Sitting of 27 March 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 15th April, at Seven o'clock.
PETITION

  British Museum
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have to submit to this House each year, explaining their financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried out without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
  Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet.—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Chemicals (Home-made Explosives)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to recent accidents resulting from explosions caused by young people conducting experiments with chemicals which are freely on sale; and whether he will make a statement on the steps he has in mind to diminish the number of such accidents.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): These accidents result from experiments with chemicals which are not themselves explosive and of which, as they are in common use, the sale cannot be controlled. In the Guy Fawkes season, my Department issue Press and broadcast warnings of the dangers of home-made fireworks and explosives; and the last Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives calls attention to them. I hope that this Question and Answer will help to impress parents with the need to see that they are heeded.
    Mr. Skeffington: Whilst thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask her whether it has been considered that it might be a wise step to ask the trade journals that circulate amongst purveyors of some of these proprietary chemicals if they could draw attention to these dangers? The Minister is aware that this has been done by the Pharmaceutical Society in relation to chemists. I gather that the Minister is also aware that most of the purchases are not made from pharmacists, and, therefore, if some attention could be drawn to the sale of items in other types of shop, it would be helpful.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sure that we have the same purpose in mind as the hon. Gentleman. One of the difficulties is that if we give too much publicity to such items we may encourage the very people to acquire them that we do not want to encourage. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have this matter under constant review, and we are as anxious as he is to prevent some of the unfortunate accidents of this sort that have occurred.

    Aircraft (Nuclear Weapons)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the organisation of preventive measures, besides those arranged by the Royal Air Force, to safeguard life in areas adjacent to the crashing of an aeroplane carrying nuclear bombs, in view of the admitted danger of the scattering of radio-active dust.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I would refer the hon. Member to the statements that I made on 4th and 27th February, to which I have at present nothing to add.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that explosions are ruled out but it is now admitted that radioactive elements fatal to life may be distributed over a considerable area, is it not desirable to supplement any R.A.F. teams, because the planes in this country would fly over largely populated areas, whereas in America they would fly over deserts?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. That is why I said that we are keeping the standard instructions under review. If we obtain sufficiently exact information to enlarge upon the instructions we have given, then I will be glad to issue further instructions. But, at the moment, I have nothing more to add.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to issue special equipment to the fire service to enable it to cope with the hazard which will arise in such an emergency?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot give a further answer on that subject today. The Prime Minister dealt with this matter on 10th December and gave an account of what equipment is at present available. I cannot go further at the moment.

    Anglo-Egyptian Refugees
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anglo-Egyptian refugees are still without work or private means; and what plans the Government have for these people.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: About 2,000 refugees, of whom some 900 are in hostels,
    564
    are still being assisted by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. The total without employment includes children, housewives and others who look after families at home, and persons too old or infirm to work. Some of these have limited private means. The number registered for work is about 250. Every effort is made to help those able to work to find employment. In addition grants or loans for various purposes are made to adults to assist them to resettle here: and it is hoped that homes will be established for aged people who would be unable to look after themselves.
    Mr. Wall: I appreciate all my hon. Friend and her Department have done to help these unfortunate people, but can she say how many of the hard core of refugees are of Maltese nationality? Further, can she say whether she has real hopes of being able to resettle all these people, or, if not, whether she has any idea of establishing permanent hostels when the temporary ones are closed?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot tell my hon. Friend without notice exactly how many of the residue not resettled are Maltese. If he cares to put down a Question, I shall be delighted to give him an Answer. It is true to say that the Board is now getting down to the more difficult cases, and amongst those, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, are the Maltese who find our language difficult or who, in some cases, do not speak English at all or are in the process of learning it. The Board intends to publish a further report, when it has made more progress with resettlement and it has been established how many of the total number can be resettled in this country.

    Tenants (Evictions)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued to the Metropolitan Police when called to premises where a landlord proposes to evict a tenant.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir. The Metropolitan Police intervene in eviction cases only so far as may be necessary to prevent a breach of the peace, except in rare cases under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, when they may be authorised by the court to enter the premises.
    Mr. Lipton: In order to preserve the good relations which normally prevail between Londoners and the London police, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, next October, the police will not be used under the Rent Act, 1957, to help landlords to evict tenants unless, at the least, there is a court order for possession obtained by the landlord beforehand? We do not want the police mixed up with these things any more than absolutely necessary.
    Mr. Butler: It is normal for the police, if officers find that there is a dispute about the existence or terms of an order made by a rent tribunal, to refer the parties to the rent tribunal. In regard to the general matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I think that he can rely upon the discretion of the London police.

    Magistrates' Courts (Fines)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, since magistrates' courts are reluctant to impose maximum fines, if he will introduce legislation to treble all maximum fines because of the depreciation of money, and so encourage more realistic monetary punishments to be inflicted.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: It would not be appropriate to treble all existing fines without reference to the nature of the offence and the date when the fine was last fixed. I am, however, reviewing existing small statutory fines, and careful consideration is given to the level of fines in new legislation.
    Mr. Osborne: I thank my right hon. Friend for looking into the matter, but will he bear in mind the undesirability of sending men to prison for short sentences and the greater desirability of imposing a fine as punishment? In view of the depreciation of money, ought not the amount to be increased according to the fall in the currency?
    Mr. Butler: The difficulty of absolutely satisfying my hon. Friend is that one has to pay some attention to the nature of the offence and the date of the legislation which covers the fine. Of course, we shall review all these matters. I can, however, give no general undertaking.

    Crimes of Violence
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in conducting the inquiries which he has set in motion concerning corporal punishment and crimes of violence, he will take note of the recent increase of robberies of wages.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The inquiry into crimes of violence to which I referred in replying to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend on 6th February is being carried out by the Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge University. I have no doubt that, in analysing the statistics, the Department will give due attention to robberies of wages.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to receive that report?
    Mr. Butler: I could not give a date, but I am hoping for it before too long.
    Mr. Page: When considering this report, will my right hon. Friend take into account also that these crimes would not occur if the payment of wages by cheque were allowed?
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take power to deport all British subjects not born in the United Kingdom who are proved guilty of crimes of violence.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Such information as is available to my right hon. Friend does not indicate a need for action on the lines suggested.
    Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter and see that those who abuse the hospitality given them by this country are deported from the country?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The criminal statitsics are not compiled in such a way as to enable particulars of the country of origin of offenders to be extracted, but a special inquiry was made a few months ago of certain large police forces in whose areas there was a considerable colonial population, and the replies did not suggest that, in general, colonial or coloured people engage in crime to any greater extent than do natives of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that her Answer is most welcome, and that the suggestion contained in the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will be abhorrent to the majority of people in this country, it being the view of the most civilised people that it should be the seriousness of the crime which determines the punishment and not the place of origin of the criminal?

    Parkhurst and Wandsworth Prisons
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers at Her Majesty's Prison, Parkhurst, are employed in inspecting the cells of men on the escape list prior to the transfer of such men to different cells.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: When a prisoner on the escape list is transferred from his cell, two officers search it.
    Mr. Collins: If, when inspected, the cells prove to be secure, why are the men transferred? Is it not then a case of transferring someone who is a bad security risk into the cell of another who is an equally bad risk? If that be so, is it not just as wasteful as digging holes and filling them up again, and could not some better means be found?
    Mr. Butler: I should not so describe the administration of the Prison Commissioners. I should take a more lenient and generous view of their activities.
    Mr. Collins: But will the Home Secretary look into the first point I raised about the unnecessary nature of the practice if the cells are secure?
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the latest convenient date, what was the number of prisoners and the number of prison staff at Her Majesty's Prison, Parkhurst, and Her Majesty's Prison, Wandsworth, respectively.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On 25th February, 1958, there were 510 prisoners at Parkhurst prison and the staff numbered 286. The figures for Wandsworth were 1,374 and 301, respectively.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Home Secretary aware that that is more than one officer to two prisoners in Parkhurst and nearly
    568
    one officer to eight prisoners in Wandsworth? Does it not seem that, if the numbers are only adequate in Parkhurst, Wandsworth is grossly understaffed? In order to relieve overcrowding and remedy this particular situation, will he consider transferring detainees at an earlier period in stage one from local prisons to Parkhurst and to other P.D. prisons?
    Mr. Butler: There is a considerable difference between the régime in force at Wandsworth, which is a local prison, and that at Parkhurst, which is a central prison, because prisoners spend much more time out of their cells at Parkhurst, and, hence, more staff is necessary for supervision and so forth. I will pay attention to the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Preventive Detention (Prisoners)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of prisoners serving sentences of preventive detention during the years 1949 and 1957, respectively; and what in each of those years was the total cost involved.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In 1949 there was a daily average of 130 prisoners serving a sentence of preventive detention. The provisional average for 1957 is 1,311. I regret that separate figures for the cost of detaining preventive detention prisoners are not available. In 1949 the average cost for prisoners of all classes was £181 18s. 7d. The provisional average cost for 1957 is £341 19s. 11d.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Home Secretary aware of the view that the great increase in the number of detainees is a handicap in fully implementing the hopes of rehabilitation implicit in preventive detention? Will he have regard also to the gross disparity of sentences inflicted in different courts—for example, ten years for stealing a chicken worth 16s. 2d.—and endeavour to find a way whereby there can be greater uniformity of sentence and the spirit and the letter of the Act can be carried out?
    Mr. Butler: It is not for me to comment on the sentences. I can only comment on the result, which is that the long-term sentences are bringing about, partly, the result to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As regards preventive detention as a whole, we are making some

    569
    special research into the effects of it, and I would rather await the result of that research before giving final answers.

    Prison Labour (Goods and Services)
    Mr. J. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners to take steps to ensure that goods produced and services provided by prison labour should be offered at fair prices and should not unfairly undercut goods produced and services provided by disabled workers' trading organisations.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Prison Commissioners have begun a review of this question in consultation with the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Silverman: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that there is very profound dissatisfaction, especially among blind people's organisations, about the present situation? This is especially true in Birmingham, where the shoe-repairing department of a blind men's organisation has lost a considerable order, which might conceivably have prevented the closing down of the department. Will he, therefore, energetically pursue the investigation?
    Mr. Butler: It is because we were in some anxiety about points such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers that we authorised this review of the question, and I shall hope to give the results in due course.

    Chief Constables
    Mr. Lagdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to extend to the Secretary of State for the Home Department such power over chief constables as would seem necessary in order to enable Members of Parliament to raise Questions in the House of Commons concerning the conduct of police officers in provincial forces.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. An essential feature of our police service is that it is organised and controlled on a local basis.
    Mr. Lagden: Does not the Secretary of State agree that to debar some Members
    570
    of this House from the right of Questions which is enjoyed by other Members is a serious thing? Would he not look at this matter further, having regard to the matters concerning chief constables which have recently been before our notice?
    Mr. Butler: It is an anomaly that in the case of the Metropolitan Police hon. Members have a greater power of questioning than in the case of a provincial police force, but there are many curious developments in our Constitution upon which our liberties largely depend, and I do not think it would be a good thing to have absolute uniformity in this matter.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Home Secretary aware that most of us are very happy to be denied the privilege of asking him questions about the police system as long as this avoids over-centralisation of the police forces of the country?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and I am just as relieved not to be asked the Questions.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is no anomaly at all? In the case of the Metropolitan Police, he is responsible for them and runs them and, therefore, is responsible to this House, although London pays the same amount towards the cost of the force as the provinces do for theirs; but, in the case of the provinces, he does not run them, though he has a considerable influence. Therefore, there is no anomaly. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the anomaly."] Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the logic of this argument would not be that the entire police forces of this country should become a national affair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—a practice which would be foreign to British temperament and tradition?
    Mr. Butler: I agree with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think it would be wrong to have the police forces centralised. What is troubling my hon. Friend and other Members of this House is that they have not exactly the same right of questioning for each particular force, and that, I think, is not so important as the major principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Lagden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give

    571
    notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Rent Act (Prosecutions)
    Mrs. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought by the police in the Metropolitan area since the passing of the Rent Act in connection with overcharging by landlords for furniture and fittings.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Jeger: May I ask the Home Secretary why not? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that overcharging for furniture and fittings is one of the most cruel methods of exploitation of desperate people who are looking for somewhere to live? As his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made this illegal in the Rent Act, 1957, is it not the duty of the Home Secretary to ensure that the police enforce the law instead of bringing it further into disrepute?
    Mr. Butler: Power to prosecute for offences under the Rent Act, 1957, is expressly conferred on local authorities. The police are not precluded from prosecuting, but it would be contrary to the usual practice for them to do so.

    Election Deposits
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of moneys forfeited in election deposits at the last General Election; and, on this basis, what amount would accrue to the Treasury if the General Election deposit of £150, first established in 1918, were increased to its present-day value of £325.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Fifteen thousand pounds. If the deposit had been £325, the total would have been £32,500.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Home Secretary aware that on several occasions I have asked him to bring the figure up to its present-day value and he has refused? Is the reason because he is afraid that, as the elections are now going, it will cost the Tory Central Office a lot of money when they lose the by-election and General Election deposits?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Hitherto, it has been people in other parties who have had to pay these sums, and it is out of the quality of mercy that I am not raising the deposit.

    N.A.T.O. Countries (Civil Defence)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities exist in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the pooling of information regarding the civil defence measures of the member countries; and to what extent he has studied the evacuation plans and civil defence plans of the United States of America with a view to adopting them in this country.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The N.A.T.O. organisation includes a civil defence committee served by a full-time international staff, through which a full and regular exchange of civil defence information between member countries takes place. Through this organisation and through personal contacts and visits between those responsible for civil defence in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, information is available on the United States' plans; and account is taken, in the formulation of United Kingdom policy, of such plans in so far as they are applicable to the conditions in this country.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Home Secretary tell us whether the Government still adhere to their plan of evacuating 12 million people, and whether he thinks any of them can be safely sent into East Anglia? Will he consult the United States of America about taking a number of these people?
    Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's observations is, "No, Sir." The evacuation plans of the Government form a separate Question which, no doubt, he will wish to put upon the Paper.

    John Armstrong
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the question of special public interest in the case of John Armstrong who was sentenced to death at Winchester Assizes in December, 1956,

    573
    whose sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment and who is now a prisoner in Wormwood Scrubs prison, he will place a full transcript of the trial In the Library of the House of Commons.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have already arranged for a transcript of this trial to be placed in the Library.
    Dr. Johnson: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for this reply, may I ask him whether, in considering this case, he will consider the fact that the medical evidence in it is of an equivocal nature as between the two defendants at the trial, one of whom was acquitted at the time and has now confessed? Is he also aware that many people, myself included, have difficulty in comprehending how this charge was made one of murder in its original form? Is he further aware that, whilst appreciating the reasons for delaying consideration, I should be pleased to elaborate these remarks at an interview at his convenience?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly it would be better if my hon. Friend would talk to me about this case. I cannot comment on the matter of the original charge, which was a question for the examining justices and not for me. In regard to any other matter dealing with the prosecution, it would be better if the hon. Member had a word with me.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the general practice of the Home Office now about the supply of transcripts of cases of this kind, or of criminal cases generally, to persons with a legitimate interest in the matter?
    Mr. Butler: I should not like to give an answer on that without thought, but I will either frame an answer to a Question on the Paper put by the hon. Gentleman or I will write to him.
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of fresh evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, he will cause a review of the case of John Armstrong to be made.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: My hon. Friend sent me a letter from Armstrong three days ago. I shall consider this letter and the statement which Mrs. Armstrong
    574
    made to the police on 22nd March and communicate with my hon. Friend when I have done so.
    Dr. Johnson: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply?

    Fire Service Exercise, Chigwell
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the principal lessons learnt by the Essex Auxiliary Fire Service and others who took part in Exercise Fire-raiser at Chigwell.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The exercise involved the use of five pumps and associated equipment, which were manned by thirty-three auxiliary firemen and fourteen auxiliary firewomen from the Essex and East Ham Fire Brigades. Its purpose was to provide further training for auxiliary personnel in the use of equipment.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, would he not agree it is most gratifying that, despite considerable propaganda against Civil Defence, so many people should voluntarily take part in these activities and exercises with so much enthusiasm, patriotism and public spirit?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I fully endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend. It is gratifying to find that these exercises are ably carried out and well attended by people who take part in them in their leisure time.

    Interception of Communications (Privy Councillors' Report)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the instructions as to the interception of mail and telephone conversations which have been issued following upon the Privy Councillors' Report.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 31st October last, the Government have accepted the report of the Committee of Privy Councillors, and the necessary steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations on procedure summarised in paragraphs 159–163 of the report.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Home Secretary if any further consideration has been given to reservations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), which I think have great support in this House, and whether he would tell us if it has been possible to incorporate any reservations about the use of this power in the case of crime in the instructions he has given?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. In general, we are following the recommendations of what I may call the majority of Privy Councillors. It does not mean that we would not pay attention to the considered views of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in our interpretation of the manner in which we carry out the powers, but the general rules we are following conform to the majority recommendations.

    Nationality Department (Letters)
    Sir I. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that registered letters containing important documents sent by members of the public to the Home Office Nationality Department are not acknowledged; that this practice causes anxiety and annoyance to the senders; and if he will arrange that in future such correspondence shall at least receive formal acknowledgment.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is causing the practice in this matter to be reviewed.

    Crimes of Violence (Victims)
    Mr. Moodyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will sympathetically consider the need for introducing legislation to provide proper compensation by the State for those who, in the execution of their duty, fall victims to criminal attack.
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the state of the law regarding the remedies and rights to compensation of the victims of unlawful attacks upon their persons or property; and whether he will make a statement of the Government's proposals for improving the present situation.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on 27th February to a Question by
    576
    the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen).
    Mr. Moody: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the third time this Question has come before the House, that he has added nothing to nothing and that the result is still nothing? Does this mean that this is the policy of the Government and that they intend to do nothing, or will the right hon. Gentleman, having expressed his sympathy on many occasions, go a step further and—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do nothing."]—give the House a definite indication as to the intentions of the Government?
    Mr. Butler: The Government's intentions are strictly honourable. This is a somewhat complicated question upon which I could dilate at some length. For example, if there were to be a principle of retribution enforced by way of repayment by prisoners for damage done, the prison earnings scheme, which I have at present under review, would have to be considerably recast. Similarly, in general there would be a need to define an offender, which would be a difficult matter. There are some major schemes, notably some embraced by Miss Margery Fry, which we have also considered. They are all schemes which are good from the idealist point of view but they are hard to carry out. We are doing our best to study them but to say that this problem was easy to solve would be an overstatement.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As the right hon. Gentleman has had the earnings system under review for more than a year, will he say what progress is being made.
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, in due course.

  BECHUANALAND

    Primary Schools (Classes)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the average size of classes in the primary schools in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The average number of pupils in classes in primary schools in the Bechuanaland Protectorate is thirty-six.
    Mr. Mallalieu: is there any hope of any improvement in the very near future?
    Mr. Alport: We are making some improvement and the expenditure on education in the Protectorate has increased substantially during the last four years. We hope in that way to be able to improve the facilities available for primary teaching in Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is there not a very considerable backlog in education progress to make good in the Protectorate? Are the Government aware of the vital need, in view of the conditions in South Africa generally, to do something substantial in the Protectorate?
    Mr. Alport: We are doing something substantial to improve facilities and, as I have said, the amount of money made available during the last four years has increased considerably and we propose to continue with that development.

    Teachers
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proportion of teachers leaving the Lobatsi Training College in the last two years has stayed to teach in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.
    Mr. Alport: In 1956, nineteen teachers passed out of the Teacher Training Centre, Lobatsi. Of these, sixteen are teaching in the Protectorate. In 1957, thirteen teachers passed. Of these, eight are teaching in the Protectorate and five, all of them women, are at present taking an additional year's course of training at the Homecraft Centre at Mochudi in the Protectorate.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Member satisfied that differences in pay as between the Protectorate and, for instance, Southern Rhodesia are not responsible for a considerable leakage?
    Mr. Alport: Out of the teachers who have passed out of this training centre in the last two years, only one is teaching out of the Protectorate.

    Development of Resources
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether Her Majesty's
    578
    Government will draw up a plan for the better use of the resources of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, indicating priorities, so that efforts may be concentrated upon the most desirable and attainable objectives.
    Mr. Alport: The general lines of the development plan for the Bechuanaland Protectorate for the period 1955–1960 were set out in the White Paper (Cmd. 9580) of October, 1955. This plan was prepared after discussion with committees of Government officers and of leading European and African non-officials.
    Priority is being given to the development of water supplies and to other measures which will assist the livestock industry, such as soil conservation, tsetse fly control and improving the veterinary services. Substantial funds are also being applied to geological surveys, roads, agriculture, and the medical and educational services.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that plan is very satisfactory, but can he say whether something is being done, because it is now a rather old plan?
    Mr. Alport: This is a plan which runs until 1960, and the progress which we have made up to the present, with the assistance given from the United Kingdom Exchequer, is up to date and within the resources which are available in the Protectorate itself.
    Mr. Page: In giving priority to cattle raising and matters connected with it, what is being done to see that the stability provided by the Lobatsi Abattoir is not being turned into a restriction of expansion of the cattle raising industry?
    Mr. Alport: We realise the importance of the Lobatsi Abattoir to the cattle raising industry in the Protectorate, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are carefully considering the various views put to us by the recent mission from the Bechuanaland Protectorate to this country.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Under-Secretary of State satisfied that he is getting sufficient European technical officers, or is his plan lagging because of the lack of qualified people to push ahead with this development?
    Mr. Alport: There is no evidence that the plan is lagging. In fact, it is going ahead as fast as is possible within the resources which are available in the Protectorate itself.

    Bushmen (Kidnapping)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what protection is afforded to bushmen in Bechuanaland who are kidnapped by residents in the Union of South Africa and South-West Africa as labourers and who cannot return to Bechuanaland because of the pass laws.
    Mr. Alport: I have no information that bushmen in Bechuanaland Protectorate are being kidnapped by residents of the Union of South Africa or of South-West Africa. Everything practicable is done to prevent illegal entry into the Protectorate, and the recruitment of bushmen by illegal methods for work outside the Protectorate. Offences, when detected are punished.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Member aware that I have sent him evidence of this matter from a very reputable farmer? Will he investigate that evidence so that we can return to the matter later?
    Mr. Alport: I have investigated the evidence which was sent to me by the hon. Member and which I have received from a number of other sources, but it is my information that there was some misunderstanding contained in the letter to which the hon. Member refers. We have said quite clearly that the recruitment of bushmen by illegal methods is something against which we would take the strongest action. We have recently established a new police post at Mamono, on the frontier between South-West Africa and the Protectorate, which we believe will assist in this object.

    Administration (Africans)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is his policy regarding the Africanisation of the administration in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; and what progress is being made in this matter.
    Mr. Alport: It is the policy to employ more Africans in the administration of the Bechuanaland Protectorate as suitably qualified and trained Africans become
    580
    available. The junior service of the Protectorate is almost entirely composed of Africans; a start has been made with the appointment of Africans to the senior service.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Bechuana leaders feel that more can be done in this matter and that he could be more sympathetic? Does he not agree that this development of Africanisation is basic to the health and future political stability of this society?
    Mr. Alport: I agree that it is most important to continue the process of including an increasing number of qualified Africans in the Government Services in the Protectorate. That is our aim, although I emphasise that it is important, from the African's point of view as well as in the interests of the Protectorate, that these Africans should be fully qualified for the jobs to which they are appointed.

    Veterinary School
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will state how many students there are at the Veterinary School in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; how many there are upon the staff; and what are their qualifications.
    Mr. Alport: There are fourteen students at the Veterinary School in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The total capacity of the School is twenty students. The staff of the School consists of one senior veterinary officer, who is a B.Sc. (Veterinary).
    Mr. Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bechuana are basically cattle people and that he must push on with this matter? Does he not agree that the Bechuana themselves feel that not sufficient is being done, particularly in appointing Africans to the staff?
    Mr. Alport: We fully accept that the present state of staffing is insufficient to provide for outside demonstration and individual coaching of cattle breeders in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. We therefore intend to create a new post of veterinary instructor, and it is hoped to recruit for this post, if it is created, a highly qualified African with a degree and experience in animal husbandry.
    Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that veterinary surgeons in Bechuanaland are not being used to prevent the export of cattle instead of looking after the cattle themselves?
    Mr. Alport: Yes, I am fully satisfied about that.

    African Advisory Council
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when the African Advisory Council was instituted in Bechuanaland Protectorate; what is the present composition of the Joint Council; and what plans he has for this developing into a legislative council for the Protectorate.
    Mr. Alport: The African Advisory Council of the Bechuanaland Protectorate was instituted in 1920. The Joint Advisory Council is composed of the Resident Commissioner who presides, eight Members of the European Advisory Council appointed by that Council, and eight Members of the African Advisory Council appointed by that Council. Officials attend the meetings as appropriate in relation to the agenda. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 20th March.
    Mr. Johnson: What is to be the political future of this Protectorate? Would not the Minister agree that the more that African leaders—particularly Bamangwato leaders—are pulled in to govern their own affairs and settle their own business the healthier it will be, and the longer we keep them in what appears to be a political kindergarten the worse it will be for that society?
    Mr. Alport: The hon. Member will be aware, as a result of a previous Answer I gave upon this subject, that we are in the process of extending the advisory council system to the tribal level. With his experience of this matter I am sure he will agree that it is best to start building upon a firm basis at a local level rather than try to start from any other level.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister not aware from his own talks and discussions with the Bechuana leaders that they do not share his view and that, at the same time as the local levels are being developed, they would like to have this
    582
    central administration built up, with their own people talking about their own affairs and making their own decisions as to what should be done in their own Territory?
    Mr. Alport: I have had an opportunity of hearing the views of the leaders who were over here recently with regard to this matter.

  BASUTOLAND

    Hotels (Racial Discrimination)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will take steps to bring to an end all discrimination against Africans in the hotels of Basutoland.
    Mr. Alport: Basutoland law does not impose any discrimination against Africans in hotels except in relation to the sale and consumption of liquor. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government to discrimination which may arise as a result of social convention is well known.
    Mr. Brockway: In a British Protectorate, which is a British Territory, is there any justification whatever for a discrimination between people of one colour and people of another colour? Ought we not to give an example in this matter to the Union of South Africa?
    Mr. Alport: The hon. Member is aware that the discrimination which relates to liquor is a result of an international agreement of very long standing, although it is true that in practice it has been amended in many respects over a period of time. The view has always been widely held that relationships between races within the Protectorate must be a matter of increasing understanding between individuals on the spot rather than any attempt to resort to legislation.

  AUSTRALIA

    British Manufacturers (Investment)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will publish a book giving details of the prospects for British manufacturers to invest in the Commonwealth of Australia.
    Mr. Alport: Responsibility for the issue of a publication of this sort would

    583
    properly belong to the Australian authorities rather than to the Government of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the energetic efforts being made by both Commonwealth and State Governments in this field. Factual information about business conditions in Australia is, however, always available at the Board of Trade for British manufacturers who seek it.
    Mr. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend not think it is completely wrong that the American Department of Commerce can issue a book about investing in Australia—and a very good book, too—while his Department is not prepared to do so? Will not he consider this matter again? Although we welcome dollar investment in Australia, we want as much sterling investment as possible to go there from this country.
    Mr. Alport: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that we want United Kingdom investment in Australia. It is for this reason that we shall particularly welcome the representatives of the Queensland Promotion Delegation, which will shortly visit this country with the object of giving the point of view of their State with regard to future investment there. We have had similar opportunities of welcoming delegations from other States in the past. This appears to us to be the best way of ensuring that full knowledge of the facilities available exists in this country.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Agents-General of the individual States in Australia have adequate literature in their London offices which is always available should anyone so require it?
    Mr. Alport: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right. It would be difficult for us to judge between the rival merits of the investment facilities available in different parts of the Commonwealth. I would point out that, since the war, two-thirds of the investment in Australia has been made by the United Kingdom.

  GHANA

    Volta River Project
    Mr. Willeyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further progress has been
    584
    made in the discussions regarding the financing of the Volta River project in Ghana.
    Mr. Alport: The United Kingdom Government have not been concerned in any recent discussions on this project. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a statement issued by the Ghana Government about discussions they have recently had in Accra with representatives of Aluminium Ltd. of Canada.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for that reply. Will he continue to make offers with regard to this matter and give it every assistance? This project is of vital importance to the future of Ghana.
    Mr. Alport: We have always made clear our continuing interest in this problem.
    Mr. Woodburn: The British Aluminium Company was very much interested in this matter, and the Ghana Government sent representatives to visit its works in Falkirk, near my own constituency. Has that interest completely collapsed?
    Mr. Alport: I would not like to go further at this moment than the statement which has already been made upon the matter, but recent negotiations have taken place direct between the Ghana Government and the Aluminium Company of Canada.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of India regarding a racial discrimination in Northern Rhodesia involving Indians enjoying diplomatic status.
    Mr. Alport: The United Kingdom Government have received from the Government of India an aide-memoire on the subject of a recent incident in Southern Rhodesia, which is what the hon. Member presumably has in mind. As the House knows, it is not customary to give particulars of communications between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Governments. The hon. Member, however, will no doubt have

    585
    noted that the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland have publicly expressed to the Indian Government their deep regret for this incident.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the Federation is attempting to deal with this question by passing a special Immunities Act, and that that Act will impose upon diplomats the indignity of having to carry special chits? Is that Act not also a clear official recognition of the colour bar which exists in the Federation? Further, is it a fact that before the Act can be implemented there must be consultations about certain orders with his noble Friend the Secretary of State? What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Alport: With regard to the hon. Member's first point, I am not prepared to comment upon the merits of legislation passed within the powers of the Federal Government, but I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that a very frank and forthright expression of regret was made by the Federal Government in connection with this incident. Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question upon his second point.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the Minister associate the British Government and this Parliament with the expression of disapproval of this action? I appreciate what he has said about legislation, but can he tell us whether any such legislation as that mentioned by my hon. Friend is contemplated? If so, will he convey to the Federation the fact that he would regard that as a breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of its Constitution?
    Mr. Alport: This is a matter between the Federal Government and the Government of India. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the matter should be properly considered as one between those two Governments. As for the right hon. Member's second point, I have already told his hon. Friend that if he puts down a Question I shall do my best to answer it.

  EDUCATION

    Comprehensive Schools
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education why he will not set up a special committee to study the development and
    586
    experience of comprehensive schools and make recommendations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): Because the experience so far available of comprehensive schools is very limited and my right hon. Friend is in any case doubtful whether the establishment of a special committee would be the best procedure to adopt.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are now between forty and fifty of these pioneering schools, and that there is tremendous interest in them and also widespread controversy about them? Would it not be of value to set up a committee to investigate the facts relating to the progress and development of these schools, and to make an objective report which would give guidance to local education authorities who are interested in trying to develop comprehensive education?
    Sir E. Boyle: It is important to remember that, of the forty-four comprehensive schools which exist, only eleven have been in existence for as long as five years. In any case, a variety of interesting experiments in secondary education are now being tried, and my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be premature to single out one form for study by a special committee.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Member aware that, to judge from its annual reports, his Ministry has so far paid very little attention to this very important educational development? If my hon. Friend's suggestion does not appeal to him, will he consider other ways in which his Ministry can inform itself and the public more fully on the matter?
    Sir E. Boyle: Certainly we in the Ministry are very interested in all experiments concerned with trying out selective and non-selective streams of children within the same chool. I can assure the hon. Member of that.

    School, Carlisle (Currock)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education whether he has received a communication from the hon. Member for Carlisle in regard to the making of a grant towards the construction of a third classroom to St. Margaret Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Currock, Carlisle and whether, in view of the fact

    587
    that this classroom was included in the development plan of the local education authority, he will reconsider his decision in regard to the making of this grant.
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. I have replied that my right hon. Friend can find no grounds for altering his decision.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite his explanation, feelings of dissatisfaction still exist amongst the managers of this school? They feel that they have been discriminated against as compared with other schools in Carlisle. Will he receive further representations if they are made?
    Sir E. Boyle: The letter from my right hon. Friend explains the position in greater detail, but if my hon. Friend would like to see me I should naturally be pleased to hear his views.

    Scientific and Technical Officers (Fees)
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Education if he will amend the rule in paragraph 5 of Circular No. 336 to enable Government scientific and technical officers who undertake up to four hours teaching a week in technical colleges but are unable to make up the time lost to retain the fees paid to them by the local education authority.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. Where an officer undertakes teaching work in official time and does not make up the time lost, my right hon. Friend thinks it right and proper that his salary should be adjusted as described in this paragraph.
    Mr. Short: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that this is a small but potentially very valuable source of higher technological teachers? Is he not aware that the technical colleges are finding great difficulties in getting staff, and does he not feel that this rather niggling regulation would deter some of these officers from offering their services? Should we not treat them as well as we treat ourselves in the matter of extra fees in ordinary working hours?
    Sir E. Boyle: It is a long standing principle that a public servant should not be paid twice for work done in official time, and we should think hard before departing from that principle.

    AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the hydrogen bombers cruising over our heads at the moment carry enough plutonium to poison the population of the British Isles 20 times over, he will issue instructions that no bombs containing plutonium are to be carried on patrol or training flights.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. If the hon. Member will look at my Answer last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), she will realise the inaccuracy of the information on which her Question is founded.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that I got my information from a recent lecture given by Dr. Mendelssohn, Reader in Physics at the University of Oxford, who went on to say that he was astonished that this information was not more widely known, as it was freely available in any scientific library, and deeply regretted that politicians were not more scientifically-minded? In view of that, will not the right hon. Gentleman take some more serious scientific advice?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What I said before is true, and I repeat it. My responsibility is to be able to assure the House that the chances of danger in any particular form are negligible. This I have done before, and I now repeat.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister what is the factor in training of bomber crews which makes it necessary for bombers to carry the loading apparatus for the hydrogen bomb, seeing that the bomb is never armed in flight.
    The Prime Minister: As I explained last week, it is undesirable for aircraft engaged in operational training or dispersal exercises to be separated from their armament.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that, on 18th March, the Prime Minister assured us that the bombers are never loaded or armed for the purpose in flight? Therefore, it clearly cannot be necessary for training purposes. Has not the time come to allay public anxiety on this matter, in view of the fact that it has been

    589
    announced on the one o'clock news today that a special meeting of the Supreme Soviet is being called this afternoon to announce the unilateral suspension of tests by them?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid I am not responsible for the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet Council.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that no standing or routine patrol by hydrogen-bomb bombers will be instituted without first notifying Parliament.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already stated that there is no standing or routine patrol.
    Mrs. Castle: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered my Question? If there is no standing routine patrol, what is to prevent him giving an assurance to the House that such a patrol will not be resumed without Parliament first being notified, which is what I asked him?
    The Prime Minister: There is no standing or routine patrol, and no intention to start one. I could not give an assurance that in no circumstances, however terrible or dangerous, that might arise, I should not take some step that was thought right. That, of course, would be to take away from the full purpose of the deterrent, which is to deter.

    SUMMIT CONFERENCE
    Mr. Fellasked the Prime Minister whether, after considering the advantages of holding an informal private no-agenda meeting of the heads of Government of Great Britain, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to prepare the way for the later Summit Conference, he will now make a statement of his proposals.
    The Prime Minister: While I appreciate the proposal which my hon. Friend has in mind, I think the chances of a summit meeting achieving at least a limited measure of success are greater if the Western countries continue to urge the plan which they have been advocating.
    Mr. Fell: That is all very well, but this is not my proposal; it was, in fact,
    590
    the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not aware that many millions of people are growing increasingly worried about the extraordinary propaganda battle that has developed over the Summit Conference, that they have little faith either in the ability of Mr. Dulles to answer the propaganda effectively, or of our own Foreign Office to deal with this matter. [Interruption.] This is far too serious, I should have thought, for me to need propaganda help from the Opposition.
    Is not the Prime Minister aware that our own Foreign Office is not in the position which the Prime Minister is in to be able to reach some agreement at the Summit Conference? Is he further aware that this is the most important matter we can possibly discuss at this time, and that, surely, serious consideration should be given to the possibility of holding a private, informal, no-agenda meeting, if necessary, of the Prime Minister himself and the leader of the Soviet Union, without America, if necessary, as was indeed suggested by Lord Beaverbrook in the Sunday Express?
    The Prime Minister: All these considerations are important, and all these sources of points of view are respectable, but I am bound to say that I still think that a summit meeting to prepare for another summit meeting is not necessarily the best way of doing the preparatory work.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are disturbed and surprised by the statement made by the American Secretary of State that if we were to engage in a Summit Conference now it would involve recognising the permanent division of Germany, recognising East Germany, and making a number of other points which seem to us to be contrary to the facts as known to us on this side of the House? Can the right hon. Gentleman throw some light on this statement of Mr. Dulles?
    The Prime Minister: No, not without notice, as I am afraid that I have not read it; nor am I, indeed, responsible for it. What I am trying to do, as I have told the House, is to work with the Western Powers in very close co-operation—and

    591
    this involves a great number of countries—in order, we hope, to get a solution of this problem. As I said the other day, I am not at all pessimistic about our being able to put forward a very good plan, which I hope the Soviet Government will accept.
    Mr. Bevan: As it is the present plan of the Government for the Foreign Ministers, first of all, to meet for the purpose of probing the possibilities of items on the agenda having some chance of agreement, are not these statements by Mr. Dulles, who would be a party to the conference, evidence that, at least on that side, there is very little enthusiasm for this Summit Conference?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the position is very clear. What we are trying to do is to get general agreement between the Powers concerned as to what should be the next best step we should take, with a view to getting a solution of the preparatory work. As I said, I am not at all without hope that we shall achieve that purpose.
    Mr. P. Williams: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable danger that the Summit Conference will be snowed under with paper missiles? Will he not also agree that the essential and urgent need for this Government and for the Prime Minister himself is to make a personal effort to break through this barrier of words that is passing backwards and forwards?
    The Prime Minister: I must rest upon what I am able to do, but I am not conscious of having failed in any personal efforts.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that at last we seem to have in foreign affairs a bipartisan policy?
    Mr. Fell: In view of the lack of information which I have been able to be given on this question, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter again in any appropriate way I can.

    U.S.S.R. (HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister what information he has concerning the number and size of atomic or hydrogen bomb tests carried out by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the last two years.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will understand that the public interest precludes me from revealing the information which we possess in any detail. I can, however, say that in the last few years the Russians have carried out over fifty tests.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the information he does have shows that there is any decrease either in the scope or the number of these tests recently?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; rather the opposite.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in view of the large number of tests undertaken by the Soviet Union, many of us do not feel in the least surprised that they now advocate the unilateral suspension of tests?
    The Prime Minister: I think that, if that should happen, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn a very fair deduction from the event.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not also clear that, if we had accepted the proposal to suspend the tests all round several months ago, a lot of these tests would never have taken place?
    The Prime Minister: I recall that last year the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of our having and manufacturing the bomb, but not testing it. I am bound to say that the policy which he is now supporting of keeping the bomb would not have been very effective if I had followed his advice.

