Lordships' notice. It concerns our anti-submarine forces and their relation to our own submarine building programme. I shall deal with the matter very briefly, and, indeed, I propose to touch on only one aspect of it in the next few minutes. I hope your Lordships will not think on that account that I regard it as in any way unimportant; the contrary is the fact. I believe it to be a matter of very great importance.
The great potential menace of Russia's 500 submarines has been discussed in your Lordships' House before. It is often referred to in the Press, and now, quite recently, we have been given some interesting information in the recent edition of Jane's Fighting Ships. This excellent and usually accurate publication tells us that by 1961, only three years from now, Russia may be expected to have 700 submarines, some of them nuclear-powered, and that the Russians themselves regard the largest of these as their capital ships of the future. The

127
publishers make this further significant comment. They say:
"It is not impossible that nuclear-powered submarines with guided missiles could replace aircraft carriers as the spearhead of naval warfare within a few years. The importance of underwater craft in sea warfare has increased considerably in recent times."
And now, turning from Jane's Fighting Ships to the N.A.T.O. Conference in Paris last month, we find the Prime Minister saying this:
"Perhaps the greatest menace, or one of the greatest menaces, that we have to face in the military field, is the enormous fleet of Russian submarines. We believe that the British contribution to the naval forces of N.A.T.O. would perhaps be most effective if it were concentrated more on anti-submarine warfare and less on other things "
et cetera.
I think everyone agrees on what a very formidable threat these Russian submarines represent, and yet I wonder, as I wondered at the time of the debate on the Navy Estimates last year, whether we are prepared, or whether we are preparing, on an adequate scale to meet that threat. When the matter was brought up in a question about two months ago by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, the First Lord of the Admiralty told us that when looking at these matters we should consider not only our own anti-submarine forces, but the anti-submarine forces of all the countries of N.A.T.O. together.
If we can rely completely on the solidarity of N.A.T.O., if we can be sure that all the N.A.T.O. countries will be with us from the very beginning of hostilities, that is fair answer. But your Lordships will remember that, on completion of the large-scale N.A.T.O. exercise "Strike Back" last autumn, both Admiral Wright, the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, and Admiral Sir John Eccles, the Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic, remarked in no uncertain terms on the lack of forces at their disposal. I am not aware whether the forces that took part in that exercise were comparable to the forces that would be available to those two Commanders at the outbreak of war; but, having read my newspapers, I am inclined to believe that they were. And if those two Commanders were anxious, as clearly they were, then I am anxious too; for who can know better than they what forces they will require to fight those 500
128
Russian submarines, and, of course, formidable surface forces as well?
I believe that Mr. Macmillan was right when he said in Paris last month that our naval contribution to N.A.T.O. would be most effective if we concentrated more on anti-submarine warfare. I think we can take it that very formidable antisubmarine forces are vital to our survival in the event of a war with Russia. And it is not only the number of ships and aircraft that comprise those forces which matters; it is their quality and the training of their crews as well. The training of anti-submarine forces is a long and arduous business. In order that it may be carried out efficiently it is essential to have an adequate number of up-to-date submarines to act as targets to represent the enemy; and when I say "up-to-date", I mean submarines with modern characteristics of speed, diving, depth and manœuvrability, so that the exercises and training may be in every way realistic. If they are not, false conclusions will quickly be drawn and substandard training will result. My Lords, we cannot afford anything sub-standard in this respect; we must afford the best.
I should be very concerned if it ever appeared that our submarine force was out of date or was becoming out of date. I was anxious, therefore, when I read in the Press a little while ago that the work on our first nuclear submarine, the "Dreadnought", was not to be proceeded with. I was equally relieved when I heard that this statement had been contradicted by the Civil Lord in another place. Nevertheless, I am still anxious, and I am anxious because the completion date of the "Dreadnought" is, I believe—I know—years behind the "Nautilus". Already the Americans have three nuclear-powered submarines in commission. By the end of the year I understand that they hope to have nine, and by 1961, within the next three years, they are hoping to have fifteen, of which one, the "Triton", is a ship of nearly 6,000 tons with a speed of something like 40 knots. How far the "Dreadnought" may be behind the Russian nuclear submarine programme I do not know; but if the Americans can have fifteen in three years' time, maybe the Russians can, too. We have, of course, the two experimental submarines, "Explorer" and "Excalibur." I believe that they are very useful ships

129
and they will go some way to meeting our requirements, but there are only two of them and I understand that in any case they are in some respects inferior to the "Nautilus."
I know that we have to watch the money side of the business. We have to husband our resources. I have not the slightest doubt that the design, development and building of the "Dreadnought" is a very expensive business, but I hope and trust that, in spite of this, our nuclear submarine programme will be pressed forward with the greatest energy, so that before long we may have some up-to-date nuclear submarines. Quite apart from their important rôle as launching sites for guided missiles, they are urgently required for training our anti-submarine forces and those of our Allies, to keep them up to date and in all respects ready to carry out their functions in war.
5.52 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am rarely enough able to picture the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in the rôle of Good King Wenceslas; but on this particular winter's night I had been intending to follow in some of his footsteps while rather carefully avoiding others. Since then he appears to have blown up and gone home, and I am left to trudge on through the snow alone. I most ardently hope that as the outcome of this debate the Government will formally take into account the possibilities, the opportunities, of a neutral belt in Europe, and, having taken them into account, will turn them to account.
l am stirred by the same wish as my noble friend Lord Teviot. I see here a chance to take the initiative, a dynamic initiative, in peace proposals. I think that most of your Lordships would agree that the great political absurdity of this epoch is that Soviet Russia, the only great Power that in reality threatens the peace of the world, that has a whole string of savage, successful and unpardonable aggressions to its debit, can take on the guise of the paragon among peacemakers. Admittedly, even the Kremlin cannot hope "to fool all of the people all of the time" and many are now wise to the Russian pattern of peace manœuvre. But the remorseless fact remains that the Russians know how to play upon the deep, the sometimes desperate, craving for peace of the majority of humanity.
130
By threatening at one moment and placating the next, they maintain the war of nerves, and by every separate operation tighten or extend their hold upon the freedom of some part of humanity. They have taken the bully's licence to declare: "You want the best peace; we can refuse it."
My Lords, I have never been personally, individually brain-washed—indeed, I doubt if anyone would find it worth his while. But it seems to me that collectively the West is being subjected to the technique of brain-washing. As I understand it, a victim of N.K.V.D. is not continually tortured or terrified during a treatment. After a period of incessant pain and terror there is a period of relief, of apparent kindliness and solicitude. And the victim, having hardened himself almost by habit against incessant pain and mockery, is softened by solicitude, by the unexpected but calculated benevolence of his tormentors. And, once softened, another period of torture awaits him. I have spoken to survivors of this process and they have told me that by the end they even wished to believe the lies that were being put into their heads.
No one will regard this allegory as picturesque, and I hope that not many will regard it as being far-fetched. I sincerely believe that it would be perilous for us to want to believe the Russians too intensely in this period. But is that possibility very far removed? The sputniks were employed as cunning instruments of torture, to inflict fear and uncertainty, to sap the assurance of the Western peoples. They were accompanied by boasting and mockery from the Kremlin. Did they fail in their purpose? There was near panic in Washington and an immediate deflection in American foreign policy. Now comes the period of solicitude. I am sure that we must beware of that solicitude.
But, having said that, I am by no means led to the conclusion that Summit talks should be avoided. They should be welcomed. They should be taken as an opportunity, not to swallow the Russian proposals but to expand them, an opportunity to take the initiative and put forward a plan that will dwarf the Russian plan. I believe that the instrument lies at our hand and is under discussion in this debate—an opportunity, not just to ban rocket bases, but to withdraw Russian forces from the satellite

