Sitting of 13 March 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Grey Squirrels
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research it is intended to undertake for the extermination of grey squirrels; what organisation will undertake this research; and at what estimated cost.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Proposals for intensifying research into methods of controlling grey squirrels are at present under examination by the agricultural departments and the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Remnant: That is only a partial answer to my Question. Does the Answer mean that where activities undertaken by my hon. Friend's Department have proved only partially successful, they must be abandoned? If so, why does not my hon. Friend, on that score, abandon his activities against foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. Godber: I could not accept the wider implication in that supplementary question All I am saying is that we are seeking to find some other and more effective ways of dealing with squirrels, and I shall welcome my hon. Friend's support.
    Mr. Remnant: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Runciman Committee (Report)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at the excessive profits of the middlemen handling vegetables, what action is being taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Runciman Committee in an effort to improve the situation for producers and consumers.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. John Hare): The hon. Member will be aware that in reply to recent Questions I have said that I am anxious to make a statement on the Runciman Report as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dodds: I appreciate that, but will the Minister give some idea how soon that will be? Is not he more conversant with the date now than when he last answered a Question on this subject?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am rather more conversant with it than when I answered the previous Question, but I still cannot make a definite statement. A great deal of work is necessary to ensure that we get the widest measure of support from the public authorities as well as the trade organisations concerned. I am working hard on this.
    Sir P. Agnew: If my right hon. Friend decides to set up a horticultural marketing council, will he take heed of the representations made on behalf of the growing and producing side of the industry, and ensure that those interests have representation equal in number to that of the distributive and other interests on the council?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has decided the composition of the Horticultural Advisory Council recommended by the Runciman Committee; and when he expects to announce the names of the members of the Council.
    Mr. John Hare: No, Sir; as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk.

    579
    Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 6th March, I had hoped to be able to make a further statement on this subject this month, but consideration of this complicated matter is taking longer than I expected. I am as anxious as all hon. Members that the Government's decisions should be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Collins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a closer estimate of the time when he will be able to make an announcement? In addition, can he give an assurance that, when formed, the council will include representatives not only of consumers and trade unions but all organisations representing growers, wholesalers, retailers and importers?
    Mr. Hare: I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member says. These points were covered in supplementary questions to a previous Answer. I cannot give him a date, but I shall try to make this announcement as soon as possible.

    Bread
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the importance of bread to the health of the nation, what action the Government has taken and contemplates taking to ensure that the best possible product is supplied to the community.
    Mr. John Hare: Flour, including flour used for bread making, must by regulation contain approved quantities of the nutrients vitamin By, nicotinic acid and iron. As the hon. Member is aware, the Food Standards Committee has been asked to advise as to whether there is any need for further regulations to govern the composition of bread as well as flour.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the Minister aware that, while all these chemicals are put in, most of the natural qualities are taken out? Is not it a fact that the quality of the bread supplied is steadily deteriorating? When may we expect from the Committee he mentioned something that will give people much more confidence that the bread is worth eating?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman really does exaggerate his own case. I cannot accept his suggestion that there is evidence of a deterioration in quality. There
    580
    is, in fact, a very wide variety of different kinds of bread now available. I cannot say when I shall receive the report from this Committee, but I know that it is making progress in its work.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total quantity of potatoes imported since licences were granted in December, 1957, up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Godber: Up to 8th March, 1958, about 67,000 tons of maincrop potatoes had been imported under the licensing arrangements introduced in December last.
    Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that information, may I ask him if he will explain the mystery to consumers? Is he aware that in November there was a shortage of potatoes and the prices were rocketing up? Why is it that there has been a need to import only such a small quantity of potatoes? Is not it a fact that the threat of imports had the effect of making some farmers bring their potatoes on to the market? If not, what is the reason?
    Mr. Godber: As the hon. Gentleman intimates in his Question, the price has remained relatively stable, and I am sure that everybody is glad of that. The fact remains that there is a shortfall of potatoes this year generally. Certainly the imports have not been as large as in 1955, but that does not mean that we shall not need further supplies before the season is through.
    Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements which the Government wisely made have been and are operating to the benefit of producers as well as consumers, and that we shall continue to have a decent supply of home-grown potatoes on the market to the end of the season?
    Mr. Godber: I could not forecast exactly how it will work out to the end of the season, but I hope that my hon. Friend is right. I am quite certain that we were right to authorise these imports of potatoes at the time we did.

    Attested Herds (Irish Store Cattle)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the progress being made with the attested herds scheme in Great Britain with the prospect that the whole country will be clear of bovine tuberculosis by 1961, what consultations he is having with the Irish authorities to ensure a supply of accredited Irish stock cattle that can be taken directly into attested herds in Great Britain.
    Mr. John Hare: The authorities of the Irish Republic have throughout been kept informed of the progress of our attested herd scheme and they are well aware of the problems arising as the scheme approaches its final stage. Discussions are in progress with them about the future supply of store cattle, but I am not in a position to say more than this at the moment. I wish to assure my hon. Friend that I fully appreciate the importance of this matter.
    Mr. Hurd: May we take it that my right hon. Friend is taking a personal interest in this problem, because he may well be faced with a position in which we may have an area clear of bovine tuberculosis here, and, although we still want Irish cattle, they cannot qualify to come in? Would not it be to the advantage of both countries if we could make mutually satisfactory arrangements as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hare: I can assure my hon. Friend of my concern in this matter, and I am giving it my very close personal attention.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will enlist the co-operation of private enterprise concerns in foot-and-mouth disease research.
    Mr. John Hare: Owing to the dangers of infection spreading from the handling of the virus and the unique facilities in the Research Institute at Pirbright, I am satisfied that Pirbright is the right place for research into this disease to be conducted. The Gowers Committee strongly supported this view.
    Mr. Peyton: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have a look at this matter again? Is not it true to say that every effort, and as widespread an effort as possible, should be made to eliminate this scourge? Will he have some regard to the very considerable achievements made in similar fields to this by private industry? May I ask him if he will look at the matter again most carefully?
    Mr. Hare: Of course, I always listen to anything that my hon. Friend says, and I should like to extend to him an invitation to go to Pirbright himself to see the work carried out there. I should be delighted to arrange facilities for that.
    Colonel Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long the germ of foot-and-mouth disease can exist in the bone or bone marrow of infected South American cattle after they have recovered sufficiently to show no external symptom of the disease.
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is advised that where cattle have recovered sufficiently from foot-and-mouth disease to show no external symptom, and have not been reinfected, the virus would not normally persist in the bone or bone marrow of their carcases.
    Colonel Glyn: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his Answer. Will he look further into the matter? Does he agree that there have been cases of infection in this country due to infected bones? While I accept the view of the experts that the virus does not generally persist, may I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the issue?
    Mr. Godber: We are always studying this very difficult problem. Its difficult feature is probably that one cannot rely on veterinary inspection to reveal that an animal is incubating the disease. That is probably the real cause of the trouble.
    Mr. Royle: Is not it possible for the disease to be carried even in boneless meat?
    Mr. Godber: Yes, that is perfectly true. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing up that point. It is true that boneless meat can carry it, but such meat is not usually left about in the same way that bones are.
    Colonel Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether

    583
    he will consider imposing regulations to prevent the spreading of foot-and-mouth disease carried by wrapping material from carcases imported from South America.
    Mr. Godber: Such regulations are already in force. The Statutory Instruments are the Importation of Meat (Wrapping Materials) Order, 1932, as amended by the Order of 1939, and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order, 1925, as amended by the Order of 1926.
    Colonel Glyn: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer, but is he aware that recent outbreaks have been traced to these wrappings, and that they are in fact being made use of in country districts in circumstances which can spread the disease? Is it possible to tighten up the regulations?
    Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing attention to these regulations. It is our desire to see that they are effectively administered. If he can give me any information in relation to a particular case, I shall be happy to follow it up.

    Bacon Pigs
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the percentage during each of the last four years of bacon consumed in this country which came from home-produced pigs.
    Mr. John Hare: The estimated percentages for the calendar years 1954 to 1957 are respectively 43, 43, 39 and 39.
    Mr. Peyton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important to assure to home producers some proportion of the bacon market? Would not it be most unfortunate if pig producers were forced increasingly into the pork market, thereby giving a considerable benefit to our overseas competitors? Will he recognise that there is some point at which he must fix a minimum for the home industry?
    Mr. Hare: I am not at all sure that I accept what my hon. Friend says. I would point out to him that, to take just the last few months, the average
    584
    return to bacon producers here was 41s. 7d. per score in January, and it is now 47s. 6d. per score.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 39 per cent. is a fair proportion of the home market for the home producer?
    Mr. Hare: The housewife is very much the dictator in this matter, and I am quite certain that the British bacon industry can produce, in its highest quality bacon, the best bacon in the world. I am also certain that it will make every effort to increase the quality of the rest of the product of the industry.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has in relation to the present success, or otherwise, of specialist bacon pig producers in concentrating on continued improvement in type and quality; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: Since decontrol, Government policy has been directed by means of grading services and quality premiums towards improving the quality of bacon pig production and the evidence is that this policy has been, and is continuing to be, successful. In March, 1956, 32 per cent. of the pigs certified at bacon factories graded "A" at all measurement points, whereas at the end of 1957 the comparable figure was 45 per cent.
    I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the changes made in the grading arrangements during the last two years and the progress made in improving quality.
    Mr. Peyton: I appreciate the very difficult problem which my right hon. Friend is facing, but does he not agree that the ultimate success or failure of his efforts and the efforts of the industry to improve quality will depend upon confidence, and that there cannot be sufficient confidence without an assurance of a reasonable share in the home market?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend knows my views on the subject. A few days ago I gave a very long Answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) which set out my views.
    Following is the table:

    PIGS GRADED FOR QUALITY PREMIUM AT BACON FACTORIES IN UNITED KINGDOM

    Week commencing (1)

    Number of pigs certified at bacon factories (2)

    Pigs qualifying for quality premium as percentage of column (2) (3)

    Pigs which would have qualified for quality premium if no change had been made in criteria at March, 1957: as a percentage of column (2) (4)

    '000 head

    1956

    26th March (a)

    …

    …

    87·1

    32·2

    23rd April

    …

    …

    86·1

    33·7

    21st May

    …

    …

    81·1

    32·4

    18th June

    …

    …

    75·7

    33·7

    16th July

    …

    …

    77·3

    32·7

    13th August

    …

    …

    77·7

    34·9

    10th September

    …

    …

    84·6

    36·4

    8th October

    …

    …

    88·1

    37·2

    5th November

    …

    …

    85·7

    37·8

    3rd December

    …

    …

    78·8

    36·0

    31st December

    …

    …

    75·0

    36·7

    1957

    28th January

    …

    …

    74·8

    36·7

    25th February

    …

    …

    82·9

    36·4

    25th March (b)

    …

    …

    89·0

    30·7

    37·0

    22nd April

    …

    …

    78·2

    32·8

    38·4

    20th May

    …

    …

    79·8

    32·9

    38·5

    17th June

    …

    …

    71·7

    33·7

    38·6

    15th July

    …

    …

    79·7

    32·4

    37·1

    12th August

    …

    …

    82·7

    34·1

    38·3

    9th September

    …

    …

    95·5

    35·5

    40·5

    7th October (c)

    …

    …

    102·6

    35·8

    41·7

    4th November

    …

    …

    98·0

    36·4

    43·3

    2nd December

    …

    …

    86·4

    37·5

    44·8

    23rd December

    …

    …

    122·0

    38·0

    45·1

    31st December

    …

    …

    NOTES:

    (a) Quality premiums payable on carcases graded "A" at loin, shoulder and mid-back within weight range 7 score to 8 score 15 lb.

    (b) Quality premiums payable on carcases graded "A" at loin, shoulder and mid-back, having a minimum carcase length of 775 mm. and within weight range 7 score to 8 score 15 lb.

    (c) Quality premiums payable on carcases graded "A" at loin and shoulder, having a minimum carcase length of 775 mm. and within weight range 7 score to 8 score 5 lb.

    Milk Standards (Committee)
    Mr. Grant-Ferrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the fact that a leading official of the Milk Marketing Board has publicly advocated a lowering of the presumptive legal standard for solids other than fat in milk; and, in view of this, if he will make a statement of his policy in this regard.
    Mr. John Hare: The presumptive legal standards for milk were enacted over 50 years ago and their suitability in present-clay conditions has recently been questioned. My right hon. Friends the
    586
    Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Health and I have decided therefore to appoint a Committee to examine the problem both from the standpoint of human nutrition and of animal husbandry. It is hoped to announce the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee shortly.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer and assuring the House that the Question was in no way inspired, may I ask him if he would agree that the solid fat contents are as important as, if not more important than, butter fat, as they contain,

    587
    amongst other things, those salts so important for the health of the general public, and children in particular?
    Mr. Hare: I think my hon. Friend will realise that that is exactly the sort of problem this Committee will have to study.
    Mr. Champion: Is the Minister really satisfied that a further Committee is necessary? After all, was there not a Working Party on quality milk production which reported in 1953? Is it a fact that many of the recommendations of that Committee have not yet been carried out?
    Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that there is a great deal of argument on all sides of this case, and I think that this Committee can do a useful job.

    Farms (Landlord-Tenant System)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the proportion of farms in England and Wales farmed on the landlord-tenant system at the latest available date.
    Mr. John Hare: The latest available information is that derived from the World Census of 1950. This showed that approximately 61 per cent. of the holdings of five acres and over in England and Wales were tenanted.
    Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend fully convinced, after his experience as Minister of Agriculture for some months, that the system of landlord and tenant which we have perfected in this country really does work to the advantage of the agricultural industry as a whole?
    Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir; I certainly agree with that. I think the House realises that, being both an owner and a farmer of land myself, I am not prejudiced when I say that there is little doubt that the sharing of responsibility in the landlord and tenant system has a great deal to commend it.
    Mr. T. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the new Agriculture Bill will tend to disturb this happy relationship between landlords and tenants?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think so. I think that is very much up to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am told that it is to be discussed.

    Hill Cattle
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the value of the recently discontinued hill cattle subsidy; and whether he will consider its reintroduction as an alternative to the hill cow subsidy from which many smaller farmers are unable to benefit.
    Mr. John Hare: The hill cattle subsidy was introduced in wartime. It was discontinued because it had outlived its original purpose. While some farmers cannot qualify for the hill cow subsidy, upland farmers generally have been more than compensated by this for the loss of the hill cattle subsidy. In the general interest no further action is therefore thought necessary.
    Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision? Whereas it is true that to pay a subsidy towards keeping breeding cattle on a hill farm is better, where that can be done, there are still some small hill farms unable to winter cattle. Would not this subsidy encourage cattle on some hill grazing where there is now none and be of monetary help in quarters where it is badly needed?
    Mr. Hare: I have given the matter considerable thought, as I think my hon. Friend realises. I do not hold out much hope that I will change my mind, but I will certainly continue to consider the matter. I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates what we are now doing.
    Mr. H. Hynd: As the Government are in principle opposed to subsidising private industry, will the Minister see that there is a limit to these subsidies?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member had better talk to his own leader on that subject.

    Milk
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what directions he has given to the Milk Marketing Board with a view to ensuring that payment to producers of milk is made on a quality basis.
    Mr. John Hare: The dairying industry is taking action to discourage the production of milk with a low butter-fat content.
    Mr. Vane: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Milk Marketing Board is being inexcusably slow in making progress with this important matter and that the dairy industry would prefer more rapid progress? Since we are behind nearly every other civilised country in this regard, can my right hon. Friend give the Milk Marketing Board a push?
    Mr. Hare: I am sure that the Milk Marketing Board will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said. He must realise that the producers of low-quality milk must be identified before they can be penalised, and that can be done only by testing milk over a period of months.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has in mind to ensure the more effective marketing of skimmed milk during the present year; and whether he will investigate the methods which have been adopted in the United States of America for establishing a flourishing market for slimming milk from which most of the cream has been removed.
    Mr. Godber: The marketing of skimmed milk, whether as slimming milk for human consumption or in other ways, is of course the responsibility of the Milk Marketing Board and the manufacturers of milk products. I will, however, pass the hon. Member's inquiry on to the Milk Marketing Board.
    Mr. Janner: Quite apart from the question of bolstering up the morale of the over-upholstered, will not the Minister himself do something about ensuring that the £1 million spent on advertising produces something effective in this regard? Is not he aware that it would in no way deceive the public if, instead of some of the products which are being imported to produce other commodities, we used the cream obtained from milk sold in this way?
    Mr. Godber: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have an interest to declare on this subject, but the difficulty which he must face is that an increase in the sale of this type of milk would almost inevitably be reflected in the sales of full milk; so that this is not an easy problem. Two of the largest dairies in the country are already supplying slimming milk to those who need it.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase the consumption of full price fresh milk.
    Mr. John Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board and the milk distributive trade, who are co-operating in the work of the National Milk Publicity Council to promote the sale of milk.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not so aware? What I am aware of is that the consumption of milk fell by over 20 million gallons last year, and that was disturbing. The fall in the consumption of the milk was due, in the main, to Government policy on prices. That is why a continuing responsibility lies upon them to take some steps to increase the consumption of milk.
    Mr. Hare: I know that the hon. Member is far too knowledgeable on matters of agricultural policy not to know that responsibility in this matter lies with the Milk Marketing Board, and I shall certainly see that his comments reach it. As to the decrease in milk consumption which he has mentioned, figures are not always conclusive. In January of this year we sold over 1 million gallons more than in January of last year.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would not it help if prices were reduced so that people were able to buy more milk than they are now able to?
    Mr. Hare: I am somewhat sensitive on the question of prices at the moment.

    Sugar (Price)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the proposed increase in the price of sugar.
    Mr. John Hare: Since last July the world market price of sugar has been below the prices guaranteed to Commonwealth sugar producers under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and to home producer's of beet sugar. In consequence it has become necessary to terminate the distribution payment by which the Sugar Board has passed on the profits made when the world price was high, and to introduce a surcharge to meet subsequent losses under the guarantees to home and

    591
    Commonwealth producers. This has been done by Orders made in accordance with the Sugar Act, 1956.
    Mr. Jeger: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to state by how much the price of sugar to the housewife will be going up?
    Mr. Hare: I gather that this matter is to be the subject of debate tonight and I am in some difficulty about answering the hon. Member.
    Mr. Jeger: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is sheltering behind the fact that there are on the Order Paper references to Orders which are to be discussed tonight and is refusing to give us information at this moment, information which may be useful to us in the debate later today; or will he promise that in his speech later he will answer the question?
    Mr. Hare: I have no intention of treating the House with discourtesy. I just thought that I was in some difficulty. The maximum amount which can be proposed is 1¾d.

    Land Drainage (Heneage Report)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the implementation of the Heneage Report of 1951.
    Mr. John Hare: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 6th March to the effect that I was not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any action on this matter? This Report was submitted in 1951. Since then, there have been repeated Questions about it from both sides of the House. Despite his newness to his present office, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave disquiet in the agricultural industry about the unnecessary delay in dealing with this very vital subject?
    Mr. Hare: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the anxiety on both sides of the House about this matter. I can assure him that time is not being wasted. There is considerable discussion with parties whose agreement is essential to our making further progress.
    Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had that sort of answer on a number of occasions from a number of Ministers of Agriculture? I do not want to bait my hon. Friend, because I am certain that he is doing everything he can, but is not he aware that there are many anomalies in land drainage in various parts of the country? Is he aware that we should be extremely grateful if we could be absolutely sure that he would do something fairly soon?
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not wanting to bait me. I will do my best in this matter.
    Mr. T. Williams: Would not the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have served a better purpose if they had devoted themselves to devising a solution for the land drainage problem instead of producing an unnecessary Bill such as that which I understand is to be discussed next week?
    Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat prejudiced.

    Pigs (Marketing)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken under Section 23 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, about the marketing of pigs.
    Mr. John Hare: The Pig Industry Development Authority was constituted on 1st October, 1957. It has not yet exercised any of those functions set out in the Third Schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1957, that have some bearing on the marketing of pigs.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that—as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware—his recent reply was not regarded as satisfactory amongst those to whom it was sent, would not it be a good idea to call in the advice and assistance of the Authority on this very difficult problem?
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member knows, the Authority has only just been set up. It has an immense job to do, in progeny testing and other matters, and I think that it will be very fully employed on that work at the moment.

    Farmers' Incomes
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the First

    593
    Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes with reference to farmers' incomes.
    Mr. John Hare: Although the Report is clearly intended to apply to all sectors of the economy, it makes no recommendations concerning farmers' incomes. The factual material that it contains is, of course, available from other sources.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report points out that whereas under a Labour Government farmers' incomes rose, under a Conservative Government they have not risen? In view of this fact, does he realise the considerable interest in the Price Review announcement that he is about to make? Can he assure the House that this will be made before the Torrington polling day?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot accept the implications in the hon. Member's supplementary question. Neither I nor any other Member of the Government is responsible for what was put into the Cohen Report.

    Agricultural Workers (Unemployment)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the number of unemployed agricultural workers has increased; and what action he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. John Hare: At this time of the year seasonal unemployment in agriculture is at its height and the numbers include many who would normally find temporary employment in other industries. The local offices of the Ministry of Labour are doing all they can to place the workers concerned in such other suitable vacancies as are available.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not the Minister aware that, quite apart from seasonal changes—which we all know about—according to the last available Monthly Digest of Statistics the number of unemployed rose from 13,100 in December, 1956, to 19,400 in December, 1957—a 50 per cent. increase? That has nothing to do with seasonal changes. What is he doing about it?
    Mr. Hare: I think that I have answered the Question. It is largely due to these seasonal changes. I can assure the hon.
    594
    Gentleman that agriculture still has a need for skilled workers within its ranks. I am sure that that situation will continue.

    Annual Price Review
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of the current Price Review.
    Mr. John Hare: The Annual Review is still in progress, but I hope that it will be possible to make a statement and to present the customary White Paper in the near future.
    Mr. Lipton: That Answer is as vague as the Government's policy in general. Can the Minister give an assurance on two points? Can he say, first, that this will not be an imposed settlement, but will be an agreed one and, secondly, that the Government Price Review will take into account the forthcoming rise in farm rents?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member knows quite well that while discussions are going on we cannot give assurances. Therefore, he has asked a supplementary question which could only amuse him, and he could not expect an answer from me.
    Mr. T. Williams: Does not the Minister agree that the 1957 Act is supposed to have made a Price Review very easy?
    Mr. Hare: I will say that the 1957 Act—as the right hon. Gentleman has so handsomely acknowledged—has given very considerable security to the farming industry.

    Bacon Prices
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the recommended retail price for prime cuts of bacon has risen to 4s. 6d. per lb. whereas bacon prices to home producers are still unremunerative; and what steps he will take, by price control or otherwise, to ensure that low producer prices are reflected in reduced prices to the consumer.
    Mr. John Hare: The price recommendation referred to is produced by a wholesale firm and is based on the current wholesale price of first quality Danish bacon, which increased from 306s. per cwt. to 317s. per cwt. last week. Recent improvements in wholesale prices of English bacon have been reflected in

    595
    higher prices for bacon pigs. I cannot agree that the average return on pigs sold to bacon factories, which last week was 47s. 6d. per score deadweight as compared with the standard price adjusted for feed of 46s. 9d., is low or unremunerative to producers.
    Mr. Collins: As a farmer, surely the Minister is aware that bacon prices in the factories are so bad that the producers are just not selling bacon to the factories, and that they are working only to one-quarter or one-third of their capacity? Is not it fantastic that he should tell us that these retail prices are based upon the prices of Danish bacon when our own farmers are not getting remunerative prices? Will not he do something to end this situation, where our producers get bad prices but the housewives pay very high prices?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is not keeping in touch with the situation. If he had complained about the prices of bacon in January, when the average return to the bacon producer was 41s. 7d. per score, he might have made something of his point, but today it is 47s. 6d.

    Sheep (Foot Rot)
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to bring the official leaflet, "Foot Rot in Sheep," to the notice of flock owners, with a view to the early eradication of this disease.
    Mr. Godber: The leaflet is one of a series on animal health published for my Department by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. My veterinary officers bring the leaflets to the notice of individual farmers when appropriate and they are displayed at the Ministry's bookstalls at agricultural shows. We have also asked the National Farmers' Union to draw the attention of their members to the leaflets.
    Mr. G. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman convey one of these leaflets to the Government Chief Whip to help him to gather in his "flock"?
    Mr. Godber: We may have trouble in our feet but hon. Gentlemen opposite have it in their heads.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that supplementary question was sufficiently agricultural.
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make foot rot in sheep a notifiable disease.
    Mr. Godber: Measures to control this disease are well within the capacity of individual farmers, so my right hon. Friend does not propose to do this.
    Mr. Champion: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a painful disease which is costly to flock owners? Will the Government take every step possible to eradicate this disease which is eradicable?
    Mr. Godber: I agree, and if I thought that it would help we would do what the hon. Gentleman asks, but I do not think it is necessary in a case like this. I think this is a matter where explaining to those concerned is the best way to deal with it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any connection between foot rot in sheep and the Government's defeat last night.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is not it a fact that it is not the least bit of use making a disease a notifiable disease unless that course is effective, otherwise it is a confounded irritation to farmers?
    Mr. Godber: I indicated that I did not think it was appropriate to do so in this case.

    Hedgerow and Farm Timber (Committee's Recommendations)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to say when the Government will implement the recommendations of the Committee on Hedgerow and Farm Timber.
    Mr. John Hare: The Committee reached the conclusion that more trees should be planted in hedgerows and on farms, to improve the supply of homegrown timber, to provide shade and shelter for stock, and to maintain the beauty of the countryside; and that encouragement to do so should be given to all those who own or manage land. Most of the recommendations do not call for legislative action.
    The Government accept the general view of the Committee on these matters

    597
    and in particular the emphasis on voluntary action. We propose to take such steps as may be appropriate on the detailed recommendations. But we cannot accept the Committee's recommendation that, where his landlord disagrees, the tenant farmer should be given the statutory right to plant trees, subject to the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or myself. Nor do we consider it appropriate to introduce a new grant to encourage tree planting on farms. The Forestry Commission has, however, decided to reduce to one acre the minimum area on which it will pay a planting grant, and shelter belts are among the items which qualify for grant under the Farm Improvements Scheme.
    Mr. Skeffington: May I thank the Minister for that Answer, which was promised by his predecessor in July of last year, and ask whether he is aware that, because there has been some delay in the decision of the Government, a good deal of hedge timber has been cleared, in fact a good deal of hedgerow has been lost as an amenity? Is the Minister aware that there is some danger to soil conservation, particularly in the Home Counties, because of this delay, and will he use every means at his disposal to see that these recommendations are carried out?
    Mr. Hare: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's Question and my reply will receive publicity. I will certainly consider every means of making the information known.

  NATURE CONSERVANCY

    Forestry Work
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is satisfied that in undertaking forestry work the Nature Conservancy is acting within its terms of reference and is not duplicating similar work already being carried out with public funds by the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Godber: The Nature Conservancy does not in general undertake
    598
    forestry work. Such forestry activities as it undertakes are on a very small scale and are ancillary either to its researches into applied ecology or to the maintenance of certain natural or semi-natural areas to serve as living museums of flora and fauna. My noble Friend is satisfied that these activities are within the Conservancy's terms of reference and are not duplicating work already being carried out by the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nature Conservancy already owns 3,000 acres of unproductive woodlands, which are a shocking example to farmers and landowners throughout the country? Is he aware that many of us feel this research work could be carried out far more economically by the universities and the Forestry Commission? Would my hon. Friend look at all the forestry activities of the Nature Conservancy to see if in the present economic situation they can be properly managed?
    Mr. Godber: I am aware that the acreage quoted by my hon. Friend is approximately correct, but he is a little hard on the Nature Conservancy. It consults closely the Forestry Commission in connection with some of these pieces of land.

    Bird Vocalisations (Research)
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what practical benefits are to be expected from the expenditure by the Nature Conservancy of £2,720 for research into bird vocalisations.
    Mr. Godber: The sum referred to by my hon. Friend was for a period of four years from 1st October, 1953. Research on bird vocalisations plays an important part in the general programme of fundamental research into animal behaviour. My noble Friend could not accept the implication that the value of such research is necessarily to be measured solely in terms of practical benefit, but he understands that in this case, in addition to its intrinsic value, it is hoped that the results will prove of practical advantage in the protection of crops against bird depredations by the use of mechanically recorded warning notes.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while none of us would deny that these researches may be of the greatest possible interest to many ornithologists throughout the countryside, they would be far better carried out by the zoology experts from the universities, and many of us feel that these activities have nothing to do with nature conservancy work throughout the country?
    Mr. Remnant: The money would be better spent on killing grey squirrels.
    Mr. Godber: I am sure that the universities carry on useful work. The work of the Nature Conservancy in this respect is helpful. After all, bird vocalisation is practised not only by birds, as one notices.

    Catering Arrangements
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps he is taking to see that the Nature Conservancy does not make a further loss on its catering activities in the current year.
    Mr. Godber: The Nature Conservancy's catering arrangements are confined to remote field stations where it is necessary to provide facilities. In the year ending 31st March, 1957, losses of £217 and £177 were made at two stations. The Nature Conservancy has hitherto been unable to find means of eliminating a loss on working at these remote field stations, but it is continuing efforts to this end and has invited the Treasury Chief Catering Adviser to help it.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is totally unnecessary that the Nature Conservancy should make a loss of £394 on its catering activities? Is he aware that if only Government Departments would look after the small hundreds like this, the thousands and even millions would take care of themselves?
    Mr. Godber: Yes, I appreciate the last point. We always keep that before us. In this case, there are special difficulties, and I am advised that the scientific work might be imperilled if some provision were not made at these stations.

  KENYA

    Farms (Sanitary Accommodation)
    Dr. Strossasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent investigation carried out by the Medical Department in Kenya to ascertain the reasons for the prevalence of cysticercosis in farm animals, and that in 64 farms which were visited 46 had no latrine accommodation for labourers employed, 12 had inadequate accommodation, and only six had satisfactory provision; and how he proposes to enforce the compulsory provision of sanitary accommodation under labour, or master and servant ordinances.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The Medical Department is at present engaged on a combined treatment and information campaign against the prevalence of tape-worm infection among farm labour. A feature of this effort is to encourage the more scrupulous use of the latrine accommodation provided under the law, and the health inspectorate in infected areas has recently been reinforced as a check that legal requirements are being met in the provision of accommodation.
    Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister accept that the scrupulous use of sanitary accommodation is not easily enforced if there is no sanitary accommodation made available? Does not he agree that the facts in my Question seem very astonishing, and will he promise to do all he can to see that sanitary accommodation is made available on these farms, not only for the sake of the animals but particularly for the men?
    Mr. Profumo: The increase in the health inspectorate will, as I said, make it easier to find those people who are not conforming with the law on this subject.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Freedom of Information (United Nations Resolution)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is proposed to apply to British Colonies the principles contained in the

    601
    resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of 11th December, 1957, relating to freedom of information.
    Mr. Profumo: I am not sure what principles the hon. Member has in mind. The resolution deals principally with further action on a draft Convention on the Freedom of Information which was prepared in 1951 but not carried further.
    Mr. Allaun: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the case I raised earlier of a man in Uganda at present serving a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for reading a newspaper called Forum which he did not know was on the banned list?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. I understand that a provisional memorandum of appeal to the High Court has been filed.

  BERMUDA

    Teachers
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the wages paid monthly to white and coloured teachers in the schools controlled by the Bermuda Government; what qualifications are required by teachers; and what facilities exist in Bermuda for coloured students to obtain the necessary qualifications to obtain equal financial status with white teachers.
    Mr. Profumo: As the answer to the first part of the Question involves a number of figures I am with permission circulating them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The rates in the schools in question vary according to qualifications and length of experience but not according to colour. Teachers vary in qualifications from those without any professional training to those with university degrees and further post-graduate training.
    The Board of Education instituted scholarships for the training of teachers in 1931. Thirteen such scholarships are now available annually and are, since there are no universities or teacher training institutions in Bermuda, tenable in Canada or the United Kingdom. Twenty-one white people and 137 coloured people have already been trained under this scheme.
    Mr. Allaun: May I thank the Minister for that reply and ask whether he will encourage the payment of higher salaries for entrants into the teaching profession, since in many cases the salaries are lower than those for domestic workers?
    Mr. Profumo: That is a wide question. The Question which the hon. Member put down was whether there was any differentiation between white and coloured, and I have answered that.
    Following is the information:
    Teachers' salaries in schools controlled by the Bermuda Government are paid on a scale approved by the Legislature with due regard to qualification and length of experience. These scales are as follows:

    Head Teachers

    Men

    £1,010 to £1,510 per annum

    Women

    £950 to £1,450 per annum

    according to the number of pupils in the school.
    In addition £50 per annum is payable to a teacher in possession of an approved university degree; £75 per annum for a postgraduate teachers' diploma and £100 per annum for an honours degree or its equivalent. Subject to ten years or more satisfactory teaching service in Bermuda non-pensionable allowances are paid at the following rates:

    10 years' service

    …

    £30

    15 years Service

    …

    £45

    20 years service

    …

    £60

    Assistant Teachers
    Salaries from £300 for non-certificated teachers to £1,032 per annum (men) and £972 per annum (women) are paid to teachers with an approved post-graduate teachers' diploma. Those holding an approved honours degree or its equivalent receive an additional £20 per annum. Non-pensionable allowances after ten or more years' satisfactory teaching service in Bermuda are paid as follows:

    10 years' service

    …

    £18 to £27

    15 years service

    …

    £27 to £40

    20 years service

    …

    £36 to £54

    depending upon qualifications held.
    Both head and assistant teachers who are appointed from abroad for the first time, and are not, or do not become, domiciled in Bermuda are paid an expatriate allowance of £100 per annum diminishing annually over a period of five years after which none is payable.
    Footnote
    All salaries and allowances with the exception of the expatriate allowance are subject to a 15 per cent. bonus at the present time.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Pepel (Shipping Notice)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what authority Mr. R. Robertson, the port superintendent at Pepel, Sierra Leone, issued a written direction dated 18th January, 1958, governing the loading and unloading of ships in the port and governing the covering and uncovering of hatches of ships in port while under the command of their captains as masters.
    Mr. Profumo: This notice was issued in accordance with the charter agreement to which the shipping line concerned is a party.
    Mr. Hughes: But are the regulations drafted and administered in such a way as not to impair, or tend to impair, in any way the authority of a master in his own ship?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think this is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government.
    Mr. Tilney: Would not my hon. Friend agree that all normal masters welcome the advice given by Mr. Robertson?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, I entirely agree.

  WEST INDIES

    Inter-Island Shipping Services
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Colonial Development Corporation and its commercial partners contributed to the West Indies inter-island shipping services provided by s.s. "West Indian".
    Mr. Profumo: The Colonial Development Corporation and its partners formed the West Indies Navigation Company Limited—W.I.N.C.O.—with an issued share capital of £45,000. This company chartered the "West Indian" and operated the service. The C.D.C., in addition to providing one-third of the share capital, is under obligation to make loans to the company to meet certain specified outgoings; its contributions by loan, subject to final accounts, are expected to total some £155,000.
    Mr. Royle: I am obliged for the figures and for that statement. Will the hon. Gentleman remember that on a previous occasion, in answer to a Question
    604
    by me, he paid a tribute to other organisations apart from the Colonial Development Corporation? When Parliament has established these organisations and companies, is it not a good thing that credit should be given to them for the work they are doing?
    Mr. Profumo: I have no desire not to give credit where it is justified. I hope that the statement I have made today and on previous occasions will clear up the matter which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

  UGANDA

    Child Mortality
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ask the Uganda Government to set up a committee to advise on measures to be taken to reduce child mortality in the protectorate.
    Mr. Profumo: Committees on general and applied nutrition have been set up in the Protectorate. The general problem of child mortality is well understood and it is not considered that a special committee could do more than recommend such remedial measures as the Protectorate Government are already taking.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for child mortality in the Protectorate are quite appalling, and that four out of ten children die before reaching 15 years of age? Is he aware that something should be done urgently to deal with the problem of malnutrition and that special attention should be paid to this problem through the setting up of a special committee?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot agree. The position in Uganda does not stem from a lack of knowledge of the problem, but from ignorance, superstition, lack of hygiene and a backward economy in some areas which militates against the practical application of remedial measures.

  MALTA

    Finance
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware that the restrictive financial policy of the Government in reducing the

    605
    assistance to Malta this year by £1,000,000 is depriving the island of resources to provide employment for the dockyard men who are becoming redundant; and. in order to prevent Malta from becoming a distressed area and a potential danger spot, if he will take steps to have this policy reversed;
    (2) if he is aware that in 1955 the integration of Malta with Great Britain was almost an accomplished fact, and that the deteriorating position has been brought about by the refusal of the Government to allow the island to carry into its new financial year the balance of £500,000 which it was unable to spend during the period for which it was allocated: if he will take steps to have this financial position reviewed; and how far his recent talk with the Prime Minister of Malta has restored the former friendly relationship.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am unable to accept the premises in the hon. Member's Questions. I do not, however, consider it appropriate to deal with the hon. Member's detailed inquiries while I am having talks with the Prime Minister of Malta who is now in London.
    Mr. Awbery: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have a moral obligation to the people of Malta and that we cannot walk out of it without creating in that island a distressed area? The policy that we are trying to adopt seems to lead us to something worse. Can he give an undertaking that he will report on his interview with Mr. Mintoff as soon as possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, I will do that. I am aware that we have obligations to Malta and that Malta has obligations to us.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Because of public perplexity about statements appearing in the newspapers, would the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the real obstacles that prevent a satisfactory conclusion of these negotiations?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certain that there would be no satisfactory solution by Question and Answer in the House at this time if I turned private into public talks.
    Mr. Awbery: Is not it a fact that procrastination has been the cause of the trouble? Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up with a decision on this problem?

    Investment
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the unsettled state of the island of Malta is discouraging industrialists from regarding it as a potential field of investment which would create a viable economy on the island as the use of the dockyard diminishes; and what steps are being taken to reassure them.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I am very concerned at recent events in Malta, particularly the Assembly Resolution of 30th December, 1957, which have caused disquiet among potential investors. The responsibility for encouraging industrialists to Malta must of course lie primarily with the Government of Malta, but it is one of the matters which I am now pursuing with the Prime Minister of Malta.
    Mr. Awbery: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the alteration of the naval dockyard into a repair dockyard to accommodate the tankers going through to the Mediterranean Sea to the oil bases? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to consider doing this himself, would he encourage private enterprise to do it by making some kind of grant?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly welcome that observation in the House. That is exactly what is happening.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In order to end the unsettlement, which is partly due to the fact that it is now two years since this House approved the project for a settlement, is there a prospect that this matter will be carried to a successful conclusion by the talks that the right hon. Gentleman is having now with the Maltese Prime Minister?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very keen on expedition.

  RENT ACT, 1957
  Mr. Prenticeasked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from hon. Members relating

  607
  to the hardships which will result if there is no amendment of the Rent Act; and what assurances he has given to those who made them.
  Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister how many representations he has received from hon. Members relating to evictions under the Rent Act 1957.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As I said last Thursday, I would prefer to keep the tradition, which I think the right one, of not discussing in public private communications which I receive from both sides of the House.
  Mr. Prentice: While we are glad to see the Prime Minister in the House today, may I ask him whether he will acknowledge that this is the third time in less than a fortnight that he has evaded a direct reply—he and the Lord Privy Seal—to Questions on this point? Surely when a large number of his supporters have made representations to him on a matter of great public importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—was it not rather a poor excuse to suggest that this was purely private correspondence?
  The Prime Minister: It is very important to preserve the tradition that communications of this kind from the other side of the House shall be regarded as private, because they are a very valuable part of our procedure. I doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition would like to make a statement on representations, let us say on the question of defence, that he may have received.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, however much he tries to ignore or minimise hostility to the Rent Act, the public conscience will not tolerate the spectacle next October of British refugees made homeless in their native land? Even if it means cracking the stony heart of the Minister of Housing beforehand, the public just will not tolerate that.
  The Prime Minister: That is a speech which the hon. Gentleman should have made, and perhaps did make, in the debate that we had on Monday, 3rd March.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the public representations made by one of
  608
  his hon. Friends that this country would not forgive a Government that put people out of their homes?
  The Prime Minister: All sorts of statements are made and I pay the greatest regard to them.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Housing himself has expressed anxiety about the possible hardships resulting from this Act and given a warning to landlords that if they do not behave properly the Government will bring in fresh legislation? May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will make up their mind on this point, and whether he will give us an assurance that the matter will be considered urgently, with a view to legislation in the present Session?
  The Prime Minister: All that matter was fully discussed only a few days ago. I have nothing to add to it. On reflection, I am sure that what I have said will be of benefit to both sides. Private communications should be possible without their being revealed in public.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Is not it a fact that those who write to Prime Ministers from time to time, from whatever party they may come, would deplore any departure on the part of my right hon. Friend from the normal practice?

  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (STERLING HOLDINGS)
  Mr. Croninasked the Prime Minister to what extent, in the course of his Commonwealth tour, he discussed the sterling balances; and what understandings he achieved as to withdrawals from them.
  The Prime Minister: The sterling holdings of Commonwealth countries were not one of the principal topics of discussion during my Commonwealth tour. The holdings are, of course, and will continue to be freely at the disposal of their owners.
  Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that unco-ordinated withdrawal of sterling balances is one of the chief sources of our financial difficulty, and that the situation is likely to deteriorate as additional countries achieve independence, may I

  609
  ask whether the Prime Minister does not regard his reply as vague and unsatisfactory?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would like to make it clear that in this sense we are a banker, and people who have balances expect to have the right to draw on their balances as and when they require to do so. At the same time, Commonwealth countries are aware of the need to keep sterling strong. There is close consultation among us all on this matter. It should be borne in mind that by no means all the sterling assets are composed of short-term assets. A large part is represented by statutory backing for currencies or the assets of special official funds such as sinking funds, savings banks and pension funds, as well as price stabilisation and marketing board funds.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While agreeing that owners of sterling balances are free to withdraw them, may I ask the Prime Minister to say whether the general question of the operation of the sterling area will be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Economic Conference?
  The Prime Minister: I feel sure that it will.

  SUSSEX COAST (HELICOPTER RESCUE SERVICE)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the coming closing down of the Royal Naval Air Station at Ford, and of the Royal Air Force Station, Tangmere, ceasing to be operational, he will discuss with his fellow Ministers what can be done to maintain a helicopter service for sea rescue along the Sussex coast where this service has now proved to be far faster and more efficient than lifeboats.
  The Prime Minister: Although Royal Naval and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters give civil rescue organisations whatever help they can, their primary rôle is the rescue of aircrew, and this must be the governing factor in deciding their deployment.
  There are no Royal Air Force helicopters at Tangmere, but there is a helicopter unit at Thorney Island which it is not at present intended to move.
  Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bear in mind that this is a comparatively new service which has, so far as we can see on the Sussex coast, given tremendous help to the lifeboat service? If anything can be done to develop it and to link it up with other ports on the coast, will my right hon. Friend use all his influence in that direction?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I will do everything I can to help, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the primary purpose of the Service is rescue of aircrew. There are considerable limitations on the help that helicopters can give. They cannot at present operate in darkness or fog, and in strong winds their capacity is somewhat limited. However, the area now covered by Ford will be reasonably well covered by the Royal Air Force helicopters at Thorney Island, which is only 16 miles away.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH MARCH—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Report.
Consideration of Civil Supplementary Estimates.
Class III, Vote 1, Home Office. Vote 6, Fire Services, England and Wales.
Class V, Vote 5, National Health Service, England and Wales. Vote 11, National Health Service, Scotland.
Class II, Vote 2, Foreign Office Grants and Services.
At 9.30 p.m., under the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, the Question under discussion and on all outstanding Votes required before 31st March will be put from the Chair.
Committee and remaining stages of the Nationalised Industries Loans Bill.
TUESDAY, 18TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH MARCH—At the request of the Opposition the Second

611
Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken formally, and we shall then resume and conclude the Second Reading debate on the Agriculture Bill and also take the Committee stage of the necessary Ways and Means Resolution.
THURSDAY, 20TH MARCH—At the request of the Opposition it is proposed to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally and debate will then take place on an Opposition Motion relating to Education.
FRIDAY, 21ST MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Gaitskell: When does the Leader of the House expect to try to make further progress on the Maintenance Orders Bill?
Mr. Butler: I think that we shall have no difficulty in making progress with the rest of that Bill in the week after next. I think that a little patience will be a good thing.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to several Motions in my name dealing with the subject of the subsidising of opera?
[That this House is of opinion that efforts in conjunction with the Sadlers Wells Trust to plan a tour for the British isles on the basis of an adequate and economic spread of opera was torpedoed by Covent Garden, whose general administrative director, though equally dependent on public money, refused cooperation and seriously embarrassed the proper presentation of opera in the Provinces by his piracy of artists; that the presentation of the Covent Garden Accounts, which provides no separate balance sheets for opera and ballet, prevents the general public from knowing the losses on opera and assessing the public money spent on the three opera companies and the fairness of the subsidies given; that too much power is in the hands of the general administrative director and that the Covent Garden Trust, by failing to reappoint a musical director has substantially increased his power causing dismay to the artistic world; and that there are many undesirable features in the conduct of affairs at Covent Garden which no one appears to have authority to check, least of all the Arts Council.]
[That this House is of opinion that the merger suggested by the Arts Council of the Carl Rosa and Sadlers Wells Opera Companies has reinforced the growing opinion that no effective control of affairs free from patronage exists; that the methods to force the amalgamation by financial sanctions are not fairly designed; that the shock tactics have angered and disturbed public opinion; and that a rationalisation of opera subsidies designed to preserve a fair balance between London and the Provinces, provide high standards and protection for those employed in the opera world and an attraction to foreign visitors cannot be enforced without a penetrating investigation into Covent Garden administration as well as Sadlers Wells and Carl Rosa.]
[That, in the opinion of this House, although it is possible that unfair emphasis may have been laid on some aspects of subsidising opera, this is due to the complete inability of any individual to ascertain the true facts; that the methods of subsidising opera no longer commend themselves to a large and interested public; that patronage tends to increase power to the few to the detriment of the many; and that if public confidence is to be restored action and probing from which no one is exempt is essential.]
In view of the many difficulties that have arisen and the general interest of the public in the whole future of opera, when will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important matter?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that we can find Government time for that, but no doubt it will be possible in private Members' time.
Mr. Houghton: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the additional and influential support given to the Motion on Unestablished Service to Reckon for Pension in the Civil Service?
[That this House takes note of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (Command Paper No. 9613) and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, that it is in fact

613
now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, that Parliament conceded that as regards service after July, 1949, by the Superannuation Act, 1949, that the Royal Commission were of opinion that the Superannuation Act, 1946, afforded a precedent for retrospection and supported the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration was that of cost; and this House is of opinion that all unestablished service prior to July, 1949, of civil servants subsequently appointed to established posts should be reckonable in full for superannuation purposes (instead of one-half only) on the grounds put forward by the Right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Monmouth, in his speech to Standing Committee B on the Superannuation Bill, 1949 (HANSARD, 10th May, 1949, Cols. 155–158), and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary action.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the reputation for political consistency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is heavily involved in this matter? Will he provide time for a short debate on this subject, or, alternatively, commence discussions for a solution of the problem?
Mr. Butler: I cannot promise an early day for a debate. I have the Motion before me, with the signatures supporting it. If the hon. Member so desires, I will see my right hon. Friends principally concerned, but at the moment I can give no further assurance than that.
Mr. Baldwin: In view of the large majority in the House and the large measure of support in the countryside for the Compensation (Acquisition and Planning) Bill, will my right hon. Friend provide a Money Resolution for the Bill in the near future?
Mr. Butler: I am aware of the intense interest taken in this subject and the degree of support for the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend. This is a matter which will require a great deal more consideration, in view of its complexity. I shall undertake to keep in touch with my hon. Friend and his. friends, but I cannot make any further promise now.
Mr. Short: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to an all-party Motion, signed by most hon. Members from the north-east area, regarding the descheduling of the North-Eastern Development Area and the alarm which statements made by the President of the Board of Trade have caused in the North-East?
[That, in the opinion of this House, to deschedule the whole or part of the North-East Development Area would be prejudicial to the continuing diversification of industry in that area; and that so long as a large proportion of the working population are employed in a small number of basic industries, employment in the area will remain dangerously vulnerable.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for that Motion to be debated in the House?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. This forms part of the general problem of dealing with Development Areas and any incidence of unemployment there may be. I have the Motion before me, but I cannot give any time to discuss it specifically. I will, however, discuss the matter with my hon. Friends concerned.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Before any decision is taken on this question, will this House have an opportunity of discussing it?
Mr. Butler: This is, of course, a matter upon which the House should give an opinion. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities for discussing this major subject in all its important aspects.
Dr. D. Johnson: In the light of his statement a week ago to the National Association for Mental Health, will my right hon. Friend provide a day during the present Session to debate future legislation in respect of mental health?
Mr. Butler: We had a general debate on this subject which gave the Government an opportunity of realising the great interest there is on this matter on all sides of the House. Except for private Members' and Opposition time, it would be very difficult to find another day on which to discuss the general issues. I gave an indication, in the speech to which my hon. Friend has referred, that we hope to legislate on this subject. If that is realised, there will be ample opportunity of discussion.
Mr. W. R. Williams: With reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in view of the fact that the Leader of the House has been in touch with my hon. Friend on this matter for at least six or eight weeks, is there a possibility of those conversations developing into something rather substantial?
Mr. Butler: The mills grind very slowly, but in the end they produce some results.
Mr. Hayman: When considering Development Areas, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the very serious unemployment position in Devon and Cornwall, as revealed in today's issue of the Western Morning News?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, but I must learn from previous experience that in answering questions on business I must not go too far on questions of policy.
Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anxiety in the North-East about the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on the descheduling of the North-East Development Area? Does he not think that a debate in the House might allay those fears?
Mr. Butler: I do not doubt that there will be opportunities from time to time, either through the initiative of the Government, of the Opposition, or private Members individually, to discuss all these matters and, in particular, the anxieties of the North-East Coast. I will bear the matter in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1958–59 AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1958–59; AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59 AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–58; CIVIL (EXCESS), 1956–57 AND NAVY (EXCESSES), 1956–57

CIVIL

  CLASS III VOTE 1. HOME OFFICE
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,359,875, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March., 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Hajesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices; grants towards the expenses of the probation of offenders, of magistrates' courts and of school crossing patrols; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.