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, 31ST MARCH—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a timetable Motion for the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill, which is now before the Scottish Standing Committee.
The terms of the Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning.
It is hoped to dispose of this business in time to allow the Second Reading of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill to be moved at a reasonable hour.
TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL—A debate will take place on Malta, on a Government Motion.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Import Duties Antimony Order.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Third Reading of the Life Peerages Bill [Lords], which it is hoped to obtain by 7 o'clock.
Concluding stages of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.
THURSDAY, 3RD APRIL—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and take Questions until 12 noon.
Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 15th April.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's decision to stifle discussion on the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill will be received with indignation, in Scotland, at any rate? Is he also aware that this is a Bill of great constitutional importance, involving financial provisions which are highly controversial?
Will he give the House an assurance that the Second Reading of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill will not be
594
taken at a late hour, as it is quite wrong that a Bill of this degree of importance should be brought on late in the evening?
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman wreathed his indignation with the most delightful of smiles. We admire his synthetic enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know quite well that great efforts have been made to reach agreement on a timetable for this Bill not only by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, but also by many of us who are interested in avoiding the use of the timetable procedure. But, this having been unsuccessful—we are still discussing Clause 2—I believe that the only manner in which proper consideration of this Bill can take place in the future is by means of our very lenient timetable.
It is our wish to take the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill at a reasonable hour.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to make a statement on the future of Cyprus before the Easter Recess, remembering that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House, in reply to a Question from me, that it was considered desirable to bring whatever negotiations might be going on to an end as soon as possible?
Mr. Butler: It is important that when we make a statement it shall be a valuable one. I cannot give any undertaking that various circumstances, including the international position, would make this possible by the date my hon. Friend desires.
Mr. Ross: Does the Leader of the House appreciate his own position following his announcement about Monday's business? Does he recollect that it is not so long ago since he sponsored a proposal whereby a considerable number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were excluded from the Scottish Standing Committee, and that this is the first Bill of major importance to be dealt with by that streamlined Committee?
How can the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box without being aware of what has happened in that Committee? There is no justification for this proposal in relation either to the importance of the Bill or what has happened in

595
that Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there has been any holdup it is due to the sheer incompetence of the Scottish Office?
Mr. Butler: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement.
I am aware that this is the first Bill taken by the Scottish Standing Committee as constituted under the revised Standing Order. That makes it all the more regrettable that we have had to resort to a timetable. We would rather that saner counsels had prevailed, and that we had been able to reach agreement on a timetable which was manifestly quite fair and gave an adequate opportunity to discuss the Bill.
Mr. Teeling: As, in the last debate on Malta, the Motion was to "take note", and there was no Division, and as the Opposition have stated that this is a nonparty issue, may we be assured that we shall be allowed a free vote, on both sides of the House, in the debate on Tuesday?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. There will be a Motion, and we shall make that a Government Motion.
Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that only this morning, in the Scottish Standing Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary of State asked the Committee to meet on Wednesdays and that that met with unanimous approval? In those circumstances, we regard it as a great betrayal of our interests that his announcement about a timetable Motion should be made a few hours later?
Mr. Butler: We regret very much that we have had to put a timetable on this Bill. I always prefer to see an agreed timetable, if possible.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can debate the merits or demerits of the timetable Motion on Monday.
Mr. Darling: Will the Leader of the House say what has happened to the Slaughterhouses Bill?
Mr. Butler: It has passed through the Standing Committee and its later stages will, in due course, be taken on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Peyton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has given further consideration to the constructive and useful suggestion made last week by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), that some of the time taken in debating legislation could be devoted to more important subjects on the Order Paper—for instance, the Motion in my name which deals with the problems of the shipping industry, and which should be given time for discussion?
[That this House, while recognising the value of the recent increase in the investment allowance given by Her Majesty's Government to the United Kingdom shipping industry, nevertheless records its extreme concern at the difficulties caused to the industry by the virtual freedom from taxation enjoyed by ships flying certain flags of convenience, and, in view of the unique position of British shipping as the lifeline of an island nation, calls for further measures to strengthen its competitive power.]
Mr. Butler: This, as I said last week, is a busy time of the year for legislation. But I agree with my hon. Friend that the more occasions we can have for general discussion, the better.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government have only a minority representation of Members from Scotland and that his timetable Motion is a case of the minority guillotining the majority? Is the right hon. Gentleman suffering from the delusion that his party won the Kelvingrove by-election, instead of losing it?
Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last full statement that we had on Cyprus was given before the last Recess, and that we have had only an interim statement since? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a little more information? We have been reasonable and forbearing up to now, but is it not over-stepping the bounds to ask for reasonable tolerance and more time for negotiation, there having been no statement?
Mr. Butler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 18th February. It is true to say that hon. Members on all sides of the House have been most patient in

597
relation to this very intractable question, but I cannot carry it further this afternoon.
Mr. Callaghan: This is the answer that the Leader of the House has given now on two or three occasions when he has been asked about it at Question Time. Will he please take note of the growing impatience on both sides of the House at the failure of the Government to make their position clear on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, on both sides of the House. We have already had one question from the Government benches this afternoon.
May I put it to the Leader of the House that, in the interests of the people of Cyprus, as well as of the people of Britain, the time is coming when the Government should make a full and considered statement about their own position in relation to a situation in which there are emergency regulations operating in the island, in which there is no constitutional Government, and in which there are hundreds of men and women imprisoned without trial?
Ought not the House of Commons to be interested when such a situation persists? Does not the duty fall upon the Government to make their position clear at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Butler: I will note the observations of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members who have put forward their views on this important matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
  Chief Constables (Powers)
  Mr. Lagden: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the powers of chief constables, and move a Resolution.
  Commonwealth Countries (Financial and Economic Co-operation)
  Mr. B. Harrison: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the desirability of creating machinery for closer co-operation in financial and economic affairs between Commonwealth countries, and move a Resolution.
  Health Services (Work Study)
  Mr. Partridge: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for work study in the health services, and move a Resolution.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  THE WEST INDIESM (GIFT OF MACE)
  Resolution reported,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Mace to the House of Representatives of the West Indies, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS' REPORTS.)
3.44 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in line 25, to leave out "not".
The Chairman: The first Amendment on the Notice Paper, in page 2, line 25, to leave out subsection (2), is not selected. The next two, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that which he has moved and the next Amendment, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from "two" to the end of the subsection and to insert:
"and in giving effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act to take account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies and of any local ties which would be broken by such alterations; and rule 5 of those rules shall be amended accordingly",
may be taken together. We could also include the one following it, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "constituencies" to "and" in line 31, and the last Amendment but one to the Schedule, in page 5, line 20, at the end to insert:
2. Rule 5 in the second Schedule to the principal Act shall be amended by the addition at the end of the rule of the following
600
words "or to avoid inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies, including any local ties which would be broken by such alterations".
Mr. Mitchison: The subsection which we propose to amend would introduce a new factor for the consideration of the Boundary Commission, that is, the inconveniences that are attendant upon alteration of constituencies and the breaking of local ties as the result of such alteration. As we said on the Second Reading, we welcome the recognition of that factor in the rules. Its introduction is one of the things that the Boundary Commission must take into account.
The form in which it is introduced in the subsection seems somewhat unfortunate. It was described by the Leader of the House as a presumption against making changes unless there is a very strong case for them. I doubt whether it goes quite as far as that. What is proposed is that the Boundary Commission is not to be bound to give full effect in all circumstances to the rules that are already in the Second Schedule, but is to take account so far as it can of the new factor, except as regards alterations made to boundaries. These are the alterations which occur in the rule four mentioned in the subsection. That is extremely difficult to follow, and I must for a moment trouble the Committee with a reference to the rules.
They begin with three unqualified rules. One is about the number of constituencies; another is about single-Member constituencies, and the third is a peculiar rule about the City of London. It is very hard to see what effect this new factor will have on the strict carrying out of those rules.
We then come to Rule 4, the one to which the new factor is not to have the same application. It begins by saying:
"So far as practicable, having regard to the first three rules",
and it goes on to deal with the question of boundaries. In Rule 5, we get to the question of the electoral quota. Here again the Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule in certain circumstances.
If, on top of this "so far as practicable" and "departure from the strict application" and all the rest of it, we add a further exception in the form in

601
which it appears in subsection (2), we have left the matters that the Boundary Commission has to take into consideration exceedingly confused. We have alighted on the one rule to which it ought to have some particular application, that is, the boundary rule, as the one to which it is not to have any particular application.
What is left? What are the rules to which it has to have application? Three rules, to which I should have thought it could hardly apply at all. The one rule to which it really ought to apply is the one about the size, not of the electoral quota, since this rule seems clear enough already. We might try to think out what we are doing in relation to it, and not seek to apply this sort of thing to the question of single-Member constituencies, and so on, to which it has no application at all, but to apply it in relation to the electoral quota.
The proposal in the Amendment is to change the application of the rule and to make the subsection run like this, taking the two Amendments together:
"It shall be the duty of a Boundary Commission, in discharging their functions under the said Section two"—
that is, the general Section—
"and in giving effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act, to take account, so far as they reasonably can"—
of the new factor—
"and Rule 5 of those rules shall be amended accordingly."
That seems to me to put this new factor in its proper place, and not to introduce the quite unnecessary confusion that appears to arise from the present form of words in the subsection.
What I have said relates to the first two Amendments. The third Amendment is, broadly speaking, aimed towards the same sort of point, but does not go quite so far. Assuming that, for some reason or another—I hope, a good one—the general wording of the subsection is preferred to my suggestion; that the Government prefer, at any rate, as I see it, to increase the obscurity of the rules by adding this new factor in this curious way, I still see no reason for the exception made in relation to the fourth rule, which is the boundary rule.
If this factor is to be taken into account and allowed to weigh against the strict application of the rules, why should the
602
rule about boundaries be specifically excepted? I quite fail to see any reason for that, and I could not collect one from the Second Reading debate. I suggest, therefore, that if we cannot have the wording that I prefer, we might, at least, leave out the words in line 30
"… other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules …"
Perhaps I may conclude by making two observations. The first is to repeat, lest there be any uncertainty about it, that we, on this side, welcome the introduction of this new factor. We think that it is quite right that it should form part of the rules. All we are anxious about is that its effect should be clearly stated. We believe that it is stated more clearly by putting it into Rule 5, where it belongs, and by not making this exception in favour of Rule 4. We think that that will give it not only a fuller, but a clearer effect.
If I have to repeat my second observation in the course of our debates today, I shall do so only because I think that we have to keep it constantly before us. It is that Clause 1 does have the effect of making an alteration in the position of the Boundary Commission. We are now dealing with rules that are the guide—and, as I see it, the only guide—for a Commission with a judicial head and two other official members. It is, therefore, extraordinarily necessary that the rules we have to consider should be recognised as what they are—the guide for that Commission—and should be as clear as we can make them.
I have referred to what I consider to be the lack of clarity in the form proposed in the Bill. That need for clarity is the more apparent when we reflect on what, at any rate, has been previous experience—and I would not differ too much from it. On the last occasion, we found that the Home Secretary had not thought it proper to interfere at all with the reports made by the Commission. I fully appreciate the difficulty of any Home Secretary in seeking to interfere with those reports, or to make recommendations to vary them in some way or other; that, although he has a power to do so under the Act, he runs into the difficulty, the inevitable difficulty, of some confusion between his political and party position and his duty to see that the rules are carried out effectively. For that last

603
reason, again, I say that it is most important that we should get these rules clearer.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) straight away, particularly as he has said that he is in agreement with the main purpose of Clause 2 (2), and that his difficulty arises from its drafting and not from any difference of view, in substance, as to what degree of flexibility the subsection is proposed to achieve.
I would agree with him, too, that it is very desirable that these rules should be as clear as possible. I must confess that from the very beginning, when they were first formulated, the rules were not of obvious clarity on a first perusal. I have had, perhaps, more occasions to consider them than has the hon. and learned Gentleman, and though I do not think that they in any sense lack clarity as they stand now, I must admit that they may not be too easy, as I have said, to comprehend on a first reading.
Clause 2 (2), as it stands, quite clearly admits of the departure to a greater degree from the strictness of the rules as they now stand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously correct in saying that its impact does not really arise in relation to the first three rules, but primarily in relation to Rule 4. By this Clause, it will be possible to avoid the kind of thing to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) drew attention, namely, the transfer of about 17,000 electors from one part of Southampton to another to secure an adjustment of about 1,000 in the electorate of each constituency within Southampton. I am sure we would all think that that kind of change was really not very desirable.
The matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering really relates to the reference in line 30 to Rule 4:
"… other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules …"
The reason for the use of those words is this. We may get the case in which borough boundaries are extended, or
604
boundaries are altered, with the result that the boundaries of the parliamentary constituency do not coincide with those of the local government area. It is, in our view, desirable that where that sort of change occurs, effect should be given to Rule 4 by extending the parliamentary boundary. The obvious case is the extension of a borough boundary. The part to which the extension applies then falls within the borough for all local government purposes.
4.0 p.m.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed a somewhat different view, but we believe that there is great value in trying to preserve the same boundaries for local government areas and parliamentary constituencies. That is why, in line 30, we have deliberately excepted from Clause 2 (2), and from the power of the Boundary Commission to take account of inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies, alterations made for the purpose of Rule 4 of the rules, that is to say, alterations made for the purposes of securing coincidence between local authority boundaries and Parliamentary constituency boundaries. We feel that that is something which should, if possible, be achieved.
Of course, there will remain under the rule as it stands, when the subsection is passed and becomes part of the Statute Law, a certain measure of flexibility, because Rule 4 is governed by the words "so far as is practicable". But, in relation to that particular aspect, we are not enlarging the degree of flexibility by Clause 2 (2). I hope that I have made that clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know his view on local authority boundaries. I myself feel that the Committee could probably discuss that more usefully when we come to some of the later Amendments. I hope that the Committee will agree not to embark on a discussion of that aspect, which is an important one, at the present time.
I hope that I have made clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman the reason for the reference to Rule 4 in the subsection and the reason, in our view, that it should remain.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for what he has said. May we

605
take it that the kind of alterations which took place in London on the last occasion will not recur? At that time, there were, I think, alterations to 16 constituencies in order to create one new one, and, in the end, Hammersmith Town Hall was placed in the Fulham Parliamentary constituency. May we take it that, as a result of the Clause we are discussing, plus the retention of Rule 4, that kind of thing will be almost impossible? An assurance from the Attorney-General would be of help.
The Attorney-General: I do not think that I could say it would be impossible, because one cannot say what the results of a consideration of particular facts in particular localities may be. But I can say that it is our intention—I think the Clause adequately provides for it—to give the Boundary Commission power to depart from strict conformity with the rules so as to avoid the inconveniences which arise from the rupture of local ties or associations which may have considerable importance.
Mr. Mitchison: I must say that I cannot find that answer satisfactory. The subsection says that the Boundary Commission is not bound to give full effect to the rules. It refers to the application of what I continue to call the new factor to all cases except Rule 4 cases.
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated dissent.
Mr. Mitchison: If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make clear what he means. Let me restate it and see whether it appeals to him more in this form. It then applies the new factor as something reasonably to be taken into account in all cases. When one looks at the new factor, it is certain things attendant on alterations of constituencies. The only alterations of constituencies which are not to be considered for those purposes are alterations made by reason of Rule 4.
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated dissent.
Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman still shakes his head. I shall give way in a moment. I hope he will realise that I am not, if I may say so, completely half-witted. If I find this
606
difficulty in what he meant just now, and in what is meant by what is on the Notice Paper, it is possible that others may find a similar difficulty.
The Attorney-General will agree that Rule 4 is treated in an exceptional way. He will agree, because he said so, that this has no real application to the first three rules. There remain Rules 5 and 6. He objects to it being put into Rule 5, and nobody has suggested that it has much to do with Rule 6. What is the point of putting in a particular matter which is intended to refer to Rule 5, which treats Rule 4 as exceptional, and which does not apply to the other rules anywhere than in the place to which it does apply?
The Attorney-General: I realise quite well that these rules are difficult to comprehend, on first consideration, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think that I am seeking to be discourteous when I say that the short answer to his question is that he is, I think, paraphrasing incorrectly—unintentionally, I know—what is in the subsection. He says again and again that this gives a degree of flexibility in relation to all rules other than Rule 4. That is not what the Clause provides. It provides for flexibility in relation to Rule 4 and in relation to the very cases about which I was asked just now. The words are:
"they shall take account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies"—
that gives a slight presumption against alterations—
"other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules"
that is to say, if I may paraphrase, correctly, I think, other than alterations made to existing boundaries of parliamentary constituencies to secure conformity with Rule 4, that is, to secure, where borough boundaries have been altered, that the Parliamentary boundaries are extended to coincide with those.
With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the difficulty which he has seen arises, I think, from his taking the view that this Clause contains an exclusive reference to Rule 4, when it does not. It refers to all rules including Rule 4, except in this very limited instance where we want to preserve the

607
power to extend a parliamentary constituency boundary to coincide with an extended borough boundary. I cannot go further than that in trying to make it clear.
Mr. Mitchison: I now understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, but I still find it exceedingly obscure and I cannot welcome a subsection which applies a new factor to rules generally when, so far as I can see, it can apply only to a very limited class of case. But this is, after all, a point of intention, and I doubt whether there is sufficient difference between the intention of the Attorney-General and the Government and our intention to justify pressing the point too far.
There is, I think, another slight difference. We would have preferred a more nearly equal place to be given to the new factor than is given in the wording of the subsection, but, in view of what has been said and the explanation given as to the limited character of the reference to Rule 4, we need not press it.
The Attorney-General: I will, of course, consider all that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about it. There is really no difference apparent in the Committee as to the intent. It is merely a matter of language. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the desirability of making the language as clear and precise as possible. I rose again to say that I shall give further consideration to it and see whether we can secure greater clarity and precision in order to achieve the common objective. But it is not easy, and we may not be able to do it.
Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He used the phrase just now, "a slight presumption". That is the way I would read the subsection, and I hope that I may be allowed, without disrespect, to say that the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, on Second Reading, seemed to me to go a little too far. He said that there is a presumption against making changes unless there is a very strong case for them. Those were a few words spoken in the course of a long, eloquent and useful speech.
608
I hope that nothing will be done to enlarge the effect which the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated today. We welcome this new factor. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end to add:
(3) For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding any previous practice, it is hereby declared that nothing in the said rules enjoins or justifies any difference between the application of sub-paragraph (a) (i) of paragraph (1) of rule 4 of those rules to the inclusion of a county or any part thereof in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county and the application of that sub-paragraph to the inclusion of a county or any part thereof in a constituency which includes the whole or part of a county borough or metropolitan borough.
This is one of four Amendments on the Notice Paper intended to call attention to the fact that certain practices which have been followed by the Boundary Commissions in the past are not justified by any of the rules. I repeat what I said just now—that if a judicial and official Commission is sitting with, in practice, something very like the last word in these matters, and if it is governed by a set of statutory rules, it is highly undesirable that matters not in those rules should be introduced, because that means, in effect, handing over to the Commission a discretion which the Act does not justify and which, if it were to be handed over to the Commission, ought to be fully debated and considered in the House. I therefore see no reason why the Commission should ever depart from the rules.
I recognise, of course, as anyone must recognise in dealing with these rules, that the subject matter with which the Commission has to deal is of such a character that there are bound to be conflicts between the rules and bound to be cases where one rule must be given more weight than another. It is on that account that the rules were put in a certain order. A preference was given to the first three, as I see it the second place was given to the fourth, the third place to the fifth and the fourth place to the sixth. The order in which the rules occur is of significance when we look at the character of the calculations involved.
One part of Rule 1 deals with the question of the respect to be paid to the boundaries of counties and county boroughs.

609
All that the Amendment seeks to do is not that this importance or some other importance should be given to county boundaries or county borough boundaries, but simply, as is the case with the rules, to make no distinction between county boundaries and county borough boundaries.
Lest I should be accused of summarising incorrectly, let me read Rule 4 (1, a, i):
"no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a county borough or metropolitan borough;"
4.15 p.m.
If it were absolute, this would prohibit the Commission from ever crossing any county or county borough boundaries, but it is not absolute; it is absolute only as far as is practicable, having regard to the preceding rules. The practical difficulty is that in its last Report the Commission paid a religious regard to county boundaries and crossed them only in cases such as Rutland, where the county area is too small to make a complete constituency—it had to cross a neighbouring county for that purpose—or in cases where there was a constituency and, if I may say so, obviously had to be a constituency which involved the crossing of a county boundary.
This was not the case with county borough boundaries. The Commission, instead of making five or six constituencies from a city, did not hesitate to make five-and-a-half, adding half a constituency from the county outside. The result was to bring in housing estates which lay outside the county borough boundary altogether and to tack them on to a county borough.
I am not for the moment on the question of how far we ought to do that. All I am saying is that if the Commission does it in the case of county boroughs, and if it sticks to the rules, there is no reason why it should not do exactly the same with counties. If it finds that in a part of a county there is a market town which serves an area largely in a neighbouring county, or something like that, it should hesitate no more and no less to cross a county boundary than it should hesitate when it is dealing with a borough boundary.
610
I do not suppose that it will be disputed for a minute that this has been the practice of the Boundary Commission. I do not want to go into a long discourse to prove it. The cases are mentioned at the beginning of paragraph 15 of the Report:
"We have recommended a continuance, for parliamentary purposes, of the union of the Administrative Counties of Rutland and the Parts of Kesteven; the Administrative Counties of Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough and the Administrative Counties of East and West Suffolk."
Coming to the borough constituencies, we read:
"we have recommended the intersection of the boundaries of 28 boroughs and I urban district:"
The urban district does not matter for this purpose. Not all of these boroughs will necessarily be county boroughs but most of them will. If we go through the constituencies in detail there is not the least doubt about it.
It may be said that there is this difference: outside a county borough there are areas which in due course will be absorbed into the county borough. If that is a matter which ought to be taken into account it must be stated in the rules. We are now to have a judicial chairman, and I hope and believe that he will pay attention to the rules and nothing but the rules and will not rely on Parliament making the changes, which, in fact, Parliament refused to make on the last occasion, in the recommendations of the Commission.
We must remember that a widespread review of local boundaries, including county and county borough boundaries, will proceed in the next few years under the Local Government Act, assuming that right hon. Gentlemen opposite remain in office long enough to get the Local Government Bill on to the Statute Book.
There is no one who does not accept the fact that a review of that sort is required, a review which, in all parts of the country, will enable the Local Government Commission to look at both county and county borough boundaries, and in all parts of the country which contain a very large part of the total population will not only enable the Commission to do that but will enable new forms of local government to be started.

611
The continuous county contemplated by the Local Government Bill is a new and strange object. It may have its uses, but I do not want the boundaries of that legislative experiment to be treated any differently from, or with any less or more respect than the other boundaries referred to in this rule.
The Amendment is purely declaratory but it is declaratory of something which undoubtedly is in the rules and equally without doubt has not been followed by the Boundary Commission in the past.
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) began by making some references to the statutory provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. I should like to follow his example. I do not think that I part company with him in any real degree in what he said, though I differ with him in one respect. When one considers the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Schedule, there is nothing as a matter of construction of the Statute to lead to the view that paragraph 4 (1, a, i) is to take preference over paragraph 4 (1, a, ii) or paragraph 4 (1, a, iii) or paragraph 4 (1, a, iv) as a matter of legal construction, but, of course, as a matter of practical importance I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would agree that it would be less objectionable to depart from a county district boundary than it would be to depart from or alter or go across a county boundary or a county borough boundary.
I can agree with the hon. and learned Member that there is no distinction drawn in paragraph 4 (1, a) between a county being included in the whole or part of any other county and a county being included in the whole or part of a county borough or a metropolitan borough. They are dealt with in the same subsection of the same paragraph. No distinction is drawn there, but, as the hon. and learned Member said, those provisions are subject to the stipulation that they ought to be adhered to so far as is practicable. That is in the 1949 Act, and if the Bill reaches the Statute Book that must be read in the light of Clause 2 (2).
Where I must part company with the hon. and learned Member is on the facts. It is not right to say that the Boundary
612
Commissions can be assumed to have read this statutory provision wrongly, having regard to the discretion given to them. They are to have regard to these rules so far as practicable, and I want to deal with that point. The hon. and learned Member concluded by saying that this rule had not been followed by the Commissions. I do not think that there are grounds for saying that and, to go back to the subject matter of the Amendment, I do not think that there is any room for doubt about the meaning of the provision. In my view, therefore, the Amendment is quite unnecessary for the removal of doubt. One does not want to include in a statute provision for the removal of doubt when there is no doubt.
The hon. and learned Member's argument is based on the submission that the Boundary Commission for England has departed from that rule in more cases in relation to county boroughs than it has in relation to counties. I agree that it has, and I submit that it was right to do so having regard to the circumstances which it had to consider. One starts with the desire to preserve all local government boundaries and to avoid having Parliamentary constituencies cutting across those boundaries, but it is not the case, as the hon. and learned Member conceded, that the Boundary Commission has regarded county boundaries as entirely sacrosanct.
There is the case of the Sudbury and Woodbridge Division, which takes in part of East and West Suffolk. There is the administrative county of Rutland, which takes in part of Kesteven, and there is, perhaps, the borderline case of Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. I say that that is a borderline case because it is not beyond dispute that the Soke of Peterborough does not form part of the county of Northampton.
Mr. Ede: It is a separate administrative county.
The Attorney-General: Certainly, for many purposes, but, I think, not for all. I am sure that I can have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is a constituency which is very well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, whether it is part of the Soke of Peterborough or part of the County of Northampton that he represents.
Mr. Mitchison: Those are the three examples which I quoted. The point is that they exist already and the Boundary Commission did not interfere with them, but it created no new examples, though it made many in connection with county boroughs.
The Attorney-General: I was coming to deal with that. I apprehend that the reason why the Commission created no new examples was that there was no occasion to do so. The objective must be to preserve these boundaries and make them coincide with Parliamentary boundaries, but when one comes to the boroughs there is a very real difficulty and a position quite distinct from that of counties as a whole.
The real problem arises when there are boroughs which have electors in excess of the electoral quota. There are three possible methods of treating these boroughs. The first is to give them more seats. That would result in a large number of cases in which the seat in such a borough would represent considerably less than the electoral quota. That would be bound to mean that there would be fewer seats available for the county areas, and, consequently, county constituencies would be more oversized.
That is one way in which the matter could be dealt with, but I have not heard it suggested by anyone that county constituencies which have long travelling distances should be treated unfavourably compared with boroughs. That would be the result if a borough were divided into two seats with the electorate for each being far below the electoral quota. That is a method which I am sure the Committee would think would be wrong for the Boundary Commission to adopt.
The second method would be to let those borough constituencies remain with their electorates higher, and maybe considerably higher, than the electoral quota. The Boundary Commission's Report for 1947 took that course and Parliament, at the behest of a Socialist Government, then over-rode the Commission's recommendation and provided for 17 more constituencies. Therefore, that recommendation on the part of the Commission did not take effect. But that was a course of treatment of this problem which arises not in relation to counties, but in relation to boroughs.
614
4.30 p.m.
The third possible way of dealing with it is to reduce the electorate of a borough by including some of its electorate in a neighbouring county seat or to take from a county constituency and include in a borough seat, where we are dividing the borough into, say, two seats, a sufficient proportion of the county electorate to raise the electorate within one of those borough seats to a figure near the electoral quota. That was the method broadly adopted by the Boundary Commission in its last Report and which has been the subject of considerable criticism and led to the introduction of Clause 2 (2), which has been welcomed on both sides of the Committee.
It is not the case that there is any ground, as far as I can see, for saying that the Boundary Commission gave an interpretation different from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given and with which I agree, but in the exercise of the discretion that it is given under these rules it thought it right, having regard to the problem which arises in relation to boroughs, to depart from that part of Rule 4 (1, a).
It is significant that every time this House has drafted rules we have had a conflict between local associations and the desire for securing a higher degree of mathematical accuracy. The 1944 Act, which was passed after the Speaker's Conference, got into difficulties, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will remember, because of the rule that constituencies should conform to the electoral quota, with a margin of 25 per cent. up and 25 per cent. down.
That provision led to such extraordinary results that the right hon. Gentleman rightly introduced a Bill in 1946 to give the Boundary Commission a greater degree of flexibility. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Third Schedule had been enacted … too closely to a merely mathematical formula. Now representation in this House is something more than a matter of mere mathematics. This House, except for the University Members, is based on a territorial organisation and many of us are very proud to represent communities that are integral, human entities which have both a history and a very lively sense of corporate feeling. This purely mathematical formula, so harsh and unyielding in its effect, meant that in certain cases wards were lopped off a borough and put with an adjoining county division. I have been astonished, as I moved

615
about the country during the last two or three months, at the number of places which will be under-represented if they get only one Member which have said that they prefer to be slightly under-represented, and to have one Member, and remain a unity, rather than have a few of their wards lopped off and put in with some other groups of people with whom they have no very great community of interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1559.]
If I may respectfully say so to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that what he said was absolutely accurate and is as well founded today as it was then.
Mr. Ede: There is no need to say "respectfully".
The Attorney-General: There may be no need to say it, but I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would like it.
Mr. Ede: No.
The Attorney-General: I shall not withdraw the word "respectfully", but leave it where it stands.
Throughout the country there exists a view that communities should be preserved. The provisions in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill will enable more effect to be given to that view. That means, to my mind, that the likelihood of having a repetition of those discrepancies as a result of a future review will be diminished.
I hope I have not taken too long in dealing with the Amendment. In conclusion, I come back to this point. One cannot argue, judging from the Commission's treatment of the problem relating to boroughs with an electorate in excess of the quota, that the Commission has misinterpreted the very clear and precise provisions of Rule 4 (1, a.) I do not think that there is any ground for saying that or that there is any doubt about the meaning of that provision. This is one of the occasions on which I have been able to entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's view of the law.
In those circumstances, I must advise the Committee that, instead of removing doubt, the inclusion of this provision might conceivably add to doubt about the meaning of the original provision.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: We on this side agree with what the Attorney-General has said. There is something to be said for maintaining the entity of
616
boroughs, for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. But this does not get over one of the great problems, namely, the under-representation of England. This is a point which must be looked at.
The Attorney-General: We shall certainly have to debate that point on a later Amendment. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but I said that I would not deal with that matter in detail, because it does arise later. It would be more convenient to discuss it then.
Mr. Hobson Mr. Hobson indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchison: This is a narrow but, I think, important point.
Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have no doubt that this rule treats borough boundaries and county boundaries in the same way. In both cases it is not an absolute treatment, but is subject to qualifications. I agree that the qualifications may apply more in one case than in another. But no change whatever was made to cross a county boundary. The only cases in which it was crossed or in which more than one county was included in a given area were where that was the position before the Commission reported. The Commission merely continued what existed already. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the opinion that it gave a different treatment to county borough boundaries and to county boundaries was widespread.
The complaints of people who found that part of an adjacent housing estate in the county had been added to their nice county borough constituency were numerous. They took the view—and, in spite of what the Attorney-General said, I share it—that they regarded these two types of boundary differently. I agree that it is to some extent a matter of doubt whether the different treatment that the Commission gave arose from a different view of the law affecting the matter or from a differing effect in the qualifying circumstances. The latter is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. But, on his own showing, the only difference between us is that he says there is no doubt, and I feel that there is doubt. I do not put it merely on my own feeling. I am sure that there has been a great deal of doubt as to whether the boundaries have been treated in the same way.

617
Let us have no misunderstanding about it. I am not saying anything whatever about the proper treatment or the effect of these qualifications. All I am saying is that there is no distinction to be drawn between the one type of boundary and the other. It may well be that the qualifications will apply differently. That is a matter to be decided in each case, and there will be differences between one county borough and another county borough, and between one county and another county. I am certain that there has been doubt about the treatment of these two types of boundary.
The Amendment could do no conceivable harm and is simply to avoid doubt. It should be included for that purpose, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will accept it.
Mr. Ede: I must apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for not being present when he moved the Amendment.
I stand by every word which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General quoted. The first problem is that no scheme can be devised by which the Boundary Commissioners will please everybody. Let us make a start by making that open confession. As one who had three shots at trying to do it, I am willing to admit that for a start. At the time I made the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, I did not know that when the first review took place my seat would be one which would be involved in just that controversy.
The trouble is that the Boundary Commissioners do not give reasons for their decisions. If they did, it might be possible to understand their decisions. There was undoubtedly a feeling, after the review which took place when Lord Tenby was Home Secretary, that in too many cases what my hon. and learned Friend described took place.
What happened in my constituency is a good example. Four wards were lopped off the Borough of South Shields for Parliamentary representation and put in with the Borough of Jarrow. That had an astounding effect in the County Borough of South Shields. All political parties and all social organisations in the borough said, "We want to remain a borough and to have one Member of Parliament and not one and a bit and
618
then find, on issue in which we are in conflict as a borough with our neighbours on something which comes before Parliament, that we shall possibly not count in the House of Commons because our two Members cancel out one another."
That feeling is understandable and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say anything to vitiate its validity. That view was so strongly held that when the inquiry was conducted a recommendation was made and this proposed alteration was wiped out and the Parliamentary borough and the administrative county borough of South Shields are co-terminus with one another.
4.45 p.m.
There is the difficulty that there may sometimes be strong feelings in the non- county boroughs, parishes, urban districts, or county districts which are added to a bit of a county, borough that what happens in Parliamentary representation may very well guide those who have to decide on extensions of county boroughs. It has been denied, and quite rightly, that the two things have anything to do with one another, but one occasionally finds, when a case for an extension of county borough is being made, that there is an indication that administratively they are regarded as a unit and a community—in one particular only—and that that is prayed in aid of the extension of the county borough.
Not knowing the reasons—and even when I was Home Secretary I did not know the reasons which actuated the Boundary Commissioners—adds to the difficulties. As far as I know, the Home Secretary has no right to say to the Boundary Commissioners, "This appears to be a curious constituency which you have arranged. As I have to defend your recommendation in the House of Commons, I should like to know why you have reached this conclusion." Viscount Tenby stood at the Box defending the recommendations, but never said why the Boundary Commissioners had made them, not even in the case of Hackney and Bethnal Green, which was an astounding division.
When discretion is exercised, everyone is entitled to his opinion about whether it has been exercised wisely. However, I am not sure that the Home Secretary is not put in a difficult position, because he has to tell the House, "These people

619
have decided this. I have listened to the arguments, but they have settled it and we might as well go into the Division Lobbies." I do not think that that is the right way to deal with this matter.
On examination of what has happened, I feel that in all too many cases the discretion was used in favour of bringing what one might call at the highest the suburbs of a county borough into a county borough for Parliamentary purposes. The doctrine of community of interests could not have been given very much weight when that was done. I had hoped that the Amendment would be carried, because county borough boundaries, as much as county boundaries, are the boundaries of an area administered by a county council. Even if the Amendment is not accepted, I hope that that idea will appeal rather more to the Boundary Commissioners in future than it appears to have done in the past.
I am not very much wedded to the belief that we will ever get anything for pure administration which can be justified on merely arithmetical lines. It would be very much more convenient if one could take the figure of 57,000 and always be able to get a ring fence of the dots on the map around units of 57,000 without going over any boundary. However, after that, it is largely a matter of discretion when we are trying to make up the numbers who are to sit in the House of Commons.
It will always be left to somebody's discretion and reasons for the way the discretion has been used would be a help. It is no use saying that the House of Commons retains control of this matter after what we saw happen with the review when Lord Tenby was Home Secretary. I do not blame him for what occurred. He had the reports and, clearly, if the Home Office said, "They have not made much of a job of it, so we will try to do better", we would be involved in all kinds of considerations and suggestions as to why one bit of the map has been redrawn. However, I hope sincerely that in future county boundaries and county borough boundaries will be regarded as equally important in this consideration.
We are a long way from what happened before the Representation of the People Act of 1918. In those days a borough constituency was included in the
620
county, even where the borough was a county borough, for the purposes of giving ownership votes in the county to people whose property was within the borough. Until 1948 the county constituency of Wimbledon included all the ownership votes, which have now disappeared, in that part of the County of London which, prior to the 1888 Act, was in the ancient County of Surrey.
There may be still the feeling that a county borough is a part of the county. The county borough itself would not admit it in these days, and I have known cases where there is such a state of armed neutrality, at the best, between the county and the county borough as to make it doubtful whether the county would recognise it either.
This is important. I think that the doubt exists. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, I hope that one effect of today's discussion may be that, when the next review is made, a county borough will be regarded as having as important a boundary as a county.
Mr. Skeffington: I want to reinforce the pleas made by both my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). First, there is the over-riding consideration that there are likely to be some changes in boundaries both as a result of the Local Government Bill now being discussed upstairs and possibly as a result of the findings of the Royal Commission for the Greater London area. Therefore, I think that this is a subject where perhaps even more care than usual is required because of the many interests involved and the uncertainty of the future of local government boundaries.
The Attorney-General said that as a matter of legal interpretation there was no difference between the categories of boundaries specified in Rule 4. Respectfully, I am sure that that is correct, but our doubt and the reasons for this Amendment arise largely from our experience of what happened on the last occasion. As my right hon. Friend said, a large number of the changes were not explicable on any basis of reason or, indeed in many cases, of mathematical equality. One could not discover the reasons, and it is much to be regretted that none were given by the English

621
Commission, unlike the Scottish Commission, which gave its reasons and so made its decisions somewhat more acceptable than otherwise they might have been.
Whether or not the status of the different boundaries is legally the same, it is clear that the English Commission, on the last occasion, proceeded to redistribution county by county. It was not a decision of the Act, it was a decision of the Commission, and it caused a good deal of offence to many interests and a great deal of unnecessary interference. The Commission also adopted for England an English electoral quota which was also not specified in the Act.
The result of these two decisions, which were decisions of the English Commission and not of the House of Commons or of the Act, resulted in the infringement of a large number of all the other local government boundaries except the boundaries of counties. One thing we want to assure ourselves about on this side of the Committee is that this will not again be the position when this Bill becomes law.
There were 540 changes as a result of the proposals in the 1948 and 1949 Acts and then 252 further changes which were recommended in the last review. The latter figure was slightly reduced by the time the orders came to the House, as there were only 181 of them, but that was enough. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted what my right hon. Friend has said about mathematical equality and the results of the 1948 review, but what happened in the latter review was far worse from the point of view of disturbance. There was far more disturbance last time than previously, in the sense of small alterations of boundaries which could not be justified either on the grounds of logic or on any principles of Parliamentary representation.
In London, the Boundary Commission, using this unauthorised English quota, divided that into the electors, at that time 2,300,000. As a result of that sum there were to be 42 seats for London instead of 43, with the result that the boundaries of four Metropolitan boroughs had to be merged and eight constituencies altered, in addition, to get rid of one constituency. Really, no one could have said that the principles of Parliamentary government would be seriously harmed if there
622
were 43 Members for London instead of 42. And they did this not only in relation to London. They did it also in the case of the West Riding, where the sum reached by their artificial formula again produced a reduction of seats from 42 to 40.
Mr. Hobson: All in working-class areas, too.
Mr. Skeffington: Sometimes these things seem to ocur in areas in which we have stronger interests, at any rate, when we are sitting on this side of the House. To reduce the 42 seats to 40 again 20 constituency boundaries were interfered with, and eight local authority areas.
That is the recent experience we have suffered. We want to be certain—and we should be failing in our duty if we agreed to this Clause going into the Bill unless we were certain—that this unnecessary interference with local government boundaries will not take place on a future occasion. With respect, although I am sure the Attorney-General believes that this will not happen, we want greater safeguards, which ought to be incorporated in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will see fit to add the words proposed, or similar words, which all make certain that this can be secured.
The Attorney-General: The greater safeguard which the hon. Gentleman wants is the safeguard given by Clause 2 (2). In my view, this Amendment does not provide any safeguard. I appreciate from what has been said that the doubts felt arise from what the Commission did, and particularly from the fact that it did so without giving any reasons therefor. I endorse what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said about the difficulties that arise from the absence of reasons.
5.0 p.m.
This House has power to over-ride the decisions of the Boundary Commission, but the position of the Home Secretary of the day must be extremely difficult in deciding whether to recommend to this House an alteration in the recommendations of the Commission when he does not know, and is not told, the reasons for which the Commission acted. I have well in mind the difficulties that arose when Lord Tenby was Home Secretary and I remember taking part in those

623
debates, when the position was one of acute difficulty.
It is not for me to say, and the Act does not provide for it, but if I may express a personal view I feel that it would sometimes help if an indication of the reasons could be given. One can only speculate, but we can, I think, speculate here on fairly valid grounds why, in the cases to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) referred, departures were made from county borough boundaries. They were made, I think, to secure greater equality of electorates in the various constituencies.
The hon. Member has attacked the application by the last Commission of what he called the English electoral quota. In fact, that has been used each time by the Boundary Commission, the reason being that having regard to the fixed number of seats for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the population in those areas, the electoral quota for the whole of the United Kingdom provides an entirely inadequate and wrong yardstick for the determination of the correct size of the English constituency. That being so—and that is one of the matters dealt with by Clause 3, upon which I do not want to anticipate discussion—and it also being obviously desirable that as nearly as possible English constituencies should have the same electorates, the Commission, I think rightly, applied what the hon. Member called the English electoral quota.
It was not that, however, which led to the disturbances to which the hon. Member drew attention, in the sense of small alterations of boundary. Nor do I think that it was any doubt as to the meaning of Rule 4 (1, a, i) that led to the situation to which the right hon. Member for South Shields drew attention. What led to it was, I believe, the fact that the Commission felt that under the rules as they then were, it did not have sufficient
liberty to depart from the objectives, clearly revealed by the rules, of securing as near as possible a degree of mathematical equality in rural areas. That, I believe, was the real reason.
I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the sense of unity and the feeling of a community that it should not be separated, whether inside or outside a county borough. I disagree with him in one respect, in that I hops that the cases where there is strong feeling between a county borough and the rest of the county are not very numerous. Certainly, in my part of the country there is the closest possible association.
The course followed by the Commission last time does not, in my view, show that there is any reason to suppose that there is the slightest doubt as to the interpretation to be placed upon the existing rule or the slightest need for the introduction of a rule headed, "For the avoidance of doubt", because there is, to my mind, no doubt on this matter of legal construction. It has been said already that the chairman of each of the Commissions will now be a judge.
I cannot advise the Committee to insert into the Statute a provision "For the avoidance of doubt" when there is no doubt as to the legal interpretation of the Statute. The application of that Statute is another matter. Its application in the past has, as I have sought to indicate, been due to the difficulty created by the boroughs having electorates in excess of the quota and the feeling of the Boundary Commission that it was compelled by the rules to make adjustments to secure more uniformity in electorates. It is given greater discretion by subsection (2) as it stands and I can only advise the Committee that any further Amendment of this nature is wholly unnecessary.
Question put, That those words be there added:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 117, Noes 174.

Division No. 81.]

AYES

[5.7 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Brockway, A. F.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Balfour, A.

Callaghan, L. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Beswick, Frank

Chetwynd, G. R.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Blackburn, F.

Clunie, J.

Deer, G

Blyton, W. R.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Boardman, H.

Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Cove, W. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Boyd, T. C.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Fletcher, Eric

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Short, E. W.

Foot, D. M.

Mason, Roy

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Mellish, R. J.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

George,Lady MeganLloyd(Car'then)

Mikardo, Ian

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Gibson, C. W.

Michison, G. R.

Skeffington, A. M.

Greenwood, Anthony

Moody, A. S.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Grey, C. F.

Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Sparks, J. A.

Hastings, S.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Steele, T.

Hayman, F. H,

Oliver, G. H.

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A.(Rwly Regis)

Oram, A. E.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Owen, W. J.

Swingler, S. T.

Holman, P.

Paget, R. T.

Thornton, E.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Tomney, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Viant, S. P.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Parker, J.

Weitzman, D.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Parkin, B. T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

Paton, John

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pearson, A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Pentland, N.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)

Prentice, R. E.

Willey, Frederick

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

King, Dr. H. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Randall, H. E.

Woof, R. E.

Lewis, Arthur

Rankin, John

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Lipton, Marcus

Redhead, E. C.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

McCann, J.

Reeves, J.

MacColl, J. E,

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Ross, William

Mr. John Taylor and

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Fort, R.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Aitken, W. T.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

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

Gammans, Lady

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Alport, C. J. M.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William

Glover, D.

McAdden, S. J.

Arbuthnot, John

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Armstrong, C. W.

Godber, J. B.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Ashton, H.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Atkins, H. E.

Gough, C. F. H.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Baldwin, A. E.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Barber, Anthony

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr.R.(Nantwich)

Maddan, Martin

Barlow, Sir John

Grimond, J.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Marshall, Douglas

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Harris, Reader (Heston>

Mathew, R.

Bingham, R. M.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Mawby, R. L.

Bishop, F. P.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Body, R. F.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Moore, Sir Thomas

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

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

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nicholson Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Oakshott, H. D.

Bryan, P.

Hirst, Geoffrey

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Hope, Lord John

Osborne, C.

Channon, Sir Henry

Hornby, R. P.

Page, R. G.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Partridge, E.

Cooper, A. E.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Peel, W. J.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hurd, A. R.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hyde, Montgomery

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Powell, J. Enoch

Cunningham, Knox

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Currie, G. B. H.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Davidson, Viscountess

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Profumo, J. D.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rawlinson, Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Redmayne, M.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Remnant, Hon. p.

Errington, Sir Eric

Lagden, G. W.

Renton, D. L. M.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lambton, Viscount

Ridsdale, J. E.

Fell, A.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Finlay, Graeme

Leavey, J. A.

Robertson, Sir David

Fisher, Nigel

Leburn, W. G.

Roper, Sir Harold

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Russell, R. S.

626

627

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Sharples, R. C.

Teeling, W.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Shepherd, William

Temple, John M.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Speir, R. M.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Woollam, John Victor

Stevens, Geoffrey

Vane, W. M. F.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Vickers, Miss Joan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Studholme, Sir Henry

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.