131
countries and N.A.T.O. forces from Western Germany.
In supporting this project, I should like to make it very clear that I do not wish to see N.A.T.O. weakened, far less liquidated. Indeed, I hope that in this way it may be strengthened for its main purpose, the preservation of peace. A number of far more distinguished exponents of this theory have published their views in recent months, certainly no one more lucidly than Mr. Denis Healey in the central theme of a pamphlet which came out in the New Year. I am not going to quote his or anyone else's words, far less my own which I addressed to your Lordships in July of last year. But I should like briefly to address myself to the critics, or to the main criticisms, of this plan.
When I spoke in favour of the plan six months ago, the Government's technical objection, uttered by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, was that we should be sacrificing defence in depth. With all respect—indeed, with all reverence—to the noble and learned Viscount, I cannot help feeling that if we are reckoning defence in depth, to-day, in terms of 200 to 300 miles, the breadth of Western Germany, then we are indeed preparing to fight the last war, instead of prevent the next—a criticism which has been often enough levelled against our military pundits in the past. Surely, if defence in depth is to have any meaning at all in the nuclear age, it must be reckoned in thousands of miles.
My own perhaps rather primitive calculations discover that a neutral belt—that is to say, any neutral belt acceptable to ourselves as well as to the Russians—would provide a warning area some 800 miles wide at its narrowest point; and that is to say 500 miles more than the distance between the Iron Curtain and the Channel Ports. I am assuming that any treaty establishing such a neutral belt would give the right to Russia and to N.A.T.O. to have civilian observers on the frontiers concerned; that is to say, the Western and the Eastern frontiers of the neutral belt.
The main disparagement of the plan is contained in the question of what would be done if the warning were given
132
from the other side of this neutral belt; if the Soviet Army in force crossed the Eastern frontier and swept back into the liberated territories. Again, I think it must be assumed that anything less than a major offensive could be halted and contained by the armies of the neutral countries themselves; and, my Lords, we can take it that the newly-freed nations would be vigorous and valorous in repelling any minor incursion with conventional weapons by their former masters after the free elections, written into the treaty, had been held.
The critical question still remains, of what happens if, after disengagement, the Russians attempt to move back in overwhelming numbers to reoccupy the vassal States of to-day, or even one of them. The last thing I want to do is to evade this problem, on which I have my own definite views, but it clearly involves issues and decisions which cannot be outlined. still less argued, in a sentence or two. Measuring your Lordships' indulgence against the clock, I feel that I must leave on one side the form that this guarantee would have to take, a guarantee by which I recognise the whole feasibility of the neutral belt plan would stand or fall. All I am really hoping to-day is that the Government may give an opinion that such a neutral belt would be desirable, if it could be made workable, and that its opportunities will be fully investigated. I confess that I did not entirely understand from my noble friend the First Lord to what extent they had been investigated.
I remember that on the last occasion the Government also posed the conundrum: "If you create a neutral belt, who keeps it neutral?" That would be a riddle, indeed, if we had no faith whatever in international agreements. But if that were so, I must ask: how could we continue talking in terms of international agreements and in terms of disarmament and non-aggression pacts? That is a form of scepticism which I should hardly care to pursue.
The general argument advanced against the plan is the hypothesis that the Russians would never accept it. Apart from seeming to me no valid argument against trying it, that looks a dubious argument in itself. What, in fact, would Russia be giving up? An asset or a

133
liability? From the Soviet point of view, the Warsaw Pact is worse than dead; it is actively dangerous. Economically, the whole satellite area is a burden. On the previous occasion I offered your Lordships figures to show that Russia was having to subsidise every satellite except Albania at tremendous cost. Since then Albania has been added to the list, and the all-round cost has been enormously increased. But the most commanding factor is the simple factor that Russia does not want a nuclear war in Europe. I think that that is generally recognised. Russia is quite as aware as anyone else of the devastation that nuclear war would bring upon the conqueror and the capitulated alike. The Soviet Government also has a vested interest in any plan which renders such a war less probable. Here is a plan, and here, I think, is a fair and feasible way of presenting it.
There is another reason that moves me considerably in supporting this plan. It would mean the release from bondage of 110 million human beings. I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who has been behind the Iron Curtain. But the memory, the sensation of life in those countries, is very much, very agonisingly, with me all the time. It is not life as we understand it or demand it. I must reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that I saw very little patriotic satisfaction in these great engineering endeavours; and cannot believe that patriotic pride was much involved in the attempt to build a Black Sea-Danube Canal, in which 30,000 political prisoners died.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the noble Lord see any patriotic endeavour in the defence of Stalingrad, which was a very important thing in the war?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Stalingrad was not in a satellite country. Your Lordships need no reminding that we have a duty towards these people. If we forget that duty, we are failing ourselves as human beings. By their valour in Poland and Hungary, by the everyday heroism of people living in those countries and refusing to give in, they have earned the admiration of the human species. In all conscience, it is only right that this admiration should be translated into practical understanding. While we speak to-day, a new anxiety is infecting those
134
peoples, as they read of Summit talks and non-aggression pacts to come. Needlessly, I hope, but inevitably, they are chilled by the fear that a non-aggression pact might include the recognition of a status quo in Eastern Europe; that they may be written off, dismissed as they were dismissed from Western calculations until the risings in Poland and Hungary so little time ago. They are hungering for some Western assurance on this point, before the Summit talks begin. Because without it they are ominously aware of Khrushchev's persistent statement, that no problem of Eastern Europe exists, and the danger that he might demand it as a premise in Summit talks. That danger is, I think, pointed in the interview he gave to the Daily Express a week or two ago. If ever we were to accept that premise, for convenience or to smooth the path of negotiations, apart from the human offence itself we should, to our own cost, be abandoning more than 100 million friends to cynicism and final slavery.
A positive alternative is a neutral belt, and I believe this neutral belt plan has a real chance of enactment if presented with courage and with its motives clearly stated. I disagree entirely with the argument I read the other day that the Soviet Government can well afford to enter protracted and superficially promising negotiations which in reality are unlikely to succeed. I believe precisely the opposite. Once such negotiations are entered upon, once the wholesome possibility of their fruits appears within reach, that whole vast population behind the Iron Curtain will be demanding a fruitful conclusion. No Government, however powerful, however ruthless, could afford to delay artificially, or to reject, that conclusion.
It may be thought by some noble Lords that I have raised points outside the immediate subject of defence. But I have catechised myself on each point, and I am convinced that each is directly related to defence. Surely, in this age prevention is not only the first line of defence, it is the only true line of defence. We have within reach not only the opportunity to establish a warning area and to remove the current peril of spontaneous combustion leading to war; we have the opportunity to release into freedom those many millions of fellow Europeans and, by our

135
concern for them, to prove, in terms of history, that what we have here ourselves is worth defending.
6.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, in accordance with our usual practice I should declare an interest in some of the aspects of this debate in what I am going to say. There are two aspects of defence which are fundamental—men and material. Both of those are required in the highest quality and in adequate quantity. Unfortunately, I believe it is true at the present time that there are signs that we are not getting either of those requirements, either in manpower or in equipment. Since the publication of the Defence White Paper last April there is no doubt that the morale in the Forces has been seriously affected. One experienced officer, whose views I treat very seriously, has told me that he thinks that morale is at its lowest ever. I hope that that is not true; but there are certainly signs, and signs which we must take into account. Far too many of the best men are retiring from the Services. At some levels, more officers are putting in for retirement under the new scheme than can be allowed to retire. We must all appreciate the work which the Minister of Defence did in obtaining satisfactory and fair conditions for those who have to retire in the present circumstances, but I do not believe that those conditions were ever meant to encourage people to retire beyond what was deemed necessary; the compensations were prepared with the idea of being scrupulously fair to those who were forced out of the Forces. Recruitment in many branches which in the past found it easier to recruit men—particularly in the Navy, and in some branches of the Air Force—is seriously below requirements. Families with generations of Service traditions behind them are no longer recommending their sons to go into the Services.
Those are the symptoms. I believe there will be general agreement that they are serious symptoms. What is the diagnosis? I believe that fundamentally the difficulty over the last year has been bad presentation of the problem and of what is being done to meet it. There has been far too much emphasis on the negative, on reductions, on cancellations,
136
on what we cannot do, and on how we are to deal with this and that reduction or cancellation. There has been far too little emphasis on the positive: what is the job for the Services, what are they to train for, and what is the vital contribution that they are making to the nation's problem. The Press have followed that line, and my own experience is that that means bad public relations. I do not think it is fair to dismiss it as the result of a wicked Press. With bad public relations the wrong emphasis will be put on news reports in the Press.
The result of all this has been that Servicemen feel unwanted, and all the other symptoms of morale being affected follow directly from that. Service life has many disadvantages. Men have never joined the Services to make their fortunes or for a soft, easy life; they have joined because they like the way of life. They think there is an important job to do, and they think they are going into a job where they will be respected. In spite of the considerations of the disturbances of family life and the relatively low pay, they have stayed in and re-engaged, because of the comradeship in the Services and, above all, because of the pride they have taken in their Service and the importance with which they have regarded their jobs. Without those you will not get recruitment and you will not get men to stay in the Services.
Now what is the remedy?—for a remedy must be found. First of all, I am quite sure that we want a new and positive approach to the problem: clear statements on what the functions of the Services are; on what is the job they have to do; on the importance of the job the Serviceman has to do; on the measures being taken to make the Services more effective, and on the means that are being adopted to deal with all the problems. We must have better public relations, which in itself will lead immediately to a better Press. There must be more liberal interpretation of the present financial rules. There is far too much niggling about allowances for removal and for education; and, where necessary, changes in those rules must be made. I heard the other day of a regiment which is going overseas in a month or two, and naturally the wives and families of the men in the regiment are asking whether they can go, too. The War Office are anxious that