  VOTE 6. FIRE SERVICES, ENGLAND AND WALES
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £168,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenses in connection with the fire services in England and Wales, including the cost of inspection and training, and grants in respect of expenditure incurred by fire authorities; for certain superannuation and other expenses; and for remanet expediture in connection with the National Fire Service, England and Wales.

CLASS V

  VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,428,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course

  617
  of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including a grant in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

  VOTE 11. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,561,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

CLASS II

  VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £553,310, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

NAVY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £68,167,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: There are one or two questions that we should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on Vote 1. If he refers to page 14 of the Estimates and devotes his attention to the pay of the Women's Royal Naval Service, he might be able to answer this question. We
  618
  see from the figures that while the number of officers has been falling, the number of ratings has increased. This appears to be different from what has happened in the Admiralty in the past, when, generally, the number of officers has increased in proportion to the number of ratings. It may be, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said during our discussion last week on Vote A, that there is a higher marriage rate among the officers of the W.R.N.S. As the hon. Gentleman has particular and personal information, perhaps he can give up an explanation.
  I should like to ask one or two questions about National Service grants. Under the Vote, provision is made under the National Service Acts, 1948 and 1950, to assist personnel who find themselves in difficulty in not being able to meet their commitments. Special hardship allowances are made to enable personnel to overcome financial problems. We are not told how much is included in the sum asked for in the Vote and we wonder how much is involved. We would also like to know whether the Government have considered the increase in the cost of living over the past few years under their inefficient administration and whether this has been taken into account. If the amounts which have been given are higher than in the past, what is the proportion of the increase? How is this arrangement working?
  My next question refers to the closing down of the Nore Command. During our discussion of Vote A, we devoted considerable time to what would happen to the civilian personnel, but I regret that we did not have the opportunity to say something about the Service personnel who would be affected by the closing of the Command. These men have been stationed in Chatham and district for a considerable time. They have their homes and their families there. The closing down of the Command has created fear and anxiety about their future and the future of their families.
  Various problems arise. First, there is the education of the children, and secondly, the fact that these men will probably be transferred to another base. In such an event, what will happen to their families? Will they be allowed to remain in the Admiralty houses at Chatham? If so, what provision will be made for the Service personnel to

  619
  visit their families? I visualise that some of the men might be transferred to Rosyth. At the moment, living as they do with their families at the base, no difficulty arises when they have leave or time off, but if they are transferred to a station elsewhere, will any added facilities be given to them to visit their families? Will they be issued with warrants for the purpose?
  Another problem which arises if the men are transferred elsewhere is whether their families will be given the opportunity to get accommodation locally. Will special provision be made for this? Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what the Department has in mind for the Service personnel at Chatham, so that he may alleviate any fears or anxieties that the men may have because of the closing down of the Nore Command?
  One other point on Vote 1 arises on miscellaneous allowances. Page 19 states:
  "Provision is made for awards to officers qualifying at the Civil Service Commission examinations for interpreters. The amounts of these awards vary from £30 for French to £180 for Chinese and Japanese"
  I do not know how many officers have already qualified for the maximum amount. It might be interesting to know how many of them are taking the opportunity to become qualified in these languages. Why are the awards limited to officers? This would be a useful provision for ratings, also. With the higher educational standards in schools today and the additional opportunities that are available, surely this scheme might be extended to enable ratings as well as officers to qualify for these awards. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this when he replies.
  My only other point on Vote 1 concerns appropriations in aid and the item "Purchases of Discharge". I see that the Admiralty is expecting to receive exactly twice the amount it received last year for this item, and I should like to know the reason for its expectation. Is it that it is rather pessimistic about recruiting, rather pessimistic about the provisions that have been made about it, and rather pessimistic about keeping its recruits? Those are the points that I wanted to raise on Vote 1, but no doubt some of my hon. Friends will have other matters to mention.
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Yates, Birmingham: Perhaps on this Vote I might raise a matter that I put to the House when we were discussing personnel. I then mentioned the case of a 16-year-old boy who wanted to be released from the Navy, and whose application had been turned down. The First Lord was good enough to make inquiries. Today, I have received a letter from him, but I very much regret that the statement in that letter is not in accordance with the facts, and that I cannot accept his communication as a satisfactory explanation. If we are to be asked for a sum of money to pay for salaries in the Navy, I think that we should first be satisfied that they are being paid to those who want to be in the Navy, and that if a reasonable case for release is put forward it should be reasonably and carefully considered.
  I ask the Minister again to consider this case. If a boy aged 16, with the consent of his parents, joins the Navy and then later finds that he has made a mistake, and his parents feel the same way, it is reasonable that his case should be most carefully considered. As I said the other night, this boy, after joining, realised that his mother was ill, but the First Lord, in communications that I have received from him, has not made any reference whatsoever to the health of the mother.
  Since I spoke about this in the House, I have seen the boy's mother, and it is true that her health is unsatisfactory. She knows that her son wants to be at home. That knowledge is no help to her, and it cannot be satisfactory for the boy. As I have previously stated, this boy came to see me after he had met his officers and his captain. He came to see me in Birmingham, and the Minister's decision was made before I saw the boy. I have had two letters from him saying that he did not want to remain in the Navy, and I have had his verbal statement. He tells me that since he returned to the Service he has not been questioned. Therefore, if the First Lord says that this boy now wants to remain in the Navy, he is under a complete misapprehension.
  What is the alternative? If the Minister will not accede to my plea, I can only say that there is in Vote I a heading, "Appropriations in Aid". Obviously, this boy will be forced to try

  621
  to buy himself out. Worse still, he has already said, in a letter that I have seen, that he is making an allowance of 10s. a week to his widowed mother, and, of course, although it will be extremely difficult for her, she will try to put that money away until she has sufficient to buy him out of the Service.
  That is unfair and unjust. This is not a case of a boy realising his mistake at once, but over and after a number of months. It is only a little over a fortnight since he made his last statement to me, and I cannot accept the letter I have today received in which the Admiralty refers to an interview that the boy's commanding officer had with him last month. The commanding officer says that:
  "He said he was not happy, not because of an inherent dislike of naval life, but because he was away from home; he worried about his mother, and his mother worried about him. I told him that having received the welfare report there was insufficient grounds for me to recommend a compassionate discharge. I therefore advised him that if he was to stay in the Navy, then the best way he could help his family was to do as well as he could, and not to exaggerate his difficulties here, and thus cause his mother needless anxiety; this he promised to do."
  I say that he did not promise. Even as late as last weekend, his mother had received a letter from him saying that he was waiting to hear if he was to be released.
  I submit that this is a case for consideration on compassionate grounds. The mother submitted a doctor's certificate about her own condition. Why should the First Lord decline to consider that point? It is very material. I did not write to the boy in the first place. His mother wrote to me, and I wrote to the son to say that I was putting the matter to the First Lord. I would not have pleaded his case had I believed that he really wanted to remain in the Service. I assure the Minister that I am not making this appeal because I want the boy to come out from the Navy. What I say is that the boy himself has a right to change his mind, and to have his case considered.
  I wrote to the boy, as I say, and he was questioned about my letter. If the Minister denies that, he can go into the question of inquiries about the House of Commons postmark on the letter. I am prepared to go with the officers concerned, and with the Minister.
  622
  to investigate. If a boy feels that he has made a mistake in joining, and if the mother feels that she has made a mistake in giving her consent for him to join, it is a disgrace if he cannot be released unless the mother considerably impoverishes herself. She has no help whatever. Although not really well enough, she goes out to work. I plead with the First Lord to reconsider this matter. If necessary, I will supply him with all the details I can obtain and will go to Gosport—where the boy is—with him, because this is something that should be investigated.
  4.0 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I certainly do not intend to pursue the merits of the case which has been pressed at some length in two debates now by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). Indeed, I am not at all sure that these personal cases can appropriately be dealt with in any great detail in this Committee. What he said, however, leads me to repeat a suggestion I have made before which has a direct bearing on this Vote. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to changing the procedure whereby these appeals for compassionate release from the Services are heard?
  I have never been able to understand why the Service Departments wish to settle them by administrative action. We have tribunals which consider, shall we say, the case of conscientious objectors and similar cases with regard to entry of men on to this Vote. Why cannot the work of those tribunals be extended to men already serving, thus obviating the necessity for the Crown to be, or anyhow to appear to be, judge in its own cause?
  Mr. James Griffiths: It is a good suggestion.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman agrees and says that it is a good suggestion, but I am bound to say that, although I have put it forward when speaking on a number of occasions, I have never succeeded in having it agreed to. I think that it would save the time of the Committee and of the House in dealing with cases of this nature if a reform like that were introduced.

  623
  There are two other matters to which I wish to refer on this Vote. One of the most striking features is the big percentage increase, under Subhead E, that is to say, marriage allowances. I presume that the big increase arises as a result of the higher rates of marriage allowance, and not because the Admiralty expects a higher proportion of personnel to become married in the coming financial year, although, no doubt, the increase in the rates will have that effect as well. I still consider that my hon. Friend would do well to look into the question whether the marriage allowance as paid unconditionally to very young ratings is too high in relation to the basic pay.
  It is a striking fact that the proportion of males aged about 21 who are married is higher in the Services than it is in civil life. When one considers that a young man serving in the Armed Forces is really better off if he does not marry, at any rate, until he is 23 or 24, it seems open to question whether the present policy is wise. I should like my hon. Friend to consider whether something should be done by way of incentive to the man who marries later on, whether, perhaps, a higher rate might be paid to the man who draws it for a shorter time through being married for a shorter period of his service.
  The other point to which I should like to draw attention has been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who opened the debate for the Opposition. He asked what is to happen to the families of men of the Nore Command when that Command closes? I must say that I feel in some difficulty, because I am not sure that this is not really a question of the disposal of the married quarters. However, there is a tenuous connection with the Vote, because, if the families are moved from their married quarters, they will come on to a higher rate of marriage allowance.
  On that basis, I venture to suggest that, although the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is, I am sure, inspired by the best intentions, it would, I believe, raise a very dangerous precedent if furnished married quarters were to be supplied to the families of men at places remote from where they may be serving. That would be quite a new principle.
  Mr. Steele: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the point I was making was that the Admiralty is closing down the Nore Command, and the families will be left there after the men have been posted to another station. How long will they be expected to remain there? Will the Admiralty be selling the houses? Perhaps I did not put it completely, but I did not want to catch the disapproving eye of the Chair too quickly in this matter; it was just the general problem that I was raising.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is an interesting problem. I merely repeat that I think it would be a rather dangerous precedent to establish the idea of providing, on this Vote or on any other, married quarters for men remote from where they happen to be serving. If they were disposed of, I should have thought that something more on the lines of disposing of them on easy terms to the occupants at the time of the move would, perhaps, be more attractive and more fruitful.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: One point I wish to raise has a tenuous connection with the Vote, Subhead A, "Pay of Officers". In the recent debate on the Navy Estimates, I asked the Financial Secretary whether he would give me some information about facilities for promotion from the lower deck. He very kindly sent me a letter giving me some information, but I should like to ask for a few more details and figures. Can he tell us what is the proportion of serving officers at present who have gained promotion from the lower deck? Could he give me a comparison of the latest figure with, say, the figure in 1949 or 1950 or some convenient date at about that time, so that we may see whether the proportion is increasing or not?
  This is obviously a very important matter. If I may say so, naval officers on the whole are excellent, but I feel that, if the source from which they are derived is broadened, they may become even more excellent. I am absolutely certain that, if the opportunities for promotion from the lower deck are extended, the Navy will become an even more attractive Service for recruits.
  4.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Baldock: I wish to draw attention to the education allowances. Each one of us in this Committee feels that the fewest possible financial penalties should rest on married officers and men in the Services resulting from the fact that they are liable to have to move about. Obviously, in equity, they should not be penalised financially as against a civilian who can remain in one place for some time, if not indefinitely. Also, as a disincentive to recruitment, it is a factor of some importance. Under Subhead L, "Education Allowances", we are told that these are
  "payable in respect of children between the ages of 11 and 18 years".
  Might not the starting age be lowered a little so that the allowance would be paid sooner?
  We are further told that personnel are eligible for the allowance when they are serving abroad—that is obvious—and, also, those who are subject to frequent changes of station in the United Kingdom are eligible. I feel that that definition should be very generously interpreted, because even one change of station can have exactly the result to which I have referred, causing a great deal of inconvenience and financial handicap. I cannot see why only those who are subject to frequent changes of station should be eligible, and I hope that this provision is generously interpreted.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have a question to put on Subhead H. We are told in the fourth paragraph of the Explanatory Notes, "Miscellaneous Allowances" that
  "Provision is made for awards to officers qualifying at the Civil Service Commission Examinations for Interpreters"
  and that the amounts of their awards vary from £30 for French to £180 for Chinese and Japanese.
  I should like to know whether these provisions apply to men as well as to officers. Further, I should like to know why the figures for officers who wish to study Russian are omitted. If it is £30 for French and £180 for Chinese and Japanese, where do the people who wish to study Russian come in? I understand, from our debates, that the main potential enemy is not the Chinese but the Russians, yet we are told nothing about
  626
  awards given to people who wish to study Russian.
  I attach importance to this matter, because I believe that the more officers in the Navy study Russian the better they will learn to read the Russian newspapers. Perhaps these figures have been omitted for a mysterious reason. It may be that the Admiralty takes the view that learning Russian is bad for their morale. I can understand that view, because if some of these officers learn to read Russian they will read the Russian Navy's official organ, "Red Fleet", which is a most tendentious paper.
  Mr. Walter Edwards: That would not be of much use to them.
  Mr. Hughes: I would like to know why there is no mention of the awards that are being given to people studying Russian, when the whole object of the Navy Estimates is to be prepared to fight the Russians. What does an officer who is studious enough to learn Russian receive? It may be that the danger is that by reading the "Red Fleet" he may acquire some knowledge of Marxist-Leninism or some other theoretical aspect of Communism. That would be the very opposite effect from that which the Admiralty would desire. It might destroy their morale.
  Mr. Edwards: Why not give them "Comic Cuts" to read?
  Mr. Hughes: There are a number of both officers and men who can and do read "Comic Cuts".
  I want to know why the Russians have been omitted and exactly what award students who do acquire a knowledge of Russian get. Is it between £30 and £180 for the Chinese? Why are the Chinese singled out? In all of our debates I have never heard anything about the Chinese Navy being a menace. I assume that there is a reason why the students should be encouraged to read Chinese and Japanese. I would like to know from the Minister how many officers have acquired a knowledge of Russian and exactly what payment they receive as a result.
  Mr. Baldock: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the article in the "Red Fleet", which said that the Sea Cadet Corps was used by the Government for political indoctrination—
  The Chairman: Order.
  4.12 p.m
  Mr. E. G. Willis: My hon. Friends have raised a number of points and I have no wish to stand between them and the Parliamentary Secretary; but I would like to ask one or two questions which have not been raised.
  My first point concerns the Nore Command. I agree that something should be said concerning the Service personnel to be affected by the closing of the Nore Command. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of concern about this matter, and anything that the hon. Gentleman can say would be helpful in allaying that concern.
  For a number of years we have been concerned, on both sides of the Committee, with the increasing number of naval officers, particularly high ranking officers, and the failure of the Admiralty to get rid of many of them. I would like to know whether the closing of the Nore Command will enable us to do this. It seems to me that with the closing of the Nore Command at least some of the higher-ranking officers ought to be dispensed with. We probably still require most of the officers, but I should have thought that we would require fewer officers if the Command is closed.
  My second point relates to the rates of pay published in Cmd. 365. It has become the general practice in the Services, when considering rates of pay, to give overall, I was about to say, flat-rate increases. They are flat-rate increases to certain branches and ratings which correspond to the ranks in the Army. I wonder whether this is the best way of dealing with questions of pay. This is a big question. The Labour Government introduced the principle of uniformity for all the Services—the equating of certain ranks in the Navy with certain ranks in the Army and Air Force.
  There is undoubtedly a great deal to be said for this proposition. But it leads to a certain number of difficulties. For instance, at present, in each Service there are particular branches for which we cannot recruit men. Whenever we cannot get recruits, the solution of the Government is to give an overall increase in pay. The experience in the past has been that this does not solve the problem of the branches in which there is a shortage of men. The Government should look at this matter. The answer might rest in
  628
  the structure, which is being inquired into at present.
  I raise the point because it ought to be looked at in connection with the classification structure of the lower deck in the Navy, and changes should be made accordingly. We are getting to a situation where, unnecessarily I think, we tackle this problem in an overall manner instead of in an individual manner in an attempt to deal with difficulties that are exceedingly acute. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when the Admiralty considers the question of the classification of the lower deck and the ratings structure attention ought to be paid to this problem. We ought to ask ourselves whether our method of tackling the question of pay is the right one.
  4.18 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): Perhaps the Committee would not mind if, first, I answered the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), as he has told me that he has to attend a Committee. He asked me whether I would say a word about the problem that he raised. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) was right in saying that it is very difficult to deal with these matters in debate across the Floor of the House. In general, in these compassionate cases—most of which come to me and in which a great many hon. Members on both sides are involved—there is the utmost sympathy shown by the Admiralty in its examination of them. But we have to lay down hard and fast rules on compassionate discharges. In other words, there has to be a very real compassionate reason why a man should be discharged after having taken on an obligation in signing on.
  The domestic circumstances of this boy, Castello, despite what the hon. Gentleman says—and I understand his feelings in the matter—did not match up to the standards which permit us to give a compassionate discharge. Part of the trouble, I think—it happens in many cases, particularly of young boys—is that the influence works both ways. He appears to be unhappy and his home life and family push him the other way and he builds up a sense of friction and

  629
  grievance which is not often there, and it is magnified.
  It would be best if the hon. Gentleman would come to see me privately, when I will talk it over with him in my office and try to persuade him that this matter has been considered with the utmost sympathy and that the boy, if he would settle down, has a good career in front of him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me so that we can talk about this case privately.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) raised a number of points. Perhaps it would be convenient if I went through, in order, the questions that he raised.
  I was asked about the officer-rating ratio in the W.R.N.S. by comparison with that in the Service generally. The point about the W.R.N.S. is that many services are provided for them. I hope that in such a matter all of us are both honourable and gallant and that we are glad that they are looked after so well. For instance, they do not have a planning organisation of their own, they do not have a hydrographer, and they do not have a number of other specialist organisations which exist in the Admiralty and which make provisions for the Service generally. The W.R.N.S. tag along, too.
  It is, therefore, not fair to compare the officer-rating ratio in the W.R.N.S., which is 77 per 1,000, with the officer-rating ratio in the Service generally, which is 118 per 1,000. We plan by 1963 to bring that ratio down to 111, which, I hope, will satisfy the hon. Member that we are aware of the position and are doing our best to try to achieve a better balance.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about admirals. Admirals provide a very good cock-shy. I suspected that this question would be asked and investigated the matter in some detail. It is a complicated problem, but I played a game rather like "Hunt the Admirals" and went through the list with considerable care to see how the admirals are posted.
  The hon. Member mentioned that we are estimating for 81 admirals in the general list this year, but, in fact, we shall have only 79. Of those 79, 17 are specialists, either engineers, supply, secretariat or electrical. That leaves 62 to be accounted for in the general list.
  630
  Of these, seven are in full-time N.A.T.O. or other allied jobs. That reduces the figure to 55. Of the 55, 12 are seagoing admirals in command.
  Next, there are 24 admirals in more or less traditional posts, in which I include the commanders-in-chief in the home ports, Flag Officer, Scotland, and so on. We have flag officers in Malta and Gibraltar and other places, there is a Flag Officer, Submarines, a Flag Officer, Air and a Flag Officer, Air Training. In addition, there is a Flag Officer, Greenwich, and a flag officer at the Imperial Defence College. I have previously mentioned the hydrographer and D.N.I. All these 24 are traditional posts for admirals.
  This makes 36, which leaves 19 of the 55 still to be accounted for. Here we come to the personnel, staff and weapons side, and also to the documents side. There are 12 admirals to be found in these categories. This leaves seven, who are usually either working on special committees or are on their way to take up new appointments or on leave or sick; they are in the pipeline.
  We intend to continue to reduce the number of flag officers and we hope that by January, 1959, there will be 10 or 12 fewer admirals than in January, 1958. The question of the Nore Command is also involved here because that post will be abolished and will not be replaced. The command in the North Channel of the N.A.T.O. element will be given to some other admiral but a special post will not be created to fill it.
  Mr. Willis: I take it that the same opportunities will be available for technical branches to reach the highest ranks of the Service as are available to the general branch. It is important that that should be the case.
  Mr. Allan: The number of specialist admirals is likely to increase.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked about National Service grants and how much of Subhead E, Vote I, was devoted to these grants. He asked whether cost-of-living increases were included in them. These grants are made by an inter-Service committee. The basis on which they are made is that the man's family standards should not fall below a certain level. In general, the intention is to see that his standards are maintained at the level at which they stood

  631
  when he joined the Service. The payments alter when the family conditions alter. If another child is born while a National Service man is in the Service, the National Service grant may well be increased. These grants apply in nearly all cases to married men and, since the majority of the National Service men in the Navy are not married, the numbers concerned are relatively small.
  Of the sum in Subhead E, £25,000 is allocated to National Service grants. That is the same amount as was allocated in the previous year, but the number of National Service men in the Service has almost halved, from nearly 8,000 to just over 4,000. We thus have a fairly substantial over-provision in case there is need to increase the grants.
  Several questions have been asked about the Nore Command. They were asked by the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, West and Edinburgh, East and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The problem when we shut down a home depôt now is not as great as it was, because we have central drafts. The old idea of a depôt has rather disappeared, because central drafting has altered the position considerably.
  We have kept two connections with the depots. The first is the selected depot. The value of the selected depot is from the point of view of the family welfare organisation. It will not be possible for existing Chatham ratings to opt for Chatham as their selected depôt after the autumn of 1960, but the family welfare service will remain there until it is no longer required. The other connection with the depôt is what we call the preference depôt. If a man is coming home or is ending a general service commission and is due for a spell of short leave, he can indicate a preference to be drafted to a certain area because he has personal connections there.
  Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Thank you very much. I just wondered whether the welfare services which are to remain at Chatham will be given some extra power and will not have to work within their present limited regulations.
  Mr. Allan: I do not think that extra power will be necessary, but, if it is, then we shall certainly consider it.
  632
  I was mentioning the question of the drafting preference. Ratings can still choose, and are, in fact, now choosing, Chatham. They will be able to continue to do so for quite a while if they wish, but the number of shore billets will he very greatly reduced, and it will not be possible to draft people in accordance with their drafting preference to any great extent. It is not intended to give up the naval married quarters in the Chatham area until the demand for them ceases. The houses which we are building in certain areas will be completed.
  What we shall ultimately do with them is still under consideration, but certainly for a period, and for quite a long period, families will be allowed to stay in the married quarters at Chatham, even though the husbands have been drafted elsewhere. I would see no objection, despite what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said, to keeping a number of married quarters permanently in the Chatham area, even though the members of the Service may be serving in other places. We are relatively short of married quarters and will quite gladly have this general addition to the pool.
  Mr. W. Edwards: I gather that the hon. Gentleman was saying that the married quarters which are being built in Chatham for the personnel in Chatham barracks, and the programme for Chatham barracks, are still to be completed. There is, of course, a programme for Portsmouth barracks and for Devonport barracks. Does he say that when naval personnel who have lived in the Chatham barracks in due course go to Portsmouth or Devonport their married quarters will remain at Chatham, and that though a man may be stationed at Devonport he will have to travel to Chatham to go to the married quarters there?
  Mr. Allan: No, but they would probably prefer to have married quarters at Chatham than nowhere. That is the point. I was not saying that the whole scheme in the Chatham area would be completed, but only those houses which are under construction. The married quarters programme will, of course, continue in other places, but the Navy will be very glad to have a little pool of married quarters which can be made available in various circumstances.

  633
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked about interpreters, and so did the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The latter, surprisingly enough, did not seem to think that there was any good will in learning languages; he seemed to think that we were encouraging learning these languages in order to be hostile to people. There is a good deal of friendship to be gained from speaking a man's language, and it is not only in terms of ill will that this is encouraged, as he seemed to suggest.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, no.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked how many officers qualified for the top rate, which is for Chinese and Japanese. I understand that there are four officers at present serving who qualify for the top rate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire asked me about Russian. In the Vote we have merely indicated examples of the minimum scale and the top scale. The Russian language can, of course, be learnt, and interpreters are paid £90. I do not know quite how that figure was arrived at, but that is the figure, and we apparently have 10 first-class Russian interpreters.
  Mr. Hughes: That is a very small amount for anyone studious enough to acquire Russian.
  Mr. Allan: I should have thought it was about right in relation to Chinese and Japanese. We have, as I was saying, 10 first-class Russian interpreters, and 34 second-class.
  Mr. Steele: Will the hon. Gentleman not ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to take on a temporary position as interpreter? He is a fluent speaker of Russian himself.
  Mr. Allan: I do not know whether he would qualify for the £90.
  Both hon. Gentlemen asked me why this was paid to officers and not to ratings. The point is that we, unlike the other Services, do not, in fact, have ratings living in the countries concerned, and most of the naval requirements are for intelligence, attache and N.A.T.O. appointments, which are, by and large, filled only by officers.
  634
  Another point is that the other Services employ uniformed personnel in their attache and intelligence offices, whereas we in the Navy employ civilians. There is, therefore, really no requirement for ratings to qualify as interpreters, but there is certainly nothing to stop them learning these languages if they wish to do so. We do not, I am sorry to say, encourage it.
  A question was also asked about the purchase of discharges. The fact is that we have increased, by an inter-Service agreement, the price, and we do not expect any greater number of purchases of discharge than we had last year. I think that that answers all the questions put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West.
  In connection with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady-wood, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East suggested that tribunals might consider these cases of compassionate discharge. There is a good deal to be said for that and I am, oddly enough, already in the process of investigating this problem to see what can be done. I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which seems, from what he said, to have been in a pigeon-hole for some time. We will take it out, dust it and have a look at it.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman also mentioned marriage allowances. The amount for this has increased, as he rightly surmised, because of a larger allowance rather than because of a larger marriage expectancy.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) asked about promotion from the lower deck. About 25 per cent. of the general list officers in the Navy come from the S.D. list. I am told that in 1949 the percentage was 18, so that there has been an increase. It is the policy to increase that still further. At present, we have an intake of about 140 per annum from the S.D. list, and this will continue at around that figure for some time, but will increase when the rundown is coming to its end and is completed to 180 a year.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: What would that be in percentage?
  Mr. Allan: It is impossible to give the percentage because of the wastage of those who come in by other schemes, but, obviously, after the next five years the proportion of lower deck promotions will go higher than 25 per cent. I should not like to set a target, or to say what it will be. While on the subject of lower deck promotion, I should like to say that there is a new scheme, the details of which we hope to announce shortly, for upper yardmen promotion.
  This we hope we start in 1959, although I hope that the details will be announced within a month or two. I think that this will be of tremendous benefit and an improvement on the existing interim upper yardmen scheme. Broadly, the intention is to make them almost parallel and bring them in line with the cadet entry through Dartmouth. This again, as it comes on, will increase the percentage of lower deck promotions. The figures I have just given refer only to special duty men, not to upper yardmen.
  Mr. Willis: Has there been any increase in the upper yardmen scheme during the last year?
  Mr. Allan: Last year there was an increase of seven in the numbers of the upper yard men.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) asked about education classes. This is very often considered and is being looked at sympathetically. At present, I am not able to answer the point he raised, but I will look into it and get in touch with him about it. I am grateful to him for making the suggestion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £68,167,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £13,026,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course
  636
  of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  4.42 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to raise one or two points on victualling. I am particularly grateful to the Civil Lord for replying to the points I made during the recent debate on the Navy Estimates. I am glad to see that there is an attempt to reorganise and co-ordinate the victualling yards. I hope that this reorganisation will be carried out because, as I said previously, although they are co-ordinated the expense does not seem to be reduced at all. In fact, the hiring charges are still increasing.
  There are two specific questions I should like to ask. One is about the Admiralty Police who are guarding these yards. I understand that at least 58 will be redundant from overseas. These men are of considerable age, and had anticipated being in their jobs until they retired. Are they given an opportunity of taking a job at some of the yards here on their return? I understand that the home Admiralty staff is being cut by only one, so perhaps it might be possible to take some there.
  Last year I raised the question of the Admiralty police uniform. I understand this was promised for last autumn, but so far nothing has been seen of it. I hope that it has not got into one of the big storages and been lost.
  Mr. R. Allan: Is this on Vote 2?
  Miss Vickers: Yes, in page 27.
  Opposite, my hon. Friend will see that the police victualling yards are to be reduced from 100 to 42. I am glad, too, that more money is being given for food. It is extremely important that the food should be good, particularly on ships. It makes a great deal of difference to the personnel.
  The only other point I wish to mention is on Subhead G, page 27, paragraph (3), where it says:
  "Grog money. The rate of grog money is at present fixed at 3d. a day or 21s. a quarter."
  I reckon that a quarter has about 91 days in it, and if that is correct the chap is being cheated by 1s. 9d. I should like to have an explanation of that. I am particularly interested in the personnel side.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I, also, am interested in the question of the food, and am extremely keen that it should be as good as possible. I am a little surprised to see an increase in the cost of provisions. This year Vote 7 is considerably smaller than last year. If my mathematics are correct, it is down by about 8 per cent. We were told in the Navy Estimates debate that it was to be followed by a further 6 per cent. or thereabouts during the course of this year.
  In page 26, Subhead G, the cost of provisions is shown as having gone up, again if my mathematics are correct, by about 7 per cent. Many of the other items in this Vote have gone down in price, some of them very considerably. Subhead K, "mess traps," for example, are down by about 60 per cent.; Subhead M, "clothing, etc.", is down by about 20 per cent.; clothing itself, in fact, is down by 50 per cent.
  All these are very desirable savings. I am not suggesting that we should save on the food by giving the Navy bad food, but I do not quite understand why, when Vote A is coming down, including the cost of clothing the Navy, the cost of food should have gone up apparently by 7 per cent.
  Mr. Norman Pannell: The only point I wish to raise is on the number of civilian personnel in the victualling department. During the debate on the Navy Estimates, my hon. Friend the Civil Lord made a gallant defence against the charges of waste and extravagance, especially in regard to the civilian personnel. Is there any justification for a total personnel of 3,197 compared with 1,603 in 1937? I admit that there has been a reduction in numbers over the past year, but it seems difficult to justify twice the number of personnel today that there were in 1937, when the uniformed naval personnel has increased only fractionally compared with twenty years ago.
  Mr. R. Allan: My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked me about the police. The uniform comes under Vote 8. The Admiralty constabulary generally is being very slightly reduced. I will look into the point she raised, because I am not able to give her an immediate answer to her question.
  638
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) asked why the cost of provisions under Subhead G had gone up when we were having a general run-down of personnel. The answer is that under an inter-Service agreement the Navy is victualling the other two Services in certain places in the United Kingdom, and especially in Malta. The extra cost of this is, of course, borne in the Navy Vote here under provisions, but it will be recovered in the form of repayments from the other Services. I hope that the extra cost may reflect a better standard of food as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) asked me about general numbers. As was pointed out previously on the question of civilians, more work is being done by civilians than was being done before by uniformed personnel. This once again releases uniformed personnel for service at sea, which is where we want them. That is the main reason, but the reduction is also due to the recent closing of establishments at home and abroad.
  The hon. Lady asked me about grog. That question is always coming up. The cost of grog is 1s. 1¾d. and a rating gets 3d. a day, or 21s. a quarter if he decides not to take grog. There must be some payment by way of a fixed rate in those circumstances and, in fact, he does better out of it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £13,026,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 959.

  Vote 6. Scientific Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £17,099,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I have one or two questions to ask on this Vote. The first two are on smaller items and one concerns the

  639
  Isaac Newton telescope. Could the hon. Gentleman say something about that? I would have thought it wasteful to start projects and then to stop work on them. There must be some waste involved in that process, no matter what the job. Also, it seems curious to stop the work at a time when people are becoming increasingly interested in outer space, so may we know why the work has stopped?
  My second point concerns the International Hydrographic Bureau. There is a reduction in the personnel there and I would like to know whether this is due to more efficient organisation or to some other reason. I ask that because this Bureau produces a good income, which has been increasing to an astonishing extent in the past three or four years. In the same period, the number of charts sold has increased by 350,000, and there has also been a substantial increase in the income of almost 45 per cent. Therefore, we would like to know what is happening in the Bureau and what has brought about the decrease in the number of personnel.
  I have some questions to put on items under Subheads N and O, which cover the bulk of the expenditure for scientific services. The interesting thing about them is that a number of scientific and experimental personnel employed there, and in ancillary grades, has fallen substantially for two successive years. On the face of it that is good, because if we can have scientists working in industry instead of in the Services it is much better for the country. Has this been brought about by reorganisation of the research Departments of the Admiralty?
  There has also been a general decrease for two years now in research and development contracts under subhead O. What appears to be strange is that the emphasis is on scientific research and development, and here we are dealing with a Service in which new ideas are being worked out and in which an enormous amount of research and development is required. One would have expected it to remain at the same level instead of decreasing. And, even if it had done that, there would have been a decrease in the actual volume of work because of increased costs.
  If this has come about as the result of reorganisation taking place, obviously
  640
  it is desirable. One would not like to think that the saving is being brought about by delaying work on important matters such as nuclear propulsion. We had some guarantees about this from the Civil Lord during the debate on Vote A, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say something more about it.
  4.54 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I want to add one or two remarks to the observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Unlike him, I am concerned that there has not been a reduction in this total Vote. I would have expected to see a much bigger reduction, since the Service is being run down and a certain number of research and development projects are being abandoned, as we were told in the defence debate. It is particularly disturbing that Subhead O should have decreased to a great extent, whereas the amount spent on salaries, wages and allowances has increased.
  Mr. Willis: With slightly fewer numbers employed.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes. I do not subscribe to the view that research and development can be increased merely by voting more money for it. The raw material of research and development is provided by scientists of the right kind, with the imagination and brains to produce the answers. It is possible to spend, as the Americans do, 20 or 30 times as much as we do and still get only two or three times greater results.
  This is a difficult Vote to criticise, because we are rightly not let into the secrets of where the money is going, but I want to ask two questions. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the importance of going on with the nuclear submarine and other projects connected with nuclear propulsion. It would be much more economical if, in the main, those projects were handled by the Atomic Energy Authority, which handles our nuclear research for peaceful purposes generally. It would also be more economical to second the necessary personnel as application officers to the Authority.
  My second question is whether we are right, now that the need for economy has become so urgent, to continue to have a separate naval radar research establishment. As I understand, the general principle is that equipment which is more or

  641
  less common to all Services is taken care of by the Ministry of Supply because it is uneconomical for each Service to be autonomous. I am no friend of the principle of having a Civil Ministry of Supply, and I spoke about this in the debate on the Air Estimates. As long as we have a separate Ministry of Supply, however, and without prejudice as to whether we believe in having these common Departments in a civilian Ministry or removing them to the Ministry of Defence, I still take leave to doubt whether it is economical for the Admiralty to continue to run an independent directorate of radar equipment, with its associated research establishment, which is one of the more costly of the establishments borne on this Vote.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Williams: I wish to follow up some remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) about nuclear propulsion. This is a matter which came out very fully in the Navy Estimates debate, and I think that the House and the country are extremely grateful to the Civil Lord for the work he is doing on the Galbraith Committee. There are certain questions relevant to this Vote which come within the problem of nuclear power which I should like to ask.
  Are we, in fact, as a result of the way in which this money is spent, having to carry out much of the research and development which might have been carried out already by the United States, or are we, as a consequence of the declaration of interdependence, getting all—and I mean all—the information which we want and need? Are there still certain hesitations on the other side of the Atlantic due to the McMahon Act?
  Is the declaration of interdependence working, or is the McMahon Act holding back information which we require, causing us to spend more money on research and development on this Vote, on which, if that declaration means what it was intended to mean, there should now be certain savings?
  On the question of commercial nuclear propulsion, I should like to ask the Civil Lord whether he can enlarge slightly on what he said in his widing-up speech on the Navy Estimates in columns 1117–18
  642
  of 4th March. He was then referring to the possibility of this country having a commercial nuclear-powered ship in the water by about 1964. I realise the hesitations which he put around that phrase, and, obviously, no one could hold him to it, but when that is measured against the quotation which I gave in my own speech to the effect that the Americans are attempting to have this by 1965, it would appear that this country, as a result of the money spent on this Vote, may well be years ahead of the United States.
  I do not think that the whole Committee is completely seized of the importance of what the Civil Lord said the other night. If what he said is accurate, then all this money spent on this Vote is not only money well spent, but it must continue to be spent so that we do establish our civil position. Can we have an assurance from the Civil Lord that that statement from him was not one provoked by an intervention in the debate, but was carefully thought out? Can he define the meaning of his statement that we might have a nuclear ship in the water by 1964. Does it mean that, as a result of the money spent on this Vote, we shall be ahead of the United States?
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked me a question about the Isaac Newton telescope. He wondered why this work had been halted. He is correct in saying that it is of the greatest importance to the nation, but it really has nothing to do with Sputniks, as he seemed to suggest. The purpose of the telescope is to permit the extension of astronomical and astrophysical research beyond the limits of our existing equipment.
  In view of the importance of this to the nation, the cost of this work, it was intended, should be borne between the Admiralty and the Treasury. Unfortunately, in the light of the present financial stringency, it was reluctantly decided that the project would have to be suspended, and news was given of this to the Royal Society on 28th January.
  One thing I should emphasise is that the work has only been suspended, and that we hope to start it again. No waste will have occurred because all that has been done so far is that £28,000 has been

  643
  spent on primary design and study work. Nothing at all has been spent on buildings; that can be held in suspense.
  Mr. Willis: This is rather interesting. The Civil Lord says the sum spent is £28,000, but is it not the case that the year before last the amount was £51,000 and last year it was £30,000?
  Mr. Galbraith: The figures I have show that £28,000 has been spent, of which the Admiralty have paid £14,000. It certainly seems to be peculiar, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will take an opportunity afterwards of checking the figures.
  Mr. Willis: Does not that give point to the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee about the Admiralty Estimates?
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a second point, when he suggested that instead of wasting money we were, in fact, making it in the hydrographers' department. He wondered whether there was any connection between the reductions in staff and the greater amount of money we were making. I wish there was some connection but, in fact, in selling these charts, we have had to adjust our prices upwards to cover the cost of production. At the same time, curiously enough, in spite of the increased cost, the sales are still expected to increase, and that explains the credit side of the Vote.
  As to the reduction in staff, this has been imposed upon us because of the general need to economise and not to make the services perhaps quite as "ritzy" as we would like, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to maintain the tradition for accurate work which has earned the hydrographer of the Navy such a reputation that today when he issues a new chart, the rates of insurance of shipping companies go down.
  Mr. Willis: On that point, is not this a curious form of economy imposed upon the Department—to cut down the number of printers and engravers, the people producing the charts, while the sale of those charts is increasing enormously? Is there not some contradiction here?
  Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry if I have not explained myself quite clearly. It is
  644
  not so much that sales have gone up as that the prices which we are asking for the charts have gone up. There has been a slight increase in the volume, but the main increase has been due to the increase in price of the article we are offering for sale.
  Let me now turn to the cuts in research and development, about which the hon. Gentleman asked me some questions. He seemed to think that we were cutting too much whereas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), on the other hand, seemed to think that we were not cutting enough. That encourages me to think that we have struck the right balance between the two opposing views. The hon. Gentleman wanted to be assured that these cuts were not affecting important work such as the development of nuclear propulsion. I can give him that assurance. It is only the less important kind of work which we have to delay and slow down. The kind of work like nuclear propulsion, which we regard as being of the very highest importance, is going ahead.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East asked why we should not leave all this to the Atomic Energy Authority. In this matter, we are working in the closest association with the Authority, and I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend would have been the last person to suggest that we could leave the mechanism going into a floating platform to an authority such as that. We really must, as far as we can, keep control of this in our own hands, while working in very close association with the Atomic Energy Authority.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not suggest that. What I said was that the main thing should be organised by the Atomic Energy Authority and the naval contribution should be the supply of the application officers, and so forth. Perhaps I could put a specific question to my hon. Friend? Is the Navy setting up a special research establishment to deal with this, or is it making use of the facilities which have been developed for the peaceful uses of atomic energy as well?
  Mr. Galbraith: No, it is not setting up a special department.

  645
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) also asked some questions about the development of nuclear propulsion for ships. I can assure him that we are working in the closest possible co-operation with the Americans on warships and that there is no duplication in the work for civil ships and for warships.
  My hon. Friend asked me to be a little more specific about the date 1964, by which time, I said, if all went well, we hoped to have a ship in the water. I can go no further than what I said in the earlier debate, but I can assure him that I was speaking not "off the cuff", but with due consideration. I do not want to be tied down to that date. It depends how technical developments go in the next year or two.
  Mr. P. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I understand the escape clause which he would naturally attach to what he said. However, does what he said mean that we expect to put a ship in the water a year ahead of the present American plan?
  Mr. Galbraith: If the American plan is what my hon. Friend says it is, then I suppose it means that it does.
  I think that that covers all the issues raised by this Vote.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £17,099,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,603,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Edwards: In the debate on the Navy Estimates, I dealt specifically with the effect of the Navy's future rôle on civilian labour and on
  646
  the prospects of Service personnel. I want now to draw attention to the considerable decrease in the amount of money to be spent on dockyards and factories abroad in the ensuing year compared with the present year. The figure decreases from £391,000 to £50,000.
  The expenditure of £50,000 on dockyards and factories abroad in the course of twelve months is not considerable. I presume that the drastic decrease is because of the closing of the Hong Kong dockyard and the possible reduction in the use of Malta dockyard. It is obvious that not so much money will be needed for Hong Kong dockyard from now on, because it has been announced by the Admiralty that that dockyard is to close down.
  I want to make a plea for those locally entered people employed by us in the Hong Kong dockyard. We had a very full discussion about the effects of the closing of Sheerness and Portland dockyards and Chatham Barracks and certain naval air stations, but we did not deal with the problem in our Colonies. The Admiralty has as much concern with the Colonies as has the Colonial Office. The plain fact of the matter is that roughly 5,000 people employed under Vote 10 will be affected by the Admiralty policy and will eventually lose their jobs in Hong Kong as a result.
  I had the great privilege of going to Hong Kong and representing the Admiralty when I was the Civil Lord. I want to say here and now that those locally entered people employed by us in Hong Kong do a very good job of work for the Admiralty and it is essential that we should not merely throw them on the scrap heap. Nothing could be worse to our colonial relations than if it got abroad that we were not giving people in the Colonies affected by the change of our defence policy that due and fair consideration to which they were entitled.
  Anyone who has been to the Far East knows that it is not very easy for the Hong Kong Government or the Colonial Office to provide alternative work for these people. They do not have a very good life when they are in work, but the life must be absolutely terrible when they have no money coming in. They do not have the services which we have here if we are unfortunate enough to

  647
  become unemployed. It is very important that the Admiralty should give the utmost consideration to this problem to see that our name is kept clean when we have to carry out the proposals upon which the Government have decided.
  Has the Admiralty any knowledge of possible alternative work in Hong Kong for those people who will be affected by the closing of the dockyard? It may be that the Admiralty has not yet considered that aspect of the matter, but it is an aspect which should be considered by good employers. If there is no alternative employment which could be provided by the Admiralty or by the Hong Kong Government, what is to happen about the dockyards? Is it to be gradually evacuated and its contents left to deteriorate and rot so that we may save money as a result of that evacuation, or has the Admiralty any ideas about its possible use so that employment for those people who are to lose their jobs as a result of Government policy can be found?
  Those are two very important points, and the third is compensation. Has an amount of compensation been suggested to the associations? It must be borne in mind that what might be called the trade unions of Honk Kong are in no way comparable to the unions of Great Britain. They are staff associations, and even when I was at the Admiralty it often took months and months for communications to pass to and from the associations.
  They are not strong organisations. In view of that fact it is most important that a sympathetic line should come from the Admiralty; it should not wait to be pressed from outside. When Hong Kong dockyard is closed, I hope that the Admiralty can ensure, first, that if the workers cannot obtain alternative employment they will receive very sympathetic consideration in the matter of compensation for loss of employment, and secondly, see whether the dockyard can be used for other industrial purposes, so that some of those who would otherwise be unemployed may obtain work.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Baldock: Although the Vote has diminished by £5 million since last year, in spite of the fact that there has been
  648
  a reduction in numbers under Subhead A—Salaries and Allowances of Superintending Officers and Others—there is nevertheless an increase in salaries of £10,000. This is one of the most difficult increases to explain. It is a very large sum of money. Nearly £1¼ million is being spent upon these personnel, which are equivalent to one of the categories of scientific officers. With a diminishing quantity of work for a diminishing fleet, and with a diminishing number of establishments and dockyards, we should get a proportionately greater decrease in numbers and some saving in these salaries.
  I want to make a point with regard to the recovery of money upon establishments which the Navy is closing down. I hope that the Navy will take the best professional advice as to how the largest sum of money can be realised in the disposal of these establishments, so that a counterbalancing sum can come in on the credit side of future Navy Estimates. Many of these sites are in valuable positions and contain plant, machinery and buildings which would be suitable for industrial purposes, and it is important, in the public interest, that the highest prices should be realised for them.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I hope that the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary or the Civil Lord will not follow the point made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) too far in regard to holding up, possibly for a long time, the disposal of these sites. The most important thing is not the money they realise but their alternate use for the employment of displaced people.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), I want to raise a point in connection with Vote 10, because I can find no other more suitable Vote. The point I want to make can be said to come within the terms of Subhead B (c)—Central Training and Educational Establishments. My point arises from a comment that was made during the Estimates debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). He passed on to the House criticisms that he had heard concerning the quality and methods of training in the Navy. He was not making the criticisms himself; he was passing on some that he had heard.