5.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end to add:
(3) For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding any previous practice, it is hereby declared that, subject to the application of rule 6 of the said rules to any constituency to which by reason of special geographical considerations that rule relates, nothing in those rules enjoins or justifies any difference between the average electorates of urban and rural constituencies, as such, or the average electorates of borough and county constituencies, as such.
This is another Amendment designed to remove doubt. The question of practice in this case is a litle more clear than it was in the previous one. Let me begin by stating what the difficulty is and how I believe it has arisen. In terms, the rules provide for one exceptional case—mostly, from its nature, a rural case. Rule 6 provides that
"A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last two foregoing rules"—
and I would add that the last two foregoing rules are themselves grafted on to the first three—
"if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable."
I suggest that it is obvious to what type of case the rule applies. It applies not merely to a rural constituency, but to a special type of rural constituency. Some instances are obvious, the most obvious being the crofting counties in Scotland and some similar areas in Wales. We can all argue whether or not there may be other cases; it is arguable that one or two English constituencies might be regarded in the same light. However, that is a matter for the Commission, because special geographical considerations have to appear to the Commission to render a departure from the previous rules desirable. It is not a matter which was intended to be decided in the rules themselves; on the contrary, it was expressly left to the Commission.
Of one thing there can be no reasonable doubt. The rule is not intended to
628
make any general distinction between the country and the town, or between a county and a borough constituency; it is wholly inappropriate for that purpose. In the ordinary case of a county constituency, in Surrey, for example, it is pretty obvious that the rule will not apply. If we take the County of Northampton, one division of which I have the honour to represent, it is quite clear that none of its constituencies are of that type. If the Boundary Commission chooses to apply the rule rather more widely or narrowly than other people, that does not matter; the point is that it is a rule for special cases.
Subject to the application of the rule, which applies only where there are special geographical considerations, there is no distinction between urban and rural constituencies, or borough and county constituencies. Accordingly it follows that, as such, no distinction is made in the rules with regard to their average electorates. It could be put in, but it certainly is not in. The trouble is that in this case, at any rate, the Commission certainly acted as if there were such a distinction. The passage of the Report which I have in mind is that at the beginning of paragraph 14, which says:
"In our initial Report we express the view, that, in general, urban constituencies could more conveniently support large electorates than rural constituencies and our recommendations were framed so as to enable recognition to be given to this view."
Then, the Commission refers to the addition of the borough constituencies in 1948, and continues:
"The modification by Parliament of those recommendations, resulting in the creation of additional constituencies in a number of the larger boroughs, had the incidental effect of upsetting the balance that we had thought appropriate between the electorates of urban and rural constituencies. We have given considerable thought to the treatment to be accorded to the areas thus affected."
The Report goes on to deal further with the matter. It is perfectly clear that the Commission believed that it carried in its mind an appropriate balance between

629
the electorates of urban and rural constituencies. There is nothing whatever in the rules to justify anything of the sort, and it is open to one very obvious objection.
If, in fact, the Commission was trying to strike a balance of that sort and to consider how far recognition should be given to that view, then it ought to have considered the facts about the constituencies concerned, and ought to have taken evidence—not only as regards this, that and the other constituency, but generally—as to the position between rural and urban areas. Of course, the Commission did nothing of the sort, and the balance which it had in mind was a general balance. It has the incidental effect of upsetting the balance that we had thought appropriate between the electorates of urban and rural constituencies. It is not a particular case, but a general balance, and that general balance was something which the Commission devised in its own mind, and, so far as I can see, by no light whatever, except, remarkably, an intuitional one.
That really will not do. The Commission is not set up to form opinions on general considerations of that nature. It is not set up to take account of factors which are not in the rules. It is particularly not set up to take account of factors the weight and quantitative effect of which cannot be within the knowledge of the members of the Commission, and must be a matter of highly individual opinion, in so far as it is not a question of actual evidence.
It is for a very good reason that the Statute does not require this balance to be struck or this view to be formed, and it is not because it is a matter that has been omitted, for in the different, but not wholly dissimilar, case of the special areas—the places where special geographical considerations have to be taken into account—there is a direction, and this has been followed out. If we look at the average electorates of the crofting counties in Scotland and corresponding areas in Wales, we see that they are very definitely below the average, and I hope that nothing I say today will be taken to indicate that I find any fault with that. I see a very good reason for what is in the Statute—for instance, the special treatment of an area like the County of Argyll, which I know well. To get from
630
one end of it to another is an extremely difficult matter, and this is what the word "accessibility" means.
On the question of size in relation to population, I should guess that it is much bigger in relation to its population than any constituency in England. It is certainly bigger than most. As regards its shape, if anybody ever tried travelling along the coastline of Argyll, he would go an extremely long journey to arrive at a point not nearly so far distant from that from which he started as the devious ways he will have followed—up one sea loch and down another, round this bend and that one—along one of the most rocky and indented coasts of the country. If we wanted to convene the County Council of Argyll, it would be no use expecting the members to use railway trains. They would come by a strange diversity of routes and a strange variety of methods of carriage, some by air, some by sea, some by road, and occasionally, but only very occasionally, with a little help—and no more—from the railways.
This is exactly the type of constituency to which Rule 6 is intended to relate; but to try to apply it to justify striking some balance between a county constituency in Surrey or in Northampton and an urban borough constituency within the same geographical area would be to apply a complete misreading of what the rules are about and of the directions which they give to the Commission.
I must at once not only admit but assert something. There is not the least doubt that, on the political balance in this country, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are much more listened to and heeded in the remote countryside, where ideas, perhaps, penetrate rather more slowly, than they are among the more quick-witted—I think I may say, with all respect to the countryside—inhabitants of the towns. On political considerations, the balance is quite obviously in our favour in the urban districts, and, by and large, in the borough constituencies, and in favour of the party opposite in the county constituencies and the rural areas. From our political point of view, to look at the Home Counties is occasionally a trifle depressing; not so when we look at the large industrial centres, or even at London itself.

631
That being so, it is the more necessary that the party opposite, being in power at the moment, should be completely frank on this matter, and should make certain that the directions to the Commission by these statutory rules should be followed. If they have been misunderstood or misapplied that should be corrected, for there is a duty on the Home Secretary of the day to have a measure of impartiality in this matter.
5.30 p.m.
I can see no justification whatever for one vote in the country counting for more than a vote in a town. The actual figures show a difference of a few thousand. The difference at present is an average of about 4,000; but I do not think that is the point. It may very well be that, for other reasons, there was some difference between the two averages. I am interested only that, in the name of justice as between one electorate and another, and between one political party and another, we should declare clearly that to strike a general balance of some sort and to make a general distinction between urban or rural constituencies—or their more strict counterparts, borough and county constituencies—is not justified by the rules and is not enjoined by them and is, in fact, quite wrong.
From the passages which I quoted, there can be do doubt that the last Boundary Commission did it. There can be no doubt that if we look at the electorates for England there is a discrepancy, part of which may possibly be explained on other grounds. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned that we should indicate clearly and simply to this judicial and official Commission that these are the rules; that they must be carried out, and that they do not justify any distinction between the average electorate of one type of constituency and that of another.
Of course, there may be differences in the electorate as between one borough constituency and another. Equally, there may be a difference between one county and another or between a borough and a county. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned that an error into which in this case the Commission indubitably fell shall not be repeated. That it has been done once should not serve as an excuse or reason for it being repeated.
Mr. John Parker: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is important that this difference because of size between county and borough constituencies should be terminated. I agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend about the remote parts of the Highlands or Wales, and the need to have constituencies there with smaller electorates to ensure that the people are adequately represented in this House. But in considering the greater part of the English countryside one realises that it is not difficult to get from one part of a constituency to another. In fact under modern traffic conditions in some cases it may be easier to travel by rural roads rather than by main roads through industrial areas.
This idea of the county areas having a smaller average electorate than that of the towns is based upon the conditions prevailing in the pre-motor car age. I should have thought that in these days, when political speakers go about by car from one part of their constituency to another, whether they are fighting an election or attending functions in the ordinary work of a constituency member, there is no need for that distinction in size to be maintained. Even more important is the feeling among many of us that this is a form of political discrimination in favour of one party.
At the last General Election when the present Government came to power there were a larger number of constituencies where the number of votes for the Government dropped than there were in the 1951 Election when the increase in the Government majority was due mainly to the fact that the Labour Party dropped more votes than the Conservative Party. It is important to realise that in the 1951 General Election the Labour Party won a larger number of votes in the country than did the Conservative Party, yet the Conservative Party secured a majority of seats in this House. That was due partly to the fact that the Labour Party votes were more concentrated than those of the Conservative Party. There were many constituencies like my own with a large majority of Labour votes while the Conservative votes were spread over a wider area. That was to their advantage and it gave them more seats. The areas over which the Conservative votes were spread tended to be county areas, and a

633
bias in favour of the county areas would be to the electoral advantage of the Conservative Party—as it was in 1951 and as it has been throughout General Elections. That, of course, may not be so at the next Election.
We should not, however, look at this matter from the point of view of whether a General Election gives an advantage one way or the other, but with the idea of ensuring that the political forces are adequately represented in this House. I think it a disadvantage to our political system if we frequently have General Elections which lead to a majority in the House of a political view different from that of the majority of the electorate. In the last century, under a two-party system, that rarely happened. Once or twice there was a majority of voters whose views were not in accordance with the majority of those elected to the House. One famous occasion was when Mr. Disraeli came to power with a minority of the electorate behind him, but generally speaking, that did not happen, and under a two-party system it is not likely to happen.
At present, however, with a three-party system, it is a distinct possibility that a party may come to power, but that a second party may have received more votes. That should be avoided. We should have normal-sized electorates in constituencies of approximately the same size all over the country and bear in mind the point about them coinciding so far as possible with local government units. We should give instructions to the Boundary Commission—as we should if the Amendment were accepted—to see that in future when drawing up the constituency boundaries it does not give an advantage to county areas as opposed to urban areas.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Before replying to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) I wish to challenge a statement by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). From personal experience I can say that the use of a motor car does not enable one to serve a rural constituency with the same facility as one can serve an urban constituency. In a three-week Election campaign in Huntingdonshire I have to travel over 1,000 miles, and in order to visit less than half of the committee rooms I must
634
travel over 100 miles. It takes the best part of two or three years for me to get round the constituency, which includes eighty villages and half-a-dozen small towns. I do not know how many weeks it would take the hon. Member for Dagenham to get round his constituency but I can assure him that his is a very different problem. I think that should be stressed because it is fundamental to our discussions.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering based his case strictly on the interpretation of the rules, and I will endeavour to deal with the matter in the same way. I have no quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman about Rule 6. That rule applies, not to the average run of rural constituencies in England, for example, but to those constituencies where there are geographical considerations. It is interesting to read the rules and note that it is not size, shape, or accessibility, but a combination of all three factors, that must apply before the rule can be brought into operation. I mention that because it emphasises the somewhat narrow scope of Rule 6.
The intention of the Amendment which the hon. and learned. Gentleman has submitted is clear from its emphatic wording. The essential meaning is—to paraphrase it—that nothing except special geographical considerations justifies any difference between the average electorates for urban and rural or borough and county constituencies.
Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would add the words "as such" that are in the Amendment he would be nearer. There are other circumstances to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the Boundary Commission did make a distinction between them as such.
Mr. Renton: That brings me immediately to what the Boundary Commission did and why it did it. It found, in the period up to 1947, that there was a disparity—I think there has always been one—between the electorates of urban and rural constituencies since the rationalisation brought about by the Reform Act. In 1954, there was a disparity of about 1,700. As the result of the review of that year the disparity, as the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned earlier, reached nearly 4,000. What he may not

635
know and what it is material for the Committee to consider, is that the disparity on the 1957 register has readjusted itself to 1,625.
Therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about the Boundary Commission having offended the rules by creating a disparity, we have to bear in mind that there has always been some disparity and that the greatest disparity which it created was just under 4,000, which, in an average electorate of 57,000 in England, gives us a difference between an average of 55,000 for rural constituencies and of 59,000 for urban constituencies. Neither figure is unreasonable.
Mr. Mitchison: It tried to create a disparity of 6,000 but Parliament stepped in and gave the seats to the boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman's party complained.
Mr. Renton: Perhaps it is material to consider what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, which was in power at the time. It is true that in 1948 the party considered that the Boundary Commission's 1947 review contained undue weighting for county constituencies, but none the less the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he was Home Secretary, said that the Government accepted the view that there was a reason for giving some advantage in numbers to county divisions.
In 1954, when we were discussing the orders following the review of that year, the right hon. Member for South Shields said that he had contested both rural and urban constituencies and knew the extra strain placed on a candidate in a county division. This year, in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, he said he stood by that. He said there was ground for some slight weighting where there was a genuine county constituency. I do not wish to take the right hon. Gentleman's case any further than he wished it to be taken on that occasion. He went on to qualify this statement by adding that some county constituencies were more urban than rural.
Mr. Ede: I could illustrate that by the Surrey constituency in which I live, which consists of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell and the urban district of Leather-head. It might just as well for all
636
practical purposes have been called a borough.
Mr. Renton: I fully accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman's intervention does not in any way destroy the validity of his earlier statement which I have quoted, to the effect that there are genuine rural constituencies in which, for one reason or another, we may expect to find a slight weighting. From the figures I have given, I do not think the weighting can be said to be other than slight; 1,625 on an average of 57,000 is very slight weighting indeed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made the point which, on the face of it, is technically good, that there is nothing in the 1949 Act or in the rules made under it, which justifies a disparity between urban and rural or county and borough constituencies, as such. I accept the force of those words "as such", because they are important in this context. That seems to be so, and if it is, there is no need for an Amendment starting with the words:
"For the avoidance of doubt …"
Let us consider not merely the rules but the way in which they have come to be operated. In operating the rules, the Boundary Commission has clearly acted in accordance with Rule 4, and in accordance with the kind of sentiment discussed on earlier Amendments today it finds itself obliged to follow local government boundaries where possible. When dealing with the boundaries of rural local government areas it necessarily has to embrace quite large territories which are sparsely populated. That reason alone accounts for the very slight weighting between rural and urban areas and fully justifies it.
I was prepared, in case the matter should arise, to make a most impassioned speech saying that, quite apart from what is in the rules, it was clearly right and just, in order that our constituents might be properly served, that the representation in rural areas should not be as heavy as in urban areas, but the case is so clearly understood and has been so clearly put by the right hon. Member for South Shields in the past, that there is no need for me to do so. I come back to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, in relation to what the rules contain.

637
5.45 p.m.
The rules themselves are plain enough. Rule 6 makes special provision, and Rule 4 says that local government boundaries have to be followed. The necessary and, indeed, inevitable result of that, coupled with other factors which it might not be in order to discuss on this Amendment, leads to a disparity. The disparity itself can be justified on broad, historical and practical grounds. Surely the Commission, in exercising what is, after all, a discretion in the interpretation of these rules, is not only entitled but obliged to bear in mind the historical and practical reasons.
I wish to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
Mr. Mitchison: No, not that.
Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has so often the prestige of a Privy Councillor when he speaks that one tends to make that mistake. I assure him that this matter has received the most careful consideration, and that neither from the point of view that he expresses, nor in order to achieve greater clarity in the Bill, nor in order to put forward the point of view that I was tempted to deploy but did not, is his Amendment necessary.
Mr. Parker: I have been a Parliamentary candidate in the rural area of Holland with Boston. I agree, of course, that candidature in such a rural area is very hard work, but I do not think that that rules out the argument that in the days of the motor car there is no justification for special representation there. That particular seat, of course, is in one of the most prosperous agricultural parts of the country. It has an electorate of about 70,000, as well as covering an enormous area. It must have about the largest agricultural electorate but I do not think that that fact justifies a bias in favour of agricultural areas.
The point has been made about the bias now being only 1,625 instead of 4,000 to the advantage of the county constituencies as opposed to the urban, but I should have thought that that change was largely due to the growth of industrialisation in a limited number of county seats; and that if some of the seats—such as Epsom, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—
638
were transferred from the county to the urban list the difference would be very much larger, and much closer to the 4,000 that previously existed.
We may still find more industrialisation taking place in the seats round the big towns which would, on figures, possibly abolish the distinction altogether, whilst still leaving a very real bias in favour of what I would call the real rural areas. That fact should be borne in mind when the figures are considered.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: It was my misfortune to come in rather late to what has all the character of a somewhat esoteric discussion, but perhaps I might support the proposition just advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker).
I understand that the disparity of 1,600 is that between the average electorate of the county constituency and of the urban one. It seems to me, and I appreciate that this is really my hon. Friend's point, that if that is the basis of calculation, its significance may be very nearly entirely destroyed if it be the fact that some of the county constituencies are urban constituencies in all but designation and name.
So far as I have followed the argument, I should have thought, bearing in mind that factor, that a case had certainly been made out that it would be appropriate to take steps to ensure that a disproportionate overweighting in favour of county constituencies was something to be avoided.
Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary, in what he said was not the impassioned speech that, in certain circumstances, he might have delivered, quoted me as having made pronouncements on this subject in the past. Of course, when quoting me, he did not give due weight to the word "slight". He quoted it and then proceeded to assume that it could be ignored. My own view is that an average difference of 1,625 is not slight. I should have thought that the Boundary Commission could have got a great deal closer if it had regarded this from the urban and rural point of view rather than that of county and borough, because the words are not quite interchangeable. All borough seats are not entirely urban, and, certainly, a large number of county seats are not, in any sense of the word, rural.
Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has sought to make a distinction between what he said about a previous position and that with which we are faced today by defining the word "slight." It is entirely a matter of judgment and opinion, but, with all respect, we do not agree with him. We consider that in relation to an average of 57,000, 1,600 is a slight distinction, and that, in all the circumstances and all the difficulties with which the Boundary Commission has been faced, it has done a good job if it has managed to get the averages within 1,600 of each other.
Mr. Mitchison: I should like to liven up this discussion a little, as I regard the defence put forward by the Government as absolutely scandalous. The 1949 Act clearly states that
"Each Boundary Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned and shall, in accordance with the next following subsection"—
and that is the subsection relating to time, and so on:
"submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom, either … showing the constituencies into which they recommend that it should be divided"—
and for what purpose:
"in order to give effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to this Act …"
and for no other purpose.
The idea that some sentimental association of the hon. and learned Gentleman's with Huntingdonshire or general considerations of the balance to be struck between countryside and town should enter into the matter at all strikes me as conferring on the Boundary Commissions a distinction and a duty which the Act that constituted them has not conferred on them—
Mr. Renton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned my representation of Huntingdonshire, perhaps I may tell him that I happen to represent the whole of an administrative county which had an electorate of 45,000 last time and may have one of about 50,000 next time. Does he say that, for the sake of some mathematical provision, the boundaries of that parliamentary constituency should be extended so as to take in part of
640
some other county? If so, I should have thought that there were very few people who would agree with him.
Mr. Mitchison: So should I, and that is not what I was saying. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would pay a little more attention to the substance of the matter and a little less to the metaphysical deductions that he chooses to make from perfectly clear statements, we should get on a little better. After all, Oliver Cromwell came from those parts, and his language about this sort of thing would have been very forthright.
6.0 p.m.
Unless or until the House alters the law, the Government should carry it out. The law lays down that the Boundary Commission has to carry out the reviews in accordance with the rules. What the Government are trying to do is to add on top of the rules a number of quite different things. When he gets up, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will, no doubt, manage somehow or other to engraft them into the rules. I wish him all success. But, in fact, the Boundary Commission did not do that.
What the Boundary Commission did was to try to strike a balance, to give weight to its own views as to the relative convenience of a rural constituency or an urban constituency, or, if one likes, of a borough and a county constituency. The difference is smaller. No doubt it may exist. I do not say that it does not. All I say is that it is not a matter upon which the Boundary Commission had any ground for forming a view at all. It is not a matter upon which it took any evidence. It is not a matter it was charged to consider by the terms of the rules, and the Commission was thereby giving to itself a discretion and duty which it cannot justify in the terms of the Act.
All I ask for in this Amendment is that this should simply be stated. I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and tell me that there is any distinction in the Act either between urban and rural constituencies—neither of which, of course, is mentioned in the Act—or between borough and county constituencies. What there is is a wholly separate point, which I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of the Government accept so unreservedly, that Rule 6 does provide for

641
some special cases. I share his view as to what those separate cases are. There is no doubt about that. Apart from that, there is no distinction at all.
The fact is that, in this instance at any rate, there can be no doubt that the Boundary Commission acted on a distinction and sought to strike a general, not a particular, balance between rural and urban constituencies and to form its own view, on a matter of policy, as to what the balance should be and what advantage in votes should be given to those who live in the countryside as against those who live in the town. I am not asking for mathematical exactitude. I am not asking for similarity in all these points. All I am asking is that it should be made quite clear that even the Government and the Boundary Commission must carry out the law.
Finally, we have the somewhat startling defence, the classic defence about the poor illegitimate child—"It's only a little one". And this from the Home Office! I should have thought that the Home Office would be the last place to produce that particular defence. It really puzzles me. If the Home Office or the Boundary Commission is going to break the law, does it matter whether the breach will be a large one or a small one? In fact, the numbers have fluctuated. They were up to 6,000 as an average, if the Report of the Boundary Commission had been accepted by the House. It was not, and the seats were given to the boroughs. Then the figure came back to 1,900, then up again to 4,000, and now it is back to 1,500 or 1,600. Obviously, it may vary one way or the other.
Equally obviously, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, these figures do not touch the reality of the matter. It is not a question of whether a constituency is one of a large number of constituencies that are county constituencies or of similar ones which are not county constituencies. It is the substance of the thing which matters, and the substance is that the yokel in the countryside has more value for his vote than a workman in the city.
There is another matter of substance, a very important one, which I do not want to have neglected. The Conservative Party profits by this anomaly. However small or however large the illegitimate child may be—and this is an
642
illegitimate child to the extent that it exists at all—the Conservative Party profits. The Government ought not to hesitate to put matters right in the Bill. There is no doubt that it has not been acted upon. There is no doubt that we are now to have a judicial and official Commission which will look at its rules.
The trouble is that it may also look at the doings of previous Boundary Commissioners, some of whom themselves have had legal and official associations. The Commission may say that this repeated illegality, this succession of little bastards coming along one after the other in this manner, may result in the practice acquiring the force of law. Really, some of the contentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman were quite remarkably like it—"It has been done before," "It is a reasonable thing to do"—and, therefore, he suggested, the Boundary Commission ought to do it.
The Boundary Commission is bound by these rules. If it is sought to put something else into them, the right thing to do is to put it in in terms, and to have the matter properly argued, not to let illegalities creep in, to the advantage of one political party, by mere repetition.
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that he wanted to liven up the debate, and he has strained very hard to achieve that object. I must say that I cannot congratulate him upon the arguments that he has advanced to do so. He sought to make some reflections upon the Home Office and its attitude to what he regards as a little breach of the law, and he sought to make a substantial attack upon the Boundary Commission, praying in aid what he conceives that Oliver Cromwell might or might not have done in Huntingdon. Really, his argument cuts right across the arguments he has advanced on previous Amendments. There is no ground whatever for his unwarranted attack upon the Boundary Commission and how it operated.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to pay attention to this particular factor. If one preserves the local communities, the boroughs, where the population is in excess of the electoral quota—and we recognise and agree that that should be done—it is quite impossible that one should maintain as high an average for

643
the county constituencies as one does for the boroughs, unless one makes county constituencies of a size which it would really be quite impracticable for an ordinary Member, of whatever party, adequately to represent. It follows from the proposition that one should depart from mathematical accuracy in having regard to local ties and community interests that one encounters the impossibility of achieving a precise equality of average electorates between counties and boroughs.
It is very easy to say that the workman in the county has more value attached to his vote than the workman in the town. But that must follow inevitably if one accepts the proposition that, because in a borough all people want to vote in that borough and nowhere else, the electorate in the borough is kept above the electoral quota. It must happen. But, as I see it, it does not follow that the Boundary Commission, which has a duty and discretion, was in any way guilty of a breach of the law. If it had been, it would have been possible to take proceedings in the courts with regard to it.
Mr. Mitchison: The difficulty is that, although the Boundary Commission did not give many explanations, it did explain, in the passage I read out before, what it did in this respect, and it was not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it did. The Commission did make a distinction of kind between the two types of constituency.
The Attorney-General: We have all read the Commission's Report. I am trying to point out that there is no escape from this fact if the hon. and learned Gentleman insists on the average for the county divisions being the same as the average for the borough divisions. That is the point of the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: No.
The Attorney-General: I seem to be succeeding, where the hon. and learned Gentleman did not, in enlivening the proceedings, although I do not wish to do so.
The efforts which we have made in past years to secure the acceptance of a mathematical principle have always landed us in difficulties. Here again, one cannot
644
completely match the average for counties and the average for boroughs if one gives preference, as I submit that one should, to the community interest and local ties which the Bill recognises. In both its Reports the Commission has acted in precisely the same way in this respect.
May I give another reason why the Committee would be most unwise to accept the Amendment? The rules apply to England, Scotland and Wales, and the Amendment says:
"Nothing in those rules enjoins or justifies any difference between the average electorates of urban and rural constituencies, as such, or the average electorates of borough and county constituencies, as such".
That being so, the provision has a general application. That means, as a matter of interpretation, that throughout the United Kingdom we should have to have the same average electorate for borough and county constituencies, and for urban and rural constituencies. Because the provision for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland membership is in Rule 1, this would mean that one would have to depart from the rules—that is to say, reduce the Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh representation in the House—to secure the maintenance of this average between borough and county constituencies.
There is nothing in the Amendment which limits its application to England. We have three different Boundary Commissions, but the rules which they have to apply are the same for each Commission. If it is to be declared that there is nothing in the rules at all which justifies any difference, it seems to me to follow that this would open up the whole question of Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh representation.
For this and other reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. In my belief there is no need whatever for a provision of this sort. Indeed, a provision of this sort might well cause very great difficulties for the Boundary Commission, having regard to its possible impact on the other rules.
Mr. Mitchison: if the construction put forward in his last observation is the construction which the Attorney-General puts on the Amendment, he had better think again. What it says is perfectly clear. It refers to the average electorates of those types of constituency as such.

645
It is clear that it applies in the same way to England, Scotland and Wales and that it would have no effect whatever on any differences between averages in England, Scotland and Wales.
I will not argue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it, partly because of the distinguished office which he holds and the respect which, for that reason, I am compelled to pay to his opinions, and partly for another and simpler reason, which is that he knows quite well what the Amendment intends. If he chooses to say that it does not have the intended effect, he must answer the question: does he agree with the intention or not? If he does, then, on Report he should put down an Amendment which, in his opinion, is more suited to the purpose.
It is complete nonsense to say that the Amendment has any connection whatever with other factors which will no doubt affect the average when we get them. The point is that the Boundary Commission not merely gave effect to those factors, but said, in terms, that it had struck a
balance between rural constituencies as such and urban constituencies as such. It said that it had struck a general balance. Apart from the circumstances which may affect many rural constituencies in one way and many urban constituencies in another, the Commission drew a definite general balance and made a general distinction—and that we say it had no right to do on the rules.
All we wish is that the clear meaning of the rules should be stated—and it is stated, notwithstanding previous practice. We think it the more necessary because the excess of authority in this matter has clearly inured to the benefit of one political party as against another. We ask for fair treatment, the law as laid down in this Statute, and no more illegitimate excursions defended by the Home Office on the ground that they are only little ones.
Question put, That those words be there added:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 160.

Division No. 82.]

AYES

[6.18 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hayman, F. H.

Proctor, W. T.

Balfour, A.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Randall, H. E.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Rankin, John

Beswick, Frank

Holman, P.

Redhead, E. C.

Blackburn, F.

Houghton, Douglas

Reeves, J.

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Boardman, H.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Ross, William

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

Silver-man, Julius (Aston)

Boyd, T. C.

Johnston, James (Rugby)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Brockway, A. F.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Skeffington, A. M.

Callaghan, L. J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Lewis, Arthur

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Chetwynd G. R.

Lipton, Marcus

Sparks, J. A.

Clunie, J.

MacColl, J. E.

Steele, T.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Swingler, S. T.

Cove, W. G.

Mellish, R. J.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dal on, Rt. Hon. H.

Mitchison, G. R.

Thornton, E.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Moody, A. S.

Tomney, F.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

Viant, S. P.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Weitzman, D.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Oliver, G. H.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Oram, A. E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Fletcher, Eric

Owen, W. J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Foot, D. M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Willey, Frederick

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

Parker, J.

Woof, R. E.

Gibson, C. W.

Parkin, B. T.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Greenwood, Anthony

Paton, John

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Grey, C. F.

Pentland, N.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Prentice, R. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hastings, S.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Aitken, W. T.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Mawby, R. L.

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

Grant-Ferris. Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Alport, C. J. M.

Grimond, J.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Arbuthnot, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Armstrong, C. W.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Ashton, H.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Oakshott, H. D.

Atkins, H. E.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Barber, Anthony

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Page, R. G.

Barlow, Sir John

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Partridge, E.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Peel, W. J.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bingham, R. M.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Powell, J. Enoch

Bishop, F. P.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Body, R. F.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hornby, R. P.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Profumo, J. D.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Rawlinson, Peter

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Redmayne, M.

Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Hyde, Montgomery

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Channon, Sir Henry

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Remnant, Hon. P.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Renton, D. L. M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Corfield, Cant. F. V.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roper, Sir Harold

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Russell, R. S.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Sharples, R. C.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Lagden, G. W.

Shepherd, William

Cunningham, Knox

Lambton, Viscount

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Currie, G. B. H.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Davidson, Viscountess

Leavey, J. A.

Speir, R. M.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Errington, Sir Eric

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Fell, A.

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

Teeling, W.

Finlay, Graeme

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Temple, John M.

Fisher, Nigel

McAdden, S. J.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Vane, W. M. F.

Fort, R.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Gammans, Lady

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maddan, Martin

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Glover, D.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Godber, J. B.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Woollam, John victor

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Marshall, Douglas

Gough, C. F. H.

Mathew, R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Bryan.

Mr. Julian Snow: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end to add:
(3) Sub-paragraph (a) (iv) of paragraph (1) of rule 4 of the said rules (which provides that, so far as is practicable, no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another) shall cease to have effect.
The intention of the Amendment, which has not attracted very much visible support, is purely exploratory, to find out what is in the Government's mind about a point which I hope to develop.
The latter part of Clause 2, as drafted, refers to Rule 4. Its effect would be that all parts of Rule 4, other than those which the Committee has amended so far, will continue to apply. The effect
648
of my Amendment would be to cancel Rule 4 (1, a, iv) which refers to county district boundaries. I understand that under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1933, it lies with the counties, if they consider it necessary, to initiate county district boundary reform or readjustment. They can make representations, accordingly, to the Home Secretary and, during a six weeks period, objections may be lodged.
The effect of this can be that it will lie with a county council completely to alter the political complexion of a county constituency. I think I am right in saying that this applies fairly exclusively, though possibly not entirely, to county constituencies. The kind of case I have in mind

649
is where the detachment of a large parish from one county district and its attachment to another, with the consequential boundary adjustment, can substantially alter the political complexion of two Parliamentary constituencies. That is, of course, on the assumption that the present present Rule 4 (1, a, iv) continues to apply.
My point, therefore, is whether it is the intention that political initiative in the matter of the political complexions of counties can lie—and I use the expression "can lie"—with a county council. I hope that I have made my point clear, though I should like to record that in my judgment it would be wrong to take away from county councils the right to readjust boundaries of county districts. I only want to ascertain whether it has been realised what could be the political consequences should a county council get into extremist hands at that level.
Mr. Renton: The Amendment will have the effect of deleting from Rule 4 the provision that in England and Wales no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another so far as that can practically be avoided. In practice, it has been avoided nearly always. Only in the rarest cases has it had to be done. It would be a pity to strike it out altogether, because there might be very rare cases where it would be the only way of resolving a great difficulty in deciding among a group of constituencies exactly where the boundary should be.
That is the substance of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. But he has raised a separate point. I hope that I may be in order in reassuring him about his question whether county councils will still have the power which they have under local government legislation to alter the county district boundaries within their own areas. May I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman? We are dealing with legislation for Parliamentary boundaries, and that does not in any way affect the rules or laws relating to the boundaries of local government.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Snow: I feel that I have either not made myself clear, or that the Minister has not taken my point about the question of political initiative on Parliamentary divisions by county councils.
Mr. Renton: The position is that an individual or a local authority may at any time make representation to the Parliamentary boundary commission to suggest that a particular Parliamentary constituency needs review. That right is present, and it will remain.
Mr. Snow: I feel that I must persevere with this point. It is true that the initiative is present and, so far as I can see, should remain with a county council to alter its own district boundaries. What I do not understand is this, and perhaps the Minister can explain. Suppose, for example, that it is desirable to transfer a tightly knit and well populated parish from one county district to another. The effect of that transference can completely alter the political complexion of one of the districts concerned. I gather that the Minister agrees with me so far. Since a Parliamentary constituency should normally only comprise whole county districts, and not parts of county districts, does it not follow that a county council can initiate a change in the political complexion of a constituency?
The Attorney-General: The county council can initiate a change which may affect the political complexion of constituencies, but it would not be right for any county council to seek to make such a change in local government areas solely for the purpose of altering the political complexion of Parliamentary representation. I trust that different considerations would prevail in relation to a change of parish, for instance, from one district to another district. But the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that, if that change is made, then, so far as is practicable, the Boundary Commission would try to make the Parliamentary boundaries accord with the county district boundaries and thus avoid having part of the county district in one constituency and part in another.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am not satisfied with that explanation. The Attorney-General says that it would be entirely wrong for a county council to attempt to alter district boundaries for reasons of political prejudice or partisanship. Would it not be right and proper that the Parliamentary boundaries, having been decided and laid down, should not in any case be altered except by the Boundary Commissioners?
The Attorney-General: The Parliamentary boundaries will not be altered except upon a recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners. The point put to me was whether, in view of the rules, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission would follow so far as is practicable the local authority divisions. It depends on the circumstances, but the answer would be "Yes" for the reasons that I have given.
Mr. Snow: We are indebted to the learned Attorney-General for putting on record, as I hoped he would, that it would be improper for a county council to alter deliberately the political complexion of a constituency. I take it from that observation that, in any representations that might be made by county councils to the Home Office, that sort of danger would be taken into consideration.
The Attorney-General: Any representations from a county council would no doubt be considered on their merits. While it is open to any county council to advance any arguments that it likes for a change, it would have to be borne in mind that one could not properly condemn a county council for what we might call political partisanship without that charge being conclusively established.
Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask a question? It may be completely irrelevant because of my lack of knowledge of the Act. I can envisage a position where there might be redistribution, and it might be thought that the only way to solve the problem would be to take a part of one county and a part of another county to make a Parliamentary constituency. That is still possible under the original Act and I believe that it is possible under this Measure. But would the Attorney-General tell me whether that is possible, for instance, with regard to parts of Staffordshire and parts of Derbyshire?
The Attorney-General: I could answer that question if I were in order, but it has no relation to the Amendment. If I may be permitted to be out of order, under the Act as it stands—and it will remain when this Bill is passed—the Commission can recommend a constituency which consists of part of one county and part of another.
Mr. Snow: As I understand the Attorney-General, we now have it on
652
record that it would be appropriate to object to a county council's allegedly partisan proposals for boundary readjustment and that such objections would have to be established; but that, nevertheless, they would be considered. Having that assurance on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ELECTORAL QUOTAS.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: When the Second Reading debate took place, Clause 3 was dealt with in rather summary fashion by the Home Secretary. He dealt with it in a few lines in col. 231 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th February, 1958. It is true that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) dealt with the principle of electoral quota at greater length. Unfortunately, I was not given the opportunity to take part in the Second Reading debate, and, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering dealt with the point, I find myself at complete variance with him.
The argument that he then adduced was that on a consideration of the electoral quota it would be desirable to increase the number of hon. Members representing English constituencies. It is true that he said—and I agree with him fully on this point:
"Therefore, I say that the discrepancy between Scotland and Wales, on the one hand, and England, on the other is too large."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 412, c. 235.]
That, of course, is true, and the figures that he gave bear out his point. The English electoral quota at the moment is 56,564, the Scottish quota is 48,011 and the Welsh quota is 50,363. In those circumstances, he is putting it mildly when he says that the discrepancy is obviously very large.
The whole idea of the electoral quota was to obtain an approximation towards numerical equality. If we want to apply so far as we can the principle of numerical equality, my submission is that the number of hon. Members in this House should be reduced and not increased.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I am sorry to rise in this way, Mr. Diamond, but we are now considering Clause 3, which relates to the electoral quota. As far as I can see, it does not relate to the number of constituencies, but the first new Clause does.
Mr. Lipton: Further to that point of order. Whereas the first new Clause refers to English constituencies, it does not refer to Scottish and Welsh constituencies. To that extent, what I may have to say on the subject of the Scottish and Welsh constituencies on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," may be completely out of order on the new Clause. I do not wish my rights to be unnecessarily truncated if the submission of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering is accepted.
The Attorney-General: Further to that point of order. I submit, Mr. Diamond, that as the Clause contains nothing which has any effect whatever on the number of seats in Great Britain, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, any debate upon the number of seats there should be would be out of order in relation to the Clause.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Diamond): Can the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) develop his argument a little further?
Mr. Lipton: My hon. and learned Friend said that a consideration of the principles involved in Clause 3 led to his forming the opinion that the number of Members of the House should be increased.
The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member pursues that argument, he will be completely out of order.
Mr. Lipton: In that case, Mr. Diamond, I reserve such comments as I may be allowed to make until we reach the new Clause, when, apparently, according to the points made by the Attorney-General and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, these comments would be in order, subject, of course, to your ruling.
Mr. Skeffington: I have been a very great critic of what the Boundary Commission did on the last occasion by using what I have said is the unauthorised English quota. I dislike the Clause and
654
I realise that in future that criticism will no longer be valid. I regret it just as much.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(NUMBER OF CONSTITUENCIES IN ENGLAND.)
In the application of rule 1 of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which states the number of constituencies for the several parts of the United Kingdom) England shall be treated as such a part with a number of constituencies not substantially greater or less than five hundred and thirty (instead of, as at present, Great Britain being treated as such a part with a number of constituencies not substantially greater or less than six hundred and thirteen); and that rule shall be amended accordingly.—[Mr. Mitchison.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause raises the question not only of the discrepancy between the number of electors per constituency in England, in Scotland and in Wales, but also of the number of Members that there could conveniently be in this House. The present position is that the rules provide for a fixed number of Members for Northern Ireland, a minimum for Scotland and a minimum for Wales. There is no question about Northern Ireland. Scotland has the minimum exactly. Wales has the minimum and one more; and it may be that the provision that we have just passed about Monmouth will add another seat. Nevertheless, substantially Wales is on the minimum.
6.45 p.m.
England is dealt with in this way. Great Britain as a whole has to have a total not substantially greater or less than 613. What happened on the last occasion when the Boundary Commission made its Report was as follows. Having ascertained the position as regards Scotland and Wales, the Commission was left with a number of 506 for England. It applied the electoral quota as it understood it, and the result would have been 519 seats for England. The Commission, however, took the view that that was substantially greater than the number in the Bill and accordingly, in the result, its recommendations were for 511 seats.

655
I am not for the moment quarrelling with that. I merely say that it was a rather unsatisfactory result because, on the limited equality which the Commission would have considered advisable, it was only the number of seats being substantially greater than the total derived from the provisions of the Bill that prevented it from giving effect to that. It had to allot England fewer seats than it thought right.
When we come to actual figures—I produced them on Second Reading, and I shall not produce them at great length again—there is a distinct discrepancy. There is a reason for some discrepancy, but on the existing position, taking the electorate as it was when the Report was issued, the figures were 56,564 in England, 50,363 in Wales, and 48,011 in Scotland. Those understate the discrepancy a little because of the Rule 6 constituencies, the ones with exceptional geographical considerations. We all recognise that they are apt to be distinctly smaller than the average in electorate. Consequently, if we left them out of the picture, the discrepancy would not be so large. Nevertheless, it exists, and it is quite definite. It is larger between England and Scotland than as between England and Wales.
Sir G. Nicholson: What would be the average Scottish figure if the exceptional constituencies were left out?
Mr. Mitchison: I cannot give the answer. I could give a guess as to what I thought the exceptional considerations were, and over Scotland, if I took the seven crofting counties, I do not think I should be far wrong. It is much harder to calculate for Wales, because I am not sure to which of the counties Rule 6 would, in the opinion of the Commission, apply. No one, however, will deny that the discrepancy exists if we take the average, leaving out any reasonably assumed Rule 6 cases.
Sir G. Nicholson: Not so great.
Mr. Mitchison: Not so great, but distinct and definite. The question is whether we ought not to ask for some more seats in England. No one wants to attack the number of seats in Scotland or Wales; I certainly do not. I appreciate that the existence of the crofter county seats in Scotland, for instance, makes it a little
656
more difficult to try to reduce the number of Scottish seats and therefore to increase the average of non-crofting Scottish seats. It lends colour to a somewhat smaller electorate in neighbouring parts of Scotland, even though those parts are not Rule 6 cases. Still the discrepancy is there. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can give us any more accurate figures than I have given, but I feel certain it will not be denied that the discrepancy exists and that it is distinct and recognisable. I suggest that there is no reason for it at present.
There is, moreover, another factor, namely, that the English population is growing much faster than the Scottish. I cannot give electoral figures, I do not think they are generally available, but the population figures show a much more rapid increase, and, indeed, it is what one would expect. There has been a general trend southwards for some time past, not merely of people who come to manage English affairs and then return to Scotland when they have finished, but of people who, for reasons of occupation or of choice, come south. I am not making any comment on it, and I cannot for the moment see any Scottish Members about, but even if they are not, I still make no comment. The position tends to be the same as regards Wales.
In those circumstances, we are dealing with a period that cannot be before November, 1964, and may go to November, 1969. Therefore, we ought to make an allowance not only for the increase that has occurred since the figures I have referred to, which are those used by the Commissioners in their November, 1954, Report, but also for the increase which is almost certain to continue until sometime between 1964 and 1969.
Though, of course, one can vary the figures, I suggest that what we have asked for in this proposed Clause is, from the English point of view, a moderate request. We have asked for 530. The figure at which the Boundary Commission jibbed, if I have it aright, was 519 and the increase would more than allow for that. Even so, when that has been done, owing to the way in which the Boundary Commissioners applied the quota arrangement, I doubt whether we would be up to the Scottish average.

657
It may be said that we ought not to add even nineteen extra Members to a House where many of us often feel that there is a considerable lack of accommodation already. This is not the moment to ask the Government to carry out recommendations of reports on that subject, but we used to have the Southern Irish in this House, and when they were here the number was 30 or 40 more than it is now. Though, of course, the building is not the same, the accommodation was meant to correspond, and I doubt whether an addition of this kind would seriously hinder the work we have to do here, or whether that is a good reason for accepting an English inferiority in numbers which seems to me in this case to go beyond a justifiable reason.
Therefore, the form of the proposed Clause is to substitute 530 as the figure for England, not substantially greater or less, instead of the Great Britain figure of 613. I do not think much turns on whether we do it that way, and I would not regard that as a matter of great importance, though it has always seemed to me simpler in the actual circumstances of the case to have a separate English figure. What is important is that we are asking for nineteen extra English Members on the substantial ground that the English representation is too unfair by comparison with the Scottish and Welsh figures.
Finally, I would not object to a certain advantage for Scotland and Wales, although I find it hard to give the reasons for that. I believe there are historical reasons one could give as regards Scotland and I have mentioned the point of the crofting counties. All I say at present is that this would still leave that advantage to Scottish and Welsh boroughs.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: My hon. and learned Friend has put forward an unanswerable argument for this proposed Clause. It seems to me that where we commence the inquiry by providing, as I understand the existing procedure does, for a minimum number of seats for Scotland and also for Wales, and then put a ceiling on the total representation, there is obviously a risk that England may become seriously under-represented. That risk is all the more serious when the movement of population is increasingly in the direction of England.
658
Speaking early in the discussion on this Clause, may I say that what would appear to be a relevant piece of information for the Committee to consider in this connection is the number of Rule 6 cases in England. For all I know there may be none, but it is a relevant factor how many of those cases, if any, there are in England, how many there are in Wales, and how the proportion of those cases between England and Wales compares with the proportion of population.
Representing an English constituency, I am greatly impressed by this discrepancy between 56,564 for England and 50,363 for Wales. It seems a very large discrepancy. As my hon. and learned Friend indicated, the figure of 48,011 for Scotland may not have the same relevance on this matter because of the influence exerted by the crofting constituencies, but surely that factor is far less important in Wales. I think that in considering this matter it is the discrepancy between the English figure and the Welsh figure that calls for the most searching examination.
This is not a matter on which I believe there could be a very strong difference of opinion in the Committee, because the objective which we all have is quite clear. We desire the fairest distribution of representation, bearing in mind that there will always be anomalies created by Rule 6 cases. On the other hand, we want to know more than I know at the moment about the operation of Rule 6 and we need a further explanation of the very striking discrepancies between the figure for England and the figure for Wales.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that the discrepancy between the position in England and the position in Wales is probably not more marked than that between England and Scotland because of the application of Rule 6. My hon. Friend referred to the seven Scottish crofting constituencies. There are possibly three or four constituencies in Wales in that category, and having regard to the fact that the population and electorate of Wales are almost exactly half those of Scotland, the qualifying incidence of the crofting counties is similar in both countries.