137
they should be allowed to go, but the reason why they cannot be given any answer as to whether they can or cannot go is because no ruling can be obtained on whether there is to be sufficient money to provide married quarters for those families.
That is the kind of vacillation, the kind of pettifogging administrative disorganisation, which lowers the morale in the Forces, and must be improved. The whole objective of a future policy in this respect must be to make men in the Services feel wanted, rather than that they are simply a drain on the economy. For wanted they are now—wanted, probably as they have never been before. We all know that many changes are necessary—we have applauded the courage of the Minister of Defence in making clear the changes which he thinks are necessary—but the needs and the objectives must be more clearly stated or we shall simply go on as we are now, with the morale in the Services at a low ebb.
So much for the vitally important field of manpower. I should like to say a few words now on the other side of the picture, equipment, for in these days men, however brave, are no good in the field without the best equipment. There has been controversy since the White Paper on whether we should have this equipment or that, but I am not going to be drawn into an argument on that now. We shall discuss that when the White Paper is published. No one will dispute that the Services must have the best equipment in the quickest possible time, and as cheaply as possible. In my view, the Services are being prevented from getting the best equipment by bad administrative organisation. Those in industry, who make most of the equipment for the Services, are anxious to provide it, and they fully appreciate the need for the strictest economy. At present, I believe they are held back by lack of decision, by administrative delays, many of which come back to the Treasury. I will return to that in a moment, if I may. Often decisions are taken and perhaps a week, a month or two months later there are rumours going around that the decision is to be reversed. That does not create the type of atmosphere in which to obtain rapid and efficient production.
Not only does this cause delay, but the policy which is now being adopted of
138
placing orders in penny packets, which is thought by some to make for economy, in actual fact makes for extra cost, as anybody who has anything to do with the engineering industry will know. It makes planning impossible. It is sometimes thought that if it takes a certain time to make a particular piece of equipment from the time of placing the order, that is the time-span that is necessary from the taking of the decision to the time of delivery. But before production can start there are all kinds of forward planning to be done; manpower and space and resources have to be allocated, and they cannot be kept waiting for possible decisions. There must be a forward plan.
The point that I was making of the increased cost through placing small orders becomes more and more important as the equipment becomes more and more complex, as it is to-day. In my humble opinion, the basic problem is that so many of these delays are caused by the fact that those who make the decisions are not in full possession of the facts. At the moment, under our present system the Treasury has the last word on every thing; it does not allocate money to other Departments and allow those Departments, such as the Ministry of Supply, to get on with the job. The spending is controlled in every detail at every stage by the Treasury. That is leading to immense delays and also, in my view, increased costs.
There are two ways in which the Treasury can work. One is that it can assume detailed control, as it does now but in that case those who are taking the decisions must come out of their-offices and see what is going on in Industry; at present they do not do that. The alternative is to allocate the money and allow those best qualified to do so to make the detailed decisions and allocations.
I believe that the present system is slow, wasteful and inefficient. I do not want to get involved here in a discussion on the Ministry of Supply—that is a subject for debate in itself—but I do believe that, though the staff are first-class, devoted and knowledgeable, they are working entirely in the wrong framework, as I said to your Lordships about a year ago. In many respects the Ministry of

139
Supply is acting as an unnecessary barrier between customer and producer, though basically there are many valuable functions it can perform if only the framework in which it works can be reorganised.
I have spoken about morale in regard to the forces. Morale in industry is also important. You must have the atmosphere right for those in charge to take the necessary risks., For risks must be taken, and are all the time being taken, to make sure that adequate resources are available; and you must have the right atmosphere to encourage recruitment into the industries concerned. You will not get that by uncertainty and continuously altering decisions. I believe the remedy is to take decisions, many of which will be unpopular and hotly resisted, but to take those decisions, good or bad, for better or worse, and stick to them and promulgate them so that everyone knows where he stands. And within the agreed limits of expenditure laid down by the Treasury, let the decisions in detail be taken by those who know most about it.
On every front we must get rid of the feeling that the Services get what is left. Recently we have heard a lot about the Saunders-Roe 177 aircraft. I do not know whether or not that aircraft was needed for the Navy, but what is abundantly clear is that the way it was handled was disastrous. If that aircraft was needed for the Navy, then the decision whether it should be produced or not should not have been dependent on whether it was sold abroad; the decision should have been taken on its merits. For you can imagine the effect on the morale of the Navy, that here was an aircraft which they considered was important for the future defence of their carriers, and yet the decision was not taken on any sensible ground but was related entirely to whether it was sold elsewhere or not. I give that only as an example of the bad psychological atmosphere which has grown up during the last year.
My Lords, I hope you will not think I have strayed too far off the terms of this Motion. But I do believe we cannot play our part in N.A.T.O. in the maintenance of international security and in defending our own interests, without adequate forces. I sincerely believe we
140
shall not have those adequate forces unless clear objectives are set to inspire our Servicemen and unless we cut out waste and delay in the supply of equipment. It is for those reasons that I have ventured to take up your time this afternoon.
6.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour I do not propose to try to cover the very wide fields which are contained in the Motions set down by noble Viscounts opposite, although I should like to say how much I appreciated the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. There are many observations which I should like to make, because I was in Paris as an observer during the last meeting of the N.A.T.O. Heads of Governments. I would fully support everything the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in the earlier part of this debate about the concrete results of that Conference, especially, for example, the measures providing for the development of greater scientific co-operation and in defence production among the different N.A.T.O. Powers.
To-night I desire to make only two observations, and to ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I shall not expect him to give an answer to-day, but none the less I think it important that it should be raised.
The first thing I want to say is that never, I suppose, in the history of N.A.T.O. has a meeting been held in such curious circumstances. Towards the end of the meeting, and of course outside the Palais de Chaillot, I had a conversation with two distinguished Soviet observers—I had known them well in the past. Both of them said that they thought it had not been too bad a meeting, first, because neither President Eisenhower nor Mr. Dulles had been so bellicose as they had been in the past; secondly, because it was gratifying for them to see that the Bulganin letters had been taken very seriously by the Western Powers, and of course especially by Norway and by Denmark. Thirdly, they said that they were very glad to see the considerable publicity which had been given to the Kennan broadcasts, and especially the last one, in which Mr. Kennan had said words to the effect that there was a kernel or core of sincerity in a great deal of what the Russians said and did. I have no doubt

141
that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, would think that I had undergone unconscious "brain-washing" in this conversation, but I do not think that in fact I did undergo that process. We must recognise that there is a remarkable relaxation of tension. Whether this relaxation is altogether a good thing I hesitate to say, but I do not believe it to Abe wholly bad.
Therefore, while we must certainly not throw away the N.A.T.O. shield, and never forget Hungary and other horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union, I believe that we should do everything possible to maintain the detente by multiplying the number of contacts between ourselves and the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, especially in the economic and cultural fields. There are a number of ways in which this can be done: sonic are already in operation at the moment. There are a number of visits to this country, but I agree that there are a large number of other ways in which we might expand that traffic. I will not go into them to-night, but I propose to put forward some suggestions through the proper channels.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Earl gives me the impression, which I know he does riot intend to give, but it might be given to others as well, that it might be suggested that he is not prepared to forget Hungary but is prepared to forget the other countries occupied by Russia.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: No; I certainly did not mean to give that impression. I said that we must not forget Hungary, and I added that we must not forget the other horrors which the Russians perpetrated.
One other thing I wanted to say was that I think we must look warily into the neutral belt plan. I am doubtful whether it would be in the interests of the country to accept it as it now stands. Moreover, I do not myself see how a zone can be de-nuclearised. For, after all, nuclear weapons are now fast becoming conventional weapons, and certainly, as other noble Lords have pointed out—the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in particular—it is becoming exceedingly difficult to make a distinction between them. In that connection, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. quoted some interesting remarks by the
142
noble and gallant Viscount, Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein. Even if perhaps those remarks should not have been published, I think that Lord Montgomery of Alamein was basically right in what he said.
Finally, I come to the question which I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; it is not related to anything I have just said, but it intimately concerns the solidarity of the Atlantic Alliance as a whole. The question is this: does the noble Lord believe that there is any foundation to the disturbing rumours, some of which have appeared in the Press, that the United States has been unfairly undercutting Britain in the provision of arms to Western Europe, both in respect of the Centurion tank and of the Saunders-Roe aircraft? I do not expect the noble Lord to give an answer immediately, but I hope that on a later occasion he may be able to make a statement. If there is any truth in these rumours, it is most damaging to our American friends and to the Alliance as a whole. I hope, therefore, that we may in due course be told the true position. Differences of opinion of this kind between Allies make me feel that, if we cannot achieve a common N.A.T.O. policy in foreign affairs and defence. at least we should have a co-ordinated policy—at any rate, a more systematically co-ordinated policy—than perhaps there is at present. One last word: as other noble Lords have said, I believe that this country must take the lead. I believe that our Prime Minister is doing so, and that we shall soon see quite well what is to be Britain's rôle in the new world. I think his present tour is already giving a hint of it.
6.35 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I confess rather to the reactions of a split personality on this occasion, in that a debate which was conceived to be concerned primarily with defence has had introduced into it the whole grave issue of disengagement in Central Europe—and what greater matter could be put forward for our consideration in 1958, involving, as it does, nothing less than the whole of our relationship with the Soviet Union? Bearing in mind that the soldier is the servant of policy, it would, I suggest, have been more logical if we