  649
  I was rather alarmed by these criticisms, and I would like some explanation. I have a special personal interest in the methods of teaching in the Navy, because, by the most extraordinary piece of luck, I happened to be given the job of organising the very first course in the history of the Navy on instructional technique. I thought that it was a rash undertaking and expected the G.Is. to resent being told how to teach gunnery by somebody as inexperienced as myself. Not only did they accept it, however, but Whale Island and gunnery schools and depots elsewhere established courses of their own in order to improve the quality of instruction.
  I should like to know whether those courses on instructional technique are still being carried on and are increasing, and whether the criticisms that the hon. and gallant Member mentioned are still justifiable.
  5.26 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I want to raise some points in connection with the dockyards. The White Paper stated that there was to be an introduction of systematic planning for work in the dockyards, but I suggest that we cannot have any such systematic planning if we still have very old work-sheds in which to work. In Devonport dockyard there still exists an old rope walk, and a gallows beneath, where prisoners captured in the Napoleonic Wars were hanged. These sheds are extremely old and do not lend themselves to systematic planning for modern work.
  I should like to know if the dockyards themselves will be replanned. If so, I want to make one or two suggestions. Other hon. Members have said that the Admiralty is apt to cling on to its land and buildings. Some hon. Members may have seen the television programme "Panorama" about three weeks ago, which contained an item concerning Devonport. In 1945 the Admiralty took over 182 acres, but it has been gradually handing this land back, until it now has only about 70 acres, and we are hoping to have a definite assurance that this land will also be handed back so that we can include it in our plans.
  If extra space is needed in order to build new and modern workshops, I suggest that before taking land outside the dockyards at Devonport, Plymouth and Portsmouth the Admiralty should see
  650
  whether further room is available inside the dockyard walls. If it is found essential to place the buildings outside the walls, however, I suggest that it might not be found necessary to build enormous walls around the buildings. These walls are extremely expensive to construct.
  If these buildings are outside the walls, however, and further cuts in dockyard requirements make their use unnecessary, they are far more likely to be taken over by private firms. If they are inside the dockyard a private firm has to go through all the difficulty of obtaining passes into the yard. I have previously asked whether a private firm could be allowed into one part of Devonport dockyard in order to carry out its repairs, but this was refused on the grounds that it was within the dockyard. We shall not be able to make use of the buildings in Devonport if they are enclosed within the dockyard walls.
  I cannot go into as much detail as I should like in regard to Devonport, because I have had some conferences with the Civil Lord concerning the new scheme and it would be unfair for me to discuss the matter publicly now before he has had a chance of giving his considered opinion. Nevertheless, I hope he will reconsider the possibility of enclosing these shops with an ordinary wire fence instead of a wall.
  In my constituency, too, it would mean a difference of at least £90,000 and possibly even more if he would consent not to close a certain road. As there are five public houses in that road and it will be necessary to compensate them, it is likely to prove an expensive scheme. It would be quite easy to make a change in the present plan.
  I support what was said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) about the employees in Hong Kong. I have visited Hong Kong and know the splendid work they do and the tremendous difficulty of finding other work in that small island.
  I wish to refer to the question of married quarters, which appears on page 140 of the Estimates. British personnel are coming back from Hong Kong and people are continually returning from Malta and Singapore. On arrival in this country they have nowhere to go with their families. Many of them have a number of children. Recently some of the establishments which

  651
  catered for dockyard personnel and their families have been closed or taken over by other authorities. I should like an assurance that families returning to this country may be allowed to occupy some of the new accommodation which it is proposed to erect.
  5.31 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Committee will sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), and I wish to associate myself with his closing remarks. I feel it will be a sign of some mismanagement if the facilities at Hong Kong dockyard do not pass into civil control and immediate use as soon as the Navy has done with them. It is a well-organised place with a strong labour force behind it, and it is difficult to understand why it should not become immediately available to some civil firm.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) referred to the small reduction in numbers and the actual increase in wages of the supervising staff borne on this Vote, notwithstanding the fact that the total Vote is down by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend, although I can understand that while the programme is running down in the first place one cannot expect an immediate reduction in the numbers of those employed in this sort of work. On the other hand, I suggest to the Minister that if he does not make sure that the number is cut down fairly soon we shall find the amount of work will go up, because there will be plenty of people to think up new projects and new ideas.
  I wish to ask a question but find myself in some difficulty in knowing how to do so and at the same time keeping in order. Vote 10—Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad—does not represent anything like the total sum spent on works. In that respect, the Admiralty system of accounting is unique and makes it extremely difficult to exercise any form of Parliamentary control. If I may be allowed to invite the Minister's attention to page 116 of the Estimates, he will there find under Subhead B in section III of Vote 8 an additional sum of £5,236,000 which has to be added to the Vote 10 figure before we can arrive at something approaching the true cost of works and
  652
  buildings for the coming year. Whereas the Vote 10 component of these works and buildings has fallen by nearly 30 per cent., the curious thing is that the other component has actiually increased. That is by no means easy to understand, and perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us how much Vote 10 covers. Does it include lighting, heating and buildings and so forth? I suggest that this point needs examining, because one would expect the Subhead under Vote 8, which is buried away rather inconspicuously, to move more or less in accord with Vote 10.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Steele: To enable the Civil Lord and the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to collect their notes, I will give them an assurance that I shall not put any fresh questions. I wish to support the plea for the employees in Hong Kong which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards). I understand that the Admiralty is not being as generous in this matter as other employers in Hong Kong who are in a similar position, and the trade unions ask that at least this matter be considered by the Admiralty and something done. I should be grateful if the Civil Lord would tell us what are the terms under which the employment of these men is being discontinued and what scheme, if any, the Admiralty has in mind. Will there be something similar to what is done in this country about giving a week's pay for so many years of work or what is happening?
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) asked questions about our people in Hong Kong who will lose their jobs as a result of the closure of the dockyard there. His hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) suggested that we were not carrying out "good employer" practices. My information is that we are doing so. Our compensation terms are two weeks' pay for every year of service, and an employee can qualify for that after one year's service. The Colonial Government is associating with the Admiralty, and a local committee has been set up to try to find jobs for these people. So far that is going well, but of course it is always easier at the beginning.

  653
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) mentioned the possibility of making use of the dockyard as a whole unit. That is not possible for two reasons; first, there is still to be a small naval base there, and secondly, for reasons of town planning the Colonial Government wish to use that area for non-industrial purposes. As the hon. Member for Stepney will know, there are two good shipbuilding firms there and it may be possible to use some of these highly skilled men in those firms.
  Mr. W. Edwards: There are a number of skilled men employed in the dockyard but a very much greater number of unskilled men who would not be able to find work in the shipyards. Is anything to be done for them to ensure that they are employed?
  Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks I am being lighthearted about this. I have been to Hong Kong and seen these people, and I know how long some of them have been in the service of the Admiralty. But the hon. Member knows as well as I that the Admiralty is not an Employment Exchange: it is a defence Department and has to conduct its affairs in the most economical way. That does not mean that the Admiralty has no responsibility or that it is walking out without doing anything. We are giving gratuities in accordance with what we understand to be "good employer" practice. In an endeavour to find jobs for these people we are allowing anyone who wishes to leave to go early, even though it may be awkward from the point of view of conducting the business of the dockyard; and we have set up a Committee in the yard to try to find new jobs. But we cannot make jobs for these people.
  Mr. W. Edwards: Could we be assured that the gratuity which is being offered to these displaced workers at Hong Kong dockyard is equal to any gratuity paid by private enterprise when it has to close down in Honk Kong?
  Mr. GalbraithMy information is that our terms are on a level with "good employer" practice in Hong Kong. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular point in mind, I will be very grateful if he can bring it to my notice.
  654
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) wondered about the size of the supervisory staff. His point was really answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). It is obvious that, as we are running down, the works department will be the last department able to leave any particular place. The point about making sure of getting the largest possible sum was answered by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). Of course, we want to get as good a price as we can when we move out of a place, but it would be wrong to sterilise in any area a large amount of property which might be put to some industrial use and give work to the people who are left.
  As for training, the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East, I understand that methods of training are to be investigated at Dartmouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) spoke about the condition of shops in the yard. I know, as she does, that some of them are old, but equally some are new. We hope that the proportion of new to old will improve. With regard to the size of the dockyard area, the hon. Lady knows that the matter is under discussion between my officials and those of the town council at Plymouth. At the moment, I would rather not say any more on the subject.
  The hon. Lady raised a point about families returning from abroad. It might be met, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested earlier this afternoon, by the pool of married quarters which we may have in the Chatham area as a result of the closure of the Chatham Command. It might be a cushion to help these people when they come back from abroad. It is no more than a possibility.
  Miss Vickers: It will not help them if they are employed in Devonport.
  Mr. Galbraith: No, but a house anywhere may be better than no house at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, had a point on Vote 8 which he skilfully managed to bring up on Vote 10. One reason why the Vote 10 element looked so small is that we have been making considerable economies. That is one reason why these Votes have got out of balance. As to electrical work allied to Vote 10, we have a committee sitting on

  655
  the subject. In due course this work will be amalgamated into Vote 10, so that we shall be able to see the total cost of any building work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,603,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £9,521,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Steele: I wish to raise only one point, which is rather an important one for my constituents. On page 153 of the Estimates, under the heading "Welfare Expenses", I read:
  "Provision is made for grants towards the miscellaneous expenses of approved forms of recreation and the provision of amenities for personnel in ships and shore establishments and for juniors in training establishments."
  It happens that the third submarine squadron is arriving in Gairloch, and unfortunately there are very few recreational facilities in the area for the personnel, who are indebted at the moment to the town council, the other local authorities, and local clubs, to find facilities for their recreation and canteens. There is a little golf course there which has been in existence for a hundred years. Unfortunately, it has now been sold over the head of the present occupant and it looks as though we shall have to do without that as well. I do not know whether the Admiralty can assist the local council to maintain this little golf course.
  Will the personnel have to wait at the end of the queue for something to be done? This squadron has arrived in Gairloch which has no facilities. Cannot something special be done under this Vote to help it? Local people have been very good and helpful, but it is too much to ask them to continue when a fund is available for football parks and things of that kind which would help these people.
  5.48 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I would refer my hon. Friend to page 148, where an estimate of £763,300 is made for canteens, a heavy cost. I should have thought that canteens would pay for themselves. It would be in the interest of everybody to make them economic concerns. I would like to know how this extra canteen expenditure arises. Service canteens have a regular clientèle. They do not have to be open every day whether people are coming in or not. They have regular helpers and regular clients and should be paying propositions.
  On the same page is an Estimate of £8,900 for
  "Contributions to religious, charitable and other institutions."
  I should like an explanation of this item and why the figure has gone up by £4,900. To what type of organisation does the Navy subscribe? Is it to its own religious organisation, or for helping the Salvation Army, which comes and does work at odd times? If so, I am pleased.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Atkins: The two items mainly responsible for the net increase in this Vote are Subheads A and D—Travelling, Subsistence and Passage Expenses—and Telegrams, Telephones and Postage. No doubt it will be argued that the figures are up because the cost of those services has increased. In any business organisation, when costs go up the first job of the management is to see if it can buy fewer of those things to keep the cost the same or to reduce it. Although the Vote is for miscellaneous effective services, I want to urge the absolute necessity for keeping these figures as low as possible because there are a great many things the Admiralty does which are more effective than these. If the cost of the postal services goes up, fewer telegrams should be sent and fewer telephone messages passed, and so on. I hope I may have an assurance that everything possible is being done in the Admiralty to keep those figures down.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked about facilities for the submarine flotilla which has just moved from Rothesay to Faslane in the Gairloch. One reason for the move is that, from a

  657
  welfare point of view, we thought it would be preferable for the facilities to be situated on the mainland. At Faslane at present there is only one football pitch. Plans to bring the provision of facilities up to the scale laid down for a unit the size of the Third Submarine Flotilla are being drawn up at the moment. There is no question of it waiting at the end of the queue. Canteen facilities are below standard and proposals for their improvement are in hand.
  I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member in regard to golf. He and I are Scotsmen and that is our national game. This is a rather unusual point. I do not know whether we can do anything to help, but, if the hon. Member likes to write to me on the matter, I shall certainly look into it as sympathetically as I can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked about canteen costs. In running costs the service pays for itself, but there are some overheads borne on other Votes. Those overheads may create an overall deficit. The hon. Lady also raised a question on Subhead. H. She wondered why the amount there was up this year by approximately £4,000. The reason is that a grant of about £4,000 has been made to the Officers' Association for Employment to help officers during these difficult years when they are seeking to be resettled as a result of the "Axe".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) raised two important questions about costs of travelling and telephones. Those are always very difficult matters to keep under control. Telephone charges have been increased, and that is one reason why this item has gone up, but we are seeking methods whereby we may make some economies. The higher travel rates are due largely to the dislocation caused by the reduction in the size of the Fleet, and also by increases in railway and air fares.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £9,521,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 13. Non-effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Steele: I wish to ask a question with reference to Vote 13 on the item which deals with gratuities, terminal grants, etc., on retirement. Provision is made this year for £4¾ million, whereas last year the amount was £1¼ million. I appreciate that no doubt provision is being made here for the retirements which will become effective as outlined in Command Paper 321. The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to say whether this is just the first stage in the retirements, and what that stage comprises. Will the next year see its finish? How much more will be expected? How much more money will be expected to meet the requirement under Command Paper 321? Can the hon. Gentleman give any information about what is happening?
  In the debate on the Navy Estimates and up to the present nothing has been said about Command Paper 321 and how this is working out. I do not think any hon. Member, on either side of the Committee, has had any complaint about the provisions which have been made. It would be useful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what is happening and what stage the operation has reached.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. R. Allan: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked about gratuities and quoted an amount of £4¾ million, which is almost exactly the same as the amount which is going in gratuities; but over and above that, although in the 1957–58 Estimates we did not make provision because we did not know what would be needed, in the Supplementary Estimate we asked for another £4·2 million. Up-to-date £5·2 million has been spent on gratuities. In the run-down scheme, by the end of the month, 300 officers and 500 ratings will have left the Service, and by the end of 1958 another 550 officers and 500 ratings will go. That means that by the end of this year all the ratings who are to go under the premature retirement scheme

  659
  will have gone; but not all the officers will have gone. There will be about 1,000 officers still to go, because premature retirements bear more heavily on officers than on ratings. It will be spread over the next five years. We hope it will be a continuous process, although, unfortunately, it is not possible to give dates. Apart from the figures I have mentioned, we shall probably ask for about £10 million to cover all the final requirements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  VOTE 14. MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 15. Additional Married Quarters
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quaters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  6.0 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I want to ask a question which arises from page 216, Subhead A. I notice that there has been a decrease of £1 million in the provision for new married quarters. There may be a simple explanation of this, but I should like to know whether we shall be able to build the programme which we had expected to build.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not want to detain the Committee because I realise that we are going over time, but the more I think of it the more I realise that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made an extremely important statement of policy earlier today in connection with Vote 1 when he suggested that the married quarters now at Chatham would continue to be used by the Navy
  660
  notwithstanding the fact that there may come a time when no naval personnel are there.
  Hitherto, married quarters have always been intended to provide furnished accommodation for officers and men in the vicinity of their place of work. I am not asking for an answer to the question now because I realise that it affects all three Services and raises a big issue of policy, but if there is to be a change of policy I think the Committee should have an opportunity to debate it. I see that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is here. I very much prefer a modification on the line which he suggested the other day when winding up a debate on the Army Estimates in the early hours of the morning. I make the point because I do not think this change should pass without attention being drawn to it.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The main reason that the amount of money is less is that some of the programme had to be delayed in the Chatham area because we were not certain whether the establishments at Chatham would continue. We shall be able to use the loan, because I think there is an intention to have a new loan and that one will run into the other. No money will be wasted.
  I will certainly note the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it. We realise that this is a great change, if it takes place. At the moment it is merely a possibility in the mind of the Admiralty and nothing has been decided.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

  Schedule

  ——

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  Cr. 450,000

  100,000

  2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  1,025,000

  *-425,000

  4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  300,000

  —

  6. Scientific Services

  Cr. 400,000

  250,000

  8. Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, &c.—

  Section I—Personnel

  1,625,000

  250,000

  Section II—Matériel

  11,000,000

  *-5,400,000

  Section III—Contract Work

  19,500,000

  *-4,000,000

  9. Naval Armaments

  Cr. 100,000

  *-175,000

  10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  Cr. 1,750,000

  450,000

  11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  1,150,000

  *-550,000

  12. Admiralty Office

  300,000

  —

  13. Non-Effective Services

  2,800,000

  —

  Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1957–58.£

  35,000,000

  *-9,500,000

  * Deficit.

ARMY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Army
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: We thank those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate on the Navy Estimates for being so accurate with the time. They agreed to finish at six o'clock and they kept their word.
  I want, first, to draw the Under-Secretary of State's attention to what we think is an important difference between
  662
  the way in which the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates are presented. In the Air Estimates the figures are broken down much better than in the Army Estimates, and this makes it possible for us to obtain information by reading instead of by asking questions. Two of the questions which I shall ask need not have been asked if the Estimates had been presented in the same fashion as the Air Estimates. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look again at the manner of presentation of these Estimates?
  The reference on page 24, for example, dealing with education allowances, simply states that for the year 1958–59 a sum of £280,000 will be provided for education allowances. How much is for officers and how much is for men? That information is given in the Air Estimates but not in the Army Estimates.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in the debate on the Army Estimates last week I raised the question of secondary education and reminded him that last year the Secretary of State, in his own Memorandum, stated that he was most unhappy about the position of secondary education in the armed forces and that he was calling for a special report. There is no mention of it in the Memorandum this year and there is no comment in any of the Explanatory Notes in the Army Estimates. Will the hon. Member let us know something about it? What happened to the report, if there was one, and what improvement has been made, if any?
  We should like some assurances from the Minister about the National Service grants mentioned on page 20. An additional amount of £1 million is shown as expected to be required under this Subhead for 1958–59. Could the Under-Secretary of State give us an assurance that every effort is made to let men in the Army know that these grants are available? As Members of Parliament, we have wives of Regular soldiers and National Service men coming to us and putting to us their financial problems as a consequence of their husbands having been called-up. They ask for our help. No doubt, the War Office could confirm what I am saying from the large number of letters which hon. Members send to the War Office on this matter. We agree that the grant is a very important part

  663
  of the financial assistance, and on behalf of my colleagues I wish to know whether the Minister is satisfied that we are doing all that we can to let men know that these grants are available. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
  On page 24 we see an estimated increase of nearly £1 million which the soldier has to find for National Insurance contributions for the year 1958–59. This is a direct result of Government policy. It is true that soldiers do not pay the full rate paid by civilians because they do not get all the benefits which civilians get; for instance, they do not get the sickness and unemployment benefit, although no doubt some of them would like to get the unemployment benefit. Similarly, the Industrial Injuries Act does not apply. Nevertheless, an extra £1 million is to be paid by Army personnel in these contributions.
  I make a point which is similar to that which I made in the debate last week and with which I do not expect the Under-Secretary of State to agree: I yearn for the day when we have a Labour Government which will introduce their own national superannuation proposals, because we shall then be able to say that in insurance soldiers will pay on the basis of what they earn, unlike the present position when the private pays the same rate as the R.S.M. That is not fair, and it is an anomaly. Our proposals will mean that soldiers will pay in accordance with what they earn, and when they leave the Army at the end of their service they will carry pension rights with them under the scheme, which is very important when they return to civilian life.
  Pay is an all-important issue. I have said previously, and I repeat, that the global sum which the Army has given in increases is generous. We do not deny that, and on this side of the House we welcome it. Nevertheless, we believe that the way in which these increases have been distributed has created many anomalies, and I want to put a series of questions to the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he can give me all the answers, although I have a shrewd suspicion that he will not be able to do so.
  One of the difficulties is that married Regular soldiers living in married quarters have had their rents increased
  664
  considerably and in many cases, we understand, they have received no net increase in pay at all. They have received no over-all increase because their rents have risen so steeply.
  What we want to know from the Under-Secretary is more about how much these rents have gone up for married quarters; whether, in fact, the rents for good quarters have gone up as much as those for bad quarters; whether or not any special privilege has been given to men whose wives and families are still living in very inadequate quarters, whether their rent has gone up, and by how much.
  The Under-Secretary himself said in reply to me in the debate last week that the reason why the rent has been put up is that it is in accordance with the Rent Act policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is bad enough to apply that to civilians, without inflicting it on the poor soldier. The Government have missed a great opportunity in the distribution of this very large global sum by creating these extra anomalies. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us more about these rents, by how much they have gone up, whether there is any discrimination between bad quarters and good quarters, and so on.
  I want to ask also about the hiring of civilian homes. I understand that civilian homes are taken over by the Army and let to serving soldiers, and I assume from that that the rents are paid by the Army to the landlords. Have the rents for these homes gone up, and, if they have, who gets the increase? Is it the landlord? If so, how much is involved and what was the yardstick used in putting the rent up? Was it, as for civilians, the gross rateable value or the net rateable value? How much is involved, and why has the soldier, who, after all, is doing a good job of work for his country, to be afflicted by this particular anomaly, which is creating, I understand, a great deal of trouble throughout the Services?
  On page 24 reference is made to bounties. There is an increase for 1958–59, and in the Explanatory Notes it is stated that
  "the bounties for men are payable as soon as possible after the prolongation has been approved. Those for women are payable in instalments over the period of prolonged service"

  665
  My simple question is, why? Why is there a difference for the women as opposed to the men in the payment of bounties?
  Those are the main questions which I wish to ask on this Vote. Let me end my short remarks by saying this. It seems to me that in the sort of debate which we have on the Estimates we are the watchdogs in Parliament for the personnel in the Army. We take up the individual complaints and the moans and groans of the average soldier. Could we not achieve a position where we could have a far more democratic system within the Army itself, so that the men would be allowed to express their point of view, rather than relying on individual Members of Parliament to put that point of view forward?
  We have often talked, sometimes in a rather glib way, about a democratic Army. I should like the Under-Secretary to deal with this point. Almost all the matters which I have been raising concern the private life of the soldier; they are the sort of things about which civilians can make representations through their organisations. The soldier is denied that right. I am very glad to see that the Secretary of State is here and that he has recovered from his attack of influenza. There is no reason why there should not be far more joint consultation between the men themselves and their officers, and at those meetings there should be high ranking officers who would listen to the men and who would understand their point of view and report it back to the War Office, so as to give the men the feeling that they are more than numbers in a unit. I ask the Under-Secretary to say that at least he is interested in this point, and we should like to hear any views which he may have about how to make the British Army more democratic than it is.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: It appears from the state of the Committee at the moment that all the questions will be asked from this side, and we hope that answers will be given by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary. We are dealing now with the largest single Estimate in the Army Estimates—something approaching £100 million. In any circumstances, that is a good deal of money, but it is in my view only a reflection of
  666
  the value we put on our fellow citizens who for a good part of their lives surrender their normal liberties to serve in the forces, and in the Army in particular, in order to defend the rest of us.
  In my view, therefore, we have a special duty to see that the authorities behave as model employers towards these men, who have not in many respects the normal civic rights which we enjoy, to make their grievances known and seek remedies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I would say that we certainly do not begrudge the money which is being spent to improve the pay and conditions of these men, who are our fellow citizens. I welcome this increase in pay, with certain qualifications and in particular the qualification which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in the original debate, concerning the position of National Service men.
  I can well understand the preoccupation of the War Office with the future Army which they are planning to recruit, an all-Regular force; but they must not forget—and it seems to me that they have had a tendency at times to forget—that for the next four years at least there will be a considerable number of National Service men still in the forces, and perhaps the overwhelming number of them living on pay which is quite outrageous.
  We are expecting National Service men to exist in the forces on a rate of pay which has been increased only once, I believe, and now stands at 31s. 6d. How on earth can we sleep peacefully at nights knowing that these men have to live on a basic rate of 31s. 6d. for perhaps the major part of the two years for which they serve? I think that we ought to pay far more attention to this than we have done hitherto. There has been only one rise in pay since 1946 for this section of the Army, and that was 6d. a day. There is no other section of the community which has been so hard done by in respect of pay.
  We must also remember that the National Service man now being called up is, more and more, the deferred man, over 21 years of age, who has perhaps had a fairly reasonable standard of life before being called up, and who therefore feels this difference all the more.

  667
  We must also bear in mind that the reaction of the National Service man to the forces, the way he talks about them to his friends and family, is a major factor in recruitment for the all-Regular Army.
  If the National Service man has a grievance and goes about expressing it, as he will, it percolates through to the whole community and brings the whole of the Armed Forces into disrepute. Therefore, although I accept the fact that we must have differentials in pay in order to attract people to serve for six years, nine years and so on, I feel that we have failed in our duty in letting this niggardly rate of pay for National Service men continue for so long.
  It is become more and more invidious to have an armed Service consisting of first-class and second-class soldiers, judged by their rate of pay. They all use the same N.A.A.F.I. and recreational facilities generally, and the same "pub", if they go to one, but the Regular soldier is in a position to pay far more than his counterpart who is doing National Service. I believe that we have gone too far in these differentials.
  We also have the position, as I understand it, that, for the first eighteen months, the National Service man does much the same job as the Regular recruit, but on something like one-third of his pay. We have to ask whether or not this is right. Cannot something be done, even at this stage, to improve the pay of the National Service man? Even at the end of his two years, and provided he has seven stars—how on earth anybody gets seven stars I do not know, and I should like some explanation of how one gets them, not what one does with them when one has them, the maximum pay which he will get is only £4 7s. 6d.
  The National Service man has less leave than the Regular soldier, and he has fewer free travel warrants. I know from my own experience that, were it not for the fact that these men have mothers, fathers and other relatives who each week send them postal orders to help them out, they could not manage decently on their Army pay. Lots of them like to get home at week-ends if they can, but they have to use their own or their families' resources to do it, and
  668
  I believe that we are placing too great a burden on the National Service man than we should be doing.
  One can make out a case, as the Under-Secretary did in winding up the other debate, that the differentials and the Regular Army of the future are what matter. That cannot be applied to the families of these men. There is at present a completely crazy set-up whereby the marriage allowance for a National Service man is very very much less than that for a Regular soldier, although it takes just as much to keep the wife and children of a National Service man as it does to keep those of the Regular soldier.
  As I understand it, the allowance for the wife of a Regular not with her husband is £3 17s. a week, whereas that for the wife of the conscript, the National Service man, is basically £1 15s., and if over 21 £2 16s. Here we have the ridiculous idea in this modern age that at 21 one is entitled to more pay for a wife and family than if one is unfortunate enough to be married before the age of 21. That is an anomaly which ought to be swept away. I think we are in duty bound to make a level marriage allowance for the soldier's family, whether he is a Regular or a National Service man. The National Service man's family ought not to be penalised as at present.
  Having regard to recruitment for the Regular Army in the long term, surely it is short-sighted policy on the part of the War Office to neglect the National Service man in this way. The War Office may say, "Well, we have got him. He has got to come for two years whether he likes it or not. He has no union to put forward a wage claim. At the end of two years he goes away and we shall not see him again. Therefore, we can treat him in this way." That is short-sighted, for the simple reason that the National Service man and his comments form the background in deciding someone else whether to join as a Regular or not.
  Today, one of the most disturbing features about the period of National Service is the small number who, having done National Service, have decided to volunteer to carry on. One would have thought that a young lad, liking Army life, would be willing to carry on if the conditions were promising and good. Yet we find, particularly now that the three-year

  669
  arrangement has gone, that very few recruits come from the ranks of the National Service men, and I believe the War Office is wrong to have laid so much stress on and been so preoccupied with the future forces to the neglect of our current forces.
  I turn from that to the pay of the Regular soldier himself. I have already said I thought it was a good thing that he should have had this increase, but although the War Office is giving a lot of extra money, that money is not likely to attract sufficient recruits in future to provide the all-Regular Army when they want it. What it will do is stop people leaving who otherwise might perhaps have left. Even so, I doubt whether the present rate will attract people from industry into the Army. When we bear in mind that we want people from industries with skills and crafts to do skilled jobs in the forces, we must consider a new approach. It is said that men in the Army are paid roughly the equivalent of what they would get in civilian life. I do not think that is enough. There are factors in Army life which need compensations. They are separated from their families, subject to rigid discipline; they have to go where they are allowed to go and not where they might want to go; even at mainline stations they are apt to be dogged by the Military Police, and so on. For this surrender of individual liberties and freedom, the members of the Armed Forces need more than the equivalent of what they would get in outside life.
  A sergeant, perhaps the key man in the future Regular Army, will get £9 a week plus his allowances. In outside industry he would probably be a foreman or above, in a skilled trade, getting £15 a week, perhaps even more. A man of that sort will need some extra inducement to attract him to serve in the Regular Army.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman calculate these invisible assets? It is almost impossible. It is very hard to say whether a man in the Army is getting the equivalent of his counterpart in industry at £15 a week.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Even if he is getting the same it does not affect my argument,
  670
  because my argument is that he ought to be getting more to compensate for the disadvantages he has to suffer.
  Coming to the point my hon. Friend mentioned about the distribution of the increased pay, I have worked out some figures, and I calculate that roughly one-tenth of the personnel in the forces are officers and nine-tenths are other-ranks. Of this large sum of money, the one-tenth are getting over a quarter and the nine-tenths are getting the rest. That seems to me grossly disproportionate. The average pay of an officer—I admit it is only an average, and hon. Members can make what they will of it—is £840 a year, whereas the average pay of other-ranks is £215 a year. I therefore say that the distribution of this money is wrong, and that more ought to be given to the other-ranks, who are getting only three-quarters of it, and less to those in the higher brackets, who are getting a quarter.
  How is the differential in pay between the six years and the nine years to work? I assume that a man signing on for six years gets the commensurate rate of pay, and another man signing on at the same time for nine years gets the difference What happens when a man who has signed on for nine years does not, for one reason or another, whether on compassionate release or on discharge, fulfil his engagement? Is there any provision for sorting that one out, or is it just a chance the War Office is taking? If the difference is so great, there is nothing to stop a man signing on for nine years and then perhaps finding some means of discharging his obligation during that period. It is something which I think the War Office will have to watch, because there are barrack-room lawyers who I am sure will be working these things out.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned National Service grants, which are roughly £1 million. An increase of £300,000 reflects the increase in the cost of living which has taken place under this Government. My hon. Friend asked for publicity about it, but I want to know how many National Service men—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I am very glad, Dr. King, that there are more hon. Members on parade today than there were yesterday, and that I am able to carry on with my speech.
  I was speaking about National Service grants, and I was asking whether this £1 million-odd reflects an increase in the cost of living or a more generous approach to their award. Is consideration given to rent increases under the present Act when awarding them? Some people who have already got the grant are bound to be affected. In those cases, can a grant be increased to take into account the increase in rents? I know that there is divided responsibility here, because the work is done by the National Assistance Board, but I should like to know how many applications for grant have been made in a year, and how many rejected.
  I turn to the education allowances. We all appreciate the value of these, particularly to the man serving overseas, for whom the education of his child is a major pre-occupation. If he knows that his child can get a good education despite he himself being posted here, there and everywhere, it helps him enormously in settling down to his Service life. But what happens when a soldier receiving a grant of this kind comes home? Does the grant continue? It must be remembered that, in education, one cannot chop and change. If a child is at school, he or she cannot just be taken away, and a parent is committed to the expense for the whole of the time. I should have thought that once a grant was made, it should be continued for the duration of the child's attendance at school.
  We should also know what kind of schools these children attend, and whether or not we are paying too much without getting value for our money. How many children are involved? The amount being spent at present is very small, and only very few children can yet be affected but I should like to see more emphasis put on this aspect of Service conditions, because I believe it to be a key point in our getting the right kind of people into the forces.
  I do not know, Dr. King, whether I can deal with the Appropriations in Aid amounting to £39 million for our troops
  672
  in Germany, but it appears that we will have time to have a word about that privately in a moment. In any case—

ROYAL ASSENT
6.34 p.m.
Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Overseas Service Act, 1958.

2. Overseas Resources Development Act, 1958.

3. Commonwealth Institute Act, 1958.

4. Recreational Charities Act, 1958.

SUPPLY
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Army
  Question again proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Chetwynd: What with a count and a visit from Black Rod in the course of my speech, Sir Gordon, I think I have almost had the lot now, and I hope that nothing else will happen to prevent my bringing my contribution to a speedy conclusion. Incidentally, while referring to Black Rod, I should like to say that Black Rod in his other capacity as a very distinguished general is doing a wonderful job for the War Office in his television series for the B.B.C. I think he is probably doing as much for recruitment as everything else put together.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is a great discourtesy that only half a

  673
  dozen Members should be here when this distinguished officer approaches to carry out his duties?
  Mr. Chetwynd: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did his best to prevent him coming, so I am not at all sure whether he should make that point.
  Dealing with the expected contribution towards the upkeep of our forces in Germany—the £39 million—we all know that this is a highly problematical figure. Discussions have been going on for a considerable time, and it looks as if this sum will not be forthcoming, at least in this form. Will the Minister tell us, in amplification of what is said in the Defence White Paper, how our troops will be affected, in numbers and organisation, in the event of our not receiving the whole of the £39 million? My own position is quite clear. I think that we should say definitely to the Germans that, unless they pay this contribution, we shall reluctantly be compelled to reorganise and withdraw part of our forces.
  There is an item in the Vote under discussion for the upkeep of clothing, which I take to mean Service clothing. I suggest to the Minister that most troops, according to my knowledge, like to get into civilian dress once they are off duty. Some men go to considerable expense to acquire for themselves decent civilian dress, and I should have thought that, instead of money being wasted on Service dress for walking out, a clothing allowance should be paid. I know that walking-out dress may have appealed in the nineteenth century or even later, but, though I hate to say this to the traditionalists, I do not think that it has that appeal now. Men like to get out of the barracks, when off duty, wearing decent civilian dress. If money were spent on a clothing allowance to permit a soldier to buy a good civilian suit, it would pay dividends, I am sure.
  It is very difficult indeed to find out from the Vote how much money is coming to the Army from discharge by purchase. It must be a very small amount, because the whole total is only about £150,000. A point which has struck me in my constituency correspondence is that it is very much more difficult in the Army for a man to buy his discharge than it is in either the Royal Air Force or the Navy. I wonder whether
  674
  different principles apply to discharge by purchase. I hope that we can have some statement of what the policy will be in this respect, whether the price of discharge by purchase is to be put up or whether a more generous approach is to be shown.
  We are dealing here with the pay of the Army, and I want finally to refer to the actual procedure by which the individual soldier receives his pay. It is on many occasions little more than a survival from mediaeval times, a soldier having to go up and salute, put his hand out, get his pay, salute, turn round and go away with it. In industry, on the other hand, the money is given to a man quietly and privately in a sealed envelope or in a tin. I know that this sort of procedure is adopted in some units, but I feel that we ought generally to abolish the pay parade, with the red tape which goes with it, and pay soldiers in a civilised way, very much as civilians are paid. I feel that that is a suggestion worth while considering, and it meets a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey in the main debate last week.
  These people in the Army are in reality civilians who are for a time serving their country in their chosen way. I am sure that they will be happier and more contented if we can relate their conditions of work and service more to the civilian world of their friends from which they have been taken.
  I hope that my plea tonight has not been regarded in any way as an attempt to be awkward, because it is not meant to be. It is meant to help the Service to get the men and conditions that it wants. There are a number of matters that I have raised that need attention, and I hope that we shall get a full statement about them from the Under-Secretary.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to emphasise what my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) have said. I want to say a word of, welcome to the hon. Member for Bermondsey, who has acquitted himself very ably in his first appearance in the front line. Although he and I very often disagree, I am sure that it is very

  675
  appropriate that somebody who has been through the mill of the Army should put the point of view of the serving soldier.
  I would like to emphasise what he has said about the need for consultation, as far as possible, between the ranks and the officers, and to say that in these days, when so much of these Estimates consists of what is largely civilianised expenditure or National Insurance and pay, there should be an opportunity for the serving men to be organised, perhaps, in consultative committees—although I prefer the expression "trade unions"—in such a way that the officers have a clear understanding of what are the grievances. If this were done, much time of hon. Members devoted to fighting individual cases would be saved.
  I believe that some of the officers employed at the War Office are supervising the publicity for recruiting. Last year I drew the attention of the House to this recruiting activity, and I should like to do so again. There are officers working with the Central Office of Information whose activities I cannot discuss on this Vote, but there is a link between the War Office and the Publicity Department, because it is in this Vote. Therefore, I wish to emphasise what I have said on previous occasions—that there should be efficient supervision of these activities so that the War Office and recruiting officers do not make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the general public. If it is to be a modern Army, then the appeal should be made in terms of modern life.
  I have here an advertisement from the Manchester Guardian of Friday, 21st February of this year in which a page is devoted to an appeal for officers of the Queen. The first picture is of a captain of the Honourable Artillery Company in the days of Queen Elizabeth. This is a very impressive picture of a gentleman—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think he is now referring to Vote 9.
  Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Sir Gordon. I will return to that matter when we discuss Vote 9.
  6.55 p.m.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to ask his right hon. Friend to look into the question of the education of serving men's children in this country. I have been reading the debate that we had in 1955. The year before that, I had the good fortune to raise the matter on an intervening Motion in the Army Estimates. As a result of that debate and my intervening Motion, a Departmental Committee was set up between the Ministry of Education and my hon. Friend's Department to make recommendations. As far as I am aware, their recommendations were wholly accepted.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh), who was then Minister of Education, was moving in the right direction, and in the direction that we all desired. Unfortunately, there was a change at the Ministry of Education and the Minister who took the right hon. Lady's place did not see the matter in her light at all, or, for that matter, in the light of those of us who had been advocating a change in this matter. We failed to get what we wanted for the families of serving officers and men at home, but succeeded in getting the allowances that we needed and arrangements required for the families of men serving abroad.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the reason lying behind this failure. It is the old, old story. Whatever happens in the Services in England must accord with the regulations for the serving soldier. Many times my hon. Friends have tried to propound the difference between the life of a serving soldier, sailor or airman, and the civil servant, who locks the door at a specific time at night, goes home to his family and does not have the disturbance of serving men, and knows perfectly well that, provided he does not make any mistakes, he will retire on a fairly handsome pension at a certain age. There is no comparison between the two cases. My right hon. Friend should look into this matter again, because there is hardship. One of the things that prevented men from joining the Services was the fact that their children would not get the education received by children in civilian life.

  677
  I think that this matter comes under this Vote. I ask my right hon. Friend to see if something can be done about the extraordinary discrepancy in the treatment of families of serving men between different local authorities. The disparity of treatment is fantastic in various local authorities. I know one local authority that has, quite rightly—I do not suggest that it is wrong—a means test to decide whether or not people should get a local authority grant for children if they are in the care of guardians, or something like that.
  On going into this question of the means test, I discovered that a local authority would compare the standard and cost of living of an officer's family with that of people living in the area of that local authority, and would say that the officer received so much pay and, therefore, possibly came outside the limit of the means test, forgetting that the cost of living for that family, perhaps in Singapore or Hong Kong, was completely different and could not conceivably be compared with the cost of living of a person living in that local authority area. I do not want to go into those debates again, but I ask my hon. Friend to remind his Department of the details of the debates in 1954 and 1955 to see if he can do something for the children of serving men living in England.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: I will try to be very brief, because we do not want to trespass on the time of the Royal Air Force. The Royal Navy was good enough to be punctual with us, and we should try, therefore, to conclude our debate within the hour.
  I want to reinforce the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) about education. In my experience it is very important among the problems of serving officers and men alike. At present it is a lucky bag. Some people do very well and have very good educational facilities, for example in Germany—unless the very good schools there are full—while others have very great difficulty. I reinforce the hon. and gallant Member's plea.
  I also want to reinforce the view expressed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), who said that the differential
  678
  between the Regular and the National Service man is becoming very wide indeed. We all understand it and recognise that it is part of the decision to taper off the system of National Service, but it is becoming almost indefensible, particularly in the allowances. As my hon. Friend so clearly said, the dependant of a National Service man is just as much in need as the dependant of a Regular. This is a point which should be looked at again.
  We welcome very much the new pay and allowances, but I should like to put a point to the Secretary of State, not necessarily of criticism. I ask him to look where he is going in this. In many cases—it differs with the number of stars—out of a total income of over £11 a week which the private soldier will get, no less than £4 a week will be in the form of allowances if the man is married. There will, therefore, be a very wide differential between two men doing exactly the same job and having exactly the same qualifications, but one being married and the other not married.
  That may be right, but we must bear in mind that no other employer does anything of the kind. There is nothing like that differential in any other circumstance. There are special reasons why in the Army part of the total remuneration ought to be in marriage allowances, but the width of the differential as it will become under the new pay scale needs watching. I do not necessarily ask for comment on it tonight, but it is worth bearing in mind in coming years.
  The Secretary of State has stressed the difficulties of recruiting for the non-teeth arms. It is obvious that that is not going as well as recruiting for the teeth arms. I should like to know how much it would cost if the very drastic step were taken of bringing the pay of the W.R.A.C. up to the same level as that of the men's Forces. I am not necessarily advocating this but a good many of these non-teeth jobs—by no means all—can be done by women. Many of the clerical jobs can be done by them. If the cost did not prove prohibitive, there is something to be said for such a step. I am not suggesting it on the ground of principle, of equal pay for equal work, but simply as a way of getting the jobs done. The Government have moved in that direction in the new pay scales, because the

  679
  women's pay has been raised considerably, but if this turns out to be one of the main recruiting difficulties in the long run, there is something to be said for going in the direction of equal pay between the sexes.
  The question of overseas' allowance is a hardy annual. I was in trouble about it when I was in office and other Secretaries of State are likely to be in trouble about it. It is largely a question of name. As long as we call it an overseas allowance, people will always think that everybody overseas ought to get it. Either that ought to be so and there ought to be a small allowance for everybody overseas, or it ought to be re-named and given some such name as foreign cost-of-living allowance. Some such name would make it clear that it was an allowance given only in those cases where the cost of living in the station abroad was higher than at home. Until that is done it will remain one of the continual misunderstandings which are bound to crop up. It is a very small point, but it is curiously irritating to both the Secretary of State and men.
  I turn to the question of the War Office establishment, on the same Vote. I take the point that during the transitional period of a profound reorganisation of the Army there is a very heavy burden on the War Office staff, both civil servant and military. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that the proportion of this staff should be higher. When the Army settles down in its new form of approximately 165,000 men, however, I think the target ought to be to bring the establishment down roughly in proportion—not necessarily exactly in proportion but roughly in proportion. We have the example of what the Secretary of State for Air is doing. He is appointing a committee to try to ensure that this is done. The Under-Secretary of State ought to give us an assurance that this point is being very carefully watched and that this is the target in the long run.
  I strongly support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on the democratic institutions of the Army. I recognise that it is very largely a question of human relations and of the quality of the commanding officers—that is perhaps the biggest element—but machinery, too, can
  680
  be useful and can have a value. I do not want to make suggestions of particular kinds of machinery which might be useful, and I do not endorse the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I think that some kind of machinery might well be considered. It would help where informal human relations may not be as good as they can be.
  With ideal commanding officers and company officers I do not think there is any problem, but we cannot achieve that in all units; we cannot expect every set of regimental officers to be as good as the best. I therefore support the plea that we should see whether some new machinery in that sphere is not valuable.
  7.8 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): Both the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) stressed the importance of closer consultation between officers and other ranks and human relations in the Army. I can assure them that in this matter they are pushing at an open door. The other day my right hon. Friend announced the appointment of a Committee under General Whistler to inquire into problems of this kind.
  I should like to add one point from my personal experience, short as it is. I have been deeply impressed and indeed surprised by the number of conversations and talks which take place informally between what might be called the top brass and other ranks. We have, too, carried out a whole series of Gallup polls—without rank or anything else influencing the answers—to obtain a pretty clear idea of what is in the soldier's mind at the present time.
  In a sense this debate confirms how successfully the problem of human relations in the Army is being tackled. It has been a useful debate, and a number of interesting points have been raised. But it has shown, as did our debate last week, that there are no very significant aspects of human relations in the Army which are radically wrong. I know the Committee will be glad about that.
  Mr. Mellish: We are concerned about the soldier expressing his point of view and the War Office not getting to know

  681
  about it. It was my experience that this never got beyond the company office level.
  Mr. Amery: This has been improving steadily for a number of years. One feature of the attempt to put the Army on to an all-Regular basis is that many things have been looked into in the past twelve months which have not, perhaps, been looked into before. So whilst the situation has been improving steadily since the war, in the last year it has been improving more quickly still.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked whether we could in future present Vote 1 of our Estimates in a form more akin to that used by the Air Ministry. I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is any way in which we can give more information next year than hitherto. But there are two points I ought to make at this stage. It is true that the Air Ministry gives rather more information in Vote 1 than we do. But there is a special reason for this. As I understand it, the fighting strength of the Royal Air Force is predominantly expressed in terms of numbers of operational aircraft. These are not given in the Air Estimates.
  The fighting strength of the Army on the other hand is largely expressed in terms of the strength of actual units on the ground. There would, of course, be security objections to disclosing these facts in an official publication or to giving indications from which these facts could be too easily deduced.
  I do not say it is impossible to discover the strength of units from other sources of information. Indeed, on an earlier occasion, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) produced some interesting deductions from the results of inter-unit football. It is undesirable, however, to give the intelligence services of foreign powers official confirmation of information which they can only get in other ways.
  The other point is purely practical. If we give too many details about minor allowances, the Army Estimates will run the risk of becoming a book of regulations and will be even more cumbersome for hon. Members than it is today.
  Mr. Mellish: I do not want to overstate the case, but almost everything in
  682
  the Air Estimates is broken down between officers and men, such as National Insurance contributions, and so on. There is no secrecy about those. It does not matter if the enemy knows how much we pay in insurance.
  Mr. Amery: As I said earlier, we will see if we can give more information next year and we will take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee asked what would be the cost of bringing the pay of the W.R.A.C. up to the level of male soldiers. The answer is that it would cost 15 per cent. more. It has been raised to 85 per cent. of the male rate of pay. The point is an interesting one, but the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to express an opinion on it now.
  I come now to the question of educational allowances which was raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer). The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked for the breakdown as between officers and men. Very much the greater part of the Vote, £268,000 out of £280,000, goes to officers. Some £12,000 goes to other ranks. It is paid to help them with the secondary education, and, since this year, with the vocational and technical education of their children. It is given for children between the ages of 11 and 18 who are at boarding school or attending day school while in the care of a guardian other than a wife.
  The War Department pays the gross fees less scholarships up to certain permitted levels. In the case of boarding schools these levels are £75 a year for the first child, £100 a year for the second and £125 a year for any others. It used to be £75 per child, each year, so there is a fairly sharp increase there.
  For day schools it has gone up from £26 a year to £35 a year for each child. The allowances are paid for schools in the United Kingdom, with very few exceptions. For example, the children are sometimes allowed to go to foreign schools. Where there are Army schools, parents are expected to use them. The allowances for officers and other ranks are identical. The great difference between the proportions of the Vote

  683
  which go to officers and to other ranks is explained, so our experience has shown, by the fact that other ranks nearly always take their children overseas. If they do not, they leave them with their wives in this country. So in their case we do not get the same problem of the child left in a boarding school or attending a day school while in the care of a guardian, as appears to be more frequently the case with officers' children.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say the number of children involved?
  Mr. Amery: I cannot say offhand. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can do the sum.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can I offer a figure of 16,000?
  Mr. Amery: My hon. and gallant Friend has given his answer to the question. The hon. Member for Bermondsey also asked about secondary education. Secondary education is provided in all overseas commands where the local State system is considered inadequate. At present, the only State systems we regard as adequate are in Gibraltar and in the three East African Territories. The cost of educating secondary children under these systems is borne by the War Department.
  Army secondary schools are in five categories. These are as follows. First, all-age schools—the greatest number—established in areas where there are not many children, and attended by secondary-modern ability children. Then there are secondary-modern schools, similar to those in this country. There are secondary schools which cater for both modern and grammar streams. There are also secondary grammar schools catering solely for grammar ability children. Finally, there are secondary comprehensive schools catering for all three streams, modern, grammar and technical. These are spread all over the world. I have the figures here but I will not weary the Committee by giving them all.
  But there are, for example, 52 all-age schools in B.A.O.R., 11 in the Middle Eastern Command and four in the Far East. There are also a number of secondary schools in the Far East as well. We do co-operate with the other Services. For instance, in Malta Army secondary
  684
  school children attend schools administered by the Admiralty.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing spoke of the attitude of the local authorities. I welcomed his statement because it confirmed the view, shared by many of us in the Committee, that the future recruiting of the Army depends largely on the status which the community accords to the soldier. I think this is a matter where public opinion, led in many cases by Members of Parliament, can have a beneficial effect.
  I have been asked about National Service grants, and the hon. Member for Bermondsey wondered whether it was realised to what extent they are available. Every precaution is taken to make sure that their existence is known, and I think it is the fact that year by year people get to know more about them. Knowledge does travel slowly in these matters, but the increase in the Vote in respect of National Service grants reflects the growing awareness of their existence.
  Where National Insurance is concerned, the provisions are in line with the provisions in civilian life. It would be contrary to our practice in this country to discriminate. The War Department, like employers everywhere, pays its share of National Insurance contributions.
  I was asked some questions about rents. To give an example of the present position, rents for other ranks have gone up in some cases to 28s. 6d. a week.
  Mr. Mellish: What were they before?
  Mr. Amery: They varied a certain amount, of course, but this particular figure has gone up from 21s.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Have there been any evictions?
  Mr. Amery: No, there have been no evictions.
  The increase in rents is balanced by the increase in marriage allowance. The increase in pay is, therefore, a net increase. The hon. Member for Bermondsey seemed to be worried lest the increase in rent should cancel out the increase in pay. But that is not the case at all. The increase in pay is a net benefit accruing to the officer or other rank. The increase in marriage allowance helps to balance, and in some cases more than balances, the increase in rent.