659
May I turn to a more general point about the comparison between the quotas in the three countries? Some hon. Members seem to think that the differences in the three quotas are excessive, but, personally, I do not think they are. I recall that between the Act of 1885 and 1918 the country tolerated electorates which varied from a few hundreds in some of the small historic boroughs to 30,000 in Walthamstow. That situation was not put right in 1918.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has repeatedly drawn the attention of the House to similar but not identical numerical anomalies between the wars and since. I do not think that we can avoid these anomalies, nor can we pare down the so-called quota discrepancies between the three countries much more than we have already done. The figure for England is rather over 56,000, that for Wales is rather over 50,000, and that for Scotland is about 48,000. I think that the relative identity of representation is rather good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill, who is sitting next to me, suggests that the ratio was metaphysical.
Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: Let us all join in. We cannot hear the hon. Member.
Mr. Roberts: I do not think the Scottish quota was unduly metaphysical.
I do not think we need worry unduly about the quotas. We have achieved a reasonable parity between the three countries in the figures which I have given, having regard to the very wide disparity in local conditions in the outlying parts of the community.
I hope that in considering the Amendment we shall not over-argue in favour of mathematical identity of quotas. This does not mean that I, as a Welsh representative, am in any way opposed to increasing the number of English representatives. I think that it can be done without injury to either the Scottish or the Welsh representation. It should proceed, however, less on the mathematical basis and more on the practical basis as related to the local difficulties in England, Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Pickthorn: I was not here on Second Reading, and I hope that it is in order now to refer to what would have
660
been in order then. I think that it is in order to do so on the Amendment.
The difficulty about the Amendment, with whichever prejudice we approach the subject—either prejudice from this side of the Committee or prejudice from the other side of the Committee—is quite clear. Most of us who are here now have taken a considerable interest in this matter on one or more previous occasions, and on each of those occasions, and certainly upon the last, it was quite plainly admitted that the situation as it then stood, or rather the distribution as it was then proposed, was in some respects intolerable and the proposal was then driven through.
It therefore becomes impossible to amend this Bill, which leaves those intolerabilities, so as to make it seem fair to both sides of the Committee. I think some gleam of hope was given by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). The difficulty with which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was trying to deal was the difficulty of not increasing excessively the number of Members in the House and yet not being excessively unjust to England, a very odd, if not unique, ambition, the second part of it, if I may say so, but one with which I sympathise.
I believe that the hon. Member for Caernarvon showed how it could be done. He mentioned that it made no difference at all whether the average quota was 50,000 or 56,000. Very well; let us have the average quota for Scotland and Wales 56,000 and the average quota for England something not much more than 50,000, thus saving on Scotland and Wales enough seats to enable us to do justice to England.
Mr. Lipton: I will dispense with the preamble, which is already on record, and deal with what I think is the fundamental point, which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He has slightly departed from what he said on Second Reading, because on that occasion he said
"The discrepancy is, obviously, very large".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 234.]
I do not think he stands by that now, because tonight he said that the discrepancy is undesirable or greater than it should be.

661
As the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said, it all depends what we take as our starting point. My learned Friend said that the representation for Scotland and Wales was more or less correct, and that the representation of England ought therefore to be increased. It is just as logical to take the view that Scotland and Wales are over-represented and that the number of hon. Members representing English constituencies does not need to be increased.
If, for example, at some time or other the Boundary Commission or such authority as may exist decided that the total number of Members should be 500, that would give an electoral quota of about 69,000 over the whole of Great Britain, and it would mean that there would be ninety-nine fewer English Members of Parliament, twenty-two fewer Scottish Members, and nine fewer Welsh Members. The Northern Ireland representation is already related to that quota, and would not change. Nobody can tell me that the work of the House could not be done just as effectively by 500 Members attending to their duties as it is at present by 630, of which 130 do not attend to their duties.
If we examine the situation in other Parliamentary assemblies, we find that whereas in France the average number of electors per representative is 49,000—which is too few from our point of view—in the United States of America the figure is 236,000 and in the German Federal Republic, 70,000. The German Federal Republic carries on its business with reasonable efficiency.
I know that the right hon and learned Gentleman is getting a little impatient and wants to take part in the discussion in order to give us the benefit of his views, but I must ask him to exercise his patience for a further few minutes.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Member has no grounds for saying that. I was merely picking up some paper in order to take a note of what he is saying. He really ought to apologise.
Mr. Lipton: I apologise unreservedly. I mistook the interest he was taking in what I was saying for an impatience at what I was saying. In those circumstances, I unreservedly withdraw my
662
remark and hope that what I am saying is having some effect.
I suggest that we ought not immediately to come to the conclusion that the only solution of the problem is to increase the number of parliamentary representatives in this House. In the German Federal Republic, members find no difficulty in representing 70,000 electors each, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) carries out his duties as well as any other Member while representing about 80,000 electors. I have not noticed that by reason of the fact that he represents such a large electorate he is any less efficient or active than other hon. Members in the discharge of his duties.
I should like my hon. and learned Friend to think about what he is saying. I do not believe that it is necessary to increase the number of hon. Members in order to ensure the efficient carrying out of our Parliamentary duties. If we have to make any change it should be by way of reduction. I know that in the case of Scotland and Wales all kinds of geographical and historical considerations enter into the matter, but it is rather ridiculous to say that because there are some crofting counties in the north of Scotland the number of Members of Parliament representing English constituencies should be increased.
7.15 p.m.
The Attorney-General: It might be to the convenience of the Committee if I said something about the Amendment now, and so help hon. Members to reach a conclusion. The hon. and learned Member based his argument upon the existence of a discrepancy between the electoral quotas of England, Wales and Scotland. Whether the hon. and learned Member's views are well founded, or whether the view of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—who has said that we should not immediately come to the conclusion that there is only one solution of the problem—is well founded, I submit that although, technically, the proposed new Clause is within the scope of the Bill, it is not within the scope of its intentions.
In 1944 there was the Speaker's Conference, which was attended by representatives of all parties. That Conference favoured the acceptance of certain rules,

663
among which was Rule 6, referring to the total number of Members of Parliament, which said:
"The total number of Members of the House of Commons for Great Britain shall remain substantially as at present, (i.e) 591, excluding University seats."
That figure was then incorporated in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944. It is important to bear in mind that the Conference seems to have reached the conclusion that for the proper conduct of the business of the House of Commons the target figure should be 591, not taking into account the university seats which then existed.
Mr. Mitchison: Including Northern Ireland.
The Attorney-General: Including Northern Ireland. It also recommended that there should be the following special provision for Scotland and Wales—which is Rule 7:
"There shall be no reduction in the present number of Members of the House of Commons for Scotland or for Wales and Monmouthshire."
That is where we get the present statutory stipulation of not fewer than 71, 35 and 12 Members respectively. That recommendation was clearly accepted by the Socialist Party when it formed a Government, because it was embodied in Rule 1 of the 1944 Act, which was passed during the time of the Coalition Government, and remained until it was altered by the 1948 Act. The Committee will remember that at that time, contrary to the Boundary Commission's recommendation, 17 seats were added, bringing the figure up to its present level.
The new proposal is that there should be a further 19 seats, and if I understand it right the object is to narrow the discrepancy between the electorates of England and the electorates of Scotland and Wales respectively, so as to try to make the weight of an Englishman's vote correspond more nearly to the effect of a vote of a Scotsman in Scotland, a Welshman in Wales and a Northern Irishman in Northern Ireland. That discrepancy between the electorates originated in the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, if not before.
Whatever may be the view of what ought to be done, and what is the right size of the House, it follows that if we accept the view that it should not be less
664
than 71 Scottish seats, 35 Welsh seats and 12 seats for Northern Ireland, and also the conclusion that the House should remain at more or less its present membership, we must accept a discrepancy between the electorates in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
This is not the place for making any further alteration in that respect. An attempt to correct the balance between the different parts of the United Kingdom should not be made by means of the addition of a Clause of this character, providing a particular solution, in a Bill of this character. I suggest that that certainly should not be done without careful consideration of the whole problem again by another Speaker's Conference.
Mr. Mitchison: I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but I wonder whether he could tell us one thing. The trouble seems to me to be that the discrepancy that existed then was smaller than the discrepancy that exists now. Can he give us any figures on that point?
The Attorney-General: I do not think I can; I do not think I have them in my possession. Nor can I answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) as to how many constituencies Rule 6 would apply, for the simple reason, as has been said before today, that the Boundary Commission does not give reasons in its Report for its conclusions. One can only speculate, and I do not think that speculation would be very helpful.
The point I am seeking to make is that the correction of the discrepancy between the different parts of the United Kingdom is a subject not for these Bills, but for consideration at another Speaker's Conference, when the time comes for such a conference. It may be—one does not know, and cannot predict—that there will be further shifts of population in one direction or another, but I am quite sure that we ought not to alter the balance between the respective parts of the United Kingdom without giving very careful consideration to the whole problem. One ought not lightly to depart from the accepted recommendations of a Speaker's Conference which have stood for so long.
May I add a further word? Various suggestions have been made. It was said, for instance, on Second Reading by the

665
right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we might have the same quota for England as now exists for Scotland. I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words:
"If we took the same quota for England as exists at the moment for Scotland, we should redress the balance and be able to feel that we were still preserving the Act of Union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 262.]
Of course, we would in one respect, but the consequences of this would be that England alone would have 607 seats in a House with a total membership of 726. We ought not to provide for that eventuality, I submit, by adding a Clause of this character to a Bill of this character, and it is for these reasons that I advise the Committee not to add the Clause to the Bill.
I have intervened now because I felt that perhaps these considerations might enable the Committee to reach a fairly speedy conclusion on this matter. It has been an interesting discussion. It is quite obvious that it is not being conducted entirely on party lines, but that some difference of attitude seems to depend upon from which part of the United Kingdom one may come.
Mr. Skeffington: I do not wish to prolong the discussion unduly, but I think there are one or two things that need to be said, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will give some further consideration to them.
I believe that if there were an offer of or suggestion for a Speaker's Conference, that would indeed be the best way of dealing with this point. Nevertheless, I do not think that the new Clause is out of keeping with the Bill. The Clause does not raise a matter of fundamental constitutional importance; it is merely an attempt to get some greater equality between the representation from different parts of the United Kingdom. This is merely an alteration of a comparatively minor character.
Before I develop the other points, I wish to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that I do not support his argument. I wondered why, when there is some unemployment already in the country as the result of the Government's policy, my hon. Friend should suggest that we should increase it still further by putting Members of Parliament out of work. Then, again, if my hon. Friend thinks that the number
666
of Members here could be reduced, I do not know what he would have thought about the composition of the House of Commons a hundred years ago, when there were 700 Members, but when the electorate of each constituency was a few hundred and the population of the country was much smaller.
I should have thought also, in reply to another point made by my hon. Friend, that a comparison between the responsibilities of British Members of Parliament and, with all respect to them, the responsibilities of Deputies in the West German Republic, was irrelevant. In addition to our responsibilities for the United Kingdom in this House, we also have responsibilities for the 60 million people in the Colonial Commonwealth who look to us. I think that, for all these reasons, there is no serious case for cutting down representation here.
I think it was the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation who said something the other day with which I agree. It was that when one looks at certain problems, one sometimes wishes that we had a Secretary of State for England to look after our interests. Certainly, I think in the matter of the great difference in the size of electorates between the English constituencies and the Welsh and Scottish constituencies, that sort of consideration arises. Why should an English Member have to represent so many more electors? One of the reasons why English Members have to represent a larger electorate is undoubtedly the use last time of the electoral quota which has now been authorised under this Bill for future redistributions. It is, incidentally, a tribute to those of us who believe that the Commission was, in fact, working upon an unauthorised quota that powers have been taken in this Bill to legalise the special quotas for different parts of the United Kingdom.
If one takes the number of constituencies which must be reserved to other parts of the United Kingdom, which on the last occasion totalled 107 for England and Wales and 12 for Northern Ireland, we are bound to get, unless there is some increase in English representation, a very much higher electorate for English constituencies. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) realised that the comparison was very much worse than

667
even he suggested. He quoted the British quota of 55,670 which, in fact, was not the quota used. Indeed, I do not know whether the figures of the electorates now are different, because we have not been given any figures so far in the debate, but in 1953 the English quota worked out at 57,000, and the difference in the representation is that the average for Scotland in 1953 worked out at 50,353, a difference of about 7,000. In the case of the Welsh seats in 1953, the average was 48,000 electors, as compared with an electorate of 57,000 for the English constituencies. I think it will be rather difficult to justify that magnitude of difference of 9,000 between constituencies in the two countries, and I would still hope that further consideration might be given to this point.
I think there are two further arguments in support of the Clause. In the first case, from 1801 to 1918, this House was composed of about 700 Members. It did fluctuate from time to time, and at one period it was slightly less and at another slightly higher. The proposal in the Clause would not mean any more seats than the House has had for nearly 100 years.
Secondly, it appears from the movement of the electorates and populations that the English electorates are going to increase. If so, this is the time to make some concession to prevent the considerable difference in the electorates—which in the case of the Welsh and English constituencies is nearly 10,000—from becoming even bigger. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give some undertaking about this. If he cannot accept the Motion, he may indicate that some further consultation can take place.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Parker: The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and myself are the only two hon. Members present in the Chamber who were at the Speaker's Conference, and I should like to raise various points regarding that conference with the Attorney-General. When we discussed this subject in 1944 there was a basic assumption that the population would remain roughly the same, and that the proportion of the population as between England, Scotland and Wales would remain roughly the same. But that
668
has not been the case. There has been an increase in the population of the United Kingdom as a whole, and particularly in the population of England. That rise is going on steadily, so that the solution arrived at in 1944 is not relevant today and will become less relevant as time goes on.
I agree that in 1944 we decided it was right and reasonable that Wales and Scotland should be given a larger representation than the numbers justified. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) that there should be a continuing bias in favour of Wales and Scotland. The question is, how large should it be. I suggest that we should stick to the 1944 position and not differentiate further. That would be a reasonable solution. Let us keep the Welsh and Scottish figures as they were, but if we find, as is the case, that the population of England is increasing, there is a strong argument for increasing the representation and bringing it up to the same proportion as that decided in 1944.
I do not see why we cannot have a few extra Members in this House to represent English constituencies, if that would appear the right way to solve the difficulty. As has been said, there were times over a long period of history when the number of hon. Members was larger than it is today, and I do not think that a small increase, say to 650, or even another 10 or 20 more than that, would matter very much. We could have that number of Members without upsetting the arrangements of this House. I suggest that we go back to the 1944 position and add a number of extra English Members to keep the same sort of ratio from a population point of view.
If the population of England continues to increase, it might be necessary to examine the matter again; but I should think that in the long run the population of the United Kingdom will stabilise itself and there will not be need for a further drastic increase of Members. If in, say, a hundred years the number were unmanageable the matter might be examined again, but that problem is not likely to arise for a long time. I ask the Attorney-General to go back to the 1944 position and be prepared himself to bring forward some Amendment to enable the English representation to be

669
increased to bring it to the 1944 proportion. I do not think there is need for a Speaker's Conference on that point. We are merely suggesting that we stick to the 1944 position. I do not think there is any strong feeling in the Committee that we should move away from that position.
Mr. Mitchison: Originally I had no intention of inviting the Committee to come to a decision on this matter, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to resist the temptation put before me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. This new Clause has been on the Order Paper for some time. This subject—including the disparity and the question of the growth of the population—was mentioned more than once during the Second Reading debate. I can understand the Government saying that they do not think this is the right time to deal with it, but I do not understand the Government refusing to equip themselves with the necessary information which hon. Members obviously are entitled to have in order to form an opinion on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I should like another Speaker's Conference, if I am to deal with this at all, and for that reason I have not equipped myself with the information."
The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent what I said. I did not say anything of the sort he is suggesting. I said that last time there was a Speaker's Conference on the matter, and that we should not make a change of this character in this Bill without the matter first being considered by another Speaker's Conference. It was not on the ground that I had not equipped myself with the necessary information, and the hon. Gentleman has no reason for making that allegation.
Mr. Mitchison: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if I said, or if he understood me to say, that he said he had not equipped himself with sufficient information for the purpose, I withdraw it unreservedly. I had no intention of saying it. I said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for another Speaker's Conference and he also admitted, in the state of affairs which I have mentioned—the new Clause having been on the Order Paper for some days
670
and the whole matter having been discussed during the Second Reading debate—that he had not the obviously relevant information about it. I regard that as unfair to the Commission since that information must have been readily available at the Home Office and could well have been produced.
The point is, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), that the Speaker's Conference came to the conclusion, on the state of affairs existing at that time, as I admitted when moving the Motion, that there is a case, apart from the Rule 6 question, of there being some disparity in favour of Scotland and Wales. We admit that, but the point is that the disparity has grown and is still growing. I gave the figures so far as I could get them as at the date of the Report of the Boundary Commission. I added during the Second Reading debate, and I repeat again now, that since then the English population—I have not got the electoral figures—has been increasing twice as fast as the Scottish population. Clearly, the electoral position must reflect the same sort of change.
For those reasons there is no inconsistency whatever in saying now that on the principles agreed by the Speaker's Conference, and even on the proportion agreed, some figure or other ought to be allowed by way of an increased number of seats for England. There is no inconsistency about that. On the contrary, the inconsistency lies in the mouth of the Attorney-General who not only wants to go back on the conclusions of the Speaker's Conference, but also takes no account of the fact that since then the House has added an additional number of Members.
Clearly, the only conclusion I can draw from the Speaker's Conference is that it recognised the wisdom of some discrepancy and, further, that it gave attention to the matter and laid down minimum figures for Scotland and Wales which, unlike one of my hon. Friends, I would not wish to alter.
The right way to deal with the matter is to give some, not very large, English increases. The Government have always known that if they refused the necessary information it would be extraordinarily difficult to say what the right figure was. I should not be justified in asking the

671
Committee to come to a decision on the Clause, when the figure of the additional votes must so largely be guesswork. I am trying to resist the temptation to ask for a decision because of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. I think I have succeeded. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(CONSTITUENCY RESOLU- TIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
(1) A local authority may by resolution (hereinafter called a "constituency resolution") recommend that an alteration, to be specified in the constituency resolution, be made in the boundaries of a constituency, which or any part of which is in the area of the local authority.

(2) A constituency resolution shall be communicated by the local authority to the Secretary of State and by the Secretary of State to the appropriate Boundary Commission.

(3) On receiving notice of a constituency resolution a Boundary Commission shall consider and report to the Secretary of State whether or not they deem it advisable to make a report under subsection (3) of section two of the principal Act and, if they do deem it advisable to make such a report, they shall proceed to do so in accordance with the provisions of that section.

(4) A report made under the said subsection (3) and in accordance with the last foregoing subsection shall not be confined to the alteration recommended in the constituency resolution and may include such further or other alterations in relation to the constituency in question or to any other constituency or constituencies affected as may appear advisable to the Boundary Commission, whether with or without the alteration recommended in the constituency resolution or with any modification of that alteration.

(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any constituency resolution together with any report of a Boundary Commission stating that they do not deem it advisable to make any report on that constituency resolution under the said subsection (3) or, notwithstanding anything in subsection (5) of the said section two, any report made under the said subsection (3) and stating that no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom with which by reason of the constituency resolution the Commission are concerned.

(6) In this section the expression "local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section one hundred and forty-four or, in relation to Scotland, by section one hundred and forty-five of the Local Government Act, 1948.

(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to derogate from the requirements of the said section two of the principal Act or to affect the generality of subsection (3) of that section.

672

(8) This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which rule 6 of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act applies.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause contains a new device designed to bring flexibility into distribution arrangements where the Commission either does not take any action about a change which occurred during the period between reviews or at a general review. I am all in favour of the Boundary Commission not being active. I have always been against having a permanent Boundary Commission because it will tend towards justifying its existence and unnecessarily interfering with boundaries. There is, however, a case where responsible opinion inside a constituency feels that there is an anomaly to be investigated and it would like to suggest a change to deal with it.
The purpose of the Clause is to make it possible for a local authority, as defined in Section 144 of the Local Government Act, 1948, or by Section 145 in relation to Scotland, to pass a resolution, which could then be forwarded to the Secretary of State. We suggest in the Clause that such a resolution should be called a "constituency resolution" and that it should recommend a change in the boundaries of the constituency when any part of it is in the area of the local authority.
It is suggested that such a resolution should be sent to the Secretary of State, who would then send it to the appropriate Boundary Commission. When the Commission receives the constituency resolution it shall consider it and make a report on its proposals to the Secretary of State, saying that it feels there is a case for a change, or that it does not recommend the change, or that it proposes other changes to deal with that and other constituencies.
7.45 p.m.
It has been suggested that this might start a chain reaction of changes very dangerous to other constituencies. There is something in that point, but equally the procedure could act as a safeguard against irresponsible resolutions being passed, because the local authority would know that it was not a matter of the

673
Commission accepting the resolution but of considering the whole circumstances of the anomaly in the area in question and of making to the Home Secretary recommendations which were not necessarily in the resolution. The local authority would be careful and would be likely to act only in cases where it could make a fair and sensible suggestion. The Secretary of State would lay before Parliament any constituency resolution, together with any report of a Boundary Commission.
There are at least two comparable powers given to groups of individuals or local authorities and where they can ask for an inquiry. There is a provision in the London Government Act that a Metropolitan Borough or a group of responsible people or electors can suggest that there is a prima facie case for an inquiry for an alteration to ward boundaries. They can send to the Secretary of State proposals, and if he feels that a case has been made out he can order an inquiry, at which the group of electors or the borough council or both can put forward proposals and be examined about them.
This procedure has not been used extensively, but it has been useful on some occasions. A re-warding of the Borough of Camberwell was carried out in 1952 as a result of a petition to the Home Secretary from a group of electors suggesting the need for changes in the wards which had existed in their then state for more than fifty years. There had been a considerable movement of population in the intervening period. In due course, a special commissioner was appointed to hold the inquiry and made a report. The result was incorporated in an order by the Secretary of State, and new and better boundaries were created.
There is also provision in respect of parish councils whereby a group of electors can ask for an inquiry in relation to boundaries. Although I said that this was a new device it has, in fact, been used in the case of local government boundaries. It is within the experience of hon. Members that anomalies occur from time to time in constituencies. It would seem to be fair for a local authority to have the right to bring anomalies to the attention of the Secretary of State direct. I can quite imagine that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) would like to present a petition
674
about his own constituency. It does not follow by any means that if a local authority passes a constituency resolution that there would be any change. It would simply mean that attention has been drawn to the difficulties in that constituency. The addition of this Clause would give a responsible local authority the opportunity to present to the Secretary of State in a direct and proper manner problems affecting the Parliamentary constituency with which it was concerned.
I do not believe that local authorities would use this power irresponsibly. There is the sanction that the Boundary Commission need not consider such a proposal and would suggest other proposals. The very fact that some avenue of appeal was open to responsible local opinion would introduce some flexibility into our system of redistribution. Generally speaking, if one can get an agreed change—because the resolution would have to be passed by a majority of the electors in the constituency, probably following some sort of local activity—put to the Secretary of State, it is very much better than having imposed on a locality a decision of other people, however eminent and fair they may be. A change that emanates from those in the area is much more desirable and often more satisfactory than one that is imposed from without. I hope, therefore, that the Committee and the Government will give serious consideration to this proposal.
Mr. Mitchison: I rise only to ask the Government to try to be a little more helpful about this than they have been about previous propositions put to them. They have combined immobility and infallibility to a degree that is rare even for a Government towards the end of their existence. There is a real point of substance here, and I hope that the Government will assist the Committee by making some positive proposals for meeting it.
Let me explain the point. It is that we are legislating for a period of from ten to fifteen years from the time of the last Report; that is to say, 1964 to 1969. Presumably, we shall go on in that sort of way. I am not in the least objecting to that; on the contrary, I welcome it. The disturbance that these changes make, not only to those of us who are engaged in parliamentary work but to ordinary

675
people all over the country, is quite considerable. I am sure that after the last Boundary Commission Report, and its results, we all felt that we did not want that to happen too often.
There is another side to it, however. Some of us, like the Fat Boy—I think it was he—are "swelling wisibly," and go on swelling, and swelling until things reach a difficult stage where we are asked to represent an inordinate number of electors—to take one obvious point. Equally, there can be difficulties the other way. Nowadays, there can be changes in the disposition of population owing to the movement of industry, and so on, that make representational changes worth consideration. I say no more than that.
This point was put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary during the Second Reading debate. His reply was that it could be done under Section 2 (3) of the principal Act, and there is no doubt that in that subsection there is power for the Boundary Commission to make an interim report. In fact, that power has been exercised, but exercised only for quite minor boundary changes.
The difficulty now is that we are appointing a Boundary Commission, with a judicial deputy chairman, to act over quite a long period, and nobody knows how to get the Commission to take action where it may be required. That question was asked of the right hon. Gentleman, and we never had an answer. I do not say that it is an easy question to answer. It is difficult.
What is proposed in this new Clause is that local authorities should do it, and I see at once that there are objections to that. It is only too easy to think of objections. For instance, in my own constituency I have seven local authorities. Some of them are a bit on the small side, and we do not know what may happen to them in these days. Nevertheless, by this new Clause, any of them would have the power to start the ball rolling.
One could think of doing it by basing the power to propose on a given number of electors. That, too, presents difficulties. It makes it rather easier to organise what might be a factious objection or petition. It could be done, perhaps, automatically—that, too, we shall have to consider in due course. I hope that
676
the Government will be able to provide some suggestion as to what should be done if things approach the intolerable—let us put it that way—during the ten to fifteen years between these Reports.
This new Clause is very carefully worded. It does not oblige the Commission to make a report under the Act and, of course, if it makes a report under the Act, it can make a nil report, and say that nothing needs to be done. All that happens is that—
Mr. Renton: I am anxious to understand the new Clause. I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman's words must be taken very literally when he says that the Commission can say that "nothing needs to be done." Does it not mean that the Commission must, in fact, show cause why it does not intend to hold an interim review on the lines indicated in the application?
Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry that I did not, in the nature of the case, take a note of my exact words, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the new Clause he will see that it provides for the constituency resolution to go to the Home Secretary, and for the Home Secretary to send it to the Boundary Commission. What the Commission then has to decide is whether or not to make a report under the Act. It has to report to the Home Secretary whether it is to make a statutory report. I hope that I have made myself clear, because it is rather difficult to avoid using the same word twice, and it is used twice in the new Clause.
The Boundary Commission, therefore, is not obliged to make a statutory report which itself might be a nil report. It is merely obliged to consider whether or not it should look into the matter and report. It is about the minimum obligation that one could put on anybody. It is really no more than pulling the coat of the Commission, as it were, and reminding it that there is a certain place which it might perhaps look at.
I agree that it is quite easy to pick holes in this sort of proposal. One can say that a local authority might be captious and it might do this too easily. In my own constituency, as I say, there are several local authorities. One very small local authority might do it, yet might not represent a lot of public opinion or anything else.

677
8.0 p.m.
All that is true, but on the other hand, if we do not do it at all, look at the position. The Boundary Commission is there for a period of ten to fifteen years. The deputy-chairman, with great respect to Mr. Speaker—it is well recognised that he cannot do much of this sort of thing—is a High Court judge He is in office notionally. He is the deputy-chairman, but it is too much to suppose that he is going into these electoral questions continually or even at frequent intervals; there is nobody to stir him up, and there is no duty on the other members of the Boundary Commission to look into the matter.
While I feel that a provision of this sort might not be used often, while I feel that it is extraordinarily easy to pick holes in any sort of provision that is suggested, I still feel that it is rather dangerous and foolish to leave matters entirely to chance—because that is what it seems to me to come to—for so long a period as ten to fifteen years. The net result of that, without moving the Boundary Commission in the interval, may be that the pack of troubles one has to pick up at the end of the ten to fifteen years would be very much larger than they would be if they had been dealt with at the time.
May I add one other point. I understand, as I am sure my hon. Friends do—and I expect every hon. Member understands—that this is hardly ever a case of a single constituency. Other constituencies may very well be affected, too, and for that reason I am very anxious not to do more than just tug the coat of the Commissioners and remind them that there is something that might be looked into. Within those limitations, I suggest that this new Clause provides a workable means of giving the tug, that it does not do and does not pretend to do more than that. If the Government do not like it, let them tell us some other way of reminding the Boundary Commission of the real things that need attention.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support this proposed new Clause to which I added my name. I did so because it seems to me to raise an important matter of principle. The matter of principle to which I attach importance is that the local authorities should have the right to make representations to the
678
Boundary Commission. I do not put it any higher or any lower than that.
I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to bear in mind that there is a principle of historic importance involved in this new Clause. Parliament has existed for 600 or 700 years, and historically, I am sure the Minister will agree, representation in this House is based on local boundaries. When a Royal Commission is read in the House of Peers we hear the traditional and age-old recital, whereby the Royal Assent is given to Bills and reference is made to burgesses, knights of the shires, citizens and so on. It reminds us always that representation in this place is based on local boundaries. Local authorities are, therefore, interested in the basis on which representation is made, whether it is representation in the shires or in the boroughs.
It seems to me that apart from all other considerations—and I endorse everything that has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington)—on the principle that we have moved into a sphere in which the regulation of boundaries is to be decided by a Boundary Commission, the definition and alteration of boundaries and the constitution of constituency areas should be regarded as a matter in which local authorities—the lineal descendants of the ancient shires and boroughs—are entitled to take an interest and, therefore, are entitled to make representations to the Boundary Commission. What the Boundary Commission may do about it when such representation is received is a different matter. That depends upon the instructions which Parliament gives to the Boundary Commission.
I hope the Minister will accept this new Clause in order to enshrine in our constitutional arrangements what seems to me to be a fundamental principle of historical importance, that local authorities should be entitled to make representations. It was always a matter of interest to them, even when they were rotten boroughs, like Old Sarum, also when county authorities like Cornwall or Devon were intensely populated compared with the modern industrial areas, at times when

679
historically they were entitled to far greater recommendation than the more populous counties or shires. It was a matter of concern to them whether they lost their historic representation.
I do not dissent from the proposition, which is now accepted on both sides of the Committee as being almost axiomatic, that representation should be based on numbers—numerical representation. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with his great sense of history, will agree with me that local considerations of historical significance also have a part to play, and I support this new Clause because I hope that in passing this Bill we shall not drift into a position in which we become so benumbed with mere arithmetic propositions that we ignore and depart entirely from the historical associations from which this Parliament is descended. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to write into this Bill that local authorities should be entitled to make representations to the Boundary Commission with regard either to the size of the area or to how the boundaries should be drawn.
The whole subject of local government is in the melting pot, and particularly so in view of the present Bill on the subject which is now being considered in detail by a Standing Committee. But whatever may be the pattern of local government organisation in the future, whatever may be appropriate for the administration of local government as such, that should not detract from the inherent and traditional right of any local authority, whether a county council or a borough council, a rural council or even a parish council, to make representations to this Boundary Commission, with suggestions derived from their own local knowledge and experience of how the boundaries should be drawn.
On that broad basic principle, I support this proposed new Clause and I hope it will be accepted.
Mr. Renton: I am sure that we would all agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) when he says that local authorities should have the right to make representations to the Boundary Commission, especially with regard to the need for the holding of an interim review.
680
As the background to this discussion there are, I think, three other things on which we can all agree, first, that it is a good thing that general reviews will be rather less frequent than under the old Act; secondly, that it is important that interim reviews should be held where necessary; and thirdly, that we do not want interim reviews to be too frequent or too extensive, for the reasons which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) put forward on 15th December, 1954, when, after complaining that a considerable number of interim reviews had taken place in Kent, he used these rather powerful words:
"It is quite unjustifiable to suggest that this sort of change is either necessary or achieves any useful democratic purpose. In the meantime, the individuals affected do not know who their Member of Parliament is, because there have been so many changes. We really must put a stop to that kind of nonsense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1828.]
I therefore assume, in favour of the hon. Gentleman, that the last thing he would wish as a result of this Clause is that there should be unnecessary interim reviews.
As he has pointed out, and as I shall emphasise in one particular, local authorities, like any other individual, already have power to make representations to the Boundary Commission, and the Boundary Commission, under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act, has power to
"from time to time submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the area comprised in any particular constituency or constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned, showing the constituencies into which they recommend that that area should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in the said Second Schedule."
That is the power of interim review.
That being the present position what we have to consider is, what does the Clause really add to it? It does not add to the power to make representations to the Boundary Commission. It does not add any power to the Boundary Commission to make representation to the Secretary of State. All that it does, so far as I can see, is that when a local authority passes a resolution and makes a recommendation to the Boundary Commission the Clause will require the Boundary Commission to show cause why it will not hold the review if it decides not to do so; and then, of course, the

681
matter is forwarded by the Commission to the Secretary of State, who can be required to lay before Parliament a report from the Boundary Commission as to why it decides not to hold a review.
That is the main effect. I shall be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong, as, perhaps, I may be, because this is a long new Clause which requires a lot of study. If I may say so, it has been most thoughtfully worked out, to try to cover the situation which hon. Members opposite have in mind. However, if that is all that this Clause adds to the present position, what we have to consider is whether it is really necessary to go through a rather elaborate procedure like that? I hope I shall not be considered to be provocative—although the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was inviting me to be as provocative as possible—if I say that I think that it would be rather over zealous to impose that procedure upon the opportunities which already exist.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said very fairly indeed that if there were a case for revision of a single constituency the matter would hardly ever end there. Of course, I would agree with him, and the Clause recognises that. We might very well find that, owing to all the encouragement given by this new Clause to local authorities to pass such resolutions, and the feeling on the part of the Boundary Commission that it had to lean over backwards to do all it can do to consider the views of local authorities and, perhaps, to avoid having to make reports showing cause why it would not recommend alterations, we should be led into just that difficulty which in 1954 the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington deplored—the difficulty caused by too many interim reviews.
If we are extending the period between general reviews, there might of necessity—perhaps, according to circumstances—have to be rather more interim reviews. If the circumstances dictate that I should think it is hardly necessary for us to have a procedure of the kind suggested by the Clause.
Just suppose, however, that we accepted the principle and the spirit of this proposal, the question is, could we accept the Clause itself? There is at
682
least one point in the drafting which, I am afraid, would vitiate it completely from our point of view, and that is subsection (8), which says:
"This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which rule 6 of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act applies."
An obscurity arises there, because although the decision is left with the Boundary Commission, one wonders, naturally, whether the Boundary Commission is expected to get out a list of those constituencies in which the local authorities would not be allowed to make recommendations under this Clause. If the Boundary Commission were to get out such a list I have a horrible feeling that it might arouse a certain amount of controversy in the minds of members of such local authorities. That certainly would be a matter to which we should have to attend.
One is very hesitant to mention Northern Ireland on an occasion like this when we have been discussing broad principles, but this Clause expressly excludes Northern Ireland, and although the number of seats for Northern Ireland is at present fixed in the Second Schedule as twelve, it might very well be thought by a local authority in Northern Ireland that it should have at least as good rights as local authorities anywhere else.
However, as I say, that is a drafting matter.
I would say to the hon. and learned Member that we do consider these as House of Commons matters. We have considered all the Amendments most carefully. The Home Secretary has considered the matter personally and in very great detail. If we felt that this Clause or any of the others would be likely to facilitate the work of the Boundary Commission, or to grant rights to local authorities or individuals which ought to be granted, then we should most certainly have conceded the Clause.
For the reasons I have given, we do not feel that we can accept the Clause. As I say, our main reason is that we do not think that it adds to the opportunities which already exist and that we feel that it would unnecessarily introduce a somewhat cumbersome procedure.
Mr. Mitchison: I agree that this is not an easy matter, but the Commission is to consist, besides Mr. Speaker, of the deputy-chairman and two members, one of whom is to be appointed by the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend. At least, that is how I read it. It says:
"appointed by the Secretary of State"
and I think that must mean the Home Secretary in that context. I am thinking of England and Wales for the moment.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider it the duty of the Home Office appointee on that Boundary Commission to keep an eye on the constituency position over the country, or, if not, would he regard it as the duty of the deputy-chairman, the High Court judge? It would help me a great deal—I am speaking personally—if I knew that the Home Secretary took the view that it was the responsibility of the Home Office appointee to keep an eye on the constituency position and to let the Boundary Commission know from time to time that there was a possibility that it ought to think of something or other. I do not see how, in practice, the High Court judge can do that. That is the point.
Mr. Renton: I would certainly agree that the Home Office appointee would have such a duty, but not for the reason that he was the Home Office appointee. I should have thought that the members of the Boundary Commission, having been appointed to fulfil statutory duties, would be individually and collectively responsible for seeing that they performed those duties. It will be their duty to scrutinise the population figures as produced by the Registrar-General, who will be an assessor, and to consider all representations made to them from time to time, and, generally, to keep their ears to the ground, in order that they may properly perform their statutory functions. I must stress, however, that I would not agree that the duty of a Home Office appointee would arise merely because he was a Home Office appointee, but would arise for the reasons I have given.
Mr. Mitchison: It comes to this, does it not, that the Home Secretary of the day takes no questionable responsibility, if the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what I mean, for the action or inaction
684
of his appointee on the Boundary Commission? Therefore, so far as I can see, there is no Parliamentary responsibility. Because the Boundary Commission has power to make these interim reviews, it seems to be under the obligation to do so. I think that is the position.
I hope that the Government will consider the question. I agree that it is a difficult question and that, in practice, cases may not be very frequent. I agree, above all, that it is most inadvisable to have these interim reviews too often, but I am a little uneasy about this long period with nobody taking the responsibility for attending to what might be quite an abnormal growth of population, or something of that sort, in a constituency during the period.
Mr. Renton: Let us be a little realistic about the matter. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted "Pickwick Papers" and the Fat Boy. He said, "The Fat Boy is swelling wisibly." There is a further quotation about the Fat Boy. It is, "The Fat Boy has gone to sleep again." No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman remembers that. I think that if the hon. Member of Parliament who represents the Fat Boy keeps awake, the matter will right itself very quickly indeed.
Mr. Skeffington: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his courteous and patient reply, although, naturally, I found his rejoinder very disappointing. To some extent, I thought that his argument about frequent reviews and the quotation of my speech were not quite relevant, because the cases in Kent which I mentioned were not the results of interim reviews but the results of comprehensive reviews which were authorised by different Acts.
One case I had in mind was a place which, before 1945, was in one constituency, which was then placed by the 1944 review in another, then altered by the 1948 Act to another, and altered still further by the 1953 review. These were not interim reviews but the main general reviews, and it was that about which I was complaining. I do not quarrel with the general proposition that, in general, one does not want frequent reviews. The cases I mentioned were unnecessary changes as a result of the comprehensive reviews carried out by the various Commissions.

685
The real point at issue, and the point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman has not satisfied me, is that the Clause gives the right to a local authority to initiate a proposal direct to the Secretary of State. A local authority has not that right under the existing law or under the proposed changes in the Bill. That is very important. I do not think it is right to say that because a local authority can get in touch with the Boundary Commission, the power given to it under the Clause would add nothing. Getting in touch with the Boundary Commission may mean a lot or nothing.
Some of us and some local authorities had very unfortunate experiences in trying to get in touch with the Boundary Commission during the last review. One would not necessarily suppose, of course, that the difficulties which then arose would arise in future. A great many reviews were taking place, and the Boundary Commission was no doubt very considerably overworked. But representations were made by local authorities, and there was no indication that any attention at all had been paid to their proposals. That was particularly the case when no inquiries were held. As the Committee will be aware, there were only seven inquiries for the whole of England. It is, therefore, a rather poor bone to offer the local authorities to say that they can get in touch with the Boundary Commission. No doubt they will get their representations acknowledged, but there is no guarantee of anything more.
A representation to the Secretary of State is worth very much more. He is bound by constitutional practice as well as, I am sure, by general desire and courtesy to make a reply. Furthermore, he can be questioned in the House. The Boundary Commission cannot be questioned in the House. It may be right that it should not. Therefore, the really fundamental additional power which the provisions in the new Clause give is a right of direct representation to the Secretary of State. With respect, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman met that point.
8.30 p.m.
If Rule 6 is the difficulty I am quite prepared to drop it. It is a very minor point indeed. I realise that it might be difficult legally. It was included in the Clause because, obviously, where there
686
are special geographical considerations, one would not want to prejudice the electors there. I do not, in fact, think that representations would be made; any area which was very much over-represented, in the sense of its population being small, would have little desire to change. Such areas are usually only too glad to hang on to the representation they have. However, I am very willing, and I am sure that my supporters also would be willing to drop it. For the sake of peace and quiet—no doubt, unusual in this context—I should be glad also to embrace Northern Ireland, if that would help.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reply to the main point I have made about the right of direct access to the Secretary of State. If he cannot concede the principle of the Clause, will he give some undertaking that the matter might be reviewed at a later stage? Rather than have nothing, I and my hon. Friends would be content with, at least, the right to present to the Home Office a case for a prima facie inquiry. If it went no farther than that, I think that it would be better than nothing. But without some powers of this kind, we shall be left with no responsible body being able to make direct representation to the Secretary of State. I regard that as a lacuna which should be filled.
Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has raised this further point. During our discussion, the matter has really been fined down to the question of what parliamentary responsibility there is. The hon. Gentleman is contriving a procedure which, he hopes, will of certainty engage the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked a question which corresponded broadly with that. He asked what duty there was on the part of members of the Boundary Commission to keep the state of constituencies under review so as to see whether any particular interim review was needed.
The first answer to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Act of 1949 begins, apart from the Short Title and Preamble, with these words:
"For the purpose of the continuous review of the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections, there shall be four permanent Boundary Commissions."

687
Those words place upon the Boundary Commission, I suggest, the duty of continuous review, because that is the purpose of their existence.
As regards the position of the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend has said that, although he has no right whatever to interfere with the work of the Boundary Commissions or to dictate to them how they shall do their work, he is quite prepared to pass to the appropriate Boundary Commission any representations which he may receive from, for example, any Member of Parliament or any local authority. A Question can always be put to the Secretary of State as to whether he has forwarded such representation. If that is not coming very close indeed to engaging parliamentary responsibility for the work of the Boundary Commission, I do not know what is.
Question put and negatived.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with the next new Clause the first Amendment to the Schedule, in page 5, line 2.