143
could have had our policy debate first and then, when our ideas on a European policy had been threshed out, to have come to the defence debate. I personally shall hope when Lord Alexander of Hillsborough raises the whole question of international affairs next month, to concentrate on some of the grave and important issues which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has raised. Even so, I shall hope just to make a footnote on these grave issues.
If I may draw attention immediately to the problems of defence appropriate to the Motion to-day, I would use this communiqué, the official declaration after Paris (Command Paper 339), as the background. I speak only for myself when I say that, in following the Press accounts of the Paris Conference, I was disappointed to find that Ministers seemed fairly consistently to be concerned with what I can describe only as the "big bomb obsession"—"Is or is not your bomb bigger or better than mine?" It was with some relief that when one came to read the Paper itself, if nothing very revolutionary in thought emerged, at least one realised that matters of principle and political morality had been considered, and that there was a re-statement, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk has reminded us. of our frustrations over such things as disarmament.
But I submit that while a soldier is extremely grateful to know that the principles of defence and strategy are being looked after. and that behind the scenes plans are being made and adjusted constantly to changing policies, for reasons of psychology involving not only the impact on the British public but on the free peoples of the world, and indeed on the peoples behind the Iron Curtain, it is extremely unwise to convey the impression day after day that all we are concerned with is keeping abreast of the potential enemy in the arms race. I should have thought also that some open and heated discussion which has surrounded considerations as to whether this or that N.A.T.O. country was going to accept launching bases on its soil, was going to accept stockpiles of warheads and so on, would have been hardly in the interests of security. Sometimes it seems that we have made the task of the Soviet intelligence services considerably lighter
144
for them. I would therefore plead for reticence in the official communiqués and in the material given to the Press, when it comes to plans which may follow in the wake of the very correct but somewhat negative decisions, as I see them, which were taken in Paris the other day.
I take this opportunity to submit that, if and when a Summit Conference is ever held, the cameras and the television people, with their concomitant set smiles and artificial handshakes and the droves of journalists, should be deliberately and completely dispensed with; that far longer time should be provided for discussion, so that statesmen can escape from this obligation always to appear as successful actors taking their curtain call and can get down to hard discussion on down-to-earth matters, such as disagreements about Hungary and the fact that Hungary still remains a barbed-wire cage, so far as its 6 millions or 7 millions are concerned.
In regard to matters of pure defence I have very little to say on this Command Paper 339. One notes with satisfaction, from paragraphs 20 and 21, that decisions have been taken to establish stocks of nuclear warheads and intermediate-range ballistic missiles; and we accept that. The details are to be threshed out by a military conference in March.
There is one development on which I would comment. Paragraph 22 tells us that the Treaty Powers will seek as high a degree of standardisation and integration as is possible in all fields, both in the composition and in the equipment of their forces. I would reinforce what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, had to say about this aspect. I would put it in this way: to what degree is the standardisation and integration of equipment of an army of 165,000 to suit the N.A.T.O. defence purposes compatible with the practical demands on the Services, and particularly on the Army—demands which have been constant during these last twelve years and will most certainly continue in future? I have tried to make this point before, and at the risk of wearying your Lordships, and the noble Lord who is to reply, I would remind the House of the list of such demands. May I recite it?—Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Palestine, British Guiana, Aden, Oman, Kenya, Suez; and, a few days ago, the

145
Bahamas. That was essentially a Commonwealth list, and if the standardistion of equipment and of the composition of the Army means that the Army is to be tied to the unpredictable and perhaps hypothetical demands of Europe, then I suggest that inevitably we shall be faced with revision of that figure of 165,000. If not, one of two interests, it seems to me, must be abandoned—either the interests of Europe or the interests of the Commonwealth must be skimped in a way which raises the whole question as to whether any contribution at all is worth while. Because it is very wisely said that it is no good being strong unless one is strong enough.
I would add only a word of comment on the great issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. My reaction is that if, subsequently, it were found that the West had come to appreciate the real advantages of disengagement in Central Europe, surely in the meanwhile nothing would be lost by implementing decisions which may already have been taken or been considered in regard to their nuclear weapons and their distribution in Europe. Let me admit immediately that I have been profoundly impressed by Mr. George Kennan's Reith Lectures. Before I studied them, as some of your Lordships may recall, I supported, as did my noble friend, the whole concept of disengagement in. Europe as the only hope, not only of reunification of Germany but also of seeing that some 110 million people in Eastern Europe were freed from slavery. It cannot he said with precision that the removal of twenty-two Soviet divisions from Eastern Germany would result in the collapse of the Communist régime there. It can 'be said that that day might he nearer, and it can most certainly be said that so long as those twenty-two divisions are there. the Communist régime will remain and Germany will never see the day of its reunification.
I submit that those who are suspicious of the disengagement concept are apt to jump to hasty conclusions. One has heard employed terms such as "appeasement" and "the abandonment of N.A.T.O.". Recalling that the range of an intermediate-range ballistic missile is in the region of 1,500 miles, look at the map of Europe and at those countries which have been mentioned by Mr. Khrushchev and by the Polish Foreign Minister in this context of dis
146
engagement—and I would always hold that the atom-free zone and the disengagement of troops in Germany are all part of the same proposition of disengagement—and then subtract those countries and note what is left. It will surely be seen that the whole of Soviet Russia, up to and beyond Moscow, could be smothered by these ballistic missiles from launching sites in what is left or perhaps, as other noble Lords have said, from submarines. I imagine that that is the reason why Soviet Russia is to-day trying to include Turkey and Greece in an atom-free zone.
But let us be quite clear on this fact. We desire neutrality in Central Europe for very special purposes. We want to allow Communist imperialism and the free peoples to fight their battles out on an entirely different plane--a plane free from political intimidation supported by military strength. All that we want to do is to clear the arena, and then to let the best side win. Now those are conditions which in no way apply to Turkey and Greece, and therefore I suggest that we should be perfectly justified in ignoring Soviet suggestions to spread the net wider and include inside a disengagement area, or indeed an atom-free zone area, countries on the circumference. But whether we agree or disagree on this issue of disengagement. I would submit that if ever there was an issue which cries to the skies to be divorced from considerations of local domestic politics, it is this one.
We are surely g surveying nothing less than how to remove the whole ideological issue from the plane of military strategy and military thought in which it has been submerged, not by soldiers but by politicians, and to restore it to where it belongs, as a battle of mind and thought, concerned both with abstract matters and hard practical facts, to be fought out according to fairly recognisable techniques. And if one feels that way about it, how utterly unreal it is—and I say this because at one time there was talk of a Division on this Motion to-day—to vote, if asked to do so. in support of or against any domestic political Party!
A few weeks ago I took part in a B.B.C. Overseas Service discussion on the North Atlantic Treaty Meeting in Paris with a Frenchman, an American and a

147
prominent Member of the Opposition in another place, who has devoted much time to this particular matter. It was clear that my colleague and I fully agreed with each other in regard to this matter of disengagement. After we had finished I approached him with the suggestion that it might not be a bad thing if we could form an all-Party Parliamentary group to study this great issue together, if only to ensure that these artificial divisions would not jeopardise the kind of settlement which we had in mind. And to-day, surely, we have had two or three speakers on this side of the House fully supporting the new conception of disengagement. The response which I received from my friend was that it would not, in his view, suit his Whips, and a hint that it would also not suit the British democratic idea of conducting Parliamentary affairs.
Compare that approach to the approach of Sir Hartley Shawcross, who has implied that we shall be out manœuvred all the way down the line in the West if grave matters of foreign policy are subjected to reconstruction every time we change our Government. In former days it may not have mattered very much, when countries negotiated on a bilateral basis and political policy changes came naturally, with no dire consequences. But compare that with the position in 1958, when we all live in each other's backyards, and are faced with an issue of ideology and great subtlety such as a Pitt or a Palmerston would never have been called upon to face. If we cannot evolve a coalition approach in handling such matters as the linked issues of European defence and policy in relation to the Soviet, could we not at least attempt inter-Party consolidation on it? The one thing I could never understand would be to be asked to vote against another Party on such an issue. Indeed, if I were asked to do so, I could only remain a spectator and hope, with the poet, that
"He also serves who only stands and waits."
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, most of the remarks I had intended to make to your Lordships to-day will, I think, come better in the debate after the Defence White Paper has been issued, so I shall not detain your Lordships for very long, to-night. The noble Earl, Lord
148
Selkirk, mentioned the conference which takes place every year in Paris of Members of Parliament from all N.A.T.O. countries. I myself was a member of the party of British Members of Parliament who went there, together with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is following me in our debate to-night, and I want to say a few words about the N.A.T.O. meeting as one saw it. It is chiefly from the military point of view that I have a few remarks to make.
I do not think that anyone who goes to N.A.T.O., and particularly anyone who visits S.H.A.P.E., can fail to be impressed by the great strides they have made in the time at their disposal. From the Supreme Commander, General Norstad, downwards, one is greatly impressed by the very high standard of officers of all nations. The language difficulty is overcome by their all speaking either English or French, and they are all very definite as to what they are there for and the plans which they have got to make. As to the plans in general, most of your Lordships know them, and many of the briefings that we had were naturally not in public session. But the planning, to my mind, is extremely good and has gone a long way. It has resulted in considerable practical works. We all had the opportunity of visiting an institution like the N.A.T.O. Defence College. That is extremely interesting and it is a very well run institution. Again, they consider the language point of view—English and French—and officers who go there are given lessons in French or English, in order that they may take part in the discussions; and integration is extremely good. One saw the integration in the last war at Allied Forces Headquarters, but this has gone infinitely further because the question of languages has, I think, been overcome.
There is a small point about that Defence College: they are rather upset that officers who pass through the College have nothing to show for it. Officers who pass through the various Staff Colleges here, or in various other countries, have some form of letters to put after their name; and it is felt—and I rather agree—that when officers have been through a N.A.T.O. Defence College something should be put after their name, in order to let everyone know that they have been there.