  685
  The rent paid to the landlord is, of course, a charge on the War Department. In some cases, these are contracts of long standing and cannot be terminated quickly. In other cases, they may be, terminated or we may enter into a new contract. We pay any difference, not the tenant. I think that covers the points which have been raised under that head.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey also asked me why the procedure for paying bounties to W.R.A.C. was different to that for men. Experience shows that W.R.A.C. have a tendency to leave the Army sooner because they marry. So, it is perhaps the right course to pay by instalments rather than in one lump sum.
  The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) was a little disturbed about the way these bounties are paid, and I think he said that we must look into it.
  Mr. Chetwynd: No, it was a question of the differential. I suggested that we might be paying a man the rate for nine years and he leaves after six years.
  Mr. Amery: As the hon. Member knows, he cannot leave after six years, if he has signed on for nine, without first obtaining a discharge. In that case, the question of a refund could arise.
  The hon. Member also raised the matter of an increase in National Service pay. There was an increase in 1956 and one before that in 1950. I am bound to say that I expressed my views on this in the debate the other night, and I was glad to find that on the whole, the hon. Member for Bermondsey, gave me his support. I do not think that in the present financial climate, there would be justification for this increase. National Service men do receive allowances, and there is the system of National Service grants to which I have already referred.
  The hon. Member also spoke of support costs in Germany. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add to what I said the other day. The whole matter is under discussion in N.A.T.O. at the present time.
  He also advocated that we should spend money on giving a civilian suit—
  Mr. Chetwynd: No; not give the suit, but give the man the money with which to buy it.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is quite wrong if he thinks that the Army is not interested in a smarter uniform. It is. There was perhaps one point in his speech which was a little out of date. He said that the soldier is a civilian in uniform. That was absolutely true when we were thinking of a large conscript Army. Then men were being brought out of civilian life against their will to serve in the Army. But volunteers are joining the Army precisely because they want a different kind of life from civilian life. To such men a smart uniform has a very great appeal. I think we would be very ill advised to spend our money, at any rate at this stage, on better civilian clothing. First priority must be given to the demand for a smart uniform.
  Mr. Mellish: That is quite right, but the man goes in the Forces full of keenness, and then he gets married, when the problem of the civilian aspect starts. We were trying to think about the civilian aspect of his life, and one encouragement would be to give him a civilian suit.
  Mr. Amery: I do not say that there might not be a time when we could investigate that. But the first priority should be given to providing these men with a smart uniform.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West asked me about establishment of the War Office. This will of course take its cut before the re-organisation is through, and it will be a pretty severe one. But as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in the period till then the burden cast upon the War Office is greater than ever before. The whole period of re-organisation will be a difficult one. Thereafter the smaller the Army, the more important it will be to have really high-class Intelligence, really swift mobility and really good weapons. All these things call for a fairly strong administrative corps, and so impose a certain burden on the War Office.
  I think I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I apologise to any hon. Members if I have not met their points. If there have been any omissions, I will try to correct them by

  687
  writing to the hon. Members in due course.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £15,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 387,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 375,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 274,800, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.
  Mr. Strachey Mr. Strachey rose—
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir Norman, to the inclement weather prevailing on the back benches behind me? There is a Force 5 gale blowing up there. Can you do anything about it?
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): I will endeavour to help the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Strachey: I wish to ask one question on this Vote about the Mobile Defence Corps, which is part of the Army Emergency Reserve. I should like to hear a little about its present state. What is the present state of the first six battalions? To what extent is it a purely paper organisation? To what extent are there cadres of full-time serving soldiers? To what extent are National Service men being used in it? The great number, of course, are ex-National Service men, who are not, as I understand it, to do any part-time service. Therefore, it seems that it is a registry of names. I think the Committee will be interested to know about that.
  Secondly, what is to happen to this corps after the abolition of National Service? Then, the great pool of ex-National Service men, which makes up its numbers today, will not be available. It will take some time, of course, but
  688
  after, let us say, 1965 or some date of that sort, they will be rapidly disappearing. What are the long-term plans for the Mobile Defence Corps? Is it that the Territorial Army will entirely undertake the civil defence functions of the Mobile Defence Corps, and will it be amalgamated with the Territorial Army? What are the long-term plans for it, because they will surely profoundly affect the abolition of National Service?
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice that he would question me on the subject of the Mobile Defence Corps, and I must therefore apologise in advance if my reply is not as full, detailed and informative as he might wish.
  Last year, we concentrated in the War Office on the reorganisation of the active Army and the Committee is familiar with the results of what we then did. We have now turned our thoughts more especially to the problem of the Reserve Army, but our studies on this matter are not yet complete. However, there are one or two things which I want to say about the Mobile Defence Corps, both about the main problem which it has to face and about its rôle.
  Like the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve, the Mobile Defence Corps consists partly of volunteers and partly of National Service men. The National Service element is, of course, very much the larger proportion. With the ending of National Service, the Mobile Defence Corps will lose, as indeed the other two sections of the Reserve Army will lose, one means of replenishing its numbers and will then, therefore have to rely increasingly on a purely volunteer element.
  The Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve have a long tradition, and their volunteer cadre is quite strong. The problem with the Mobile Defence Corps, this comparatively young organisation, is very much greater, and that has to be faced.
  The rôle of the Mobile Defence Corps is the other matter to which I wish to refer. It is extremely difficult to envisage the shape of home defence if we should ever have the emergency of a global war, but two extreme aspects of the home defence problem can be discerned. On

  689
  the one side there would be active fighting—defence against invasion, against parachutists and saboteurs and the performance of garrison duties at ports and other essential installations. Those would be the natural rôle of the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve. At the other extreme there would be civil defence in its more localised form, that is to say, local elements carrying out rescue work in their own or neighbouring communities.
  Between those two extremes, there would be many intermediate tasks. Some of those we can foresee and some we cannot, but it seems clear that there will be a need for mobile defence units which could be moved rapidly to emergency areas to reinforce the efforts of local organisations.
  My conclusion, therefore, is that although the M.D.C. will face serious problems with manpower, its role is necessary to any adequate organisation of home defence. As I said earlier, however, we are not yet in a position to say how we hope to overcome the manpower shortage, nor to explain exactly the relationship which we foresee between the Territorial Army, the Mobile Defence Corps, and the civil defence organisations generally.
  Mr. Mellish: I want to give the Under-Secretary a chance to say some nice things about Malta, whose Prime Minister, Mr. Dom Mintoff, is here negotiating with the Colonial Secretary on the problems of that great country. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary wants to say something about Malta's Territorial Force, which this Vote covers, and whether we have achieved the numbers we want.
  Mr. Amery: I am very glad that the hon. Member has given me this opportunity. As he knows, I was a member of the Round Table Conference, and I have for many years been a personal friend of Mr. Mintoff, whose friendship I greatly value. I was in Malta last September, and I saw units of the Royal Malta Artillery and of the Territorial Force in Malta. They seemed to be in very good heart, and I am very glad of the opportunity to be able to pay tribute to them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £15,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 387,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 375,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 274,800, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 8. Works, Buildings and Lands
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £26,830,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Strachey: I have two questions to put on this Vote. One is about the civilianisation of works and the civilianised directorate, which I welcome. That seems a good idea, but what occurs to me in this connection is the question of a "common user" with the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force has had this form of organisation—a civilianised works directorate—for many years and now that the two Services have the same form of organisation, there is a good deal to be said for a directorate to serve both. That would be a step towards integration and an economy at the top and it would be a common user service which would have very considerable advantages. I should like to know whether that has been considered and, if so, whether there are any great objections to it.
  My second question concerns married quarters. In page 134 of the Estimates, there appear to be some disturbing figures about married quarters. The money which we are asked to vote this year is considerably less than that for last year. In round figures, the sum is down from £1,200,000 to £853,000. I realise that that is not the whole story and that the figure of £750,000 in Vote 11 is the same this year as last, but, therefore, that does not affect the comparison one way or the other. On the surface, at any rate, it seems that we are being asked to provide a very considerably smaller sum for married quarters this year than for last year, and that seems disturbing.
  If we are to succeed in our recruiting drive, progress with married quarters is an important factor. I realise that it may be argued that the reduction in

  691
  numbers will reduce the need for new quarters, but that argument is specious. After all, although the reduction in numbers is very considerable, a considerably higher proportion will be in this country and the demand for married quarters in this country is not likely to diminish at anything like the same rate as the reduction in the numbers in the forces.
  I am concerned and alarmed about this apparent drop in the sum voted. We are told that substantial new works are to start this year—£1,400,000—but the actual amount to be spent this year is estimated to be less than that for last year and that is disturbing. The Army still seems to lag behind the Royal Air Force in the provision of married quarters and I should be grateful for reassurance on this topic.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. J. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we could have a common user service with the Royal Air Force. He will appreciate that I have not sufficient knowledge of the Royal Air Force to give an objective and balanced view on the matter. I doubt whether it would be possible or desirable to have as big an organisation as would be required to cater for the building needs of two Services. I suppose it should be spread. in the right hon. Gentleman's view, to all three Services. I do not know, but that is my first reaction.
  I emphasise that a more fruitful line of progress may be that which we are adopting at the moment. There are certain theatres where one Service accepts responsibility for the building requirements of all three. For example, in Aden the greater part of our building is undertaken, in accordance with our requirements, by the R.A.F. organisation.
  Mr. Strachey: As I understand it, almost all the physical work is being done by civilian contractors. I am referring merely to the question of the directorates who let the contracts. I should not have thought that the size of the matter was necessarily a prohibitive factor. It would be if the work were to be done by the Services, but in the matter
  692
  of letting contracts I should have thought that there would be an advantage.
  Mr. Amery: This is hardly the occasion to debate the vexed problem of the optimum size of an organisation. I was merely giving my reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I believe that the present system, under which one Service often carries out the building requirements of all three, is progressive. It may be possible to develop it still further.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to married quarters and to what he regarded as the rather meagre provision that we are making for them in the year ahead. The real reason is that until the planning of the reorganisation of the Army is completed it is impossible to decide exactly where the married quarters should be built. From that point of view last year was a poor one. The whole problem was in a state of flux, and we were not in a position to say definitely where married quarters should be built. The position is improving this year and we shall build considerably more married quarters than we did last year. But the full results of present planning will not begin to take effect until 1959.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: I should like to ask one question with regard to Subhead F, in page 140 of the Estimates. I did not give the Under-Secretary notice of this, and if he cannot answer I shall understand. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for War is present. I repeat what I said last week. We should have another look at the question of accommodation. We are spending millions of pounds upon improving married quarters, and I appreciate that; but since we are talking in terms of a much smaller Army hon. Members on this side of the Committee believe that if we could give the men the chance to buy their own homes through the Army, with 100 per cent. loans and cheap, fixed interest rates, it would help recruiting.
  Subhead F refers to the repayment and interest charges under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts. I may be wrong about this, but is it not possible within that Act for the Army to make these loans? I should imagine that there would be no greater advertisement for attracting young men into the Army than to say to them, "You will be given

  693
  an opportunity to buy your home, where you want it, with a 100 per cent. loan and low fixed interest charges." I believe that that attitude would do much good.
  Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Member will understand if I do not give any answer to his question at present, but I do not think that I shall be revealing any official secret if I say that what he mentioned in the debate last week was the subject of a discussion in which I took part in the War Office today.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £26,830,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £5,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to ask some questions concerning the expenditure on publicity and the recruiting services. I should like to know what supervision the War Office exercises and what consultation it has with the Central Office of Information upon the general question of Press advertising. I know that the big sum is paid for by the Central Office of Information, but there must be somebody at the War Office who acts as a liaison, and in an advisory capacity, on the whole question of recruiting.
  I want to know whether there is sufficient supervision to make sure that the money we are spending on this recruiting service is justified. I cannot understand why, on Friday, 21st February, 1958, there appeared in the Manchester Guardian a whole page advertisement appealing for officers of the Queen. I can understand the necessity for recruiting, but I cannot understand what sort of appeal the advertisement made. Last year I raised a question on the same Vote, when an advertisement had
  694
  appeared showing a huge picture of the explosion of an atomic or hydrogen bomb. I wondered how many recruits that would bring in. I do not know how many it brought in, but it seemed a very curious sort of publicity for attracting recruits.
  The War Office now seem to have gone from ultra-modern times back into the past. I do not know whether my remarks last year had any influence, but the War Office has gone back at least a couple of centuries. The advertisement consists of four pictures, which were supposed to attract recruits. The first shows a captain of the Honourable Artillery Company in the days of Queen Elizabeth I, dressed in the curious costume of that time, the most conspicuous feature being what, in Victorian times, were called bloomers. He is shown armed with a pike. I do not see how the normal young reader of the Manchester Guardian could be attracted to join the Army by contemplating that picture.
  The next picture shows a grenadier officer of Queen Anne's time, dressed like the advertisements we used to see on packets of Quaker Oats. Hon. Members have often appealed for an attractive walking-out dress, but if any potential recruit thought that this was to be the walking-out dress of the British Army he would be driven away.
  The third picture is of a Hussar colonel in Queen Victoria's Army, mounted upon a ferocious horse. I thought that the cavalry were obsolete, but anyone looking at the advertisement would imagine that a young recruit would be able to ride about the country on a horse.
  Then comes the hors d'œuvres. The fourth picture shows a young Royal Armoured Corps subaltern in the British Regular Army. That was the nearest approach to modern times that the advertisement reached. It is an impressive picture of a young soldier in a tank which, I understand, was obsolete about five years ago.
  All this led up to an invitation to the potential recruit to write to the War Office and ask for a special form PA. 6 b, which would give him further particulars. I am a great supporter of the Manchester Guardian and I do not mind it receiving advertising revenue, but I also have a duty to scrutinise War Office expenditure, and I fail to see how this advertisement

  695
  serves the War Office. The explanation might be that the War Office thinks so much of the Manchester Guardian that it wants to subsidise it, but I cannot see the purpose of the advertisement if it is intended to attract recruits. Potential officers, presumably, are advised to join the Regular Army and the field for the Regular Army recruiting appears to be the Manchester Guardian.
  There has been another advertisement in the Daily Express, not for officers but for soldiers of the Queen. Officers read the Manchester Guardian and soldiers read the Daily Express. I do not know whether the authorities have been optimistic or hopeful enough to advertise in the Daily Worker; but in the Daily Express there is a different kind of appeal. The picture of the obsolete tank is still there but underneath it there is a picture of a facsimile letter. I will let the hon. Gentleman have my copy afterwards. I was hoping that he reads the Daily Express. I will lend my copy to him and he may come to the same conclusion as I have. We differ fundamentally over many things, but I feel sure that he will be in agreement with me about this.
  Here is a facsimile letter supposed to have been sent home by a soldier serving somewhere. It does not say exactly where and only page three of the letter appears. I wonder whether the War Office will make some inquiry to find out whether this is a bona fide letter, or just a fake. I have the impression—I may be wrong, it may be my suspicious mind—that this is a fake. The letter begins as if it is a continuation from page two. But neither page two nor page one appears, and so I do not know what is said on them. No name is given, neither does the name of the recipient of the letter appear, but only page three, where it states:
  "keep pretty fit as you can see from the sailing club. We are down at the sailing club most weekends"—
  I am not sure whether this is an advertisement for the Army or the Navy, or whether they have got mixed up; or whether there is not sufficient co-ordination, and the publicity of the Navy has got mixed up in the Central Office of Information with the publicity for the Army.
  "The other bloke is Pete Roberts, my gunner/op".
  696
  Then the letter continues with this rather curious statement:
  "Life is pretty good out here and you sure get a lot more excitement and fun than ever I found in civvy street".
  Mr. Chetwynd: Or in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Hughes: The House of Commons would be a poor advertisement for recruiting. We have been discussing these Estimates with only twenty hon. Members in the Chamber. The last thing hon. Members would like would be a recruiting poster comprising a picture of the House of Commons discussing the Army Estimates.
  There must be a limit to the credulity of our young people. After all, they are fairly intelligent these days, and as we learn from debates in the House, the impression created in this advertisement is not the general experience of National Service men. If life in the Army is more exciting, and people get more fun there than in civilian life, the National Service men who have been in the Army should be its best recruiting officers.
  I do not know how much was spent on the advertisement in the Daily Express. The Daily Express is, after all, a democratic paper and must have some kind of popular appeal, but next year, if the Under-Secretary of State for War is still in the same office, I should like him to remember my remarks and try to find out how many recruits were obtained as a result of the advertisements in these different papers. I think that intelligent young men are being asked to believe a little too much.
  I pass from Press publicity to ask a question about whether the War Office has any intention of reviving the old kind of recruiting campaign.
  Mr. Mellish: May I ask my hon. Friend—I am sure he will understand—to bear in mind that it is the intention to discuss the Air Estimates at eight o'clock. I am sure that he will want to talk about the Air Estimates as well.
  Mr. Hughes: That is certainly an incentive to me to finish my speech and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will finish before eight o'clock. If the Minister does not wish to encroach on the trine to be devoted to the Air Estimates, he can reply to me in writing; if he does

  697
  so I shall get more information then ever he gave me in a speech. I do not wish to offend against the conventions, but I shall finish in five minutes although, after all, a few seconds either way does not matter very much when we are spending £500 million.
  I wish to ask the Minister about the old-fashioned recruiting campaigns which used to be conducted in the time of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am surprised that he is not here. When he was Secretary of State he started organising recruiting campaigns which were not very successful. I remember that he went on one famous recruiting expedition which cost the War Office £40 and he brought back three A.T.S. recruits. They got married shortly afterwards and so he lost them. The right hon. Gentleman is regarded as a most patriotic Member on this side of the Committee—a man with a great demagogic appeal. Why not utilise his services again. I am sure that were he sent to Glasgow to appeal to the students of Glasgow University, and faced the barrage of opposition which he would get from the students, that would be a good try-out for the recruiting campaign. I throw that out as a suggestion, although I do not ask him to invite me to take part in such a campaign.
  In my part of the world recruiting has almost ceased and yet considerable amounts of money are being spent in Scotland with very meagre results. There has been a controversy between the H.L.I. and the R.S.F. over the question of amalgamating the two regiments. During that controversy we were told that the kilt had a great appeal and that if we put soldiers in the kilt, they would rush to join the Army. But kilted regiments, like the Black Watch and the Gordon Highlanders, are not getting results either, and I wish to know what sort of recruiting initiative is contemplated for the West of Scotland. The latest figures referring to Glasgow show that the H.L.I. gets six recruits a month or one-and-a-half a week, and the figures for other regiments are about the same. I should like to know whether this considerable expenditure on recruiting in Scotland is justified at the present time.
  I do not know the answer, but I suggest that the most successful slogan for
  698
  recruiting was given last year by Lord Montgomery when he said that the Army will be the safest place in the next war. A good recruiting campaign could be built up on that, although nothing is said about what will happen to the wives and children of the soldiers. I have kept my promise and I am finishing my speech before eight o'clock. I am prepared to give the extra minute to the Air Force. I do not ask the Minister to reply to me now, but if he will send me a written answer I shall be obliged.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has made a speech which I thoroughly enjoyed, I cannot agree with his approach, and I am sure that he would not expect me to. Of course, we have a say in the organisation of publicity and its administration and we act in close co-operation with the Central Office of Information.
  The hon. Member is quite wrong in discounting the strength of the historical appeal in matters of advertising. The hon. Gentleman knows very little of his own countrymen if he does not realise how often their imaginations have been moved by precisely the kind of appeal which these two advertisements contain.
  One of our great difficulties has been to recruit the necessary number of young officers. One of the reasons why that is more difficult to do than it has been in the past is that so many elements in our national life, like the hon. Member, have denigrated the appeals of loyalty to Queen, country, Empire and Commonwealth, which have in the past played a very great part in getting young men to dedicate and devote their lives to service in the Armed Forces.
  I rather agree that the Manchester Guardian is an unusual organ to choose for this type of appeal, but the advertisement itself seems excellent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Recruiting figures have gone up and are increasing, not only south but north of the Border. I do not believe that the hon. Member's efforts will be able to interrupt that progress.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £5,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a

  699
  grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  Vote 10. Non-effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £34,470,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Sharples: I apologise for taking time from the Air Estimates but I intend to raise the question of compensation paid to officers and other ranks who are compulsorily retired.
  From the information that I have, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has treated officers generously, and where there has been a doubt he has decided in favour of giving compensation to officers and other ranks. I am raising the question of a certain number—I believe it is only a small number—of officers who have been retired under Section 196 of the Pay Warrant, 1950. This section says:
  "General rule: Any officer may at any time be called upon by the Army Council to retire or resign his commission for reasons other than misconduct."
  Paragraph 198, is worded exactly the same, except that it says that he can be called upon to resign for misconduct.
  The question I want to ask is, how many officers have been retired under this section during the last 12 months? What is the average number that has been asked to retire in the previous 10 years? We have to consider whether these officers are redundant or not. That is a most important question.
  I can give as an example particulars of an officer who is being told to retire under this section. I will not name the officer, because although the wording of the pay code is so designed that there is no stigma against such an officer being retired under that section, to give his name might make it more difficult for him to obtain employment. My hon. Friend knows the name of the officer and all the details. I will give an outline of the case to the Committee.
  This officer has been 19 years in the Territorial Army and the Regular Army. He started off in the ranks and he has
  700
  17 qualifying years for pension. Of course, he would have qualified for pension after 20 years. He won the Sword of Honour in his officer-cadet training unit. He won the Military Cross. He was twice wounded and he served as a temporary major and a squadron leader in an armoured regiment. All his last three commanding officers particularly recommended promotion to the rank of major.
  I have an extract from the confidential report about him. I give it by way of example of the officers retired under this section. I will not read the whole of it. This confidential report says:
  "He is a very hard working, thorough officer, who gets on with his job quietly and efficiently … He has good military knowledge and a wide experience, and is, in my opinion, a thoroughly competent practical officer. His one failing has been his inability to pass his promotion examination in military law."
  There is nothing detrimental in the remainder of the report, which concludes:
  "I have no hestitation in saying that as a C.O. I would be delighted to have this officer in my regiment as a Squadron Leader, with the knowledge that he would not let me down, but would do his work loyally, competently and with efficiency."
  His grading is given as
  "above the standard of his rank and service."
  In answer to the question "Fit now for promotion?" the answer is "Yes", to the next substantive rank. The report goes on to recommend that in the event of war he be commanding officer of an armoured car regiment.
  This officer was retired, to the best of my knowledge, on the ground that he has been unable to pass his promotion examination in one subject only. The penalty that he suffers for that is not only what one expects, that he does not get promotion to the next rank; he also loses his pension, which he would have had, had he been allowed to stay on for the next two and a half years. Instead of receiving pension, he receives a terminal grant of £2,400 for 17 years' service instead of a gratuity of £1,500 and a pension of £500 a year for life. I work that out as a capital sum, taking the value of his pension and gratuity together, of £10,000.
  Alternatively, if he has been allowed compensation for redundency, as almost every other officer we have got rid of in the Service is being given, he would have received a capital grant now of

  701
  £6,400, plus pension of £470 per year for life. The whole of that is equal, in my calculation, to a capital sum of around £15,000. That is the effect of failing in one subject. This officer will be retired on a technicality and will suffer this penalty in addition to not getting his promotion.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may say that the officer should have passed the promotion examination. I accept that as perfectly fair, but we are not all capable of being experts in military law. There are plenty of other qualities which are necessary in an officer. As to whether he is being declared redundant or not, I think that will become evident when my hon. Friend is able to give the figures, which I hope he will give of the average number retired under Section 196 of the last ten years.
  I should point out that in the White Paper on Compensation for Premature Retirement from the Armed Forces, paragraph 1 says:
  "Her Majesty's Government gave an assurance that fair compensation will be provided for those whose Service careers were prematurely terminated as a result of the planned reduction in the size of the armed forces."
  I submit that these men are being retired as part of the planned reduction of the Armed Forces.
  Another basic factor upon which compensation was to be given was:
  "the additional difficulties in finding employment in civil life."
  That condition applies equally to these officers as to any others. I do not in any way dispute the decision of the Army Council in telling these officers to retire. It is entirely up to the Army Council to decide which officers it wishes to declare redundant. If it wishes to choose officers who are not good at military law, that is the decision of the Army Council.
  I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this very small number of officers on their individual merits, and where the reason for compulsory retirement is purely technical, to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are going out at a time when alternative employment will not be easy to find. They will be competing with officers, possibly with less service than they have, who have been given the full benefit of compensation for permature retirement.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. J. Amery: I think I ought first to explain the rules by which we are guided in a matter of this kind, as a background to the particular case which my hon. Friend has explained to the Committee. Promotion examinations were reintroduced in 1950. It was then announced in Army Council Instructions, which have been repeated since, that if an officer failed to pass the examination his retention in the Service would be a matter to be considered by the Army Council.
  It was also announced that these promotion examinations and the liability to be asked to retire from the Army in the event of failure would apply only to officers who reached the age of 30 on or after 1st January, 1950. The procedure we follow in practice to determine whether or not an officer should be retained is generally as follows. Every officer is given a second chance to pass the examination within a year. If he fails the second time, a commander, not below the rank of major general, is asked to recommend whether or not he should be given a third chance. That recommendation is then considered by a board in the War Office, which may grant an extra year to pass the examination, or submit the case to the Army Council. If it submits a case to the Army Council, the officer may make representations before a decision is taken.
  In accordance with these rules and practice, a number of officers were retired in the period betwen 1950 and the announcement of the redundancy terms last year. Since the announcement of the redundancy terms, a further batch of officers have also been retired, of whom the officer referred to was one. My hon. Friend asked what the numbers were in either case. Nine officers were retired in the period between 1950 and the announcement of the redundancy terms and 18 have been retired since the redundancy terms were announced.
  Mr. Sharples: Can my hon. Friend say if that is a total of nine in more than six years and of 18 in the last 12 months or so?
  Mr. Amery: I was coming precisely to that point, because it was clear that my hon. Friend had that in mind when

  703
  he asked for the figures. On the face of it, my hon. Friend was quite entitled to draw the conclusion he has drawn. I have looked into the matter very carefully. I have had a long session on it today. I have come to the conclusion that it is not a direct consequence of the rundown of the Army. I say that on two grounds. The first is the general ground of the decision I have just described under which an officer was liable to be asked to retire from the Army if he had not passed the promotion examination, which did not begin to arise until about 1953 because we always give two years grace in these matters and the rule was introduced in 1950. It did not apply at all to officers over the age of 30. Therefore, it is only now beginning to apply to the main intake of Regular officers into the Army since the war.
  In further substantiation of this point, of the 18 who have been retired since the redundancy terms were announced, very nearly half are in non-retirement categories. I think that shows that there is no direct connection between redundancy and the decision the Army Council has taken in this matter. As a matter of fact, the only change which has taken place in the last two months has been that the Army Council has decided in certain respects to make the rule slightly less stringent than it was in theory before—
  Mr. Sharples: Not in practice.
  Mr. Amery: —and it was becoming so in practice. That was one of the reasons why we came to the conclusion that the rule should not be too strictly interpreted.
  I come to the case which my hon. Friend put forward. As he stated, that officer had a very fine military record. He became due for promotion on 7th November, 1955. He had twice sat the promotion examination and failed. He sat it again in 1955 and 1956 and failed on each occasion. His case was before the Army Council in 1957 when he sat the examination for the fifth time, and again failed to pass. He appealed to the Army Council against the decision that he should retire and the appeal was turned down. Whatever might be said of the category of officers to which my
  704
  hon. Friend referred, I think I can say with absolute certainty—or as much certainty as is possible in a matter of this kind—that this officer, who failed the promotion examination five times, would have been retired irrespective of the reorganisation of the Army.
  The principles governing the retirement of officers who fail to pass the promotion examination were decided before the rundown of the Army had been considered at all. In certain respects, they have been made actually slightly more lenient since the decision of the rundown was reached. In particular, opportunities for a second and third chance can be given. This officer would have been retired whether or not the rundown had taken place. I do not think, therefore, he could be said to qualify for the redundancy terms.
  8.19 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I apologise for intervening in this debate, but, having heard the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and the very unconvincing reply, I think this matter deserves the attention of the Committee.
  This is the case of an officer with a brilliant record, decorated by Her Majesty with the Military Cross, wounded, recommended for promotion, but failed in one subject, and he was retired or thrown out on a relatively small gratuity with two-and-a-half years to go for his pension.
  My experience, I am glad to say, is that this sort of treatment does not happen in industry. I am quite certain that it would not happen in the Royal Air Force, and I am amazed at the lack of flexibility on the part of the Army Council as a result of which it is not possible to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam suggests. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the bad effect that this has upon recruitment. It is disastrous when it becomes known that an officer can be treated in this most shabby fashion.
  There were no promotion examinations during the war, when we had some of our most brilliant officers, not only in the field, but serving at the Air Ministry or the War Office, who never passed a promotion examination. Territorial officers,

  705
  for example, rose to the rank of lieutenant-general. They were brilliant officers.
  The War Office, it seems, has for some reason or other decided to dispense with this man's service. It is crazy to contemplate such a thing. It was only in recent years that cadets going into Sandhurst were pushed through quite regardless of certain failings because there was a shortage. But here is an officer, who has been well decorated and has proved himself in the field and as an administrator, who is allowed to go. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that he will look into this matter again with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see whether something cannot be done. If he does not, I am quite certain that the House will hear more of it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £34,470,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

  VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

AIR ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £101,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: On Monday of this week, in the Air Estimates debate, I asked the Government to stop the practice of allowing aircraft based at Royal Air Force stations in this country to patrol with hydrogen bombs aboard. Since Monday, there has been an accident in South Carolina. Fortunately, there was no nuclear explosion and in any discussion of this incident, that must be remembered.
  706
  That accident raises serious questions as to the design of our R.A.F. hydrogen bombs. From what the—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): May I have some guidance from the Chair, Sir Norman? Will I be in order under Vote 1—Pay of Officers—to reply to this subject?
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) develops his argument.
  Mr. de Freitas: I was taking the cue, Sir Norman, from what has happened in the two preceding debates, which on Vote 1 have been as wide as any Second Reading debate. If I am out of order, I will raise the subject when we come to aircraft and stores at a later stage.
  The Temporary Chairman: The Committee cannot have a Second Reading debate. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Vote.
  Mr. de Freitas: If we are conducting a different procedure from the other two debates, Sir Norman, I accept your Ruling. I shall confine myself to two questions. The first concerns education. From the figures on education allowances, it seems that officers—and I am glad that it is so; we have pressed for it for many years—have obtained a considerable number of concessions. I should like to be assured on two points. The first is that the education concessions and allowances for airmen are equally satisfying to them as they have been to the officers. I raised the question in the Estimates debate on Monday but there was not a chance or time for a reply to be given to it.
  Another point on education is that the grants are given from the age of 11. I do not understand this, because with the 11-plus examination the most important period to have some form of stability and continuity in education is the year or so—say, two years—before the 11-plus examination. I would hope that these grants could be given from the age of 9 to 18 rather than from 11 to 18. These two years are very important.
  There was another question to which the Under-Secretary did not have the time

  707
  to reply on Monday. I pointed out that there were 240 officers of air rank on a strength of 203,000 men in the Air Force and that there had also been 240 officers of air rank when the strength was 272,000. In other words, there has been no decline in the number of officers of air rank.
  I freely acknowledge that we cannot expect a modern technical service like the Air Force to contract its top direction as it contracts its numbers. As a business or institution of any kind becomes more technical, there must be a higher number in the top direction in proportion to the numbers of unskilled labour. At the same time, it seems strange that there still remain so many air officers and I should like to know the justification for it.
  I also made the subsidiary point that if there was to be this great opportunity of reaching air rank, of becoming air commodore and above, in the Air Force, young men should have a chance of knowing it and realising that there were many jobs at the top which the bright boy could get as he progressed through the Service. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer these two points.
  8.27 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I support what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has said and I appreciate the point concerning the number of senior officers required for a technical Service. I wish, however, to press upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the importance of bearing in mind that the Royal Air Force is a young man's Service and one wants to have as senior officers men in their early forties. Fortunately, there are a number of air vice-marshals who are in their early forties. This policy must, however, be emphasised more and more.
  I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Lincoln about the education grant. We were very glad when it was introduced, but it is not nearly enough. The provision of £75 a year to send a child to school is not nearly enough. It is taxed, and half of it goes back to the Inland Revenue in any case. Members of the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Corps serving abroad get not less titan £150 a year—and it is tax-free. It amounts, therefore, to almost four times as much as the grant for those in
  708
  the Services. This is a matter that should be looked into. It is just as important to educate the children of R.A.F. personnel as it is to educate the children of those in the Foreign Office.
  The idea of starting the meagre lodging allowance at 10s. a week only when the child is 11 years old is quite ridiculous. In view of the turmoil that a child goes through at the 11-plus examination, it should have at least two years to work up to it in the school at which the examination is to be taken.
  I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that this matter will be considered, and I hope that we will not be fobbed off by the Treasury saying that it cannot afford it. In the case of airmen and airwomen the total sum involved is £31,000, a very small sum in comparison with the amount of the Estimates. In fact, £100,000 would still be a relatively small sum. I hope that my hon. Friend will undertake to look at this again, with the Treasury, and come back to inform us that the figure will be increased. It is vital that it should be.
  8.31 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I wish to raise a point that I have raised in previous years, in reference to Subhead G of Vote 1—Local Overseas Allowances. I notice that the amount is up by £¼ million. The Explanatory Notes in page 19 state:
  "This allowance is issued to officers, airmen and airwomen serving in certain countries abroad in respect of the essential extra cost, as compared with that in the United Kingdom, of maintaining a reasonable standard of living."
  In other words, it is really issued because there is considered to be that need in certain overseas services.
  Other things being equal, one would expect that in a year in which there has been an increase in flat-rate Service pay, there would be a decrease in overseas allowance in exactly the same way as there is a decrease in National Assistance payments when the basic rate of retirement pensions is raised. Indeed, if we raise the pay sufficiently, I presume that overseas allowance would be considered to be unnecessary.
  Therefore, it is really hard to see why this figure should go up this year. If the numbers included in Subhead A went

  709
  up, one could see that there would be a rise in Subhead G. But Subhead A is going down. Are we to assume that, notwithstanding a reduction in Vote A, there is to be an increase in the number of Air Force personnel serving abroad, or, alternatively, have the countries in which the personnel serve abroad suffered an even more disastrous rise in the cost of living than has occurred here? Unless one of those two explanations can be given, it will be very difficult to understand why this Subhead of the Vote has increased by no less than £¼ million.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I want to follow the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who referred to the education allowances, appearing in page 17 of the Air Estimates. I understand that if an officer or an airman has a child at home in the United Kingdom, being educated at a boarding school, or living with someone else to complete its education at some school of the parents' own choosing, the allowance is £75 a year.
  That allowance is on the low side, and should be considerably increased, but what is most unfair is that the allowance paid to the airman or the Air Force officer is taxable, whereas if he had decided to pursue a career in the Foreign Office, he would have had the same allowance, but free of tax. If there was any question of equity arising out of this. I should have thought it fairer for the Air Force officer, who is only occasionally abroad; to have the allowance free of tax, whereas the Foreign Office official, who spends the major part of his life abroad and, therefore, has to make a permanent allowance for his children, should have his allowance taxed.
  My view is that in neither case should the allowance be taxable, because the State servants concerned are sent abroad, and put to this additional expense. They cannot live in a town in the United Kingdom and send their children to a day school. In many cases, they are forced to send them to boarding school, or let them board out with grandparents or other relatives while attending school. Therefore, I hope that either my right hon. or my hon. Friend will be able to say that he has some sympathy with this plea of my hon. and gallant Friend
  710
  and myself, that this allowance should, in future, be paid free of tax and, further, that it should be increased.
  My second point concerns page 21 of the Estimates, where are shown various figures under the heading "Miscellaneous Allowances"—outfit allowances, tropical kit allowances, and so on, for officers. I am surprised at the meagre amounts paid to officers when they first have to equip themselves with uniform.
  For instance, I notice that officer cadets of the Royal Air Force College and the Royal Air Force Technical College, Hen-low, while they receive a free issue front Air Force stocks of certain items of clothing and equipment, receive a cash allowance of £40 10s. for the purchase of the remaining items with which they have to equip themselves before they go to college. The point I am making is that, when they are commissioned from those colleges, finishing their time as cadets, the amount they receive to equip themselves as officers is only £58 10s.
  I think I am right in saying that I an, the only Member of the Committee who has been to Cranwell. When I went to Cranwell, the outfit allowance I received was, I think, £80, with which to convert my cadet's uniform into an officer's uniform and buy the extra bits of equipment and uniform which I required in my commissioned state. I should like my hon. Friend to say why the outfit allowance stands at only £58 10s.
  On the same page, I notice that the cash allowances on first appointment to commissions are, for officers of the Royal Air Force £14 10s., whereas for officers of the Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service, they are £104 10s. I have a great affection for officers of Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service, but I do not think it comes out at that particular amount. I should like to know why there is this discrepancy between officers of the Nursing Service and officers of the Royal Air Force itself.
  Officers of the Women's Royal Air Force receive an outfit allowance of £77. We really ought to have an explanation tonight why there should be these differences in allowances. In particular, I should like to know why the amount I received when I was a cadet and commissioned from Cranwell in 1928

  711
  should have been £80, while now, after the change in the value of money, the amount is only £58 10s.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: At this time, when there is a considerable reduction in the number of National Service men in the Air Force, we notice that the amount provided for National Service grants is being increased from £224,900 to £299,900. At first glance, that is rather surprising. We have fewer National Service men, yet we anticipate that we are to spend more on the National Service grant.
  It may be that more publicity has been given to this admirable service than hitherto, or it may be that the criteria on which the National Assistance Board works have been changed. It may even be that the Government expect very much harder times and wish, therefore, to make further provision in respect of financial hardship which will be caused to National Service men.
  I should be grateful if we could have an explanation. It is rather intriguing that, although we are increasing the amount to be available, we are to give less to the National Assistance Board for administration. I know that it is a matter of enlightenment in respect of the Estimates, but we are allowing the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance £9,400 as against £9,600 last year. So they are to do more work, although the R.A.F. or the Air Ministry will pay them less for doing it. I think that we should have that matter sorted out.
  I wanted to say a further word or two about education, but I think that that point has been covered adequately. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that the figures for these allowances in respect of education are fantastic. Even admitting that there will be a reduction in personnel during the coming year, and an increase as compared with last year, it is still ridiculous. A meagre allowance of £31,000 to cover 170,000 airmen is incredibly low.
  The point has been taken about secondary education. The time when it is most dangerous to move children is the time before an important examination, like the 11-plus. That is the time
  712
  when sufficient attention must be paid to the need for education allowances.
  There is another point of interest which is worth noting. We shall have many fewer people in the Royal Air Force during the coming year. Yet we are making provision under Subhead J in this Vote alone for paying £390,000 more for National Insurance contributions, although we have 37,500 fewer personnel. This is the direct result of Government policy and how we cut down Government expenditure; but this is a piece of Government policy that actually increases Government expenditure.
  If we go through all the Votes, I calculated the other day that there is a figure of over £660,000 more in respect of National Insurance contributions. Has account been taken in this Vote of the latest increase in the National Health stamp, which is going up by yet another 6d.? Has the Air Ministry decided—because it makes special arrangements in relation to the division of responsibility for the payment of the stamp—how this extra 6d. is to be paid? Will it be wholly paid by the men, or will the Air Ministry take over responsibility in addition to its existing responsibility? If so, how much will the Air Ministry pay? If this is the case, will we not have another Supplementary Estimate soon?
  I should be grateful if we could have an answer to these points, along with the others that have been raised.
  8.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): I think that the most generally agreed point on Vote 1 has been that on educational allowances. I find myself in an embarrassing position, because I remember making an impassioned speech on this same issue. It is embarrassing to find oneself poacher turned gamekeeper.
  I have looked at the comparative figures, and it is not true that the educational allowances for Foreign Office servants or civil servants and of serving officers are on exactly the same basis. For instance, Foreign Office officials are given higher educational allowances partly to avoid the danger that they would spend their representational allowances on education. After all, they are expected to entertain and to move around

  713
  to do their job overseas. Service personnel, unlike those in the Foreign Office, have an element included in their basic pay for the purpose of educating their children. But my right hon. Friend and I have noted hon. Members' views on this matter. I know exactly how they feel.
  Perhaps the House will agree that it is a step in the right direction that from next month there will be an increase in these allowances; they will become £75 per annum for the first child, £100 for the second child and £125 for the third child. I can assure the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that there is no difference at all between airmen and officers in the qualification. They all qualify on exactly the same basis.
  The next question raised was that of air rank officers. When I first looked through the Estimates I too was alarmed to see that apparently there were the same number of air rank officers–240 last year and 240 this year. In fact, that is a rounded average figure. We are running down the force in all ranks, but this is an average throughout the year. In practice we expect to have at least 11 fewer officers of air rank comparing 1st April, 1957, when the number was 246, and 1st April, 1959, when we expect that the total will have fallen to 235. The figure given at 240 is a mean figure rather than the actual number on any date.
  It should be remembered that as the Service gets more technical and more expert we shall need more expert representation among our air rank officers. In addition, we have a call on officers of these ranks for many other jobs. They are not required only by the Royal Air Force and the Air Ministry; in addition there is a certain allocation of officers to the Commonwealth Air Forces. The Commonwealth has valued the expert advice which it has had from air rank officers of the Royal Air Force and we are continuing to detach some officers to these Air Forces. We also have air attachés in foreign missions, and the House will agree that we do not wish to see Great Britain under-represented in foreign capitals. The officers who represent us there should have a status worthy of the job.
  There is also a demand for air rank officers in N.A.T.O.—a demand which has been increasing. In 1955 there were 14, and the estimated requirement for the
  714
  coming year is 17. The Ministry of Supply, too, has found that air rank officers fill a most important rôle, and its demand has risen from 9 in 1955 to 13 in the coming year.
  Those comments may do something to set hon. Member's minds at rest, but I emphasise that my right hon. Friend and I are not oblivious to the need to reduce these numbers; indeed, in his speech on the Air Estimates my right hon. Friend said that he was giving close attention to cutting down the number of air rank officers and not having a surplus.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) asked about the local overseas allowance. I am glad to have an opportunity to deal with this, because too many people think that the local overseas allowance is given to all those who go overseas. I have had a number of representations in the Air Ministry on this subject, for example, from hon. Members who represent serving personnel in Christmas Island because these personnel felt that they ought to have a substantial overseas allowance. Local overseas allowance is not geared to the hardship of the case; it is geared to the cost of living in the place where a man is serving. In the early days of service in Christmas Island, when there was practically nothing except crabs and tents and virtually no N.A.A.F.I., it was very difficult to argue that the cost of living there was higher than in the United Kingdom or Germany. That position has changed, because special leave facilities are now given to personnel on Christmas Island to go to Honolulu, where the cost of living is immensely high. Therefore, a local overseas allowance has been brought in from last August to make up the difference.
  I am afraid I cannot give an exact explanation of why this total vote for local overseas allowance should have increased. I can only say the rates are reviewed every six months, when we have an opportunity of adjusting them and considering whether we have allowed enough or too much. It is a difficult exercise, because we take into account the cost of living not only in our own country but in all overseas countries as well. We cannot precisely forecast that, or the exact number of personnel in each theatre at any one time.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Can we assume that the local overseas allowance will not all be spent in Honolulu?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I imagine a very small percentage will be spent in Honolulu, and I only hope it goes on righteous purposes if it is spent there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) asked why he got better treatment over outfit allowance when at Cranwell than do present day cadets. The answer is that nowadays a considerable portion of the kit is given in kind; that is to say, we give him as much as we can of items like shirts and socks, and he is only called on to pay for those items which have to be properly tailored especially to his needs. That explains to some extent why Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Association has a bigger allocation than the officers of the R.A.F. Hon. Members will appreciate that few of the standard items of clothing in the Air Force vocabulary are suitable for the nursing service, whose uniform incidentally is extremely smart.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me a number of questions, and I must confess that I cannot answer them all as I am not a walking encyclopedia on all the details. He made some valuable points, one of which was that some £13 per person extra was allowed for National Service grants. On a diminishing Force there is a greater expenditure. Having done my arithmetic, I hope, correctly, in dividing one into the other, I think this means that a greater contribution is required. However, I would like to look into that point because I think the Committee would not wish me to give a snap answer. I will also look into the question of the health stamp, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ross: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he also answers my point about Vote A which I put the other day and to which I did not receive an answer?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I made the point that my right hon. Friend has already started to work assiduously through the report of that debate, marking the points raised, and I believe he has started to prepare the letters, as he has done in previous years, replying to points he could not answer.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Would my hon. Friend assure the Committee that he will try to do something about the education allowance? He said he noted the point. We have heard that often. Things are noted and nothing happens. It is the same over letters. That reply is not convincing and I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will do something about it. It is not good enough to give these people 10s. a week for a leave allowance. I hope my hon. Friend will inform the Committee that he and his right hon. Friend will take up the matter with the Treasury and see that fair play is given to the R.A.F. personnel and their children.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Committee should bear in mind, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that in the last interim instalment, as I hope it will be, allowances and pay increases for all three Services cost an extra £30 million. The Grigg Committee is examining what measures are necessary to recruit the number of people we want for the three armed Services. That Committee no doubt will consider the points which have been put forward in this Committee this evening on the question of educational allowances, and will consider whether, if they were increased, it would be an incentive for many people serving in the ranks and as officers in the Royal Air Force to sign on for an extra period and have their minds put at rest that their children were getting a fair and decent education.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £101,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959.

  Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum not exceeding £1,379,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 5,000, all ranks for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.
  8.53 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Since no one else is likely to do it, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the

  717
  very substantial reductions which have been achieved in this field, as compared with last year?
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like also to join in those congratulations, but I am rather interested here in Subhead G—Miscellaneous Services. I remember that I myself was once a miscellaneous service, under Subhead G, which is a very important subhead, in my view. It deals with the university air squadrons.
  These university air squadrons have been a very valuable part of the service of the Royal Air Force, and my hon. Friend has pointed out the encouragement that should be given to youth to pursue a career of flying. Let me say straight away that most of us, in the days when we went into the air squadrons of the universities, certainly never intended for our whole lives necessarily to pursue a career in the Royal Air Force. The selection of candidates at that time perhaps left much to be desired.
  On the occasion when I remember coming up for selection for the air squadron, I remember that the selection committee included amongst others a very notable weight-putter, Mr. George Howland. George Howland was one of the greatest weight-putters this country ever had, and my one claim to fame at the university was that at school I had won a weight-putting contest. I came up for selection for the university air squadron and went through very smartly because I had succeeded at school in putting the weight 36 feet. Admittedly, it was only a 12lb. weight, but, in those circumstances, I got into the Cambridge Air Squadron.
  From my point of view, this was quite admirable. I always regarded it as most important that people should be able to learn to fly on the cheap, and I had managed to learn to fly on the cheap. Everything went extremely well until we got to the fourteen days at Abingdon, which was extremely good, but for which one had a very rude word. In fact, the party the night before was so good that I was an hour late in getting into the air and was grounded. So I was advised that, perhaps, flying was not the best career for me.
  None the less, in those days at the university, Norman Yardley and many others of those who are engaged in, shall we say, the sporting pursuits of the
  718
  universities, obtained a most admirable training, and every one of them always gave a very good hand to the air squadrons. What happened, of course, was this. When the war came in 1939, a great many of these men became some of our best pilots in 600, 601 and 604 Squadrons, the earliest reserve squadrons of those days.
  I was, therefore, not very happy to see that in this Vote we regard that as a miscellaneous service. It is a most valuable service. Like all of us, I want to see a reduction, and I notice that the reduction in this case is from £19,000 to £9,000. That ought not to be passed without saying what one hopes for the future in the better days to come. I am sure that these university air squadrons understand our present difficulties, but I wonder whether some interested industry might not be able to give some sort of grant to assist in the training of young university men in flying.
  In the old days, the R.A.F. paid for one to learn to fly and it got the best of the young men during the war in the Volunteer Reserve. If every year less is devoted to university flying because more has to be devoted to jet bombers, or more nuclear development, we will not give young men the necessary training.
  The attractive part of the Royal Air Force is the tremendous importance given to character building and training begins at an early age when it is started in a university air squadron. It is the spirit of adventure. This is a chance of being able to fly, not necessarily because one intends to follow that career, and it is a very good thing that young men at university should have a chance to fly. They cannot afford to pay for it and I do not believe that these Votes in future will carry the whole burden. In fact, I think it is right that they should be reduced and yet I want these young men to have the opportunity to learn to fly while they are young.
  I do not know how that is to be done, but, presumably, the large companies interested in the manufacture of aircraft for the civil side are in the closest collaboration and discussion about the matter. I suggest that the Under-Secretary has a discussion with his opposite number at the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—or that the respective Ministers should meet—to see whether industry could not make a grant

  719
  to the universities so that young men could be taught not only flying and navigation, but all the necessary technical grounding while they are at university so that in that way the very valuable work done at universities could be preserved.
  I say all this quite seriously. I did not intend to say it seriously when I got to my feet, but it suddenly occurred to me that it was a good idea. [Laughter.]
  Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member's speech in order? It is going on and on over the same point and there is nothing about contributions from industry in the Vote. I raise this point of order only because I was pulled up very sharply and asked to confine myself to the subject.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend was discussing page 39 of the Estimates and the explanatory note referring to miscellaneous services. There is a reference to the expense of operating university air squadrons of which, like my hon. Friend, I have had experience, although my experience was probably much longer ago than his. My hon. Friend was explaining the desirability of maintaining these university air squadrons and how he hoped to ease the financial strain on the country by obtaining contributions from industry. With great deference, I submit that he was perfectly in order in dealing with getting financial assistance from industry and I suggest that he should be allowed to develop his argument.
  The Chairman (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): I was paying attention to the hon. Member's speech, and I thought that his remarks about the university air squadrons were in order. My only regret was that he did not tell us the word which he said he could not use here.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: We never have the liberty of language here that we had in the days when we were at the universities. That is perhaps the only unforunate feature of being a Member of the House.
  It may be that I began my speech in a spirit of flippancy, but the atmosphere of the House captivates anyone who speaks in it, and the result is that he finds that he really is striking a serious note. I am quite sincere about this matter.
  720
  This is an important point, and the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who raised the question whether I was in order, knows a great deal about the subject himself. There is a cut from £19,000 to £9,000 in respect of the so-called miscellaneous services, which cover the university air squadrons. Nobody will suggest that that sum will provide a decent service, but I am not going to suggest that the Royal Air Force can be expected to pay the required amount in modern conditions. Nevertheless, I feel that we are going through a rather difficult transition period at the and yet we do not want to get rid of all Forces, and the amount spent on them, moment. We are scaling down our the services which such a reduction entails.
  If we are going to agree to Votes of this kind we want an assurance that the Government are doing their best, through outside channels, to try to preserve this service, which will not be carried on the Vote. If that can be done we shall get the best of both worlds.
  As I was saying, if the great firms engaged in the industry, with which many hon. Members are associated—I do not refer to the National Coal Board—could make a specific contribution to enable the Vote to be increased it would enable us to preserve all the great traditions and prestige of these air squadrons.
  I speak with all due humility, because I was a specially unfortunate member of a university air squadron, and not a good flier, but the members of these air squadrons are some of the finest fliers, and in the past they have gone into other walks of life and made the greatest success of them. My recollection is what Whitney Straight himself started in that way, in a university air squadron, before going off to his present post.
  9.8 p.m.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I should like to say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend did not continue his career in the Royal Air Force. We probably missed a great deal in not having his services for a period of years.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: We are sorry that he did not continue his career of putting the weight.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: That is equally unfortunate.