New Clause.—(DELAY IN OPERATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL.)
An Order in Council made under the principal Act shall not come into force until the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date of the making of the Order.—[Mr. Mitchison.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause deals with a very short point, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I have no ground for supposing that they will, and some ground for supposing that they will never accept anything. But, none the less, let us hope. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman looking a little puzzled. The ground to which I refer is previous experience today. So far, they have accepted nothing.
At the end of the proceedings the operative instrument under the principal Act is an Order in Council and, as far as I am aware, it operates immediately. When we had the last review and the last heated discussion in the House about the Order in Council which emerged from
688
that review, the final results came into operation much too soon to be convenient before a General Election. I cannot believe that that is to anybody's advantage. Not merely the electors, whose political connections and political activities may be abruptly transferred from somewhere they know to somewhere they do not know, but also the officials who have to deal with this matter from the electoral point of view, and, indeed, everybody concerned, must deplore a short interval between the Orders in Council and a General Election.
I see no practical means of avoiding the difficulty except by allowing an interval between the time when the Orders are made and the time when they come into operation. I am sure that the Government are well aware of this practical difficulty and I cannot believe that they want it to continue. They have not put an Amendment down to meet the point, but no doubt they have read the new Clause. In those circumstances, I earnestly hope that they will accept it.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved the Motion most persuasively. We all recognise the difficulties which arise from too short notice after an Order has been presented for the division of an area into constituencies. On the other hand, there is a contrary danger. It would be possible for too long to elapse before an Election took place, because if the Commission completes a review in the early life-time of a Parliament we shall have a considerable movement of population in the period before the next Election takes place. One has to strike a balance.
I suggest to the Committee that the mere fact that we are increasing the period between reviews will give the Boundary Commission considerably more latitude as to the time it chooses for submitting a report. The Commission itself should be able to select the time in such a way that the Orders can be made without leaving too much time to elapse before the next General Election, while within the ambit of the period within which a review can be made—between ten and fifteen years. That time should not be too long, on the one hand, and should not be too short, on the other hand.
Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I moved the Motion too shortly. I do not think that the hon. Member understands its purport. The point is that these Orders do not come into operation until a General Election. The only point is to provide for the case when there is less than six months between the Order and the General Election.
Mr. Macpherson: I was coming to that point. The Order in Council giving effect to a Commission's recommendations on the division of any area into constituencies may come into force on such date as is specified in the Order. That provision is in Section 3 (6) of the 1949 Act. As the hon. and learned Member has said, that Order does not effect any change in constituencies until the next General Election, so that any by-election would be conducted under the old rules, as things are at present. If we made a definite rule that the new Order would not come into effect until six months, at least, after it was published, should an Election take place in the intervening period, it would have to take place on the old register.
I put it to the hon. and learned Member that if that were done it would surely create grave political prejudice. Can he imagine what would be said about the Government party at an Election held in those circumstances? It would be said that they were hurrying to the country before the new register came into force.
Mr. Mitchison: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question about what would be said. Nothing worse would be likely to be said than was said about the Conservatives getting the Rochdale by-election on the old register, but is this the point? Surely, the point is that if we allow a shorter interval than six months in this type of case we will make the whole thing impossible and unworkable for everybody. I am not convinced by anything that I have heard so far.
Mr. Macpherson: I should have thought that the mere case of the Rochdale by-election which the hon. and learned Member has quoted proves the point that grave political prejudice would undoubtedly be created.
We might well have a snap Election in the period. The Government might
690
he defeated and have to go to the country, or they might decide to have a General Election because they conceived that it was in the national interest to have one. But, surely, the effect of an Order of this kind would be almost to put a complete ban on General Elections taking place until six months had elapsed, no matter what the conditions were. I suggest that this ought to be left to circumstances and that we should not tie this matter down.
We recognise, of course, that serious difficulties are involved if it so happens that the time that elapses between the Order and the General Election is short. In the last case, four to five months elapsed. Perhaps that was not long enough. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is right and that it would be more convenient to have a longer period, but I suggest to the Committee that this is not a suitable provision to write into the Bill.
If we tie this arrangement down, all that will really happen will be that we shall virtually be putting a ban on the holding of a General Election, whatever the circumstances, until six months after the Order has been made. I do not think that that necessarily would be to the advantage of the country as a whole. Therefore, much as we should like to accept it, after the hon. and learned Member has tried so hard and moved so many Amendments with such grace, I fear that we cannot accept the new Clause.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Ede: The most interesting part of the Joint Under-Secretary of State's speech was the recognition that the dating of the Rochdale by-election was a bit of sharp practice.
Mr. Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to say that I admitted no such thing, although I acknowledge the clamour that arose from the other side about it.
Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do a thing that I find very difficult to do, and that is to read his own speech in HANSARD tomorrow.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's answer on this matter. Every time one of these Orders is made it involves the shifting of the electoral

691
position of a number of electors. If it is a substantial Order it involves the reorganisation of the machinery inside the constituencies by all the political parties involved. Some people have to get into a quite new orientation with regard to their political friends in other parts of the new constituency, which takes some time, and they find themselves cut off from people with whom they were formerly associated. In 1950, in the general review that brought up to date constituencies that had existed since 1918, these changes were very considerable, and there had been a substantial movement of population which added to the difficulty.
I suggest that six months is not long enough for that process, even when only one Order dealing with, perhaps, two or three constituencies is involved. I cannot think that this problem is involved with the date for holding a General Election. I am thinking now about the conditions created when an interim Order is made, possibly owing to an adjustment of local Government boundaries, which I think has been the cause of all the interim Orders up to date. Any Government that contemplated having a General Election immediately after an interval of ten or fifteen years would be very blameworthy if they held it within six months of the Orders being made.
This is a sensible Amendment in view of our general knowledge of the difficulties that are created inside a constituency when an interim Order is made. There may be difficulties about the register. It will all depend on the time of the year whether the register that is in print is applicable to the new constituencies that have been created, not merely with regard to the constituency as a whole, but with regard to wards or parishes within the constituency.
This Clause ought to have serious consideration, because those of us who every now and then have to engage in an Election know the difficulties that are created if we have a register which was not designed for the constituency which is now the subject of an election contest.
The Attorney-General: I am sorry that I did not hear the introductory remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in introducing the new Clause and I apologise to him.
692
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) concerning the difficulties that are likely to ensue to the electors of an area from a change of the electoral boundaries. I have had experience of it myself. At one time, as Member for a county constituency, I had the honour of representing part of the Borough of Northampton, which was formerly represented by my father. It was a highly inconvenient arrangement. The electors within the borough who objected to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) could not understand why they did not have the opportunity to record their votes against him. I could not explain it to them either. I was much relieved when the boundaries were adjusted and the electors were accorded that facility. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel that we do not fully appreciate all these difficulties.
The interim Orders to which the right hon. Gentleman referred do not take effect until the next General Election. Therefore, one is in the position that the Clause would affect the situation only at a General Election. While I think that any Government should have great regard so far as it can to the situation, it depends in large degree upon the Boundary Commission, which ought also to have great regard to the situation so far as it can be foreseen. Both the Government and the Boundary Commission should have great regard to trying to avoid any such changes with a General Election imminent.
While I appreciate all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, the difficulty is that although six months' notice may be given, it may so happen that the General Election takes place immediately on the expiration of the six months or, possibly, before the six months has expired. One cannot tell how many Orders would fall to be made—it depends on the work of the Boundary Commission and may depend on the work done under the Local Government Bill—towards the end of the life of a particular Parliament. That being so, there might well be a situation, which would be highly unsatisfactory, whether it was open to party political criticism or not, of a General Election being fought with a large number of constituencies remaining unaltered when, according to the Report of the Boundary

693
Commission, accepted, perhaps, by the Government and by this House, those constituencies should have been altered to secure a fair representation.
Having regard to the circumstances, we cannot accept the Amendment. We feel, however, that regard must be paid, by whatever Government there may be and by the three Commissions, to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has urged concerning the necessity of giving an adequate opportunity for adjustment by those affected by these changes.
Mr. Mitchison: That will not do. On the last occasion, the Orders went through in December, 1954, all at more or less the same time, and the General Election was on 26th May, 1955.
Mr. Ede: The day between the Derby and the Oaks.
Mr. Mitchison: It was the day between the Derby and the Oaks, my right hon. Friend tells me. That may be, but it was within less than six months. They were changes that made things extraordinarily difficult for people.
I am well aware that the Government, especially nowadays, never know when the next crisis is coming. There was Suez. There was the foreign exchange crisis and rescuing the £. I do not know what we may have to rescue next time. The Rent Act caused a bit of a crisis too. We never know what there will be by way of crises. We live in lively times and they get livelier and livelier from the crisis point of view the longer the Goverment stay in office.
All that is profoundly true, but at the end of the day what is the right thing to do? Is it really better to have a General Election on top of changes of this kind, or is it better to continue on the old register and do it that way? I believe the Government capable of any iniquity, but I really do not think they would so organise a General Election as to work it on the old register deliberately They know their own minds and their own virtues and vices better than I do. It occurred to them; it did not occur to me. They know, and perhaps they really are capable of so arranging matters that if this Clause is accepted the whole of a General Election can be done à la Rochdale on the outgoing register.
694
Perhaps they think they had better keep on the safe side and risk all the inconvenience of a very short interval between the Order in Council and the General Election; risk all the inconvenience to the electorate, to the officials, to everybody else concerned, in order at all costs to remove this insistent temptation to work the whole of the General Election on an out-of-date register. It is clear they have it in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(LARGE ELECTORATES.)
(1) If at any time the electorate of a constituency is more than eighty thousand it shall be the duty of the appropriate Boundary Commission, after taking the necessary steps under subsection (4) of section two of the principal Act, to submit to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of that section a report with respect to the area comprised in that constituency and in any neighbouring constituencies appearing to the Commission to be concerned.
(2) The appropriate Boundary Commission may in such a case recommend the creation of an additional constituency until the next general review.
(3) Subsection (5) of the said section two shall apply to a report submitted under this section:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall lay such a report before Parliament, whether or not the report states that no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom with which the Commission are concerned.
(5) In this section the expression "electorate" has the meaning attributed to it for the purpose of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act.
(5) This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which Rule 6 of the said rules applies.
(6) This section shall have effect without prejudice to the generality of the said subsection (3).—[Mr. Parker.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Parker: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In asking the Committee to accept this Clause I have Hornchurch particularly in mind. I understand that the electorate there is already 88,000, although in 1955 it was about the normal for other constituencies. There is every chance that by the time the next General Election takes place, under this Bill, say, in 1964,

695
the electorate in that area may be well over 100,000, possibly 120,000. The population is growing rapidly and there is plenty of room for building houses. I would have thought it undesirable that we should have an anomaly of this kind perpetuated for such a long time, and I suggest that we ought to take a decision upon it tonight.
I speak with feeling on this matter, having represented a large constituency before 1945. From 1935 to 1945, I was Member for the old division of Romford, which, in 1918, was a normal-sized constituency. Thanks, however, to the building of L.C.C. housing estates especially, and to other developments in the area, when I was elected for the area in 1935 the electorate was already 169,000 and it rose during the ten years to 1945 to 207,000. It had to be divided into four separate constituencies.
I suggest that there is a danger, not only in Hornchurch but elsewhere, of that kind of anomaly arising. New towns are under construction. Some of them may grow rapidly. I think, therefore, that we ought to take a decision about this example and also about the principle of the matter.
This Clause proposes that the Boundary Commission should be able to look at such a constituency—in fact, should be ordered to do so—when the electorate reaches the figure of 80,000. In this case, it could divide the constituency, here and now, into two constituencies of approximately 44,000 each. If it did that, both seats would be larger than many now existing. If it were possible to do that, the Boundary Commission could look at the matter again at the time of the next general review. What I am suggesting is that in such a case we should ask the Boundary Commission just to deal with that particular anomaly, to provide for an extra Member for the time being, and then to review the whole position when the general review takes place.
9.0 p.m.
Having an extra Member in the House for a few years would not matter very much, because it might be later decided to bring down the number to what it was before. The advantage of my proposal is that it would prevent having to alter the boundaries of all sorts of constituencies in order to find an extra seat for one group of constituents. That
696
is what we want to avoid and it is the purpose of the Bill to avoid altering boundaries all over the place and inconveniencing many Members by the sudden alteration of boundaries. My proposal would enable that to be avoided in a very practical way.
I ask the Government to tell us what they propose to do about the Hornchurch constituency, with its 88,000 electors and a growing electorate, and whether they could provide for an extra Member for that area, possibly taking into account immediately surrounding constituencies, but not others, and whether that would not be a sensible way out of the difficulty. I also ask the Government to say what they want to do on the principle of the matter as a whole.
Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I associate myself with most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I, too, would like to know what is to be done about the constituency of Hornchurch. At the outset, I want to thank the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for his appreciation of the manner in which the people of Hornchurch are now being represented. I agree with him entirely.
The new Clause will bear serious consideration by the Government. Hornchurch is the perfect example of a constituency which has grown very rapidly since the war. Immediately after the war, there were 45,000 electors and there are now 87,000 out of a population of 116,000. If sixteen years are allowed to elapse before any attempt is made to deal with such a constituency, it must be generally admitted that the burden placed on the Member is nothing compared with the burden placed on the constituent trying to get representation through his Member. That is a great deal more important.
This afternoon, the Committee has given too much consideration to the Member and what he has to do and too little to the plight in which a constituent finds himself when he wants assistance from a Member who has to represent a number so large that he is precluded from giving personal attention to an individual case.
I was delighted that on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed the opinion—and his opinions in these

697
matters are always valuable, because of his long experience—that a constituency such as Hornchurch could be dealt with under existing powers. I believe that that is so and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was of the opinion that the Bill did not in any way take away the powers from the Act of 1949. It therefore seems that there is a power for the Boundary Commission to deal with a division such as mine.
So long as I can be assured that the assessors, to which the Secretary of State referred on Second Reading, will refer to the Boundary Commission the facts as they exist, then I am confident that Hornchurch will get a second Member. There is no difference of opinion in Hornchurch between its political parties, its Member of Parliament and its local council, so none of the alarming fears which have been mentioned previously today is justified.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Boundary Commission has power to act. We are so often told by Ministers—of Governments of both parties—"There is nothing to worry about; the Boundary Commission", or whatever body it is, "will know exactly what its powers are, and it can act under those powers and all will be well." When the Act is on the Statute Book, however, and the people concerned ask for action and write to the Boundary Commission, or whoever it may be, they are told, "Unfortunately, we are precluded from acting." It is found that a phrase in the Act allows them to sit back and say, self-righteously, that they are prevented from acting.
It is the duty of a Member such as myself to make sure that that position does not arise when Hornchurch, either through its local council or myself, asks the Commission to consider sympathetically the matters which will undoubtedly be brought before it.
Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) has a very acute appreciation of the inspissated obscurantism and ineluctable obstinacy of all Governments. The question that we now have to consider is whether, in the light of those well-known facts, the Clause is necessary, like the journey in
698
the railway train. The Joint Under-Secretary has told us that it all depends, in practice, upon the operation of Section 2 (3) of the principal Act.
Although the Bill is now going through, that subsection has always been up there, watching over us. If it is not operating; if we have been watched without knowing it; if the Boundary Commission, in the active and continuous discharge of its functions has not been quite so invisible to the naked eye as it should have been, we are given cause to wonder whether it might not require what I called a tug at the coat, or the kind of inducement given it by the existence of a constituency swollen to the size of Hornchurch.
In short, if it is to act as wonderfully as we were told it would, despite the obstinacy of the Government in refusing every attempt to give it a prod, impulse, reminder, or whatever one likes to call it, how comes it that over all these years Hornchurch has been growing and growing and growing, and nobody has done a thing about it? Not a thing has been done; not even by the member of the Boundary Commission nominated by the Home Office; not even by the member of the Boundary Commission nominated by another Government Department; not even by the technical gentleman the Registrar-General, and what-not, who, till today, had been sitting as part of the Commission. They may have registered many things, but they have not registered the need to take any action about Hornchurch.
There it is. It has been always with us. Hornchurch has been growing; nothing has happened. Can the Government tell us, conclusively and finally, that such a change of heart has come over the institutions of this country, including, in this case, the Boundary Commission, that, for once in a way, it will do its continuous job without being prodded? I hope that they can tell us that; otherwise, it seems that much that they have been telling us in the past has been drawing wool over our eyes and deceiving us as to the extent of inertia inherent in all Governmental institutions.
Mr. Renton: When I saw this proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper, I little thought it was but a convenient way of pressing for another Member for Horn-church, but as the need of Hornchurch

699
for another Member has been suggested in the debate perhaps I should mention it.
One of the reasons, perhaps, why Hornchurch has not had a second Member as soon as it might have is the energy and ability displayed by my hon. Friend in representing with very great skill no fewer that 80,000 people. I feel that it was to a very large extent modesty on his part which caused him to join the clamour which has been raised on this new Clause, which itself has a very much wider purpose.
As I have been challenged to say something about what is to happen so far as Hornchurch is concerned, let me, first, reassure my hon. Friend that there is abundant power under the 1949 Act for the Boundary Commission to make an interim review. The fact that that power has not been used so far is no indication that it will not be used in future.
Those who are so anxious for the power to be used have had the procedure explained to them by me on an earlier Amendment. All that they have to do is to make representations to the Boundary Commission, and if they care to make them through my right hon. Friend, he will be glad to forward them.
I presume that, in spite of the fact that Hornchurch has loomed so large in this discussion, I must deal with the merits of the proposed new Clause, lest the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) should think I was in any way discourteous, especially when he has taken a certain amount of trouble. At first sight, it is rather tempting to deal with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called the "Fat Boys" in this way, but we would be highly selective if we decided that one particular reason for holding an interim review should be made the subject of this special procedure, when there are various other examples which have been mentioned in the course of the discussion on earlier Amendments, and which might
700
very well have been made the subject of special procedure, had such procedure been necessary.
My contention on this proposed Clause, as it was on a previous Amendment, is that no such procedure is necessary. The obligation of the Commission, as I said earlier, is a continuing one, as is clear from Section I (1) of the 1949 Act. The power to hold an interim review is an unfettered one, the opportunities provided for the Commission are unlimited, and, in these circumstances, there does not appear to be any need for the special procedure which the hon. Gentleman has suggested to the Committee.
My duty is to advise the Committee to reject the Clause, but, as I believe that this is the last proposal for amendment of the Bill that we shall be discussing this evening, may I say with great humility that, so far as I recollect, no Committee stage of any Bill of this kind dealing with the distribution of seats for the House of Commons has ever taken place in such an equable and pleasant atmosphere, nor, if I may say so with humility to the Chair, with such a tremendous regard for the rules of order. May I say, on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, what a pleasure it has been to us to take part in such proceedings.
Question put and negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to examine the Park Lane Improvement Bill with respect to the applicability of the Standing Orders relative to Private Business to the Amendments made to the Bill by the Standing Committee.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (HAMPSON INDUSTRIES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
9.15 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale: I wish to raise a constituency matter and, as we have just been hearing about the importance of constituency matters being represented in this House in the case of large constituencies, I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I deal with this subject.
A firm in my constituency, Messrs. Hampson Industries, manufactures articles of great importance to the aircraft industry, and as long ago as July, 1955, it was invited to tender for a 20-kilowatt serving trolley. This is used in servicing aeroplanes to see that the electrical equipment is in proper condition. In September of that year Ministry of Supply officials visited the firm and said they found the work satisfactory. In fact they were impressed by the design which they saw. On 9th November Messrs. Hampson were told that the Ministry of Supply would decide later whether to give an order. Apparently the Ministry could not make up its mind at that time.
The Ministry continued in correspondence with the firm without saying that it had actually given the contract to another firm. That is rather a curious procedure. I do not know whether it is something which the Ministry often does—give a contract to one firm without telling the other firm and keep up correspondence with a firm which apparently had been rejected and give it the idea that it was still in the running.
After a time Messrs. Hampson objected to this and asked whether something could be done. They were told unofficially by a high-ranking civil servant that it would be to their advantage to make a unit as soon as possible. It seems a strange way of going about matters, but that was what the firm was told. Accordingly, a unit was made, but nothing happened. Some months elapsed and the next thing was that in early October, 1956, fifteen months after the firm was first asked to tender, the matter was mentioned, in conversation, to the present
702
Paymaster-General who at that time was the Minister of Supply.
As we know, the right hon. Gentleman is a man of great force and drive and he at once took action. He said that the unit was to be accepted as an alternative to the competitor's unit. That was something which had never been done before. On 30th October the Ministry of Supply, having, apparently, been prodded into this action by the Paymaster-General, asked Messrs. Hampson what they wanted. That would appear to be a curious request after all this time. Messrs. Hampson said that what they wanted was an order and that they had been trying to get their machine tested for months. The Ministry of Supply might well have been aware of this. Still, nothing happened until 6th December.
Then the Paymaster-General again looked into the matter. This time he met the managing director of the firm, as a result of which meeting he said that the firm was to go ahead and produce the machine and have it tested later. On 31st January, 1957, the unit was tested and found to be satisfactory. During the months that followed, the machine, which might have been of great service to the R.A.F., was not being produced. On 5th April, after agreement on prices, instructions were issued to the Ministry of Supply to collect the unit from the works. All tests were completed by the end of May. The R.A.F. was quite satisfied with them although the Ministry of Supply officials had previously given the impression that the machine was of no use at all.
Meanwhile a new Minister had arrived at the Ministry of Supply. The Paymaster-General had gone. No doubt the new Minister was occupied in settling in, and going into a number of other matters, besides the question of this machine. The matter was allowed to drop, and again there was delay. The next thing that happened was in August, 1957, some months afterwards, when Messrs. Hampson were asked for specifications and prices. The Ministry of Supply already had those in its possession, but again asked for them. The firm was asked to quote for certain additions, which it did. In October, 1957, the firm asked what had happened and was told that its tender would be accepted strictly on grounds of price and that it must reduce its price. This it did.

703
On 10th December, 1957, the firm was informed that its tender was declined, not on price at all but on delivery and on technical grounds, something quite different, which the firm had never been told about before. To say that the rejection was on technical grounds was rather curious, because the unit had previously been approved by the Ministry's own design department, and as to delivery it was the Ministry which had been responsible for two years' delay. It was equally strange therefore to turn down the offer on grounds of delivery.
In December, 1957, Hampson's approached me and I wrote to the Minister. The Minister replied:
"You wrote to me on 16th December about the disappointment which Hampson Industries feel at the loss of the contract for a relatively small Air Ministry requirement of electrical servicing trolleys."
I suppose when one is running anything as big as a large Ministry, like the Ministry of Supply, one feels that a small firm and a small unit are of no importance. This is only a small firm; it has only 100 employees, but to the firm this was a large order, even if it was not so to a Minister of Supply, sitting at the head of the Ministry. Hampson's had spent no less than £8,000 on developing the trolley, and it kept the production space open all this time while the Ministry was making up its mind.
The Minister made a very curious remark in his letter. He said:
"It would, I think, be undesirable, from all points of view, for the firm to be represented at our meeting."
In other words, I, the Member of Parliament, was not to take these gentlemen to the Minister because it would be undesirable. The curious thing is that the Paymaster-General had been willing to see them without the Member of Parliament. Why should it be undesirable for the present Minister to see them with their Member of Parliament. This is something very strange about which I should like to have an answer. The date for the meeting was fixed but then the meeting was postponed. I have no doubt the Minister was busy. He wrote to me and explained the situation.
I thought that the time had come when the matter should be brought to a head, and brought to a head in public. It is a lamentable state of affairs. It is true
704
that it concerns only a small order, but it is an order related to the safety of aeroplanes and should, therefore, be of great importance to the Ministry of Supply. Nearly three years have gone by. Why? I can only suppose that it is due to a lack of co-ordination not only between the Air Ministry, the R.A.F. and the Ministry of Supply but between the different departments in the Ministry of Supply itself.
So far as I understand the matter, the Ministry of Supply design office has the last word in all these things. At the head of that office there are two men, one of whom has admitted to Hampson's directors that he is unfamiliar with the unit concerned. So we are left with one man upon whose word, apparently, the fate of this order was to depend. This is, as I have said, a small machine. The Minister implies that it is unimportant but, though it is small, it is of great importance to aeroplanes.
If this happens in the case of a small machine, how are we to know that it does not happen in the case of large machines? If this happens with a servicing trolley, what happens with a bomber? This has revealed a state of affairs so unsatisfactory that something should be done about it. It points to something in the Ministry which might spread from small things to the very largest machines for which that Department is responsible.
The Prime Minister is a very busy man and has plenty to occupy him, but I think that he might take time off for at least an hour. Having gone into the affairs of the Ministry of Supply, I think that he would find that it well worth his while to order an inquiry into its organisation, to make quite certain that it is an organisation capable of dealing with such matters as this, and not, as many of us think it is today, an organisation that is defective in many respects.
9.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has raised an issue of great importance, because the basis of his case is that the Minister of Supply has discriminated unfairly against Hampson Industries in allocating contracts. This is a most serious allegation—
Mr. Dugdale: I want to make it quite clear that I am not saying that the

705
Ministry has discriminated with malice aforethought, but that this is due to lack of co-ordination, and incompetence, which is quite different.
Mr. Taylor: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman meant he certainly conveyed the impression that there had been unfair discrimination against this firm in the allocation of contracts. I repeat that that is a most serious allegation to make against a Government Department, and one that can be answered only after a most thorough-going investigation. I have made such a thorough investigation into all the facts of this case.
The right hon. Gentleman, some months ago, drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to a number of contracts about which the firm had complained. I have personally studied the circumstances in which each contract was placed, and the facts that I shall lay before the House tonight are based on the result of this careful and impartial examination. Before I do that, I should like to make one or two references to the implied charge of discourtesy on the part of my right hon. Friend and of officials of the Ministry that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
First, I should like to dispose of the suggestion that my right hon. Friend or my Department treated either the right hon. Gentleman or the firm with discourtesy. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the firm wrote to the Minister on four occasions last year, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of Ministerial office, would not suggest for a moment that a Minister should reply personally to every firm which is dissatisfied with its share of Government contracts. Each of these letters, with the exception of the last, received an acknowledgement or a reply of some kind from the Department, although I must admit—and I have read the correspondence—that those replies were not of a nature which could bring any comfort, in the circumstances, to Hampson Industries Ltd.
The answer to the final letter was on the point of being despatched when the right hon. Gentleman took up this matter with my right hon. Friend. He made an appointment to discuss this case in January of this year with my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately, at the last moment this appointment had to be cancelled because of pressure of urgent
706
business. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that it was not possible to arrange another appointment before he went on a trip abroad, but he was told that my right hon. Friend would be glad to see him as soon as possible after his return from India.
The right hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of that offer and, if I may say so with all due respect to him and to the House, I think it is rather a pity that he did not do so, because I feel strongly that it is desirable that complicated and technical matters of this nature should not be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons and that Departments should not be asked to justify in this way their judgment on tender competition before a Member has used every other means that he has at his disposal of obtaining satisfaction.
This is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, rather a small firm as firms go, in the national picture. Hampson Industries Ltd. is a small private company with an issued capital of £1,000 and it employs a labour force of about 100. It manufactures generating sets, water pumping sets and other electrical equipment of this type. During the last six or seven years the Ministry of Supply has placed a number of contracts with this firm for the repair, development and production of equipment to a total value of £90,000. I understand that the firm has also had other work for other Government Departments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that £90,000 worth of work which this firm has done for the Ministry of Supply is not an unsubstantial volume of work, having regard to the size of the firm.
In the correspondence, the right hon. Gentleman sent us details of seven tenders in which the firm considered that it had been treated unfairly. Let me say, at the outset, that in judging this tender competition, the Department is under no, obligation to accept the lowest tender, although, of course, we aim to do so where other factors are evenly balanced. Nevertheless, the form which is sent with each invitation to tender and which was sent to Hampson Industries Ltd. in each of the cases which we are discussing tonight, contains the following words:
"The authority"—
and that means in this case the Minister of Supply—
"shall be under no obligation to accept the lowest or any tender."

707
The Ministry of Supply, like any other purchaser, has to bear in mind such other factors as technical merit and dates of delivery.
I have referred to seven tender competitions which the firm has complained about. In one of these the firm has complained because it was not invited to tender. This was the case of a requirement for a large and complicated set. We restricted the competition to those firms with the greatest facilities for and experience in the work involved. In four of the remaining six cases the prices quoted by Hampson's were not the lowest. In some of these the firm's equipment did not meet the specification in that it was over weight, and the delivery dates were unsatisfactory. In the remaining two cases the equipment was required urgently by the Air Ministry and the only way of obtaining deliveries in time was to place the orders with the firms whose equipment had already been developed and tested to the required standards. Hampson's had no suitable equipment available at that point of time.
The right hon. Gentleman went into some detail about the big order, the order for the 20 kW ground service trolleys for aircraft. One of the last two competitions was for the 20 kW ground service trolley. This is the firm's main grievance, I believe, and the right hon. Gentleman went into it in some detail, and I think I ought to give him the full facts about this equipment. He went through the whole story as he has it, with the dates and the state of development, the competition, alternative equipment, and so on, and I hope he will follow me when I give him the details as I have sifted them out of this long and complicated record.
This trolley is a mobile generator which provides the power and testing equipment for servicing Javelin all-weather fighters. The story goes back to 1955, when the Air Ministry's technical requirement called for the development of a prototype to be completed before Javelins came into service. Tenders were received in August, 1955, of which only those by Hampson's and one other firm were technically acceptable, Hampson's quoting, in this case, the lower price. First deliveries were, however, required urgently by the Air Ministry, and since the other firm had offered better delivery dates it was decided to accept its tender.
708
The development was completed satisfactorily by this firm and a production order was subsequently placed with it.
Secondly, in May, 1956, Hampson's informed the Ministry of Supply that it was developing a trolley to meet this requirement as a private venture. That means that there was no Ministry of Supply or Government money involved in the undertaking. The firm foresaw, by developing this private venture, considerable prospects of worldwide business. It was, of course, made clear to the firm that the Department was under no obligation to order this equipment at any stage. It was purely a venture on the firm's part, freely entered into in the ordinary way of private enterprise in an effort to improve the firm's business.
Hampson's development went on for another year after that, and the set did not become available in a form suitable for trials until April, 1957. Works tests and service trials were then carried out during the following months and completed by August, 1957. These proved that the equipment Hampson's had submitted would, subject to minor alterations, meet the requirement, but I cannot agree that the Service trials proved that the Hampson trolley was in any way superior to any other trolley produced at that time, a claim which has often been made by the firm.
These trials showed, in fact, that there was very little, if anything, to choose technically between this trolley and the one already on order. A specification framed to include the Hampson design was drawn up and Hampson's and the firm already in production were invited to tender, each to its own design, for a production order in September, 1957.
The other firm which had previously received a development and production contract from the Department submitted a lower tender, but before the contract was awarded Hampson's represented to the Department that it had tendered to a higher quality than the other firm. To meet Hampson's, both firms were given an opportunity of revising their tenders. I must say, as one with some experience of these matters, that that seems to me to be going quite a long way after a tender has been received. The firm can clearly read what is involved in the specification. To be given an opportunity to go back and resubmit a tender to fit in with some

709
other competitor seems to me to be going rather further than I personally would have been prepared to go with any firm with which I was connected before I came to this House.
As I have said, both firms were given an opportunity of revising their tenders. The other firm confirmed its previous tender, but Hampson's introduced lower standard components and submitted a slightly lower tender. However, the revised Hampson set provided for a large number of new components and would have required at least four months' further trials before production could start. The Air Ministry said that it was unable to accept further delay, so the contract was given to the other firm.
The conclusion to which I have come after a very careful study of all this rather complicated evidence is that the officials of the Ministry of Supply confirmed have been scrupulously fair in the decisions they have made. Indeed, I might almost say that they have gone out of their way to meet Hampson's and to ensure that firm getting a square deal in our tender considerations.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has been frank in making his allegations against the Department—he was not very kind at the end of his speech—I hope he will not mind if I am equally frank. Hampson's has complained to the Department every time it has been unsuccessful in tendering for our orders. We have endeavoured to satisfy the firm by explaining the grounds on which its tenders have been rejected. I am sorry that the firm remains dissatisfied. I have been engaged in the engineering business for many years and, in my time, have submitted a great many tenders. I have also missed a great many orders. Indeed, I should have been better off if I had missed some of those I received. However, few of us are fortunate enough to be able to guarantee success in everything we do. We cannot be successful all the time. That is really the short story of this case.
Of course, it is disappointing when a tender is rejected, but one has to learn to accept these disappointments and to take them with good grace. It is no good making accusations of discrimination or unfairness every time one loses a tender. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is unfair to the officials concerned
710
to make very vague allegations without the slightest evidence with which to support them. If he can produce real evidence as to individuals, dates and times which bears investigation, or calls for investigation, I shall be very glad to look into the matter further. But I can find not a shred of evidence of favouritism or discrimination in our dealings with this firm.
As I said before, Hampson's has, in the past, received a substantial amount of work from us, and we shall continue to consider the firm for future contracts on its merits. I can only express the hope that, in the light of our debate this evening, the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that our relations with the firm will, as far as we are concerned, continue to be friendly, and I hope that we may proceed in future to do business in a happy and amicable spirit. I should like to add that if this kind of matter were taken to a logical conclusion and every contract was the subject of discussion here, we should get into a really intolerable situation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question. Why, he asked, did the former Minister of Supply, the present Paymaster-General, see the firm without a Member of Parliament, and why did my right hon. Friend refuse to see the firm with a Member of Parliament? I repeat that if every firm which had dealings with the Ministry of Supply sought personal interviews with the Minister, with or without their Members, life would be quite intolerable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss, or feel in any way offended because of the quite reasonable actions my right hon. Friend has taken in this case.
Mr. Dugdale: I do not, and I sincerely hope that the Paymaster-General does not, take amiss the remarks which have just been made about him.
Mr. Taylor: I hope so, too. Nothing I have said could give any offence to the Paymaster-General. It is merely a question of personal judgment. The Paymaster-General judged it in one way, and my right hon. Friend judged it in another. I meant nothing which could give offence to my right hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
  Taxi-cabs (Licences)
  Taxi-cabs (Licences)
  Police Pensioners
  Police Pensioners
  Prisoners (Maintenance Costs and Earnings)
  Prisoners (Maintenance Costs and Earnings)
BECHUANALAND
  Legislative Council
  Legislative Council
EDUCATION
  St. Mary's School, Islington (Rebuilding)
  St. Mary's School, Islington (Rebuilding)
  Tasker's High School for Girls, Haverfordwest
  Tasker's High School for Girls, Haverfordwest
  Technical Colleges (Teachers)
  Technical Colleges (Teachers)
  Secondary Schools (Pre-appenticeship Courses)
  Secondary Schools (Pre-appenticeship Courses)
  Day-Release Courses (Rural Areas)
  Day-Release Courses (Rural Areas)
  Circular (Commonwealth and International Affairs)
  Circular (Commonwealth and International Affairs)
  HOSPITAL, LUTON (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  HOSPITAL, LUTON (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports (Embargo Lists)
  Exports (Embargo Lists)
  Butter
  Butter
  North Eastern Trading Estates
  North Eastern Trading Estates
  Development Areas (Capital Expenditure)
  Development Areas (Capital Expenditure)
  Cotton Yarn (Exports to East Germany)
  Cotton Yarn (Exports to East Germany)
  Factories, Llandaff and Cardiff (Use)
  Factories, Llandaff and Cardiff (Use)
  Trade with The Argentine
  Trade with The Argentine
  Patent Office (Comptroller)
  Patent Office (Comptroller)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Cinemas, Scotland
  Cinemas, Scotland
  Economic Survey and White Papers (Publication)
  Economic Survey and White Papers (Publication)
  United States Forces, United Kingdom (Petrol)
  United States Forces, United Kingdom (Petrol)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Trust Territories (Trade)
  Trust Territories (Trade)
  East African Railways and Harbours Administration
  East African Railways and Harbours Administration
GAMBIA
  Special Police Force
  Special Police Force
  Gambia Regiment
  Gambia Regiment
UGANDA
  Buganda (Direct Elections)
  Buganda (Direct Elections)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Northern Provinces (Development)
  Northern Provinces (Development)
CYPRUS
  Future
  Future
SCOTLAND
  White Fish Authority (Scheme)
  White Fish Authority (Scheme)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Small Farmers (Assistance)
  Small Farmers (Assistance)
  Pest Destruction Service (Discontinuation)
  Pest Destruction Service (Discontinuation)
  Guaranteed Prices
  Guaranteed Prices
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ANGLO-JAPANESE TRADE
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give particulars of imports and exports by the United Kingdom and Colonies with Japan, for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, and the value of re-exports for those years through United Kingdom ports to Japan, also whether Her Majesty's Government can make a statement on the present negotiations between the British and the Japanese Governments concerning the trade between the two countries.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, United Kingdom imports from Japan in each of the three years 1955–57 were about £24 million. United Kingdom exports to Japan in those years were £13 million, £22 million and £28 million respectively. Re-exports averaged about £1½ million annually. Imports into the Colonies were about £64 million in 1955, £87 million in 1956 and £90 million in 1957. Colonial exports to Japan were £18 million, £34 million and £33 million respectively in these years. The estimates for 1957 are provisional. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will appreciate that, owing to the entrepôt and transit trade that takes place through Hong Kong and Singapore, it is not possible to give precise figures. For more detailed particulars. I would refer the noble Lord to the published Trade and Navigation Accounts for December, 1957, in respect of United Kingdom trade, and to the Digest of Colonial Statistics No. 36 in respect of Colonial Trade.
  As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, trade negotiations between this country and Japan started on
  492
  February 17 and are still in progress. These negotiations are, of course, confidential, and I can make no statement about them at this stage; but an announcement will be made in the usual way as soon as the talks are over.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I would ask him if he is aware of the considerable difference between imports into this country and the Colonies and the exports of this country and the Colonies to Japan. In 1957 (if my additions are correct) there was a difference of approximately £50 million. Is the noble Lord aware that there is considerable concern in Yorkshire among woollen piece goods manufacturers at the threat of the Japanese Government to reduce the import licence allocation in the event of this country's not increasing its imports of canned food? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will impress upon the Japanese Government the necessity, or the desirability, of an increase in our woollen piece goods trade with Japan? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that these trade agreements are made yearly, and that this fact causes considerable inconvenience, concern and uncertainty among the trading community, and whether Her Majesty's Government would consider whether trade agreements of this character—if we must have them—could not be of, say. three years' duration?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have those points well in mind, and I believe that the representatives also have them in mind; but I will make quite certain that they do not go by default.

  TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ORIGIN OF GOODS
  3.10 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their understanding, if and when they negotiate trade agreements with other countries, that goods to be supplied under these agreements shall be manufactured wholly or in part in

  493
  the countries concerned in the trade agreement, and whether they would make it a condition of such agreement that goods to be supplied under these agreements should be covered by a certificate of origin, or an invoice certifying that they have been wholly or partially manufactured in the country concerned in the agreement.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is certainly our intention that quotas given to us under a trade agreement should be filled by our goods and not by goods from third countries. If in any instance there were evidence that goods from other countries were being imported against our quotas we should ask the Government concerned to take appropriate steps, including, if necessary, the use of certificates of origin, to put the matter right. There is no need, however, to ask for such arrangements in all cases, as the noble Lord suggests, and it would be unlikely to commend itself to the other Governments concerned. Moreover, it would in most cases impose a considerable extra burden of documentation upon our exporters. But if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will give me the details of any particular cases lie has in mind, I will gladly have them investigated.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord once again. On the question of re-exports, in his Answer to my first Question he gave the figure for re-exports to Japan as £1½ million. May I ask him whether that was covered by our own quotas? Secondly, he mentioned the added work involved in filling out these documents. Is the noble Lord aware that manufacturers and traders are very happy to do that when they can enjoy preferential treatment in the Commonwealth?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's first supplementary question without notice. With regard to his second question, I will only say that there seems to be some conflict of opinion. I have heard a contrary view to the one he has just expressed.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether, if it were proved that in a particular case boxes had been bought by a certain country, and that the products of that
  494
  country had been put into those boxes and the boxes then sold as of British origin, that would not be a reason for having a certificate of origin?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it might well be.