149
Another point is that this College is—I will not say suspicious, but a little anxious as to how good a purpose these officers are put to after they have been put through the course. That feeling, of course, is not confined only to that College: one knows it only too well in our own Services. But they will all say that the whole thing depends on the fact that they expect all nations in N.A.T.O. to keep their training and the fighting strength of the forces they have promised to produce up to a very high standard. I think there was some misunderstanding at one time about our own British forces, because some nations did not fully understand that it is quite possible to streamline and reorganise and re-equip an Army without its losing its strength, even though doing so may result in having rather fewer men actually on the Continent. But that is quite possible, and has been stressed many times by the Government. I very much hope—and I believe it to be so—that the forces we do keep on the Continent acting for N.A.T.O. will be hard-hitting and mobile. The numbers there are not very great; they are not very thick on the ground. The frontages which the formations have to keep are very broad, so they must have mobility and they must have hard-hitting strength.
The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has already been quoted once to-day. I should like to quote him again. I saw him on a television interview when he was asked about the future of the infantry. He was very emphatic about that: he said that one could create missiles but one must have the infantry. And I hope that, if there is to be any more cutting down in the Army, it will not be at the expense of the infantry, who in the end are always needed, the Tank Corps, the armour, and also the S.P. Gun. As another noble Lord has just dealt with it I will not go into the question of conventional weapons, because that would take a very long time and it is a rather difficult subject. I trust that the Forces will not be cut in those directions. By all means let us cut the "tail". I believe that there are many more "tails" that can be cut off—and some do not live far away from this Chamber.
I should like to say a word about recruiting and manpower. I agree with
150
every single word which my noble friend Lord Caldecote said. I think that we have the whole thing in the wrong perspective; and it is the nation's fault. The Serviceman is not really looked up to in many quarters. He is regarded as a man who is too stupid to make a lot of money and stand about the streets in ridiculous looking clothes. We have to get it into the minds of the whole nation that the Serviceman is needed, is important and is a highly trained man after he has been in the Service for a little time. I 'believe that Government propaganda has failed on that point. I think tat more could be done through the new medium of television. We must make the Serviceman realise that he is a terrific chap and get away from the attitude of people who say, "He isn't much good; he has gone into the Services."
The other side of the manpower question is that once a man is in the Army we must do our best to keep him in it. It is the niggardly little things that annoy the soldiers. They do not always complain—they just do not stay on. It is matters like married quarters in Germany (though I understand that the Government: have already this matter in hand) which annoy the soldiers, and so they will not sign on. It is the man who will sign on and who has been partly trained and might become an N.C.O. whom we really want. As has been said many times, it is the N.C.O.s who are the backbone of the Army.
7.4 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is getting late and I know that your Lordships are waiting to hear the two speeches still to be made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, who will be replying for the Government; therefore, I will restrict my remarks to two points. I will not endeavour to follow my noble friend Lord Goshen, with whom I had the pleasure of spending a few days in Paris in October. He has already explained lucidly the situation of the N.A.T.O. Defence College and other matters connected with it which were explained and shown to us. I should like to say that the two matters to which I am going to draw attention have nothing to do with the Liberal Party line, but I think that my noble Leader will not mind my mentioning these

151
matters. What the Liberal Party feel on defence questions has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
It strikes me that what we are discussing is so difficult technically that many people, even senior commanders who may have to use these weapons, are not really clear about their scope and what may happen when they are used. I know that there have been trials and tests, but it is a different matter when we come to use them in anger. Scientists play a leading part in the world nowadays, for better or worse, and it is difficult for ordinary people to keep up with them. I cannot begin to keep up with them myself and do not even attempt to. To ask us to discuss some of these matters and try to make up our minds is really asking too much. Therefore I should like to confine myself to two factual matters of which I have some knowledge, either through the Press or directly.
The first one is the refusal of the Federal Government of Germany to honour their obligations in regard to their contribution towards the cost of B.A.O.R. As a country which has recently reduced its bank rate to a figure exactly half ours, one would think that their economic position must be reasonably stable, and we find ourselves in the humiliating position of having to go, if not actually with cap in hand, to the Federal Government to ask them whether they will please fulfil the financial obligations into which they entered, if not freely, at least quite clearly. We have had to think of some way out of the difficulty, and the first thing we did was to reduce our Forces in Germany. The result of that was unpopular with other N.A.T.O. countries. As my noble friend Lord Goschen has said, nowadays we can have fewer men, better trained and with better weapons, and a smaller army may have the same effect as a larger one. That is partly true; but it is a difficult idea to "sell" to other people.
The Western German contribution to N.A.T.O. in respects other than their contribution towards our occupation costs is equally unsatisfactory. For instance, lately there has been the cancellation of the Saunders-Roe contract for jet fighters, to which the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, referred, and which caused some alarm and despondency in the Isle of Wight. If I am using the word
152
"cancellation" wrongly, then I withdraw it, because perhaps no contract was lodged, but it seems that the Saunders-Roe Company were clearly under the impression that these jet fighters for the West German Air Force were to come from them. We find that the order for the British Electric P.1.B. Rolls-Royce engine has also been revoked by the Bonn Government. It begins to look as if West Germany intend to avoid their commitments for first-line aircraft altogether.
However, I must be consistent about this, because in 1954, at the time of the European Defence Community debate, I advocated—and incurred the displeasure of some of your Lordships in doing so—a much slower build-up of the German armed forces. This, in fact, has taken place, not as a result of that debate but because the rate at which the men for these forces have been coming forward has fallen a long way behind schedule. If this slow rate has been caused by the fact that the officers of the new German Army are being carefully "vetted," to try to exclude any resurgence of Nazism, obviously it is all to the good. No doubt General Speidel, the Commander-in-Chief of the ground Forces, is a good man and has studied this question. As I have said, if that is the reason it is all to the good, but the members of N.A.T.O. are not impressed by this. They would like to know why the German contribution is coming forward so slowly. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with this rate, or at least that they are fully informed of why it has fallen behind schedule.
Before I leave the point of the German contribution I should like to add that one Government after another in this country has stressed the need for German reunification. Rightly or wrongly, they have taken this line. There are many people in this country who are not in favour of it, and they could be right. But in point of fact it is taking place now in a way which is not observed clearly: that is, through the enormous number of refugees which cross every day—the figure has been given to me as 2,000 a day—from Eastern Germany into Western Germany. Thus, Western Germany is becoming progressively more populated, and Eastern Germany less so. If a nation consists of a lot of people, as opposed to