  721
  I find the Explanatory Notes very confusing upon the subject of university air squadrons. I cannot think that the sum of £19,000 last year, and still less £9,000 this year, can cover the training of these university graduates. I should like to see more detail in the Explanatory Notes so that we may see what we are getting for our money.
  The Explanatory Notes talk about a small staff of 122 officers, 118 airmen and 62 civilians. I do not regard that as a small staff, and I imagine that the cost of it is not contained in the £9,000. I should like to know what we are getting out of the university air squadrons today. I am all for having them, but I should like to know how many graduates are being trained to fly and how many, upon leaving the universities, join the Regular Air Force—both in the general duties branch and on the technical side.
  Although we have had these squadrons for many years the Air Force has never been very successful in capturing a sufficient number of university graduates who feel that they can make the Service a life career. I wonder if something more can be done about it. I know that all the Services have to compete with industry in this respect, but if the money is being well spent I am sure that it is a good investment. I want to know what the £9,000 is being spent on. It cannot be on the running of the squadrons.
  I should like to refer to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which is mentioned in page 26 of the Estimates. We all remember what I think was the shabby deal given to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force when it was broken up about a year ago. Probably there was a reason for it. I think there might have been a case for a steady run-down of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I know that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the planning of the break-up, because he was not at the Air Ministry at the time. What happened was that the Royal Air Force had so many Regular officers that it would have been embarrassed by their numbers if the Royal Auxiliary Air Force had been maintained in any number at all; so its personnel was sacked practically overnight.
  I am concerned that in this year, 1958–59, we are spending £176,000, against £230,000 last year, on the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. It seems to me that we get little for our money. I know
  722
  that radar stations are manned. to some extent, by auxiliary personnel, but the number of other ranks has fallen and the number of officers has gone down very little—from 2,300 to 2,000. Does that mean that only 300 officers altogether were affected by the abolition of the actual flying squadrons? I should like to know more about that.
  Then there is the Royal Observer Corps. That is a part of the Royal Air Force which we never hear mentioned today. The Corps did a tremendously fine job during the war. Men who were too old for military service stood in the mountains and did their spotting, and so on. We are spending £1,000 less on these gentlemen than in the previous year. May we be told a little more about the Corps? I think that the country has a right to be informed.
  There is also the Royal Air Force Reserve. I should like to know, and I think the Committee is entitled to know, what we are getting from the Reserve. I wish to know how many hours these people fly in the course of a year and what type of aircraft they are flying. Are they performing duties which are really worth while? It was thought that the Auxiliary Air Force was not playing a worth while part flying fighter aircraft, yet we continue to train pilots in the Royal Air Force Reserve.
  I am a great believer in reserve and auxiliary forces, and if money is spent on that sort of thing, it is well spent. One always finds enthusiasm among men who give up their spare time to the service of their country. The Committee is entitled to know more about what these people are doing and what we are getting for the money which is being spent.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. de Freitas: In this Vote there is a reference to the reduced civil defence training of reservists and I wish to comment on it. What has happened recently has shown that there is more need for the training of reservists in civil defence. The point has been made forcibly by Questions which we have put several times to the Prime Minister and other Ministers about the need for the training of civil defence teams and fire brigades to deal with aircraft which may be carrying nuclear weapons if they should be involved in a crash or if the weapons should fall from the aircraft. In page 27 of the Estimates it states that there

  723
  is a decrease under Vote 2 and one of the reasons is the
  "…reduced civil defence training of reservists."
  From what we have been told we knew that, in an ordinary aircraft patrolling this country and carrying a hydrogen bomb, the primer was carried separately from the hydrogen bomb. We knew that the hydrogen bomb was not primed.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. We are discussing the item in page 2, "Reserve and Auxiliary Services". The hon. Gentleman is flying off at a most extraordinary tangent. He intervened in the debate, when several of my hon. Friends wanted to make contributions and—
  The Chairman: I can answer the point of order now. The relevant item is at the bottom of page 27:
  "…to reduced civil defence training of reservists".
  Mr. Dudley Williams: The hon. Gentleman was not discussing the training of reservists, but the manner in which the hydogen bomb was carried and in which part of the aeroplane it was carried.
  The Chairman: If he is out of order I will stop him.
  Mr. de Freitas: I hope the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) will read the document and study it. He will see that there is liability to call up reservists if the contingency that I was describing should occur. We knew that when the hydogen bomb was primed its safety depended upon there being no human error and no mechanical defect.
  Since the matter was raised on the Air Estimates on Monday, we have learned from the aircraft accident in South Carolina that even an unprimed hydrogen bomb can cause considerable damage because it incorporates a high-explosive trigger bomb. Civil defence must be trained to deal with it. That is why I am against what is in Vote 2.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. What has the air accident in South Carolina, and whether a bomb was carried in the aircraft, to do with training on the ground in this country.
  The Chairman: The point is that the hon. Gentleman cannot ask for more money for this service.
  Mr. de Freitas: I am not asking for more money, Sir Charles. I am showing the wickedness of reducing civil defence training of reservists. I am not asking for more. I am sure that is correct. The hon. Member who raised the point of order should address himself to the point that the bomb which fell was unprimed yet, such was its design—
  Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. Are we not discussing reservists in the Royal Air Force?
  The Chairman: I am in charge of the Committee, and we have very little time.
  Mr. de Freitas: The bomb was unprimed, yet such was its design that there was a T.N.T. explosion big enough to blow a crater of the size made by the conventional 1,000 lb. bomb. It seems that these hydrogen bombs contain conventional bombs which explode on impact with the ground. We have been told by the Government—I am sure they did not mean to mislead us—that aircraft were patrolling with hydrogen bombs that were not primed. What we were not told was that inside each hydrogen bomb there was the equivalent of a 1,000 lb. high explosive trigger bomb which could detonate on impact. That is what happened. Those are matters with which reservists should be trained to deal, because they are likely to face this danger. It is wrong that they should not have received adequate training.
  Apart from the direct damage done by such a H.E. explosion, there must be a considerably increased risk of damage to the casing of a hydrogen bomb if there is a substantial high-explosive explosion. If an aircraft crashed or a bomb fell we know there would be a possibility of radioactive material being released, because of a break in the casing. Since Monday we have learned that there is substantially more chance of the casing being cracked because there is danger through explosion as well as danger through impact, Secondly, in addition to the possibility of the release of radioactive material we have the probability or it may even be the certainty, of a conventional explosion equivalent to that of a 1,000 lb. bomb.
  That is most important when considering civil defence training. We have continually pressed the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State to train civil defence forces to deal

  725
  with this danger. I ask the Under-Secretary to note that our demand for the stopping of these patrols is not only the considered policy of our party, but has wide support from many millions outside. We ask the Government to do three things: first, to stop these hydrogen bomb patrols, second, to look at the design of our hydrogen bomb to see if it is defective—
  The Chairman: I have done my best for the hon. Gentleman but I cannot allow that point to be developed.
  Mr. de Freitas: I have one more sentence, Sir Charles, and it is in order. The third point is to train the civil defence teams and the fire services, in and out of the Armed Forces, to deal with accidents involving hydrogen bombs either stored or in transit. It is most important that should be done.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I will deal with the points raised on this Vote in the order in which they were raised. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on the way in which he got the university air squadrons into the discussion. It would, of course have been unfair to suggest that he was throwing his weight about—a weight, I can say without in any way insulting his figure, which is certainly not a 12 lb. one.
  The university air squadrons are doing a very worthwhile job. It is difficult to measure their value entirely in terms of recruits, but we do get some very valuable recruits. Until recently there was even one member of the Air Council who came into the Royal Air Force through a university air squadron. Obviously when we are examining our Votes, as we have to do most carefully, we must consider every facet of the question. The Inspector-General went round all the university air squadrons and discussed with the university authorities the merits of having the squadrons continuing. Every university said that they got a great deal of value out of these squadrons. They were a conspicuous feature of university life. After all, the object is to put before young people every possible opportunity; and these squadrons put before them the opportunities which exist in the Royal Air Force, and encouraged an interest in flying.
  726
  The question was asked, why had the Vote gone down? It has gone down for two reasons. First, this Vote does not include the cost of the aircraft and the servicing and the petrol, oil and lubricants, for example. It is a small residual Vote, and not the basic Vote or cost of the university air squadrons. It has also gone down because we have pruned the subsidiary parts of the university air squadrons. We have retained all 17 of the squadrons, but we have pruned the navigation training establishment which existed at Cambridge and we have pruned the C and R element at London, which was costing a great deal of money for a relatively small return. We have pruned these establishments because it was felt that we were perhaps over-generous in giving so much flying to those who were not really interested in joining the R.A.F. We have at the same time turned over to cheaper aircraft, we have gone to the Chipmunk, a lighter aircraft than the Harvard which previously was used by a number of the university air squadrons.
  We hope also that the university air squadrons will perform a valuable function in helping the amount of flying of the Air Training Corps. At the 17 university towns, we have the Chipmunks and the instructors available and we have the whole organisation for maintaining them. The natural thing to do is to link them with the local squadrons of the Air Training Corps and to give the corps the opportunity, particularly during vacations, of going to the airfields used by the university air squadrons and making use of the Chipmunks and all the facilities.
  I confess that in terms of actual numbers the recruiting output of these squadrons is small; but in terms of the prestige that the Air Force gets as a result of these squadrons, the reward is very great. I was at Cambridge last Friday—I apologise to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) for being at his university—when the University Air Squadron dinner was held. It was attended by 300 people, Lord Tedder was the guest of honour and it was quite clear that the squadron had tremendous support at the university. The previous week, I was at Oxford. The people there are a robust lot too, and they are good not only at putting the weight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked about

  727
  fighter control and radar reporting units, and he was quite right; we have had to prune them. Those which remain are, however, still doing a very worthwhile job.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the question of the Royal Observer Corps, to which insufficient publicity is given. In the past, the Corps has been responsible mainly for tracking low-flying aircraft. Now, it is responsible also for tracking the fall-out from nuclear explosions. This is an important job, and one which we could not possibly do without.
  My hon. Friend asked what was being done about the R.A.F. Reserve. It is not, perhaps, such a ready reserve as it was in my hon. Friend's day. Its members are not getting any flying experience to keep them up to date. Nevertheless, they are very valuable and in an emergency we could call upon them as we have done in the past.
  The university air squadrons are, in our opinion, tremendously valuable. They served us extremely well at the time of the Battle of Britain. I tried to join when I was up there, but having had a mastoid I was ruled out. There were many gallant and "gutful" people who came from them into the Auxiliary squadrons—Nos. 600 and 601 squadrons in London, for example—and who did a first-class job. In fact, the first German aircraft to be shot down was brought down by an Auxiliary pilot.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln on managing to get on to the subject of H-bombs and A-bombs in discussing this Vote. Apparently, the hon. Member thought that B.47 aircraft came under our Royal Air Force Vote. I do not think that the Committee stage of the Air Estimates is the best opportunity to make a statement of such a nature. I have been looking through the Order Paper and I find that a host of Questions—at least eight already—have been put down for next Tuesday, and there is still opportunity of putting down more, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Mr. de Freitas Mr. de Freitas rose—
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I finish? I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has it in mind to make a considered statement on this matter on Tuesday. I should have thought that it was the feeling of the House that a state-
  728
  ment coming from that source would be much more valuable and appropriate—and, of course, there will be more time to consider the statement—than anything that an Under-Secretary might say during the Committee stage.
  Mr. de Freitas: Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that on Tuesday the Prime Minister will not say that he considers it the sort of matter which should not be dealt with by question and answer?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take into account everything that the hon. Member has said, including his points about the 1,000 lb. charge and the bursting of the casing—
  It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Charles—
  The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot put a point of order now, I am afraid. I am bound by the Standing Order to carry on.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1.379,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 5,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Air Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all outstanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess:

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59
  That a sum, not exceeding £233,120,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,

  729
  1959, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

  £

  7.

  Aircraft and Stores

  196,800,000

  8.

  Works and Lands

  31,450,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  4,870,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  100

  £233,120,100

  Question put and agreed to.

  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10; be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1958, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  £

  £

  Vote

  1. Pay, &c., of the Air Force

  Cr. 90,000

  *- 50,000

  2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services

  Cr. 270,000

  *- 80,000

  3. Air Ministry

  420,000

  —

  4. Civilians at Out-stations

  1,890,000

  *- 710,000

  5. Movements

  Cr. 250,000

  1,340,000

  6. Supplies

  Cr. 690,000

  570,000

  7. Aircraft and Stores

  750,000

  1,250,000

  8. Works and Lands

  Cr.6,720,000

  *- 4,000,000

  10. Non-effective Services

  4,960,010

  —

  11. Additional Married Quarters

  —

  *- 500,000

  Total, Air (Supplementary) 1957–58 £

  10

  *- 2,180,000

  * Deficit.

  Question put and agreed to.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,317,167, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1958, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

  Civil Estimates

  Class I

  £

  1. House of Lords

  1,167

  2. House of Commons

  12,710

  730

  4. Treasury and Subordinate

  £

  Departments

  148,000

  6. Charity Commission.

  487

  7. Civil Service Commission

  23,040

  8. Exchequer and Audit Department

  8,000

  12. Government Hospitality

  8,500

  14. National Debt Office

  10

  16. Public Record Office

  10

  18. Royal Commissions, &c.

  6,500

  20. Silver

  425

  22. Miscellaneous Expenses

  10

  23. Scottish Home Department

  10

  24. Scottish Record Office

  10

  Class II

  1. Foreign Service

  10

  3. British Council

  75,000

  4. Commonwealth Relations Office

  138,000

  5. Commonwealth Services

  10

  7. Colonial Office

  86,641

  8. Colonial Services

  5,878,502

  Class III

  3. Police, England and Wales

  1,448,925

  4. Prisons, England and Wales

  664,000

  5. Child Care, England and Wales

  352,700

  7. Carlisle State Management District

  10

  8. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c

  185,512

  9. County Courts

  10

  16. Police, Scotland

  237,510

  17. Prisons, Scotland

  40,050

  19. Fire Services, Scotland

  9,000

  20. State Management Districts, Scotland

  10

  21. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

  10

  22. Department of the Registers of Scotland

  10

  23. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c. Northern Ireland

  5,581

  Class IV

  2. British Museum

  79,000

  3. British Museum (Natural History)

  14,932

  4. Imperial War Museum

  10

  5. London Museum

  1,700

  6. National Gallery

  16,390

  7. Tate Gallery

  3,834

  8. National Maritime Museum

  1,401

  9. National Portrait Gallery

  1,000

  10. Wallace Collection

  740

  12. Universities and Colleges &c, Great Britain

  1,700,000

  13. Broadcasting

  694,000

  Class V

  1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  10

  2. Housing, England and Wales

  10

  4. Ministry of Health

  405,150

  6. Medical Research Council

  95,000

  7. Registrar General's Office

  10,630

  9. War Damage Commission

  15,500

  12 Housing, Scotland

  204,800

  Class VI

  £

  1. Board of Trade

  420,000

  9. Ministry of Labour and National Service

  345,000

  10. Ministry of Supply

  8,350,000

  Class VII

  1. Ministry of Works

  150,000

  8. Rates on Government Property

  1,350,000

  9. Stationery and Printing

  10

  10. Central Office of Information

  60,000

  Class VIII

  5. Fishery Grants and Services

  195,010

  6. Surveys of Great Britain &c.

  189,000

  7. Office of Crown Estate Commissioners

  1,900

  Class IX

  1. Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation

  354,700

  3. Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

  264,000

  7. Atomic Energy

  10

  8. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  10

  Class X

  1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  850,000

  2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  200,400

  3. War Pensions, &c

  2,993,750

  4. National Insurance and Family Allowances

  6,575,000

  5. National Assistance Board Revenue Departments

  5,459,000

  1. Customs and Excise

  369,200

  3. Post Office (Revised sum)

  17,615,000

  £58,317,167

  Question put and agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
  Question put and agreed to.

  CIVIL (EXCESS), 1956–57
  That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant for National Assistance Board for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957.

  Class and Vote

  Excess of Expenditure over Estimate

  Appropriations in Aid

  Excess Vote

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s

  d

  Class X

  5. National Assistance Board.

  33,581

  3

  1

  33,571

  3

  1

  10

  0

  0

  Total, Civil (Excess)

  10

  0

  0

  Question put and agreed to.

  NAVY (EXCESSES), 1956–57
  That a sum, not exceeding £469,975 15s. 0d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957.

  SCHEDULE

  No. of Vote

  Navy Services, 1956–57 Vote

  DEFICITS

  SURPLUSES

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, &c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  —

  —

  1,027,815

  19

  10

  158,815

  13

  7

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  676,261

  5

  4

  —

  —

  478,677

  1

  5

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services

  8,049

  11

  6

  —

  —

  12,168

  19

  8

  4

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  28,511

  15

  3

  —

  —

  5,168

  4

  2

  5

  Educational Services

  —

  —

  45,875

  3

  8

  10,455

  0

  7

  6

  Scientific Services

  —

  —

  942,573

  17

  6

  24,991

  19

  5

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  —

  —

  38,376

  3

  5

  927

  3

  8

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c:

  Section I.—Personnel

  —

  168,125

  6

  8

  46,525

  9

  5

  —

  Section II.—Matériel

  802,479

  4

  11

  —

  —

  484,426

  18

  3

  Section III.—Contract Work

  1,143,861

  9

  8

  1,278,379

  13

  5

  —

  —

  9

  Naval Armaments

  —

  366,053

  17

  9

  512,657

  12

  7

  —

  10

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  —

  —

  268,901

  2

  3

  4,108

  15

  9

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  318,720

  14

  8

  63,666

  17

  11

  —

  12

  Admiralty Office

  —

  —

  38,115

  6

  1

  17,433

  4

  4

  13

  Non-Effective Services

  —

  —

  99,454

  16

  8

  54,277

  11

  7

  14

  Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair

  2,100

  16

  3

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Additional Married Quarters.

  9,037

  13

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

  3,807

  7

  8

  —

  —

  —

  2,674,109

  4

  3

  2,131,279

  12

  6

  3,083,962

  9

  4

  1,251,450

  12

  5

  Excess Vote

  —

  —

  469,975

  15

  0

  —

  2,674,109

  4

  3

  2,131,279

  12

  6

  3,553,938

  4

  4

  1,251,450

  12

  5

  £4,805,388 16 9

  £4,805,388 16 9

  Question put and agreed to.
  Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I go back to the point I was going to put a few moments ago? The procedure which has been followed on the Service Estimates this year is a procedure which I understand to be experimental. Some of us who would wish to take a great interest in the last of the Service Estimates which have been put before us have felt ourselves considerably restricted. We feel
  734
  that this year—it may not always be so in future—the Air Estimates have been of particular interest, but, as a result of the procedure we have followed, it has been virtually impossible to deal with more than two Votes out of a selected list of four or five.
  All I wish to place on record, as a point of order if I may, is the hope that reconsideration will be given to this matter in future so that we are not, on the back benches, restricted as we have been this year.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Further to that point of order—
  The Chairman: It is not a point of order. But I will see that note is taken of what the hon. and gallant Member has said. Did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) wish to raise the same point.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The same point, Sir Charles. If I may elaborate what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has said, we have had the three Services today commencing after Questions, and the Air Votes came on tonight at a quarter past eight.
  The Chairman: This is really not a point of order at all.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: May I as a back bencher put on record that we have had only one hour and a quarter to discuss the Air Votes, whereas the other two Services had almost double that time? It is surely right that the Air Force Votes should have had more than that.
  The Chairman: I can do nothing about that.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £469,985 15s. 0d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, the sum of £106,388,892 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, the sum of £1,855,920,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

SUGAR AND MOLASSES
9.39 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Distribution Payments and Repayments) (Revocation) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 223), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
It would probably be convenient if we could discuss at the same time the following three Prayers:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Distribution Payments and Repayments) (Revocation) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 224), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Suspension of Surcharge and Surcharge Repayments) (Revocation) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 225), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Rates of Surcharge and Surcharge Repayments) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 226), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
If necessary, perhaps we could vote upon them separately.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Certainly, let them be discussed together, and then we can have separate votes, if so desired, when the time comes.
Mr. Willey: Although these are separate Orders, they cover a single operation. The Sugar Board, which was created by the Sugar Act, 1956, was charged with the responsibility of selling at world prices the 11 million tons of Commonwealth sugar that we agreed to purchase at agreed prices.
First, I would like to make clear that we on this side of the House give every support to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. As we made clear during the discussions on the Sugar Bill, we think that one of the disadvantages of the present procedure is that it may lead to situations which make it more difficult to support the Agreement. We think that more simple machinery could have been

737
provided to support the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but the purpose of the present arrangements is to ensure that the Board recovers any loss upon the sale of sugar purchased under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement or distributes any profit by means of equalisation payment.
These Orders end the distribution payments that were being made. Because it was believed that the price of Commonwealth sugar would be below the world price, the Sugar Board provided for a distribution payment of a lb., and that has been enjoyed by the trade since July. The Board is now proposing a very drastic alteration of policy, and imposing a surchage of 1¼d. a lb. In other words, we are adding 1¾d. to the first-hand selling price of sugar. That is obviously a very serious matter for the Government, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised to hear that we have chosen to raise this matter tonight.
After all, sugar is an important item in the household budget, not only because it is a repeated and direct expenditure, but because the sugar price affects many other prices—for instance, confectionery prices. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps welcome the opportunity of a debate to seek to explain why there is this change of policy.
After the price increases which we criticised and which were imposed in December, 1956, and January, 1957, we have enjoyed reductions in the retail price of sugar. I believe—and I think that this will be conceded by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—that the debate that we held about twelve months ago was a factor in ensuring that we achieved those price reductions. I hope that the present debate will, at any rate, be a moderating factor in effecting any retail price increases.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I would like to think that our debates have this effect. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that our debate last year had an effect on world prices and brought them down?
Mr. Willey: No. It had an effect on domestic prices. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was in the unfortunate position of having to justify an untenable case. The Sugar Board made a mistake.
738
It began by imposing a surcharge in circumstances which ought to have led to a distribution payment. I will not turn to that point, but I am sure that the debate in the House in which we called attention to this matter had an effect upon the trade. This trade is very anxious not to upset public opinion.
Whether the present situation is avoidable or not, I am sure that the whole House regards it as unfortunate. Some misfortunes cannot be avoided, but at any rate the Parliamentary Secretary should not continue to be flippant but should regard it as a matter of importance that at this time of the year, when we are trying to hold prices steady, we have a threat, and in many instances already an imposition, of increased retail prices. This is a price increase which has a boomerang effect because it influences other prices.
How far is the present price increase unavoidable? I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in Standing Committee on the Sugar Bill we maintained—and I think we have been justified by subsequent events—that the Government were following a high price policy. We said that if this happened everyone along the line would play safe. I think it is quite clear what has happened about sugar.
I ask the House to consider whether the Sugar Board is right, in the light of its history. The Parliamentary Secretary's intervention reminded us of the initial mistake which the Sugar Board made when it began with a surcharge of one-eighth of a penny per lb.—a nominal surcharge, but nevertheless a surcharge. When we discussed these matters on a Prayer about twelve months ago the whole House recognised that instead of a surcharge there ought to have been a distribution payment, because at that time the Commonwealth price was below the world price.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not deny it on that occasion. I do not know whether he will deny it today. He then said that the Sugar Board must have about six months to think about these things. But it was a fact that the Sugar Board began with a surcharge when the circumstances demanded a distribution payment.
What did the Board do next? It waited until July, and in July it provided

739
for a distribution payment. What happened? Almost immediately after the Order providing for a distribution payment, the sugar market broke. World prices toppled, and they are still falling.
In those circumstances, we want some explanation of the Sugar Board's conduct. Everybody has recognised that for months the Sugar Board has been working at a loss. In those circumstances, as on the two previous occasions, the Sugar Board has patently been wrong. The Parliamentary Secretary ought surely to recognise that the burden is upon him to show that for a change the Board is right.
The action of the Board in now imposing this surcharge must be based on the Board's forecast of the future trend of world prices. I agree that the Cuban price is still falling and that the Commonwealth price has slightly increased, but I remind the House that the arguments which were put forward last time about the world price still obtain. It is true that there was reference to Suez. I do not want to make any reference to that.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: Why not?
Mr. Willey: I do not want to recall the effect of Suez upon world prices. The main argument then was the increased consumption of sugar in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that this trend has been arrested? This was the main reason then given for an increase in the world price of sugar. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has to agree that there is some burden upon him and the Government to tell us whether they accept the Sugar Board's forecast.
I would put this plainly to the Parliamentary Secretary. We foresaw all these difficulties when we discussed the Sugar Bill. We said that we wanted on the Sugar Board people of commercial experience. We said that if such forecasts were to be made we should have people well qualified by experience to undertake the job. We were told by the Chancellor that all we wanted was an accountancy body. Accountants have some qualities, but I do not think this is purely an accountancy question and the Government should have accepted our advice.
740
In the light of the experience over the past year or so the Parliamentary Secretary has an obligation to tell the House upon what factors the present estimate is based. Incidentally, I hope he will tell the House why on the two previous occasions the Sugar Board was wrong. I hope he will tell us, too, something about the finances of the Sugar Board and how its reserves have been over the time it has been operated. I know there is no inducement to the Board to make profits because it is a non-profit making body. Yet I was surprised to learn that it is subject to Income Tax and Profits Tax. That is an anomaly we should put right. The general duty of the Board is to balance one year with another, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to tell us how things have worked out over the past twelve months.
The major concern we share here is about the effect this will have on the retail price. I have already noticed that in some parts of the country there have been increases already in the retail price. I know, on the other hand, that there are some admirable concerns which so far have held the retail price. We want to know when the Parliamentary Secretary thinks, if a price increase is justified, it would be justifiable to imposed that increase.
This is an industry which carries considerable stocks. We know the temptation there is to make profit on stocks. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reveal to us, because the facts are all known to him, what the stock position has been so that there will not be any undue profiteering in such a situation. If there is to be a price increase, as there has been in some parts of the country, how much is it to be? We are discussing tonight an equalisation payment. I was horrified to get the impression from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time today that he expects a price increase of 1¾d. I hope that impression was wrong, because we are discussing here an equalisation payment and it would be a ludicrous position if we had a retail price increase of 1¾d. when the world price of sugar has fallen.
Mr. Mellish: But is not it a fact that today the Minister said there was an increase of this character?
Mr. Willey: It is clear that the Parliamentary Secretary will not rise to this. I expect he is thinking how he can explain his right hon. Friend's statement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that was the impression created by the Minister in the House. If he wishes to correct that impression I will give way, and I invite him to do so.
Mr. Mellish: Answer.
Mr. Willey: I gather from his silence that the lion. Gentleman agrees that this impression was created in the House.
Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Minister mentioned a specific sum of money? It is within the recollection of myself and my hon. Friends that the right hon. Gentleman said 1¾d.
Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary is unusually coy. It would be a ludicrous position for us to find ourselves in if, because there is a drastic fall in world prices, we should have to pay more for sugar. This is a difficult calculation. I have been trying for a year or so to find out the different prices of world sugar and the sugar produced by the British Sugar Corporation, from the Commonwealth. I can only assure the House, and this is a great tribute to the Corporation, that British Sugar Corporation sugar is not the most expensive sugar we buy. If we bought British Sugar Corporation sugar and sugar at the world rate, we should contain the retail price within the present figure.
The Parliamentary Secretary has a special responsibility—his hon. Friends may not know; they may not have followed our proceedings on the Sugar Bill—because this present Government sought power and now have the power to control the margins of the refineries. That will probably surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite who stump the country talking about controls. The present Government sought these powers and obtained them. They have the power to ensure that the refiners' margins are reasonable. They have 'the power to intervene and to control them.
That put a duty four-square on the shoulders of the Government. If we are battling against inflation, if we want to avoid a price increase, as I am sure we all do, the Parliamentary Secretary must, first of all, discharge his responsibility to the House and tell us why this action
742
has led, in some instances, to a retail price increase. If he believes that there must be a retail price increase, he must tell us what he thinks is a proper and reasonable price increase, and he must not evade his responsibility.
If we are to stand together and battle against inflation, the Parliamentary Secretary, if necessary, has to intervene. He has to use the powers which his Government sought and obtained in 1956. He has to ensure that the sugar refiners and the people in the sugar trade make their contribution to holding the price. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, before we finish this debate, will discharge these two burdens.
Sir James Duncan: What about the farmers?
Mr. Willey: I am not inviting the Parliamentary Secretary to say anything about the farmers. He will do that later, and it will be very bad news for the farmers; but I think that is outside the Motion we are discussing.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, first, why he is allowing an increase in the retail price of sugar, and, secondly, whether he is to take steps, which Parliament allows him to do under the powers given in 1956, to see, if increases are allowed, that they are kept to a minimum. Will he use the powers we gave him in the Sugar Act, 1956?
9.58 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Oram: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, having special regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I do not propose to argue the merits or demerits of the surcharge, nor to deal to any great extent with the question of sugar prices. I ask the House to look at these Orders from the point of view of public accountability. It seems most important to me, when we are considering the operations of a commerical board such as the Sugar Board—even if it has quite limited powers so far as trading goes, but, nevertheless, whose operations have an effect upon the consumer price—that the consumer should have available as full a statement of the facts of the position as is possible.

743
My hon. Friend has explained that this question of sugar is a most complex business indeed. It was made very much more complex, in our judgment, by the setting up of the Sugar Board itself. We complained at the time that, from the point of view of complexity alone, it was not a helpful process from the consumer's point of view.
In Committee on the Sugar Bill, my hon. Friends and I tried to insert provisions for consumer safeguards, but we were unsuccessful, so that the present position is that it is only this House which can act in these matters as the consumers' watchdog. It is therefore important that we should have the fullest information upon which to pass the judgments which we are asked to make.
With these Orders, the very reverse appears to be happening. The Annual Report of the Sugar Board has not yet been published, although the Board has been in operation for nearly fifteen months and it is therefore time that we had a report of the operations of the Board for at least the first twelve months of its existence. I can imagine that there may be some reason for the delay—audits and so on—but even if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some good reason, there is another matter which is most important. Why has it been necessary to make these Orders and why has it been necessary to introduce them before the Report of the Board has appeared?
In one of the Orders, we are asked to approve the rates of surcharge on sugar and molasses. Section 7 (6, b) of the Sugar Act, 1956, says that the rates of surcharge must have regard to the financial position and prospects of the Board at the time when an Order is made. This evening we are asked to approve rates of surcharge having regard to the financial position and prospects of the Board, although we know absolutely nothing about them. How can we know if the Report has not been published?
If there is some good reason why it has not been published, why was it not possible to delay the introduction of the Orders until after the Report had appeared? We are asked to pass judgment although we cannot exercise our proper duties unless we have the fullest information. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say something about this important matter of the Board's Report and to let
744
us know when we can expect to have it and when we can expect to have that information upon which alone we can properly judge the matters which we are called upon to consider tonight.
I ask him, above all, to bear in mind in future that the timetable of these things ought to have regard to our responsibilities in the House, and that we ought to have the fullest possible information at the right time before we are asked to decide upon Orders such as this.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: We have just heard the authentic voice of the Cooperative Union speaking. My hon. Friend has just argued for the consumers. The Minister has a heavy load to bear tonight. He must justify these Orders, because he has issued them in a somewhat topsy-turvy world. We have been given no figures, but we have a strong suspicion that in Cuba and many other sugar-producing areas sugar prices are falling. Yet at home my wife, and the wives of other hon. Members will be going into the shops in the near future and paying more for sugar.
The Minister has a job on his plate tonight. The situation seems to be completely crazy. I spent forty long and weary hours together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in Committee upstairs on the Sugar Bill. The conditions which are now coming to pass are fulfilling the worst forebodings that we expressed in Committee. We thought that this situation would arise because of the weird and wonderful mechanism involved in this accounting board which has been set up to stabilise the situation.
I should like the Minister to let us know what is happening in the world's market, especially in regard to Cuban sugar—never mind that of Mauritius, Barbados or Fiji. Why, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), did the Minister say that in his' view the price of sugar would go up by 1¾d. per lb.—which will possibly mean 2d. if and when it comes to pass? It will give us some of the dearest sugar in Western Europe. It will be dearer than the sugar of the Netherlands, or Belgium, and other Western European countries who subsidise their own sugar beet industries.

745
Although I am conversant with the Measure, I am not too sure about such mystical terms as "surcharge" and "drawback". The Bill, which was passed against our wishes in 1956, was an ideological monstrosity. It was forced upon us by the ideological prejudices of the Government. It was given birth to very hastily, although, during its passage through the House, we forced the Minister to put in some judicious and sensible Amendments. If we had not, the position would have been worse than it is.
I hasten to add that no one on this side of the House is antagonistic towards a Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We have a duty to fulfil to these overseas people, and although we shudder at the impost which is to be placed upon our wives when they go shopping we nevertheless agree that we should subsidise or underpin the sugar producers in these islands of the Empire—or, as we prefer to call it, the Commonwealth—and our overseas dependencies. Luckily the Colonies do not suffer, but if the Government had had their way and had not been held back in their purposes by the fact that they had to subsidise the sugar beet industry, we should have seen Commonwealth sugar producers ruined, as producers of copper, cocoa and palm oil have been, instead of being buttressed by bulk purchases in the years after the war, in the Attlee Governments of 1945–50, and 1951. It is vital, whether or not there be a Sugar Board, that the producers overseas should be helped. But we think that should be done in a much better way and we deplore these annual vacillations, ups-and-downs and ins-and-outs of prices.
We think it wrong that this sort of thing should go on. Very soon we on these benches will be the Government, and then we shall be able to do something about it instead of just talking in sorrowful terms as we are tonight. We are not even speaking in anger, because there is not much we can do about it now and there is not much point in being angry. But soon we shall occupy the benches opposite, and then we may be able to do something to remedy this state of affairs. The Government, while they are maintaining stability for the producer, are not playing the game by the consumers in this country. This is a crazy situation where the world price of
746
sugar is falling while we are expected to pay more. I hope the Minister will tell us the price of sugar in the world markets. I think we were paying about £42 a ton last year and it has fallen to £31, but I am not sure of the figures. I hope the Minister will tell us what is the position.
We have discussed the Sugar Board, which is an accounting agency. One could wish that it had more members with experience of the industry. If we had to have a Board we ought to have had a much more efficient one than the present Board. That is my opinion, after spending so long in the Standing Committee discussions on this subject less than two years ago. One does not wish to be a prophet of woe and say, "I told you so", but it is a sad thing that the consumer in this country is expected to pay more when we feel that he should not have to bear that burden. The amount of money needed to hold the price of sugar should come out of the annual tax. We should be subsidising this and have bulk purchase, and not expect the individual purchaser to pay 2d. a lb. more for sugar.
The present dilemma of the Government is that they wish to play the game by the overseas sugar producers, but their conduct towards the purchaser at home is most unsatisfactory. We hope that the Minister can tell us tonight why this sort of topsy-turvy and inexplicable situation prevails.
10.14 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). We do indeed live in a crazy world where the world price of sugar is falling but the price to the consumer in this country is going up. We are not sure by how much it will be increased and I think the Parliamentary Secretary was remiss in not answering my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who asked whether the price was going up. That information would have helped us in our discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to say something now.
Mr. Godber: I wish to put this matter in the right perspective, and I think it will be more helpful if I say everything in one speech.
Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman sounds like "Father Christmas"—as though there were a great crowd waiting for him. But all we want to know is whether our understanding of what was said by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today is right or wrong. Will the price go up or down? The hon. Gentleman need only say "Yes" or "No" but apparently he prefers to wait until the great oration which he is to deliver at any minute now. We want to know whether the price will go up in the shops.
Mr. J. Johnson: Is not the Minister being a little harsh to his colleagues on the benches behind him? If he came clean on this matter it would save the time of the House in debate, we should get to bed earlier, and his hon. Friends would feel much happier that he had shortened the debate in this way.
Mr. Mellish: It would be very difficult to make Government supporters really happy in these days. They have had to go one by one to interview their Chief Whip for being absent last night and we shall have the Kelvingrove result declared about midnight. That is enough to make them feel miserable.
Mr. Denis Howell: Would not my hon. Friends agree that the most depressing feature for the Government supporters is that they still have the present Foreign Secretary?
Mr. James Stuart: On a point of order. Are we not discussing sugar?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. Hon. Members should discuss sugar and not all these other things.
Mr. Mellish: If the right hon. Gentleman wants sugar, we shall soon get back to it. We were told that the increase in price would be very small, and the effect on the cost of living something about which we need not bother very much because it would not have much effect. We have often heard a similar argument from the Government when increases went on. We heard it in connection with the National Health Service Contributions Bill last week, when we were told that the increase was "only 6d.," that nobody would bother about
748
it, and anybody could pay 6d. It is, nevertheless, part of the inflationary spiral. We have yet to find a very good reason why we should put up the price of commodities like chocolates and sweets.
The ex-Secretary of State for Scotland said a moment ago that he wanted sugar. He is going to get it. On the Second Reading of the Sugar Bill, which created the corporation which is dealing with this matter—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be out of order in a moment. He cannot discuss the Act.
Mr. Mellish: I was about to refer to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 10th November, 1955, when the Sugar Bill was having its Second Reading. My hon. Friend said:
"The price is determined by the Commonwealth Agreement. As he has explained, it is prohibited from handling the sugar unless the right hon. Gentleman so directs."
My hon. Friend went on to say:
"As the right hon. Gentleman explained, it makes no difference to the internal market. As the White Paper says:
'The internal market for sugar in the United Kingdom forms a unified price system.'…
and so it will remain if this Bill becomes an Act. That is why the right hon. Gentleman has had to seek price control powers under Clause 27. But, to avoid the subsidy, we have to have very complex and complicated administrative arrangements to make sure that we take back from the traders and refiners the difference of price between the price at which they sold the sugar, the world price determined under the Clause to which I have referred, and the Commonwealth price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2035.]
All this complicated structure brought in by the Measure which my party opposed and voted against on Second Reading has resulted in just the sort of situation envisaged by my hon. Friend. I am glad that the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland is still present because—
Mr. Godber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Last year, when we discussed a similar order, I had one or two good quotations I wanted to make from speeches of hon. Members opposite but I was ruled out of order, although the Order was similar to the one we are now discussing.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule is quite simple. We are dealing only with the Orders before us and to go back on to the history of the Act is going too far.
Mr. Mellish: I will, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we are praying against certain machinery which was brought into existence by this Government and against which we protested at the time. Some of the predictions made by my hon. Friends at that time are now being realised. I will quote a final statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley):
"We believe the Bill strengthens the position of the merchant without any advantage to the consumer. Indeed, the consumer will be worse off. This is a further step by the Government towards restoring liberty of action to the merchants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2086.]
My right hon. Friend went on to condemn that Bill. All those predictions of my hon. Friends have now come to pass. We do not know for certain how much this will cost, but I should have thought that at least one hon. Member opposite would have questioned his party. I suppose the chastening hon. Members opposite have had from the Chief Whip has put a damper on them, but now so many hon. Members opposite are no longer members of that party and they have full licence to criticise the Front Government Bench. If the original proposals of the Labour Party for the nationalisation of sugar had been achieved we would not be in this position. Tate and Lyle's and all they stand for have to be sustained. That is an indication of how right we were and how wrong were the Government.
10.22 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): We have heard interesting comments from hon. Members opposite and I shall endeavour to deal with the points they have raised as briefly as I can. I thought the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was a little ungracious to his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) when he spoke of the way in which he spent "many weary hours" with him in Committee. I have been spending many happy hours in Committee with the hon. Member recently. I
750
think that is a much kinder way of putting it.
Mr. J. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that because of the physical juxtaposition of seats in the Standing Committee upstairs I was facing the Government benches all the time.
Mr. Godber: I thought it was his hon. Friend whom the hon. Member was unhappy about. I shall not carry that further because I have no wish to embarrass hon. Members in any way.
I shall seek to deal with the interesting points put forward and shall certainly deal with the point raised in relation to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, but as I said in my intervention I should like to do that in the proper place in my speech. It is an important matter and should be put in its proper perspective.
The Order we are discussing is one of five rather complicated Orders which have to be considered together, but separate Orders are necessary as the exercise of what are in law quite separately delegated powers in a single instrument. I am advised would be open to legal objections. That is why we have this bunch of Orders before us.
The effect of the Orders taken collectively is that they bring to an end the distribution payment of ½d. per lb. which has been in force since 15th July last year and they introduce a surcharge equivalent to 1¼d. per lb. That is the point that my right hon. Friend was seeking to make this afternoon in reply to a Question, when he said that the maximum effect would be 1¾d. He did not say that there would be a further rise of 1¾d. He said that the maximum effect would be 1¾d. That is the way in which the situation must be seen in relation to the effect of the Orders.
It is also true that, during the preceding months, sugar had been at an artificially low price because the distribution payment was in force. While, therefore, the price may have been raised since the Orders came into effect, it was, in fact, below the price that it must have been otherwise before that period. Therefore, although the housewives are having to pay a little more now, they were gaining at that time.
I have been looking at prices and I notice that last year, when we discussed

751
this matter, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North was critical about the price that the housewife was then paying and he compared it with the price when the Labour Government were in office. During recent months, in fact, the price has been little higher than it was in 1951—the price for which the hon. Member last year took credit—in spite of the considerable increase in the cost of all trading transactions since 1951. One can, therefore, say that the position is much better now than it was this time twelve months ago.
Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman appears to be on a point of some importance—the question of how far the Government and the Sugar Board dictate policy. I conceded that there had been price reductions during the last twelve months. Now, however, the price is running up again and shortly it will be above what it was twelve months ago. These, surely, are matters of policy when we are trying to avoid increased costs of living. Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he is sorry but he cannot do anything about this and that the Sugar Board, when it pleases, against the market, can hold prices; and that now, at this critical moment, when the Prime Minister declares that he is desperately trying to hold prices stable, the Sugar Board upsets the apple cart by saying that it is putting up the price now because it made a mistake over the past twelve months? This upsets the present delicate equilibrium.
Mr. Godber: I propose to deal with the reasons why this has happened in this way, but I wanted first to bring the matter down to reality in relation to present prices. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North has just said that the price is going up and is likely to reach the levels of a year ago. There is no likelihood of that whatever. The prices of a year ago were considerably higher.
Mr. Willey: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the prices given in the Grocer this week of 8½d. to 9d.?
Mr. Godber: The prices that the hon. Member is now quoting, of course, include the increases which already have taken effect with the surcharge reimposition. Certainly, no additional increase in price is anticipated, although as the
752
stocks work out some of the prices quoted are, presumably, those of new stock. Plenty of sugar is, however, being bought, I would say, below the price quoted by the hon. Member as stocks are being worked out. I imagine that the price quoted by the hon. Member is the peak price—
Mr. J. Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Godber: I have given way on several occasions.
Mr. Johnson: This is important. Forgetting all the technical terms in the Orders, will the hon. Gentleman explain in simple language, so that the housewife can understand, why at this moment, when the price of sugar in world markets is falling, we are faced, in the hon. Gentleman's own words, with a possible 1¾d. per lb. increase in the price?
Mr. Godber: It is not an increase of 1¾d. per lb. over the prices that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has just quoted. I am saying that it is a possible 1¾d. increase over the price operating before the surcharge was imposed.
Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson rose—
Mr. Godber: I should be glad if the hon. Member would be patient for a moment, because I want to put the matter in proper perspective.
The policy about which I have been talking, and of which these Orders are an instance, is embodied in the Sugar Act. Briefly, the objects were to bring to an end State trading in sugar and to give the sugar and sugar-using trades the greatest possible freedom compatible with the discharge of the Government's obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the agricultural guarantees. That, of course, is where we part company with the hon. Member for Rugby.
That policy has now been in force for about fifteen months and has, as I hope to show, proved both practical and beneficial over the whole field. The arrangements set up under the Act are certainly practical because the Sugar Board has from the outset successfully carried out, in a manner which has earned the cooperation and respect of the sugar trade, the considerable task of buying about 1½ million tons of Commonwealth sugar each year at the negotiated price and selling it at the world market price. This

753
is the means by which the price guarantees to Commonwealth producers are implemented, and the profit or loss on these and corresponding transactions on home-produced sugar is the major factor in determining whether there shall be a surcharge or a distribution payment, and at what rate, since the Board must balance its accounts taking one year with another.
I was asked a number of questions about the Board's accounts. I should point out that, in fact, owing to the exceptional conditions of the first year of operation of the Board, my right hon. Friend made an Order on 24th July last year in accordance with Section 35 (3) of the Sugar Act which extended the term of the Board's first financial year to 30th June, 1958. The Board's first Report and Audited Accounts will accordingly be presented as soon as possible after that date, but I am not yet in the position to give the precise date. That deals with the point about the publication of accounts.
Although the first of the Board's operations coincided with quite exceptional movements in the world market price, from well below the guaranteed price to well above it and back again, this has not prevented the smooth movement of supplies, and the necessary moves from surcharge to distribution payment and back again have been made in good order. Arrangements made under the Act have thus proved capable, although exceptionally difficult trading conditions were encountered at the outset, of achieving their main purpose of allowing the sugar market to function freely whilst fulfilling the price guarantees to home and Commonwealth sugar producers.
The Government's policy has also proved right from the point of view of the consumer, the trade, and the Government and the economy generally. The freeing of the sugar market has undoubtedly benefited the consumer. Consumption increased slightly in 1957 to about 2,620,000 tons, and supplies under free trading have amply covered steadily rising consumption and changes in stock levels, despite the temporary and exceptional shortage of world supplies in the first half of 1957.
Of course, it was those shortages in world supplies which really caused the undoubted difficulties last year, not only
754
in this country but throughout the world, in relation to sugar, and caused us to go from surcharge to distribution payment, which was something that had not been envisaged by anyone as being the least likely at the time the Sugar Act was passed. It was an acute shortage and it was due not so much, I think, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said this evening, to increased consumption, but due, as I said on the last Prayer we had on the subject, to world climatic conditions. I said we had had difficulty with the sugar crop in Europe and Cuba, and the crop generally had been affected by drought. Those were the real reasons for the shortage.
Turning from supplies to prices, the consumer is still, despite inflation, despite an increase in the guaranteed price of both home-produced and Commonwealth sugar, and after making full allowance for the effect of the amount of the recent surcharge, paying no more, indeed rather less, for sugar than before the present Act came into operation on 1st January, 1957.
The last retail price quoted by the Grocer on 8th March, 1958, was from 1s. 3½d. to 1s. 5½d. per 2 lb. packet granulated, as against a firm quotation of 1s. 5½d. at the end of 1956. So that the price is marginally lower at present. It is true that the retail price rose above 1s. 5½d. in 1957. That was for the special reasons which I have explained. World prices have now fallen back to about their earlier level.
I was asked particularly about the level of world prices. The free world price at the present time, I am told, is about £30 15s. a ton c.i.f. London, or, to quote it in the manner in which it is normally quoted, 3.40 cents per lb. f.a.s. Cuba. The Commonwealth price about which I was asked is somewhat higher than that. The present price is £43 16s. 8d. a ton which is an increase over last year of about 33s. 4d. As I say, world prices have fallen back to the levels at which they stood steadily for three or four years up till last year.
The present arrangements ensure that, because the domestic price reflects the world price, plus or minus the surcharge or distribution payment, which broadly represents the difference between the market price and the guaranteed prices,