  POLICE PENSIONS (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1958
  3.13 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I rise to move that the Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations. 1958, be approved. They have been prepared to give effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Police Council for Great Britain in favour of allowing police pensions to be commuted for a lump sum and extending the existing arrangements for the allocation of police pensions to dependants. As your Lordships are probably aware, at present the retiring award for a police officer consists of a pension only. The Regulations provide that officers who have completed thirty or more years' service will in future have the option of surrendering up to one-sixth of their pension in return for a lump sum. Officers who are required to retire on the ground of age or ill-health before they have been able to complete thirty years service will also have this option.
  It is already possible for a police officer to surrender part of his pension to provide a pension after his death for his widow or some other person dependent on him. He can, however, make such art allocation only at the actual time of his retirement. The draft Regulations provide that in future an officer will be able to give notice of his intention to allocate once he has qualified for pension, namely, at any time after he has completed twenty-five years' service. This will enable him to provide cover for his dependant during his final years of service as well as after his retirement. The introduction of these new arrangements will improve the facilities which the police pensions scheme offers to the members of our police forces and their dependants, and I commend the draft Regulations to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing these Regulations. The House will be most grateful to the noble Lord for having taken the trouble to explain them. I realise that they are probably all right, and that the Special Orders Committee have certified that they contain no special matter of principle and can be approved. But the fact remains that there is a responsibility upon every Member of this House to satisfy himself that the Regulations are perfectly in order, and it is quite impossible to discharge that responsibility if we receive these Regulations only a few minutes before they are to be presented to the House. I myself got them only as I came to the House this afternoon.
  If noble Lords will take the trouble to read Regulation I, they will see that it says:
  In paragraph (3) of Regulation 6 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1955(b), as amended by Regulation 4 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1956(c), (which relates to entitlement to, and the calculation of, a policeman's supplemental pension) after the words and is reduced in accordance with' there shall be inserted the words 'the provisions of Regulation 6A, of Regulation 70 or of'."
  If noble Lords are expected to understand what that means in the space of a few minutes, they must be much quicker-minded than I profess to be. I am not making any particular complaint about these Regulations, because I think they are all right, and I am prepared to accept from the noble Lord that that is so. But I would ask him to ensure that we receive longer notice of these matters, so that those of us who want to discharge our responsibility are enabled to look up all these Regulations which it is proposed to amend, and to discharge our duty properly. If there were time I would ask the noble Lord to allow us a few days in which to look at these Regulations. I am not asking him to do that to-day, but I would ask him to ensure that in future we have at least a few days in which to look at Regulations which we are asked to approve. I see that these Regulations were discussed in the Special Orders Committee on March 19, eight days ago, so there was ample time, if our attention had been drawn to the matter, for us to have a look at them.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am not going to intervene on the merits
  496
  of these particular Regulations. I rise only because I think that Lord Silkin, quite rightly vigilant, as an Opposition should be in all things, has advised the House that they have a duty, which I think really, if I may respectfully say so, they have not. As I understand it, the whole object of having a Special Orders Committee is that all Orders shall go to that Committee.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: It does not relieve us of our right to look at these Orders, but one of the duties of the Special Orders Committee, if I am right, is to report to the House whether any important question of principle is raised in a proposed Order or Regulation, and so put us on our guard if there is anything important that the House should discuss. It is a convenient way of doing our business, and if the Special Orders Committee do their job—as I am perfectly sure they do—thoroughly and conscientiously, we get in their Report a notice saying whether or not there is something in which we ought particularly to interest ourselves. As Lord Silkin has raised this question almost as a matter of principle. I thought it was perhaps right that that should be said.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, but he will appreciate that these Regulations are laid before Parliament, not before the Special Orders Committee. And while we are very grateful to the Special Orders Committee, who approve these Orders and advise us and draw our attention to any difficult points, that does not absolve the House from its responsibility of looking at these Orders; and I would wish myself, on behalf of my noble friends, to have the opportunity of looking at them in case there is any point which we wish to present to the House.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for having drawn our attention to the consideration which the Special Orders Committee give to these Orders. But I also find myself in agreement with the noble Lord opposite, in that undoubtedly the House has a responsibility in all matters which it approves, and therefore I can appreciate that it would be advisable that your Lordships should have Orders such

  497
  as this as early as possible. I shall certainly look into that matter. In the present case the House can take comfort from the fact that these Regulations are made on the unanimous recommendation of the Police Council for Great Britain.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should not have said a word had it not been for the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It is very questionable whether your Lordships' House 'should have a parity of powers with another place in respect of Statutory Rules and Orders. Many hold, and I agree, that these Orders could be dealt with by another place, as some of them are. But they do come here, and it is a fact that the power of this House is constantly growing, the more we use Statutory Orders as a method of legislation. But when the noble Earl now tells us that even this House has not the power—
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: No, my Lords, I did not say that. Really, the noble Viscount never listens to what is said; and if he does, he either deliberately or unwittingly fails to understand it. What I said was that both Houses had responsibility for these Orders—that is why they are brought before your Lordships' House. But I said that I did not think that it was incumbent on every single Member of your Lordships' House, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested, to read through every one of the Regulations. In order to save us from doing that and, at the same time, safeguard the position of Parliament, we have a standing Select Committee which goes through all Orders and reports to the House upon them, whether they are in accordance with precedent and so on, and particularly has the duty of drawing our attention to any matter of importance which it would be right for us to discuss. That is quite different from what the noble Viscount said.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl is very quick in the uptake: I had mentioned the subject and predicate, but I had not come to the object of my sentence. What I said was that the noble Earl said this House had not the power; and I was going on to add that he suggested that its powers were modified or qualified in some way by the fact that the Standing Orders Com-
  498
  mittee recommend these Orders. It is very useful to have a Standing Orders Committee, but it is preposterous if your Lordships' House is going to claim the right to remit to the Standing Orders Committee a parity of legislative power in respect of statutory instruments which in my opinion we should not have at all.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1958
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, these Scottish Regulations are identical with the Regulations which your Lordships have just approved for England and Wales. Accordingly, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HORSE BREEDING BILL [H.L.]
  3.23 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is also a Consolidation Bill and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES
  3.24 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN rose to call attention to the Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War accompanying the Army Estimates (Cmnd. 372); and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in order to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I must have a "seat, place and voice" in your Lordships' House. I feel no concern about the first two but I most sincerely beg your Lordships' pardon for any shortcomings in the matter of the third requirement.
  Three weeks ago we debated the Defence White Paper which, as your Lordships will remember, dealt with two main things—the broad aspects of defence, and also a certain number of matters of detail which were common to all three Services. To-day we shall be debating the narrower issues of the Army. We shall be debating my right honourable friend's Statement which accompanied the Army Estimates in another place, but I hope that your Lordships will not think it out of order if now and then we deal with matters which may not be in the Statement but are in the Defence White Paper as being inter-Service matters. Because we are dealing in details, it does not follow that we on this side of the House who voiced our approval of the policy laid down in the Defence White Paper thereby denied ourselves the opportunity, if we wanted it, to criticise one or two details. I may do that this afternoon, but, if I do, it will have no effect on the general support which I gave three weeks ago when we were debating the Defence White Paper.
  In Statements connected with the Army Estimates there is always a twofold view to be taken: that of the readiness of the Army for the tasks it has to perform at any given time; and also, not less important, the well-being of the people who happen to be in the Army at that time. This year's story is partly told in the Defence White Paper and partly in the Army Blue Paper. This is the second chapter in a policy which is now a year old, and during that year a great deal has happened in the Army. Let us see briefly what are the main things that have happened in the Army and to the Army.
  First of all, as your Lordships will see from the figures in the Appendix to the Statement, there has been a run-down, with a reduction of some 40,000 people. I do not suppose that anybody who has not himself been concerned or has not had relatives closely concerned with Service affairs, can fully realise what it means to an individual and a regiment when these cuts take place. There have been none like them for many years. A certain amount has been said about cuts in famous regiments, but far less—in fact, not enough—has been said, I think, of the swingeing cuts which the Royal Regiment of Artillery have had to take. To sum up, one can say that last year's reductions and amalgamations of regiments represent the first major surgical operation in the Army since the time of Cardwell. Certainly the Haldane reforms and the reduction of the Army after the South African War and again after the First World War were nothing like so serious in their effects on the Army and on the individuals who are in it.
  But in saying that, I think we ought to realise how extremely well this reduction has been handled by senior officers, the Army Council and everybody concerned with it. If it had not been so well handled, the results would have been infinitely worse. Here I think we see the proper use of tradition as a dynamic thing and not as a piece of defensive and reactionary machinery. It is because of that that the cuts have gone so well. This is an important matter. Although this has nothing to do with the Army, I think that we are going to come across the same problem when we get the local government reorganisation Bill in your Lordships' House. Again we shall have an opportunity to use our traditions dynamically or defensively, as we like. I hope that the example set by the Army of the dynamic use of tradition will be followed in other fields, wherever it is applicable.
  I come to the rebuilding of the Regular Army. It is too early to give a considered opinion of what has happened, and I think the only way is to give a short answer—"So far so good." But I would remind your Lordships that the plan for rebuilding the Army is not covered by one year's Estimates and Statement; it is a plan which, to obtain

  501
  its full effect, will have to go on until 1962, four years away. We shall have four Statements, four sets of Army Estimates, but four versions of one operation and not four separate plans. So it is too early to predict with certainty that this plan will be successful. We say: "So far so good", but we must remember that unless this plan is successful National Service in some form or other will be needed if we are to make good our commitments overseas. Therefore, if we wish, as we have said, that National Service should disappear, it is our duty, whoever and wherever we are, to give the utmost support to everything that is being done to foster and promote Regular recruiting for the Forces.
  These recruiting figures are curious in one way: they respond to no law. Many people have tried to find a formula connected with employment or unemployment, or pay, or something of that sort, but, for some reason, the willingness of the young man to join the Army, or to stay in it, has always eluded any formula. It looks as if we shall never find a formula related closely to economics, although recruiting will always have some relation to that subject. Probably recruits will come to the Army in proportion to the esteem in which the Army is held, just as much as to the economic advantages of a Service career as young men see it when they are contemplating their careers and as older men see it when contemplating the advisability of staying in the Army. It is against this background that we have to decide what we think of the measures proposed in the Statement.
  I do not think there is much doubt that, in general, the pay offered is ample, especially in regard to the lower ranks. But I am going to repeat—and I shall go on repeating this every time I address your Lordships on this subject—that I still do not think that the allowances are really related to the cost of the items which they are intended to cover. There is no evidence that this is so; in fact, all the evidence is the other way, because every attempt with which I have been concerned over the years to get an assurance that the allowances would be related to the cost of the items has met with no success at all. We must remember that, unless they are so related, there is a hidden debit to the soldier's account, because he is paying for certain things
  502
  for which he is supposed to get allowances out of his taxed income.
  I now want to come to the question of uniform. We saw in the White Paper that my right honourable friend's predecessor had decided that No. 1 dress was not, after all, to be the ideal dress of the Army. I sincerely hope that my right honourable friend has not fallen into a trap which I think has been set for all Secretaries of State ever since I had anything to do with the Army. Argument about uniform is an occupational disease which affects the whole of the Army and, in particular, the infantry of the line. Therefore, by the nature of things, no Secretary of State and no Government is ever likely to get much more than 51 per cent. agreement. Of course, from the financial point of view that is lovely, because you will always go on feeling that you have not made up your mind or got sufficient evidence in order to justify the great expense and use of cloth to give the troops a second uniform. That is why the troops have walked out in Service dress or battle dress ever since August 4, 1914.
  We want to be careful, particularly now, that this does not go on any longer. It will be necessary for the Government to make up their minds with 51 per cent. approval and no more, and go in one direction or another. Otherwise, we shall have these new Regular recruits, whom we want to get and who, when we get them, are going to be the darlings of Generals and politicians alike, still walking out in battledress, and our policy for getting these Regular recruits will not, like the headgear advertised in the Underground, be "cute from every angle." I say that quite seriously, because I see a real danger that we shall just drift on and a great deal of damage will be done.
  I sincerely welcome the appointment of the Grigg and the Whistler Committees; but I do that not so much because I like the idea of Committees but because I strongly approve of the eminent ex-Minister and the eminent General (General Whistler) who have been appointed to these Committees. I hope it does not mean that no Government can take a decision, which they are entitled to take in their own right, without having these Committees; but I would say that, if we are going to have

  503
  them, we have the right men in the job. If, on inquiry, a spade turns out to be a spade, I have no doubt it will appear as such in the Report of Sir James Grigg's Committee. I hope that when these two Committees issue their Reports action will be taken on them quickly.
  I should like to make one suggestion (if it can be done from these Benches) to the Whistler Committee—namely, that they should pay particular attention to the morale and the general position in the scheme of things of non-commissioned officers. Ever since the end of the war I have felt that non-commissioned officers as a class have not received the attention that they should. An immense amount of attention has been paid to the private soldiers, and the senior officers have been, as they should be, under the spotlight. But what of the sergeants' mess? Is it, as one might say, a power-house of progress; or is it a stronghold of reaction? Your Lordships and I will think of the sergeants' messes we know and make up our own minds. But here we are in the era of the Welfare State, with every member of the sergeants' mess having had (as one imagines) a secondary education, and we read, as I did the other day, of what is being done to the N.C.O.s in West Germany. Are we missing a trick here by not doing more to make the N.C.O. a thinking part of the Army? Personally, I think we could do quite a lot more.
  Now I come to retirement and resettlement. Again, it is early days to do more than say that I, for one, feel that we have got off to a good start. The terms are generous; the approach, so far as I can find out, has been a sympathetic and sensible one. But we shall be able to see a great deal more about this matter in a year's time, when the wheel has gone full circle and we find ourselves debating the Army Estimates of 1959.
  Over the whole of the plans for the Army there hangs the question mark of expense—after all, Estimates are familiar enough—and that means that every penny has had to be fought for. It can be taken that, in the present moment of credit squeeze, every item has been justified up to the hilt—and probably a great many items which are not included have been justified up to the hilt, too. Within these Estimates can be seen a net increase of £15 million on pay and pensions; and
  504
  then, what is slightly more sinister, a saving of £2½ million in stores and £4¾ million in works. Those are round figures, but if your Lordships look at the Estimates themselves you will find they are near enough to the mark. One cannot see these figures without feeling some concern as to the effect this will have on such things as barracks and uniform. I know that married quarters will not be in the Estimates, because they come in the Housing (Loans) Act, for which the previous Government were responsible; and they did a good day's work when it went through. Weapons are up by £3 million, but transport is down by £1 million. In that connection I think we ought to think again (it was in the papers the other day) of the state of our transport in places like the Rhine Army. It is not good. It does not put the British Army in a good light vis-à-vis our other Allies. In fact, we are not going the way to give the British soldier what the educationist has called in another context "parity of esteem" with his fellows. We shall have to watch that point, because it is not right as it stands now.
  That brings me to the second of the main points which come up in every White Paper, the readiness for service of the Army. It is no good thinking that you will have the right ideas in the Army if the people who are in the Army do not believe they are being well done by, that they can take, as in Alice in Wonderland, weapons large and new" fit for the deed they have to do. Here we come to this frightful name conventional forces and conventional weapons. As your Lordships know, I hate those words, and I shall go on hating them. This time I am hating them for a different reason—that anybody should start thinking that conventional weapons means outdated weapons, and conventional forces means outmoded organisations. Over the years between the wars, and at intervals since the war, there has been this impact of tradition and equipment. The one works on the other, and there are moments when the troops are reminded of their glorious regimental traditions in the past in order to turn their minds from their lack of material well-being or good armaments in the present. That was a marked feature of the treatment of the Army between the wars. It was a prostitution in the use of regimental tradition, and we must take

  505
  the greatest care that it does not happen now. I look with a certain amount of concern at the relatively small figures put in the Estimates for weapons, and I hope, as I said before, that the new Army is going to be treated well in every particular, including its own armament.
  Here I come to one or two of the smaller points which are mentioned in the White Paper. I notice that soldiers are being trained in the surface-to-surface guided weapon, and also in the surface-to-air guided weapon. I am wondering if that represents a change of policy from that which was announced a year or two ago. Then there is the brigade group. My noble friend Lord Freyberg is no friend of the brigade group, and although I have the greatest respect for him I am bound to differ here from what I know he feels, because my own experience, such as it is, and my own reading, make me certain that in these days the basic organisation of a brigade group is the right one. That is quite a different thing from saying that the hurriedly-put-together organisations in brigade groups in France in 1940, or in the Western Desert later on, were right, because they were not. But the brigade group, organised in peace time in forming part of a division which can command the right number of them, and the division forming part of a corps which can command the right number of them, is, I am sure, a much more flexible and necessary organisation for modern days.
  So is a central reserve of men, and the dispersal of equipment. But we must bear in mind that this idea of the central reserve is going to be expensive, and it can be realistic only if there is some prospect of getting the men from the central place to the scene of action in time to be able to intervene at the right moment, and not many days after the right moment. Therefore, I doubt very much whether a central reserve of men held in any one place can ever be held entirely to replace the men on the spot.
  When we come to the Reserve Forces, I feel that we have now a really sound recruiting; trend in the Territorial Army and one which is likely to stay. I say that not merely because the figures are showing it now but because there is every reason why the figures should show it. In the pre-war Territorial Army the great
  506
  bulk of the soldiers came from those who were enlisting for their first four years' period—that is to say, the age group 18 to 22. If that age group is not going to be called up for National Service, it is more than likely that the proper number will volunteer for the Territorial Army, as they did before. Here again, "so far so good"; but I feel, although I am not going to talk about it at length this afternoon, that a good deal of re-thinking of the rôle of the Territorial Army is necessary. The remarks in the Secretary of State's Statement could be said, not unfairly, to be of a stop-gap variety, but I do not think they are any the worse for that. I think the whole time of the War Office has had to be employed on the Regular Army in the last year. I, for one, would not blame them for a moment for having left the most important problem of the Reserve Forces over for a little while until they had time to give their minds to it. I would say, however, that that time has now come, and I hope most sincerely that in the re-thinking will be included the re-thinking of the organisation and the rôle of the mobile defence corps.
  Again I should welcome the Amery Report on the Army Cadet Force. On one or two points it may want a little more elasticity than it appears to have. But here again, the Report has only just been issued. It has been well received in all circles, and it must be given time to work itself out. So must the decisions taken on General Mansergh's Committee on Administration, if they have indeed been taken, and on the new works organisation.
  Here I should like to mention one other point which I hope one of my noble friends in front of me will be able to answer in the course of the debate, and that is what has been happening in the course of the last year in the matter of closer integration of the administrative services, such as medical, provost, transport and the rest of them. There is not a great deal said in any of the White Papers, and yet it is an important matter, particularly if one thinks, as I do, that this is one of the matters in which the greatest amount of financial saving can be made with the minimum amount of tears. So I hope that we shall have some news about that subject before the day is done.
  To go back to the changes proposed in administration and works, I feel that the savings which can be made in both those directions—and there are plenty of savings—will be made strictly and exactly in proportion to whether decentralisation of financial responsibility is allowed and in proportion as minor Treasury control is relaxed. I warn your Lordships that they will not be made otherwise. I could talk a great deal about that matter, but I shall not weary your Lordships now. No one is going to put his best foot foremost in economies which are out of his control, and if it comes to saving of paper those who can take the decisions do not have to write to themselves, and those who cannot take the decisions have to write to somebody else.
  So, my Lords, may I say one or two words in conclusion. We can sum up, I think, by saying that we are now engaged in one of the major reorganisations of the Army, which over history has seemed to be necessary to take place at intervals if the Army is to continue to be a proper instrument of national policy. Every so often, every 100 or 150 or 200 years, requirements change; the Army is wanted by the Government for something different and a new model has to be produced. Those who follow the course of history in these matters will see it quite plainly; they will see the basis of Cromwell's New Model Army, Marlborough's reorganisation, those changes for which Sir John Moore and the Duke of York were responsible, Cardwell's reforms and Haldane's reforms, all in their perspective; and this reorganisation is in direct succession to those.
  Therefore, special responsibility lies on those who are in charge now, a responsibility that this reorganisation is a genuine one, that the thinking which underlies it is genuine and that we are engaged on making the Army something of real use to national policy and not merely disguising necessities caused by limitations of cash or other influences of the kind. If the latter were so—and I am not suggesting it is—we should in the long run be leading only to frustration in the Army, waste of effort by the taxpayer, and so to national danger. Just think, my Lords, of the material which lies to the hand of those who are shaping the Army at the present time. I wonder whether you
  508
  would allow me to read a few words which come right at the end of Fortescue's History of the British Army. It is written, dealing with the Army of 1880 (and the words are no worse for being written by the uncle of our noble friend who sometimes sits in front of me):
  "Two centuries of persecution could not wear out its"—
  that is, the Army's—
  "patience. Two centuries of thankless toil could not abate its ardour. Two centuries of conquest could not awake it to insolence. Dutiful to its masters, merciful to its enemies, it clung steadfastly to its old simple ideals. obedience, service, sacrifice."
  Now, my Lords, those words may sound old-fashioned in the present time, but sacrifice there has been on a scale which the Army has not known for many a generation, sacrifice both of a regimental and a personal order. That sacrifice has been called for by those who are giving it in order that a new Army can be built to meet the nation's needs and that a plan can be put into operation which will take till 1963 to carry through. If that sacrifice is going to be worth while, then I think we must not merely give these proposals our support but must insist on their being carried through. Because of what the Prayer Book calls the "changes and chances of this mortal life", it seems to me that any plan which requires till 1963 to come to fruition needs an all-Party policy. The fact that there may be certain disagreements over the matter of weapons should not for one moment, to my mind, call for any disunity in this House in our determination to see that the Army's sacrifice is not in vain, and that between now and 1963 we build an Army which will be worth those sacrifices. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we are once more indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for putting on the Order Paper this Motion relating to the Army, and I can assure him straight away, in view of his peroration, that we on this side are second to none in our admiration and love for the Army. He may be assured that anything that we can do to support the officers and men of the Army in the important tasks they have to fulfil will be done.
  The noble Viscount has said that this is a most crucial time in the history of

  509
  the Army. That is so, and therefore to-day I think it will be found—certainly we found it in the speech of the noble Viscount—that in all our speeches we may be seeking certain information. There may be noble Lords who have private sources of information from the High Command—they have "tips", as it were, from the highest sources. That is not so with most of us, of course; in most cases we are dependent upon the published reports of the Government, on speeches of Ministers, occasional speeches from Generals, and also on Press comments and the like.
  From speeches made by Ministers, especially the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft (who has been most optimistic all the way through and in this House, if not always outside, has rejected any other idea) one would think that there was never any doubt about getting enough soldiers for the Regular Army; that this was a placid change; that the river flowed on; that, while there may be an eddy here and there, on the whole the reorganisation had gone very smoothly. Now listen to what the Military Secretary said, speaking at a public dinner at Cardiff, as reported in the Western Mail. He described the reorganisation of the Army as
  "the greatest strain that has ever been inflicted on any organisation of this particular source."
  The grammar is his, not mine. I take it that he meant that this was an unparalleled strain on the British Army. No hint there of any smooth flow of water in the stream; the stream had been very turbulent.
  I think we are entitled to know who gives the policy and the account of military matters in this sphere, because it is an important matter if the Military Secretary describes in these very serious terms the reorganisation through which the Army has been going. Mark you! my Lords, I do not doubt that he is right; it has imposed on the Army a very serious strain indeed. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that all concerned deserve the greatest credit for the way they have taken the strain, without any appearance of discord or anything of that kind. It is a credit to them and a lesson to all that they have been able to surmount these very great difficulties in the way they have done.
  510
  Turning to the Memorandum, and dealing with one important point, the tactical reorganisation of the Army, must say that I found it confusing. We have heard, as the noble Viscount has said, that to all intents and purposes the divisional organisation of the Army has disappeared. We are now on the brigade group basis; to a very large extent the old divisions have gone. But we are not quite sure, reading paragraph 44, which purports to set out what the new organisation is, what the function of the division in the new era is to be. Paragraph 44 says:
  "Divisional headquarters will be smaller and will not, as hitherto, command a fixed number of brigades. Instead a varying number of armoured and infantry brigade groups may be placed under a divisional headquarters according to the requirements of the military situation. Divisional troops will be kept to a minimum and brigade groups will obtain their support mainly from Corps resources."
  I thought that one of the ideas of this reorganisation was that we were going to cut out some of these higher echelons. It was once said to General Pile, the Head of Anti-Aircraft Command in the war, "You know, these Corps headquarters are not much use; they are only post offices"; and General Pile said, "No, they are worse than that; they open the letters." I think there is something in that. Why do we need a Corps headquarters if, to a large extent, divisional headquarters will still have certain functions? Why do we need divisional headquarters if Corps headquarters are still to remain? That is the sort of point to which, while I have no doubt there is a perfectly good answer, it does not appear in the Memorandum; the position is rather confusing to those of us who think on the old lines of the division being the main tactical unit in the fighting Army. In my view, the brigade groups make sense only if they are highly mobile, if they have the maximum fire power, and if they have air support, both strategic and tactical. I am going to say something on air support in the Air Estimates debate, if I have the opportunity, but recently one or two books have been written which seem to suggest that in the past the British Army has been greatly handicapped by lack of air support. I should like to deal with that point more fully in the Air Estimates debate. But in this Memorandum there is nothing at all on this question of air

  511
  support, as I shall show in a moment; and I think it should have been included.
  Now we turn to weapons and developments. As the noble Viscount has said, the surface-to-surface weapons—the atomic weapons—were always intended, as we understood it, to be the function of the Army—presumably of the Royal Artillery. They are tactical weapons, and they are obvious weapons for ground troops. Then there is the surface-to-air weapon, the Thunderbird. This will be, presumably, in most cases, a tactical weapon; and again I assume (though I should like this confirmed) that the Royal Artillery will be handling it. But what about atomic weapons of longer range—the medium weapons—such as the Thor, which will replace the bomber, and the long-range strategic missile such as the Snark? I suggest that these also should be handled by the Royal Artillery. Although, of course, they are surplanting the bomber, they are, in effect, a gun and not an aircraft; so I suggest that the Royal Artillery should handle them.
  To deal with the Snark (I think this should be said here, because a great deal of misleading information has been given in public about guided missiles), it is just as well to have in mind what its range is. I quote from the General Military Review, published in December last, which says, at page 729:
  "The United States Air Force revealed that a Snark missile, carrying a dummy nuclear warhead, had been launched from the Cape Canaveral base in Florida and had hit with practically bull's-eye accuracy a small target 5.000 miles away in the South Atlantic Ocean near Ascension Island."
  That is a very different story from some of the information we have had, about these things either not going off or not going to the place they were supposed to go once they had been set off. But there still remains the question: who in this country, in a war, is to handle these weapons? I myself felt that it was a great mistake that in the last war the searchlights were handled by the Royal Artillery. I always regarded them as being the function of the Royal Air Force, particularly since, apart from the first year of the war, they were nearly always engaged with our own aircraft and rarely with enemy aircraft. But guns and missiles and rockets, and so on, are obviously matters for the Royal Artillery. I am not saying this because
  512
  I served in the Royal Artillery: I have no sort of feeling about this from that point of view. It is purely and simply that I feel that the Royal Artillery have had the experience of handling guns of this kind and can do it best.
  Whoever does this, whether it be the Royal Artillery or the Royal Air Force, they will find it very difficult to keep up the morale of the troops handling missiles which are of a non-mobile nature. I understand that they are not allowed to fire these weapons—to start with, they are too expensive to be fired in practice. During the last war I had a heavy battery for a time which was not mobile, and it was difficult to keep up the men's interest even in war time unless occasionally they could fire the guns. We used to let them fire the gun occasionally, although there was no great need, simply in order to keep up their morale. It is going to be most difficult to keep batteries of guided-missile artillerymen or Air Force men really on their toes if they never get the chance to fire and there is little opportunity of moving around and keeping interested.
  The history of the rockets is an interesting point which I think we might just recall. They were artillery weapons. The first of them was invented by a Colonel Congreve, in the late 18th century. As one can imagine, at first they were looked upon with derision and contempt by the military authorities of the time, by the War Office and by the Duke of Wellington and so on. Had it not been for the Prince Regent they would never have come into operation at all. In view of the contempt that was felt for them it might be thought rather odd, by anyone who did not know the military mind, that they were the sole contribution from Britain to the allied Army which faced Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig. If they were, as the Army thought, more dangerous to one's own side than to the enemy, it is rather curious that they should have been lent in this way. It was not until the next year, in one of the last battles for Bayonne, that they not only aroused interest in the mind of the Duke of Wellington, but even more interest in the mind of the French, and did very well. But until recently, as we know, the rocket had never come into its own. That is another link with the past, and it is a link which means,

  513
  I think, that the Royal Artillery ought really to handle these rockets.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, objects to the term "conventional weapons", but I think that in these days there is no real line to be drawn between conventional and non-conventional weapons, in the sense that the field Army and the NA.T.O. Army are being equipped with atomic tactical weapons which will have the same power as the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima. However, it is, I suppose, a convenient term. We have to call the weapons which are not atomic by some name, and it is better to have a positive term such as "conventional" rather than a negative term like "non-atomic." I have always thought that the most dreadful weapon of all was the bayonet. I do not suppose that it matters to a man whether he is hit by a six-inch shell or by an atomic shell; but a bayonet wound in the stomach is probably the most painful that anyone can suffer.
  Now may I turn for a moment to the conventional weapons—saving the term, and apologising to the noble Viscount. Paragraph 57 talks very glibly about these new weapons and sets out how they are to be used.
  "The development of the new family of weapons continues"
  says the paragraph, with all the bonhomie of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in these matters. But it seems to continue very belatedly and slowly; because, quite frankly, most of the Army is still equipped with weapons of the last war, which naturally, particularly so far as vehicles are concerned, are feeling the strain. In order that it might not seem that I am making a Party point I should like to refer to that "true blue" newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, which in a recent leading article referred to the equipment of the Army in Germany in these terms. Says the editor of the Daily Telegraph:
  "Next to the new German equipment and the standard American unit our brigades are beginning to look scruffy. This implies no criticism of the morale or training of the officers and men. It is a matter of old tanks, overdue rifles, obsolescent transport and a general atmosphere of scrimping. … What are the specific claims and complaints that could be made? They are no secret; every intelligent young National Service man argues about them. The oft-broken promise of the War Office that the Vickers machine-gun will
  514
  be replaced. The failure to provide a tank that can travel long distances without refuelling. The Germans are developing an armoured vehicle that can use any fuel; diesel-engined Russian tanks do three or four times more mileage to the gallon than the Centurion. Canada, which is setting new standards among the Allied armies in Germany, provides a better anti-tank gun than we can. The long awaited FN rifle may be available this year at last, but only to the extent of 30,000 pieces,"—
  which is information not contained in this White Paper. That seems a quite serious criticism. We have spent a vast amount of money—something like £12,500 million since the war—on defence as a whole. If that is the state of our main Army, the Army of the shine, there is very little to show for the money we have spent, and certainly, as is said, the Army cannot really regard itself as being in a state of instant readiness as corn-pared with other Armies with which it is co-operating.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, hopes that we shall have a small professional Army of 160,000 but it may not be anything like as big as that. If we have a small professional Army, it will be necessary, of course, to have a powerful airlift and also to have close air support. The air arm should work in strategic and tactical support of ground forces, and it is amazing to me that there is nothing whatsoever in this Memorandum on these subjects. From most of it, except for some reference to the use of helicopters in Cyprus, one would imagine that we were still in the pre-aircraft age. There are even yet six troopships slowly chugging their way across the oceans with passengers who should be going by air. These matters, which I intend to bring up on the Air Estimates, are also relevant to the Army Estimates, and I hope that the fact that there is no mention of any of these important matters in the Memorandum does not mean that the Army Council is oblivious to them. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Mancroft, or the noble Earl who is to follow me will give the House some information on these points.
  An air component is essential in these days and that cannot be too often said so far as the Army is concerned. Once more, I would like to quote the General Military Review, which says on page 687:
  "The present state of the development of methods of the air transport of troops and equipment may be a case in point. This problem must be recognised as one of elemental

  515
  importance in the next major war. Evidences available to the layman indicate that it is being approached by Western Governments on something less than a crash' basis. Soviet military periodicals, especially the Krasnaya Zvezda, have for some months placed an emphasis on all phases of the air transport of ground troops."
  I would ask Her Majesty's Government to do the same.
  I now come to the position in Germany. Your Lordships have heard what the Daily Telegraph says about equipment. The former Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, as we remember, undertook on behalf of the British Government to keep four divisions and a tactical air component in Germany. What happens when we have brigade groups and not divisions I am not quite sure. But at the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference, which three or four noble Lords, including myself, attended last November, there was great objection on the part of some members of N.A.T.O. to the fact that we were running down our Forces to an extent which was not visualised by the Agreement made with Sir Anthony Eden. They thought, in other words, that we were not playing the game.
  It is a fact, and it was pointed out to the assembled representatives of all the N.A.T.O. countries, that we in this country are spending in most cases more than double in proportion to our population to what is spent by other countries in N.A.T.O., except the United States of America. But that was the allegation made against us by several small countries such as Belgium and Holland. I must admit that I thought at the time it was a most bold, rash and, indeed, foolish commitment to make, in view of all our other responsibilities and also in view of the fact that if we get a professional Army it is going to be very difficult to carry out. I feel that we ought to know from the Minister exactly how he visualises keeping that promise, or whether he will get out of it under the escape clause—the financial clause.
  During the coming year our Forces there are to be reduced to 58,000, but they will still cost £125 million, of which £47 million is in Deutschmarks. Her Majesty's Government have given notice to other Governments that having regard to the financial situation, this is more than the country can stand. I should be glad to know whether there has been
  516
  any reaction from other countries and whether they recognise that in the economic situation in which we find ourselves it is difficult for us to maintain the finance for the troops on this scale, just as it is difficult for us at a time when we no longer have National Service to find the bodies for this commitment. If we pull out from Germany—or rather if we pull out substantially, for we shall not do so altogether—have Her Majesty's Government any plans for the redeployment of the troops who are pulled out?
  I turn for a moment to domestic matters, because this Memorandum is rather shy upon them, and first I want to deal with the question of brigade groupings. I understand that, on the whole, those have gone very well—I am not talking about brigade groups and the tactical side, but brigades, and the combining of three or four regiments into brigades for administrative and other purposes. I understand that this has gone well and that even the vexed case of the Highland Light Infantry now seems likely to be solved happily, as we shall all be glad to hear. So far as the Welsh Brigade is concerned, we were well satisfied that the right three regiments have been chosen and (speaking from the point of view of the Welch Regiment) that our traditional friends, the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the South Wales Borderers are with us. We are very happy that this should be so. So far as we are concerned, the question of the brigade badge causes little difficulty, because we can have the national emblem. I imagine that this might be much more difficult in the case of some English brigades which possibly have little in common in regard to tradition. We have not heard much about this matter, however, and I trust that the problem of the brigade cap badge has been well solved.
  I myself, as a father, think it is a good thing. This is a small point, perhaps, but it is an important point, because my younger son recently became commissioned in the Welch Regiment and I had to buy him caps, because his allowance for this purpose from the Army was totally insufficient to set up a young officer, as we all know. One of the first things he did after he was commissioned was to take me off to buy him some caps; and the idea of having the brigade cap badge so that whenever he changes a

  517
  regiment he does not have to buy a new cap, because there is no necessity to punch new holes in his cap for a new badge, is a consideration which I think ought to weigh with those who expect parents to provide the uniform for the Army in these days.
  The noble Viscount talked about the Army not supplying a new uniform. I would point out to him that, so far as young officers are concerned, the parents supply most of the existing ones; and I hope that if his idea about a new and glorious uniform for officers and men comes about the added expense of the new uniform will not fall on the parents, which I think in some cases would be a little more than they could stand.
  The next point is the question of the band. The band, I have always felt as an old infantryman, is essential in a battalion and certainly we in the Welch Regiment felt strongly on the question of bands. However, I understand that it would mean, or so it is said (I have not seen the arithmetic), that if the regiments had been allowed to keep their bands, two other regiments would have had to be disbanded or amalgamated. Of course we do not want that, and all I can say on that matter is that if there is any possibility, in this vast expenditure on which we are still engaged in the Forces, of recovering a small amount here and there by savings, there is no better way in which the Army could spend it than on hands. Remember that the Army is very scattered: the men are in Kenya and Cyprus and all over the place, as can be seen from this Memorandum, and the bands are much appreciated not only by the troops but by the civilian population; the band is able to play in the square, and that sort of thing, and it is an enormous help to public relations in those places. I feel sure that if something could be done about that matter it would be appreciated.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think I cats reassure the noble Lord. That decision has been reconsidered.
  LORD OGMORE: I am most grateful. I did not know that. I raised the matter here previously very strongly. That is a great advantage. Does it mean that all regiments can keep their bands?
  LORD MANCROFT: Not entirely; but I think we can go nearly all the way
  518
  to meet the point the noble Lord has quite correctly made.
  LORD OGMORE: I am obliged, and I hope that the Welch Regiment will be one of those that keep their band—and keep their goat, of course.
  I was not going to say anything about the Territorial Army, because my noble friend Lord Nathan was going to deal with that question; but unfortunately he has been taken ill—I hope it is only a minor illness—and he is not able to be here to-day. However, my noble friend Lord Shepherd is going to say a word on the Territorial Army. I would just say that we congratulate it upon its jubilee year and we trust it will go from strength to strength. As an old Territorial volunteer myself, I welcome the fact that the Territorial Army is going to be a voluntary Army. I never thought it would be other than most difficult to deal with it on a half-and-half basis—half volunteer and half National Service—and I welcome the fact that once again the Territorial Army will be full of volunteers. I wish it every possible success in the future, and I hope it will have as glorious a career in the future as it has had in the first fifty years of its existence.
  There is one last point to which I would refer, namely, brigade depots. What has been the result? We have as yet, so far as I am aware, had no information about brigade depôts. I understood that the Government were going to publish a list of them at some time. We have kept very quiet about this matter because it is one on which everybody feels strongly and they would like the depôt to be at their regiment's home. I have no authority to speak for the Welch Regiment, but I think that I know what most members, past and present, think. We thought that Cardiff, as the capital and the main centre of recruiting and population, should be the place where the brigade depot should be, but we were prepared to waive our very strong feelings, having regard to the fact that the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Borderers might have other ideas.
  Having to a very large extent not pressed and pursued our strong feelings, we were surprised and amazed to find the Military Secretary, General Stockwell, at a dinner of the Old Comrades' Association of the Royal Welch Fusiliers,

  519
  announcing the fact—"a strong hint" was the term which the Western Mail used—that the depôt of the Welsh Brigade would be at Crickhowell, near Abergavenny. He went on to say:
  "Crickhowell would have the advantage of having no regimental ties; it would not be like having new wine in old bottles."
  He said that Cardiff, headquarters of the Welch Regiment, had been ruled out because a big city was not really suitable for training troops. Of course, no city or town, or even Crickhowell, is suitable for training troops; you have to go outside. There are plenty of training grounds outside Cardiff. But I should like the Minister who is to reply to say why it was that the Military Secretary, who is an official, made this very important announcement at a dinner, and why it was not made to Parliament, where we expect it to be made—and why it was not made, if you like, to the members of the regiments beforehand. Why the announcement was made at a dinner by the colonel of one of the regiments, who happens also to be the Military Secretary, is a matter which causes some concern. Considering the way that the South Wales Borderers and the Welch Regiment have behaved in this regard, many of us felt a little hurt that this decision should have come out in this way—if, indeed, the decision has been taken to go to Crickhowell, for in my view there are many things to be said against it.
  The Colonial Forces have been mentioned, and here there is a change in pattern and we are going back to the past. Whether this is a good thing or not I do not know; it is probably inevitable in view of the changing times through which the Colonies themselves are going. Up till about the beginning of the war, however, or maybe a year or two before, it was the fact that the Colonial Forces—their pay, administration and all the rest—were in the hands of the individual Colonies. Then the War Office took over the Forces and became responsible for them. Now we are going back. Is this a matter which is dictated by military efficiency or is it dictated by political expediency? That is the sort of question which should be answered. If it is the latter, we have nothing to say; it is the trend of the times; but we want to look at it pretty carefully.
  520
  I have recently had the opportunity of going to Malaya, Nigeria and other parts. When I go to those places I generally have a chat with the military commanders there, and I know that in many of these countries they need a lot of help, and will need a lot of help for years to come, in regard to officers and N.C.Os. They will need for training purposes a great deal of help from us; and with the end of National Service, does either of the Ministers think, or do both of them think, that we shall be able to provide the necessary technical assistance that these Forces will need? That is important, especially as in a number of cases, to my knowledge, several very experienced officers who are now seconded to those Forces are going out under the Government scheme. Therefore those Forces will not be able to call on these people very much longer.
  In conclusion, I should like once again to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and once again to reiterate that we on this side are firm friends of the Army. We hope that the difficult period through which it is going will soon come to an end, and that it will flourish, as it has for so many centuries in the past.
  4.30 p.m.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, your Lordships will be most pleased that it was possible, after all, to hear the delightful speech that my noble friend Lord Bridgeman made, as he always does when initiating a debate in your Lordships' House upon the Army Estimates. It is my duty to-day to address your Lordships on only three topics—namely, dress, retirement and pensions, and Territorial Associations—and I will do my best to answer the questions which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, have brought up in the course of their speeches. The vital question of tactics, armaments and future policy, to which both noble Lords referred and which other noble Lords will no doubt discuss in the' course of the debate, will be answered by my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
  As my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, there must be as many military fashions invented for the wear of the soldier as there are new lines produced by the "Top Ten" fashion houses for ladies. Several noble and gallant Lords, who are not, unfortunately, in their

  521
  places, have invented different types of dress and improved upon present uniforms, though most of these variations in battledress are not possible under conditions of peace. I was especially sorry that my noble friend Lord St. Oswald is not here to-day to give your Lordships the benefit of the latest ideas in dress which no doubt he must have received in Korea, when we were fighting there; but I doubt whether my noble friend Lord Bridgman would desire such versions to be adopted for wear at home.
  On an ever more stringent arms budget—and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has given us an accurate outline of the expensive pieces of equipment that the Army Council must buy—the Army Council must at all times satisfy, first the soldier, the wearer of the uniform and his regiment then, above all, the taxpayer. Then the Army Council must be satisfied that the purpose for which the uniform was designed is fulfilled, and that it not only suits the present whim but will serve for a long time in future. It has often been pointed out how smartness in uniform adds to the prestige of the soldier in the eyes of the public. The uniform adds greatly to regimental prestige, and it is the fact that the best turned out regiment, the one that looks smartest on parade, is that which has the highest recruiting figures. I think that the Army Council should take credit for introducing the blue patrols, or No. 1 dress, which is now issued to other ranks down to the rank of lance corporal and to all members of Regular bands and Territorial Army bands. The introduction of the No. 1 dress meets the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised—that of the expense to an officer of equipping himself with ceremonial dress. It may be questionable whether the No. 1 dress entirely fills the Bill, but for ceremonial occasions it is certainly much smarter than battledress and much cheaper than Service dress.
  It is fashionable to criticise the old battledress, but I think that your Lordships and the public can compliment the Army on the high standard of turn-out attained when parading, both for ceremonial occasions and for working purposes, in battledress, which, after all, was designed as a fighting and working dress.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl will appreciate that this smartness,
  522
  so far as the young officer is concerned, is due more to his parents who have to pay for it, because the allowance does not go anywhere near the cost of equipment, as I know only too well.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has raised, but I think that with the No. 1 dress it is much easier for the young officer, on his present uniform allowance, to meet the need for ceremonial dress than it used to be, when not only "Blues" were required but also a Service dress, and possibly a special ceremonial dress in addition.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, when I first went into the Army, in the Colonies and in this country, the allowance was enough to enable a young officer to buy all his equipment. I know that, because I found it so. But it is not enough to-day —as again I have found, from experience with my own son. I do not think that the Army should expect the parents of young officers to pay for the necessary equipment of their sons.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I cannot go back quite so far as the noble Lord, but it has always been pointed out how difficult it was in the old days for young officers to equip themselves with all the necessary uniforms. I know how expensive it was for me to equip myself with three sets of uniform after the war; but now only two sets are required—a battledress and a Blues No. 1. I am sure that this is much cheaper than the old-fashioned Service dress. This may not be ideal, but I think that it is an improvement.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl is being very helpful, but the point I am trying to make is that in the old days the allowance was sufficient, whereas it is not to-day, even on the present standard. I agree with him that if we had a more elaborate uniform, the allowance would be even less sufficient; but that is not the point I am making.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, we are well aware how expensive uniforms are to-day and how difficult it is sometimes to obtain the right materials and designs for special uniforms, as I find in the case of my own Territorial unit; and uniform allowance may not always cover the cost. But I maintain that the new No. 1 dress does make it easier for the young officer

  523
  to obtain a ceremonial dress and a smart evening or walking-out dress at the same time.
  As my noble friend has already stated, on March 6, in another place, my right honourable friend admitted that it is by no means certain that the No. 1 dress fills the gap between ceremonial occasions and fighting and working. It may be that some sort of khaki Service dress will be required. Next year, patterns of different types of uniform and equipment to go with it will be issued to units for user trials, in the same way as other Army equipment is tried out. I know that my noble friend will be the first to agree that it would be easy to hold a "mannequin parade" of Army uniforms to show how smart they arc. But after it has been worn by a soldier for a few days, that smart, comfortable and at the same time most practical uniform looks very different. My right honourable friend is looking carefully into the question of a khaki Service dress, and if it should be found to be required, it will be of the best possible material and design.
  With regard to regimental badges and new brigade badges mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I understand that designs are going ahead, and that the colonels of the regiments so affected will be able, happily, to intertwine or design suitable badges for their new units when they may be produced. How the designers will manage with the various pinholes, to which the noble Lord opposite referred, is best left, I fancy, to the ingenuity of the hatters, tailors and cutters in the trade; it will obviously be a serious problem.
  On the question of redundancy and resettlement, whether we like it or not, as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, we face the danger of a global war fought with strategic and tactical weapons. A formidable list was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, and from the point of view of their extent, I think it is a great credit to my right honourable friend and Her Majesty's Government that they have been able to draft this redundancy and resettlement plan to the successful and, we hope, reasonable conclusions that it will have. To meet this threat, the shape of the Army has been redesigned—as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, a surgical operation has taken place. An
  524
  announcement was made in the White Paper of 1957. The nuclear strategy requires different men doing different jobs, and many jobs being conscientiously and well carried out by lower members of the Forces have now disappeared in this new order of battle, the reasons for which have been graphically described. There is a sacrifice, and Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friends do appreciate the sacrifice that members of Her Majesty's Forces are being compelled to make.
  At the outset, the problems of redundancy were realised, and after the requirements of the Service had been considered, it has been uppermost in the minds of my right honourable friends to treat fairly with those officers and men who, through no fault of their own, found their Service careers were prematurely ended. Equally, it must not be imagined that a wholesale run-down of the Army was required, and that, to achieve this, members of the Army were going to be encouraged to make a rush to get out of the Service. That was very much not required by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War. I feel that he, Her Majesty's Government and the Departments concerned deserve great credit for the fact that this plan has been accepted by the Service, and considered fair, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, and that at the same time there has not been a rush to resign. I should like to express my appreciation and that of my right honourable friend of the kind remarks made by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on this point.
  After the shape had been decided, and the surgical operation had been performed, redundancy was tackled in three phases. First: who was to go? Secondly, when and upon what terms? Thirdly, plans were made for resettlement and retraining for a new job in civilian life, bearing in mind that extra difficulties would increase and accrue, at least during the run-down period, for the officers and men who were retiring in the normal course of events. In dealing with phase one—who is to go?—boards were set up early in 1957 with the task of deciding which categories of officers and senior N.C.O.s would become redundant; and at the same time these officers and

  525
  N.C.O.s were given the chance to voluntarily apply for retirement. When it had been decided what sort of officers and N.C.O.s would be redundant, and after a list of the voluntary retirements to hand had been prepared, selection boards were set up for each Service to select by name those who must retire and those who must not stay in. These retirements were governed, first, by the needs of the Service and, secondly, by the principle, that, wherever possible, redundancy, when it had to made, should be voluntary. Officers and N.C.O.s were divided into three categories. First, there was section A, those who would not be required to retire at any time during the run-down period, but who could, if they wished, apply for voluntary retirement. Section B comprised the officers who will definitely be retired in the first period; that is, before April 1, 1959. Section C covers those officers and N.C.O.s whose future is unforeseen but who may have to be retired in the later years of the run-dawn period.
  In Section B—that is, the officers who will definitely be retiring before April 1, 1959—nearly one and half year's notice has been given; and in Section C. notice of redundancy will be at last six months. It cannot be denied that in Section C there is bound to be some hardship to particular cases, owing to the uncertainty of a future career that they may have wished to undertake. It so turned out that the selection boards were able to select 90 per cent., of the officers and 85 per cent. of the senior N.C.O.s and men for retirement in Section C—that is, the group going out in the first phase of the run-down—from volunteers out of the redundant categories. The total numbers concerned are 1,300 officers and 1,800 other ranks. In the subsequent years, premature retirement will be invited annually, and the selection boards will continue to notify serving members, giving them the longest warning that they can. The principle of voluntary retirement will be running right through the run-down period of the next five years.
  I now come to the terms that have been offered for premature retirement. Your Lordships will, I think, generally agree that these Germs, as announced in detail by my right honourable friend in another place and in Command Paper No. 231, have been fair to the Service men. The terms were arrived at with
  526
  four basic considerations always in mind: first, the curtailment of an assured career; secondly, the loss of promotion prospects; thirdly, the loss of higher pension rights that might have been earned had longer service been continued; and finally, the added difficulties of finding jobs due to the fact that more ex-Service men will be retiring prematurely. I will not weary your Lordships with the details of those terms, but, as my noble friend Lord Bridgernan has said, they are regarded by members of the Service as fair, yet have not precipitated a rush to leave Her Majesty's Forces.
  Now I come to the phase of resettlement and re-trainng of ex-Regulars. My right honourable friend set up the Resettlement Advisory Board in July, 1957, shortly after the defence cuts were announced. The Board have as their chairman, as is widely known, Sir Frederic Hooper, Managing Director of Schweppes Limited; and the four members are Major General C. A. L. Dunphie, Chairman and Managing Director of Vickers Armstrong Limited, Mr. W. H. McFadzean, Chairman and Managing Director of British Insulated Callenders Cables, Mr. J. McLean. Chairman of George Wills and Sons, Limited, and Mr. W. D. Goss, formerly National Secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union.
  The Board held its first meeting early in August, 1957, and it has since been engaged in tackling both policy and administration. The machinery of re settlement, both inside and outside the Services, the plans for the run-down, the employment requirements of ex-Regulars and the facilities for training them in civil employment all come under the matters which the Board will be investigating. The Advisory Board is now examining the current arrangements for business training by ex-Regulars, and has recommended the setting up of short reorientation courses (an awkward term., but one that can only be used for this particular type of course), designed to introduce officers to the principle of industrial and commercial life and the new hazards that they will be facing when they return to civilian life. There are some nine technical colleges in various parts of the country which have agreed to hold these courses, and the first series commenced in April. In the early summer it is planned to have these six-week

  527
  reorientation courses running in ten towns throughout England and Wales, and a little later a course will be started in Scotland.
  Judging by past experience, officers taking business training courses as a prelude to applying for posts should do reasonably well. Courses somewhat similar to the reorientation courses, though slightly shorter, have been sponsored by the Services and Officers' Association for some time past and, indeed, have been turning out about 200 trainees per term. All these officers in these types of courses were majors and above. In addition, a special course has been initiated for senior officers—that is, those of brigadier rank and above. This course is running at the Regent Street Polytechnic, and has been in existence for over a year under the sponsorship of the Federation of British Industries and the Officers' Association. Out of 100 officers who have completed this special senior officers' course, 69 are now in permanent employment. The Resettlement Board appreciates the special and particular problems of very senior officers who are being retired prematurely, and although the numbers involved may be small, the problems are very great. They occupy the serious attention of the Resettlement Board and the Committees.
  As well as the senior officers' training course, there are 13-week business courses for junior officers, through which, up to the present, about 100 officers a year have been passing. In the Ministry's opinion the placing results in respect of this group—that is, the junior officers, who could not reasonably expect to enter the business world except in a relatively junior capacity—is satisfactory. Most of these men have been placed in the business world, and the indications are that a high proportion of them are making satisfactory progress. I stress these matters because it is not generally appreciated by the public, or even by the serving men themselves, how much is being done, not only by the Army but also by the Ministry of Labour with regard to resettlement courses; and it is quite certain that these courses are not being used to the fullest.
  The title "Regular Forces Resettlement Service" was adopted in 1957 to describe the close co-operation which has been brought about between all those agencies, both Governmental and voluntary, which
  528
  contribute to the resettlement of the ex-Regular. The Service comprises, besides the Minister of Labour and the major voluntary associations—namely, the Officers' Association, the National Association for the Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen, and the British Legion—the other Government Departments that I have mentioned, and the branches of the three Service Departments which deal in particular with resettlement. Air Chief Marshal Sir Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman is the Director of the Service, and representatives of all the interests I have just mentioned attend the meetings of the Advisory Board.
  The work of the Service goes out into the regions by means of the resettlement committees which have been set up by my right honourable friend, on the recommendation of the Advisory Board. There is one for each of the nine administrative regions of England, one for Scotland and one for Wales. Their appointment reflects the conviction that much of the work of furthering resettlement can best be done by these influential committees with special local knowledge of their own particular areas. The resettlement committees include representatives of industry, commerce and the trade unions. In addition to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Service Departments and the principal civilian organisations which I have already mentioned are all associated on the committees, and are constituted in a similar manner to the Advisory Board itself.
  The committees will organise and advise upon all stages of resettlement and training in their own regions and areas. They have direct contact with the leaders of industry and commerce whose help and co-operation will make the greatest contribution to the success of this scheme. It cannot be overemphasised that no matter what Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend may do—and they do a great deal—the major portion of the success of resettling these ex-Service men will depend on the harmony that can be obtained between the resettlement committees and the leaders of industry, both great and small, in the particular areas. To date, the work is going most smoothly, and very well indeed.