153
a geographical area—and, in my opinion it does—then that number of people is steadily increasing in Western Germany by means of this tremendous number of refugees which is continually coming in. That may eventually bring the whole question of German reunification into the right perspective. I mention this because I do not think it is generally appreciated. The advocates of the plan for the neutral nuclear zone will perhaps take that into consideration when they think or talk about it.
I have only one other matter to which I should like to draw attention, and it arises, to some extent, out of the first: that is, that if the senior commanders in N.A.T.O. are worried about shortage of manpower (and they are) especially in regard to ground troops, then there is an obvious source at hand, which is recognised by the United States but not yet by other members of N.A.T.O., and that is Spain. The military contribution that Spain might make to N.A.T.O. might not be very large, but it would certainly be as large, if not larger, than that of certain other members such as Portugal, Greece or Denmark, and possibly others. When you look at the geographical position of Spain on the map of Europe, you see how important it is; there is no gainsaying that strategically Spain is important. Spain is also a close link with North Africa, and since our French friends and Allies are involved in North Africa to an increasing extent nowadays, with problems both military and political, it seems that membership of N.A.T.O. by Spain might be a great help, taking the larger picture where North Africa is concerned, Then, taking an even longer view, the affinities which Spain has with the Republics of South America—not with all of them, but with some—might have some political significance and some political use in the future.
These are only thoughts on the subject, but the Americans have done more than think about it. They have established five bases there for the use of the Strategic Air Command; and they have also built an oil pipeline which I understand has now reached Salamanca. American Service personnel on all these bases are treated by the Spaniards as if they are Spaniards: they do not have trouble with visas and so on, such as our garrison at Gibraltar has. The Americans spend dollars, and
154
they are personœ gratœ. These bases are, as I have already explained, strategically comparatively distant from the area from which we fear attack might come. I asked the Commander of the Strategic Air Command in Paris whether he thought that five bases in Spain were enough and whether possibly there was not room for a few more. He thought about it before replying, and then he said that five was "not too bad," from which I took it he was not going to commit himself further on the point.
In this matter of the possibility of Spain joining this Western organization—and it is a joining organisation—opposition is to be expected, of course, from the Right and the Left. From Parties of the Left in every country, and especially, I think, in Norway, there are certain to be voices raised in horror at such a suggestion. Personally, I feel that the Civil War is now twenty years old—twenty years is long enough—and a great deal has changed in Spain since then. It is an unlucky fact that few English people go to Spain—a few go as tourists now, but that is about all—and I think the picture in most peoples' minds is that which they had in 1937 or 1938, when a stern grip was needed to restore order out of chaos. But that grip has now been relaxed, and it is not what it was then. Finally, the attitude of Spain in the last war, if not exactly friendly, was, at least (and this is a masterly understatement) no more unfriendly than that of Germany and Italy, who are now members and Allies in N.A.T.O.
I think the time has come not to hark back on old wrongs and on what has happened in the past, but to look forward and to be realistic in a matter where we could gain considerable advantage. If N.A.T.O. is seen almost exclusively as a mechanism of deterrence, or defence against Communist aggression, then it seems that the arguments for admitting Spain are unassailable. But if the objects of N.A.T.O. go further than that—and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, who a few moments ago drew our attention to that point—then I believe that historically, culturally and in other ways Spain shares a great deal of what may be described broadly as the European-Western heritage. The test is not really whether

155
at a particular time particular personalities happen to hold sway over a nation. Personalities, after all, are transitory and are not there for ever. I believe there is every reason to assume that Spain would be a useful and loyal member of N.A.T.O., and I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of sponsoring her membership or, at least, of giving support to any other member of N.A.T.O.—and obviously the United States of America springs to mind in this connection—that may do so. I did not give notice to the noble Lord who is to reply that I was going to raise this matter, and I shall well understand if he does not reply in detail, or indeed at all, and it will then be left open to me to put down a Motion on the subject at a convenient time.
7.18 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, with a number of good speeches to which I should like to refer later. But, as so often happens in defence debates, the debate has tended to get a little desiccated. I think it was unfortunate that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not reply to the two powerful speeches made by my noble friends on the Front Bench, which I think required a reply, as this would have given a line on the debate. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough dealt with N.A.T.O. and with a particular matter intimately concerned with N.A.T.O.—namely, what is going to be the position of our forces, and particularly our ground forces, in the years ahead when they attempt to substitute voluntary recruiting for conscription. That, obviously, is a serious matter.
Then my noble friend Lord Stansgate dealt with a subject which is very much in everybody's mind; that is, whether it is not possible to get some kind of a neutral zone. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, left the one speech to be answered by another Minister, and practically ignored the other. I have been trained in another place, and I must say that I know of no occasion when a Minister in another place has got away with treating two leading speeches in a debate in that way. I think the trouble is that the debate runs loose, because we have to wait for the Minister who is to speak at the end to answer points made at the beginning.
156
One interesting point was brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in dealing with N.A.T.O. He stressed—and it has been stressed again by the noble Viscount, Lord Gosehen—the integration at the United Nations of this force drawn from so many different nations. I remember well that between the wars I was a strong advocate of an International Police Force. We were always told that it was quite impossible, and that forces from different nations would never work together. As a matter of fact, we saw it done in the Army in Italy of Lord Alexander of Tunis; and now we have a repetition of it. Members who have been there have seen how you can form an international force. It seems to me encouraging to those who have always advocated that the United Nations should have a force of its own, to see that in practice it is found to be possible.
The next point I should like to make concerns N.A.T.O. and the original purposes of N.A.T.O. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough has given the history of that. The particular danger at that time was that Europe might be overrun by ground forces from the Soviet Union. It was not thought then—it has never been thought—that we could put comparable forces into the field. It was thought that we could put into the field sufficient forces to defeat some minor attack or interference. It is true that during the years we have been successful in that respect. It is also true that at the back of our minds was the major deterrent. But the point of N.A.T.O. still remains—not as a lining up for a major war, but for preventing any outburst that might lead to a major war.
What disturbs me very much is the conception of arming N.A.T.O. forces with atomic weapons, because if there is to be a fight, that fight with atomic weapons will presumably be somewhere in the centre of Europe. I can hardly imagine Germans in West Germany wanting to destroy German towns with atomic weapons, or wanting large areas to be put out of action. That seems to me quite impossible. We have reached the stage of thinking that it would be possible to use these tactical weapons, which would cause immense destruction and render whole areas uninhabitable, by scaling them down and using them in a minor way on some transportation centre, without

157
having the conflict carried further and leading to a major atomic war. That is why I think my noble friend Lord Stansgate was perfectly right to stress the danger of distributing these weapons among all kinds of people. It means, in fact, destroying the whole purpose of N.A.T.O.
I believe that there is a case for a careful examination of this idea of a neutral zone, because it would get away from a great deal of the need for these forces to be instantly ready to suppress aggression. It is true that with modern weapons you could fire over a neutral zone, but it is the checking of the aggression you wish to achieve. I was much impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said about his talks with the Russians. I have had a fair amount of experience of dealing with Russians, and I know that you need a pretty long spoon. But I do not believe that at the present time the Russians think that it is in their interest to have a major world war. On the other hand, I believe they think it is worth their while to involve us in heavy armaments, because there are always two sides to the cold war. One is the possibility of a cold war becoming a hot war, and the other is that of weakening the economic position of the West in order to win, in effect, a bloodless battle.
I was much impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said about needing to get away from the idea that competition between the Communists and the free world must always be on the basis of war. I believe the noble Earl went further. I do not think it should be on the material plane alone. Re battle will ultimately be won in the minds of 'men. That is why I was rather disturbed at the result which the launching of the sputnik by the Russians had on the United States of America. It seems to me that the United States, ignoring their other great heritage, tended to rest their power on their material ability to produce goods of various kinds. It has been a bad shock to them to find that in some matters they have been surpassed by the U.S.S.R. I think it has brought out a dangerous mood of hurt pride, which adds to a certain amount of fear which already exists. It also reinforces the point that has been made in this debate, that a lead is needed from this country. I feel that there is a little danger that we always hang back and
158
wait for our American friends. I am all for the fullest co-operation with America, but that does not mean we always have to accept their line. I believe that there is a great cause for Anglo-American unity, and that most people think a change in the State Department would be of advantage, both for America and for the world. I do not find that that is a thing which separates Americans and British at all, but I am bound to say that I think at the present time almost every approach to international solutions tends to be blocked by a somewhat hasty remark delivered from the State Department.
There are one or two other points I should like to make before I sit down. I was impressed by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on the question of morale in the Services. I think he is absolutely right. I believe that a great many Service people do not know where they are, or what are their functions. I was also impressed by the difficulty of getting "all-weather" forces to perform on the Continent of Europe and, at the same time, to act in the kind of way which is required in our far-flung Commonwealth and Empire. It would be an enormous advantage if we could get a relaxation in Europe, if we could get the neutral zone so that we could have the kind of force which I think we need—a mobile force of all arms, merely as a kind of police force for the Commonwealth and Empire. If, ultimately, that could be superseded by a police force for the world, then we might be on the way to an enduring peace. I feel that at the present dine there is rather more open-mindedness in the world, and I think that, whether there is what is called a Summit Conference or some other conference, wise words were spoken by the noble Lord who said it should not be marked by photographs and every kind of publicity. I agree that there must be preparation and a programme. You can settle a programme only if you have the support of all countries behind it. I believe that at the present time there is a slight relaxation, and I want Britain to lead.
7.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I do not think I shall be guilty of understatement if I say that this has been a far-ranging debate. We have ranged from