755
the consumer pays on average over a period the true cost of the sugar consumed, Undoubtedly there is a delayed effect in the operation of the Sugar Act, and that is a point that is worrying hon. Members opposite, in that it takes time to change from one to another, from surcharge to distribution payment and back again; but in fact, the housewife gets the benefit, either before or after. At present she will have to pay more because she was getting it at an artificially cheaper price previously. That is one of the difficulties in the present situation particularly when a change has to be made from the distribution payment to surcharge.
I mentioned a few moments ago that when we first passed this Act it was not thought that the distribution payment would be material at all.
Mr. J. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the price will be going up by 1¼d or perhaps 1½d, or even 1¾d. a lb.? Is he saying that, within a few months, we shall be over the hump and we may be paying 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d.? Is that the argument?
Mr. Godber: I am not going to commit myself to future prices because they depend entirely on world prices. All I am saying is that where the Sugar Board has to operate in this way it has to take account of the world price. It is buying Commonwealth and home-produced sugar. It is averaging those prices out because it has got to pay the subsidy to the Commonwealth and home producers and it has to put that charge on top of the world price in order to arrive at the price which the housewife pays. It is a complicated system, but that is how it works out. It is related directly to the world price.
Mr. Mellish: I never realised when I put a spoonful of sugar into a cup of tea how much complication was involved in arriving at the price.
Mr. Godber: I hope the hon. Member gets added sweetness from it, now that he knows the explanation. I admit that these arrangements are complicated, but I am trying to explain them to the House.
These arrangements have achieved the other objectives in the White Paper on Future Arrangements for the Marketing
756
of Sugar and embodied in the Sugar Act. Because the consumer pays on average the true cost of the sugar consumed, no burden of subsidy falls on the Exchequer. Neither can the Exchequer make a profit out of the consumer via State trading. The sugar and sugar-using industries have been given the maximum freedom compatible with the Government's guarantee obligations, and useful hedging facilities of the London terminal market have been re-established. We should not minimise that fact, because it has a useful effect and its attracts a certain amount of trade to this country.
From the dockside in the exporting countries and the sugar beet fields at home, to the retail grocery or confectionery shop, our sugar supplies are now handled by sugar experts—and that, I think, takes up the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, though, as he says, the Board is the accountant—
Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to say something about the financial position of the Board? I ask, because I should like to know that, if it is the accountant, its steps are purely accountancy steps. As I have said, there is some suspicion that there may have been political motives in holding the price too long, and so on. Will he assure us that the Board was in a position, financially, to continue the distribution payment for the length of time it did?
Mr. Godber: It was done on financial grounds. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it certainly was not on political grounds. It is purely an accountancy matter.
In addition, there is the consideration that the Board has to pay tax on any profits, and so would, naturally, not wish to show a profit. If it did, then, clearly, the housewife would suffer from the tax paid on the profit. It is rather an odd situation, I agree, but that is the ruling. For that reason the Board has particularly not wished to show a profit. I cannot give figures for the Board's accounts, but when they are published the hon. Gentleman will, obviously, have the opportunity of seeing them. The Board dealt with that matter solely on that basis.
The sugar is in the hands of experts, who understand their subject and who are exercising commercial judgment, and

757
that, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, is certainly better than having a Government Department trading in sugar. A Government Department, or its political heads, might have an eye on politics in taking their decisions. There can be no doubt which is the more efficient of these two methods of getting our sugar, particularly where, as in this case, there are effective safeguards against excessive profits. The Sugar Board takes, and passes to the consumer, any margin between the world price and the guaranteed prices, which cover between 85 and 90 per cent. of our supplies.
The margin allowed to refiners to cover the cost of conversion from raw to refined sugar is controlled, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North well knows, by an undertaking given by Tate & Lyle to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1956, and the results of the operation of the undertaking are verified by a professional firm of accountants and auditors. Periodic reviews of the operation will be made, to ensure that that undertaking has not ceased to be satisfactory to the Government, or has proved onerous to the refiners. There is no indication, so far, that the undertaking has failed to protect the consumer, or has been unduly generous to refiners. The margin for the distribution from refinery to the retail sale is limited by competition, and there are no signs that the housewife, or the commercial user, is being overcharged.
For these reasons, I must ask the House to resist these Prayers, because, obviously, if the Orders were not passed it would make chaos of the whole operation of this somewhat elaborate arrangement. I have tried to explain its elaborateness to hon. Members. It is one of the most complicated things with which, I think, any of us have had to deal, but it is functioning—and it is functioning well. It has, as I have said, a somewhat delayed effect, but it does ensure that the housewife gets the sugar at the price it costs to produce, having in mind that we are not paying a subsidy through the taxpayer; and that the housewife herself is paying the full cost of the sugar.
She is paying, and she has to pay for it in one way if not in another—either she or her husband. The hon. Member for Rugby said that it was, of course,
758
very right and proper that we should support the Commonwealth in this field. If we are to do that, the sugar has to be paid for in some way, and we think that this averaging of prices is the best and most effective way of doing that—
Mr. J. Johnson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that Income Tax is the fairest, by any yardstick, of all forms of taxation? Is it not fairer to have Income Tax providing the bulk of the moneys to support the nation, so to speak, rather than to take the money from the housewife, who may have to look after a large family on a low income? Is not public taxation of that kind better?
Mr. Godber: If we were to enter into a dissertation on the relative merits or demerits of Income Tax, we should be here for a very long time. I do not accept that it is unreasonable that the payments should be made in this way. I have pointed out that, after all, the present price is very little different from what it was before the Sugar Act came into force. It seems to have been done efficiently, effectively and economically. Indeed, I was not aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite were now in favour of general consumer food subsidies, after the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on television a little while ago. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Rugby should take that point.
I have tried to explain the particular position in relation to these Orders and I hope that, with the information I have given, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North may feel inclined to withdraw his Prayer.
10.46 p.m.
Mr. Denis Howell: One thing is crystal-clear from the speech we have heard and from the mass of complexities of this matter, and that is the housewives of the country are to pay more for their sugar.
Mr. Godber: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive my interruption, I feel that I must reject that at once.
Mr. Mellish: Why did not the hon. Gentleman reject it earlier?
Mr. Godber: I tried to explain it at an earlier stage, and I said that, in fact, the maximum effect which may happen is the 1¾d., but that is not an increase on

759
today's price; that was an increase on the price which was quoted before the surcharge came into being. It has already come into effect, and it is quite wrong now to mislead the housewife by saying that the price will increase.
Mr. Willey: May I mention by way of an aside that there are concerns which have not yet increased their price of sugar? They have held the price. Those concerns are going to increase their price by 1¾d.
Mr. Godber: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman himself quoted a current price of 8d. per pound, and I was concerned that a report did not go out from the House that there was an intention to have an additional increase over that.
Mr. Howell: I return to the point I made, which is a very substantial one, that many housewives will now have to pay more for their sugar, and those who are not now to be asked to pay an increased price are, in fact, already paying more than the world price of sugar justifies today. In other words, the housewives are at the wrong end of the stick, whatever happens.
The Minister told us—taking a good deal of time about it—that the housewife ought to be jolly pleased that she has to pay only 1¾d. extra because, for a long time, she has had the benefit of ½d distribution payment. This is "Alice in Wonderland" economics and political dialectic. One can imagine what would have happened in the halcyon days of the Housewives' League, if a Labour Government had propounded such theories. Those of us who were connected with politics in those days remember the ¼d. on bacon which was enough to induce thousands of fur-coated housewives to come to the Lobbies of the House and complain about the failure of the Government to hold the cost of living stable.
This touches on the fundamental plea we have had from the Government and from the Prime Minister, about holding the cost of living steady. We are entitled to ask the Minister and the Government how the effect of what they are putting to the House tonight comes into line with the Prime Minister's famous plateau, for instance. What about his further injunction to industrialists that, where world commodity prices are fall-
760
ing, the fall should be allowed to pass through to the consumer? Here is a first-class example of an occasion when the Government themselves are in a position to regulate the price of sugar to the housewife, at a time when commodity prices are falling, yet they are completely unable to do so.
Mr. Godber: Let us get this straight. The price the housewife is paying today and will be paying tomorrow is lower than that which she was paying this time last year. That is very relevant.
Mr. Howell: That is a very relevant factor in the argument I am making, which is that in the island economy of this nation, based as it is on importing large amounts of raw materials and foodstuffs, when the world prices of those raw materials and foodstuffs are substantially falling, the value of the fall is not being passed on to the consumers in this country. I think that that is a perfectly valid point to make.
What the hon. Gentleman has just said may be true, that the price is fractionally lower—"fractionally" was the word which, I think, he used in his original reply—today than last year; but he cannot escape from the main fact, that if it were related to the actual price in the world, in the way the Prime Minister has persistently asked manufacturers and traders in this country to relate their prices to world prices, the housewife would be getting the advantages of a stabilised economy and paying far less than she has been so far.
I certainly think we are entitled to express our disgust at the position at this time, when the trade union movement is being asked to refrain from seeking wage increases, when we have the Cohen Committee set up and propounding the theory that even where production is increased wages ought not to follow suit, and even that there might be a need for an even greater degree of unemployment than we have at the moment, and when there is this organised and co-ordinated attack on the organised workers of this country. Sugar is one of our basic food commodities, which affects so many things, confectionery and other foodstuffs. It is a very serious matter indeed and one about which we ought to protest most vigorously.
Of course, there is another side to the question, and it was set out by my hon.

761
Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), and we subscribe to it. That is the need to bulk buy sugar to preserve the economy of the Commonwealth. It may be thought by some hon. Members opposite that we on this side are in a dilemma because we are arguing, on the one hand, that the housewife should get the benefit of a drop in the world price of sugar, and, on the other, that the Commonwealth should be sustained against these fluctuations in prices. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) thinks this is a contradiction. It is a contradiction in the terms of capitalist economies; it is a contradiction in the terms of the economics of the Conservative Party. It is thought we cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me which market dominates the world price?
Mr. Howell: The Cuban market, of course.
Our argument is for the bulk purchase of sugar. The hon. Member leads me on—
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is now traversing the provisions of the Act, which are not in issue on these Prayers—the provisions of an Act of Parliament to which the House has agreed.
Mr. Howell: I was only following the line the Minister himself followed, Mr. Speaker, and if he was out of order I suppose I am out of order. Without wishing to go out of order, I would say that the lack of a bulk purchase policy in the West Indies is having serious social consequences and the hon. Member ought to realise the seriousness of the position. It is because the West Indian producers have no confidence in the Sugar Board and the Orders that we are debating that thousands and thousands of West Indians are coming into this country and creating other social anomalies.
To follow up that argument would he out of order.
Mr. H. Fraser: A stupid argument.
Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) says that it is a stupid argument, but it is not. If he represented a city such as Birmingham, which has to take thousands and
762
thousands of these immigrants, he would not call it a stupid argument.
Mr. Speaker: This argument is wide of the Orders.
Mr. Howell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am allowing the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone to lead me on. I shall leave that matter there.
It is extremely important to make the point that the way to deal with this problem is by way of bulk purchases and guaranteed prices, and the complete nationalisation of the industry. The Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that these slender Orders will support the weight of the hon. Member's argument.
Mr. Howell: I was about to draw your attention to the Minister's comment about the function of Tate and Lyle in the sugar industry, Mr. Speaker. He made that comment while you were in the Chair. This is a political matter. The difference between us is that the, Conservative Party has taken political action in this matter at the behest of Mr. Cube, of Tate and Lyle, with grave economic consequences to the domestic consumer, whereas we say that this private monopoly of Tate and Lyle should be taken over completely by the State. We can then have the best of both worlds.
Mr. Speaker: That issue is not before us. The hon. Member must not persist in arguing it.
Mr. Howell: I submit that it is a very important and material factor in the question why the British housewife is being asked to pay 1¾d. more than she need for her sugar today.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. George Jeger: I apologise to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, for arriving late in this debate. I shall curtail my remarks on the question, although there are five Orders, which could lead to an elaboration of arguments on the subject. I have listened with great interest to the views of the Parliamentary Secretary and to the wistful way in which he said that this matter is in the hands of the experts. How pleased he must be that it is in the hands of the experts, because nothing but chaos—and that was a favourite word of his—could arise from the explanation that he attempted to give

763
of the reason for the increase of 1¾d. a lb. in the price of sugar.
I took part in the original debates and discussions on the Sugar Bill two years ago. I happened to come across a newspaper extract a few days ago referring to a pledge given by the hon. Member's predecessor that the sugar barons would not put up the price. That was the pledge given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 27th November, 1956, in the Third Reading debate. It appears that since then there have been changes in the Ministry; changes in policy, and changes in the arguments presented to the House and the country about the effect of the Measure.
The attempted explanation by the Parliamentary Secretary did nothing to satisfy us on that score. If the hon. Member will refer to the Second Reading debate he will see that a similar pledge was then given, in quite definite terms, on 10th November. 1955. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary then said:
"It is rather important not to have a wrong impression on this point. Nothing in the Bill or in the surcharge will increase the cost to the consumer."
He went on:
"We should not get the idea that this surcharge will increase the price of sugar to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2060.]
What we are debating, and what hon. Members on these benches object to, is the action of the new Parliamentary Secretary and the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which will result in an increase in the price of sugar by 1¾d. per lb.
It is true that the information was dragged out of the Minister at Question Time today by me. The right hon. Gentleman was reluctant to give that information and I had to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow him to give that information to the House; because for reasons best known to himself he was attempting to conceal it or hold it back so that we could not make use of it in this debate.
Despite the protestations of the Parliamentary Secretary, there is not the slightest doubt that the 1¾d. is to be borne by the ordinary consumer. We protest against that, not only because it will be an added burden to the housewife, but because it shows again that the pledges
764
of this Government can be broken. While they can change their Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers, they do not change their habit of breaking promises. The promise given to the consumers when the Act was introduced just over two years ago has been broken. The attempt by the Parliamentary Secretary to dress up this broken promise in many obscure words will not carry much weight at the ensuing by-elections.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Godber: If I may, by the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the wholly unwarranted attack on my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger). My right hon. Friend had no intention of misleading the House or withholding information. He thought it was out of order to give information which would be given later in the day in debate. That was the sole reason why he did not give it then, and I am deeply distressed at the imputations of the hon. Member.
Mr. G. Jeger: Has not the hon. Member seen the text of the Question on the Order Paper:
"To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will make a statement on the proposed increase in the price of sugar."
The right hon. Gentleman made a statement in obscure language without referring in terms to the increase and refused to give the figures until he was pressed to do so. If that was not deliberate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this debate on what is normally a sweet subject will not be soured by these acerbities.
Mr. Godber: I am sorry, but I must protest against what the hon. Gentleman has said. I repeat my protest because in fact the Question he has just quoted was on a proposed increase, whereas the increase had already taken place. There is no further proposed increase. The hon. Member has again said that the housewife will have to pay an additional increase of 1¾d. I dealt with that at considerable length earlier on. I hope the hon. Member does not wish deliberately to misrepresent what I said, but certainly his speech has given me that impression. The price has not risen. In fact the price today is almost identical and, if anything, cheaper than when the pledge was given. So I say that the hon. Member is entirely wrong.
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Willey: I have tried to bring a little sweetness into the debate, but I regret that I cannot accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. The hon. Gentleman concluded his first speech with an appeal to me. He came to a rather amazing assumption, that if there was a Division, it was an odds-on chance that we should win. He thought that we should succeed and he said that if we did, we should get chaos out of chaos. Perhaps we prefer the chaos that we have, rather than that which we do not know.
I would agree that we are in some difficulties here. The Sugar Board has to decide these things. I was disturbed by the hon. Gentleman's reference to Cuban prices, because it looks as if they are lifting again, and that is just what we would expect if the Sugar Board had taken this action. We have had a debate which will be helpful, and an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of some of the points we raised. In the circumstances we should allow the Sugar Board to proceed with the steps it intends to take. We in the House have taken the steps that we also should properly take: we have publicly called attention to the action which the Board has taken, and expressed our views.
On those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROBATION SERVICE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
11.6 p.m.
Mr. Charles Royle: I wish to raise the question of the probation officers' service. We have heard from the Leader of the House this afternoon that the subject is to be discussed again next Monday, and therefore it may well be that our debate tonight is something of a curtain raiser. The matter arose in the first instance when the Home Secretary decided, in his wisdom or otherwise, to reduce the suggested increase in the salaries of chief probation officers. I raised the matter at Question Time and did not receive the satisfactory reply for which I had hoped, so I give notice that I would raise it again on the Adjournment.
766
I am much concerned about that aspect, although I shall not concentrate on it tonight, but to treat the chief probation officers in that way, for a saving of £4,500, I regard as quite mean, though I appreciate fully that it was only the Home Office's contribution to the present economic ideas that are going around, and this was the sacrifice that seemed to be involved for chief probation officers.
I know that the officers themselves and representatives from the Joint Negotiating Committee have already seen the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore the matter is to some extent sub judice. I am only expressing the hope that the Home Secretary might be able to change his mind. While I may make some comments applicable to salaries, that is all I want to say at present about the reduction in the proposed increase.
If I may come to the service in general, which is causing great concern because of the shortage of probation officers and the difficulties of recruitment, what I have to say is not inspired by the probation officers themselves but by my experience with the Magistrates' Association. We have discussed this matter in committee, in council and in annual general meetings, and as a result the Association asked its branches throughout the country to give some kind of report of what was taking place. The replies have shown terrible conditions of shortage, particularly in the industrial areas. I represent part of the City of Salford, and the probation officer problem there cannot be described. Obviously, the need for probation officers in such areas is very great, and there is the greatest possible difficulty in recruitment. Only this morning I heard from the County of Nottingham that the same circumstances prevail there.
Part-time officers exist, but many of them receive no training. My first suggestion is that a good-neighbour system should be brought into operation whereby part-time officers would come into contact with trained and experienced probation officers to get some idea of the work, and assistance in their duties. That would be of great value.
Home Office figures show that five men and five women completed their course of training in 1957, that 31 men and 32 women will complete their courses in 1958, and 16 men and 14 women in 1959,

767
making a total for the three years of 52 men and 51 women. In the previous three years, the wastage was 69 men and 84 women. If the wastage is equal in the next three years, the figures will not catch up. The number being trained is therefore inadequate.
It is not solely a question of salary. I do not believe that anybody enters the service purely for the salary; it is a great vocation which calls for the best persons imaginable. Nevertheless, very different salaries must be paid in future to attract to the service the people we desire to see there. The present salary of the ordinary probation officer is from £480 to £790 and of the senior probation officer from £865 to £1,030. The chief probation officer in an area with a population of 2½ million people is limited on his maximum to £1,565 per annum. It is inadequate.
I want to make certain requests. The first is that the Home Secretary should encourage the Joint Negotiating Committee to start upon an entirely new basis and upon quite different salary terms. The Committee, which knows the problem better than anyone, should have more direct representation on the Joint Negotiating Council. My second request is that a departmental committee of inquiry be set up. There has not been one since 1936 on this subject, although since 1936 there has been more matrimonial conciliation and after-care work.
The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, has been passed and has added to the burdens of probation officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) has introduced a First Offenders Bill that would throw more burdens on them. We shall have an Adoption Bill shortly from the other place. The Wolfenden Report will probably call for legislation, while the Home Secretary's own policy, as explained to us in his Glasgow speech, proved the need for still more probation officers.
My third request is that, in the national interest, there should be published a national report of the probation service instead of our having to rely on the individual reports of probation committees. Fourthly, I would ask that probation officers should be made into established officers as we understand that term in the Civil Service.
768
I have tried to get into a short space of time as much as I can. There will be other opportunities, I know, next week to talk of this subject, but I want to impress on the Under-Secretary what a tremendous problem exists. I hope that we can be assured that the Home Secretary and the Home Office have the matter fully in mind and that the sort of action which might be taken can be indicated.
11.16 p.m.
Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the plea which has been so eloquently expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) on behalf of the probation service which, as I see it, has three great merits. It leaves the delinquent in his ordinary environment so that he can be helped towards conformity with a proper life where the ordinary pattern of society has to be applied. It is cheaper than institutional treatment and, thirdly, the service has proved to be amply justified by the results. That is shown by the relatively small number of offenders placed in its care who subsequently get into trouble.
The service has changed tremendously in the past twenty years. For example, in 1936 it consisted of 380 officers only, which number included but a handful of university-trained people. Today, there are more than 1,300, many of whom have had university training, and about 60,000 people come under their supervision each year. About half of that number are adults and some are by no means first offenders. As the hon. Gentleman for Salford, West has said, additional duties are thrown on these officers by way of after-care of ex-prisoners and Borstal cases, and the work in connection with matrimonial reconciliation. The average "case load" of an officer is about sixty for the males, and forty for the females, and they work under considerable pressure, as the Home Secretary recognises.
As we have heard, there is a shortage of staff. Pay is important, and it has improved since the years before the war, but the maximum pay for the basic probation officer is now only £860 a year. We must remember that he, or she, works long and irregular hours, often in the evening and at week-ends, with no

769
overtime or extra allowances. We know that the Home Secretary appreciates the difficulties in the way of recruiting and has expressed the hope that, in a year or two, the service will be better equipped to meet the demands by a progressive policy of criminal law reform.
I cannot see the recruits coming forward in the numbers hoped for under present circumstances and I hope, therefore, that the service can be made a little more financially attractive and that something more than has been done will be done to sell the service to the public in the context that it is a modern social service as important, in its way, as the Health Service.
In this connection, I would beg the Under-Secretary to bear in mind three factors. First, that the present trends in the sentencing policy of the courts make it appear that more and more demands are likely to be made on the service; secondly, existing officers cannot lighten their case loads without reducing the quality of their work, and, thirdly, a good probation officer cannot be produced overnight. Therefore, can the probation service be given the chance to show that it can pay for itself many times over, which it can, by keeping many persons out of prison where they are so expensive to maintain?
11.20 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I should like, first of all, to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) about the value of the probation service and the wonderful work which is done by those in it. It is a fact that it has for some years been a service which is expanding in scope, and for reasons which have been mentioned it is likely to expand still further in the future.
Therefore, it is important, and my right hon. Friend is deeply aware of the fact, that we should maintain recruitment. As I shall hope to show, the position is not quite so unpromising as the hon. Member for Salford, West appeared to indicate by the figures he gave. We shall, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, be discussing this matter further on Monday next, and between now and then I want to examine his figures. Meanwhile, I would ask him
770
to bear in mind the figures which I am about to give him.
The present strength of the service is altogether just about 1,300 for the whole of England and Wales. The deficiency is between 70 and 80 vacancies. There are about 110 people under training under the Home Office scheme at the moment, of whom about 70 should be ready for appointment later this year. That number of people now under training should, broadly speaking, solve the worst part of the problem, but I agree that it does exist.
I will now deal with the question of pay. The hon. Member for Salford, West used the somewhat ambiguous phrase that my right hon. Friend had decided to reduce the increase in pay.
Mr. Royle: Proposed increase.
Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman says that he used the phrase "proposed increase," I accept that.
The increase proposed was 10 per cent. and the increase decided upon by my right hon. Friend was 8·2 per cent., and at a time when the Government are endeavouring to stabilise the cost of living and to protect the national finances an increase of 8·2 per cent. cannot, I think, properly be described as mean, which was the word used by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to say that my right hon. Friend's recent decision not to implement fully, for the time being, the recommendation of the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service that the pay of officers in the supervisory grades should be increased by, approximately, 10 per cent. has already been fully explained by my right hon. Friend. He took the decision reluctantly, in the light of the present financial and economic circumstances and in line with the general Government policy on these matters.
My right hon. Friend expressed his willingness, however, at a more appropriate time to consider adjustments of the kind recommended, which involve changes in the differentials between the supervisory and basic grades of the service. I was present yesterday when my right hon. Friend received a deputation from the Joint Negotiating Committee, the members of which explained to him the considerations which had led them to recommend increases of about 10 per cent. and urged him to reconsider his decision to limit increases to 8·2 per cent. My right hon. Friend assured them that

771
he well understood their disappointment that their carefully considered recommendation had not been fully implemented and renewed his promise to review his decision as soon as the economic climate had responded to the Government's financial policy.
He thought that it was a misfortune that the probation service had happened to bear the early brunt of that policy. He said so candidly. He promised to examine in particular the deputation's suggestion that a recent offer made by the Postmaster-General to Post Office engineers afforded a precedent for authorising now the full increase recommended by the J.N.C. My right hon. Friend has looked into this, and has satisfied himself that there is not a true analogy between the two cases, and he will shortly be writing to the Joint Negotiating Committee about it. He therefore regrets that his decision must stand until a change in the economic situation justifies his reviewing it.
The hon. Member for Salford, West made several constructive suggestions and in such time as is available I should like to deal with them. He mentioned the question of untrained people being appointed, and he mentioned what he called his idea of a "good neighbour policy." I should like to look into that suggestion further. Meanwhile, I would tell him that the Home Office arranges short courses of training for all officers who have not had any training before entering the service, and those courses can be provided at a time convenient to the employing Committee.
The hon. Member suggested that a time had come for another Departmental committee of inquiry into the matter. I must remind him that recruitment for training receives the special attention of the Probation Advisory and Training Board, which is composed of magistrates, justices' clerks, and representatives of the universities and of the probation service, and is as well qualified and equipped to deal with this question as any Departmental committee could be.
The hon. Member suggested also that there should be an annual report prepared on the probation service. I would remind him that although my right hon. Friend is responsible to this House for the probation service, it is immediately
772
administered by no fewer than 116 probation authorities, most of whom issue their own annual reports, and it is at least doubtful whether there is room for an annual report by the Home Office on this particular service. In spite of the doubt about duplicating the matter, there is something to be said for collating and taking a more general view, and my hon. Friend therefore agrees that a periodic report on the work of the service as a whole would be valuable, and he hopes to publish one later on. I feel that in view of the fact that this debate is to be held on Monday it would not be useful for me to go into great detail in answering the various points—
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in cautioning the House against anticipating the debate which will take place on Monday.
Mr. Renton: It is in view of the debate and not with any intention of shirking responsibility for answering the question that I feel that perhaps I should leave the matter at the position that we have now reached, because candidly, although the hon. Gentleman gave me warning of some of the matters—and these are the matters with which I have dealt—I would prefer to have time to consider the other points which he raised and which may, no doubt, be raised again, to which I shall reply in greater detail if I can in the debate on Monday.
May I therefore conclude by saying that I think this has been a useful trial canter over the course, and I look forward to further discussion on this very important subject on Monday.
Mr. Hyde: Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is a discrepancy between the figures of shortage that he quoted—between 80 and 100—and those quoted by the Secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, according to whom the shortage is between 100 and 200?
Mr. Renton: I will certainly bear that in mind, and shall be glad to look into it further.
Mr. Royle: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say how he gets the figure of the real need? On what does he base it? He mentioned the figure of

773
another 700 filling the gaps—on what is that based?
Mr. Renton: I mentioned a figure of estimated shortage of between 70 and 80. I also mentioned that we have at present under training 110 people, of whom 70 will have completed their training later this year. There is, of course, the wastage factor to be borne in mind, but what I am saying is that when the present number of people have finished their training they will go a long way to filling the existing vacancies.
774
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North asked how these figures of deficiencies were calculated. We have to go by the information that the probation committees give us about the vacancies which they have, and which they would like us to help them fill from our training centre. The figures are based on that information.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Carrots
  Carrots
  Small Farmers
  Small Farmers
  Dogs (Quarantine Regulations)
  Dogs (Quarantine Regulations)
  Tomato and Cucumber Board
  Tomato and Cucumber Board
  Exports
  Exports
  Sparrows
  Sparrows
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
  EDUCATION (GRANTS)
  EDUCATION (GRANTS)
BRITISH HONDURAS
  Student Scholarships (Guatemala)
  Student Scholarships (Guatemala)
HONG KONG
  Naval Dockyard (Incident)
  Naval Dockyard (Incident)
MALTA
  Constitution (Religious Freedom)
  Constitution (Religious Freedom)
  Industrial and Economic Development
  Industrial and Economic Development
  Oil (Prospecting Licence)
  Oil (Prospecting Licence)
KENYA
  Wages
  Wages
  Pyrethrum Board (Licences)
  Pyrethrum Board (Licences)
SOMALILAND
  Incident
  Incident
UGANDA
  Buganda (Elections)
  Buganda (Elections)
CYPRUS
  Detainees
  Detainees
  Turks and Greeks (Entry)
  Turks and Greeks (Entry)
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Secondary Schools (Library Grants)
  Secondary Schools (Library Grants)
  Copperbelt Technical Foundation
  Copperbelt Technical Foundation
TANGANYIKA
  Pongwe Sisal Estate (Strike)
  Pongwe Sisal Estate (Strike)
  COLONIAL OFFICE (DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS)
  COLONIAL OFFICE (DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS)
MAURITIUS
  Private Colleges
  Private Colleges
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Discharged Prisoners
  Discharged Prisoners
  Police (Pensions)
  Police (Pensions)
  Drunkenness (Fines)
  Drunkenness (Fines)
  Thermo-nuclear Weapons
  Thermo-nuclear Weapons
  Joaquim Perez-Selles
  Joaquim Perez-Selles
  Criminal Offences (Suicide)
  Criminal Offences (Suicide)
  Elections (Television)
  Elections (Television)
  Parliamentary Elections (Deposit)
  Parliamentary Elections (Deposit)
  Charitable Trusts
  Charitable Trusts
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
  Attempted Suicides
  Attempted Suicides
  CUMBERLAND MARKET ESTATE (RENTS)
  CUMBERLAND MARKET ESTATE (RENTS)
  CUMBERLAND TERRACE, REGENT'S PARK
  CUMBERLAND TERRACE, REGENT'S PARK
EDUCATION
  Uxbridge (Technical College)
  Uxbridge (Technical College)
  Secondary Modern School Pupils (External Examinations)
  Secondary Modern School Pupils (External Examinations)
  Technical Colleges (Research Facilities)
  Technical Colleges (Research Facilities)
  Merchant Seamen (Correspondence Courses)
  Merchant Seamen (Correspondence Courses)
  School Meals
  School Meals
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports
  Exports
  China
  China
  Leipzig Fair
  Leipzig Fair
  Eastern Germany
  Eastern Germany
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  European Payments Union (Surplus)
  European Payments Union (Surplus)
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  Motor Fuel Oil (United States Forces)
  Motor Fuel Oil (United States Forces)
  Sovereigns (Minting)
  Sovereigns (Minting)
  Schedule A (Maintenance and Repairs Claims)
  Schedule A (Maintenance and Repairs Claims)
  Building Societies (Tax)
  Building Societies (Tax)
EMPLOYMENT
  Lowestoft Area
  Lowestoft Area
  Wales
  Wales
ROYAL NAVY
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  FOREIGN OFFICE (DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS)
HOSPITALS
  Mental Patients (Sickness Benefit)
  Mental Patients (Sickness Benefit)
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis (French Vaccine)
  Poliomyelitis (French Vaccine)
WELSH AFFAIRS
  Population Statistics (Migration)
  Population Statistics (Migration)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Mental Hospital Patients (Sickness Benefit)
  Mental Hospital Patients (Sickness Benefit)
BRITISH ARMY
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.
BRAZILIAN TRACTION SUBSIDIARIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE BILL
3.7 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
3.8 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Henderson: That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the international situation.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise to continue the debate, which was opened yesterday, in an able, skilful and interesting manner, by my noble friend Lord Henderson. As he rightly said, this debate is really a continuation of the two days' debate that we had on defence, and many of the speeches made in this debate could equally well have been made in the Defence debate and vice versa. The problem which we are all facing and trying to solve is how we can prevent the world catastrophe which confronts us and threatens the end of all civilisation and of everything we hold dear. It is no exaggeration to say that
156
the arms race, and particularly the introduction and spread of the nuclear weapon to the nations, threatens just that. Is there any hope for the world? Fortunately, it is still not too late to take action for a return to sanity and survival. The opportunity presents itself with the offer of the Soviet Union to enter into top-level talks with ourselves and other members of N.A.T.O. And much of yesterday's debate was taken up, as will be to-day's with considering how we can bring about these talks with reasonable hope of success.
The proposal was first made last December. I believe that the Prime Minister is sincerely anxious to proceed with these talks, as is the noble Earl, Lord Home, who spoke yesterday, and that they are perfectly sincere in their desire to get on with these talks as quickly as possible. But they seem to be little nearer to a meeting. No agreement has been made about the date, the composition of those taking part, the agenda, or even about the place of meeting, although it is now likely that, if we do have a meeting, it will be held in Washington. If there is any hope of success, there must be an equal readiness on both sides to carry out the discussions with sincerity and reasonableness. Having read Marshal Bulganin's long and somewhat repetitive letters, I am bound to say that to my mind (though I know that here many will not agree with me) they indicate a complete sincerity in the desire of the Russians to arrive at an understanding. I do not say that that has always been the case, but I believe that it is the case to-day, as represented by the views expressed in these letters.
The principles which are set out are not, on the face of them, principles that we could reject out of hand. I will return to these principles later in my speech: all I say here is that they seem to constitute a basis for discussion, certainly in the field of disarmament. It is to be regretted, therefore, that yesterday some noble Lords were exceedingly grudging in their approach to these talks, as are many people outside. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, was somewhat grudging and sceptical about the value of the talks. My noble friend Lord Winster was even more so—indeed, he took the view that it was useless to have talks, because (he said) the word of the

157
Russians could not be trusted. And the noble Lord, Lord Strang, took almost the same view. They all referred, as is understandable, to the difficulty of negotiating with the Russians; and they rather implied that it was a waste of time, and possibly even dangerous. I would say to my noble friend Lord Winster that he will remember that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, who has had some experience of dealing with the Russians, took the view quite recently that he had never known a case where the Russians had broken their word.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I did refer yesterday to what Mr. Selwyn Lloyd had said, but he omitted to quote any one of those agreements which he said the Russians would keep if it were sufficiently pointed and narrow. If my noble friend Lord Silkin would quote one of those instances it would be very helpful to us in arriving at a conclusion in this matter.
LORD SILKIN: I fully understand; and of course my noble friend is entitled to take the view that the Russians are lot to be trusted and that no agreement with them is worth the paper it is written on. But if that is so, it is pointless to think about entering into discussions at all. These discussions are going to take place (if they do take place) on the assumption that if an agreement is reached with the Russians it will be kept. I was saying that all noble Lords who questioned the value of top-level discussions referred to the difficulty of negotiations with the Russians in the past; and no doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Strang, have had unfortunate experiences.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, that is not what I said. I said that in 1944 and 1945 we did successfully negotiate with the Russians, but by a different method.
LORD SILKIN: I am evidently getting into some difficulty with noble Lords; had better leave them alone.
We know that in more recent times the Russians put forward disarmament proposals which they knew, or ought to have known, were unacceptable to us, because they were unreasonable and, if we had accepted them, would have put
158
us in a far less favourable position than we were at the time they were put forward. But have we ourselves not made mistakes in the course of our negotiations? Have we tried to put ourselves in the position of Russia, and to understand her? I would submit that anyone who embarks on a course of negotiations with somebody else, if he is going to be successful, must try to put himself in the position of the other party and understand what his reaction might be to anything Put forward. That seems to me an elementary process in the course of negotiations.
The lack of knowledge and understanding of the respective outlook and ways of life of East and West have resulted in mutual suspicion, mistrust and fear, with a consequent piling up of defensive and offensive weapons. That, of course, applies to both sides. I do not think the Russians have been any more successful in understanding us and our outlook than we have been in understanding theirs. These mutual suspicions and so on have added to the mutual fear, and have induced each side to try to become stronger than the other. Hence we have talked about "negotiating from strength", which the Russians have understood to mean that we would negotiate only when we were stronger than they were. They could quite well take the same view. The result has been that little negotiation has, in fact, taken place.
For too long we have refused to recognise Russia as a great Power who might have legitimate interests in certain parts of the world in which we have had, in the past, the sole interest—for instance, in the Near and Middle East. I do not think we could hope to keep Russia out of her sphere of interest in those areas any longer. We have tried to prevent Russia from taking part in affairs in this area because we fear her influence. We have put forward proposals, and are still doing so, regarding the unification of Germany and the right of the Germans to determine their own foreign policy, which means their right to joint N.A.T.O. That may appear reasonable and democratic to us, but to the Russians it is merely the certainty of adding strength to the West; the fear that Germany will become a member of N.A.T.O., and the fear that the Germans might at the same

159
time take aggressive action to restore their lost territories and change the Oder-Neisse line frontier.
I would ask noble Lords this question. Suppose the position were reversed and that the result of free elections in Germany was to produce a Communist majority—it is not likely, we know, but suppose it were so. Suppose that they would desire to join the Warsaw Pact? Should we be so enthusiastic in calling for German freedom and the right of self-determination? I doubt it very much. I submit that Russia is quite entitled to have her fears, and that it is irrational of us to expect Russia to agree, in present circumstances and without any safeguards as to the future conduct of Germany, to a reunification of Germany and freedom to join N.A.T.O.
We have failed to distinguish between the spread of Communism by peaceful means and persuasion, and its spread by military aggression. We have assumed in all cases that it was the intention of the Soviet Union to spread its ideas by violence. With great respect, I thought the noble and learned Viscount himself fell into that error when he spoke in Northampton the other day, as reported in the London Times. He talked of Russia spreading Communism by military force. If he is going to correct me I shall accept his correction, as I have been corrected several times before. We have not had the advantage of the most obvious weapon, that of ideas, and in the long run you can only counter bad ideas by good ones. Here I should like to quote, as I did the other day from Mr. Kennan, who is a mine of ideas on this subject. He said:
"One of the most puzzling phenomena of this post-war era has been the unshakable conviction of so many people that the obvious answer to the growth of Communist influence is a military alliance or a military gesture."
Of course, it is nothing of the kind. You can never beat an idea by force.
May not we and our allies have contributed to some extent to the long story of misunderstanding and frustration by own our methods of negotiation? Is all the blame on the Russian side? I believe that the delay in agreeing upon the Summit talks is largely due to the fact that there is no agreement between ourselves and Russia as to the real purpose of these proposed conversations.
160
Perhaps there is not even complete agreement between different members of Her Majesty's Government, as evidenced by some of the speeches that have been made. The Russians take the view that these Summit talks are exploratory; they are ice-breaking; they are the beginning of the discussions, not the end. Others think that discussions are useless unless there is substantial agreement in advance, not only on what is to be discussed but on the substance of the conversations.
This is borne out by the account of the talks at Manila between the three Foreign Ministers, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Pineau as reported in to-day's Daily Telegraph. This is a quotation:
"The Foreign Ministers … decided to work together for a Summit conference provided that Russia could offer some guarantee that such talks would be fruitful."
How on earth can Russia provide guarantees that the talks will be fruitful? After all, it depends to some extent upon us, America, France, Italy, and all the other countries who are going to be present. How can Russia guarantee any more than we can, that the talks will be fruitful? Then the Foreign Ministers said that Summit talks could not be started until there was a reasonable assurance of "serious discussions of serious matters." There again, if we expect all these assurances in advance, can we ever expect to get these talks at all? The Ministers went on to say that the three subjects for discussion are disarmament, inspection zones and the reunification of Germany. If that is so, then what is the need for a meeting of Foreign Secretaries in advance of the talks? If that is their view of the subjects for discussion—and I would not disagree with them—surely these talks could begin with very little formality and little waste of time.
I submit that there is already a sufficient identity of aims to justify the hope that if neither side adopts a rigid attitude—and I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Home, say on a number of occasions yesterday that he hoped we should not adopt a rigid attitude; and I am sure that, so far as he is concerned, that would be true—some agreement is perfectly possible. But is this view held generally? If there is already this identity of aim, how much more preparation is really needed? It would be quite

161
enough to justify the Summit conference if we got sufficient agreement to continue, with the hope of success, a discussion on disarmament alone. I think that that in itself would be worth having a Summit conference for. If any further preparation is needed I suggest that it would be simple to add further items to the agenda for discussion.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I want to understand him quite clearly. When he talks about agreement, does he mean an agreement in definite set terms, or does he mean mere vague generalities?
LORD SILKIN: I am going to elaborate that point, but I meant that there is sufficient identity of aims to justify talks.
I have made an analysis of some of Marshal Bulganin's proposals and those which the noble Earl, Lord Home, put before us last night—I hope the House will forgive me, but I think the results are worth quoting. I do not know whether the noble Earl and Marshal Bulganin have been getting together, but it struck me as remarkable that many of the proposals set out in the Bulganin letter of January 8, 1958, are similar to those which the noble Earl put before us yesterday as items for discussion. I do not for a moment suggest that they are in complete agreement on these matters, but all we are talking about here is what we should discuss at the conference.
Marshal Bulganin's first point is the immediate ending of hydrogen and atomic weapon tests over a period of two to three years and the exchanging of views on certain other aspects of the disarmament problem. The noble Earl's first point was suspension of tests which need not be delayed until practical effect is given to all the disarmament measures outlined by him. I respectfully suggest that those two statements constitute a basis for discussion. The second of Marshal Bulganin's proposals is the banning of atomic and hydrogen weapons, which, he says, would not require complicated measures of control. The noble Earl wants a halt, under international supervision, to the use of new fissile materials for weapons as from an agreed date. He also wants a reduction of existing stocks of nuclear material and its transfer to peaceful uses. Bulganin puts forward very much the same proposal.
162
When it comes to other matters apart from disarmament, I suggest that there is sufficient common ground there, if not to arrive at a complete agreement at any rate to form a basis for useful discussions with reasonable hope of success. Mr. Bulganin suggests an atom-free zone in Central Europe—what is broadly known to-day as the Rapacki Plan. The noble Earl says that we will go further and that we should be prepared to discuss disengagement. That is a stage beyond an atom-free zone—it would involve establishing an area free from all armies and so on; free from conventional arms as well as nuclear weapons. The proposal for disengagement is one which we on this side of the House, or most of us, favour very strongly, and I think it will be agreed that it is a subject which could be properly discussed.
A number of variants of this proposal have been discussed. There is the proposal put forward by Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, the former Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, in last Sunday's Sunday Times, in which he suggests as an area of disengagement a strip across Central Europe 100 miles wide. If we could not get the whole thing, that would be something to get on with. It would be well worth while to have the two forces, East and West, separated, if only by 100 miles. Mr. Bulganin puts forward the proposal for a non-aggression treaty, and the Prime Minister has put forward exactly the same thing. Mr. Bulganin puts forward the proposal for a reduction of troops in Germany, and suggestions for guarding against surprise attack and control—and these are things which of course we should be very happy to discuss.
I stress the almost complete agreement on nuclear weapons, because, after all, nuclear weapons are of a different nature entirely from the conventional arms that we have known in past wars. But I agree that conventional arms can be very deadly. I very much agree with the noble Earl that a war based on conventional arms is, and has always been, no game of ping-pong, as he said. I am at this moment (this will interest the noble Viscount) re-reading War and Peace. It is a much bigger proposition than the noble Viscount thought; there are sixteen hundred pages rather than eight hundred, but at any rate I am well on the way. I have gone past the battle of Borodino, the battle that was fought in front of

163
Smolensk and was really the battle that decided the fate of Moscow. According to Tolstoy, 40,000 Russians lost their lives in that one battle. I believe that was as deadly a battle as any fought in the First or the Second World War. So even a conventional war can be a very deadly thing. Nevertheless, we must recognise that nuclear war introduces an entirely new phase of deadliness which is capable of destroying a whole nation and of creating biological and all sorts of other complications which a normal war does not.
From what I have said, it looks as if talks on disarmament might not be without hope. I admit that we have been near agreement before but each side has put forward proposals which it has subsequently withdrawn; that has happened both with us and with the other side. Nevertheless, in view of what I have described as this substantial identity of aims there is reason to hope that something can be done. Might we not therefore try to agree upon nuclear disarmament first, provisionally, as suggested, for a period of, say, two or three years, with the idea that we could then discuss conventional disarmament and arrive at an agreement upon what was described by my noble friend Lord Henderson and the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, as "balanced disarmament proposals"?
There are one or two other matters I want to discuss very briefly. The Bulganin proposals deal with other matters that might usefully form the subject of conversations. One is trade. It is a fact that we are buying from the Russians in value about twice as much as they are buying from us. The fact is that there are so many things on our prohibited list which we are not able to export to them that we are getting into a situation in which we are taking a large amount of goods from them which one day we shall have to pay for. I should have thought that there was considerable scope for looking at the list again and having discussions about it. I imagine that the result of a release of tension would be that a good many articles could usefully be taken out of the prohibited list.
Then we could have cultural and scientific exchanges. The days have long since gone when the only point of cultural and scientific exchanges was that
164
we could give them information but they could not give any to us. To-day it can be done on a mutually helpful basis. Furthermore, we could discuss economic aid in the underdeveloped areas. We should all agree that it is wrong that this aid should be used as a political weapon, either as an antidote to Communism or as an antidote to so-called imperialism. Surely aid should be given on its merits and there should be no competition between East and West for the giving of aid. It should be given without strings, and it would be exceedingly helpful if we could arrive at some agreement with Russia for the provision of aid where it is really needed. I have no doubt at all that it would have a considerable influence in pacification of many of the troubled areas.
I would say one word about the Middle East. The preservation of peace in the Middle East depends very much on our arriving at some understanding with the Soviet Union. They are, no doubt with some justification, accused of stirring up trouble in the Middle East. I believe they are struggling to create a sphere of influence for themselves which, as a great Power, they are perfectly entitled to have. But the fact is that there is a danger in the Middle East, and if it turns out that Russia takes one side and we take another there is considerable risk of a flare up there which might have world-wide consequences. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, who is going to reply, to deal with the question of the Arab-Israel trouble. There was some talk about this in the Foreign Affairs debate in another place, and I do not think it was entirely cleared up—at any rate, not to the satisfaction of my friends.
There was a discussion about the Eden proposal: that his view was—I hope I am putting it correctly—that there ought to be some compromise between the 1947 frontiers and the armistice frontiers. I gathered that it was the view of the Foreign Secretary that there should be give and take on those frontiers. I take that to mean, as it can only mean, that if there is to be a compromise between the two there must be some surrender of territory by Israel on the basis of its present frontiers without any quid pro quo in the form of territory. They might get a quid pro quo in some other form, but not in the form of territory—all the

165
surrender of territory would be on the part of Israel. If that is the intention, then I submit that it is quite unrealistic to expect that Israel or any other nation would begin negotiations on the basis that it must surrender some part of its territory. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would kindly clarify this matter. If we could arrive at a sensible formula for a settlement of these problems we could, with the help of Russia, arrive at some agreement; of that I have no doubt.
Now I should like to make a few general observations about the kind of conference which I visualise. I am sure that we must get away from the atmosphere which the Prime Minister described as the atmosphere of the Geneva Conference—these large rooms with large tables, everybody making speeches at one another, and the Press waiting outside or listening through the keyhole and making daily reports about what has taken place. I think that sort of formality is hopeless. Everyone, quite naturally, talks for effect and with one eye on what is going to appear in the world Press the following day. My noble friend suggested the possibility of using the United Nations building. I am afraid that that is the one respect in which I did not altogether see eye to eye with him. I would much rather have this conference in a hotel room or in some quite informal surroundings; the more informality there is about it the better. I would have no publicity and no daily Press reports. I do not think there should be too many taking part—four or five a side, and possibly one or two uncommitted nations. I should not have more than a team of eleven altogether; I think that should be the maximum. I think the venue of Washington is quite acceptable. It is certainly acceptable to the Russians and it would be acceptable to everybody else.
Finally, I was greatly encouraged by the concluding remarks in the noble Earl's speech. I have already touched on the idea he expressed and which I want to reiterate: that in the end the evils in the world will be conquered not by arms but by example, by a demonstration of a better way of life, a vision held out to people who are not enjoying it now, Surely that is something all of us can agree upon. The noble Earl tried very hard to select the items upon
166
which we were in agreement, but we can all definitely and enthusiastically agree upon that. This gives us solid ground for hope in the future of the world. I greatly hope that we shall soon have these discussions, and I, for one, am optimistic that they will have good results.
3.45 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, giving us his views on Summit talks in his usual penetrating style, and in much of what he has said I would go along with him. But as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will himself be dealing with the subject of the Summit conference, I do not propose to follow Lord Silkin's main line of thought, though I will say a few words about it at the end of my speech. I only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right when he says that the Russians are approaching more nearly to the disarmament proposals put forward by us in 1957. I have my doubts.
Yesterday many of your Lordships dwelt on the subject of disengagement. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said that the Government had set their face against existing plans for disengagement. I should like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government are far from being opposed to disengagement as such—in fact, Sir Anthony Eden put forward a proposal for disengagement as long ago as 1955, and indeed, later that year, the Western Powers offered the Russians a Treaty of Assurance. Both these offers were in fact rejected by the Russians. What we are against is the existing plans to the extent that none of the plans advocated so far fulfil the conditions which we consider essential. This matter I will develop later. As the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said in his cogent speech yesterday, a neutral belt, without disarmament, would be putting the cart before the horse. It must be remembered that the Government of the day are responsible for the safety of this country, and cannot, as an Opposition can, accept a plan or an idea at its face value.
In examining schemes for disengagement we have to consider the probable