  529
  The committees will also select candidates for courses that are running in their areas, and on completion of these courses will be in a position to recommend candidates to posts to prospective employers. It is most important that the committees should be able, first of all, to gain the confidence of these prospective employers and then, having gained it, to make quite certain that the employer will be confident that the standard and calibre of the trained or re-trained and re-settled ex-Service man is, in fact, worthy of employment in the industry or commercial undertaking to which he goes. By April 21 of this year the first courses will have begun. It is most important—indeed, it cannot be stressed enough—that these committees must see that the right men fit into the right jobs, and as many jobs that they make available. My right honourable friend is most mindful of the service which members of this resettlement organisation are carrying out, and will carry out, together with the members of industry and commerce, both large and small, and of the efforts that are being made on behalf of ex-Service men.
  I now go back to the Army itself. In 1957, after publication of the White Paper, the Army set up six travelling panels to "sell" the idea of civilian life in all Army commands, both at home and overseas. Each panel consists of a lieutenant-colonel and a senior member of the Ministry of Labour. These expert panels started their work in September, 1957, and completed the first tour of home and overseas units by December, 1957. At the beginning of this month the second tour was already under way. In future, these panels will make two visits each year to every Army command, and it is envisaged that visits will be designed to coincide with the issue of redundancy notices.
  In the first tour of lectures given by the panels, between 7,000 and 8,000 men of all ranks were reached; and 2,432 personal and private interviews were given to men who wished to seek interviews with regard to premature retirement. The panels gave the latest details on the redundancy scheme, and were able to give help and advice on careers and civilian life, house purchasing. finance and investment. The Ministry of Labour has power
  530
  to register for future employment all ranks, whether retiring prematurely or normally. The panel operates as an advance guard for the resettlement committees and so provides information at the earliest possible moment after redundancy notice has been given. I beg your Lordships' forgiveness for going into the redundancy and resettlement question at such length, but I want your Lordships and members of Her Majesty's Army to realise that my right honourable friend and the Ministry and his departments have indeed done everything humanly possible to make certain that the remarks of my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, should be put into effect. We do, indeed, appreciate the service that these men have given.
  My Lords, it is fitting that this debate concerning the Territorial Army should be held during the fiftieth anniversary of the Territorial Army, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and it is a great disappointment to your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is not here to give his always interesting and invaluable contribution to the Service he served for so long and so well. The rôle of the Territorial Army remains as important as ever and, in fact, is exactly the same as my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, suggested. It is to provide the source of trained units to serve with the. Regular forces wherever and whenever an emergency should arise requiring it. Nevertheless, the nuclear weapon requires that there should be units of trained men., under discipine, for home defence; and the technique and strategy of civil defence in home defence will be, and is, of increasing importance in Territorial Army training.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman mentioned the mobile defence columns. My right honourable friend realises the difficult position that these columns will be in as National Service has now stopped, and the position of these columns is continuously under review. It is certain that somewhere between the two extremes of the rôle that I suggested, between going overseas as a unit and the civil defence rôle in home defence, there must be a rôle suitable for the mobile defence column to undertake. To carry out this rôle the present divisional organisation of the Territorial Army appears appropriate.

  531
  My noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, spoke about rethinking. My right honourable friend is rethinking; but in the course of this rethinking it is believed, and I think it is right, that the Territorial Army, in its jubilee year, should be allowed to expand and grow on its own as a voluntary force, left exactly as it is for the present time. There will, of course, be minor unit reorganisations. as indeed have taken place just recently, when five tank regiments were re-equipped with armoured cars. It must surely be to the added efficiency of the Territorial Army for this new rôle that regiments should be so equipped. It will certainly be to the pleasure of the men and officers who serve in these units in peace-time conditions.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised a particular question with regard to the Welsh Territorial units, and I will leave this specific question to my noble friend who will be replying later on. In general, the Territorial Army units will continue to be trained by their own parent units as at present, even though the latter may be combined or amalgamated with another unit. The Territorial unit will be the chief link of the parent regiment to the county of its origin—in fact, in some cases probably the only link that is left. That is the point specially made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Where it is necessary to change their location, the location will be chosen for the special convenience of those units concerned and for their training. With the move towards an all-Regular Army, and as the prospect of National Service recedes, there is no doubt that Territorial Army recruiting has improved and is improving.
  In my own unit we see slowly growing an idea that it will now be fashionable to become a soldier. I think that that is natural; when you do not have to do something there is an inclination and a wish to do it. For all the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, there is no doubt that in the schools there is a great urge and keenness to join the Cadet Force. Some of our material is no doubt coming from the Cadet Force as soon as the boy has reached the age of 18. Again, let it not be thought that everybody who comes out as a discharged National Service man has not enjoyed himself during his time in the Forces. It is surprising how many ex-National Service men are
  532
  now beginning to find a new interest in the Territorial Army, in serving as part-time soldiers and coming into their local Territorial Army units. I believe that this movement will gradually grow and will increase; and as we come into the fifty-first year of the Territorial Army —an all-volunteer force, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned—the success of the Territorial Army will grow further and further. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for his wishes of success, and I know my right honourable friend would desire to be associated with those thanks.
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by my noble and gallant friend, Lord Bridge-man: namely, that this House approves the Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War relating to the Army Estimates contained in Command Paper 372. This Command Paper is a very important document and one that endeavours to cover the Army from two aspects: from the financial as well as the tactical point of view. I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House wants to help the Government in the difficult task which lies ahead of us and will continue to do so far many years to come, whatever Government is in power.
  It is only when we get down to the paragraphs dealing with organisation, and particularly paragraph 44, that it is necessary to point out to the Secretary of State for War and his advisers certain controversial aspects of their proposed policy. Since no solution can be found for war on a large scale, our ultimate aim in that respect must be to prevent global war, and we shall have to aim for years to come at the comprehensive disarmament of all nations. Our Forces, therefore, have to be prepared at present for the less difficult tasks of cold and limited war. I should be greatly indebted to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government if he would give us a definition of what is "cold and limited war." I have taken part in a good many battles and I have never found that any war was cold. Paragraph 44 says:
  "Our organisation must, therefore, be one which is readily adaptable to meet all these three contingencies."
  The Memorandum goes on to say:
  "We have accordingly decided, after prolonged study, to adopt the Brigade Group

  533
  as the most suitable basic formation for all these purposes."
  Now let us see what the Secretary of State for War and his advisers visualise as the rôle of the British Army in the future. They stipulate that the British Army must be prepared to carry out internal security measures and limited war. Internal security is a commitment which is always with us, and we shall have to keep up Army garrisons for internal security purposes throughout the world, wherever English interests have to be maintained; and a measure of responsibility falls upon us. In my opinion, there is no substitute for the soldier on the spot, ready to intervene whenever trouble threatens, and to prevent small outbursts of violence growing into something more serious. This, it would appear, is the main task of the British Army outside Europe.
  But, as has already been said, our ultimate aim must be the comprehensive disarmament of all nations. In seeking a basic agreement, we must remember that account must be taken of the entirely different military positions of the two sides. While Russia has been making great strides in both nuclear and conventional armaments and military power generally, the Western nations rely upon the deterrent effect of their vast stock of nuclear weapons and rockets—that term "vast stock" is quoted from the Memorandum. The democratic Western Powers will never start a war against Russia, but we must make it quite clear that, should Russia launch a major attack upon us, even with conventional forces only, then the Western democracies would hit back with the strategic power of nuclear weapons. It is of the highest importance that the frontiers of the free world should be resolutely defended upon the ground, and it must be clear beyond all doubt that any aggression from Russia will be instantly resisted.
  There is no obvious or easy way of organising a much smaller Army to meet a much larger one, and to resolve the problems; that lie ahead. I am not at all in favour of the adoption of the Brigade Group strategy, and I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not tell your Lordships my experience of Brigade Group organisation. I fought a Brigade Group battle at Tobruk in 1941, and after two and a half years of experience the Desert Army gave up fighting as a
  534
  Brigade Group and reverted to the divisional organisation, wherever possible grouping the divisions and fighting as permanent Army Corps.
  Things had not gone well in the Western Desert during the summer of 1942. and it was obvious that changes would have to be made in Higher Command. When a changeover of commanders was made—I must say that our Governments asked us to report on the question of relieving people—we all hoped we should be entrusted to a man of fighting experience. As soon as he appeared in the Western Desert. I called upon him at an early opportunity to ascertain his views, on the question of Brigade Group battle. He gave me the answer that I had hoped for; and I went away confident in our future prospects, and sent off a cable to the New Zealand Defence Minister on October 3. I have here a book of New Zealand Government documents, and I should like to read what I said twenty days before the Battle of Alamein, which was on October 23, 1942. I sent off this cable on October 3, 1942:
  "No. 162. General Freyberg to the Minister of Defence.… The complete change in Middle East management has cleared the air. One good result is that they now insist that divisions must be kept intact. The result of this simple decision will be manifest in our future battles. It makes the position here much easier, as for two and a half years I have striven to prevent the New Zealand Division being divided into brigade groups, being convinced that by fighting as a division the maximum power is developed. They have gone further and adopted the German model of a permanent Desert Corps kept intact to train and fight as such."
  It is interesting to note that Rommel was entirely for the divisional organisation and corps organisation; and we were fighting him with brigade groups and were always failing.
  As I have said, the Battle of Alamein was launched on October 23, and after ten days' heavy fighting we still had not broken the line. The Army Commander asked me to lay on a battle to break through, and on the night of November 1–2 we launched "Operation Supercharge". It was an Empire battle—a Scots brigade from the 52nd Division, a British brigade from the 50th Division, the whole of the New Zealand Expeditionary Division and an armoured brigade, under the 2nd New Zealand Division Command. It was launched on the night of November 1–2. On the

  535
  morning of the 2nd, I went forward, and I saw the battle was going well. On the morning of the 3rd, I was up there before daylight; I went into the front line and saw that the line was breaking. I went back to my headquarters and sent off a cable to the New Zealand Defence Minister. I saw the Army Commander and said that the fighting here was over. He said that he did not agree. I asked him, "Would you like to see the telegram I have sent this afternoon to the New Zealand Defence Minister? He said he would. That telegram, No. 167, is dated November 3, 1942, and says:
  "General Freyberg to the Minister of Defence.… The present situation here is shaping well. I feel that it is rash to make a forecast regarding the fighting here in the Western Desert, which has been productive of so many disappointments. For the information of the Government, perhaps it would help if I gave my opinion for what it is worth. I feel that the future here is bright. I believe the German resistance was finally broken by the last attack and the cumulative effect of artillery fire during the last ten days. I feel that the present German position is precarious, that we shall push him back in the near future to the frontier, and later, under certain conditions, I am led to hope we may eventually clear Africa."
  That was said while the Germans were still in Alamein. Twenty days earlier, I had sufficient confidence, when we had turned over to divisional organisation, that we had a chance of winning the battle.
  There is one last piece of advice that I would call to your Lordships' attention. In these negotiations which are to take place with the Russians it is necessary to be very careful since they put a totally different value on their statements. The then Commander in Chief, the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, who was here earlier, had a conference with Tito in Belgrade in November or early December, 1944, when it was arranged that the British were to hold Trieste and Montfalcone. No sooner had that agreement been made than the Russians formed a mobile corps, pulled out all their motor transport and went "all out" to try to occupy the area up to the line of the River Isonzo. But they had to deal with a force who were very fast movers and had very much better transport than they had. We got to the bridges over the Isonzo and captured them. That was on the route through to Austria.
  536
  We were then in the mood to say, "Good old Joe! Good old Tito!" We looked upon them as our friends. Then on the morning after we had occupied Trieste and Montfalcone a Russian-indoctrinated general came to see me. I cannot tell your Lordships how he behaved. He came in and browbeat me —or at least he attempted to do so. He said, "I tell you categorically, get back behind the Isonzo or I will not be responsible for what happens!" This to an ally ! I said, "General, after that statement I hold you directly responsible. Come on if you like, and see what you will get; we have 500 tanks, 500 aircraft and 1,000 guns. Come along—and the sooner the better! "He said, "My dear fellow, there is no question between us of fighting." I said to him, "I am not so certain; I don't like the look of you." With that I left him, and I never saw him again. He was murdered by the Yugoslays while trying to escape to Russia during the turnover in Yugoslavia.
  Oddly enough, the Maoris were the best people for handling this kind of situation. A general and several Russian officers came in cars through their billets in a small village. They were told to stop but took no notice, so the Maoris shot the tyres off the car, grabbed the general and the other officers, and threw them into a common gaol. The Russians did not mind. They did not think it unusual. They asked me to dine with them that night, and I went in with an armed guard to their mess in Trieste and spent the night drinking. We drank toasts to "That great democrat Marshal Stalin" and to "That great democrat Marshal Tito", and I was asked if I would like to propose a toast. I asked them to drink to that great democrat Colonel Peter Awatere—and they shrieked with laughter.
  In conclusion, my Lords, I would say this: whatever organisation is adopted, I trust that the division will be the basic formation of the future for the British Army. It has served us well in two world wars and we know how to use it. I beg to support the Motion.
  5.25 p.m.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, in a debate on defence in your Lordships' House three

  537
  weeks ago I put to Her Majesty's Government a series of questions about retirement and resettlement. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for his complete and detailed description of all the arrangements which have been made for the orderly retirement of all ranks and for their re-training' and resettlement in civilian life. The reply has completely satisfied me that these arrangements are being made in the greatest detail and that great care is being taken. I hope that the statement which my noble friend made will be publicised as widely as possible, so that it can be made clear to all in the Services, and to those who may be considering going into, or sending their children into, the Army, that such detailed arrangements are being made.
  There is just one thing of which I would ask my noble friend to make quite certain: that is, that the six months' warning period, in the case of those being retired under Section C, is kept irrevocable and that nobody is ever allowed to leave without the full six months' warning. I should like to thank my noble friend sincerely for what he has said. It is of the greatest importance taut the resettlement of all ranks should be done well, because, naturally, the morale of the Army took a severe shock last July. If care of this kind is taken it will do a great deal in helping to restore morale; and morale is reflected straight away in recruiting figures, as well as in the number of those who are prepared to enter into long-term arrangements.
  Having mentioned recruiting I should like to make one other point. Yesterday, in company with another Member of your Lordships' House and some Members from another place, I had the good fortune to visit a guided missiles establishment. I have no intention of trying to explain to your Lordships anything about those things, although in fact we were not shown anything on the top secret list. But I believe that it would be a great incentive to recruiting if members of the Cadet Corps or the Army Cadet Force could visit such an establishment in organised parties to see what is happening and what will happen in the Services and in the Army—things which are tremendously exciting to boys of that age. Possibly there could even be cadet camps in the vicinity where,
  538
  like everybody else living there, they could see these things going into the sky. We did not see them because the weather was unsuitable. Anything of that kind, which excited the interest of those boys, would be a tremendous advantage.
  So far as other ranks are concerned, I think their future is good. I will not pursue the matter of their pay, as no doubt other Lords will take up that question. Barracks, married quarters and leave are not all that could be desired, though they are being dealt with as fast as funds and interruptions allow. The question of a uniform has been mentioned more than once, and I am not going to be brave enough to give ideas as to design or anything like that. But there is one point that I would mention. My right honourable friend in another place said that it was going to be of good quality material. That is, of course, most important, but equally important is that the uniform must fit. It is perfectly easy for mass-produced civilian clothes to be made, because a loose coat will fit within a reasonable range of sizes. But a uniform, which has to be cut tightly, has to be fitted. I believe (I am not sure) that when full-dress uniform went out at the end of the First World War the regimental tailor went out with it. If that is the case, lie ought certainly to be replaced and to be there to fit these mass-produced uniforms to the individual man.
  To turn now to the officers, they have, of course, benefited in much the same degree as the other ranks with the increased pay and allowances; and I should like here to express my gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for their action on a matter that I brought up some years ago, the education allowances. The increase of the allowance to £100 for the second child, and £125 for the third child or subsequent children who are at boarding school will be a very real help to the harassed officer who, while changing stations himself, is trying to ensure a stable education for his family.
  The problem of the officer is more complicated, I think, than that of the other ranks, because it is difficult for him to get a real idea of what his prospects will be after he has joined. Broadly speaking, the officers in the Army always have consisted, and I think always will

  539
  consist, of two types: those who will make it a long-term career, and those who will retire at an earlier age. In the past the problem of prospects was solved in part by the fact that a number of officers, as I have said, never had any intention of serving for more than a limited period; and they served a very useful purpose. That type of officer, practically speaking, does not now exist. It is most important that the promotion structure and arrangements should recognise this fact, and that the efficient and able officer should have an assured career up to at least the rank of full colonel; that is to say, until he is at least fifty years of age. As a corollary to this, the less eager or less gifted officer must be encouraged to retire at a comparatively early age, when it is still possible for him to get a civilian job without much difficulty. The Navy, I understand, already does this, and soon after an officer reaches the rank of commander he is told quite clearly whether or not he is going to get further promotion; and if he is not, he is encouraged at the appropriate time to retire.
  The Army has never really got down to this problem, and I cannot see why something on the same lines as the naval procedure should not be adopted in the Army. There is not, of course, a clear-cut division between the two types of officers I have described. There are those who will be required to serve for a comparatively long period without any real hope of getting to a high rank. These, I think, could be helped enormously by the cutting of junior staff officers in the large static headquarters and by the employment of retired officers to take their place. The junior, grade III staff officer has no business at all in a large head quarters. He must be in the tactical headquarters, of course—but in a large one, no. The encouragement of officers to retire early inevitably poses the possibility of some financial inducement. This would take a great deal of working out, but the cost could be met by the saving achieved through the fact that they retired earlier and by removing the junior officers from headquarters. I am quite sure that if this subject were taken up really seriously a scheme could be worked out which would improve both the short-term and the long-term prospects of officers.
  5.37 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman remarked that a good deal of re-thinking about the rôle of the Reserve Army was desirable; and a little later on the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, told us that the rôle remains exactly the same as it was. He mentioned in particular the increasing importance of home defence, as I understood it, in a context largely of civil defence. He later said that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State is re-thinking the problems.
  It is my intention to deal only with the Reserve Army, which is the matter on which I have a little experience, and paragraphs 46 and 48 of the Memorandum apply. With your permission, I should like to read paragraph 48, which is quite short, to refresh your Lordships' memories. It states:
  "With a smaller Regular Army the Reserve Army consisting of the Army Emergency Reserve and the Territorial Army will have an increasingly important part to play."
  The second sentence reads:
  "We depend upon it in an emergency to make good gaps in the structure of the Regular Army and to bring certain units up to strength."
  I welcome the first sentence wholeheartedly; but, although I hope I realise the difficulties of avoiding some form of words such as is embodied in the second sentence, I hope and feel fairly sure that a realisation will always be held of what the effect on recruiting (mentioned in paragraph 6) will be. inasmuch as any form of words which suggests a depot and reinforcement use of Territorial units is, of course, a far less acceptable concept than is that in which a Territorial unit, particularly now it is again composed of volunteers, will serve as an entity and in its entirety.
  We know that a great deal of reorganisation within the Territorial Army has already taken place. Various statements by Her Majesty's Government have been made, and indeed they are really crystallised in the first sentence of paragraph 48, which I have read. It is a heartening sentence to me and I feel it will be to those serving now and to those others whose active serving time is passed. But I believe, in the delightful phrase of Sir William Slim, which he used many years ago when Chief of the Imperial General Staff, in referring to the Territorial Army,

  541
  that those who give voluntary service are "twice a citizen."
  Many of us w ho have spent our lives in that "irregular gang" have always wondered what is the mainspring which keeps the machinery ticking over, for we know historically that ever since the formation of the Territorial Army part of the Haldane scheme, roughly 140,000 volunteers have always been available, and, of course, more in war time. Clearly, it is that a volunteer believes in his work. Therefore, his belief must be sustained by a continuing sense of its need and of its usefulness. So now I am going to pray that at suitable times, whenever it is possible, Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind the spur which thoughtful pronouncements on the future rôle of the Territorial Army provides to it. I know that my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who is going to reply later, is well aware of that from his own experience, and will be most sympathetic. I should like to put my thoughts a little more concisely in this way: the spur of voluntary effort is the belief in its usefulness and rightness, and that depends, in its turn, obviously, on the assurance that it is being taken seriously, that it is being considered as part of an up-to-date force applied in the most sensible fashion in the circumstances of the moment.
  Of course, that in its turn implies the willingness to have, and almost to insist on, Fairly constant change. Many of us have experienced the inevitable difficulties which arise when the rôle of a unit is changed, and I have no doubt that they Were provided in the recent example, which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, mentioned, of the change of the rôle of five regiments arising from the fact that two division are no longer needed for N.A.T.O. service. The difficulty is that of allegiance. Allegiance can be a very fine thing, or an awkward one, as we all know. From my own small experience, I have found that the heartburn of a change tends to come from the old hearts. I have always found that the young ones take as a compliment the fact that the nation, through the War Office, should regard their service seriously and should propose to them the next new thing, designed always for the fundamental purpose for which they volunteer—the best for the nation.
  542
  We know how difficult it is, in a time of rapidly changing technique and international conditions, for such pronouncements of real weight and substance to be made often. So my plea is a modest one, but none the less sincere for that. In putting this plea, I recognise two main things, of which the first is that an immense job has already been achieved in the essential—namely, the reorganisation of the Regular Forces. The second is the baffling complexity of the many inexact and changing factors which govern the duties of all armed Forces, including the Territorial Army. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, mentioned home defence as still being its duty, but frankly I do not know where this starts or stops in present conditions, and how it is to be done or by whom, although I could write a fanciful, but no doubt quite unreadable, novel about it.
  As we know, much thought has been given to these problems for years by successive Governments, and a great many Ministries are involved—some of us think perhaps too many. We know that the Commander-in-chief, Home Forces, has the unenviable job of trying to correlate thought, functions and plans for this purpose. Despite the difficulties which we recognise, I reiterate the hope that I have already expressed. Of course, there are two skeletons in any Government's cupboard: the rapidity of the growth of scientific achievement, and finance. But, as one skeleton said to another skeleton in a cupboard long ago, "If we had any guts, we would get out of this." So I cherish hopes for Her Majesty's Government and for occasional clarifying statements.
  Finally, there is only one thing that worries me deeply, and I hope I shall not be thought out of order if I mention it—that is, the curious, basic confusion of thought which arises, I think, from the emotion aroused by the scale of modern destruction and the mutative possibilities of weapons, and not by any new and better philosophy of life. I refer, of course, to the point of view that principles basic to progress in sentient existence—namely, justice, freedom and a search for truth—should be set at risk by a declaration not to defend at all costs those things which we believe to be right. It is over twenty years ago now that similar thoughts were expressed and canvassed

  543
  publicly, and, as I think, were no negligible factor in begetting the very aggression they sought to kill. We recognise, of course, the sincerity of such views, but I happen to hold them to be suicidal. There, indeed, to my mind, is a gutless skeleton.
  5.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend's Motion, I do not intend to keep your Lordships for more than a few minutes. There are one or two questions which I ventured to send to my noble friend Lord Mancroft in advance, in case he might see fit to answer them in the course of his reply. In the new Army, or "New Look" Army, I hope sincerely that initiative will not be impaired in any way. After all, commanding officers of regiments and units are put into their commands for those qualities which make them fitted to be leaders. It has come to my notice—I hope it is not true, and I give it only as one example, although I have heard of others—that before one of these commanding officers may send a team from his regiment, be it a team of footballers, a cricket eleven or a boxing team, if that team has to go beyond a certain distance he has to refer to another authority for permission. It seems to me that that is the kind of thing which might very likely undermine the initiative of these officers in peace time, and in the case of a new war (which Heaven forbid!) undermine their power of leadership then. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, if he thinks anything of that point, may be able to dispel any such idea as I have put forward.
  To come to the new Army, I am delighted to see that a committee has been set up under Sir Robert Mansergh to look into the question of administration. I am one of those who, during the last war, like many of your Lordships, suffered many a headache from the number of forms I had to fill up and from the counting of all the money passing through my hands. I am told that today the accountancy is much more difficult and it takes a magician to work it out. I hope that this committee will look into this question and see whether the accountancy cannot be simplified to a great or even to a slight degree.
  544
  I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the magnificent efforts made and results obtained in regard to education for our troops and their children abroad. I am told, and one reads, that this is in first-class shape. But I wonder whether it is in the same shape over here. I have taken a little trouble to find out certain facts. When a member of a unit is transferred in this country from A to B, his children who are at a local grammar school or secondary school at A, when they get to B, find themselves in a totally different category: they are in either a class above their standard, or a class below their standard. They inform their parents, who in consequence are disturbed and worried. I wonder whether that matter has been seriously thought of, and whether there is the close liaison between the Army, the educational officers of the Army and the education authorities in this country. In my view, something more needs to be done to ensure that the even trend of education of these children is continued in this country.
  Noble Lords have mentioned the Territorial Army. My only regret is that I did not join until 1910, two years after it was born. Since then, as a Territorial of my county, I have played various parts in the Territorial Army. I should like to know what is to happen to the depots in our counties when our county units are amalgamated. Our unit has been amalgamated very happily with that of Berkshire, and the spirit of all ranks, both past and present, is magnificent. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not see fit to sell these depôts to the local councils for the provision of houses, or anything of that sort. Rather, I hope—and I expect this is well in mind—that these depôts may be used by the Territorial battalion which remains intact.
  That brings me to the question of recruiting. These regimental depots have been great landmarks and the centre of our county lives, and they have brought the honour of the county regiment before the public eye. I have the honour to serve on the Southern Command Recruiting Committee and represent the British Legion. I am glad to think that the British Legion have agreed—it has yet to go to the National Council; we have our Charter and our aims and principles, and those we must not go beyond—to do their utmost to help recruiting.

  545
  I started my recruiting life in the autumn of 1910, and I was swept out of a house by an irate mother with a wet mop. That was the first time I tried to recruit a man into my local yeomanry. The last time I tried to recruit was not far from here, in a stadium, and I was shouted down by about 8,000 rather noisy and rowdy people. I have had a certain amount of experience. I wonder whether my plea could go out from here tonight, to all parts of the country, to people who put the tradition, glory and honour of these ancient islands before anything else, to stop saying or thinking that we shall not be able to get these recruits. If we go on putting the "t" at the end of the "old tin can" no doubt we shall not. But I hope that we shall take that "t" off. I believe we can get these recruits, and so long as we all think, all speak and all go for the one thing—the thing that has really made this country great; that is, the voluntary spirit, whether in the Regular forces or in the Territorial Army—we shall get them. But, what is far worse if you are on a recruiting committee, is to know that friend and foe are saying: "What an awful ass you are. You know you cannot succeed." That frustrates me. I would make that one plea, as I still say that I believe it can be done.
  On the point of publicity, I am informed that we are short of pamphlets and brochures. I would congratulate the War Office on the magnificent brochures and pamphlets they have produced, many of which I have seen. I am told that we are already a month behindhand. I would go further than that. This campaign starts in a few days, in April, and it is essential that we should have the necessary publicity ready to hand wherever we need it. I refer lastly to publicity for the Army Cadets. I have seen a good deal of them, and we have had this wonderful case in the last fortnight of the young cadet who was told he was too fat to be a soldier. He trained and trained, and this week-end he is being passed out by the General Officer Commanding in Chief. He has reached the head of his regular cadet unit as regimental sergeant major, and is going into the Regular Army.
  The spirit is there, but somehow or other I think we are missing the boat. We are missing it because we are not getting hold of the parents. I believe
  546
  that it is just as important to-day to see that the parents know all about the Territorial Army as it is for their children to see these films. I would put forward my last plea to my noble friend who is to reply, and it is that when these films are going round the countryside—I know it costs money—would it not be possible for the boys and girls who are going to see them to be able to take their mothers and fathers to see them as well? I believe it would help enormously.
  All this publicity is going to cost money and, of course, the finance of the War Office and the Army is limited. We are all restricted by this lack of money. But I would say to Her Majesty's Government: "If you really believe, as we do, that we can get these voluntary recruits for the Regular and the Territorial Army, then I hope you will not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, and that any money that may be necessary for publicity over and above what has been allowed will be forthcoming, so that when we look back in two years' time we can say that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has succeeded and we have obtained the number of recruits we set out to get."
  6.3 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nathan had intended to devote a major part of his speech to the Territorial Army. I do not believe that there is any noble Lord in your Lordships' House more suited, through his experience and length of service, to give a more up-to-date picture and history of the Territorial Army. When my noble friend Lord Ogmore heard that my noble friend Lord Nathan could not attend this afternoon, he asked me to say a few words on the Territorial Army. I feel that it is rather beyond me to speak on the Territorial Army when I hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, enlisted in 1910. I had a very short experience in the Territorial Army, from 1938 until we were forcibly embodied into the Regular Army.
  I do not think there is any need for me to say anything about the spirit of the Territorial Army, after the fine speech from the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. I thought that he put the position and case most admirably. I should

  547
  like to take up one point—it was expressed earlier on in the evening—about the re-thinking of the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army has gone through a difficult period since the war, and no doubt in the years to come there will be many more changes. But now that the Territorial Army is going to be a volunteer force, I would urge the Government to remember that these are volunteers, and that whenever changes become necessary—changes in operation of a unit, or even of a company; it does not matter how big or how small the unit may be—some official should go down to that unit and explain to all ranks why the changes are necessary, and encourage them to face a new life. I feel that this is very important, and I would urge it upon Her Majesty's Government.
  I should like to convey from noble Lords on this side of the House our congratulations to the Territorial Army on celebrating its jubilee this year, and to say how conscious we are of the debt of gratitude that this country owes to the Territorial Army. We wish it well, and we are thankful for all its past services over the last fifty years.
  Now I should like to turn to recruiting. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has criticised members of the Opposition on a number of occasions for expressing some doubts as to whether we shall obtain the necessary volunteers by 1962, the date when National Service will come to an end. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, also developed that case this evening. I think I can understand the position, but the Opposition have a duty to perform. If, in their view, from the facts and figures that are available to them, they feel that by 1962 we shall not have sufficient volunteers, they must ask the Government what they propose to do about it. I agree with the noble Lord that this question should be kept out of Parliamentary controversy. I am sure that he would deplore, as I deplore, a political poster that I saw in Bradford a few months ago, which read, "Conscription: Labour started it; Conservatives will end it." Apart from being completely false, I believe that such propaganda is positively dangerous. If, in 1960 and 1961, whether we have a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, we have not the volunteers required, whichever Government is in existence will have to
  548
  decide whether it is going to continue National Service. If we raise the question of conscription as a political issue we may face grave troubles if we have to continue—I hope that we do not—National Service.
  Recruiting figures have on the whole been disappointing, although in recent months there has been an improvement. But I believe that, if we are going to obtain the recruits we need, an all-out drive by the Government and the Services is necessary. I believe that the Services can offer an attractive career to any young man. Recent pay increases are very welcome, although I would not suggest they are over-generous. We must recognise that a soldier spends a good deal of time overseas, and is moved from one place to another. If he is single he has not much to worry about; but if he is married and has his family with him, he is involved in considerable expense. Therefore, I would suggest that whilst the pay has been increased it is still not over-generous. I believe that family accommodation is of equal importance to pay increases, for we must recognise that, with the pay increases, there is an encouragement to the young man to get married. To-day a young married soldier may face, or will face, long periods of separation from his family when posted overseas. This is a fact which may well deter recruiting. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they could inform us what is the average time an other rank has to wait, on being posted overseas, before his family can join him, and what is the average length of time for an officer.
  Education of the children of a soldier is also of great importance. I should like to hear from the Minister how these schools compare with the schools in this country. I note that the War Office maintain 139 schools overseas, ten of which are secondary schools. I heard while I was in Singapore that these schools compare very favourably with the civilian schools in that Colony, but I am wondering whether the ratio of ten secondary schools in 139 schools is quite right. I believe that as soldiers serve longer periods in the Army more secondary schools will be needed. I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government can give us some information on this matter. We heard a great deal this afternoon on the question of uniform. I

  549
  should have thought that a soldier serving in this country, or for that matter overseas, would like to get into civilian dress as soon as his Army working days are over. There is one uniform of which I have the greatest criticism to make, and that is the tropical issue. I think it is a most terrible uniform, a complete disgrace to the Army and to this country. If Her Majesty's Government are considering expenditure on uniforms for ceremonial occasions, I think they should bear this tropical issue uniform very much in mind.
  Before I leave the question of recruiting, there is just one point which I feel I ought to make. I do not believe that, in this age of security, you are going to attract a young man into the Army, even if you give pay and accommodation that is comparable to that in civilian life, unless you can give him security of employment and the hope of accommodation when he leaves the Service. I believe that this point has been discussed on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. I would suggest that this period of full employment, when it is relatively easy for a man coming out of the Army to be assimilated into civilian life, is the time for the Government, the employers and the trade unions to get down to considering what sort of security can be offered to a soldier at the end of his Service life. If the matter is left until we have a period of unemployment it will mean far greater difficulty with the trade unions. I suggest that this is the opportunity for doing something in this matter. One further point on recruiting is the question of recruiting offices. I have been around the country and, frankly. I find that they are very dingy and dirty. I cannot believe that you can "sell" a modern Army life from a dirty, dingy recruiting office. I suggest to the Government that they should combine the recruiting offices of the three Services into one, and that the money they save in that way should be spent in making the offices smart and attractive.
  I should like now to turn to the Central Reserve. In the Defence debate the other week I spoke in some detail on this subject, and I do not wish to labour the point I made then about the inability of Transport Command to lift the Central Reserve to any point of trouble. In paragraph 44 of the Memorandum it is said:
  "It cold and limited war we need small, self-contained formations which can move quickly to wherever they are needed,"
  550
  In paragraph 45 it is said:
  "In order to increase its mobility and effectiveness, recourse will be had to stores located at suitable points overseas."
  I would ask Her Majesty's Government: What are these bases, where are these bases; and, above all, who is going to maintain the equipment in these bases? We have the sad story of equipment in Korea and again at Suez. Unless the Government have really considered this matter, and have a special organisation which will be entirely responsible for keeping that equipment in battle-ready condition, I can well imagine the Central Reserve flying out and finding its equipment entirely useless. Before I leave the question of bases, I would draw your Lordships' notice to the fact that in the Defence White Paper one base was mentioned, and that was the base of Singapore. It is a base already of very considerable size. It is well supplied with dock facilities and air-fields. I wonder, however, whether it is wise of Her Majesty's Government to develop this base. One must consider the political situation in Singapore, and the fact that Singapore is surrounded by many small nations who, I believe, in the event of trouble, would be neutral, at the very best. Singapore, therefore, will tend to be land-locked. We found that we were unable to defend it in 1942. I personally would urge Her Majesty's Government to consider establishing a base in Borneo, which would be wide open for ships and aircraft to approach from Australia.
  I should like to support my noble friend Lord Ogmore in his remarks on the question of air support. This Memorandum is an amazing document, but there is hardly any, if any, mention in it of air support. We are told that manned aircraft are a thing of the past. Other countries do not think so. I would ask Her Majesty's Government this question: in the event of trouble, of a limited war, what air protection, what air umbrella (as it was called in the last war), is going to be given to the ground forces? It appears to me that, if there is to be air cover, it will consist of out-of-date aircraft.
  My Lords, I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I wish that I could feel as satisfied as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Frankly, I feel grave disquiet at the deployment of our Army,

  551
  its lack of mobility, its lack of fire power; and I wonder whether the Army, as it is now standing, is capable of meeting our obligations. What concerns me even more is the question: if the present trend continues, what is going to be the position in five years' time? The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, speaking in the Foreign Affairs debate the other day, reminded us that the Russians are the greatest chess players in the world. I do not know much about chess. but I do know that you defend your king and you defend all the lines leading to the king. When I see our Army deployed so thinly on the ground, with so little mobility, I wonder whether we may hear an enemy say, "Checkmate".
  6.21 p.m.
  LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman for initiating this debate, which gives one an opportunity to comment, favourably or unfavourably, on the Government's proposals for the Army for the coming year, the second year of its reorganisation period. My remarks will be based on the fact that never in peace time has the British soldier had a more vital part to play, whilst deserving our respect and encouragement so that our Army may emerge as a most vital and effective fighting force. Our commitments are vast, extending as they do to the support of the N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. Alliances and the Baghdad Pact, and to the maintenance of internal security in various parts of the world. For such an objective, bearing in mind the Government's planned run-down of our effective forces, we need a smart, well-trained and well-equipped, potentially mobile Army. Here I welcome the statement that was made in another place not so long ago, even if it is to come into effect only by 1963, that there is to be a 5 per cent. increase in the proportion of our "teeth" arms—in other words, the Infantry, the Armoured Corps, the Artillery, the Signals and the Engineers.
  With a view to lessening the chance of repetition I shall touch mainly on only three aspects of this question—welfare, mobility and equipment; while for the purpose of my speech I should like to include in the term "welfare", accommodation, dress and recreation as an aid to morale and prestige. I think I am right in saying that the question of regimental prestige was mentioned by the
  552
  noble Earl, Lord Bathurst. On this question, too, of morale and prestige, I think that the type of equipment or of weapons that are to be issued to our Forces will play an increasingly important part.
  First, with regard to accommodation I welcome the statement in paragraph 77 of the Memorandum of the Government's intention to increase, by over 50 per cent., at least, over the next five years, expenditure on barrack rebuilding and the construction of married quarters. However, it seems to me regrettable that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to complete their permanent living quarters programme by 1963, when our Army should consist entirely of 165,000 Regulars, of whom 146,000 will be other ranks. Surely, to do so would assist the recruiting campaign which was so well mentioned by my noble friend Lord Long. Overseas, little major work appears to have been completed, for such work appears either to be "planned" or "nearing completion." I sincerely hope, though, that air-conditioned buildings will, to a large degree, be provided wherever appropriate, for I still remember how trying tented quarters or non-air-conditioned, or non-insulated, hutments can be at times.
  To turn now to the question of dress, I trust that the trials of different types of uniform which were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, earlier, and which the Government are initiating, will be carried out as expeditiously as possible, so that a smart and suitable uniform can be put into production and issued with the minimum delay. This question of the No. 1 uniform was, I believe, extensively mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. No doubt many of your Lordships will have read the article which appeared in the Sunday Times not so long ago, to the effect that our troops in Germany, unless they belong to a special commando or parachute unit, have to wear in wet weather the traditional but shabby-looking ground sheet. My experience of the ground sheet is, that it lets in water most uncomfortably round one's neck. The only useful purpose I found for it was to keep off dew when in a transit camp in Durban.
  No doubt your Lordships will also have read the editorial referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.