159
what is now known as "summitry" to "ferrous metalitry", which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, told us about in an extremely interesting and technical maiden speech. I hope I shall not be considered eccentric or exhibitionist if at the conclusion of a defence debate I address my short remarks primarily to matters of defence. I hope I shall not incur the wrath of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, if I do not go further with him along the paths of disengagement and neutral zones. I thought, if I may say so, he was less than fair to my noble friend, Lord Selkirk. My noble friend made it perfectly clear how important Her Majesty's Government think this matter is and how earnestly they are studying it.
I have little to add to that save to repeat it, and to bring to the notice of those noble Lords who may, I think, perhaps have slightly over-simplified the difficulties and problems a most interesting and graphic letter in this morning's Daily Telegraph from the distinguished French statesman, M. Paul Reynaud. He sets out the pros and cons of all the difficulties with great clarity and shows some of the dangers which some of the more optimistic of us may have overlooked. I would beg those noble Lords who have not done so to read that letter most carefully.
The fact that that letter comes from a distinguished French statesman highlights one of the points which I would bring to your Lordships' attention: that this is not a matter for us to decide by ourselves. We have ultimately to decide it in concert with fourteen other friends and Allies. More than one of your Lordships in this debate have emphasised this question of the Alliance, integration. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned it. I was glad to hear him endorse the growing strength of integration in N.A.T.O. My noble friend, Lord Goschen, drew attention to it and produced as his example the constituent parts of the N.A.T.O. Defence College. He made also one or two specific complaints about postings and conduct in that college. As the Defence College has the misfortune to listen to a lecture from me at 9 o'clock to-morrow morning in Paris, I will make it my business to find out what the noble Lord is com
160
plaining about and see whether I can help in some way.
My Lords, I would address myself first to the subject which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, dealt with in some detail in the course of his vigorous, interesting and considered speech, the subject of recruiting, to which several other of your Lordships have naturally given attention. The recruiting task we have set ourselves is, I think we all recognise, a high one, not least because with the smaller all-Regular Forces at which we are aiming we can afford to recruit only men of good quality who believe in the importance of the job they are doing. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goschen, when he points out that, competing as we are with industry, we do not want in the Forces the spivs and layabouts and no-goods. We are not trying to raise an Army of "angry" young lance-corporals.
There has been much speculation, not all of it quite disinterested, about our chances of building up the Regular Forces we need by the end of 1962. There has, of course, been no lack of prophets of doom who tell us that our objective is hopeless from the start. The truth is, that no one can be sure yet just how things will go in the next two or three years. Whether or not one takes into account the positive steps to improve recruiting, about which I shall have a little more to say in a minute, attention has been rightly concentrated on the prospects of achieving an all-Regular Army by the end of 1962. By saying this, I do not mean to say that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are without their recruiting problems, but merely that they are less difficult. If we succeed with the Army, we can hardly fail with the other two Services.
Can we then measure our prospects of getting this all-Regular Army? My answer is that at this point in time no one can do this with any real claim to accuracy, not even the honourable and gallant Member for Dudley, who did me the great courtesy of coming and showing me the figures which the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, quoted and whose interest and ingenuity in this matter calls forth admiration from us all. Until the autumn, when the six-year engagement was introduced, there were no means of knowing how many genuine recruits we were getting. The large

161
numbers of men undertaking three-year engagements completely obscured the picture. Many of them were simply disguised National Servicemen. Since then, figures have begun to come in which give some preliminary idea of the level of recruiting we may expect, not merely in total, but also to the various arms and corps within the Army. These detailed figures will, of course, be just as important as the total, in that they will determine whether or not we shall get the balanced force that we need. So far, we have firm recruiting figures only up to the end of November; that is, about six weeks' worth of the new six-year engagement.
If the pattern which seemed to be emerging in the late autumn is confirmed in subsequent months, and there is some reason to believe that it will be, both the size and nature of our task will become clearer and we shall then be better placed to work out the right measures to deal with the problem. It is, I think, too early yet to forecast any accurate trend, but the current figures (certainly for long-service Army recruits) are by no means discouraging. I hope that the White Paper which will be published shortly will include the figures for December and January and submit them to a more detailed analysis than I am in a position to do to-day.
It is, I am sure, common ground here among all of us that we want to succeed in obtaining all-Regular Forces so that conscription can finally disappear from this country. It is going to be a hard task, but I believe that we can succeed. I am equally convinced, though, that the task will not be made any easier if we are confronted at every turn by much-publicised attempts to prove that success is impossible. Nothing has happened since the publication of the White Paper a year ago to make us revise our opinion about the prospects of obtaining the Regular recruits that we need. In view of what I have read recently in certain newspapers, I should like to make it quite clear that the Government have no thought of abandoning their policy to end the call-up in 1960.
Now, my Lords, what about inducements to get the recruits? Most of your Lordships have asked about this and put forward helpful suggestions. I welcome those suggestions. I hope that any of your Lordships who have concrete proposals
162
to improve recruiting will let us know about them so that they can be passed to the right quarter. I would remind your Lordships that there is no easy solution; there is no gimmick: there is no one solution of this recruiting problem. The Government, I assure your Lordships, take this matter most seriously. As the House knows, the Grigg Committee has been set up with the following terms of reference:
"To examine the factors bearing on the willingness of men and women to serve in the Armed Forces and to make recommendations."
Let me make this perfectly clear: whilst the Committee is examining all these matters there will be no standstill. It will not be a case of "waiting for Grigg." Certain measures have already been taken and others are on the way. I regret that the oratorical purdah enforced upon me by the pending Defence White Paper prevents my giving more detailed information this evening. I can, however, indicate some of the considerations and factors which will carry weight with the Government as decisions are made. Many of the factors influencing recruiting are already welt known to your Lordships. I put accommodation very high, particularly married quarters. I put high the problem of turbulence, frequent moves, the distress which it causes to wives and families, the difficulties it causes in the matter of the education of the children; pay; uniform, the desire for a new uniform; discipline. I should like to offer a very few observations on these matters, personal observations based on a visit last week to the Second Tactical Air Force and the British Army of the Rhine.
The first thing I would say is that I came quickly to the conclusion that many more National Servicemen have enjoyed their service in the Army and in the Air Force than popular legend would lead one to suppose. I think the reluctance of many men to sign on is due to the fact that they have a job waiting for them, often a job in the father's or family business, and not to any dislike of the Service. Nor is sensible discipline resented—quite the contrary. Good soldiers or airmen respect good discipline, and there is all the difference in the world between what is vulgarly called "bull," and panache, in which the good soldier joins as much as anybody. A good deal has already been done to eliminate unnecessary

163
"bull." Panache is wrapped up with uniform, and I think the need for a smarter uniform is universally accepted. Plans are now far advanced. The trouble with the uniform is like that with road traffic; every member of your Lordships' House has a Traffic Bill in his dispatch case and everybody has his own ideas about the new uniform he would like to see the Army wear. But this difficulty must be overcome.
I put very high a moment ago married quarters. The Government are bending their minds to this matter most seriously, because we shall not get men to stay in the Armed Forces if they cannot have their wives with them. The Navy has an entirely different system, of course. It is the fiancées and the wives of young N.C.O.s who force the men to come out of the Army, quite naturally, if they cannot be given decent quarters. The Government have already made considerable progress in regard to the question of accommodation. Those of your Lordships who have recently been near Tidworth or Wilton will have seen some of that progress. Only to-day in the newspapers there were pictures of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War knocking Woolwich about. He is a guardsman. I, as a gunner, had a slightly more nostalgic feeling for Woolwich, naturally, than he, though I spent only five days there. I understand that those who spent longer had much less nostalgia than I.
I was impressed by the amount of weight your Lordships gave to the question of morale—the indefinable question of morale. I thought I knew as much as there was to know about morale in the Army; but one always comes across some new imponderable and I was surprised to find in Germany something that I have not come across before—the number of other ranks who object to being referred to as "other ranks". Perhaps somebody will find a better name, other than "personnel", to embrace the whole of the soldiery and airman. But the Government take this matter very seriously and are doing everything possible to maintain and improve morale. I appreciate the seriousness of the remarks that have been made. I think they can be summed up in one sentence: that what the Government, and
164
all succeeding Governments, always have to do in respect of the Forces is to appear to them all in the rôle of a good employer.
I have talked about Germany and I now turn to a problem which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgem'an—the question of local defence costs in Germany. This, I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is not due to the difficulties with which we are faced, due to the economic "free-for-all". The position really is this. The Deutschmark funds made available by the Federal German Government under the agreement of last March will soon be exhausted. These funds met £50 million out of the total cost of about £130 million for our Forces stationed in Germany in 1957-–58 This £50 million covered the whole of the costs which are unavoidably incurred in German currency. If no other financial aid is forthcoming, not only will the British taxpayer have to assume an additional burden on the Budget of about £47 million in the year beginning April, 1958, but our already serious problems over the balance of payments will be further aggravated. Her Majesty's Government decided, early in December last, to invoke the revised Brussels Treaty whereby
"If the maintenance of the United Kingdom Forces on the mainland of Europe throws at any time too great a strain on the external finances of the United Kingdom "—
Her Majesty's Government—
"will… invite the North Atlantic Council to review the financial conditions on which the United Kingdom formations are maintained."
This is what Her Majesty's Government have done.
The United Kingdom case has been endorsed by three independent experts appointed by the Secretary General of N.A.T.O. in accordance with a N.A.T.O. procedure established earlier this year to investigate currency problems arising from the stationing of forces in other member countries of the Alliance. We now look with confidence to our N.A.T.O. Allies to suggest a speedy solution to this problem. Discussions are continuing in the North Atlantic Council. We have warned our Allies, both in the North Atlantic Council and in the Council of Western European Union, that in the absence of a satisfactory solution a very