167
military and political effect, the circumstances in which disengagement will take place and the reason why disengagement is advocated. One common reason often given in the West is that the presence of large opposing forces of East and West, facing each other in close proximity across the Iron Curtain, is in itself dangerous. It is argued that by separating these forces the dangers would be reduced. But again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strang, that the existence of clearly defined lines would seem to be a safeguard against war by miscalculation; for each side knows that if it commits an act of aggression across the dividing line it would be running the risk of war. By separating the forces a vacuum would be created, and a considerable problem of preventing encroachment would arise. Without a solution of the political problems involved the dangers would, to my mind, be increased rather than decreased.
Another most important reason advocated for disengagement is that it might secure the withdrawal altogether of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe, which would result in the removal of Soviet domination from the satellite countries. Of course we want to see that withdrawal and those countries left free to determine their own future, and we hope that this will come in time. I agree that all these are good reasons for disengagement. We certainly cannot afford to ignore the dangers which might arise from the present situation in Europe. But are these dangers likely to be avoided by existing schemes for disengagement? Are such schemes likely to result in greater freedom for the satellite peoples?
It is surely clear that Soviet domination of Eastern Europe depends on the continued presence there of the Soviet Army. We have no reason to believe that they are likely to relinquish that domination; otherwise, as my noble Leader asked yesterday: "Why Hungary?" The Russians are as aware as we are of the effect that the withdrawal of that army would have on their political control in Eastern Europe. What, then, are the chances of such a withdrawal, in the present circumstances?
It is true that the Russians have put forward certain suggestions for further withdrawals of forces in Europe, but these would involve the complete disrup
168
tion of N.A.T.O. by the return of all N.A.T.O. forces to their own countries, and in particular in the departure of United States forces across the Atlantic; while the Russians themselves would merely withdraw to their own Western frontiers. This naïve offer was made in a television interview which Mr. Khrushchev gave in May last year to the United States. He said:
"Why could not the United States and other countries withdraw their troops from West Germany and from the Western countries—that is to say, from France, Italy, Turkey, Greece and from other places where your troops are stationed and of which I do not know? We on the other hand could withdraw our forces from Eastern Germany, Poland, Hungary and Rumania. We do not have troops in other countries."
Mr. Khrushchev must have known that this offer would be wholly unacceptable to the West. But for the nuclear deterrent, Western as well as Eastern Europe would be at the mercy of the Soviet Army, which is obviously why the Russians are now pressing for its abolition.
This brings me to the other main proposal which has been put forward by the Soviet side and to which several noble Lords referred in their speeches yesterday—the Rapacki plan for a nuclear-free zone in Europe. I would remind your Lordships that this plan does not suggest the withdrawal of conventional forces but wishes to exclude nuclear weapons from an area in Central Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked that we should not regard this plan simply as a Soviet manœuvre. We certainly shall not do that, but, from past experience, we should ask ourselves why this Polish initiative has received such strong Russian support. We should be failing in our duty as a Government if we were not to examine very carefully the political and military implications of the plan. My noble friend Lord Selkirk made some reference to these in a debate in your Lordships House on January 22, since when some further details of the proposals have been received from the Polish Government.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Do I understand that if a proposal is sound on its merits it is to be rejected because Soviet Russia may be in favour of it?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, certainly the noble Lord is putting into

169
my mouth words which I did not utter. I should like to develop my argument, if I may. As I said earlier, no Government with any responsibility can take any plan at its face value. They must look into all aspects of it. I have certainly gone no further than that. We are still continuing our examination of the Rapacki plan with the further details which we have now received. We are examining the plan with our Allies to see whether there are in it any elements which might form the basis of a possible alternative proposal; but although these further details fill in some of the gaps in the original proposal they do little to remove the basic objections to the scheme.
The first of those objections is that the removal of nuclear weapons would leave N.A.T.O.'s conventional forces at great numerical disadvantage. The second is that the Polish proposals contribute nothing to a solution of the German problem. Far from helping to relieve this continuing source of tension and provide new hope of the eventual removal of Soviet domination from Eastern Europe, the plan might tend to harden the status quo. In fact one may readily assume tits to be the principal reason for Soviet support for the plan, since the recognition of the political status quo in Europe—and thus of their continued grip on the satellites—is a major aim of their policy. It is this aim which several of your Lordships who spoke in yesterday's debate rightly urged Her Majesty's Government to resist.
Other plans have been mentioned by your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, quoted a proposal made at a conference of Parliamentarians of Western countries. My preliminary reactions to that are much the same as those of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred to an article by Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick in the Sunday Times. Her Majesty's Government are always ready to examine new suggestions. We fully realise the need to take positive steps to relieve the tension which exists in the world to-day and to remove the intolerable burden of increasing armaments, but your Lordships cannot expect me to put forward here any definite plan until we have the full agreement of our own Allies.
170
I would repeat that I do not think the question of disengagement can be separated from the military and political conditions in which it takes place, and we consider that there are certain criteria against which any scheme should be judged. In the first place, the scheme should not have the effect of increasing the risk of war by miscalculation; secondly, it must not result in the serious weakening of the defensive strength of the West; and finally, we should not ignore the danger of leaving unresolved the major political problems affecting European security.
Now I will turn to another part of the world—China. In the speech in which he opened the debate yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that the representative of the Chinese People's Republic should be seated in the United Nations; and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who also spoke on this subject, urged that Her Majesty's Government should take steps at the next session of the General Assembly to obtain the admittance of the representative of the Government of China. But, my Lords, it must be borne in mind that over half the countries, which are now members of the United Nations, are opposed at the present time to any change in the representation of China. The Chinese Government's intervention in the Korean hostilities, and her unwillingness over the years to contemplate a settlement of the Korean question on the basis approved by the United Nations, have no doubt influenced the views of members of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government, however, welcome the recent announcement that the Chinese propose to withdraw their forces from Korea, and we continue to hope that a satisfactory settlement of this problem may be achieved. But the fact remains that to press at this moment the question of seating the representatives of the Chinese People's Republic at the United Nations would arouse bitter controversy. It would not contribute towards a solution of the dispute over Chinese representation.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl again? Is it not a fact that Britain, France and America assisted in creating Federal Germany, with an independent Government, four years after the last war? Is it not a fact that Japan, which was

171
responsible for the surprise attack upon Pearl Harbour, is already a member of the United Nations and, I think, at this moment is a member of the Security Council? And is it not true that the Korean war has been over for five, six or seven years? How long do we have to wait before we bring nations back into the comity of nations? One can understand the special feelings of America, but when the noble Earl says that the bulk of the nations would be incensed at the idea of bringing China into the United Nations, I very much doubt whether he is speaking according to the facts.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has forgotten in making comparisons with the position before the war is the fact that China is already represented in the United Nations.
LORD HENDERSON: No, no.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: The argument as to which part of China is represented—
LORD HENDERSON: I think it is about time that Governments began to drop the argument that China is now in the United Nations.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting? Is it not the fact that Her Majesty's Government have recognised as the Government of China the Chinese People's Republic in Peking, and therefore there cannot be another China so far as the Government are concerned?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: That may be so.
A NOBLE LORD: It is so.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: But Her Majesty's Government have thought that it would be in the general interest at this moment to avoid any further and unnecessary controversy in the United Nations when there are many problems—I will not say more important but possibly more explosive—already exercising that body.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I interrupt? Am I to understand the noble Earl to be saying that Her Majesty's Government propose
172
to persist in recognising the Formosa Government at the United Nations and the Peking Government by the accrediting of a British Ambassador?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: We have not accredited an Ambassador to Peking. But it is not our position alone, and, as I have already said, we feel that if this subject is brought up at this time it will cause unnecessary repercussions when what is essential in this world is a reduction of tension, and not an increase.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, yesterday mentioned the subject of East-West trade—indeed, I should have been most surprised if he had not done so. As your Lordships know, we have already abolished the China differential, and discussions have recently begun with our allies of the Paris Group in "COCOM" to prepare the ground for a general revision of the strategic controls on East-West trade and of the international embargo lists, in order to bring them up to date. The various members of "COCOM" all have views to express, and detailed discussions are necessary. I regret to say that there has as yet been no outcome from these discussions. But, in spite of the strategic controls, trade between the West and the Sino-Soviet bloc has continued to increase in recent years. Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the desirability from the commercial point of view, of increasing East-West trade, but there are other aspects which must be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me to make a few remarks about Sir Anthony Eden's Guildhall speech. I think that I should do best to start by quoting from the speech itself, because there seems to be much misunderstanding of it—I do not say that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is guilty of this on the contrary but many people are, largely due to their not having read the speech. I quote:
"The position is that the Arabs on the one side take their stand on the 1947, and other United Nations resolutions—that is where they are. They said they would be willing to open discussions with Israel from that basis. The Israelis, on the other side, found themselves on the later Armistice Agreement of 1949 and on the present territories which they occupy.
"Between these two positions there is, of course a wide gap: but is it so wide that no negotiation is possible to bridge it? It is not right. I agree, that United Nations resolutions should be ignored; but, equally, can it be

173
maintained that the United Nations resolutions on Palestine can now be put into operation just as they stand?
"The stark truth is that if these nations want to win a peace, which is in both their interests and to which we want to help them, they must make some compromise between these two positions."
Her Majesty's Government have always refused to put any gloss on these words, and we will not dictate to either side what concessions should be made. There are several elements in any settlement of this problem—frontiers, the Jordan waters, refugees and so on. It would be wrong for me to express a view on what the exact terms should be. The main point is that it must be a matter for negotiation and that there must be a compromise. I hope that that makes Her Majesty's Government's position a I little clearer.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke of the need to strengthen our information services in the Horn of Africa in order to counter Egyptian propaganda in that area. The information services in that area, including broadcasting, have been, and are continuing to be, expanded. It would take up too much of your Lordships' time if I were to go into the details now, but I will gladly furnish the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, with the information for which he asked. While on the subject of broadcasting I would say that I also agree with the noble Lord. Lord St. Oswald, about the importance of B.B.C. broadcasting to the Soviet bloc.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised the question of languages in which the decisions reached at a Summit conference should be recorded. I understand his concern that no misunderstanding should arise from ambiguities in translation, but for many years it has been customary for international agreements to be made in more than one language, and I am afraid there is no going back on that.
With your Lordships' permission, I will say on the Summit talks a few words which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will develop on a larger scale later, but it may be helpful to noble Lords who are to follow me if I make a few remarks on the technicalities as the Government see them. Many people in this country—but I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson is not one of them—seem to think that if only the heads of the leading
174
Governments of the world could get together round a table and talk to one another, it would result in the finding of some solution to the major problems outstanding between them. Obviously there is a certain element of truth in this, and I agree that major decisions can be made only at the highest level. But from past experience—at Geneva in 1955, for instance, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned yesterday, at Yalta and Potsdam—we know that although some progress may have been made and decisions taken in principle, when we came subsequently to work out the solutions in greater detail at the Foreign Ministers' conference, we found that the Russians and the West were unable to agree on the implementation of the decisions, since the Russian delegation draw a different inference from ours from the decisions that had been taken at the previous conference.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, does not that exactly bear out my point?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I do not think so entirely, but I will not go into details, because I think that my speech has already been too long.
Obviously, we must avoid that this time and must avoid it by going about it in a different way. We must prepare the ground beforehand. As many of your Lordships have said, we must not only have a preparatory conference which roust cover all aspects and not be limited only to questions relating to the organisational side of the preparation of the meeting at the Summit, as suggested by the Soviet Government; we must draw up an agenda of the matters in order of priority, which both sides agree should be discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin agrees with me on that. We must analyse the positions of both sides on various subjects, with the object of narrowing points of difference to where we can agree that any particular subject holds the greatest prospect of success. The Summit meeting must hold out some prospect of success, in however limited a field; because, as the Prime Minister said,
"Positive disillusionment is more dangerous than the preservation of even the most tenuous expectations."
We have hopes that the Russian Government are beginning to exile round to our point of view. They have accepted

175
the proposal that a beginning should be made in a meeting of Foreign Ministers and apparently the view that the Foreign Ministers' talk should be supplemented by discussions through diplomatic channels. As your Lordships well know, both methods are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
The next question is: What should the Summit conference talk about? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned some items to-day as did my noble Leader yesterday. To my mind, this is essentially a matter which must be decided in advance of any conference and one which it would be the business of preparatory talks to decide. As President Eisenhower said,
"I want really decent preparation that would appeal to reasonable men."
The Russians have suggested a long list of subjects which they think might be suitable for inclusion. President Eisenhower has also suggested certain items for the agenda with which we are in agreement.
Many of these suggestions are likely to raise highly controversial questions—it would be surprising if that were not so. Therefore, in deciding upon an agenda there are two important things to keep in mind. In the first place, it must not be a one-sided agenda. We cannot accept the view that just because one side dislikes some suggestions put forward by the other, these suggestions should therefore be excluded from discussion. For this reason I think it is a mistake to take up any rigid position in advance. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was in agreement with this view.
We must concentrate on selecting what is of major importance and dealing first with those items on which there seems to be most prospect of agreement, however limited the result that may be reached. The most promising field and the most important is, perhaps, as the Prime Minister has said, that of disarmament in the widest sense. We are anxious to get down to preparatory talks as soon as practicable, but it is no good doing this until we have reached agreement on the basis on which these talks should take place. There are still some points on which the Soviet position is not satisfactory. For example, we are not ready to admit the Soviet right to
176
exclude in advance of the preparatory conference any item from the agenda; that is, a Soviet veto on what should be discussed. Nor can we go into the preparatory talks with any misunderstanding about their purpose, which must be fully to prepare the ground on the subjects it is proposed that the heads of Governments should subsequently discuss. Of course, we do not ask or expect that agreement on the solution of these problems should be reached at this stage. I repeat, we want a Summit conference, but we want it to be successful.
May I say one final word? If the free world is to remain free, and if other countries now under foreign domination are ever to recover their freedom, we must always remember that we are up against a country which has produced the world's best chess players. We must act accordingly and must not give away our best pieces before the game starts.
4.18 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add my expression of gratitude to those which have been made to my noble friend Lord Henderson for having given us the opportunity, during this two days' debate, of discussing the general international situation at the present time. It is something like two years since we last had this opportunity, also as the result of a Motion introduced by Lord Henderson, although during that period we have had debates on specific topics in relation to foreign affairs. I took the trouble to look up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the last general discussion and found that on that occasion we held a sort of inquest on the failure of the, Geneva Conference. The approaching high level talks have been the very heart of our discussion during the two last days, and it seems not unreasonable to look back to 1955 to see where we went wrong so that we may perhaps do rather better on this occasion. I think that it was the general view of your Lordships then that the failure was due to the deterioration in the situation as the conference went on.
In the debate, several noble Lords, and particularly, I think, those whose experience had lain in the Foreign Office, rather took the view that that sort of thing was inevitable if one went into these Summit talks. I myself—with, I think, all other noble Lords who have

177
spoken from these Benches—am a strong believer in these talks. I do not think the present situation can be handled on traditional lines; that is, by the conventional diplomatic methods. But I am more concerned with the really difficult problem of making the talks effective. They mark only the first milestone on a long and I am afraid, rather tortuous road. In those circumstances, Ce n'est pas le premier pas qui coûte, as Hilaire Belloc demonstrated to us long ago, at the beginning of one of his best books. I think we have to be reconciled to a long period of hard negotiation. I do not think that Summit talks in the summer will by any means solve even the most pressing of these problems; and I was encouraged by the statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that there might have to be a series of Summit talks, because I think we must be ready for a lot of negotiating at the highest level.
Many statements have been made to the effect that the failure in 1955 was entirely due to the Russians. Of course, we in the West always say that everything that goes wrong is entirely due to the Russians; dogmatic assertions of this kind, founded on very little evidence, are always produced to support this sort of view. My own opinion was, as I said in the debate at that time, and still is, that the Western Powers were just as much responsible as the Russians for what happened on that occasion. The truth of the matter is that after the somewhat vague preliminaries had been agreed to, when they came to the hammering out, neither side was prepared to give away enough for a settlement to be reached. That is what we have to be careful to avoid on this occasion. If one goes back and looks at the transaction in detail, I think the Russians did offer more concessions than were offered from the West. But, as always when the Russians make concessions, it was regarded as a deep Machiavellian plot on their part: we were reminded that they were the world's best chess players, and that diplomacy is a form of chess; that if they make concessions, they cannot be trusted, and if they refuse to make concessions then it is just Russian obduracy. So one makes no progress with either line; and the situation remains very much where it was.
This is the terrible thing about all this business that has been going on for the
178
last ten years. I must say that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, filled me with a good deal of despair, because he just turned on the gramophone record which I have been hearing in this House ever since I came here. Mr. Khrushchev, in his really remarkable and, in my view, most valuable talk with The Times correspondent, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, at the beginning of his speech, put his finger on what seems to me to be the whole cause of bedevilment between East and West when he referred to the lack of trust which each side has of the other; and that lack of trust has been only too evident in the speeches made both in this debate and in the Defence debate last week.
Mr. Khrushchev brought his exceedingly able survey of the situation to an end with the plea that we should "start a trend to greater trust". I think that statesmen on both sides and all over the world might well take that piece of advice to heart. In my view, the Summit talks will succeed only if we can start that trend to greater trust before they take place. There must be trust on both sides, of course—and Mr. Khrushchev admitted quite candidly that the trust and confidence is needed on both sides.
How can one build up this trust which is so essential if one is continually black-guarding the other side? I feel that we in the West should be absolutely ashamed of the unrestrained way in which we have continuously hurled epithets at the Russian Government and the Russian leaders. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, an eminent Peer on the other side of the House, emphasised this point in his speech in the debate last week. He used the expressive word, with which I am not very familiar, "yow-yowing" at each other; and he asked that this, at any rate might be discontinued.
Almost contemporaneously with Lord Teviot's appeal to the statesmen of the West, Mr. Dulles was describing the Russian proposals in respect of the Summit conference with the words "hoax" and "fraud". Sometimes, when I think of Mr. Dulles and the harm he has done to world peace, I feel tempted to abandon my own plea for moderation in the use of language. Mr. Dulles is a lawyer. When I was a young lawyer it was impressed upon me that it was a sin against

179
the light to plead fraud against the other side without strong evidence in support of that view. Certainly if one's instructions are to negotiate a friendly settlement, it is the last charge that any sensible lawyer or any statesman ought to make. I sometimes doubt whether Mr. Dulles really wants a settlement. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, yesterday asked whether the Russians want a settlement. As he was saying that, I thought to myself: "I wonder whether Mr. Dulles does". There may be statesmen in America who do want a settlement; and no doubt the President does. But I have my doubts about Mr. Dulles.
The fact is that when Mr. Dulles uses this strong language he is talking as a politician. Unfortunately, invective is the handiest weapon in the politician's armoury. It is like strong drink: it warms the cockles of one's heart; it is pretty easy to take to; it raises the spirits of one's own side and makes the other side angry, so that they may lose their temper and it is easier to score points against them. But, of course, it never does any real good in this world. The sooner we realise that, the better. Sir Winston Churchill himself is a master of this art, and he has used it more than once, and most effectively, against the Russian leaders. I remember that in my speech in the 1955 debate I quoted some examples of his attacks on revered Russian leaders like Lenin and other stalwarts of the Revolution. And the Russians, for their part, have been just as bad, or worse. There is a certain Churchillian air in Mr. Khrushchev's own capacity for invective. I wish that the statesmen on both sides would learn to keep their tongues under control. I must say that, on the whole, I think the Russians have of recent months been doing so. Speeches have been much more moderate in tone, and I have been glad indeed that the language of our own Prime Minister in respect of these matters has been completely courteous during all the recent exchanges.
So I join with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in entering a plea that we should try to build up a better atmosphere in the period before the negotiations start, and I suggest that one of our main methods of doing so should be by refraining from invective. Invective, certainly the most effective invective, usually
180
springs from hate; and that is an even more serious thing, because hate is one of the wickedest things in the world, and at the present time there is altogether too much hatred about in the world. We magnify the differences between ourselves and the Russians—differences which spring from Communism—just as they magnify the differences between capitalism and their own way of life. And yet life in Russia and life in England are something like 90 or even 95 per cent. the same.
We should do much better to concentrate on the similarities between our two ways of life, instead of continually concentrating on our differences. We share what is largely a common culture. A great deal of what all Englishmen and all Russians feel is the most valuable part of life comes from a common heritage. Even the ethical strain which is such an obvious feature in, at any rate, theoretical Communism is very largely the Christian ethic; and those who feel, as I do, that the ethical side of Christianity is more valuable than its theological side, should feel that there is quite a substantial basis on which we can look at things more or less eye to eye. If only we appreciated this, would it not help us a good deal to stop hating each other and getting to understand and even to love each other?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he give any example of this "yow-yowing" invective against the Russians on the part of any member of Her Majesty's Government, or do his remarks apply solely to Mr. Dulles and our American Allies?
LORD CHORLEY: I said that I was glad that our own Prime Minister had been exceedingly courteous, and I think that applies to the Foreign Secretary also. I have not the actual chapter and verse, but I have over the last years seen violent attacks, perhaps more in the Conservative Press than from, at any rate, leading Conservative politicians. It is not only a question of the leading statesmen being careful; it is also a question of the Press and everybody else trying to be careful, particularly at the present time, to build up an atmosphere of good will in regard to these matters. I am sure that the Russians themselves are trying to do it. Everybody who has been to Russia

181
recently has found an extraordinarily friendly atmosphere on the part of the people there. But all over the place in this country there are still pockets of hatred and Organisations exist, financed a good deal from the United States, which seem to have no other purpose than to keep one constantly supplied with all sorts of tendentious information about the U.S.S.R. It is almost always quite undocumented, and it arrives, at any rate in my house, by almost every post. I do my best to look at a certain amount of it. It comes in pamphlets, leaflets, periodicals and in all sorts of ways.
It is impossible to study our own Press without getting the impression that it is, on the whole, impregnated with an anti-Russian feeling—a feeling which I regard as most unfortunate, and I think it would be a good thing if we could break it down. So I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in his desire to obtain an atmosphere of good will, and with his view that one of the methods of doing so is to try to cultivate a more reasonable approach and get rid of this feeling of hatred. This atmosphere of hatred and distrust was only too evident, I thought, last week in our own Defence debate. For many speakers it was obviously quite axiomatic that it was only the fear of nuclear deterrents which prevented a large-scale invasion of Western Europe by the forces of the U.S.S.R. It is here, of course, that we come up against that element of fear which has frequently been mentioned as being one of the main reasons for maintaining this atmosphere between East and West.
My Lords, I do not believe for one moment that the Russian leaders have any such objective in mind at all. I am sure that they are much more concerned with building up their own industrial strength, in providing for their own people a standard of life which has been beyond their grasp until very recently. Indeed. if we are to fear, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Salter, in his interesting analysis of the situation, that the real ground for fear is that there might he an economic onslaught from the U.S.S.R., something which may well take place unless we can get on to more comfortable terms of greater trust and confidence with them. The great progress they have made in the last years
182
in the industrial field has been so outstanding that I feel they are not far away from being able to conduct against us an economic warfare which we should find it exceedingly difficult to stand up to. I believe that the Russian leaders are anxious to obtain better conditions of life for people all over the world; and if only we could come to reasonable arrangements with them, that might be done on a co-operative basis. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Salter, was right when he said that, if matters are conducted on the basis of economic warfare, the situation in a short time will be almost as difficult, and in some ways almost as disastrous, as the military impasse which we have reached at the present time.
Again, one of the difficulties which always stands in the way of coming to any sort of arrangement is the theory that "you just cannot trust the Russians," which has been evident in quite a number of the speeches made in this debate and which is usually put forward without any sort of evidence in support of it. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who took this line strongly, did in fact mention various treaties which the Russians had broken, and in particular he said the outstanding case was that of the Baltic States. No doubt there is a strong case there—it all occurred a long time ago. The noble Lord did not point out that this happened at the time when Russia and Germany were jockeying for position in the greatest war that the world has ever seen, and that it was as a result of that that the Russians took over the Baltic States before the Germans took them over. That, surely, in the circumstances of that time, was a not altogether unreasonable action on their part.
Surely, we have to deal with the situation in 1958, and not to be continually harping back to old, forgotten, far-off things. The question is whether our recent experience has been that the Russians always break their word, and so far as I can see no instances have been brought forward of any recent actions of that kind. Apart from those difficulties of the war years, it was always the view in the years before the war that in regard to agreements the Russians were just as trustworthy as anybody else, and perhaps even more trustworthy. I have heard that stated by eminent British statesmen, not only in

183
the Labour Party but in the Conservative Party, on more than one occasion. I was particularly glad that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd went out of his way recently to reaffirm that view. I am sure that the Russians do not break their word any more often than other people. There is no country in the world which has not broken treaties before now. It is perfectly easy for Russians, French and Germans and other people to study the history of this country and point to occasions when treaties have been broken by this country also. We cannot have trust and confidence if we continually hark back to occasions of that kind and emphasise the fact that we cannot trust the people with whom we are negotiating. If we are quite satisfied we cannot trust them, it is dishonest to bargain with them at all.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do not think it is quite so much a question of mistrusting them as the fact that we realise what their motives are. They are expressing their motives almost daily—what they intend to do. We do not distrust them, but we know exactly what it is they are going to do.
LORD CHORLEY: Their motives are exactly the same as ours; their motives are to do the best they can for themselves. What we have to do is to draw a middle line in which each side will gain something and give something up. So long as you take the view that you are 100 per cent. right and the other side 100 per cent. wrong, you will not get anywhere. We have to get ourselves out of that sort of outlook if the Summit talks are to be a success.
My Lords, there are a number of points I should have liked to refer to, but this debate has gone on a long time and other noble Lords wish to speak. I am particularly anxious to say something about the Middle East, which has not been talked about very much. It was a matter to which I addressed a good deal of my speech on the last occasion. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, emphasised the fact that the Russian interests in the Middle East are just as great as ours or any other country's. In 1955 I urged the Government to try to come to some sort
184
of arrangement, to enter into negotiations with the Russians in order that a modus vivendi might be reached in regard to the Middle East. It was obviously showing signs at that time of becoming a particularly acute area of discord. As far as I know, no serious efforts have been made.
Mr. Bulganin, in the spring of last year, addressed a Note to our Government in which he made various proposals, and in the forefront of that Note was the question of discussions about the Middle East. Mr. Bulganin pointed out that this is a vital area from the point of view of the U.S.S.R. It has been so ever since Russia has had a foreign policy. It is much nearer to them than it is to our country and very much nearer to them than to the United States of America, and surely they are interested in what is going on there. As a result of our failure to accept Mr. Bulganin's proposals—because, so far as I know, there has been no sort of attempt to take him up and have discussions on these matters—the situation has obviously gone from bad to worse. I understand that this subject is going to be at the forefront of the agenda for the Summit talks, and obviously it should be so. I hope that it will be so, and that we shall in fact enter into serious negotiations, because the situation will go from bad to a great deal worse, and may do so quite quickly, if something is not done to come to some sort of arrangement with the Russians about the position there.
I will not say any more about these individual matters. I should like to close my speech by returning to the question of confidence and trust, which seems to me to underlie the whole problem. It is obvious to me that if we in this country could be satisfied that there was a real thaw, a genuine liberation from the authoritarian position taken up under the Stalin régime, we should be much more ready to make concessions to the Russians. I feel quite confident that there has been a genuine thaw, though I agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his speech in the Defence debate, that the very real differences between our national outlook and theirs have to be taken into account. The whole history of Russia shows as great a concentration upon discipline as our history shows a concentration upon

185
liberty. The Russians succeeded in throwing off Tartar domination inch by inch, foot by foot, only by their strong self-discipline; and that has stamped their whole character. We must take into account that there is an authoritarianism there which does not appeal to us, but we have to make allowances for it.
I was glad to find that the noble Viscount. Lord Templewood, in his interesting speech—I did not agree with a great deal of it but I found it interesting—recognised that there are certain signs of relaxation in Russia at the present time. I agree, there is much greater readiness to give the Russian people access to Western literature, Western newspapers, even political speeches, than was evident a year or two ago. It was most encouraging to notice that President Eisenhower's recent statement was published in full in Pravda so that the Russians could read what he stated. There has also been an increasing tendency not only to welcome foreigners to Russia, because that has been so for some years, but to deal with them with art altogether new frankness, and even intimacy.
During the recent Youth Festival, which was very much deplored in orthodox quarters in this country, hundreds of foreign youths visiting Moscow were received into the houses of Russian people or terms of real intimacy. I have met a number of English youths who spent time in the houses of the Russian people. I see one noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite smiling, but that was really an extraordinarily important event in the history of Anglo-Russian relations, because until last year it was not possible, and it does, in my view, mark important progress. Numerous pen clubs have recently been established between English schools and Russian schools. The children are corresponding with each other, Very large numbers of Russian children learn English; I think it is the foreign language they study more than any other. There is no mistaking, in my view, the intense longing for peace which pervades the whole of Russia, as indeed it pervades the whole world. People will come up to you in Moscow when they see you are a foreigner, and if they have got a few words of English they will tell you that they hope you are for peace, because peace is essential.
186
This is no doubt partly due to the fact that the Russians had perhaps a more ghastly time than any other of the invaded countries of Europe, a terrible experience at the hands of the Germans. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, reminded us in his speech yesterday of what Europe owes to German militarism. I think that this profound, intense and almost hysterical, desire for peace which one meets in Russia is also due to the fact that the Russians themselves are now feeling that, given a period of peace, they are on the verge of attaining a reasonable standard of living; that at last that is within their grasp. Fate has been very hard to the Russian people since in August, 1914, the first of the Great World Wars started. They have had little in the way of the good things of this world, and I think. that they now begin to see that as a result of the iron discipline which they have imposed upon themselves—because they have imposed it upon themselves; the leaders could not have done it without the Russian people themselves feeling it was essential if they were to make progress—they are within sight of Jerusalem, as it were, provided they can have peace. And I believe that the men in the Kremlin realise that their people have got to have peace.
In Mr. Khrushchev's interview with The Times' correspondent the number of occasions on which mention was made of the wastefulness of spending all these resources on building up armaments instead of putting them into industrial production was obvious and significant. He finished up—and I should like to quote the actual words which he used—by saying:
"If we could start a trend to greater trust, then we would increase the possibility of reducing arms unilaterally."
The Times' correspondent said that this was a significant statement. I think it was, although in the West its significance has perhaps been overlooked. If the Russians could feel greater confidence in the West, they themselves would be prepared to start a unilateral disarmament. Is not that a significant thing? If we can get this feeling of greater confidence and trust, then I think the Summit talks will be a success. Surely it is not beyond the scope of Western statesmanship to see that that is made possible.
4.52 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat most courteously informed me a minute or two ago that he was compelled to leave the Chamber almost immediately for an important meeting. But I hope to be able to detain him for just two or three minutes to congratulate him on what seems to me to be perhaps a change of attitude on his part; for three weeks ago I tried to convince him that this was the year 1958 and that there was nothing to be gained by old hatreds and old dislikes and enmities. At the time I was referring to the question of our relationship with Spain. I was unable to convince the noble Lord at the time, but now he seems to be prepared to be magnanimous in the matter of what the Russians have or have not done twenty years ago or thereabouts. I hope that he will be able to extend this magnanimous frame of mind even a little further. I am sure he will not mind my saying that before he has, unfortunately, to leave the Chamber.
Now perhaps I might revert to what I had originally intended to say to your Lordships. This has been a long debate and it is inevitable that during the course of it the question of the exploration of avenues and the advisability or otherwise of leaving stones unturned is bound to arise. Pious hopes are expressed—though, so far as I am aware, no hope is any the worse for being pious: rather the reverse. Nevertheless, perhaps I may at this point introduce one or two concrete proposals founded on facts, as indeed other speeches have been, only perhaps less obviously so than those which I shall try to put to your Lordships.
The two questions which have emerged more than any others are the subjects of disengagement and the Rapacki Plan, neither of which do I propose to mention, since they have been ventilated at considerable length. As regards Summit meetings, I do not know who invented the expression "Summit", but I imagine that it was probably a newspaperman, and I must say that I think he did a grave disservice. It leads the people in every country to expect so much. Yet, after all, what is it. It is a meeting of "statesmen," if they are on your own side: of "politicians" if they are on the other side. They are doing their best, but the phrase "Summit meeting" is such a
188
sensational title that results are expected which are not always forthcoming.
I believe, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, hinted at it yesterday, as did Lord Strang in his excellent speech, that more frequent meetings at perhaps a rather lower level and at different levels, if held more often and perhaps even informally or semi-informally, would produce, in the end, a better result. I am aware that U.N.O. exists for this purpose to some extent, though not entirely, because there are so many members of U.N.O. I have never attended a session, but it must be very difficult to get anything agreed at all where there are so many people concerned. But informal meetings at ministerial level, or even junior ministerial level, held two, three or four times a year, and between three or four or five or six countries who wish to discuss certain matters, and not "boosted up" into a world-wide sensation, would, I believe, like water dropping on a stone, produce in the long run more co-operation between the countries and perhaps smooth out some of our difficulties.
Before I leave that point I should like to recall that immediately after the war, in 1945, I found myself in Berlin a good deal, being then a member of the Control Commission. Lord Strang (Sir William Strang, as he then was) was the Political Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief—I think he will remember those days. In Berlin there were quadripartite meetings between ourselves, the Russians, the Americans and the French. They were held every fortnight and carried a long agenda. I do not say that we always got through the agenda, or always agreed on everything; but a certain amount of the agenda was agreed, and that which was not agreed was put off until the next fortnightly meeting. We worried away at the problem, and really things did not work out too badly. I think that is the way to set about these problems; and my own view is that although the Summit meeting is going to take place, so far as I know—and I cannot see any harm coming out of it—to some extent I deplore the expression "Summit"; I believe that people expect too much from it.
My Lords, I will leave that matter and move on to the two concrete proposals which I should like to make to Her

189
Majesty's Government. One I shall cut short, since the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has already dealt with it in his speech. I shall, however, refer to it to some extent, because I hope to be able to put into his mind a little doubt—perhaps one exists already, and I shall reinforce it.
My first proposal, which, surprisingly in my view, has not been mentioned at all in this debate, concerns M. Gaillard's plan for a West Mediterranean Alliance, or an Alliance of West Mediterranean countries. I think this proposal is only about a week (or even less) old. The countries concerned are this, country, France, Italy, Tunisia (a new Mediterranean country) and Spain. The danger of this Communist leap-frogging technique, as well as the which they employ in various countries, may well be happening in the Mediterranean so far as Algeria is concerned. I cannot prove that, but I think it is a distinct possibility, if not a probability. We have seen the leapfrogging technique used in Syria: there the Northern Tier has to some extent been leap-frogged. I shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps it is employed in Indonesia, in the leap-frogging of S.E.A.T.O., though there again S.E.A.T.O. has not got a "wall" in the way of the Northern Tier or the N.A.T.O. soi-distant wall. Nevertheless, S.E.A.T.O. is a defensive organisation, and the events in Indonesia at the moment look to me rather like the same technique again.
But to revert to the Mediterranean for a moment, among the countries of the West I can think of only two (noble Lords may think of others) where Communism has made no progress at all. In Italy and France, Communism has made great progress. It has made some progress in Belgium and Holland. All these countries have flourishing Communist organisations. The only two countries where it has made no progress whatever, and where Communism is virtually non-existent, are the Republics of Spain and of Ireland—and neither country is a member of N.A.T.O.
Before I leave that matter I would say this. Having three weeks ago been under extremely heavy fire from noble Lords on my left when I tried to enlist sympathy—not entirely without success, I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships—on the subject of Spain, I was rather gratified to see in the leading
190
article in the Daily Telegraph on Monday last, referring to the new relationship between the Mediterranean nations, the following words:
"The economic, cultural and strategic links are obvious to all but the bitterest nationalists "—
and I would add the words "or isolationalists"—
"Could not Spain too be welcomed as a partner in the common Western defence of the region, thus healing a twenty-year old breach?"
If the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, could make a passing reference to that point I should be most grateful.
But in order to avoid any suspicion that I am either a Fascist or a neo-Fascist, or any of the terms which are inclined to attach to one when one mentions the question of Spain in a good light, I shall switch to the Far East, thereby perhaps incurring suspicion of being a neo-Communist or "fellow-traveller". Actually, as a good Liberal, I like the middle of the road—which I believe to be the right place to travel—rather than the verges. "Leap-frogging", which I have already mentioned, leads me to the situation in Indonesia. It is a little early to talk too much about that. It is confused and potentially very dangerous from the S.E.A.T.O. point of view. We must remember that, it we except the Seventh United States Fleet., S.E.A.T.O. has not "teeth" in it (to use a popular expression) in the way that N.A.T.O. has. Nevertheless, it is a defensive organisation, and when the events which have taken place lately in that part of the world are looked at in relation to the whole picture in the Far East one cannot help feeling some alarm.
I believe that the spotlight now is on somewhere which, to my surprise, was mentioned only once in yesterday's debate—Manila, in the Philippines, where the Foreign Secretaries of this country, France and the United States, now are. Some of your Lordships may have heard Mr. Harold Wilson's broadcast on the B.B.C. the night before last. He had recently had a meeting with Prime Minister Chou En-lai in Peking, and it may be of interest to your Lordships that only eighteen months ago in Peking, and no doubt in the same room, several Members of Parliament, including myself, had a similar meeting. We raised precisely the same points as Mr. Wilson is

191
reported to have raised and obtained precisely the same replies—which shows that Chou En-lai is taking a certain line and sticking to it, so that at least we know where we are. I will not enlarge on the first of the points which Mr. Wilson discussed with him since it was mentioned in some detail yesterday by my noble friend Lord Elibank. He is a great expert on these matters and I am not, and I therefore leave your Lordships to read Hansard and see what impression his speech made upon you. I should, however, like to add to what he said three small points which will, I believe, interest the House.
The first is that a trade agreement with Western Germany (which has nothing at all to do with the embargo) for an exchange of goods to the value of £20 million has just been made. Secondly, 30,000 tons of rubber from Ceylon have recently been ordered in return for rice; and a point which I found rather surprising—China is now the second largest supplier, of goods to Ceylon, after the United States. The third point is that the Chinese recently purchased 10,000 tons of wheat from Canada and paid for it in cash.
My noble friend Lord Elibank went over the events which led up to the present United States dilemma in Taiwan—or Formosa as it is more generally known. He did it much better than I could ever do and I shall not do so again. but when I use the word "dilemma" I use it advisedly because I believe that that in fact is what it is—that it is becoming a grave embarrassment to the United States; and personally I cannot see what they are going to do about it. Luckily it is their problem and not immediately ours, though possibly the eventual demise of Marshal Chiang Kai-shek may solve the problem for them. He is not a young man and perhaps on his demise they will be able to enter into some other arrangement with his successor which would save their face—and modern diplomacy seems nowadays to consist very largely of face-saving.
Chou En-lai told us, when we raised the question of whether there would be an amnesty for Chiang's troops, men or followers if they came home, that he could give no answer. He said that it was a Chinese matter and that he was
192
taking no advice from anybody on the subject; and I am sure that he feels the same to-day. Taiwan is, of course, incontestably Chinese. I will not keep your Lordships much longer, but there is then the situation throughout the off-shore islands—I do not refer to the Pescadores, which are some way away from the mainlands, but to islands like Quemoy, just a few miles off the mainland, at present occupied by American and Chiang forces. The Chinese could take it tomorrow if they wanted—there is no question about that. What would happen then? Would the United States refer the matter to the Council of the United Nations, or would they, in the ungrammatical parlance of the day, "go it alone"? I do not think there can be much doubt about what would happen; and then perhaps we should be able to recall the days of Suez when we had to put up with so much abuse from the other side of the Atlantic.
I mention these matters merely because I feel that the United States has got herself into an awkward position there. When I discussed this whole matter with an American friend of mine, a senior diplomat who is well-informed as to what is going on in the State Department (I will say no more because your Lordships might be able to identify him and I do not want that to happen), I asked him, "Why are you so determined to keep China out of the United Nations?" He said "We do not wish to confer respectability on them." I said, "But you have an Embassy in Moscow. Do you wish to confer respectability on Communist Russia?" He said, "No, but that is rather different. They fought with us in the war, and you must remember that thousands of G.I.s were killed in Korea by Communist troops." I reminded him that hundreds of thousands of British troops had been killed by the Germans, but that we had nevertheless agreed to bring Western Germany into the comity of nations as an ally.
Finally, my Lords, I do not believe that there is any real case for keeping China out of U.N.O. I rather doubt whether the noble Earl who spoke for the Government a few moments ago really thinks so. He said that half the members of U.N.O. would oppose it; and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, took him up on that, and seemed inclined

193
to doubt it. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I think it is a matter which has been allowed to run along and no one will take the lead. Let us hear the British Lion on this subject for a change. The things that go on nowadays, the things that are said to us by Nasser and people of that type, are quite extraordinary. I am reminded of the early days of the last war, when Sir Winston Churchill said, "What kind of people do they think we are?"
Things are moving fast in the Far East. It is not so long, a week or two, since Chou En-lai announced the withdrawal of Chinese troops from North Korea. They were so-called "volunteer" troops; but whether they were volunteer troops or not, they were withdrawn. Now the United States have announced the withdrawal of their forces from Japan—a very interesting development, my Lords, with endless implications, I should have thought. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will keep not only abreast of these matters but ahead of them. They are significant developments. Should we always wait until things reach a certain point and then catch up with them, or should we try to get ahead and produce a State of affairs which we want? Let us be realistic. We can all say we want peace. We have all said it; and of course we all do want peace. The point is, how to get it.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, any country which is deeply divided on its foreign policy is always in danger of defeat; and if the foreign policy of Great Britain is uncertain, if it is likely to change completely every three or four years, then we shall gain neither the respect of our enemies nor the confidence of our Allies and friends. Therefore I think we ought to examine any real or apparent differences in foreign policy between the Parties, not with the purpose of attacking each other but with the purpose of trying to ascertain whether we can reconcile those differences.
I think that a great many of your Lordships have listened, as I have done, to most of the debates on foreign policy and defence which have taken place in the other House since last December. I thought that the Party Leaders there did not seem at all anxious to magnify the
194
differences between them but rather to find, if they could, some common ground of agreement. The Labour leaders on the Front Bench, I think on at least two occasions, indicated, or so it seemed to me, that they would not have divided the House if only the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had both made exactly the same speech. Whether that is a good reason for challenging a Division or not I should not like to say, but at least it seems to suggest that differences on foreign policy between the Parties are not hopelessly irreconcilable. Until fairly lately we did have a bipartisan foreign policy, except for a few fellow travellers; but now, in the last six months or so, it looks as if the fellow travellers have attracted a very large number of immigrants on to their bandwagon; and at the same time there have developed certain differences between the official Parties which I hope are not fundamental but which must be candidly examined if we want to remove them.
It used to be agreed, I think, by all the North Atlantic Powers, and by the leading Parties in this country—and it was certainly always recognised by the commanders of the N.A.T.O. Forces in Europe—that if Russia were to launch a major attack with conventional forces we should then use the nuclear deterrent, whether Russia used it or not. Now the Labour Party seem to be inclined to the view—I do not know whether they are irrevocably committed to it or not—that if we say this too plainly we might incite some aggressive Russian Government to start a major war by a surprise all-out nuclear attack before they had even begun to mobilise their Army; and we should, therefore, now reverse our former declaration and say we are not going to use the nuclear deterrent against attack, and that we are not going to use the nuclear weapon unless Russia uses it first. I am not going to criticise that argument now. I only want, very humbly and respectfully, to appeal to the Party opposite to take a little time to clarify their attitude, and to consider whether they really think it is likely that Russia would start a surprise nuclear attack on the West unless the Russian General Staff were convinced that they could knock out all the nuclear bases of America and her allies in time to prevent an equally destructive retaliation.

195
Mr. Strachey, in the last debate on this subject in the other House, gave a careful analysis of an imaginary attack by Russian forces against Germany, which he divided into three stages, showing what we should do or should not do about nuclear weapons at each stage. The first stage, he supposed, was an attack against the garrison of Berlin by only a few Russian divisions, which he said should be resisted by the weapons the garrison had. In the second stage he imagined, in which he said the Russians would raise the stakes, Russia would attack with a larger number of divisions but with tactical, not strategic, weapons, and he said we should then reply with tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The third stage was that of the use by Russia of strategic thermo-nuclear weapons, to which he thought we ought to respond. But Mr. Strachey did not tell us what his Party thinks we ought to do if Russia were to begin by saying, "We are not going to use any nuclear weapons at all," and were then to deploy a large-scale attack against Germany with all the hideously destructive weapons which are now politely described as "conventional". as if conventional war were going to be a kind of stately eighteenth-century minuet while nuclear war was a kind of vulgar rock 'n' roll.
I am not going to pursue that point in a controversial way, but I would suggest to the Labour Party that they should consider what we would actually do if there were this conventional attack and if Russia were to undertake not to use nuclear weapons; and that they should also consider the necessity, which would seem to many people to follow, that for the next four or five years the North Atlantic Powers should devote themselves to obtaining 200 military divisions and 20,000 aircraft in order to be able to match Russian forces on the ground. I hope that we shall get some greater clarity from the Party opposite on these issues.
But, of course, there is a far greater and more unbridgeable cleavage now between the Government and the official Opposition, on the one hand, and, on the other, a very considerable section of the Labour Party, backed by a considerable section of the Press, which has lent itself to the public agitation in favour of renouncing thermo-nuclear weapons
196
altogether. Do not let anybody imagine that this agitation is not going to be prolonged and active or that it will not have a very wide appeal to a public which, I think, has never been so well instructed as it ought to have been, either by the Government or by the Press, about the nature of the problem which we are all facing at the present time.
The argument for renouncing the use of the bomb (I hope I am putting it fairly) is that the consequences of thermonuclear warfare may be irrevocable, whereas the consequences of surrender to Communism would not be irrevocable. It is bound, therefore, to appeal to a large number of people who are not interested in politics and want only to be allowed to live in peace: "If we surrendered to Communism to-morrow, perhaps I might get a job as an agricultural commissar with a much larger income than I have now. I might enjoy a great deal of physical comfort and my wife and children might be spared from destruction".
I think the real answer is that even if the intellectual proposition of surrender to Communism is better than the nuclear deterrent, even if that proposition were true, in practice very few people are going to act on it. Whatever some individuals may think or say, the great majority of free men will prefer death to slavery, as so many of them have done in Hungary. I think that if we were to surrender to Communism, there would not even be world peace under the Communist ægis. Perhaps there would be a hundred years of war by unarmed men against tyranny. I think we have a great responsibility in trying to educate public opinion on this matter.
There were two speeches made in our debate yesterday, which, if I may be allowed to say so, were of exceptional value—those by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and my noble friend Lord Strang. Both of them were criticised mildly by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who opened the debate to-day, on the ground that they seemed to hold out no hope of our ever being able to have any kind of agreement with Russia. It did not seem to me that either of the speeches led to that conclusion. What I thought they advocated, very effectively, was the virtue of patience; and patience, is of superlative importance at the present

197
time. If we get nothing out of a Summit conference this year, it is going to be very hard to go on year after year living under this thermo-nuclear threat, which may go on for a very long time. We shall never persuade the Russians to make any concession on moral grounds; we shall persuade them to make a concession only if they are convinced that it is in their own interest to do so. That may take a long time, but we must never give up hope of its happening.
The campaign in this country for the abolition of nuclear weapons seems to show that the lessons of appeasement before the war have been forgotten by a great many old men and never learned by a great many young ones. But if we have a new generation here which may not be so well instructed in the lessons of the past as it ought to be, there is also a new generation growing up in Russia which may not be indoctrinated with the ideas of the original founders of Communism; and the ordinary, common people of Russia, like the ordinary, common people here, want to live in peace. We must never abandon the hope of breaking down the cultural and political barriers of the Iron Curtain.
I see that there is a society in Twickenham called the Twickenham Society for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, which wrote a letter the other day to Mr. Khrushchev about it. Mr. Khrushchev evidently thought it worth while to reply—he is getting rather good at writing letters now. The reply was published in the Press about a fortnight ago. It said, very plainly, that if there was any more nonsense of this kind, the Russian H-bomb would exterminate the entire population of Twickenham, including the members of the Society for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons. What we want to see is a Society for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons in Brest-Litovsk, in Omsk, and in Tomsk. We want to see them all writing letters to Mr. Macmillan, and we want to see Mr. Macmillan's replies. At the present time I am afraid that there is no Society for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons in Tomsk, and, if there were, they would not be allowed to write a letter even to the superintendent of the concentration camp in which they would all be shut up. But we must never give up hope of making contact with the
198
people of Russia, and we must exercise the virtue of patience.
We must not be disheartened or yield to despair if we do not get what we want this year. Above all, do not let anybody think that peace depends on our getting something now, this year, and that the whole future of the world depends on our success this year. Patience is what we want in this matter, and, what I think is even more important, we must warn people now that impatience and emotionalism might be the very thing which will bring the world to the supreme disaster.
5.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in trying to put the Summit conference in its proper perspective, and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to go back about eighteen months in order to do so. I am sure that putting it in its proper perspective will tend to destroy the exaggeration which so many people, in this country and in the rest of the free world, have put upon it. I believe that that exaggeration can be extremely dangerous.
I should like to view the proposal for the conference not as an isolated incident, but as a perfectly logical link in the series of Soviet actions over the last eighteen months. I am not doubting necessarily that it is a perfectly sincere suggestion, but I am saying that it is a carefully calculated move. The Hungarian incident of eighteen months ago was one of the worst setbacks international Communism has ever suffered—as indeed the Hungarian official Press has since admitted. It was therefore afterwards of the greatest possible importance to rebuild the Communists' reputation; and they set about doing it by two means. First of all, they started a propaganda campaign particularly directed towards the uncommitted areas of the world. At first this campaign made no pretence of the facts of the Hungarian revolution, but after a while it was suggested gradually that this revolution was the work of imperialist elements in Hungary, and the idea was eventually put about, very broadly, that in fact Hungary had been attacked by the "imperialists" and had been rescued only by the selfless intervention of Soviet forces.