  553
  There is one sentence to which he did not refer, but which I should like to mention—namely:
  "The problem of our troops in Northern Germany is not a simple one of costs and numbers. It is already and will increasingly become one of efficiency…"
  As the writer said, this implies no criticism of the morale or training of the officers and men; it is a question of transport and so on, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the question of obsolescent transport was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I hope that my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who will be replying to the debate, will be able to give the House some assurance that this question of a smart Service dress will be tackled with the utmost urgency, and that action is being taken to remedy what would appear to be a condition of old-age equipment in Germany.
  On the subject of recreation, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government two questions which arise from the content of paragraphs 89 and 99 of the Memorandum: first, whether (if it is not already done) a choice of periodicals could also be flown to all overseas stations—for the noble Lord will see that only daily and Sunday papers are mentioned in the Memorandum. Secondly, I would ask whether a sufficient quota of films is provided overseas to allow for a daily, or at least a several times weekly, change of programme. I remember, when I was stationed in Cyrenaica, how all of us appreciated the facility which was provided by the Americans. Every day there was a change of film, although we were in the desert; the films were flown from New York to Cairo, and from Cairo to Gambut.
  That brings me to the second point of my speech—air mobility. I was interested to learn from the recent speech of the Under-Secretary of State for War in another place that Her Majesty's Government attach increasing importance to the armoured car in the internal security rôle, and particularly that we had an air portable armoured car squadron—I presume equipped with Saladins, whose fire power, according to a statement made last year by the then Secretary of State for War, is equal to that of a meduim tank. An interesting development in air movement is the use of helicopters for missile transport, on the lines of the
  554
  U.S. Army fleet of helicopters for carrying tactical missiles to the requisite launching ramps. Do Her Majesty's Government propose to rely on road transport for moving these missiles? I presume not, in view of the remarks made during the Army Estimates Debate last year by the Secretary of State for War. He said:
  "Every new item of equipment ordered by the Army will be looked at as potential air freight. I place great importance on that."
  With regard to tactical mobility I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, whether that will be provided by the Army Air Corps, with light aircraft and helicopters, or in co-operation with the Royal Air Force.
  Paragraph 69 of the Memorandum states that the trooping programme will be appreciably reduced in the next twelve months but that personnel movement by air will be maintained at the present level of approximately 60 to 65 per cent. of total movement, excluding Germany. I would ask whether that calculation is based on last year's figures or those of the coming year, for the two are quite different. However, I welcome the fact that six independent air transport operators are assisting in the trooping programme for West Africa, the Western Mediterranean, Cyprus, Nairobi, Aden, Singapore and Hong Kong. I note, on the other hand, that they do not appear to be contributing to any air movement of personnel to the Caribbean although I appreciate that the deployment of our forces in that area may not warrant it. But trooping does guarantee the utilisation of aircraft which we may well need in time of imminent or actual war or great national emergency.
  That brings me to a question which, though perhaps it is not appropriate to be discussed in this debate, might affect the movement of personnel—that is, the control of aviation in time of war or emergency. Under Section 26 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, the Minister of Transport can assume complete control of the Air Corporations by taking over directing powers; but under Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, the Secretary of State for Air may control only aircraft which are on the aerodromes of which he has taken possession by order, though he may regulate navigation over the United Kingdom. As I see it, the Secretary of State would have no control in time of war or emergency

  555
  over aircraft which happened to be abroad when the order was promulgated.
  Finally I should like to say a few words with regard to army equipment, subdivided under the heading of development, production and standardisation. I sincerely regret that the question of weapons should have been referred to so briefly in paragraphs 55, 56 and 57 of the Memorandum. Though it is difficult to know the exact position, I believe I am right in saying that at the moment we have the following weapons under development or consideration. First, there is a possible replacement for the Vickers medium machine-gun, which would appear to have been demanded for some time by the Army, though the Secretary of State for War has now stated that
  "trials for a replacement have been carried out and severe comparative tests are to be carried out during the next six months".
  This should be most gratifying information to the B.A.O.R.
  Secondly, development is continuing on an advanced anti-tank guided weapon which, we are told, should remove the heavy tank from the battlefield. Thirdly, a new medium tank is still under development, though it is to provide the close support for infantry which the guided weapon cannot give. Fourthly, in his speech during the Army Estimates debate in another place this month, the Under-Secretary of State for War referred to development of a nuclear guided weapon as complementary to the American missile Corporal, and designed to replace the heavier calibres of artillery and to be highly mobile as well as capable of quick deployment. Fifthly, additional types of nuclear weapons for the artillery in the field are being considered.
  That is a reasonable list indeed, my Lords. But what do we see on the production side? Thirty-six thousand British-made FN automatic rifles are to be issued during the coming twelve months; the L2 sub-machine gun is in production to replace the Sten gun; and lastly, an improved interim anti-tank gun—the Mobat—is to be issued to infantry battalions. Surface-to-surface Corporal guided missiles are being supplied to two artillery regiments, and, concerning antiaircraft weapons, surface-to-air Thunderbird guided missiles will be available for training. I presume I am right in saying,
  556
  too, that the L70 light anti-aircraft gun, with improved radar fire control, is still replacing the old Bofors 40 mm. gun.
  Surely this tends to prove that an insufficient number of projects were considered a number of years ago. For according to Dr. Robert Cockburn, Controller of Guided Weapons at the Ministry of Supply—and I quote:
  "In peace time ten years can elapse before a new concept is available to the Services. About half the time is necessary for research and development and half for production and training. The solution is to arrange for successive projects to overlap rather than to shorten development time."
  These projects need not necessarily all be put into production, but an increased momentum of research would be maintained whilst giving an opportunity for a greater range of production. On the other hand, some may argue that our Forces must be equipped with new weapons and that therefore development and modification time should be reduced, as there is practically no limit to the modifications and developments that can be applied to any project, whilst a weapon when issued may be obsolete in conception but still ahead in the field. I believe that Her Majesty's Government must choose between either considering a larger number of projects, suitably staggered, with lengthy periods for development of the chosen few, or producing a larger number of projects, also suitably staggered but with shortened periods for development and modification, so that new weapons may be issued at an increased rate.
  On the question of standardisation I shall be as brief as possible, not wishing to detain your Lordships longer than necessary. In 1951 the N.A.T.O. Military Agency for Standardisation was set up in London. It is true that Her Majesty's Government have accepted the N.A.T.O. recommendation and are producing the Belgian rifle, but that would appear to be the only weapon where a small measure of standardisation has been achieved. Apart from that, correlated production and standardisation seem to be limited to the manufacture of certain parts of electronic equipment and to such minor items as standard characteristics for vehicle sparking plugs and trailer towing hooks.
  As recently reported in The Times, West Germany has ordered 300 American Nike-Ajax surface-to-air missiles and a

  557
  certain number of Matador surface-to-surface weapons, while B.A.O.R. is to be supplied with Thunderbird surface-to-air missiles and Corporal surface-to-surface missiles. With regard to the Corporal tactical missile, it does in my opinion have the disadvantage of having a liquid-propellant sustainer motor, and I should imagine that handling fuming nitric acid in the field could be a hazardous operation. The Sergeant, which is now coming into production to replace the Corporal, has the advantage of having a solid-propellant sustainer motor. Similar characteristics, however, may be seen in the Vickers-Armstrong Type 891 infantry anti-tank weapon as in the S.N.C.A.N. Nord S.S.10 anti-tank rocket, as both have zero length launchers, solid-propellant rocket motors, fine wire control, optical and stick guidance, interchangeable warheads. The French weapon, which I am informed can be produced at low cost, has an average accuracy of 80 to 90 per cent., very high armour-piercing qualities, a velocity of 180 to 200 miles per hour (or 260 to 295 feet per second) and a range of 1,750 yards, approximately one mile. The United States Army in Germany have ordered a considerable number, whilst this weapon is already in service with the French Army. All this leads me to hope that, if complete standardisation cannot be achieved, it may be possible to arrive at a greater degree of compatibility between types of equipment and a certain measure of common specifications.
  In conclusion, my Lords, may I trust that the agreement reached this month in Rome on research, development and production, between the Minister of Defence and the Italian Minister of Defence, is but another stepping-stone on this path of co-operation and interdependence, and that while in Germany this week Mr. Duncan Sandys will be able to reassure our troops on the question of accommodation, dress and equipment.
  6.43 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long, and I hope you have no need for apprehension if f begin by going back to a period some fifty years ago when Lord Haldane was introducing his famous Army reforms. At that period, if I may remind your Lord-
  558
  ships, the whole defence of this country was entrusted to the Royal Navy, which was supreme on the seas, and no aggressor could cross them and attack this country while that remained the case. May I quote what Lord Haldane said in this House on the rôle of the Army in those circumstances, which seems to me to be applicable to-day? He said:
  "Our Army is wanted for purposes abroad and overseas. It is necessarily a professional Army; we could not get such an Army by conscription. It must be of high quality; but because of the limited nature of its functions—to strike at a distance—it ought to be of strictly limited dimensions. We want an Army which is very mobile and capable of rapid transport."
  As I see the position to-day, there is no defence for this country against attack by modern nuclear rockets. The only defence lies in counter-offence, in possessing those nuclear rockets ourselves and being able to deter any aggression. In those circumstances the rôle of the Army would seem to me to remain as it was defined by Lord Haldane some fifty years ago, for purposes abroad and overseas. And for those purposes I welcome the proposed reorganisation into brigade groups of all arms, self-contained, independent and mobile; although I share with other noble Lords who have spoken before the apprehension that possibly we are not at the moment as mobile as we ought to be. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are paying the greatest attention to that point.
  With the greatest respect to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Freyberg, I still feel that the brigade organisation may well be the right one for the future. I think that in days of nuclear war we are unlikely to find ourselves again involved in the same sort of battles as those in which he fought with such great distinction in the Western Desert; but should we be involved in such battles, then, as I read the Memorandum, the divisional headquarters and divisional troops are still there and the division could be reconstituted. I believe, my Lords, that at this moment we have a magnificent opportunity to lay the foundations of a really professional Army, but we must get off on the right foot—perhaps that is not quite the right expression: I do not mean any amendment to the Drill Book; but what I do mean is that from the very start of this new professional Army we must have the best

  559
  possible conditions for those men who are joining it.
  Other noble Lords have mentioned any number of points—adequate pay and allowances, reasonable living quarters, weapons, equipment and so forth—and I do not need to go into detail. But over and above that, I would suggest that it is no good having 165,000 men if they have not got that spirit which will enable them to be an effective fighting force. The amalgamation of regiments and the disbanding of several famous divisions is liable to have a bad effect on morale; and I would only emphasise that I hope that all those who are responsible in the Army for indoctrinating new recruits will do their utmost, as I am sure they do—and as is certainly done in all enlightened industrial firms—to give those recruits an idea of the great organization to which they belong. The age of "Theirs not to reason why" is over, my Lords. We want an Army, I am sure, that gives the reason why and "does" rather than"dies". I am sure it is just as important to get quality in our modern Army as quantity.
  There is one point about training which I know is not mentioned in the Memorandum, but I should like to emphasise it although I am sure it is very much in the minds of those in command of our Army. As I see the likely role of these brigade groups in the cold-war situation, we shall be called upon again and again to deal with the kind of responsibilities which we had to deal with in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus and so on. I hope that all the lessons which have been learnt in those campaigns are being thoroughly studied and put into practice in the Army. I know that often it is so much more exciting for those in the Army to train for war; but the more difficult job entailed in dealing with outbreaks of civil disturbance and snipers and saboteurs is a much more testing affair. I am sure that if properly trained for that type of work we shall be able to avoid the disastrous casualties which often occur only at the beginning of such campaigns, until the troops get used to the way to deal with them.
  Finally, I should like to add my tribute to those of others who have commended the Army for the way it has faced up to this very major reorganisation, and
  560
  express my hope that we shall not fail the Army but shall provide them with the framework for a first-class professional Force.
  6.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, speaking late in the evening in a debate of this description, as usual one finds that many things that one wished to say have already been said, probably much better than I could have said them; but there are one or two points that I should like to emphasise. The first concerns recruiting, which has been touched on by several noble Lords. I should like to stress that I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Long has said. My view is that we have to explain to the whole nation, and make certain that the people understand, the need to have an Army. I am certain that thousands of people do not really consider that we need an Army, because of what is sometimes called "push-button war." They think that all we need is a few men to push the buttons and the war is won and over. But that is not so. We have a great many commitments for our Army —in N.A.T.O., overseas in Malaya and other places, and in maintaining our strategic reserve.
  We must also explain to the nation that whilst we are cutting down our Army, we are still short of men. Again I do not believe that that is known throughout the nation. Surely the answer is that when we cut down the Army, we must to a certain degree cut off the top as we cut the bottom, otherwise it becomes completely overloaded with warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s and there is nothing but the bottom to fill up. I would ask the Government to take these two points and do the best they can, by whatever means they can, either through our friends of the Press or television—there are so many means by which these thoughts can be put over—to explain to parents and to the nation that we need an Army just as much as we did before, although we are cutting it down.
  At the minute recruiting appears to be satisfactory. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was a little anxious about it, but better pay and the promise of better uniforms will have their effect. But we must get rid of what I call the "irritants" to the soldier after we have

  561
  got him into the Army. There is the question of accommodation, to which the Government are paying attention. Another point which crops up many times and causes immense irritation amongst officers and men is the long time which is taken for removal and other allowances to come through. Officers have had to pay out of their own pockets for removals; there are often quibbles about the amounts and eventually the allowances are paid three or four months afterwards. I think that that is a definite irritant.
  I understand that the Army at the minute is short of technicians. The Army schools, which do such good work, do not produce enough high-class technicians. I suppose that it is easy to make a nation-wide call for technicians for industry and nuclear experiments, but we have to remember that the Army needs its technicians as well as industry. I hope that we shall be able to do something about that. It is interesting to note that in the Army schools about 40 per cent. of the boys come from military families. After he has done three years at a boys' school and does well in the Army and becomes a sergeant, a technician is well paid, receiving about the same as his counterpart in industry, but he takes longer to get up to that rate of pay than the man in industry.
  Another interesting point about recruiting is that there are recruits for battalions and regiments which are serving in Malaya and other parts of the world. The soldier likes action and always volunteers for that sort of thing, but, as has already been mentioned, he gets bored when there is nothing to do. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridgeman about bringing on sergeants. I believe, more than ever now, when troops have longer fronts to cover, that sergeants and even corporals and lance-corporals must be able to show more initiative than they have clone in the past.
  Many noble Lords have talked about equipment, so I am not going to go into that subject, except to say that I agree that the equipment in Germany is bad for morale. I feel that the Government's declaration that on a mass attack the West will use nuclear weapons will be of the utmost good for the morale of the troops who are serving in Germany.
  562
  They are very thin on the ground and they have a great many forces opposing them.
  The Army is now being reorganised on a brigade basis, and I feel that in this debate we ought to thank names and numbers. That sounds an odd statement, but so many regiments have now lost either their individual names or their numbers, that we should do something to thank them. And I say, "names and numbers" because the personnel may have changed, but the names and traditions have not. We ought to thank the names of so many famous divisions, which have fought so many times and so well for us. It would be wrong and impossible for me to give any names in particular, but I think that we ought to thank them. They have served us well during two world wars. The other thing I want to say is this. Surely we wish well to these new brigades, whether they are the administrative brigades formed from the various regiments, or those brigades which are going to become the fighting groups. We can be certain that they will show, as always, that the British soldier is really the best.
  7.0 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, a debate on the Army now must obviously refer to the Territorial Army and its jubilee this year. I have had almost negligible first-hand experience of it, but I have had a great deal at second hand, my father having been connected with the Territorial Army from the Volunteer days almost to the end of his life. Thus I know a great deal about it at one remove, and I have always had the greatest admiration for the officers and men who gave their spare time and energies, and often their money, to make this Territorial Army, which has acquitted itself so well. But primarily, of course, the Memorandum concerns itself with the Regular Army, and there are one or two points to which I should like to refer in that respect.
  We read in paragraph 85 that the Royal Engineers Survey Branch are going to employ electronic computers; and we know, also, that other arms are being equipped with guided missiles. Yesterday it was my privilege to go with the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, and Members of another place,

  563
  to visit Aberporth, the Ministry of Supply Establishment where the guided weapons for the Services are put through trials and fired. Computers in the office of the Royal Engineers and guided weapons on the coast and in the front line give an idea of the range in which science is having an impact on the Army. The whole range of units is being brought into contact with the latest developments of science. The personnel who operate and test the scientific developments are people of the highest calibre, with high qualifications, but to some extent they talk a language of their own on their own business, and a person who has undergone the process of what we call an ordinary education has no idea of the ABC of scientific principles on which all this apparatus depends. I think there is a real danger of a mental, social and intellectual divorce between the ordinary Army, so to speak, and the scientific Army.
  In the Royal Navy they went through that stage a good many years ago, but science and modern mechanised apparatus is quite new in the Army. It is not much over twenty years since the Army abandoned the horse as its motive power. In all new developments like that there is a tendency, from whatever motive, for the people with older ideas to associate very little with those who operate the new apparatus. There is a suspicion and, to some extent, a dislike; and, after all, what more natural, because to have dinner with somebody when you do not know the first thing about his job does rather restrict conversation. That is why I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about the Royal Military College of Science, which I had the privilege of visiting last year. That is an institution which ought to be—and if it is given the chance, it is—doing what it can to prevent that divorce between the technical and the non-technical arms of the Army.
  The Royal Military College of Science is a unique institution: it has a military wing and an academic wing; it is recognised by London University for the purpose of degrees; it trains officers of all seniorities in the Army and also has courses for other Services. The principal courses are those for B.Sc. degree, which is recognised by London University, and that takes young officers straight from
  564
  the Cadet College. The Technical Staff Course is designed to train officers for the technical staff jobs. The young officers who take the Degree Course are probably those who later in their Service take the Technical Staff Course, so that there is no machinery deliberately to spread outwards into all units of the Army people trained at the College in the elements of science. What I want to ask is whether the College is doing all it can to reach the regimental officer, at first hand or second hand. It is the regimental officer who ought to know how much his job, his weapons, his vehicles and everything depend on scientific principles. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say a word or two about that.
  The Service conditions of officers and the supply of officers are two matters that have run through a great many of the speeches this afternoon. Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Memorandum are rather ominous; they say that not only did not enough young Regular officers come forward during 1956 and 1957, but that more candidates of suitable quality are needed. There is also a shortage of professionally qualified officers, and there is a list of categories of university graduates who will be admitted to short service commissions without previous service in the ranks. Does not that tell a story—that even with the improved conditions they do not attract sufficient officers of the right class? I think it will be within your Lordships' knowledge that for a long time now there has been keen competition for National Service commissions in the Army, but little competition to become Regular officers. That is confirmed by what the Memorandum says, and surely nothing could be worse than to have to take material of indifferent quality for your officers.
  One could talk at great length about the various factors that attract or deter officers, but it seems to me that the ability to live in the Army without private means is one of the essentials. The noble Lord will, of course, tell me that officers are able to live on their pay—that is the official answer; according to the regulations that is so. But noble Lords will know that in many of the best regiments officers are involved in other expenses beyond what is laid down, and, therefore, they cannot live without private means. That is something which restricts the field

  565
  from which the best and most talented officers might be drawn.
  Then there is the question of resetttlement on retirement. As the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, said—and I entirely agree with him—the difficulty of resettling and finding a job in middle life is a factor which, if the boy does not think of it, his parents will certainly remind him of when he is thinking of a career in the Army. I should like to urge Her Majesty's Government to take seriously the suggestion which the noble Lord made for increasing the number of jobs for retired officers re-employed. Last year—I must confess I have not done it for this year's Estimates—I went through the number of jobs in the War Office and in other headquarters that were held by retired officers. I was interested to see that in the War Office 3½ per cent. of the Grade I appointments, 15 per cent. of the Grade II appointments, and 55 per cent. of the Grade III appointments last year were held by retired officers. In the Command headquarters at home, which, of course, have a large number of jobs similar to those at the War Office (I was not able to find the percentage, because it did not give the numbers of serving officers) there were 6 Grade I, 41 Grade II and 158 Grade III jobs held by retired officers. There are, of course, many other static headquarters and establishments, and I think Her Majesty's Government could well go through those with a comb and see whether some of those jobs could be reserved for retired officers, because that certainly gives a good use for retired life which many unfortunate officers cannot get at present.
  Another factor is that the officer is not attracted by a job where he is never given any discretion; where he is never trusted. I was glad to see in paragraph 83 of the Memorandum that the War Office have begun several studies—one had hoped that they had been studying it for quite a number of years before—on the delegation of authority, the reduction of paper work and the simplification of administration. On the delegation of authority I should like, late as it is, to tell a story. Not long before the last war broke out, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of a command at home pointed out in a letter to the War Office that he, as a full General on the active list, was not given the financial
  566
  discretion that a junior under-manager in a commercial firm would have. He quoted that he was not allowed to authorise, without reference to the War Office, the payment of 9d. per week per cat for each of the two cats that were kept in the R.A.S.C. Bakery at Woolwich. It is hardly believable, and I am sure that the public as a whole do not realise the absurd lengths to which Treasury control goes and has always gone. I am delighted to see that the War Office are beginning to examine that matter.
  Finally, a word about recruiting. A great deal could be said and written, and many views have been expressed, on what attracts and what deters young men from joining the Army. I believe it is the case that the figures for re-engagements of serving men, whether they are National Servicemen or three-year Regulars, have always been disappointing. Pay increases, of course, bring sudden spurts in recruiting; but a sudden spurt is worse than useless when you have a six-year engagement, because it means that at the end of six years all your Army will go away. What is wanted is a steady flow of men on the minimum engagement, and a steady flow of re-engagements for the longer service. Are many sufficiently attracted by life in the Army to sign on? A certain number, of course, are. We know that at present, the Army consists of people who like the life as it is at present; but, surely, the lesson of the recruiting situation, the Regular Army situation, is that you must go beyond the field of the man who likes Army life as it is. You have to go beyond and find men who like Army life without a lot of its present attributes. The material benefits of pay, married quarters, allowances, leave, and so on, are things that a man can get in civil life if he works for them. If he is to be attracted to a fighting Service, it is because he is attracted by the idea and the glamour of a fighting Service.
  Here I differ from many noble Lords who have spoken because I do not believe that you increase your recruiting if you rely on the glamour of ancient uniforms, the traditions, tattoos and ceremonial. That attracts the men that we have got now, but you must go wider; you must attract others; therefore you must give them more proper soldiering. The recruiting posters say: "You are

  567
  Somebody in the Regular Army Today"; I think that is the slogan. Is that really true? Would noble Lords, if they put themselves in the position of the recruit who is signing on, feel that they were somebody when they got first to the barrack room? Surely the whole attitude and outlook to other ranks in the Army is something obsolete and something that prevents numbers of recruits from coming forward who would otherwise do so.
  Then there is the employment. Near where I live there are some married quarters, and every so often I see a coal fatigue carrying out its job. There is a lorry, and a dozen young Servicemen, under an N.C.O., are practically the whole morning shovelling coal into small buckets and carrying it up to married quarters. That happens once a fortnight or once a month—I am not sure which. I do not know what the finance of it is, but if the Army installed gas fires in married quarters would they not save a great deal of manpower and expense and a great deal of annoyance and irritation? That is one of the irritants of which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, spoke—the man who joins the Army and has to carry coal.
  The recruiting posters show wonderful pictures of tanks and motor bikes, wireless sets and all the glamour of modern war. What does the man see when he joins? The moment there is a ceremonial parade all modern weapons are put back into store. They go out again on a costume parade of the middle 19th century, with rifle and bayonet, forgetting Bren guns, mortars and all the modern weapons. I cannot help thinking that that is something that does not appeal to the young man who wants to join a fighting Service. That is the man you want to get, and he is the man who, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, if you keep him occupied and give him an interesting, worthwhile job, will do it and be glad of it. But you must not treat him like a naughty child who cannot be trusted to look after his own money and is generally a person of no account. That attitude in the Army is something that I think should be looked at by the noble Lord.
  7.23 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as is usual when we discuss the Army Estimates, we have had a far-ranging debate.
  568
  We have ranged from badges and bands and bowler hats to goats and guided missiles. My noble friend Lord Bathurst has answered three of the more important topics discussed this afternoon, but there are still, according to my tally, forty-two questions which your Lordships have put to me, some of which I will attempt to answer as best I may.
  I wish to begin by making a few remarks on a subject that has been frequently raised in Defence debates and Service debates—namely, integration within the Services, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred in his opening speech this afternoon. "Integration", although a beastly word, always sounds attractive as a means of achieving greater efficiency and economy within the Services. Unfortunately, when we look at particular cases, as we have been asked to do on several occasions this afternoon, this impression fades. It is some time since this problem was analysed in any detail, and I am glad of this opportunity to do so now, because I think it is important. We still, thank Heaven!, have separate and distinct Services. So long as this is so, it must obviously have a powerful effect on any proposals for integrating particular arms of the Service.
  The second point of which I want to remind your Lordships is that there have already been many studies of the possibilities of amalgamating or co-ordinating parts of the Armed Services. They have always been made with a searching eye on efficiency and economy. Despite occasional and embarrassing suggestions to the contrary, efficiency and economy are not virtues that have suddenly dawned on the Services. Many of your Lordships will remember only too well the cold financial climate that affected the Services in the years between the wars. The effect of the careful consideration that has been given over many years to the sort of thing your Lordships have proposed this afternoon has been a steadily increasing measure of co-ordination over much wider fields of Service administration than many critics, I think, realise.
  To-day, however, the general situation of the Services has changed significantly, because the Government have decided to return to all-Regular Forces within a few years. This seemed to us to justify a

  569
  fresh review of the many fields of administration which are common to the Services. For this purpose we set up last year the Defence Administration Committee, composed of the Permanent Secretaries, together with the Principal Personnel Officers and the Principal Administrative Officers of the three Services. Results have already been thrown up from this Committee's work. They have paid particular attention to the possibilities of entrusting one of the Services with yet more responsibility for carrying out the administrative chores of all three. This system, of course, is one of long standing, but I am glad to say that it has been possible to extend it still further. Steps have been taken, for instance, to reduce the waste of transport in the carting of rations by each Service separately. Savings have also been made in the movement of freight.
  On March 1 this year the R.A.F. took over responsibility for feeding the Army garrison at Tobruk. By the end of June this year the Navy will have taken over responsibility for feeding the other two Services in Malta. At home, the Navy are now taking over responsibility for feeding some thirty army units in the Southampton and Plymouth areas. And so it goes on. Steps are also afoot to achieve a similar saving abroad, at Gibraltar, Singapore, Hong Kong and Bahrein. My right honourable friend the Minister of Defence made an extensive tour last year, and a member of the staff of the Ministry of Defence has recently been out in Singapore looking into the particular question which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised, concerning storage space, base accommodation and equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, gave us an example of tactical mobility in the air. Here there is complete cooperation. Army air corps will provide a certain amount of local lift with helicopters and light aircraft, but this does not affect the close co-operation of the Army with the RA.F. for more extensive movement.
  If one examines the list of common administrative services, it is possible to separate some which are unlikely to yield much saving in effort or money, come what may, and again to separate, others which, on the face of it, hold out hopes of a dividend. The first type can, of course, be disposed of very easily. The second,
  570
  however, needs long and careful head-scratching before it is justifiable to change the system. Your Lordships will appreciate that, however anxious one may be for spectacular results in savings, caution is essential. Rash experiments, hastily undertaken, could have serious consequences for the Services. Let me try to illustrate this point. Take, for instance, the medical services—they have always been a popular subject for debate. People think that large savings would follow from medical integration. I am not so sure. The possibility of integrating the medical services of the Armed Forces has actually been considered several times in the last thirty years. On each occasion it has been firmly decided that integration just would not do.
  The main reasons for these decisions were that so long as the three Fighting Services continued to be separate, it was essential that each Service Minister should remain responsible for the medical element of his fighting machine. The medical requirements of the three Services differ much more than is at first apparent, and particularly in the case of the Royal Navy. In spite of this, mutual medical assistance and the avoidance of duplication have been the aim of all three Services. These arguments, I think, are still valid, and there is now another one. An integrated medical service would involve my own Department, the Ministry of Defence (for there alone could it be administered) in a radical upheaval, because we are only a small policy-making and co-ordinating body charged with hardly any administration at all. Knowing a good deal of what would be involved, I really do not think that this particular game is worth the candle.
  Co-ordination between the three independent medical services is, of course, a very different question. The extent of that co-ordination at the present time would, I think, surprise your Lordships. In this country there is much day-to-day collaboration between medical services and the National Health Service. The National Health Service hospitals in many places take in Service patients where Service facilities are not available, and the converse also applies; civilian patients with no Service connection are often admitted to Service hospitals.
  Between the Services, the co-ordination is naturally even closer. There has long been a Medical Services Co-ordinating

  571
  Committee in the Ministry of Defence and similar committees at the level of Commands. Hospitals of one Service regularly accept patients of the other two Services in their areas, and the same sort of arrangement applies to examination of Service patients by medical specialists. This sort of work is not only desirable in itself, but is, indeed, forced on the Services by the general shortage of doctors.
  A Working Party has recently completed a report to the Medical Services Co-ordinating Committee on future hospital requirements for all three Services in this country and the most economical way of meeting them.
  Overseas there is much the same tale to tell. In B.A.O.R., as I have recently seen for myself, Service hospitals are organised so that one hospital takes in patients of all Services in its own area. Out-patient facilities are shared in much the same way. Evacuations of serious cases, both Servicemen and their dependants, are normally made by the Royal Air Force Casualty Air Evacuation aircraft. In Cyprus, for instance, joint sick quarters and medical reception stations have been opened for the Army and the Royal Air Force. The Army is responsible for medical stores in Cyprus, whereas in Aden and the Persian Gulf the Royal Air Force is responsible for both. In Singapore, the Army and the Royal Air Force each have a hospital, but each operates in a separate area of the island and takes in all corners, irrespective of the Service to which they belong.
  I can assure your Lordships that we in the Ministry of Defence are closely examining the possibility of yet further inter-Service co-operation, such as Provost, which has been mentioned by your Lordships. We have often been told that there might be economies by amalgamation here. But I do not think this is so. So far as Headquarters are concerned, there are few Provost Officers—there are four at the War Office and sixteen at the Air Ministry; so little, if any, economy could be effected by amalgamations in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore asked a particularly pointed question about amalgamations—namely, that of the amalagamation of bands. I am glad to confirm the assurance I was able to give the noble Lord, that
  572
  we have now found it possible to keep a band for each battalion of the Parachute Regiment and for all the regiments of the line. I am very pleased about this: it will be possible without stretching our resources as far as we thought.
  The noble Lord also asked me a question about the depôt of the Welsh regiments. I well appreciate the anxiety that that causes, having myself been Under-Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs for two and a half years. I am sorry that the remark of the Military Secretary. General Stockwell, about Crickhowell emerged as an announcement. My understanding is that he discussed the location of the Brigade depôt but made no announcement. I think that must be so, because I can assure your Lordships that the matter is still under discussion. The situation of the last five brigade depots will, I hope, be announced soon.
  LORD OGMORE: I think he made it fairly clear. It was described in the papers as a strong hint that the depôt would be at Crickhowell, and he then went on to give various factors which operated in his mind as to why Crickhowell should be the depôt. One would have thought that that, coming from the Military Secretary, was a fairly good indication of where the depôt would be.
  LORD MANCROFT: I think we had better leave it as a hint, because the announcement has yet to come.
  LORD OGMORE: I do not think there should have been a hint.
  LORD MANCROFT: Now from brigade depots to brigade groups. I do not want to cross swords with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Freyberg, but I am comforted in that I have some slight support from behind, from my noble friend, Lord Aberdare. Of course, in 1939–45 a different situation prevailed. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Freyberg, that the divisional organisation was right for the Battle of Alamein and the rest of his battles; and a great deal was done, as he knows better than most, by senior officers in that theatre to do away with the odd formations and get the Army back on to its divisional organisation. But I think there is a need, with nuclear weapons, for a more flexible organisation with smaller self-contained formations. All the members of N.A.T.O. are reducing the size of their divisions in

  573
  varying degrees. I do not propose to give your Lordships all the detailed and complicated appreciations of their various merits, but we have, after careful consideration, decided that the brigade group is the best organisation for the British Army.
  Whilst we are on the subject of Germany, may I say a word about vehicles? There has recently appeared in the Press some criticism of the standard of British vehicles in the Rhine Army. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman referred to that matter and discussed parity and esteem. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, drew our attention to a recent leading article in the Daily Telegraph. My right honourable friend the Minister of Defence is over in Germany at this moment, and among the matters he is considering is the whole question of the standing of the British soldier and airman, his equipment and turn-out in relation to his Allies. In the meantime, let me offer a few observations.
  B.A.O.R. has a proportion of war-time-produced vehicles which still have some useful life and which it would be uneconomical to scrap. They are being replaced as they wear out with new vehicles in the standard military range. The new military vehicles of the general service type have all-wheel drive and good cross-country ability. It is our aim to have one type in each load range. When re-equipment of B.A.O.R. has been completed, the British vehicles should compare favourably with vehicles of other N.A.T.O countries. There will, however, always be a proportion of vehicles of commercial type with two-wheel drive for use in depots and base areas. These will be similar to the standard military vehicles but without front-wheel drive. Our present policy is to standardise on one make of vehicle in each of the six load ranges.
  General service vehicles are standard commercial vehicles modified to include essential military requirements, of which all-wheel drive is the most important. With regard to the article in the Sunday Times, to which my noble friend Lord Merrivale drew particular attention, and which has given rise to some comment, I must remind the House that this referred specifically by comparison to the vehicles of the German Army. They have no war-time vehicles to waste out,
  574
  and thus may present a better appearance than B.A.O.R. This difference should disappear when re-equipment of B.A.O.R. is complete. The wasting out of war vehicles is governed largely by the economic rate at which they can be replaced.
  My noble friend Lord Bathurst has already offered your Lordships a few observations on the subject of uniforms. I have noticed with interest that no two suggestions put forward by noble Lords this afternoon agree, except that your Lordships all want some sort of change. There never has been a time when everybody did not want a different uniform for the Army from that which the Army already had. In Germany, as indeed everywhere, we should naturally like to "wipe the eye" of our friends and quasi-friends in the matter of uniform and equipment. But, my Lords, we also have the eye of the taxpayer upon us —and rightly so. It is difficult to please everybody, but we are doing our best. Unlike Shylock, sufferance is not the badge of Sir Frank Tribe.
  I turn now to guided weapons. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, both referred to paragraph 56 of the Memorandum: they asked whether the mention of guided weapons in this paragraph meant a change in the present policy that the R.A.F. is to be responsible for ground-to-air missiles. I can assure your Lord-ships that there will be no change. The R.A.F. are responsible for ground-to-air weapons in the air defence of the United Kingdom. The Army will be responsible for them in the defence of the Army in the field. This is a development of the Army's responsibility for the antiaircraft defence of its own troops.
  The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, asked me about the Corporal. The training of the two surface-to-surface guided weapons regiments is proceeding satisfactorily. In order to introduce these weapons into the British Army as soon as possible Her Majesty's Government had been prepared to buy, and, indeed, had ordered, supplies of the American weapon Corporal. Subsequently the United States Government relieved us of this considerable dollar expenditure by allocating to this project funds from their Mutual Defence Assistance Programme. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a

  575
  tribute to the generous way in which the United States Government have helped during the past few years to improve the efficiency and the readiness of our Forces and those of other members of N.A.T.O.
  Here may I say that I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the effect on morale of having insufficient opportunity of seeing one's own weapons deployed in action. It is a difficult problem, but I take the point. Several noble Lords, particularly Lord Long and Lord Lucan, referred to the financial responsibility of commanding officers, the question of delegation of authority and the dampening effect which some of the present rules may have on initiative. Here is a man responsible for 1,000 of his fellow soldiers and £1 million of equipment, and while his cats are shouting their heads off for their supper he cannot pay without written notice from the War Office. That kind of thing is as old as the hills. We have all gone through it and the trouble does not get any easier. The number, complexity and value of stores and units have increased enormously. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, spoke of electronic computers. I do not know what my old regimental sergeant-major would have said had he been confronted with an electronic computer—or, to be more exact, I do know what he would have said.
  We believe that there are two methods of dealing with this problem. The first is to help the commanding officer himself, and I believe we have gone a long way in giving him, in most units, two quartermasters as well as an officer of the Royal Army Pay Corps, who is the paymaster, with his assistants; and we may have to go further yet. The second reform is to improve accounting systems and increase powers of "write-off". A large proportion of cases for "write-off" is already disposed of by the commanding officer at his level, but I admit that there is a strong case for increased powers of "write-off" at all levels, and this is being actively examined, if only to bring practice into line with the change in the value of money and with the enormous increase in the value and number of stores.
  When I first joined the Royal Regiment of Artillery more than twenty-five years ago, it was possible to put the whole regiment out on the parade ground with
  576
  all its equipment, and count every item of equipment in one afternoon. There are now some 35,000 separate items in the fighting equipment alone of a modern artillery regiment, with many thousands more items of general stores. These are becoming very complex questions. As your Lordships know, we have set up a committee to examine and report on all necessary reforms. This committee has the widest terms of reference and is composed not only of soldiers but also of civilians in highest positions in industry. The committee also have power to co-opt experts, and I am glad to say that help and advice has already been given by many who are experts on these matters in their own walk of life.
  I come now to the question of recruiting. The Army recruiting figures for February which will be published to-morrow are slightly lower than those for January but still encouraging, and this in spite of the fact that February is a short month. Nevertheless, I can reassure the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Shepherd, that I remain optimistic, if cautiously optimistic, and very far from complacent. We cannot in any way relax our efforts to improve recruiting still further and, in particular, to increase substantially our intake of boys and young men of quality needed for training in the more highly skilled trades, and particularly potential officers, to whom the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, referred. Numbers alone of recruits are not enough, though greater numbers are still needed. What we have to do is to build up an all-Regular Army that is not only of the right strength but is also properly balanced and of the right structure.
  I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the recruiting cry of the old days, "Join the Army and see the world," was a fine one, but it was a slightly nicer world to see in those days. To-day a soldier sometimes finds himself in places which, on the whole, he would prefer not to see. I remember getting a very sad letter from an N.C.O. of my old regiment who was having a very rough time in a certain part of the world. He said: "I do not mind being stabbed in the back. What I dislike is having someone get up at home and apologise for my back having been in the way." There is no single easy solution, no

  577
  "gimmick", no stunt. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is not a matter of Party politics. As I have told your Lordships before, there is one way not to get recruits and that is to give the impression that it cannot be done. I am very grateful to your Lordships for having done no such thing this afternoon.
  An an old Territorial myself, I naturally took great pride and pleasure in the many tributes paid by your Lordships this afternoon to that distinguished Force. Perhaps the House might like to have the latest Territorial Army recruiting figures. From October, 1956, to January, 1957, about 3.000 recruits came in. For the corresponding figure in 1957–58, over 8,000 came in. That is a remarkable increase in the number of true volunteers, following the suspension of compulsory training for National Servicemen, and I hope the figures will improve still further. I can assure the noble Lords. Lord Limerick and Lord Shepherd. that I have much sympathy with the views they have put forward on the need for explaining clearly to the Territorial Army the reasons for the present inevitable changes and for the future changes which obviously there must be.
  I believe that if those changes are explained sensibly and properly the Territorial Army will accept them in the spirit that they always have done, as will the Regular Army and the private soldier—the "other rank" to whom the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, referred—who may wonder if he is really anybody in the Army. I believe that he is, and he is treated as somebody. I believe that there is in all regiments a growing tendency to treat the private soldier not as just "Hey, you!" of the regiment, but rather as a civilised human being, as he has to be treated if we are to get him into the Regular Army; and if we do not do so he will not come in. That is all.
  The noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Viscount. Montgomery of Alamein, used to say that morale was the greatest single factor in war. I go further and say that it is also the greatest single factor in what now passes as peace. The Services and the Army in particular have had their morale severely tested in the past year by the necessarily drastic cuts and reorganisation imposed on them. I believe, as the noble Viscount, Lord
  578
  Bridgeman, says, that we should all be filled with admiration for the way in which the challenge has been met, with customary resilience, and we can draw the logical conclusion that the spirit within the Forces remains unchanged.
  May I conclude by asking your Lordships to reflect for a moment on what Her Majesty's Government are determined to do to maintain the morale of the new all-Regular Forces? I refer to the Army because it has the greatest problems, but what I say is, of course, applicable to a lesser degree to the other two Services. First and foremost, we must ensure, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, has reminded us, that the whole country is aware of the contribution that every soldier makes when he joins the Service. If we are not shy in showing our appreciation and pride in our Army we shall be going a long way towards providing the spur for the soldier to retain and increase his self-confidence and sense of duty. Secondly, we must provide him with the best equipment, the best clothing and the best conditions of service which our finances will allow.
  My Lords, morale is a brittle commodity, and it is only by the knowledge that the whole country is behind him, and that the Government are determined to see that he gets the conditions he deserves, that the soldier can feel—and show that he feels that he is second to none, both in his own country and in other people's.
  7.51 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which this important debate has been supported by noble Lords in every quarter of the House —or perhaps I should say, in every quarter of the House except one. I should also like to associate myself with the regrets expressed by noble Lords opposite at the absence, through illness, of Lord Nathan, because we always welcome his contributions to any debate on Army affairs, and especially on the Territorial Army. I feel, too, that we should be particularly grateful to my two noble friends in front of me for the great amount of information they have both given us. I must make one comment on what was said by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I cannot quite allow him to get by with what he said about uniform.

  579
  What I meant to convey to your Lordships, and that quite clearly, was that I thought the soldier should have two uniforms, one for the daily work of battle and the other for walking out or ceremonial, and I was quite content to leave Her Majesty's Government to decide what they should both be like.
  There is one other point upon which I think we should reflect. We have in the course of our discussions to-day touched on a number of subjects which concern national expenditure, and it is very difficult in your Lordships' House to carry those discussions beyond a certain point; but I feel sure that we can confidently count on their being followed up wherever necessary by honourable Gentlemen in another place, where the scrutiny of national expenditure is part of the daily routine. So now, my Lords,
  580
  we leave this debate, and I hope that my noble friends in front of me are clear about our views. In very many respects we have given wholehearted support and agreement; in others we shall confidently agree to the results when results are forthcoming. In a few other cases we have ventured to utter warning notes, and in each case I think we have given the reason why. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.