165
serious situation will arise. This position has not yet been reached. Her Majesty's Government await the outcome of the North Atlantic Council's deliberations. Therefore at this moment I think it would be inappropriate for me to say much more than I have done. But, obviously, if we do not get support costs the whole question of how the foreign exchange and budgetary charges could be met will have to be looked at again.
My Lords, I turn now to another problem which has occurred in many speeches, the problem of the S.R.177, to which I think the noble Lords, Lord Caldecote, Lord Moynihan and Lord Windlesham referred. The reason why Her Majesty's Government decided not to go on with this aircraft is quite simple. It was originally intended for use both in the Royal Air Force and in the Royal Navy. The Royal Air Force requirement was cancelled on the grounds that the threat which the aircraft was designed to meet could be met by other means. The cancellation of projects for the development of fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force of types more advanced than the supersonic P.1 was announced in the White Paper on Defence last year. The decision to cancel the naval requirement was taken later on similar grounds. I should like to follow this up by making a point of general application. The exclusion of a piece of equipment from the defence programme does not necessarily mean that we have no confidence in it. Very often we have, much to our regret, to cut out weapons which it would be convenient to have, but we simply cannot afford to take out two insurance policies to cover the same risk.
The reasons which led the German Government to reject the S.R.177 are not fully known to Her Majesty's Government. The German Government informed us just before Christmas that they had decided, with great regret, to refrain from sharing in the further development of the aircraft, but so far as I am aware they have not yet announced a decision to purchase any particular alternative aircraft. The decision not to purchase the S.R.177 does not, of course, reflect in any way upon Saunders-Roe who have a fine record of achievement. The view of the Ministry of Supply, I understand, is that the estimates of delivery which were given to the Germans were reasonable and realistic. Since the German decision was
166
announced, the firm have proposed that the Government should buy three S.R.177 aircraft for research and development. Again, this proposal was examined most carefully, but it was decided that these aircraft would not enable any work to be done which was not possible with existing aircraft, and the additional cost could not be justified in relation to aircraft for which there was now no possibility of production.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Is the noble Lord leaving that part of the subject?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very clear reply, and I am much obliged; but I do not think that he has dealt quite sufficiently clearly with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote—that the Saunders-Roe machine would be most valuable to the Navy, and that the Navy itself thought so. Do I understand that the professional advisers of the Admiralty did not want the Saunders-Roe machine?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that is not so. The S.R.177 is an admirable aircraft, but there were other means of fulfilling the task, and, much as we should have liked to have the aircraft, both in the R.A.F. and in the Royal Navy, we thought we could not afford to have two insurance policies to cover the same risk. We should have liked to have it, but we just could not afford it.
I should like now to deal with a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—the question of the alarm which has been caused in some quarters by the thought of aeroplanes circling above our heads carrying H-bombs. I was glad to hear the very sensible and down-to-earth attitude (if that is not an unfortunate choice of metaphor) in which the noble Lord addressed himself to the matter. Naturally people in this country are concerned about the dangers which arise from aircraft -carrying this terrible weapon, but most of the talk has concentrated upon the rather alarmist statements of the hazards to be expected from radiation. All the Government statements already made on this subject have been based upon the best up-to-date scientific assessment of the risks involved, and upon the advice of the United States

167
Government who have had some experience of these matters.
In the first place, hydrogen and atomic bombs are not carried over our heads all day and every day, but only on the infrequent occasions on which large-scale operational exercises take place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to delay the noble Lord, but before the Defence White Paper comes up for discussion in the House would be consider a statement on page 30 of the New Scientist journal, published on January 30, which seems to disagree with a good deal of what the noble Lord has said?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will, of course, do so. As the noble Viscount knows, I myself have no scientific knowledge and cannot answer the point from personal experience. I am only passing on to the House, as I believe it is my duty to do, the best scientific advice available to Her Majesty's Government; and this I have had most carefully checked. I was speaking of the weapons themselves. I am given to understand that they have been designed with many safety devices, and more effort has naturally been spent on safety devices for these weapons than upon any past weapons of war. When these bombs are carried over us they are unarmed. This means not only that they are safe, in the conventional high-explosive sense, but that they are also safe from a nuclear explosion or reaction.
At present the process of making the bomb ready for use is a complicated one, and the crew of an aircraft would all have to go raving mad together in order to arm a bomb against orders over this country. Of course with aeroplanes there is always the danger of a crash. As your Lordships know, this danger is greatest at the moment of taking off and landing, and this is particularly true in this case, because these flights take place generally over the sea. If a crash does occur, what happens? First, if there is not a fire, normally nothing happens, except the usual damage caused by a crash. If there is a fire nothing worse than before happens unless the bomb bay is involved. If the crash does involve the bomb bay, then, at worst, a conventional (for the want of a better word) explosion occurs; but the chance of this occurring is less
168
than for last war bombs and a high-explosive fire is more likely.
What about the radiation? Unless there is a high-explosive explosion or fire there is not the slightest risk; and even if there is an explosion or a fire there is only a small risk, because special precautions are taken against shock and fire affecting nuclear material. To sum up, a realistic estimate of the very worst case would place the hazard at somewhat less than that of a last war bomber crash, including conventional bombs—and this includes the radiation hazard. Your Lordships must also remember that the chance of all these unhappy events occurring together is very, very small—much smaller than most of the everyday hazards to life. In the view of Her Majesty's Government it is not unreasonable to accept this infinitesimal risk in order to maintain and increase the effectiveness of the main deterrent to war.
I have spoken of the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent. Some of your Lordships have suggested that Britain is devoting too large a part of her defence effort to that deterrent. I cannot agree. The fact is that by far the greater part of our defence expenditure is still devoted to conventional forces. This may seem surprising, because the cost of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery is, as we all painfully know, very high; but the numbers required and the numbers of men needed to operate them are much smaller than the numbers required for conventional forces. We sometimes tend to forget how much money is still spent in the old-fashioned way on pay-day. It is very far from the view of Her Majesty's Government that every military emergency which may arise in the future would be met by the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
The greater part of our forces will continue to be employed, for as long as we can foresee, on the traditional tasks of keeping the Queen's peace and guarding her subjects and those under her protection all over the world with weapons which, though up-to-date, will not depend for their effect on the awful power of nuclear fission or fusion. But we must never forget that, so long as the Soviet Union maintains her purpose, to thrust Communist domination out over the whole world, and so long as her conventional forces are vastly greater than those of our friends and ourselves, so long will

169
our peace and security depend upon the power to retaliate, by nuclear weapons, if our vital interests are threatened. The share of our defence expenditure that we devote, and shall in the forseeable future devote, to this purpose is not, I am sure, too high, a price for Britain's contribution to the task of keeping the peace of the world until the day when, as we all profound !y and fervently hope, it can be founded upon the firm base of international confidence and genuine—I repeat, genuine—disarmament.
7.5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to say much in rising to ask permission to withdraw my Motion, but I must refer to two points upon which we shall be fundamentally divided. The noble Lord, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, has repeated with confidence that it is right to tell the world, as they have already clone through N.A.T.O., that even if they are attacked with conventional weapons they will, whenever they themselves choose, reply with a nuclear attack and thus launch the whole business on the whole world. That is a position of terrible responsibility, and that is why, two years ago, I made a speech in which I said that Her Majesty's Government had entered upon a policy which. if pursued, meant that there was no return. Let that be clearly understood. The second point I wish to make is that the noble Lord has not yet made any answer to what I said about the airlift. I hope that we shall eventually receive an answer about the complaint made in his dispatch by the Commander-in-Chief in the Suez episode and the figures which he gave. If the noble Lord has not the time to reply to it to-night we ought to be given the promise that we shall have full details later.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ISLE OF MAN BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ALL HALLOWS THE GREAT CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
ALL HALLOWS THE LESS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
ASHTON - UNDER - LYNE, STALYBRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DISTRICT) WATERWORKS BILL [H.L.]
BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BRAZILIAN TRACTION SUBSIDIARIES BILL [H.L.]
CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
CLERGY ORPHAN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
FALMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL [H.L.]
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.