199
This propaganda campaign had considerable effect—and I will give one example of the effect it had upon the Hungarian diplomatic offensive in that area. Hungarian exhibitions were opened in Damascus and Cairo and did extremely well. Hungarian trade agreements have been signed as recently as December and January with Morocco and Tunisia. The Sudan is trading very widely with Hungary. Economic information offices have been set up in Tunis and Casablanca—all this done by the Kadar régime, the very régime that was so roundly condemned by the United Nations Report, and, moreover, at a time when Hungary's economy is perilously close to ruin and can little afford to trade abroad. That was one of the methods by which the Soviet attempted to rebuild their reputation.
The other method was by the Sputniks. These were built and launched in the middle of an acute shortage in Russia of basic consumer goods, such as food, clothing and housing. In addition, they appear to have been purely incidental to the general development of the intercontinental ballistic missiles, in spite of the amount of money which they cost. It is therefore hard to avoid the conclusion that so much money could have been spent only for prestige and propaganda purposes. In my opinion, the propaganda effect was intended to produce two results. It was to produce a new sensation which would take precedence in the public memory, short as it is, over the Hungarian revolution, and also to give a powerful demonstration of the advantages of a Communist society and organisation which could thus be shown to have built up in forty years what was at the beginning of that time largely an agrarian society into one that could be in the forefront of the most advanced scientific developments. Most of these messages were intended mainly for the uncommitted nations of the world in Africa and Asia, because the Soviets could foresee that the impact of the Sputnik on the West would be very different; and accordingly they launched against the West a much different sort of campaign: they intensified their peace offensive. The result of the Sputniks was, of course, an enormous closing of the ranks in the N.A.T.O. countries and a tremendous urge for unity. The Soviets
200
do not like Western unity. A disunited Europe and a disunited free world has many policies and many plans to put forward to confront the one unified colossus of Soviet strategy; whereas a united Europe and a united free world can put forward one plan and, by the fact of its unity, give more strength to that plan. Faced with this situation, as I have said, they put forward a peace offensive, and I would submit that the suggestion for a Summit conference is only one step in this peace offensive. As the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said, they took to smooth words instead of intimidation. From the Soviet point of view this was a calculated move, because there are three posible things that could happen as a result of the Summit conference.
First, the conference may succeed. It may succeed in reaching some concrete and mutually agreeable results—as, indeed, I sincerely hope it will. If, however, it should result in some measure of agreement on disarmament, and in a cessation of the arms race, we must be careful of two dangers resulting from the fact that there has been agreement. First of all, the reduction of tension which such an agreement will produce will tend to make us in the West think that we have no longer such a vital interest in keeping unified and together. There will be a relaxation of tension, and our eyes may well be blinded to other things that are going on behind our backs while we are not looking. Also in the uncommitted areas the Soviets, having been the instigators of a successful conference, will be able to make the best of that fact; they will be able to use it to give great emphasis to their campaign setting themselves up as the champions of peace throughout the world. Our attitude, therefore, if we are successful, must be to remember that the danger is not past merely because we get agreement at this Summit conference or at subsequent Summit conferences. It is not past while international Communism still exists.
Secondly, if the conference fails the Soviets will be able to use this failure to their advantage also. It will be made out by their propaganda machine that they have put forward constructive suggestions for peace and that it is the responsibility and fault of the West that these have come to nothing; in fact the old position in which it was the West who produced the good ideas and Mr.

201
Molotov who always said, "No", will be reversed. This result would have a world-wide psychological effect. The uncommitted nations would be wide open to that sort of suggestion, while even in the West people in our own countries would be inclined to feel disillusionment and resentment at the Governments which had failed at the conference. Moreover, Communism would gain in the event of such a failure, which is a possibility. We should therefore have to stress the sincerity and the depth of our will to succeed, which was so vividly shown yesterday by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. We should also have to take into consideration the whole background of the conference which I am trying to explain to your Lordships as I see it, and we should also have to explain to the world that it was the unreasonableness of the Soviets, as against our reasonable suggestions, which contributed to failure, and not the other way round.
But even if no conference ever took place, the Soviets would still stand to gain. There was at one stage, after the suggestion for a conference was put forward in December, an appearance of a grave danger that in this country there might be internal disunity about our attitude to this conference and to what should be done about it: when it should be held, and what should be discussed. I hope that that is no longer so—and this debate seems to have borne out, to some degree, that hope. But, in addition, we have still to see that the Western Powers are not at sixes and sevens among themselves about the conference. If they are, and if they remain at sixes and sevens, the unity in the West which was the result of the Sputniks will have disappeared; and in my opinion that is exactly what the Soviets are aiming at.
I have spoken of a possible failure, but it is not for lack of confidence in our sincerity and our will to succeed. I am indeed hopeful of success. Mr. Bulganin, in his letter of January 8, said that he wished to discuss subjects and questions which were capable of a possible agreement. That is also, of course, the view of Her Majesty's Government, and that is why they are so keen on adequate preparation. But I believe most profoundly that we cannot expect any concessions from the Communists which are not in accord with their ideology or their particular method of putting over
202
the ideology which is, for the time being, in practice. No agreement, however specific and definite, will be made by them unless it fits in with their Communist plans, nor will it be kept unless it continues so to fit in. It is only the most dangerous sort of wishful thinking to suppose that there has been any sort of change in the basic Marxist-Leninist doctrine of eventual Communist world domination.
That this is so is borne out by two most important doctrinaire publications which have recently come out from behind the Iron Curtain. The first is the declaration by the Chinese Communist Party in December, 1956, about the true Communist who, they say, is one who tries to seize power over all the world and who fights for a Communist Revolution on a world-wide scale. That statement was confirmed by the Twelve-Power Communist Declaration of November 22 last. It is no use trying to avoid this fact. It has been declared all along, and it should be the primary consideration in any discussion with the Soviets.
But world domination can be achieved in many different ways. The noble Lord, Lord Salter, spoke of the economic competition, and set out some proposals to deal with it. Another way, which is classical to Communism, is that of war. But here, I believe, Communist policy has undergone a change. The possibility of coming to power by other than peaceful and Parliamentary means has now been relegated to the background and put on the shelf, as again the Declaration of November 22 will show. This may be due to several factors, one being that which the noble Lord, Lord Salter, suggested, that in fact they still believe that the Western Powers will destroy themselves, given time. It may also be the result of the fact that the peoples of the Iron Curtain countries, like the peoples of free countries, are now frightened at the prospect of total annihilation by nuclear warfare. The peoples behind the Iron Curtain are no longer as docile as they used to be. It may be, therefore, that the Soviet leaders would be prepared to pacify their own people and to bring about some sort of agreement on disarmament, particularly as no longer are arms and war the chief method which they are intending to use in furtherance of their final aim of world domination.

203
I am therefore delighted that Her Majesty's Government are thinking in terms of these subjects for discussion at the Summit conference. I think there is quite a chance that the ideological situation is such in Russia that Her Majesty's Government may succeed. But if we do achieve success in this field, it must not be a signal for general relaxation. For just as the Soviets have shown that war is no longer their main method of expansion, they have also shown us what is their main method of expansion. Reduced to its essentials, the November 22 Declaration amounts to the following statement: that the Communist leaders are no longer counting on the support of the workers of the highly developed countries in Western Europe towards their revolution.
They are therefore developing a different campaign altogether. They are making an appeal to thinking persons throughout the world by setting themselves up as champions of peace. This is the aim of the peace offensive of which I have spoken. The more people they can persuade to think that their ideals are solely peace and peaceful co-existence, the fewer people will be frightened by the awareness of the fact that their basic aim of world domination is still unchanged. The idea that the Russian leaders are innocent has already lead to disasters, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said, at Yalta, Teheran, and the conferences in the war, and it must not happen again. It is to the highest degree dangerous that people in this country and in other free States should get into their heads that necessarily the Russians are innocent.
The other line that the Soviets are now using is an intention to win over the undeveloped and uncommitted countries by propaganda, economic aid, and, if necessary, by subversion. These are the countries which have still a choice of whether they will go East or go West. I therefore support, very strongly, and am delighted to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, of the importance that Her Majesty's Government are putting upon, propaganda in those parts. I am also inspired by the portrayal of the Commonwealth which the noble Earl who leads the House gave us yesterday as an example to the uncommitted nations. I believe that we must miss no
204
chance of broadcasting our achievements in the Commonwealth, in Asia and in Africa, as demonstrations of the good that may come from co-operation and partnership with the West. We offer real freedom and real progress. We do not make spectacular, scientific demonstrations at the cost of the standard of living of the people whom we serve.
I think that what we must do, if we achieve success in a Summit conference or in a series of Summit conferences, is to realise that our real danger is no longer in Europe but that it is in Asia, in Africa and in the Middle East. It is in those parts of the world that we must counter Soviet propaganda with our own propaganda, point by point specifically, and, if we can, we must forestall it. For it is possible in advance to tell what line they are going to take. I believe that it is only counter-attack in this form and in those threatened areas that will stop the spread of international Communism.
5.47 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my noble friend (Lord Colville of Culross), who has just resumed his seat has made, I think, one of the best speeches in what I may call a four days' debate, and I think the House greatly enjoyed it.
It is fifteen months since I have intervened in a debate on foreign affairs, and in those fifteen months I do not think that the difficulties and dangers of our position have grown less; and the House was, I think, quite right to devote these four days to these great topics. In the debate last week my noble friend Lord Coleraine expressed very much what I thought and think, as did also my noble friends Lord Dundee and Lord Swinton. The House was, I think, delighted in all quarters by the brilliant and moving speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I hope I may also be allowed to mention one speech from the Benches opposite which I, at any rate, very much enjoyed, and that was the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who by his tenure of great office and long experience in peace and in war always commands our attention and respect.
If there were many speeches made with which I found myself in agreement, there were other things said by other speakers which seemed to me so utterly divorced from reality that I had repeatedly to ask myself whether they could really be saying the things I heard. Hansard proved

205
that they were. I have quoted before, and I quote again, a famous sentence of Bishop Butler, of the eighteenth century:
"Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we desire to be deceived?"
My Lords, our first task is to discover the truth, however unpleasant the truth may be, and a great deal of the truth to-day is extremely unpleasant. I have no doubt that in what I am going to say the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, if lie were here, would accuse me of hatred of Russia. He would be quite wrong. I have no hatred either of Russian culture or of the Russian people or of such Russians as it has been my pleasure and good fortune to meet. It is not uninteresting to me that the last Russian with whom I spent some hours one evening in the 1930s was Professor Kapitza. I was visiting Cambridge, and I even had the interesting, though short, experience of playing chess against him. He was so much above any class that I had ever met in that game that that alone would have made the evening memorable. I also remember another evening about the same time, when I was visiting Trinity and spent some time with the great Lord Rutherford. I feel, as so many noble Lords feel, the irony that the work that those great scientists were engaged in should have produced the results which are so present to our minds to-day.
But if I have no hatred for the Russian people that does not mean that I have no hatred for the actions of the Russian Government. I think it is vital that we should examine carefully and sincerely what it is that the Russian Government has been doing and is doing. We should really drop the line of "Let's pretend—let's pretend that we do not know what the Communists are after". Nine years ago in another place, on March 23, 1949, I made a speech in which I examined some of the principles of Communism and its practices. I suggested then, and I believe it is still true, that there were three things to remember about the cold war. The first was that it was most definitely war; and there I could pray in aid numerous speeches of Mr. Bevin. Secondly, that it was by no means cold. Our planters who were being murdered in Malaya, the Greek peasants whose villages were being
206
burned and whose children were being taken into captivity, did not find it very cold. The third fact about the cold war which I mentioned was that at that time the West was clearly losing it. As a result of the creation and development of N.A.T.O. that last condition may be no longer true, though we must always be on our guard.
My Lords, Communist aims can be ascertained by two quite independent methods, and they give us an identical result. They can be ascertained by studying the sacred books of their secular religion, not books published in this country but books published in English in Moscow—Stalin's Problems of Leninism. We can discover also what their aims are by applying the well-known doctrine of the English Common Law, that men are presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. If we examine what the Communists have been doing, and doing for years, throughout the world, we can find out what are their intentions; and both those methods—the method of studying their published works and the method of applying that doctrine of the English Common Law to what they have done—will lead us to the same result. To-day an enormous area of Europe, and country after country, has been enslaved. To describe the process a fantastic vocabulary has been invented. Enslavement is called "liberation"; "democratic election" is the term used to describe an election in which only Communists are allowed to stand. My Lords, the countries of Eastern Europe are not in this subjection because their peoples desire or have chosen the Communist way of life. They are in this position because they have been conquered by fraud and by force and are now forcibly held in subjection.
In the course of this debate some noble Lords, dwelling, as it appears to me, in Cloud-cuckoo land, have spoken as if Russia only sought peacefully to spread an economic and social doctrine, relying on peaceful persuasion. The Russian tanks that mowed down the unarmed men and women in the streets of Budapest were, so to speak, giving a lecture in economics such as might be given at the London School of Economics. I must quote, to show that I am not exaggerating, what some noble Lords have said

207
in the course of this debate—when I say "this debate" I mean the four days, two last week and two this. Apparently we need not fear at all that Russia would be guilty of warlike action. The Russians would never invade other countries. Why? Let us examine what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 207 (No. 41), col. 1168];
"Surely to invade a country is not the way for them to get the good will of its inhabitants towards their own régime. People cannot be forced to think the same as the Russians do, or to adopt their political forms."
As regards the last, cannot they? Is that not precisely what has happened? Is it supposed that Russia to-day enjoys the good will of the inhabitants of Poland or of Hungary or of Roumania or of Czechoslovakia?
The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 207 (No. 41), col. 1157]:
"Communism will come in as the companion of despair and distress by the back door. That is what has happened up to now."
It is not. What has happened up to now is the use of force and fraud by Russia. If any noble Lord opposite doubts that, let him study the declaration of the National Council of Labour at the time of the coup d'état in Czechoslovakia. There is one remark that I thought even more astonishing than those I have quoted, and that was from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, speaking from the Liberal Benches. He said—he made it clear that he regretted it—that we preferred to retain the nuclear weapon (now I quote his words) [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 207, (No. 41) col. 1114]:
"rather than take any risk of the temporary triumph of an ideology which we totally dislike for the period of perhaps a generation or so".
My Lords, that almost defies comment. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whose humanity and high principles I have always recognised, has studied what happened to the Baltic States. I wonder if he has studied the elegant science of social engineering, under which you take every man and woman capable of leadership and kill them or deport them, and then, by that method, show your power to murder a whole nation. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said "Oh, yes, quite true about the Baltic States; but let bygones be bygones."
208
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Winster, made, I thought, a brave and reasoned speech in which he honestly went through the record of Russia in these matters. I shall not repeat his catalogue—noble Lords in all quarters would have no difficulty in adding to his list of crimes and breaches of agreement. But may I remind the House of two more examples with which I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, would agree? The first is one that I mentioned to the House when I spoke in December, 1956. As the immediate sequel to Yalta, the Russians obtained from us a list of the Polish underground leaders whom we thought most suitable candidates for the provisional Government mentioned in the Yalta Agreement. They invited sixteen of these men to Moscow, under promise of safety, and then flung them into prison. This they did, when the ink of the Agreement was scarcely dry, in March, 1945. They admitted that they had done this only in May, to our representatives at the San Francisco Conference. That example of Communist treachery was then fairly novel; it is now part of the grammar of their proceedings.
My Lords, I venture to give another example, one most relevant to the matters we are considering in the debate and the matters that will be considered at the Summit conference, when it takes place. We had an Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance; it was entered into on May 26, 1942, and it was to run for twenty years. Article V of that Treaty said that the high contracting parties:
"will act in accordance with the two principles of not seeking territorial aggrandisement for themselves and of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States."
My noble friend on the Woolsack and I remember many speeches in which the late Mr. Ernest Bevin gave us an account of the continuous subversion and interference in other countries which Russia was conducting. In his speech of September 15, 1948, Mr. Bevin mentioned that this habit of interference in the affairs of other countries was as old as Marxist-Leninist theory itself. He was quite right. But what I ask your Lordships to observe is that this conduct of Russia was a clear breach of an express term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance. Now there is again talk of a non-aggression pact with Russia. My

209
first observation on that is that we had one—we had the one I have mentioned. Russia continuously broke it from the beginning; and ultimately she repudiated or annulled it on May 7, 1955.
If it is suggested that we should now have another non-aggression pact with Russia, several questions appear to me to arise. The first is one that has worried the Prime Minister, and he mentions it in his letter answering Mr. Bulganin: how would the obligations of the pact differ from those that are already imposed by the Charter of the United Nations? May I ask this simple question: for what breaches of treaty or intransigence is Russia to be rewarded by a new treaty in place of that which she broke from the beginning and ultimately denounced? Is this a reward for walking out of the Disarmament Committee, or is it a reward for their treatment of Hungary? Lastly, could such a pact be drafted in such a way that we avoided any implication of condoning the continued subjection of the satellite States?
The question of the satellite States is really crucial. I do not believe that, in the long run, either peace or disarmament can be based on a denial of justice to millions, on the permanent deprivation of their freedom. In December, 1956, I ventured to remind your Lordships of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The priest, the Levite and the Good Samaritan came on the scene after the thieves had finished their horrible work. I ask you to consider what would have happened if they had come upon the scene while the thuggery was still proceeding. What would the Good Samaritan have done? I suggest that he would not have made a nonaggression pact or a treaty of friendship with the thugs.
My Lords, I have sketched the background against which we have to consider the problem of the deterrent and the Summit talks. On the deterrent, I am glad that there appears to be a great measure of agreement between the two Front Benches. It is agreed that we roust maintain the nuclear deterrent, though it does not seem quite so clearly to be agreed on the Benches opposite what it is sought to deter. We think that it should deter from all major wars—not only wars in which the hydrogen
210
bomb is used, but even a great war in which it was sought to overrun Europe without the use of any such bomb. I agree with the policy outlined in the White Paper. The hydrogen bomb is a deterrent. How does anybody imagine that the West has in fact had its way of life protected for many years? I dismiss the curious theory of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that it ceased to be a deterrent when both sides had it. The argument seems to be that, if only one side had it, the other side might be deterred, but that when everybody was in a position to kill everybody else, then war became so extraordinarily jolly that nobody would be deterred at all. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, reminded me of the title of a book by the well-known Canadian humorist, Stephen Leacock: Moonbeams from the Larger Lunacy.
We are, therefore, quite right in agreeing that we must have the deterrent. But, of course, there is a further question. From the fact that we roust have the deterrent it does not necessarily follow that we must make it ourselves. Needless to say, if we believed that the whole idea of the nuclear deterrent was morally wrong, then quite clearly we could not honourably shelter behind a nuclear deterrent in the hands of America. But if we think that the nuclear deterrent is not morally wrong, there still remains the open question of whether we should make it ourselves. With the division of labour among the N.A.T.O. Allies that is an arguable matter. I myself heartily support the decision of Her Majesty's Government that it is right that we should make the deterrent ourselves. Let me give one reason, which I think has not been given in the course of this debate: can we be absolutely certain that the great American public will never be impressed by the argument by which, clearly, many of our own public are impressed, that it would be so terrible to use the nuclear deterrent that it is doubtful whether any Government would have the determination to do so? Are we quite certain that, if we had not the nuclear deterrent ourselves, the American public, or the American Government, might not come to the conclusion that we were expendable? I am not suggesting that they would, but I believe that we should not assume that an argument which has so much force in some quarters

211
here will always be disregarded over there.
If we are to have the deterrent, a third question arises: ought we to stop the British-based aircraft patrols? I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in his vigorous speech, thought his Party were wrong in wishing to stop these patrols; and I was glad to see the Manchester Guardian take the same line to-day. Let us examine what is the argument for stopping them. In order to avoid the risk of someone starting a nuclear war by accident, we are to make it much easier for an enemy to start such a war on purpose. We are to make a "Pearl Harbour" possible.
I come last to the Summit conference. I desire a Summit conference to take place on the conditions which have been given and made clear by speakers for Her Majesty's Government, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strang; but I am not in favour of such a conference if subjects are to be excluded merely because the Russians dislike their inclusion. I do not believe in talk for talk's sake. No doubt the Russians can be obstinate, but that is no reason for our abandoning our principles. When we talk about getting together with the Russians on the basis of "live and let live," it sounds excellent; but if we mean maintaining the political status quo, that is not to be described as a policy of "live and let live": it is a policy of "live and let die." I repeat what I said fifteen months ago—Europe cannot survive a second Yalta; nor, my Lords, would it deserve to.

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Overseas Service,

Overseas Resources Development,

Commonwealth Institute,

Recreational Charities.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
6.45 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the debate has gone on longer than we expected and I fully understand the reasons that have led a number of noble Lords to leave the House for important business elsewhere. I should mention that, among others, the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who have both spoken so eloquently, made apologies for the fact that they will not now be able to be with us. We have had, I think, it will be generally agreed, an important debate, and I am sure the distinguished seniors who have spoken will not mind my saying that from these Benches, at any rate, we were particularly gratified by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I feel that that should be said at the beginning in case I do not deal with all the points made by the noble Lord.
Just before the adjournment, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was disturbing our minds with many statements which, for the most part, and leaving out his personal criticisms of my colleagues about which I will say a word in a moment, are difficult to refute: that is to say, they were, so far as I can judge, factual. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, is well entitled to speak about the sufferings of those behind the Iron Curtain, as we all bear in mind his honourable sacrifice of office at the time of Yalta—it is something we have never forgotten in this House.
I am bound to say that I thought his remarks about some of my colleagues were a shade indiscriminate. If they were here, no doubt they would answer for themselves. I think, in particular,

213
the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was to be associated with some kind of lunacy was going far beyond the sort of criticism that we expect from the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. Some words of Pascal come to my mind here, particularly at a moment when so few of us can see light in this very dark situation:
"Men are so necessarily mad that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness."
If the noble Lord wishes to apply any part of that to himself and the other to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, he can take his choice as to which refers to whom. I can only feel at the present time that none of us, even the most sane, can really begin picking out relative degrees of alleged insanity among our political opponents.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, but not those two noble Lords alone, feel a deep sense of personal responsibility—not that they are to blame, of course—for what occurs behind the Iron Curtain; and that, I think it is fair to say, is shared by all of us. I should myself be inclined to submit that the reason why disengagement has appealed to so many in the Labour Party, and elsewhere—we in the Labour Party defer to no one in our idealism—is the very fact that, however large or small an area is affected by disengagement, some area within that total extent of territory is bound to be liberated from the Communist yoke, which we so much deplore. That is one great and legitimate attraction about all forms of disengagement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, sees it that way, and I should tope that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, does, too.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has had his say, and a very good one, too, from a well understood point of view, although there was a Royal Commission and it was difficult for him to continue speaking, I felt that his speech was incomplete. He denounced the Russians, and I think quite justly. But where does that help us? He wants peace; we all want peace. What is the noble Lord's policy for peace? I hope it will not be fifteen months before we hear another speech on foreign affairs from the noble Lord, and I hope that
214
the next time he will tell us how he would advise the Government—it may be the same Government or, of course, it may be a different one—to make peace with these people. I fully appreciate what has been said about the position of people behind the Iron Curtain. How could we forget it when so recently we debated Hungary, and the blame for Hungary falls on Russia?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to respond to the noble Lord, who is dealing with this so fairly. I am in favour of the Summit conference on the terms that Her Majesty's Government have expressed. But I should be wholly against it if the Russians insisted on their exclusion of the satellite countries from consideration.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will not continue the argument with the noble Lord about those aspects. I think, if I may say so, that he is too modest about the distance his words carry. If he thinks that nobody hears what he has to say, then perhaps no harm is done, but I do not take that view of the noble Lord's impact. I feel that the Russians are inclined to regard him as a representative speaker in this country. Unbridled views, without showing the way to any practical solution, even though they are justified, cannot help the Government and might well hinder them. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my saying that clearly.
The topic of disengagement has been dealt with thoroughly by various speakers, and on that I would make two points. I do not imagine that anybody would seriously advocate disengagement—about which I had interesting discussions last week with Mr. Kennan in Oxford—if he thought it was going to be resolutely objected to in the end by our American and German Allies. It would then be impossible to proceed with it. But that does not prevent us from advocating it now, and it does not prevent us from trying to carry our Allies with us. I appreciate that the noble Earl said that the Government can hardly be expected to state a policy apart from those Allies and our other Allies. But we on the Opposition Benches are not inhibited in that way, and we are entitled to comment upon it and may express the hope that the Government will do all in their power to see that something is begun.

215
I feel that there are many objections which can be levelled against Mr. Kennan's particular proposals, or some aspects of them: they were brought out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, to which all of us listened very carefully but which we shall wish to study more than once. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has pointed the way to make a start in his support of what Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick has suggested in the Sunday Times. No one is going to say that Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick is—I was almost going to say a woolly idealist. Everyone knows that he is an idealist, but not woolly. Anybody who has been head of the Foreign Office, either the noble Lord, Lord Strang, or Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, cannot be just dismissed as a long-haired dreamer. While I appreciate that it is early for the Lord Chancellor to say something definite to-day about Sir Ivone's proposals, I hope that something can be said revealing that the Lord Chancellor does intend to see that they are carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government as a start towards something wider. That has been one of the great issues in the debate.
I would not myself feel that there was much difference between the various sides of the House, or between the speakers, on the mood in which we should approach this conference. If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, depressed me rather more than the noble Earl the Leader of the House yesterday. But when I was an Under-Secretary I think I depressed people even more than when I was a Minister. Therefore, I make the requisite allowances. That is bound to have that effect on all of us. I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor (who is perhaps in a rather stronger position for making a statement) speaks to us at the end, he will reveal that we do go into this conference with a good measure of hope. We all realise the need for caution, as was stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and others. But do not let us admit that we are beaten before we begin. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to end on a reasonably sanguine note this evening.
I realise that the time is late, and that the whole question of the hydrogen bomb was thoroughly discussed last week. But it would be difficult, at any rate for some
216
one like myself, who has thought, as we all have, so much about that subject, and who was not able to be present last week, to pass that whole question by without one or two words. Through being called away to Oxford. I was unable to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which I think all of us will agree was a model of how a great topic of that kind should be wound up in fourteen minutes. I hope that I do almost as well to-night.
I missed, of course, hearing the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, which will be remembered for a long time to come. Naturally I read it, and I think it was clearly the speech of a man who faced the ultimate difficulties in this matter, who had reached his own conclusions and was prepared to sacrifice his own life and ask others to do the same. It was a speech of great leadership. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that speech, and bearing in mind the speech to-night of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee (who explained that he was called away to debate this very question, I think, on television—which explains why the galleries are a little empty) both of whom, I think, treated the division that exists to-day as pretty simple, I would say this. It is hardly going too far to say that it is a division, and I will not deny that it is. But the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, divides the country into those who follow the White Paper and those who follow the white flag. I think that that is too simple a distinction.
If one is in touch—as I was last week in the University of Oxford—with a good many of the young people (and we have heard one or two younger Peers speaking effectively to-night) it is interesting to see what they are thinking. I have also happened to address undergraduates in Swansea, Birmingham and Liverpool in recent times. And, though I claim no special privileged expertise, it would be wrong in my opinion to take the kind of view expressed in The Times to-day by a distinguished man, the late Attorney-General, Sir Lionel Heald. His view is that the young men are sound at heart, and that the people who are making all this noise are not truly representative. He goes on to say that he is, in a sense, speaking favourably of the young generation, and I do not want to "guy" his argument which is set out at some length in The Times. But he says that he thinks the great majority of young people would

217
repudiate as strongly as their fathers and uncles did before the last war the attitude attributed to them to-day.
I was a university don in Oxford before the last war. I remember now, going back to 1933, how I was associated with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in trying to get the "King and Country" resolution expunged. It was a failure, and we were overwhelmed with stink bombs and driven from the hall. Sir Winston Churchill has put all that into perspective. I have not had time to look up the exact words, but I think this is the meaning: Little did the foolish boys who passed that resolution realise that in a few years they were to conquer or die gloriously and prove themselves the finest generation in Great Britain. But, my Lords, it was not one lot who died gloriously and one lot who passed the resolution—they were the same lot. In fairness to the youth of to-day, one must not distinguish between the two—one going about their duties and doing all the respectable things, and others not very well washed and trying to pass all sorts of crazy resolutions.
The truth is that the younger generation to-day does not consist entirely of members of the Bullingdon. There are others in Swansea, Birmingham and Liverpool. In the younger generation to-day there is great disquiet—I think one cannot deny that. It is not just hysterical. It is not confined to the youth. One finds it in many circles throughout this country, but I am most conscious of it among the youth. There is a feeling that things have changed very greatly in the last few years, but there is no visible alteration in policy to keep up with that change. There is the feeling that the older men—and I am old enough to be regarded as that—are saying the same old things, and that unless there is some change of attitude, some greater sense of urgency, the young men may once again be hounded to their deaths. That is the feeling; it can be called jitters, but: I do not think it is the white flag; there may be a bit of the White Knight about it, if we follow Sir Stephen King-Hall, another gifted author whose book I, have with me. But I think one can say that they are striving for some nobler ideal than they can exactly express or than the Government can at the moment point the way to.
218
Take the H-bomb itself. I find very great difficulties about the use of the H-bomb in any circumstances. On balance, I am satisfied—provisionally satisfied, but I would not say more—that there are circumstances in which it would be a Christian duty to use it. But I can only just arrive at that conclusion; and I can imagine changing it. I think, therefore, that one must not assume that this feeling, this new pacifism, if you like, or the tendency towards it, is simply selfish. I think there is great concern about the whole ethical question as to whether the bomb could be used. I speak as someone who is prepared to share responsibility for a policy, broadly similar to that of the White Paper, with various refinements and qualifications which have been explained by my Party leaders. That is my attitude.
But I would myself feel that there is a difference, not only in degree but in kind, between conventional weapons, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, weapons which might blot out the whole of our civilisation; and that is intensely felt by the younger generation and by all of us on these Benches. If one feels that, one cannot be satisfied with the White Paper; one can accept it, if you like, as a second best, because at the moment it seems to be difficult to offer anything very much better. I would regard that as a very negative policy, as a policy at this date, 1958, which cannot give us much pride if that is the best we can arrive at. I think the younger generation feel this with particular force.
I want to try to emulate the example of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, when he summed up so effectively but so briefly last week. I would reaffirm what has been said so authoritatively and so analytically by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Silk in, who explained the attitude of our Party. But my final thought is this—it will take me a moment or two to explain it, and it takes us into a rather different field. It is rather a surprise to me, and not, if I may say so, an altogether pleasant surprise, that we have heard very little about the United Nations in this debate. We have heard very little about world government. The views of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Silkin, are well known on that question. They have

219
all gone on record about it more than once in recent times.
But I feel that we are entitled to ask the Government whether they can give us any encouragement at all in connection with this question of world government. We had a debate last year when there was widespread support in this House for the idea of an international police force, for making a small start, if that was all that was possible at the present time. I would feel satisfied that the only way in which we could give effect to what I would call the frustrated idealism of the younger generation in this country would be if we could make it plain that we were moving towards a world police force as part of world government.
When I see young men to-day—undergraduate age, for example—and compare them with the young men I was teaching as a don before the war, I think the prospect of to-day's young man is better. As one saw the young men before the war one could not help feeling that war was certain and a high proportion of them were to be killed. That was what occurred. I do not take that gloomy view to-day. I was giving tea the other day to a number of young men from one of our great provincial universities, and they were talking about the H-bomb, not in a panicky sense but as people morally disturbed. I asked a most distinguished man, very dear to most of us in this House though not a Member of it, what his opinion was about the future. He said that his opinion, speaking as a soldier—and he is a great soldier—was that the future was bright; this fear of nuclear extermination would prevent war. I believe that is true for a number of years, but I do not forget what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, said yesterday and others have said: that the years will not last indefinitely in which this fear of nuclear extermination will act as a bulwark.
It is said that France will have the H-bomb in six months. I am not suggesting that they will do anything wrong with it. Other countries will soon have the H-bomb. If we look on over the years ahead it is very difficult to take the same kind of optimistic view. As I see it, it is not in the next year or two in which the real mischief will occur. The final damage, if it comes, I do not believe will come in the next few years. I cannot
220
see war breaking out within five years or ten years. But I feel that the leaders of this generation, whatever their Party—and I know that in this House we respect one another personally, apart from Party considerations—have a very heavy responsibility, the same kind of responsibility as the leaders had twelve or thirteen years after the first war, in 1930 or 1931. War did not break out in 1933; it broke out in 1939. The real question is, what plans are we laying for peace eight, nine or ten years ahead? I conclude with the thought that permanent, lasting peace can come about only if we establish world government, and the most effective step in the meanwhile is to move towards a world police force.
I end by saying to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that I never know what unity means as between politicians, but there is a common patriotism in this country; there is great good will towards the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their attempts to make these talks a success. In so far as anything the House of Lords can do—and I am sure I speak for all—to further great achievements in these Summit talks, it will be done, and done gladly, from the heart.
7.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I must at once thank the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for those words with which he closed his speech. It is my desire at the end of this very full debate to extract the main points which have filled the minds and troubled the thoughts of noble Lords and concentrate my speech on them. If I miss other points that are in a more specialised field, I will gladly seek another opportunity or method of giving my views upon them—that applies particularly to the points the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised with regard to M. Gaillard's Mediterranean proposal and to Indonesia. Let me say at once that I accept the ruling of a source I shall quote again, that the temper of this great national debate, of which the four days' debate in your Lordships' House has been a part," is of first-class importance. I agree that it is not a matter for histrionics or dramatisation, and I think it is in that spirit that Lord Pakenham made the speech which we have just heard. I said it was not a

221
matter for histrionics, but it would be strange if the future of our country, and indeed all mankind, did not touch our hearts and minds very deeply.
My first point is one that has been apparent in many speeches, but noticeably in those of my noble friends Lord Templewood and Lord Strang, and it arose again in the thoughtful words of Lord Pakenham a moment or two ago—namely, the danger of anyone outside these Islands being misled as to the resolution of the people inside them. My noble friend Lord Templewood said that we should succeed only if we had a common programme and a united country, and Lord Strang pointed out, with all the force of his unvarnished moderation, the danger of defeatism turning into surrender. He supported it by a most apposite quotation on Soviet methods by Professor Kennan.
On Saturday The Times said, I think robustly, of the mind of Mr. Khrushchev on this point:
"He cannot fail to be struck by the measure of agreement there is, even where these disputed matters are concerned, between this and the only other possible British Government. Only if there was a sudden wave of hysteria or complete national loss of judgment could any future enemy or present ally fail to see the essential determination of Britain."
I agree with that diagnosis, and I believe that this debate has proved that it is absolutely true of your Lordships' House. I should say this, in answer to what Lord Pakenham has just said—I do not think it is so much an answer as a supplement or complement to what he has said—that I believe it is our common duty, as leaders of Parties (because, after all, Parties are our democratic instruments of service to the State) to prevent that hysteria and obviate that loss of judgment. But I agree with Lord Pakenham that it can be done only by a leadership that extends hope and not by mere disapproval.
Therefore, I think it is important, as I sum up this debate, if I say in words which cannot be disputed the extent of agreement between the Parties. There could be no better evidence of that field of agreement than the actual words of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Gaitskell, as quoted in his presence by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on December 20. These are the tie quotations which I think should go out to the world:
222
"First, we support the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Atlantic Alliance.
Secondly, nor do we believe in neutralism.
Third, neutralism must mean, as the Prime Minister has said, either sheltering behind the United States or the destruction of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and neither of these things commends itself to us.
Four, nor do I believe in the possibility of a so-called third force or power bloc.
Five, nor do we favour unilateral disarmament."
To that Mr. Gaitskell added that the Labour Conference had rejected a resolution asking them to pledge a future Labour Government neither to test, use nor make nuclear weapons. Having quoted these things, I think there is not much support for the defeatist or the wedge-driver in that forthright support of N.A.T.O., the rejection of neutralism and the rejection of unilateral disarmament.
My Lords, I pass now to the subject which has received a great deal of attention in this debate—namely, disengagement. My noble friend the Leader of the House remarked on the many schemes of disengagement that had been put forward. Apart from those with which we are most familiar, we have heard during this debate of another from my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, and we have heard, first from Lord Silkin, and then from Lord Pakenham, about Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick's proposal. I was most interested by Lord Pakenham's support of that proposal and I promise him my personal earnest study of it as well as the consideration of my colleagues. He said that he had been slightly depressed by some of the things that my noble friend Lord Gosford had said. I am sure he was not depressed when Lord Gosford said, quite categorically, that Her Majesty's Government were not opposed to disengagement as such. Therefore, as I say, I promise him an earnest study by myself of what I thought was a most, interesting proposal. It is all the more important as it has received the support of Lord Silkin and Lord Pakenham.
I think everyone has appreciated the difficulties which the Prime Minister said constituted the conditions of bringing a scheme of disengagement into effect. As indeed Lord Pakenham quoted, it could not be put forward until the scheme had been agreed in detail with the countries most affected among our Allies. It was

223
Mr. Herbert Morrison who pointed out that we cannot lightly throw away the security system which we have built up over the years. Mr. Morrison was talking primarily of N.A.T.O., which balances and takes the remote risk of a nuclear war against the certainty of everything we hold dear being destroyed in the other eventuality. It is our duty and it is our intention to discuss these schemes with our Allies who are most specially concerned. All are concerned, but of course Lord Pakenham, after his experience in regard to Germany, appreciates that the Federal Government of West Germany is probably more concerned than anyone else, and we must also discuss it with our N.A.T.O. Allies. For I say again, only putting into slightly extended words what Mr. Herbert Morrison has said: that nothing could be worse for world security than to have as the result of the dissolution of N.A.T.O., the loss of Germany and the drawing back of the United States into isolation.
I want to come now to what I believe is the principal subject—the approach of Her Majesty's Government to Summit talks. Again I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke for everyone in this country when he asked: was there no alternative to the dreary prospect of continued tension, great expenditure, more terrifying weapons and a sense of insecurity and horror? I believe that we shall all agree—at least it would appear so from what I have quoted—that that cannot be found by throwing away our defence. It is important that we should repeat that neither Great Britain nor the West have any intention of starting an aggressive war. And we ought also to remember—and to make the world remember—that the United States, when they had absolute atomic power, did not use it to bend the Soviet to their will. These are things that should be remembered and put on the side of hope. We now hope that in Russia it is being conceived that so long as the West keeps up its guard there is nothing to be hoped for from aggression.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said more than once, and I repeat to-day, that he hopes for Summit talks; he hopes that they will be successful, and that nobody would be more pleased than my right honourable friend if they were. He also says that there
224
should be the proper preparatory work, but that matter has been kept flexible. We showed that we were prepared to have the preparatory work done through diplomatic channels had there been objection to the Foreign Secretaries' meeting. I believe no one can say that we have been rigid on that; but we do want to get at the top of the agenda subjects on which there will be a reasonable chance of getting a reasonable and favourable result. I do not believe that that falls within what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, criticised, for it seems to be common sense to try to get our most hopeful subjects to the top of the agenda. As the Prime Minister said, although we cannot solve every problem we can make some progress in a limited field.
May I just say to my noble friend Lord St. Oswald (because he asked me a specific question about the people of the satellite countries) that it is our intention and objective to create in Europe a state of affairs in which the peoples of all countries, including those that he mentioned, can settle their own affairs peacefully, by free elections and according to their wishes.
I come now to the limited matter that we think most hopeful: what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister called balanced disarmament. That does not mean that other subjects will not be discussed, or cannot be discussed at a future meeting. I believe that what my right honourable friend said last week was most important: that he did not regard the present meeting as necessarily the last, and that other subjects could be discussed on future occasions. In that way we can make an advance on the subject, so that there is a chance that a continuing process of loosening tension and removing pressures would be begun.
That leaves the point put with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on the basis of the arguments supported by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Salter: whether on the historical record there is any hope of sincere effort to get a joint agreement. When one has to consider the general point (and I have had to consider it, like everyone else) I have always been impressed by the words of Edmund Burke:
"I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people"—

225
because it is not only the whole people at one time: it is the change that may come to a whole people as their history develops. Be that as it may, when one looks at the practical point, at the need at least to try to reduce the amount, and power, of weapons and force, surely there is this point: they form the present background to the possible inability to resile from a position which a man has taken up.
I always remember the words of my noble friend Lord Salisbury a long time ago. The danger is that some man, somewhere, at some time, may feel unable to resile from his position. I believe that that becomes much more difficult if the man has been the leader who has led a country into an even greater and more powerful weapon policy. I also believe that the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, concerning the accidental matter that he had in mind, is worse against the background that we have had to consider here. And there are, of course, the obvious difficulties which I believe the Soviet began to see some two years ago—that these weapons form a pressing burden which prevents the consumer from enjoying his
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, also raised the question of the propaganda risks, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Clearly, he is right in saying that there are risks both ways. So often in modern politics it is a question of the choice of two risks. I believe that the noble Lord eventually came down on the side of agreement with me in the view that the lesser risk is involved doing everything we can to have a conference, even if it is regarded on a propaganda basis.
There is one other point which I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I mention. Apart from that primary matter of disarmament, and other great issues that may be taken with it, there are relatively minor points which may lead to a better result on the greater points. My noble friend Lord Gosford has spoken on the importance of trading, and I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned the real content of that rather vague phrase, cultural relations, which always makes the practical among us shiver slightly when it is first brought up. I hope you will cease to shiver, however, because it is on that
226
that one gets what I think is the real possibility of individual understanding; and that is, the functional approach between people who do the same job or have the same interest. I always found it was a great help, as well as a great pleasure, in the course of the working I had to do with the Russians some twelve years ago, to make them realise that Tolstoy and Dostoevski and Pushkinmeant much to us; and that we did understand that we had respective streams of culture: we appreciated theirs, as they obviously appreciated Shakespeare or Burns, from the immense number of books and performances of their plays. Therefore, I am glad that my personal experience bears out that an understanding of the history and literature and music is something which may help—I do not want to exaggerate it or to be sentimental about it—in leading to agreement on the other point.
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not be too distressed if I say one or two words about disarmament, because I think it has been a central feature of our debate. I ask your Lordships to consider again whether those disarmament proposals approved by the United Nations, by that large majority, are not reasonable and practicable proposals. I say that they are. Our object, and the object of all the Western Powers, is perfectly simple: we want to put an end to international competition in nuclear and conventional weapons, with its incalculable danger and crippling cost. Of course our ultimate aim and objective is comprehensive disarmament. If a workable and effective plan for comprehensive disarmament could be found which was acceptable to our friends and to the Communist bloc we should be delighted. But we must face the fact that there is at the moment no immediate chance of this happening, and we must not therefore be put off our effort towards a phased disarmament as a first stage.
Those of us who bear the responsibilities for the country's affairs must keep our minds on the limit of what is practicable and the consequences of that policy. It is almost a truism to-day that the peace of the world depends on a precarious balance of power, but it would be quite wrong to suppose that we should diminish the risk of war by upsetting that balance. Our aim is quite different. It is to reduce the weights on both sides

227
of the scales which are at present being increased at an alarming and a horrific pace; and Her Majesty's Government believe that such an operation is a practicable possibility.
My noble friend the Leader of the House explained yesterday the six principles on which our policy is based. I am not going to repeat them, but I wonder how many in this House realised that it was last August that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in a remarkable speech at the United Nations, supported these principles. I do not like to make any wrong inference, but I felt that when Lord Home stated them yesterday there were many people, even in your Lordships' House, to whom they were news. In this debate these principles have been little criticised; they have been repeated with approbation by my noble friend Lord Temple-wood, with all his great and varied experience, and they are not only before us: they have been approved by the United Nations, they are before the world and they are before the Soviet Union. Of one thing I am completely certain: unilateral disarmament in any form, which has been firmly condemned by Right and Left opinion in this country, would be a betrayal not only of our own people but of our countless friends and Allies who have supported us throughout the last decade.
We now come to a point which I think we have to face. We have always taken the view that the only practical way of achieving anything useful is to reach an agreement which can not only be enforced but can be seen to be enforced, and which will have some real effect. My noble friend Lord Home explained yesterday how such an agreement for the control and inspection of nuclear material could be made and enforced. Everything that has been said in this debate reinforces my view that this is a most hopeful line of advance. It has been suggested that an agreement of some sort of control of nuclear weapons should be the first step, and that we should later come to an agreement covering conventional weapons. Once more I remain convinced that my noble friend Lord Home was right when he said that nuclear and conventional disarmament must be linked together. I believe that to be vital to
228
our security. The West (as my noble friend reminded the House) and the United Nations have approved a proposal for a practical scheme for the limitation of the numbers of conventional forces. If this scheme could be put into operation it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility for more detailed agreement to be arrived at.
Then there is a further point which we must face. If we are to have disarmament, I think almost the most important factor of all is that the agreement must be enforced; and without inspection there can be no effective disarmament at all. I am not entirely without hope that inspection, and effective inspection, may be a possibility. My Lords, we have propounded schemes, and the Russians have done likewise. Although we see many defects in their suggestions, in particular that they would leave vast tracks of Soviet territory immune from observation, there is some common ground. Here I approach the view which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, stressed so much. That surely is the real crux. Without mutual confidence, disarmament will be a sham. There will be confidence only if we can all see for ourselves what is going on upon the other side of the Curtain. And I say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, by "all" I mean "all", including the Russians. That is, the Russians will see what is going on on our side of the Curtain, too.
My Lords, I hope that after this debate no Member of the House will think that the Western Powers are dragging their feet. Our proposals may be six-fold, but they are honest, fair and workable; and, as I have said, all at once they have been overwhelmingly endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations—an Assembly which includes many who are not particularly friendly towards us. I emphasise this because if we can convince the Communist bloc that we are genuine about disarmament, they may look at our proposals again and find them not altogether unreasonable. That is why I have ventured to put them before your Lordships and dealt with the difficulties, because I believe that all these difficulties having been dealt with, sincere and practical proposals remain.
I do not think that agreement is out of the question. If it were achieved, my right honourable friend the Prime

229
Minister would have been proved to be overwhelmingly right when he said at the end of the debate in another place:
"However small the chance, an immense change would come, because there would always be the expectation and the possibility of moving on from that to some further step."
I think that that is the answer to Lord Pakenham's desire that, as a step towards a better international organisation, the United Nations Organisation should be improved and made more real and dynamic in the minds of men. If the Russians will look again at these proposals or, of course, at some modification of them after discussion, and if these proposals form a real, practical advance, teen I believe that the whole of the international machinery will improve at the same time.
I come to one other problem—your Lordships will be relieved to know that it is my last. My noble friends Lord Strang and Lord Salter emphasised the importance of our own moral position and of our own actions. My noble friends Lord Hastings and Lord Colville of Culross emphasised the importance of conveying to the world, especially the non-committed world and Africa, real information—it was more information than propaganda about which they were anxious. My noble friend Lord Gosford said that he would provide my noble friend Lord Hastings with the technical information for which he asked, but I should like to assure both my noble friends that this is a suggestion in which we, as a Government, are intensely interested. I always remember my right honourable friend Sir Anthony Eden saying, when he was Foreign Secretary, that this was an essential part of the foreign policy which he was there to advance, and I should like to assure my noble friends that I shall report what they have said and the strength of their feelings to my colleagues with a real sense that they have dealt with an important point.
Much as I should have liked the opportunity of giving my answer to the attacks on Britain's achievements on the usual grounds of imperialism and what is now called, quite unfairly, colonialism, I am not going to inflict this on your Lordships, but I should like to put two points before your Lordships, because, in my view, they may well provide part
230
of Lord Hastings' information and may be some answer to the anxiety of my noble friends Lord Strang and Lord Salter about our moral position. I think also that it is important because Professor Kennan, who has been quoted often in this debate, has informed us in his lectures that one of the great troubles of the world is misunderstanding of our motives, intentions and actions.
Will your Lordships allow a mere lawyer to make these two points? We have produced a system of law which puts justice above everything, including truth wrongfully obtained, and which is redolent with the importance of the dignity of the individual human spirit. What is much more important is that we have not kept that law, so redolent of freedom, for ourselves, as a preserve of our own; we have given it to a third of the population of the world. When they were under our rule, we gave them the law of freedom; and since the time when we left some of them, they have kept the law which we bequeathed.
Secondly, Britain has created communities with three qualities—first of all, an ethical system, independent of a religious faith, which transcends political convenience; secondly, the right for ordinary people to think for themselves; and thirdly, even-handed justice between the poorest citizen and the most powerful official. That is our contribution to world improvement. I emphasise that it is a contribution and not an exclusive possession. And I cannot think why anyone should fear the more to discuss with us because we have done that. We have done it because we believe that these things are the inalienable heritage of mankind.
7.48 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we have now reached the end of our two days' debate on foreign affairs. I must confess that I had some little apprehension when I put down this Motion, because, as I said at the beginning of my opening speech, there have been four two-day major debates in both Houses in the last month, covering the same ground. But my noble friend Lord Pakenham said that it has been a good debate and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor called it an important one; and I think, in view of the number of Lords who have spoken,

231
that there has been a considerable interest in our discussion of foreign affairs during the last two days. Perhaps the point that has been emphasised most is the broad and not insignificant area of agreement between the Government and the Opposition positions on important matters of policy. Of course, there are differences on one or two matters that have been discussed to-day, and I might be tempted to make some comments had my noble friend Lord Pakenham not said, three quarters of an hour ago, "It is getting late." The noble and learned Viscount has promised to consider carefully the question of limited disengagement. I am going to give him an example of how easy it is to get agreement on limited disengagement by asking the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on February 6 and 25 discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

DERWENT WATER ORDER, 1957
Reported from the Joint Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.